This topic came up in my Public Opinion and Voting Behavior class this week, and I thought it might be of interest to a more general audience.
“Politial mobilization” refers to efforts to “mobilize” non-voters to get out to the polls to vote. These campaign efforts are commonly called GOTV (Get Out The Vote). How effective are these efforts? Not very. This is a brief summary of political science research on the issue:
- Most people either vote or they don’t. It’s very difficult to successfully mobilize habitual non-voters, and those that are habitual voters don’t need much of a reminder.
- Those that do vote are disproportionally older, wealthier, smarter, and whiter than those that don’t vote.
- Face-to-face and door-to-door canvassing are the most effective political mobilization tools, but it’s very “expensive” in terms of time and money when considering how effective it is. Campaigns have to put in hundreds of hours of face-to-face mobilization to increase turnout by just a few percentage points. One study figured that 1 new voter is added for every 1 hour of campaign mobilization efforts.
- Telephone get-out-the-vote efforts are generally NOT effective to any measurable degree.
Sources: here and here.
David Brooks is smart and he makes a lot of good points. I respectfully disagree, however, with his editorial in today’s New York Times:
In short, he argues that Obama is mistaken in his strategic decision to “go partisan” for his 2012 re-election campaign. Brooks argues that becoming a “fighter” when you are the incumbent is a poor strategy because at this point in the American electoral cycle, most Independents are saying that they agree more with Republican policies – i.e. those currently out of power. Compromise and bipartisanship are the ways to win over the Independents and moderates, Brooks argues, and that should be Obama’s priority.
I disagree with Brooks because he’s basing his argument on a set of very common misperceptions about American politics. Political scientists have convincingly demonstrated that “Independents” are really not very independent. Most “lean” toward one party or another and those that do vote are just as partisan as the partisans. The pure Independents are less than 10% of the population and their vote is not usually the deciding factor in American elections. (See here, here, and here for a more detailed review of this phenomenon.)
Given that the vote of most Independents is really not up for grabs and that about 90% of partisans do not cross party lines when it comes time to vote, the key to winning American presidential elections is usually to mobilize those who are already likely inclined to vote for you. And that’s exactly what President Obama is trying to do.
That being said, I wish that Brooks was right and I certainly would prefer campaigns that focus on high-minded debate and compromise. As is often the case, however, reality does not conform to my ideals.
The Lexington Herald Leader editorial board published the following yesterday:
This year, the paper will recommend in the governor, attorney general and auditor races. The paper traditionally has not endorsed for agriculture commissioner, secretary of state or treasurer — positions the board feels should be appointed.
My sentiments exactly. Generally speaking, democracy is a good thing. But should the people really be voting on things like the agricultural commissioner or treasurer, whose main job is to write the state checks? To what extent does the average Kentuckian have a clue what those jobs actually do? Even if they did, to what extent do average Kentuckians possess the skills to meaningfully evaluate which candidate would better perform those check-writing tasks? Further, why in the world are these partisan offices? Is there really a “Democratic” or “Republican” way to write checks??? In sum, I agree with the newspaper that these should be appointed, rather than elected, offices.
But that’s just me.
Interested Kentuckians might enjoy this write-up of Senator Paul’s recent activities: http://www.rollcall.com/issues/57_44/Rand-Paul-Finds-His-Groove-209595-1.html
The basic gist of the article is that Rand Paul is going to great lengths to learn to be an effective senator and is generally not coming off as “Tea Party crazy” as his opponents often make him out be.
GOP aides say Paul has prioritized learning the levers and traditions of the Senate, and he has channeled his efforts to affect policy in a manner deemed “constructive” and results-oriented by most Republicans.
Even Democratic whip Dick Durbin had kind words:
“I’ve watched him carefully since he came,” the Illinois Democrat said. “We’ve come to him sometimes with his amendments, and I think he’s been reasonable. I don’t have a negative view of what he’s done. I think he’s exercising his authority as a Senator.”
A quick comment on the newly-released official Utah congressional redistricting map that cuts Salt Lake County between three separate districts. The Salt Lake Tribune reports on the perceived movites of the Republican-dominanted legislature:
Democrats say that “pizza slice” plan is an attempt by Republicans to dilute their votes in Salt Lake County and increase odds that the GOP can win all congressional districts. Republicans say instead that it will ensure that all members of Congress represent both rural and urban issues.
The Republican justification that all of Utah’s congressional delegation should represent both rural and urban areas is somewhat disingenuous. It’s the exact same argument that they made ten years ago when they split Salt Lake County up for the current map. They’re simply trying to gerrymander Utah’s lone Democrat, Jim Matheson, out of his House seat.
The argument would have more credibility if we had a proportional representation system in the United States. In PR systems, representatives are elected to represent the entire country instead of a smaller geographical district. As a result, PR representatives tend to look out for the diverse interests of the national as a whole as opposed to a smaller constituency. In the U.S., however, we elect representatives to look out for the interests of our smaller local communities. In such a case, it makes sense (to me, at least) to group similar communities together in congressional districts. It makes it easier for the representative to focus on specializing on the needs of his/her community, and it makes it so that the interests of more members of the community will be represented in the national legislature.
As it stands, this is going to result in lower-quality representation for the unfortunate Democrats in central Utah.
Today I read Our Patchwork Nation: The Suprising Truth about the “Real” America by journalist Dante Chinni and political scientist James Gimpel. The objective of the book is to lay out an alternative to the traditional red/blue geographic divide in the United States. The authors argue instead that American counties can be more accurately divided into twelve different community types like “Monied Burbs”, “Tractor Country”, “Boom Towns”, “Evangelical Epicenters”, etc.
The first half of the book describes each of the 12 community types in terms of their economic, political, demographic, and cultural characteristics. The second half of the book describes some interesting political, economic, and cultural patterns that emerge across the various community types.
To me, the most useful part of this book is the argument for the way that community types should be grouped. I agree with the authors that the red/blue dichotomy can be overly simplistic at times. The 12-type rubric that they provide is an interesting and novel way to think about some systematic differences in American community types.
I will admit, though, that I found very little surprising or even very “ground-breaking” in this book. The second half describes some interesting systematic differences between various community types but reveals little that would contradict what one’s intuitive guess might predict. (For example, “tractor country” communities have the highest rate of gun shops per capita while “campus and career” communities have the highest rate of bookstores per capita. No big surprise there.)
I was especially disappointed that the book offered little by way of analysis of how these different community types might be useful in predicting interesting political and social outcomes beyond what we already know about the world. In other words, there’s nothing in the book demonstrating that knowing these community types gives us any “added value” for explaining political outcomes independent of standard individual-level sociopolitical factors.
That being said, the patterns discussed in the book are useful to in that they provide further evidence of the diversity of the American culture and our increasing cultural/political self-segregation.
The authors have created a website which has some nifty tools, which data/map geeks might find especially fun to play with: http://www.patchworknation.org/