Political Behavior

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 413–432 | Cite as

Turning Out Unlikely Voters? A Field Experiment in the Top-Two Primary

Original Paper

Abstract

Those who turn out in American primary elections are a small and unrepresentative subset of the population. Why do citizens forgo participation in nominating contests yet vote in general elections? We argue that limited contact lowers participation in primary elections. We present results from a randomized field experiment with near 150,000 letters in California’s 2014 primary. Each letter went to one of the four million Californians who had participated in recent general elections but not in primaries. We find that a single letter increased turnout by 0.5 points from a base rate of 9.3 percent. This increase is more than twice the average effect calculated in a recent meta-analysis and represents a proportional increase of 5.4 percent. Our experiment shows that registrants who typically abstain from primaries—and who are thus often ignored by campaigns—can be effectively mobilized.

Supplementary material

11109_2015_9319_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (512 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (pdf 512 KB)

References

  1. Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2009). Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of eleven randomized field experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arceneaux, K., Mullin, M., & Kousser, T. (2012). Get out the vote by mail: A randomized experiment testing the effects of mobilization in traditional and vote-by-mail precincts. Political Research Quarterly, 65(4), 882–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brady, H. E., Verba, S., & Schlozman, K. L. (1995). Beyond SES: A resource model of political participation. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 271–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Caldeira, G. A., & Patterson, S. C. (1982). Contextual influences on participation in U.S. state legislative elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7(3), 359–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R., & Kallgren, C. A. (1990). A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), 1015–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Enos, R. D., Fowler, A., & Vavreck, L. (2014). Increasing inequality: The effect of GOTV mobilization on the composition of the electorate. Journal of Politics, 76(1), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fiorina, M., & Abrams, S. J. (2009). Disconnect: The breakdown of representation in american politics. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  8. Geer, J. G. (1986). Rules governing presidential primaries. Journal Of Politics, 48(4), 1006–1025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. C. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerber, E. R., & Morton, R. B. (1998). Primary election systems and representation. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 14(2), 304–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. Journal of Politics, 71(1), 178–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Nickerson, D. (2003). Getting out the vote in local elections: Results from six door-todoor canvassing experiments. Journal of Politics, 65(4), 1083–1096.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Hill, S. J. (2013). Do perceptions of ballot secrecy influence turnout? Results from a field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 57(3), 537–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerber, A. S., Gregory, A. H., Marc, M., Daniel, R. B., & David, J. H. (2015). Can incarcerated felons be (Re)integrated into the political system? Results from a field experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 59(4):912–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Green, D. P., & Gerber, A. S. (2008). Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout (2nd ed.). Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  17. Green, D. P., McGrath, M. C., & Aronow, P. M. (2013). Field experiments and the study of voter turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 23(1), 27–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hedlund, R. D., Watts, M. W., & Hedge, D. W. (1982). Voting in an open primary. American Politics Quarterly, 10, 197–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill, S. J. (2016). Institution of nomination and the policy ideology of primary electorates. Quarterly Journal of Political Science (forthcoming).Google Scholar
  20. Hirano, S., Snyder, J. M, Jr, Stephen, A., & John, M. H. (2010). Primary elections and partisan polarization in the U.S. congress. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 5, 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Holbrook, T. M., & McClurg, S. D. (2005). The mobilization of core supporters: Campaigns, turnout, and electoral composition in United States presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacobson, G. C. (2012). The electoral origins of polarized politics: Evidence from the 2010 cooperative congressional election study. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(12), 1612–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jewel, M. E. (1984). Northern state gubernatorial primary elections: Explaining voter turnout. American Politics Quarterly, 12, 101–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaufmann, K. M., Gimpel, J. G., & Hoffman, A. H. (2003). A promise fulfilled? Open primaries and representation. Journal of Politics, 65(2), 457–476.Google Scholar
  25. Kenney, P. J. (1983). Explaining turnout in gubernatorial primaries. American Politics Quarterly, 11, 315–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kenney, P. J. (1986). Explaining primary turnout: The senatorial case. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 11, 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGhee, E. (2014). Voter turnout in primary elections. Public Policy Institute of California Report .Google Scholar
  28. McGhee, E., Masket, S., Shor, B., Rogers, S., & McCarty, N. (2014). A primary cause of partisanship? Nomination systems and legislator ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nickerson, D. W., & Rogers, T. (2010). Do you have a voting plan?: Implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making. Psychological Science, 21(2), 194–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norrander, B. (1989). Ideological representativeness of presidential primary voters. American Journal of Political Science, 33(3), 570–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Panagopoulos, C. (2011). Thank you for voting: Gratitude expression and voter mobilization. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 707–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (2003). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of California, San DiegoLa JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations