What do the academics say? Persuading someone to vote comes with a free bonus

Welcome to another in my occasional series on useful, interesting or controversial findings from academic studies of our politics and elections.

Today it’s turnout and the question, “Is voting habit forming?” In other words, if you persuade someone to go out and vote in one election, do you get a bonus benefit in that they are also then more likely to vote in future elections?

That’s the question David Cutts, Edward Fieldhouse and Peter John studied for their article in Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, Volume 19 Number 3. The study was a follow up to a practical experiment carried out in the Wythenshawe & Sale East constituency in 2005.

During the 2005 general election, some voters were targeted with non-partisan phone calls urging them to vote, some received personal calls on the doorstep and a control group received neither. Those who received phone calls or doorstep visits had a turnout rate 7% (that is, seven percentage points) higher than the control group – a reassuring finding for those of us who have spent time on polling day reminding people to vote. The sample sizes were not large enough to say with confidence whether personal visits or phone calls were more effective than the other.

This study looked at the knock-on impact in the 2006 local elections. No further get out the vote activity was tried, so it was a test of whether the effect of the activities in 2005 still lasted through to 2006.

The conclusion of the detailed statistical analysis is clear:

If you persuade 100 people out to vote today, you may be gaining an additional 50 votes in next year’s election with no additional effort.

The one slight flaw in the work is that it sidesteps the issue of there being two different possible effects: voting in 2005 may have caused a habit which made people more likely to vote in 2006, or the memory of the messages received in 2005 may have still lingered in people’s minds in 2006. This distinction matters because there are other circumstances which raise turnout (e.g. a one-off particularly controversial election) which would result in raised turnout in the future if the former is the case, but not if the latter is. However, the paper makes the assumption for its statistical analysis that the latter effect does not exist.

Overall though the findings are (another) good reason why the plans for elections at different levels should fit together into one complete plan. Decide to give the elections for one body a pass from a proper polling day operation because you’re not so interested in them? You then miss out on the opportunity to help get your supporters in the habit of voting in the election where you do care more about their votes. Voting, and voting Lib Dem, is something that is best built up repeatedly over different elections.

If you spot any other academic research you think I should cover, just get in touch. If you’re an academic yourself, you are most welcome to submit a guest post for our “Independent View” strand which features contributors from outside the party.

Read more by or more about .
This entry was posted in What do the academics say?.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Joe Bourke
    Peter Martin, "If spending, generally, is too high and/or government wishes to spend more, then taxes have to rise to prevent inflation rather than to ‘raise...
  • David Raw
    @ Alex Macfie I'm sorry if I misattributed a comment made by you. I assume you weren't around during the Darlington by-election, though I certainly was....
  • Michael BG
    In October we made little impression with our response to the budget and it was not clear how much extra we wanted to spend than the Chancellor (see my article ...
  • Joe Bourke
    The recent spending review presented a forecast for the five years from 2022-23 to 2026-27. By the end of this parliament the government expects to be running a...
  • Michael BG
    Rabi Martins, I hope you can answer some questions from me. What do you mean by the BME Deficit? And what does ending this deficit look like? What woul...