From Mass.Numbers:
While the article refers to telephone sampling techniques, as opposed to internet polling, the graph is also an illustration of how phone banking is occurring in an increasingly cell phone-only environment.
Given this, campaigns shouldn’t be surprised when their phone bank efforts suppress turnout, for the following reasons:
- Cell phones have caller ID functions, and people resent calls from folk they don’t know.
- Many people have prepaid phone plans, which means that they pay for incoming calls; and few people like to pay to be telemarketed.
- The broader culture is so fragmented that, for many people, the only effective political contact is face-to-face. (Social media tends to preach to the choir, and reaches a point of diminishing returns pretty quickly.) However, canvassers have to have some sort of organic ties to those voters they canvass, or the “folk they don’t know” dynamic comes into play.
So in many ways we’re back to pre-radio days, where (absent literal neighbor-to-neighbor) the most effective political communication mechanisms are standouts and lit-drops.
Please share widely!
First of all, tell me about percent of frequent voters or even occasional voters who have land lines. I’ll bet it’s far higher than 60%. Seniors, families, folks in more stable environments — more likely to be voters, more likely to have home phones is my bet.
Secondly, why pre-radio? After all, home phones weren’t common until well after WWI, and radio pre-dates that for sure. My bet is that a phone in every home wasn’t common until WWII.
Thirdly, why isn’t radio or television effective? Oh wait, it is. That’s why candidates spend so much money there. Sure, folks like us would love to believe that our knocking on doors is the most effective, but it isn’t. It’s relatively cheap for the candidate, so per dollar spent it’s effective, but if we were paid minimum wage it sure wouldn’t be.
I’m just not buying what you’re selling good sir.
From a study by Matthew Gentzkow of the University of Chicago:
The author goes further speculate that:
From Latino Decisions:
This dynamic is not limited to Latino voters.
The issue is not the use of media and phone banking to augment person-to-person warm body field operations; it’s what happens when these mechanisms replace field.
…because what really works on the ground is organic outreach and applied peer pressure. The issue is not “knocking on doors” in isolation, which can often backfire (as in the case of Howard Dean in 2004, when his “Orange Hat” volunteers alienated voters), but personal contact by people with whom voters can relate.
…was described by Robert Putnam in his book Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, back in 2000.
In the days prior to mass ownership of land-line phones, political parties were embedded in broad civic life, not limited to election cycles. County or precinct-based political organizations were social as well as electoral. GOTV was as a consequence literally a neighbor-to-neighbor affair and less dependent on mass media (newspapers excepted). When telephone ownership became common in the 1950’s, banking augmented, but did not replace the civic aspects of electioneering.
The crisis in social cohesion has gotten worse since 2000, IMHO.
Hence the “pre-radio” reference as an observation of the practical political implications of – and possible solution to – a political environment where citizens are largely organically disengaged from day-to-day political engagement.
Putnam was writing about this social change in 2000, long before folks had cell phones in large numbers and certainly before land lines were going away.
Voter turnout for POTUS elections is up 3 elections in a row. That is, the entire time that home phone ownership has been going down, voting in presidential elections has gone up.
Correlation does not imply causation. You’ve thrown out a few correlations, but no compelling narrative and no establishment of causation. I’m just not picking up what you’re putting down.
…than in 2008 and 2004.
From CNN on November 8, 2012:
I did not attempt to equate correlation with causation. My premise was that the increase in cell phone-only households, a fractured media environment, and lack of community-embedded field reinforce civic disengagement in election cycles.
I think that the low turnout in the September 9 Primary is a useful datum to support that premise.
Presidential elections with Barack Obama on the ballot are not exactly representative of elections generally. His candidacy, particularly in 2008, inspired a lot of voters who don’t tend to show up for any other elections. Turnout generally has been quite low lately except for the presidential. And I’m not sure what kind of turnout to expect for the 2016 race.
So do the tools to campaign.
The trick is to identify who your persuadable voters are which tools are most effective for your set of persuadable voters.
I once held a sign at a polling precinct for a Democratic State Committee Man and that appeared to be the deciding factor. Little chance that a McCain voter would have gone to the polls, seen a Obama sign and changed his vote.
Phonebanks have little effectiveness for voters without landlines and canvassing is equally a waste for those who are rarely home.
A campaign sunk it’s efforts into internet advertising for this past low turnout primary. Low turn out primary = old white people. Was internet advertising the best way to reach the majority of persuadable voters?
While one tool may be more effective than another, they are all effective and in a close election where every demographic is needed, using a variety of campaign tools is best. If the campaign goal is 3 contacts with each persuadable voter, a mix of TV advertising, canvass, candidate contact, lawn sign, visibility, phonebank, mailing, radio advertising, internet advertising, letter to the editor, dear friend card, bumpersticker, word of mouth is better than 3 telephone calls.
and a good reason to link to sources. My source’s last year of data is 2008.
Between 2000 and 2008 cell phone use increased and social media increased and home phone ownership decreased and yadda yadda, and yet voter participation went up. So, what gives?