IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v601y2005i1p123-141.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Caught in the Ground Wars: Mobilizing Voters during a Competitive Congressional Campaign

Author

Listed:
  • Elizabeth A. Bennion

    (Indiana University South Bend)

Abstract

This project examines the effectiveness of a nonpartisan voter mobilization drive in Indiana’s fiercely contested Second Congressional District. A student-based, non-partisan voter mobilization coalition conveyed nonpartisan get-out-the-vote messages through door-to-door canvassing in three South Bend precincts on the weekend before the November 2002 election. These get-out the vote efforts took place during a competitive election season—one that included door-to-door partisan campaign efforts by interest groups, political parties, and candidate campaigns. While the nonpartisan mobilization campaign did little to increase the likelihood of voting among older voters, it had a strong effect on voters younger than thirty—the voters least likely to be contacted by partisan campaigns.

Suggested Citation

  • Elizabeth A. Bennion, 2005. "Caught in the Ground Wars: Mobilizing Voters during a Competitive Congressional Campaign," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 123-141, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:601:y:2005:i:1:p:123-141
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716205277863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716205277863
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716205277863?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. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P. & Nickerson, David, 2001. "Testing for Publication Bias in Political Science," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(4), pages 385-392, January.
    2. McDonald, Michael P. & Popkin, Samuel L., 2001. "The Myth of the Vanishing Voter," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(4), pages 963-974, December.
    3. Cassel, Carol A. & Luskin, Robert C., 1988. "Simple Explanations of Turnout Decline," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(4), pages 1321-1330, December.
    4. Green, Donald P. & Shachar, Ron, 2000. "Habit Formation and Political Behaviour: Evidence of Consuetude in Voter Turnout," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 561-573, October.
    5. Abramson, Paul R. & Aldrich, John H., 1982. "The Decline of Electoral Participation in America," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 76(3), pages 502-521, September.
    6. Alan S. Gerber & Donald P. Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting May Be Habit‐Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 47(3), pages 540-550, July.
    7. Gerber, Alan S. & Green, Donald P., 2000. "The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 94(3), pages 653-663, September.
    8. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2000. "The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00248, The Field Experiments Website.
    9. Alan Gerber & Donald Green & Ron Shachar, 2003. "Voting may be habit forming: Evidence from a randomized field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00251, The Field Experiments Website.
    10. Eldersveld, Samuel J., 1956. "Experimental Propaganda Techniques and Voting Behavior," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(1), pages 154-165, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alabrese, Eleanora, 2022. "National Polls, Local Preferences and Voters’ Behaviour : Evidence from the UK General Elections," QAPEC Discussion Papers 15, Quantitative and Analytical Political Economy Research Centre.
    2. LeRoux Kelly & Langer Julie & Plotner Samantha, 2023. "Nonprofit Messaging and the 2020 Election: Findings from a Nonpartisan Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 157-183, April.

    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. Donald P. Green & Jennifer K. Smith, 2003. "Professionalization of Campaigns and the Secret History of Collective Action Problems," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 321-339, July.
    2. Donald P. Green & Alan S. Gerber, 2003. "The Underprovision of Experiments in Political Science," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 589(1), pages 94-112, September.
    3. Pereira dos Santos, João & Tavares, José & Vicente, Pedro C., 2021. "Can ATMs get out the vote? Evidence from a nationwide field experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    4. Kevin Arceneaux & David W. Nickerson, 2009. "Who Is Mobilized to Vote? A Re‐Analysis of 11 Field Experiments," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(1), pages 1-16, January.
    5. Valentina A. Bali & Lindon J. Robison & Richard Winder, 2020. "What Motivates People to Vote? The Role of Selfishness, Duty, and Social Motives When Voting," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(4), pages 21582440209, October.
    6. Bhatt, Rachana & Dechter, Evgenia & Holden, Richard, 2020. "Registration costs and voter turnout," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 176(C), pages 91-104.
    7. LeRoux Kelly & Langer Julie & Plotner Samantha, 2023. "Nonprofit Messaging and the 2020 Election: Findings from a Nonpartisan Get-Out-The-Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment," Nonprofit Policy Forum, De Gruyter, vol. 14(2), pages 157-183, April.
    8. Alan S. Gerber & Donald P. Green, 2005. "Do Phone Calls Increase Voter Turnout? An Update," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 142-154, September.
    9. León, Gianmarco, 2017. "Turnout, political preferences and information: Experimental evidence from Peru," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 127(C), pages 56-71.
    10. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03384143, HAL.
    11. Robert A. Jackson & Matthew Pietryka, 2022. "The influence of becoming a parent on political participation in the United States," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 103(3), pages 565-580, May.
    12. Alberto Chong & Gianmarco León‐Ciliotta & Vivian Roza & Martín Valdivia & Gabriela Vega, 2019. "Urbanization Patterns, Information Diffusion, and Female Voting in Rural Paraguay," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(2), pages 323-341, April.
    13. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," Sciences Po publications 2021-08, Sciences Po.
    14. Vincenzo Galasso & Tommaso Nannicini, 2016. "Persuasion and Gender: Experimental Evidence from Two Political Campaigns," CESifo Working Paper Series 5868, CESifo.
    15. Ethan Kaplan & Fernando Saltiel & Sergio S. Urzúa, 2019. "Voting for Democracy: Chile's Plebiscito and the Electoral Participation of a Generation," NBER Working Papers 26440, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Kevin Arceneaux, 2005. "Using Cluster Randomized Field Experiments to Study Voting Behavior," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 601(1), pages 169-179, September.
    17. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/1dp7827s4n8ht8fk3qhmeuvd0o is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2013. "Men Vote in Mars, Women Vote in Venus: A Survey Experiment in the Field," CEPR Discussion Papers 9547, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Fosco, Constanza & Laruelle, Annick & Sánchez, Angel, 2009. "Turnout Intention and Social Networks," IKERLANAK info:eu-repo/grantAgreeme, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Fundamentos del Análisis Económico I.
    20. Alan Gerber, 2004. "Does campaign spending work?," Natural Field Experiments 00246, The Field Experiments Website.
    21. Jean-Victor Alipour & Lindlacher Valentin, 2022. "No Surprises, Please: Voting Costs and Electoral Turnout," CESifo Working Paper Series 9759, CESifo.

    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:sae:anname:v:601:y:2005:i:1:p:123-141. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.