Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-17T11:12:46.441Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aggregate Effects of Large-Scale Campaigns on Voter Turnout

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2016

Ryan D. Enos  and
Anthony Fowler
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To what extent do political campaigns mobilize voters? Despite the central role of campaigns in American politics and despite many experiments on campaigning, we know little about the aggregate effects of an entire campaign on voter participation. Drawing upon inside information from presidential campaigns and utilizing a geographic research design that exploits media markets spanning state boundaries, we estimate the aggregate effects of a large-scale campaign. We estimate that the 2012 presidential campaigns increased turnout in highly targeted states by 7–8 percentage points, on average, indicating that modern campaigns can significantly alter the size and composition of the voting population. Further evidence suggests that the predominant mechanism behind this effect is traditional ground campaigning, which has dramatically increased in scale in the last few presidential elections. Additionally, we find no evidence of diminishing marginal returns to ground campaigning, meaning that voter contacts, each likely exhibiting small individual effects, may aggregate to large effects over the course of a campaign.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 6 , Issue 4 , October 2018 , pp. 733 - 751
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Ryan D. Enos, Associate Professor, Department of Government, Harvard University, 1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 (renos@gov.harvard.edu). Anthony Fowler, Assistant Professor, Harris School of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, 1155 East 60th Street, Chicago, IL 60637 (anthony.fowler@uchicago.edu). Both authors contributed equally. The authors thank Scott Ashworth, Rich Beeson, Chris Berry, David Broockman, Ethan Bueno de Mesquita, Peter Enns, Susan Fiske, Rayid Ghani, Trey Grayson, Don Green, Andy Hall, Hahrie Han, Eitan Hersh, Greg Huber, Scott Jennings, Bob Kubichek, Mary McGrath, Liz McKenna, Ryan Meerstein, Zac Moffat, Ethan Roeder, Gaurav Shirole, John Sides, Aaron Strauss, Will Howell, and conference participants at ASU, Oxford, and SPSA for helpful comments and insights into the 2012 presidential campaigns. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.21

References

Alvarez, R. Michael, Hopkins, Asa, and Sinclair, Betsy. 2010. ‘Mobilizing Pasadena Democrats: Measuring the Effects of Partisan Campaign Contacts’. Journal of Politics 72(1):31–44.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Hersh, Eitan. 2012. ‘Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate’. Political Analysis 20(4):437–459.Google Scholar
Ashworth, Scott, and Clinton, Joshua D.. 2007. ‘Does Advertising Exposure Affect Turnout?’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2(1):27–41.Google Scholar
Bond, Robert M., Fariss, Christopher J., Jones, Jason J., Kramer, Adam D. I., Marlow, Cameron, Settle, Jaime E., and Fowler, James H.. 2012. ‘A 61-Million-Person Experiment in Social Influence and Political Mobilization’. Nature 489:295–298.Google Scholar
Broockman, David E., and Green, Donald P.. 2014. ‘Do Online Advertisements Increase Political Candidates’ Name Recognition or Favorability? Evidence from Randomized Field Experiments’. Political Behavior 36(2):263–289.Google Scholar
Bullock, John G., Green, Donald P., and Ha, Shang E.. 2010. ‘Yes, But What’s the Mechanism? (Don’t Expect an Easy Answer)’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(4):550–558.Google Scholar
Enos, Ryan D., and Fowler, Anthony. 2014. ‘Pivotality and Turnout: Evidence from a Field Experiment in the Aftermath of a Tied Election’. Political Science Research and Methods 2(2):309–319.Google Scholar
Enos, Ryan D., Fowler, Anthony, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2014. ‘Increasing Inequality: The Effect of GOTV Mobilization on the Composition of the Electorate’. Journal of Politics 76(1):273–288.Google Scholar
Enos, Ryan D., and Hersh, Eitan. 2015. ‘Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal-Agent Problem’. American Political Science Review 109(2):252–278.Google Scholar
Cardy, Emily Arthur. 2005. ‘An Experimental Field Study of the GOTV and Persuasion Effects of Partisan Direct Mail and Phone Calls’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601:28–40.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, King, Gary, and Boscardin, W. John. 1998. ‘Estimating the Probability of Events That Have Never Occurred: When is Your Vote Decisive?’. Journal of the American Statistical Association 93(441):1–9.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2000. ‘The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment’. American Political Science Review 94(3):653–663.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Green, Donald P., and Larimer, Christopher W.. 2008. ‘Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment’. American Political Science Review 102(1):33–48.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Dowling, Conor M., Doherty, David, and Schwartzberg, Nicole. 2009. ‘Using Battleground States as a Natural Experiment to Test Theories of Voting’. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., Raso, Connor, and Ha, Shang E.. 2011. ‘Personality Traits and Participation in Political Processes’. Journal of Politics 73(3):692–706.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2008. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout, second edition. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., McGrath, Mary C., and Aronow, Peter M.. 2013. ‘Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout’. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 23(1):27–48.Google Scholar
Hersh, Eitan. 2013. ‘Long-Term Effect of September 11 on the Political Behavior of Victims’ Families and Neighbors’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110(52):20959–20963.Google Scholar
Hersh, Eitan. 2015. Hacking the Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Mitchell, Morgan, John, and Raymond, Collin. 2013. ‘One in a Million: A Field Experiment on Belief Formation and Pivotal Voting’. Working paper presented at the Yale Labor/Public Economics Workshop, New Haven, CT.Google Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and Arceneaux, Kevin. 2007. ‘Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising’. American Journal of Political Science 51(4):957–977.Google Scholar
Issenberg, Sasha. 2013. ‘A More Perfect Union: How President Obama’s Campaign Used Big Data to Rally Individual Voters’. MIT Technology Review 116(1):41–51.Google Scholar
Kendall, Chad, Nannicini, Tommaso, and Trebbi, Francesco. 2015. ‘How Do Voters Respond to Information? Evidence from a Randomized Campaign’. American Economic Review 105(1):322–353.Google Scholar
Kim, Jae-On, Petrocik, John, and Enokson, Stephen. 1975. ‘Voter Turnout Among the American States: Systematic and Individual Components’. American Political Science Review 69(1):107–123.Google Scholar
Krasno, Jonathan S., and Green, Donald P.. 2008. ‘Do Televised Presidential Ads Increase Voter Turnout? Evidence from a Natural Experiment’. Journal of Politics 70(1):245–261.Google Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, Michelson, Melissa R., and Valenzuela, Ali Adam. 2012. ‘Emails from Official Sources can Increase Turnout’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 7(3):321–332.Google Scholar
Michelson, Melissa R., Bedolla, Lisa Garcia, and Green, Donald P.. 2007. ‘New Experiments in Minority Voter Mobilization’. Report for The James Irvine Foundation, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
Myatt, David P. 2012. ‘A Rational Choice Theory of Voter Turnout’. Working paper, London Business School, London, UK.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2007a. ‘Does Email Boost Turnout?’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 2(4):369–379.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2007b. ‘The Ineffectiveness of E-Vites to Democracy: Field Experiments Testing the Role of E-Mail on Voter Turnout’. Social Science Computer Review 25(4):494–503.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W., and Rogers, Todd. 2014. ‘Political Campaigns and Big Data’. Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(2):51–74.Google Scholar
Ramirez, Ricardo. 2005. ‘Giving Voice to Latino Voters: A Field Experiment on the Effectiveness of a National Nonpartisan Mobilization Effort’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601:66–84.Google Scholar
Riker, William H., and Ordeshook, Peter C.. 1968. ‘A Theory of the Calculus of Voting’. American Political Science Review 62(1):25–42.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Thomas. 1987. ‘Your Vote Counts on Account of the Way it is Counted: An Institutional Solution to the Paradox of Voting’. Public Choice 54(2):101–121.Google Scholar
Sides, John, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2013. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry E.. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Enos and Fowler supplementary material

Appendix

Download Enos and Fowler supplementary material(File)
File 102.5 KB