I’ll start off by saying that I am a big believer in canvassing. Based on studies that I have read and heard about, I believe it works. And it is more fun than phone calling, especially if you are with a partner. And you have better conversations with people. But the overhead is huge. The preparation is time consuming. There are many people who can’t physically canvass. So I take people canvassing and they say:
– No one was home.
– The houses were too far apart
– The driveways were too long
Or
– No one would answer the door
– The door bells didn’t work and weren’t labeled
– The lists didn’t match the people
So if a volunteer says to me, I just won’t canvass anymore, I say talk to family and friends.
There is phone a friend and signing up people with pledge cards. I personally had a lot of fun with that. I made it part of my life, as well as doing it in a structured way. I spent time scheduled “Friend Banks,” methodically going through my phone. Some may recall that when I was in an accident that totaled my car, I got the guy who hit me to pledge to vote the Patrick/Murray ticket. As you can imagine, many of my friends are hard core Democrats. When I did “phone-a-friend” I tried to move them into a higher level of activity.
But volunteers would say to me, I feel like it is an echo chamber. All my friends are already voting for Democrats. Wouldn’t I be better off talking with people who might not otherwise vote?
So I’ll talk about phoning. Sometimes you have good conversations, especially if you have a local connection. With caller ID and land lines, there are people who we just can’t reach. Certainly a lot less prep time, but I would say not as effective. There are people we don’t reach and conversations are less effective.
And then there are the options of e-mail, facebook, blogs, talk radio and letters to the editor.
And then there are lawn signs and sign holding. I have heard that there are quantitative studies that indicate that these have no impact. While I believe that visibility has a place in gathering people together, building a team and increasing name recognition for down-ballot races, there is an opportunity cost and a financial cost. If staff members are organizing standouts and visibilites, then they are not doing other activities. If volunteers are holding signs they are not door knocking or contacting voters.
From your feedback from voters, what do you KNOW has worked? For example, while door knocking on Sunday, I got a vote by explaining that a student could vote Monday “over the counter” before she left for school.
I’ll ask a poll question.
…is called “Get out the vote! How to Increase voter turnout” by Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber, both Political Science faculty at Yale.
<
p>The book covers the results of comparative double-blind studies done over the course of 14 years which look at that very question.
<
p>Cheat sheet from the book:
<
p>Door-knocking is the best way to increase voter turnout
<
p>Volunteer phone-calls (as opposed to paid calls) are second-best.
<
p>Robo-calling is the worst, with ZERO evidence that it effects turnout numbers at all.
A real phone call from the candidate himself is very effective. I also think that targeted snail mail (to someone you know or have some connection with) – real letters to real voters – can work just because it’s so unusual to get a handwritten letter instead of form letters or advertising-like mailers or e-mails.
<
p>Lastly, the only robo-call I know of that might actually have had an effect on the vote was in 2004 on Halloween night. I was canvassing in Maine for John Kerry in Electoral District 2 (the non-coastal region that usually votes Republican). Maine has a split system where each district is counted separately instead of all or nothing.
<
p>Anyway, Stephen King, a real local hero in Maine, recorded a robo-call that consisted of, if my memory serves me well:
<
p>“Happy Halloweeeeeen. This is Stephen King and you know what I think is really scary? Four more years of George W. Bush. Get out and vote for John Kerry on Tuesday.”
<
p>Both districts voted Democrat that year. P.S. I think the canvassing helped, too.
I’m not comfortable talking to people either on the doorstep or by phone. My own circles are not even people I’m comfortable talking politics with, unless of course I know them through politics and then they agree with me anyway. I did very little to assist the Governor’s re-election this year because it seemed like the only thing the campaign wanted us to do is go through our personal contacts and talk to 50 people. Sorry, not my cup of tea. Maybe I’m more sensitive than others, but I don’t enjoy being looked at suspiciously when I approach a stranger’s door or being hung up on when calling people. I will, however, do background work so others can do these things successfully. For example I very much enjoy cutting turf for canvassing and I’m also happy to enter data once a list has been knocked or called. I concentrated on campaigns that were willing to put my skills and interests to use. I have a master’s degree in political management and therefore feel I should be on campaign staff, so if after years of experience and training I’m still a volunteer I at least insist on enjoying what I’m doing.
<
p>Consider the following quote, which I’m a bit hesitant to use since it is from the Bible and I’m not sure how people feel about making such a reference in this context. There is a bit of theology not relevant to this discussion, but the larger point Paul is making to the church in Corinth is that people should not see themselves as less involved because they have one role rather than another, nor should anyone look down on anyone else for playing a different role than they do. This could easily apply to any effort or organization that is largely volunteer driven.
<
p>
Christopher, I certainly don’t object to your quotation, although I think you had already made the point to good effect.
<
p>I share your discomfort with certain things. I’m not sure why (I suspect it’s because I’m autistic), but using the phone is very difficult for me. Also, meeting strangers is excruciatingly painful and frightening.
<
p>That said, I also love making friends, and that’s very difficult to do if you don’t meet new people! So, I often wade into social situations, as into a cold pond, not knowing if I will be able to swim to the other side, and knowing that I will be uncomfortable. Still, it’s worth it to me, I guess, or I wouldn’t keep doing it!
<
p>Similarly, when I have a grand vision — an objective that is extremely important to me — I can put up with the discomfort that comes along with some of the steps needed to get there.
<
p>Nearly six years ago, I met a man named Deval Patrick, who was thinking of running for Governor. After listening to him (and grilling him!) for a long time, I made the determination that I was going to support him, no matter what the outcome, because he wanted to conduct the kind of dialog I wanted to experience.
<
p>As they say, the rest is now history. I worked my butt off for his campaign (as I know you, and many others reading this, did, as well). I did things that were beyond my normal limits. I attended rallies, I held meetings, I did all of the other things mentioned in Kate’s poll here. Yes, I even talked on the radio. I filmed events and placed them on our local public access TV. I did things I didn’t think I could do. And it was gloriously energizing!
<
p>I say all of this, not to contradict what you have written, but to offer another point of view. When it comes to recruiting volunteers, I have always believed, as you have expressed, that people should not be asked to work outside their comfort zone. They should be given the opportunity, perhaps, but not cajoled. Round peg in square hole, and all that.
<
p>So, bravo to you, and to all the other people who share your view, for doing what you enjoy and what you are good at. Fortunately, people are all very different, so if a campaign has enough volunteers, the myriad of tasks that need doing will somehow get done.
Without having any evidence whatsoever, and assuming perfect setup with zero overhead, here’s what I think makes the most sense.
<
p>1. Logon to the system, and start typing in people you know reasonably well. The system determines if they’ve been called fewer than three times. If not, you see the data the campaign has on ’em: gender, political party, age. Now, you call ’em with their script as a guide, and talk to them as a neighbor/friend/etc about why you’re supporting the candidate. Ask them if they’re going to support him, ask what the big issues are, etc. Time consuming, but very effective call. Log the call — is there a “number one issue” to log? Know whom they are voting for? Etc. Do this not just for your BFFs, but also for neighbors, colleagues who live the next town over, etc. Of course, you might not know colleague Joe’s phone number, but if you put in their name and town, it could “zoom in” on the choice which matches gender and age well enough to give it a try.
<
p>2. Once you’re done, the system could suggest a handful of people — the folks who live in your building or on your street. Try them too.
<
p>3. Now that the folks you know are exhausted, we move on to folks you don’t know. If there’s sufficient time and/or sufficient volunteers, I believe that targeted door knocking in your neighborhood is the most effective, followed by phone calls to people in your neighborhood. Once your neighborhood is exhausted, stay in your city or town. If that’s exhausted, next town over.
<
p>4. For day-of GOTV, you call all the folks who you’ve already identified as supporters. There’s no reason to go door-to-door except as a backup plan for those who you can’t reach by telephone. Of course, during steps 1, 2, and 3 to a lesser extent, you’ve made sure that the campaign database has updated phone numbers, addresses, that sort of thing so that the day-of GOTV has the most updated information possible. You’ve also helped purge the database of old information — folks who just don’t live there anymore.
<
p>
<
p>I really, really like the idea of a friend bank. It’s a spin of a phone bank which utilizes technology to make each call that much more productive. It also requires that each community (via Dem Town Committee, etc) makes sure that the folks working the friend bank are diverse with respect to where they live in town, housing stock, age, gender, income, etc. That maximizes the total reach, and that’s really important.
I earned some votes for Mike Lake in the State Primary election by writing personal notes to some of my friends. One friend reported that her father was impressed that a campaign was still using these (as he used them back in his days as a campaign organizer). So, some of this goes to show that what is old becomes new again. I have a pretty small peer group, but the fact that it resonated with a middle aged voter shows that perhaps this will be effective on a larger scale.
<
p>During my time on the Alan Khazei campaign I noticed voters were getting frustrated with phone calls on election day, so I switched to making personal calls and got some people who were not going to vote otherwise to the polls.
<
p>Maybe it’s just more personal works better than cold calling in general. The toughest barrier to overcome are people who see politics as a taboo topic (people from Long Island in particular). It can be hard to overcome what is considered “polite social conversation”, especially when you are perceived as an uncomfortably passionate person.
John Walsh put it best when he said “We’re not phone banking. We’re friend banking.” I had a lot of friends I spoke to say “I don’t know _____ but if you vouch for him/her that’s enough for me.”
<
p>Its not enough to tell our friends and colleagues we support a particular candidate, its important to tell them 1) WHY we support that candidate and 2) WHY we vote Democrat.
… except that I would modify your conversation to include, besides the points you make, a question or two along the lines of “Have you thought about who you are going to vote for?” or “What is the hot-button issue for you in this campaign?”
<
p>I find that asking people to think gets them more engaged in the conversation, and ultimately, if you’re lucky, produces a firmer commitment and gives them more of a sense of ownership in the process. At least, that’s been my experience.
Tsongas, Received one for mike Lake and had a favorable reaction. In general it seems to that a semi-personal card is less annoying than an unsolicited phone call.
I voted “knocking on doors” in your poll, because that’s the most effective way to spend a significant amount of time helping a campaign, usually – unless you have special skills that are in demand, such as being able to design and run a good poll. However, if you know people in the district, contacting them in person first is certainly more effective than door knocking, because they know you.
<
p>Focus on identifying who’s supporting and who’s persuadable; persuade the persuadable; identify the supporters (and the persuaded) and remind them to vote. Text or call or IM them individually on election day to see if they voted. Don’t spend any time on those who are neither supportive nor persuadable once you’ve figured that out.
<
p>Also, if you’re doing data entry or otherwise have access to the campaign’s voter file, check if your friends or family are in their contact universe. If they are, and you’ve identified them as supporters, mark them down – you’ll save some volunteer’s time, who would otherwise have gone to your friend’s door when you already know your friend supports the candidate. By entering that ID into the system, you let the volunteer spend their time going to some other door.
<
p>While door knocking is generally the most effective volunteering, it can be different depending on the campaign and its strategy. A good campaign may want or need you to do something else. They might’ve started two years before election with a gradual house party or community organization based organizing strategy, for example, that you may be able to help with. So ask the campaign. Tell them about your affiliations and skills.
<
p>
<
p>Anecdotes aren’t data, and personal experience isn’t science. Beware of taking personal stories as evidence of what does and doesn’t work on a large scale. There are a lot of problems you may not notice when you think this way. For example…
<
p>1) You’re talking to a nonrepresentative set of people. You may be doing canvassing for a campaign – well, to maximize their use of your time, they’ve probably selected a particular set of voters for you to contact based on demographics or other information.
<
p>2) You don’t see invisible effects. Maybe several people you talked to were really annoyed, so you feel that you’re doing something counterproductive. A couple of them even told you “I’m not going to vote because you guys have bugged me so much” (classic cutting off their nose to spite their face behavior if they actually do so, but they might just say it and then vote, or they might not have been going to vote anyway).
<
p>Well, maybe you talked to 40 people, 4 told you they were annoyed, one of them actually isn’t going to vote because of you (unlikely but might happen) … and 6 of them who would’ve neglected to vote are going to because you visited them. And they don’t even know it, because they intended to vote all along, but it turns out you made the difference between “meant to vote but didn’t get around to it” and actually voted. And not only that, but from the 80 flyers you dropped off at places where the voter wasn’t home, you got 2 more who wouldn’t have voted otherwise. So even though you heard from 4 very annoyed people, and nobody told you that you got them to vote, you’ve actually gained a net 7 votes.
My comment isn’t actually addressed to Kate, even though I use the second person a lot. It’s more addressed to some of the potential volunteers who bring up the questions and concerns she relayed in this post.
Every volunteer that commits to help with a race is a great asset, but some forms of support are simply more valuable than others. Volunteers who absolutely refuse to call or knock can be very helpful with cutting turf or entering data, but ultimately volunteers putting themselves and their personal narratives out there is the heart of a field organization.
<
p>Personal communication with voters is one of the most powerful tools for persuasion there is, not only in the context of volunteer activism but in the larger context of the campaign (especially down-ticket races). It’s the campaign’s responsibility to encourage volunteers to contribute by doing voter contact and ensuring that those who commit to call or knock are able to make the best use of their time.
<
p>Knocking doors in urban and suburban neighborhoods and calling in rural areas is simply the best way to persuade voters to support your candidate in the months leading up to the election (unless the volunteers are highly organized with with cars and teams of canvassers, knocking doors in rural areas generally produces a lower contact rate than calling, even on your home turf). Door hangers in base turf and a very high volume of phone calls are the priorities during GOTV (again, knocking helps, but GOTV is all about reaching a huge number of people in a short period of time and calls are the best way to do that). It’s a simple formula and it works pretty well provided there are enough volunteers.
<
p>I would urge everyone who volunteers on a political campaign to keep the purpose of your activities in mind (ask campaign staffers if they don’t tell you, and if they don’t know drop their managers a line). Around GOTV you’re often getting in touch with the base and mobilizing them, so you’ll want to contact as many people as possible. Earlier in the election you might be persuading independents so you’ll be focused on really good conversations. A good persuasion conversation becomes personal and there’s a connection there – if you’re not able to make that type of connection on the phone then knocking is probably a better option for you (this is not meant as a jab at those who’re uncomfortable talking to strangers on the phone, if anything they’re the majority). Also, keep in mind what the campaign is trying to do – talking to your friends is obviously important, but very often a campaign is focused on a particular region or voter profile that can tip the balance in their favor, and the more time you spent helping them towards that goal the more you’ll maximize your impact.
<
p>That’s a little bit of an information dump based on experience as a field organizer and field director, I’d love to hear some specifics from frequent volunteers about their experiences with campaigns succeeding (or failing) at maximizing their time.
<
p>Cheers!
Part of John Walsh’s mantra this year was that “the old rules don’t apply; the world has changed”…
<
p>In particular, he cited the failure of phone banking to turn out Dems in January’s special election. Too many people have caller ID, or don’t have land lines. The people we are able to contact tend to be dependable voters — we’re not reaching new people, renters, and all the people who have cell phones.
<
p>On the other hand, you make a good point about the difficulty of organizing in rural areas. It’s a tough call as to which is more effective. Clearly the “friend bank” idea is an enormous help here. During our GOTV effort here in the mostly rural Berkshires, where we had volunteers willing to do it, we asked them to drive around and put up door hangers. That’s not canvassing as I think of it (which is more about having conversations), but is a more personal touch (especially if the volunteer writes a personal note; even better, of course, if they know the voter).
Taking into account our own abilities and spending our time wisely is what makes sense. Human beings and human lives come in different models.
<
p>Some of us are basically “kinship” driven, others of us are issue driven and have a voice in “issue communities” JUST for example.
I love you dearly, for reasons political and non-political, as you know, but your question, in the context of preserving or advancing a liberal Massachusetts vision, is misguided. The question really is why are traditionally Democratic strongholds, even liberal strongholds, turning tea party? Look closely at what happened to Tim Murray’s so-called home-field advantage. THAT is the question to be pondered. Seriously. We have a huge problem. We are headed for serious trouble in 2012.
In Worcester I assume you mean? I live in Boston so, of course, have no understanding at all about politics West of 495.
<
p>Looking at the election results only, I still see a Democratic stonghold (Patrick at 60%; McGovern and Chandler holding stong at 70%). Sure, Baker (33%) did better than Healey (23%) but he was the far better candidate/campaigner.
<
p>What has you worried?
is doing a lot of sign visibility. Cant conceed them the battlefield, whatever the purported benefit of signs –they excite and reinforce peer pressure—especially in small town contest.
<
p>HUDAK won my town and he would have been NobODY without his ubiquitous yard signs all summer and fall.
<
p>Carrying a live sign is an opportunity to discuss candidates record (have info handy)
<
p>I Get my candidate literature handy if needed,set up a plein aire painting with candidate visibility. Usually lead to painting discussion —sometimes a to political discussion which I AM prepared for – I have campaign lit and ready for most of their talking points —rebutted
<
p>Its hadr to get too aggressive agaist an amiable plein aie painter
<
p>One voter at a time approach — but the visibility needs to be there
<
p>’
<
p>t
<
p>
I volunteered to help canvass my ward on Saturday and the ward captain had made the decision to only hang leaflets on door handles rather than knock on doors because she didn’t have enough volunteers to knock on all the IDed voters doors in the ward. The logic being better some “contact” with more voters than more contact with fewer.
This struck me as a bit silly, just because, if my own mailbox was any indication, voters in our ward were getting a lot of direct mail already and there isn’t much difference between that and a door hanger.
Anyone have thoughts on this? Should we have been knocking on doors?
I’m glad to see you’re getting a lot of comments here. I will circle back often and collect the wisdom of experience. It is important that we reflect on what worked and what was less effective, and adjust our strategies going forward!