00756 Gspm Young Voters Guide_24pgs
YOUNG VOTER
MOBILIZATION TACTICS
A compilation of the most recent research on
traditional & innovative voter turnout techniques
Young Voter Strategies, a project of the Graduate School of Political Management
at The George Washington University with support from The Pew Charitable
Trusts, provides the public, parties, candidates, consultants and nonprofits with
Contents
data on the youth vote and tools to effectively mobilize this electorate for
upcoming elections.
Winning Young Voters
This compilation of the most recent academic research on voter mobilization
This booklet outlines the best ways to reach and turn out young voters, from
techniques is one of many toolkits that Young Voter Strategies has developed
phone banks to door knocks. Each tactic is evaluated through a randomized
to assist campaigns and organizations in developing their own strategies for
field experiment in order to determine how much that tactic increases a person’s
engaging the increasingly large youth demographic.
likelihood to vote and for its cost-effectiveness. We also outline what does not
For more information about past reports and upcoming research please visit our
work and is not worth a campaign’s time or money.
website at www.youngvoterstrategies.org.
We saw in 2004 that young people will vote when asked. This booklet gives
non-profits and political campaigns the tools to turn out young voters in 2006
and beyond.
Key Themes
This booklet was compiled with the help of CIRCLE (The Center for Information
Themes from the research findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5
and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement) at the University of Maryland.
CIRCLE promotes research on the civic and political engagement of Americans
Case Studies on Turnout Techniques
between the ages of 15 and 25. Although CIRCLE conducts and funds research,
Research case studies by tactic (with impact & costs analyses) . . . . . . . . . . . . .9
not practice, the projects that they support have practical implications for those
Tips for campaigns
who work to increase young people’s engagement in politics and civic life. CIRCLE
Advice based on the research findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
is also a clearinghouse for relevant information and scholarship. CIRCLE is funded
by The Pew Charitable Trusts and Carnegie Corporation of New York.
In this booklet we have compiled the best and most recent randomized field
Turning Out Young Voters
experiments done on traditional and innovative campaign tactics. For each
tactic, we estimate the cost per additional vote and the impact on young
In 2004, young voter turnout increased more than in any election since 18 year
voters’ turnout. We start with themes that run through the most successful
olds won the right to vote 35 years ago. Turnout among our nation’s youngest
turnout tests and end with tips for putting these most effective tactics into
voters ages 18-24 increased 11 percentage points from 36 percent to 47 percent;
practice. We hope you will use this information to better incorporate young
turnout among 18-29 year olds increased 9 points from 40 percent to 49 percent.
voters into your campaign plans in the future.
(U.S. Census Bureau 2005)
This trend continued in 2005 when student-dense precincts in Virginia saw a
turnout increase of 15 percent. (New Voters Project and CIRCLE 2005)
Leading campaign professionals, analysts and academics agree that one of the key
What is a randomized field experiment?
factors driving this recent increase in turnout is that there has been, for the first
The community of non-partisan and partisan organizations, foundations and
time in decades, a major investment in mobilizing these voters. Non-partisan
researchers dedicated to engaging young voters has been conducting randomized
organizations that ran peer-to-peer field operations, media, and visibility
field experiments for more than six years to study various types of voter contact
campaigns spent an estimated $40 million on registering and turning out young
and quantify their impact. The Pew Charitable Trusts has funded most of this
voters, a presidential campaign made a media buy targeting young voters, and
research, conducted in conjunction with scholars at Yale University. In 2004, the
partisan organizations both inside and outside of the party structures mobilized
Beldon Fund, JEHT Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and Solidago
supportive youth.
Foundation funded additional experiements through CIRCLE. Meanwhile, in
These turnout efforts paid off on Election Day 2004 as more than 20 million
2004, The Student PIRGs New Voters Project successfully implemented and took
18-29 year old voters went to the polls.
to scale many findings from the research to date.
The lesson learned is that today’s young adults are an engaged generation that
These randomized field experiments are essentially like running prescription drug
will vote in higher numbers if they are asked. Given their sheer size—topping 42
trials for politics, where people in a treatment group get a knock on the door or
million in 2006 and growing rapidly—it is a crucial demographic to engage and
a phone call and people in the control group do not. After the elections, county
ask to vote. The question now becomes…
records are collected to find out at what rate the treatment and the control groups
voted and to determine the impact of the door knocking or phone calling.
These results mean that organizers for youth vote campaigns and political
What is the most cost-effective way
campaigns can predict with reliability the results of their work.
to ask a young person to vote?
2
3
Quality counts
Actual votes per contact will be higher when the contact is more personalized
and interactive.
The research shows that the most effective method of generating a new voter
is an in-person door knock by a peer. The next greatest impact was seen by
phonebanks with longer, chattier phone scripts or volunteers making the
Section I: Key Themes
calls. Also, recent survey data by Young Voter Strategies shows that the online
We found several key themes that dominate the research findings. These
tools that are most effective are the ones where the young voter either opts-in
themes help explain how to effectively turn out new young voters who
to the conversation or gets to interact in some way.
would not otherwise go to the polls.
The Section II case studies demonstrate that the less personal and interactive
outreach tactics are, the less effective they are in turning out voters. One
study (Ramírez 2005) allows a direct comparison between volunteer phone
banks, direct mail, and robocalls. The volunteer phone banks are ten times
more cost-effective than the automated phone calls or “robocalls.”
Begin with the basics
Young people need nuts-and-bolts practical information about how to vote.
And efforts that make voting more convenient are quite effective.
An experiment in which high school students were taught to use a voting
machine raised turnout dramatically. As Elizabeth Addonizio writes, this
program increased “the probability that an 18-year-old will vote by 19 to 24
percentage points.” (Addonizion forthcoming) Another experiment which
simply reminded voters to go to the polls on Election Day and provided
polling place information in New Jersey in 2003 resulted in turnout
increasing by almost 14 points. (Green 2004)
Also, the research findings illustrate that efforts to make the voting process
easier increase turnout in cost-effective ways. An absentee ballot request
mailer generated additional votes at $8 per vote for voters under 30, a
significantly more efficient impact than with older voters. (Mann 2006)
4
5
Ethnic and immigrant youth are cost-effective targets
When targeting ethnic or immigrant communities, it is cost-effective to
target young voters, particularly because there is less need to translate
materials into languages other than English.
When working in ethnic or immigrant communities, be sure to ask all voters
The medium matters more than the message
you contact to volunteer to reach out to their neighbors: research also
To date, the growing body of experimental research has not found that any
indicates that in ethnic and immigrant communities the most trusted
type of message works better than another. It is more about making a
messenger is someone who looks like the potential voter. (Michelson 2004)
quality contact.
This is the case with most voters, but even more so in these communities.
Several studies have varied the message to compare partisan versus
Also, youth are at least as easy to reach as older voters. Latino 18-29 year-olds
nonpartisan or negative versus positive content. None of these studies have
are easier to reach than those in the 30-39 age range and the same as 40-59
shown a significant impact difference between messages. (Arceneaux and
year-old Latinos. For Asians, young voters were less likely to be contacted
Nickerson 2005; McNulty 2005; Nickerson, Friedrich, and King 2006;
than the older Asian-American voters but as easy to contact as those in the
Panagopoulos 2006)
30-49 age ranges. (Ramírez and Wong 2006)
Young people are easy to incorporate into your lists and
Initial mobilization makes for repeat voters
turnout programs
Successful mobilization in one election raises people's propensity to vote in
Excluding young voters from your turnout efforts is a mistake. The research
subsequent elections. Parties, candidates and interest groups should expect
findings all demonstrate that young people are just as responsive to voter
long-term benefits from mobilizing youth today.
contact as older voters. (Nickerson, forthcoming)
In one study, the authors found that 50 percent of the effect of canvassing
While voters under 30 respond to turnout tactics at the same rates as older
during the 1998 New Haven election persisted in 1999, even though there
voters, in some communities they are more difficult to reach, so targeting
were no additional efforts to get out the vote. (Gerber, Green, and Shachar
must take this into consideration. Efforts in ethnic communities found young
2003) Another influential study (based on survey research, not experiments)
people as easy to reach as older voters, and student areas and apartment
found that once people begin to vote, their propensity to participate in future
building have dense residences that lead to very high contact rates.
elections rises. (Plutzer 2002) Finally, a new study that tracked 10 canvassing
experiments over time indicate that voting is habit- forming. The study found
that if you get a person to vote in one election, they will be 29 percentage
points more likely to vote in the next election. (Nickerson 2004)
Studies conducted in previous decades found that adults’ party identification
was remarkably stable over the course of their lives. If these patterns persist in
the current era, then the odds are high that someone who is mobilized to vote
for a particular party will continue to vote for that party for decades to come.
(Sears and Levy 2003, p. 79)
6
7
Canvassing
Canvassing has the greatest impact on turning out young people to vote.
For between $11 and $14, you can get to the polls a new voter that would not
have otherwise voted. Overall, we consistently found a 7 to 10 percentage
point increase among young voters contacted through a door-to-door canvass
– a good reason to keep young voters on your walk lists. Canvassing is
Section II: Case Studies on
especially beneficial in dense student neighborhoods and apartment buildings
Turnout Techniques
where you can reach more people in less time, helping keep costs low.
The following case studies provide examples of voter mobilization strategies
that have been rigorously tested in field experiments. The cost per additional
Partisan Door-to-Door Canvassing
vote refers to the cost for each vote that would not have been cast without the
Cost per additional vote : $10.40
mobilizing effort. (A randomized experiment with control groups can estimate
Context: Canvassing by a candidate in an open county seat during spring
such effects reliably.) Cost figures include all staff and materials costs plus
2004 Democratic primary elections in Bernalillo County, NM. The candidate
faced two other opponents and won by 48 percent of the vote.
overhead, unless otherwise noted. The research is organized by tactic
What is considered a contact: Talking to target in person, even if they indicate
(canvassing, phone calling, direct mail and new techniques), with the results
they are not interested.
arranged in order of efficiency, the most cost-effective tactics listed first.
What is the contact rate per hour: 20 attempts per hour.
What goes into the cost calculation: $16 per hour for labor.
This is all about INCREASING turnout. Obviously, there is also a benefit in
Impact: One additional vote per 13 attempts
persuading those who will already vote to opt for your candidate or initiative.
(Note from Professor Kevin Arceneaux: This cost is figured out by dividing
one by the intent-to-treat effect (1/0.076). A campaign could use this
But in close elections, new voters can make a winning difference and may be
information to adjust the expected cost-per-vote to fit their situation. For
hard to find. Here are some of the best and worst ways to find and turn out
example, if they only thought they could attempt to contact 10 per hour
and the total cost of canvassing (including overhead, etc.) was $20 an hour,
voters under 30.
the expected cost-per-vote for their operation would be 13/10*$20 = $26
per vote. The dependent variable in this analysis was whether a campaign
supporter voted or not. So, “cost-per-mobilized-supporter” might be
more accurate.)
Source : Arceneaux 2006
8
9
Partisan Leaflets
Cost per additional vote: $14 not including overhead
Context: Michigan Democratic Party tested this tactic during the 2002
Michigan assembly races.
What is considered a contact: Leaflet dropped at door.
What is the contact rate per hour: 45 per hour
What goes into the cost calculation: $0.10 per leaflet an hour plus $10 per
hour for staff, not including overhead.
Impact: One additional vote per 66 contacts
Source: Green and Gerber 2004
Nonpartisan Door-to-Door Canvassing
Cost per additional vote: $19 not including overhead
Context: Nonpartisan efforts in New Haven 1998; Boulder, Eugene 2000;
Bridgeport, Detroit, St. Paul, Minneapolis, Columbus, Raleigh, Dos Palos
(CA) 2001; Fresno, South Bend 2002; Kansas City, Phoenix 2003 mostly done
by volunteer college students.
What is considered a contact: Talking to target or other voters in the
household.
What is the contact rate per hour: 12 per hour
What goes into the cost calculation: Most of the cost is in supervision and
training and travel at $16 per hour, no additional overhead is considered.
Impact: One additional vote per 14 contacts (not including spillover to non-
targeted voters contacted at the door)
Source: Green and Gerber 2004
“ Canvassing has the greatest impact
Timing of Canvass Contacts
on turning out young people to vote.”
Cost per additional vote: During the last 3 weeks: $20. Prior periods: $105
Context: Young Democrats of America ran a test during the final three
months of Virginia's 2005 gubernatorial race to determine whether the
timing of door-to-door contact impacts turnout.
What is considered a contact: Contacting the targeted person in person.
Contact rate: 20 attempts per hour with roughly a 13% overall contact rate,
so 2.6 contacts per hour.
What goes into the cost calculation: Approximately $15 an hour for labor
and materials.
Impact: The last three weeks saw turnout increase by 25% and the prior
weeks are between 0 and 5.5%. This is a new voter for 4 additional contacts
in the last three weeks.
Source: Nickerson 2006
10
11
Partisan Door Hangers
Phone Calls
Cost per additional vote: $23
Context: The Michigan Democratic Party Youth Coordinated Campaign
Phone calls are a good and relatively inexpensive way to turn out new young
targeted registered Democrats and Independents, ages 18-35, in the 2002
voters–if the calls are done right. 2002 studies by Don Green and Alan Gerber
Michigan gubernatorial race.
found that a professional phone bank calling college areas had much more
What is considered a contact: A contact consisted of successfully leaving
a hanger on or immediately near the front door (i.e., front gate does
success with a longer, chattier script. Specifically, callers using a longer script
not count).
($1.50/complete) generated one additional vote per 30 completes, while a
What is the contact rate per hour: 40 per hour. The overall contact rate was
74 percent.
shorter call ($0.50/complete) took 400 contacts to generate a new vote, and a
What goes into the cost calculation: The wage rate was $15 an hour, plus
robocall had no detectable effect.
about two-thirds of the labor was free.
Impact: One additional vote per 77 contacts
Recent research bolsters these findings. Volunteer phone banks or professional
Source: Nickerson 2005; Nickerson, Friedrichs, and King 2006
phone banks using a longer and chattier script consistently generate better
voter turnout results. The more conversational and interactive the phone call,
Nonpartisan Leaflets
the better. Good phone banks saw a new voter going to the polls for just over
Cost per additional vote: $43 not including overhead
Context: Students dropped leaflets at the doors of registered voters in
$10 in a primary campaign and, on average, good phone call campaigns
Hamden, CT.
generated a 2 to 5 percentage point increase in turnout. Conversely, studies
What is considered a contact: Leaflet dropped at door
make clear that robocalls are not effective.
What is the contact rate per hour: 45 per hour
What goes into the cost calculation: $0.10 per leaflet an hour plus $10 per
hour for staff plus overhead costs.
Impact: One additional vote per 200 contacts
Source: Gerber and Green 2000
Professional Phone Bank
Cost per additional vote: $10.50. Assumes that the phone bank would contact
50 percent of those attempted. So, cost-per-vote= $1.50*0.50*14.
Tactic
% Point Effect
Cost per Additional Vote
Context: Professional phone bank calling registered Democrats off a phone
list in a Democratic primary in Bernalillo County, New Mexico.
Partisan canvass
7.7
$10.40
(20 attempts/hr)
What is considered a contact: Talking with a live person on the phone.
Partisan door hanger
1.3
$14*
Messages do not count.
(45 contacts/hr)
What is the contact rate per hour: The campaign did not share this
Nonpartisan canvass
7.1
$19*
information, but the overall rate was 50 percent.
(12 contacts/hr)
What goes into the cost calculation: $1.50 per complete call where they get
someone on the phone who listens to enough of the message to respond to
Partisan door hanger
1.3
$23
(40 contacts/hr)
the first question in the script (e.g., “Can I count on you to vote?”). $1.50 per
Nonpartisan leaflets
0.5
$43*
complete is a high rate and would pay for a quality, interactive phone script.
(45 contacts/hr)
Impact: One additional vote per 14 attempts
Source: Arceneaux 2006
* this cost does not include overhead
12
13
Bilingual Volunteer Phone Banks
Bilingual Student Phone Banks
Cost per additional vote: $22
Cost per additional vote: $27
Context: Nonpartisan GOTV effort in the 2002 general election by National
Context: A class at the University of Southern California called registered
Association of Latino Elected Officials (NALEO) by bilingual callers targeting
Asian-American voters in high-density Asian communities in Los Angeles,
Latino voters in Los Angeles and Orange counties in California.
California during the 2002 general election.
What is considered a contact: A conversation with the intended voter.
What is considered a contact: Contact was considered successful if the caller
What is the contact rate per hour: 18 per hour
spoke directly to the person he or she requested to speak with and if they
What goes into the cost calculation: The average wage spread across paid
were able to complete the entire get-out-the-vote message.
staff and volunteers was $7.00 per hour, plus $200 for setup fees and $1000
What goes into the cost calculation: Major expenditures included funds for
for supervision.
volunteer recruitment, stipends for volunteers, food for volunteers at the
Impact: One additional vote per 22 contacts
phone bank site, purchase of a list of registered Asian American voters,
Source: Ramírez 2005
printing costs for mailers, postage, translation of materials, and overhead
costs. Total cost for 183 additional votes was $5000.
Impact: One additional vote per 45 contacts
Volunteer Phone Banks
Source: Wong 2005
Cost per additional vote: $26
Context: Phone banks by the Michigan Democratic Party Youth Coordinated
Robocalls
Campaign targeting registered Democrats and Independents age 18-35 in the
2002 Michigan gubernatorial race.
Cost per additional vote: $275
What is considered a contact: Speaking with the voter or leaving a message
Context: Nonpartisan automated calls from NALEO to registered voters in
with a roommate or machine.
Latino-heavy precincts in six counties across the country in 2002. Standard
What is the contact rate per hour: 18 per hour. The overall contact rate was
call center rates and costs are assumed.
50 percent.
Impact: One additional vote per 2800 people assigned to receive call
What goes into the cost calculation: The wage rate was $15, but about two-
Source: Ramírez 2005
thirds of the labor was free.
Impact: One additional vote per 29 contacts.
Source: Nickerson 2005; Nickerson, Friedrichs, and King 2006
Tactic
% Point Effect
Cost per
additional vote
Volunteer Phone Banks
Professional phone bank
7.1
$10.50
Cost per additional vote: $26 not including overhead
Context: Phone banks targeting registered voters under the age of 30, mostly
Blingual volunteer phone banks 4.6
$22
college students. Calling was done by Youth Vote Coalition volunteers.
(18 contacts/hour)
What is a contact: Speaking to the targeted person or leaving a message.
Volunteer phone banks
3.4
$26
What is the contact rate per hour: 18 per hour. The overall contact rate was
(18 contacts/hour)
57 percent.
Volunteer phone banks
3.8
$26*
What goes into the cost calculation: $15 per hour wage rate.
(18 contacts/hour)
Impact: One additional vote per 26 contacts.
Bilingual student volunteer
2.2
$27
Source: Nickerson 2006
phone banks
Robocalls
0.03
$275
(this is not statistically
distinguishable from zero)
* this cost does not include overhead
14
15
Direct Mail
Research shows that direct mail is not a cost-effective way to turn out new young
voters.This less personal approach makes little to no impact on targeted young voters.
Partisan Direct Mail to Indian Americans
Partisan Direct Mail
Cost per additional vote: $40 not including overhead
Cost per additional vote: $200
Context: Nonpartisan direct mail campaign targeting registered Indian
Context: Republican U.S. House re-election campaign to non-base voters.
Americans in Queens, New York with Hindu or Sikh surnames.
What is considered a contact: Receipt of direct mail postcard
What is a contact: Receipt of direct mail postcard.
What goes into the cost calculation: $0.50 per piece to make and mail.
What goes into the cost calculation: The total cost was $2000. The cost
Impact: One additional vote per 600 recipients
calculations include: obtaining the target list from the NYC Board of
Source: Gerber 2004; Green and Gerber 2004
Elections, small stipends to volunteers who helped organize the list (likely
only 2-3 percent of total costs), printing the postcards, and postage for
Partisan and Nonpartisan Direct Mail in Virginia 2005
mailing the postcards. It does not include overhead. The majority of the
Cost per additional vote: Infinite (no turnout impact).
$2000 went towards printing/mailing.
Context: Direct mail in varying intensities (two to four pieces) targeting
Impact: One additional vote per 91 contacts
18-30 year olds with phone numbers in Virginia in 2005. The same test was
Source: Trivedi 2005
run by a nonpartisan youth organization and a Republican direct mail firm.
Nonpartisan Direct Mail to Latinos
What is a contact: Mail sent.
What goes into the cost calculation: $0.45 to make and send mail to
Cost per additional vote: $100-150
10,000 voters.
Context: Nonpartisan direct mail from Latino advocacy group NALEO to
Impact: None
registered voters in Latino-heavy precincts in Colorado and Texas during the
Source: Malchow 2005
2002 general election. Messages were tested in focus groups and mail sent two
to four times to each target voter.
Tactic
% Point Effect
Cost per additional vote
What is considered a contact: Mail sent.
What goes into the cost calculation: Nearly one million pieces of mail were
Direct mail to Indian American
1.1
$40
sent at just over $0.30 per piece
voters in NY
Impact: Minimal. Only one of all targeted sites saw a significant turnout
Direct mail to Latino voters from 0-0.18
$100-$150
impact of one new voter for every 546 mail pieces sent. Almost identical tests
advocacy group
done in California saw an even smaller impact that raised the cost to $600
Direct mail to Republican house 0.17
$200
per additional vote.
campaign
Source: Ramírez 2005
Partisan and nonpartisan direct
None
Infinite
mail (VA 2005)
16
17
New Techniques
Parties at the Polls
Cost per additional vote: $10
Context: In numerous 2005 elections, parties were advertised by local,
As politics evolves, new techniques are being introduced, many of which are
community groups with robocalls, posters, lawn signs, and advertisements in
cost-effective and directed toward young people. In particular, the use of email,
newspapers and on the radio. All voters were targeted. The tests were
text messaging, online social networking sites and other new technologies gives
performed by Working Assets and Yale University.
What is a contact: The parties were broadly advertised.
us cheap and easy ways to reach young voters where they are--online or on their
What goes into the cost calculation: Advertising and materials for the party
cell phones.
were the primary costs. Cheaper parties got food and entertainment donated.
Impact: Preliminary results showed one new voter for every 15 contacts. This
To date, there has not been a significant amount of academic research on these
research is just now being analyzed. Check out
www.youngvoterstrategies.com for more up-to-date results.
techniques but enough to draw this very simple conclusion: these are new ways
Source: Addonizio forthcoming
to facilitate peer-to-peer communication and if used with a trusted messenger
in a way that engages or gets the young voter to opt-in, it will have a greater
Absentee Ballot Request Mailer
impact.
Cost per additional vote: $15.65 ($8 under the age of 30)
Context: Direct mail with a tear-off piece to request an absentee ballot was
Anecdotal and survey evidence points to the fact that unsolicited emails and
sent to list of supporters of conservation in Colorado in a statewide election.
The mail was sent by the Colorado Conservation Voters Education Fund.
text messages will have no turnout impact, but online chats, text messages from
What is a contact: Mail sent.
friends, and issue or reminder to vote emails just might.
What goes into the cost calculation: All printing, preparation and postage
for the mail, plus full costs (salary, benefits, proportion of rent/utilities/etc)
In 2006 Young Voter Strategies is rigorously testing the effectiveness of many of
per hour of the staff 's time based on time sheets.
these new technologies–including text messaging and viral communication on
Impact: One additional vote per 21 contacts
Source: Mann forthcoming
youth voter registration.
Election Day Reminder Calls
Beyond new technologies, researchers have tested new applications of old ideas
Cost per additional vote: $11.61
from throwing parties at the polling locations to mailing absentee ballot request
Context: Young staff and volunteers called a list of registered young voters
forms to reminding young people to go to the polls on Election Day. The most
in New Jersey during the 2003 elections. The voters that were contacted and
cost-effective of these tests are below. In addition, Young Voter Strategies is
said yes to voting were given a follow-up call on Election Day. This test was
designed to understand the impact of that Election Day reminder call.
testing the impact of various registration techniques on increasing the
What is a contact: Contact with targeted voter or message with roommate or
likelihood of a young person voting while facilitating and compiling new
machine.
research done by other academic and practitioner group pairings. These
What is the contact rate per hour: 77 percent of the treatment group was
contacted. Rates varied dramatically depending on how much of the list had
findings will be available in the spring of 2007.
been contacted and time of day, but the average was 15 per hour.
What goes into the cost calculation: $650 for supplies and staff time for
Election Day effort.
Impact: One additional vote per 20 contacts overall and between 7-8 for
those who said "yes" during the initial round of contacts.
Source: Green 2004
1818
19
Section III: Tips for campaigns
Sources
Addonizio, Elizabeth 2006. Manuscript on
Nickerson, David W. 2006. “Volunteer Phone
parties at the polls in progress.
Calls Can Increase Turnout: Evidence from
Young Voter Strategies offers the following advice based on the above research.
Eight Field Experiments.” American Politics
Arceneaux, Kevin T. 2006. Manuscript in
Research 34:71-292.
progress.
Both parties have a real incentive to target young voters today. Democrats won
Nickerson, David W. 2005. “Partisan
Arceneaux, Kevin T. and Nickerson. 2005. “Two
Mobilization Using Volunteer Phone Banks and
the youth vote (age 18-29) in 2004 by 9 points, and are polling a significantly
Field Experiments Testing Negative Campaign
Door Hangers,” The Science of Voter
Tactics.” Presented at the American Political
larger advantage leading up to the 2006 elections. If asked, these young voters
Mobilization. Special Editors Donald P. Green
Science Association, Washington, D.C.
and Alan S. Gerber. The Annals of the American
can be an integral part of a Democratic victory in the short-term. If turned out,
Arceneaux, Kevin T., Alan S. Gerber, and
Academy of Political and Social Science 601:10-
Donald P. Green. 2006. “Comparing
27.
they can also be the beginning of a Democratic base for the future.
Experimental and Matching Methods using a
Nickerson, David W., Ryan D. Friedrichs, and
Large-Scale Field Experiment on Voter
David C. King. 2006. "Partisan Mobilization
Mobilization.” Political Analysis 14:37-62.
In 2006, there is also a real opportunity for Republicans among young adults.
Campains in the Field: Results from a Statewide
Green, Donald P., 2004. “The Effects of an
Turnout Experiment in Michigan." Political
Polling shows that the youngest voters who identify as Republican are more
Election Day Voter Mobilization Campaign
Research Quarterly 59:85-97.
Targeting Young Voters.” CIRCLE Working
loyal and more intensely Republican than their older counterparts. This is good
Costas Panagopoulos. 2006. “Are Partisan Voters
Paper 21.
More Responsive to Partisan or Nonpartisan
news for the Republicans, who lost the youth vote in 2004 by 9 points and
Gerber, Alan S. 2004. “Does Campaign Spending
GOTV Messages?” in progress .
Work? Field Experiments Provide Evidence and
cannot afford to let that margin get any bigger. They must continue to engage
Plutzer, Eric, 2002. “Becoming a Habitual Voter:
Suggest New Theory.” American Behavioral
Inertia, Resources, and Growth,” The American
and turn out the young Republicans.
Scientist, 47(5):541-574.
Political Science Review 96(1):41-56.
Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2000. “The
Ramírez, Ricardo. 2005. “Giving Voice to Latino
Effect of a Non-partisan Get-out-the-vote
Issue and advocacy organizations should look to these young voters,
Voters: A Field Experiment on the Effectiveness
Drive: An Experimental Study of Leafleting.”
of a National Nonpartisan Mobilization Effort.”
especially those who voted for the first time in 2004, as new voters who could
Journal of Politics 62:846-857.
The Science of Voter Mobilization. Special
Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Ronald
Editors Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber.
make the difference on issue initiatives and build your constituency’s power.
Shachar. 2003. “Voting May be Habit-Forming:
The Annals of the American Academy of
Evidence from a Field Experiment.” American
Further, mobilizing young voters creates a larger, more vibrant voting base in the
Political and Social Science 601: 66-84.
Journal of Political Science 47:540-550.
Ramírez, Ricardo and Janelle Wong. 2006.
long run, re-energizing our nation’s democracy.
Green, Donald P. and Alan S. Gerber. 2004. Get
“Non-Partisan Latino and Asian American
Out the Vote! How to Increase Voter Turnout.
Contactability and Voter Mobilization.” In
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Taeku Lee, Karthick Ramakrishnan and Ricardo
Michelson, Melissa, 2004, “Mobilizing the
Ramírez, eds., Transforming Politics,
Latino Youth Vote” CIRCLE Working Paper 10.
Transforming America: The Political and Civic
The YVS Top 5 Turnout Tactics:
Incorporation of Immigrants in the United
McNulty, John E. 2005. “Phone-Based GOTV
States. Charlottesville: University of Virginia
What’s on the Line? Field Experiments with
Press, 151-171.
■ Keep young voters on your call lists and walk lists
Varied Partisan Components, 2002-2003.” The
Science of Voter Mobilization. Special Editors
Sears, David O. and Levy, Sheri, 2003,
Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber. The Annals
“Childhood and Adult Political Development,”
■ Make the call script longer and chattier
of the American Academy of Political and Social
in Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis,
Science. 601:41-65.
Oxford Handbook of Political Pyschology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 62-108.
■ Use volunteers for calling and canvassing
New Voters Project and CIRCLE. 2005. “Youth
Voter Turnout in Virginia Continues Upward
Trivedi, Neema. 2005. “The Effect of Identity-
Trend.” Press release, November 9.
Based GOTV Direct Mail Appeals on the
Turnout of Indian Americans.” The Science of
■ Use technologies that young people use like text and the internet,
Nickerson, David W. 2006. “Forget Me Not?
Voter Mobilization. Special Editors Donald P.
but only in ways that allow them to opt in to the dialogue
The Importance of Timing in Voter
Green and Alan S. Gerber. The Annals of the
Mobilization.” Presented at the American
American Academy of Political and Social
Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
Science, 601:115-122.
■ Save your money; do not use robocalls or direct mail to TURN OUT
Nickerson, David W. 2004. “Just How Addictive
Wong, Janelle S. 2005. “Mobilizing Asian
this age group
is Voting.” Manuscript in Progress.
American Voters: A Field Experiment” The
Nickerson, David W. forthcoming. “Hunting the
Science of Voter Mobilization. Special Editors
Elusive Young Voter.” Journal of Political
Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber. The Annals
Marketing.
of the American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 601:102-114.
20
G00756
Young Voter Strategies
The George Washington University
The Graduate School of Political Management
www.youngvoterstrategies.org
info@youngvoterstrategies.org
202-994-5122
