IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/poango/v13y2025a9236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Campaigns, Mobilisation, and Composition Effects in the 2018 Irish Abortion Referendum

Author

Listed:
  • Kevin Cunningham

    (School of Media, Technological University Dublin, Ireland)

  • Eoin O'Malley

    (School of Law and Government, Dublin City University, Ireland)

  • Stephen Quinlan

    (GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences, Germany)

Abstract

Referendums on issues usually thought to split along cleavage lines are least likely to see significant campaign effects because it is difficult to get voters to switch sides on such issues. We argue that even though campaigns might not be very effective at shifting people’s votes—persuasive effects—the campaign can influence the decision to vote or not—mobilising effects. Using the 2018 referendum to repeal the Irish ban on abortion, we test for mobilisation effects in which one campaign caused the withdrawal of support for its campaign and possibly motivated potential voters in the other side’s campaign. By remaining “on message” the pro-choice side’s arguably less interesting campaign allowed mainstream elites to come on board. We offer evidence that the campaigns mobilized some groups and suppressed turnout in others, leading to a larger victory for the repeal (the ban on abortion) side than most had expected.

Suggested Citation

  • Kevin Cunningham & Eoin O'Malley & Stephen Quinlan, 2025. "Campaigns, Mobilisation, and Composition Effects in the 2018 Irish Abortion Referendum," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 13.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9236
    DOI: 10.17645/pag.9236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/view/9236
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/pag.9236?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kalla, Joshua L. & Broockman, David E., 2018. "The Minimal Persuasive Effects of Campaign Contact in General Elections: Evidence from 49 Field Experiments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(1), pages 148-166, February.
    2. Gelman, Andrew & King, Gary, 1993. "Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 409-451, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Caroline Le Pennec & Vincent Pons, 2023. "How do Campaigns Shape Vote Choice? Multicountry Evidence from 62 Elections and 56 TV Debates," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 703-767.
    2. Kevin K. Banda, 2024. "Timing and responsiveness in American political advertising campaigns," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(4), pages 1076-1091, July.
    3. David A. M. Peterson, 2009. "Campaign Learning and Vote Determinants," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 445-460, April.
    4. Wang, Wei & Rothschild, David & Goel, Sharad & Gelman, Andrew, 2015. "Forecasting elections with non-representative polls," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 980-991.
    5. Avidit Acharya & Edoardo Grillo & Takuo Sugaya & Eray Turkel, 2019. "Dynamic Campaign Spending," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 601, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    6. Khan, Urmee & Lieli, Robert P., 2018. "Information flow between prediction markets, polls and media: Evidence from the 2008 presidential primaries," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 696-710.
    7. Yarrow Dunham & Antonio A. Arechar & David G. Rand, 2019. "From foe to friend and back again: The temporal dynamics of intra-party bias in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 373-380, May.
    8. A. Kamakura, Wagner & Afonso Mazzon, Jose & De Bruyn, Arnaud, 2006. "Modeling voter choice to predict the final outcome of two-stage elections," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 689-706.
    9. Kai Jäger, 2020. "When Do Campaign Effects Persist for Years? Evidence from a Natural Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 64(4), pages 836-851, October.
    10. Bernardo S. Da Silveira & João M. P. De Mello, 2011. "Campaign Advertising and Election Outcomes: Quasi-natural Experiment Evidence from Gubernatorial Elections in Brazil," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(2), pages 590-612.
    11. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    12. Little, Andrew T., 2022. "Bayesian Explanations for Persuasion," OSF Preprints ygw8e, Center for Open Science.
    13. Abu, Christian Ukeame, 2022. "Political Campaign and Human Rights Violation in Rivers State, Nigeria, 2013-2021," International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science (IJRISS), vol. 6(12), pages 536-543, December.
    14. Kang, Seungwoo & Oh, Hee-Seok, 2024. "Forecasting South Korea’s presidential election via multiparty dynamic Bayesian modeling," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 124-141.
    15. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    16. Gregory Eady & Tom Paskhalis & Jan Zilinsky & Richard Bonneau & Jonathan Nagler & Joshua A. Tucker, 2023. "Exposure to the Russian Internet Research Agency foreign influence campaign on Twitter in the 2016 US election and its relationship to attitudes and voting behavior," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-11, December.
    17. Cagé, Julia & Bekkouche, Yasmine, 2018. "The Heterogeneous Price of a Vote: Evidence from France, 1993-2014," CEPR Discussion Papers 12614, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/2ahul47tb09rvqfl9eelv7o5ca is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Wang, Samuel S.-H., 2015. "Origins of Presidential poll aggregation: A perspective from 2004 to 2012," International Journal of Forecasting, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 898-909.
    20. Katjana Gattermann & Claes De Vreese & Wouter van der Brug, 2016. "Evaluations of the Spitzenkandidaten: The Role of Information and News Exposure in Citizens’ Preference Formation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(1), pages 37-54.
    21. Guy Aridor & Rafael Jiménez-Durán & Ro'ee Levy & Lena Song, 2024. "The Economics of Social Media," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 1422-1474, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:poango:v13:y:2025:a:9236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.