The Effectiveness of a Neighbor-to-Neighbor Get-Out-the-Vote Program: Evidence from the 2017 Virginia State Elections

IF 3.2 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Journal of Experimental Political Science Pub Date : 2021-05-10 DOI:10.1017/XPS.2020.11

Cassandra Handan-Nader, Daniel E. Ho, Alison D. Morantz, Tom Rutter

引用次数: 2

Abstract

Abstract We analyze the results of a neighbor-to-neighbor, grassroots get-out-the-vote (GOTV) drive in Virginia, in which unpaid volunteers were encouraged to contact at least three nearby registered voters who were likely co-partisans yet relatively unlikely to vote in the 2017 state election. To measure the campaign’s effectiveness, we used a pairwise randomization design whereby each volunteer was assigned to one randomly selected member of the most geographically proximate pair of voters. Because some volunteers unexpectedly signed up to participate outside their home districts, we analyze the volunteers who adhered to the original hyper-local program design separately from those who did not. We find that the volunteers in the original program design drove a statistically significant 2.3% increase in turnout, which was concentrated in the first voter pair assigned to each volunteer. We discuss implications for the study and design of future GOTV efforts.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

邻居对邻居的投票计划的有效性:来自2017年弗吉尼亚州选举的证据

摘要我们分析了弗吉尼亚州一项邻居对邻居的草根投票（GOTV）活动的结果，在该活动中，鼓励无偿志愿者联系至少三名附近的登记选民，他们可能是共同党派，但相对不太可能在2017年州选举中投票。为了衡量竞选活动的有效性，我们使用了成对随机化设计，将每个志愿者分配给地理位置最接近的一对选民中随机选择的一名成员。由于一些志愿者出乎意料地报名参加了家乡以外的活动，我们将坚持最初超地方项目设计的志愿者与不坚持的志愿者分开分析。我们发现，在最初的项目设计中，志愿者的投票率在统计上显著增加了2.3%，这集中在分配给每个志愿者的第一对选民中。我们讨论了对未来GOTV工作的研究和设计的影响。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Experimental Political Science Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science

CiteScore

5.10

自引率

8.30%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Journal of Experimental Political Science (JEPS) features cutting-edge research that utilizes experimental methods or experimental reasoning based on naturally occurring data. We define experimental methods broadly: research featuring random (or quasi-random) assignment of subjects to different treatments in an effort to isolate causal relationships in the sphere of politics. JEPS embraces all of the different types of experiments carried out as part of political science research, including survey experiments, laboratory experiments, field experiments, lab experiments in the field, natural and neurological experiments. We invite authors to submit concise articles (around 4000 words or fewer) that immediately address the subject of the research. We do not require lengthy explanations regarding and justifications of the experimental method. Nor do we expect extensive literature reviews of pros and cons of the methodological approaches involved in the experiment unless the goal of the article is to explore these methodological issues. We expect readers to be familiar with experimental methods and therefore to not need pages of literature reviews to be convinced that experimental methods are a legitimate methodological approach. We will consider longer articles in rare, but appropriate cases, as in the following examples: when a new experimental method or approach is being introduced and discussed or when novel theoretical results are being evaluated through experimentation. Finally, we strongly encourage authors to submit manuscripts that showcase informative null findings or inconsistent results from well-designed, executed, and analyzed experiments.

期刊最新文献

Combating Hateful Attitudes and Online Browsing Behavior: The Case of Antisemitism Inaccurate forecasting of a randomized controlled trial Discussion and Fairness in a Laboratory Voting Experiment – ADDENDUM Testing the Effect of Information on Discerning the Veracity of News in Real Time (How) Do Information Campaigns Influence Migration Decisions?