1 / 13

The University of Manchester ‘Get Out the Vote’ Experiment

The University of Manchester ‘Get Out the Vote’ Experiment. Peter John and Tessa Brannan, Institute for Political and Economic Governance (IPEG), University of Manchester. Background. Declining Voter turnout in the UK – 2001, 2004, local and European elections

lorant
Télécharger la présentation

The University of Manchester ‘Get Out the Vote’ Experiment

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The University of Manchester ‘Get Out the Vote’ Experiment Peter John and Tessa Brannan, Institute for Political and Economic Governance (IPEG), University of Manchester

  2. Background • Declining Voter turnout in the UK – 2001, 2004, local and European elections • Explanations – marginality, decline in trust, poor performance of governments, urban life? • Less discussed is the absence of mobilisation, engagement of the voters • Decline in the traditional mechanisms – political party machines • Can non-partisan campaigns increase turnout?

  3. Study Design • Chose a safe constituency for 2005: Wythenshawe and Sale East, had 49 per cent turnout in 2001 • Randomly selected 6,900 from 9,976 voters on electoral register who had accessible telephone numbers • Randomised into three groups of 2,300, one control, two treatment • Handed 2,300 to Vision 21, a local survey company, who telephoned them with a prepared script for two weeks prior to election • Canvassed the other 2,300 by groups of students and Vision 21 fieldworkers following the same script

  4. Study design continued • Treatment groups got a letter informing them about the study • Script stressed duty to vote, decline in turnout, what would happen if no one turned out, importance of influencing outcome • Questions about intentions to vote and postal voting • Also provided information about voting procedures

  5. Issues about canvassing • Difficulty of communicating with professional company: not used to this kind of study • Student workforce were enthusiastic and enjoyed the experience (as well as being reasonably well paid!) • Logistics were challenging – study much more complex than expected – planning routes, data quality issues, transport • Most who we contacted liked being canvassed**, and said they did not see anyone from the political parties • ** bar the hostile, like the voter who threatened to ‘set his dogs’ on us

  6. Data issues • Poor quality of electoral registration data. No of dead people. We ask company to supply list of registered deceased. Removed from all three groups (but we interviewed some of these dead voters!) • Hard work needed to ensure accuracy of data returns • Overall successful response rate of 47.8 per cent for canvassers; 43 per cent for telephone survey, comparable with US studies

  7. Results • Still waiting postal voters, so removed from current phase of study yielding along with other non-eligibles: Canvassing Telephone Treatment 1237 1281 Control 1273 1273 Contacted 664 611 Voted Treatment 681=55.1% 704=55.0% Voted Control 655=51.5% 655=51.5%

  8. Statistical issues • It is possible just to compare these averages and run a t or similar type of test, but non significant in this case (p=.117) • But Gerber and Green say that the ‘intent to treat’ and the actual treatment rate are important to be able understand the impact of the experiment • If α= proportion of the population that is reachable • Let pnr be the probability that a non reachable person votes without the treatment and Let pr be the probability that a reachable person votes without the treatment • Let pr + t be the probability that a reachable person votes after the experimental treatment • We want to know what t is

  9. Statistical issues • Probability that a member of the control group votes is: PC= αppr + (1- α) pnr • Probability that a member of the treatment group votes is: PE= α(ppr+ t) + (1- α) pnr • If you combine the two above equations you get: • t= PE– PC / α • Sample data can estimate t • plim VE = PE plim VC = PC

  10. Results Canvassing Telephone Contact Rate .53 .48 Treatment Effect 6.7 7.3 Significance .035* .038* *=significant p. < .05

  11. Costs of raising the vote • Total cost=£18,687, not including Peter John’s time • Each successful interview costs £10.73 (telephoning) £7.33 (canvassing)

  12. Concluding Points • The voting experiment worked! • Both telephone and canvassing have the same effects, with telephoning marginally higher Why should telephoning get such good results: • personal intervention and monitoring? • Land-line accessible sample easier to influence • More research needed on close seats, different messages, postal voting

More Related