Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Limits of Mobilization: Turnout Evidence from State House Primaries

  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Many analysts have lamented the decline of political mobilization efforts. They suggest that the cause of worsening voter turnout may be traceable to the failure of political candidates and political parties to target and activate nonvoters. This research explores the effects of face-to-face mobilization efforts in a sample of September 5, 2000, Florida state house primary races. Controlling for their voting history, the face-to-face mobilization effort did increase turnout by about 8% among those contacted. However, the effects were weakest among those who voted least regularly. The results suggest that implementing more face-to-face mobilization efforts would increase turnout—mostly by encouraging occasional voters to go to the polls. However, those same mobilization efforts would not substantially affect the turnout of chronic nonvoters.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Aldrich, John (1995).WhyParties? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Avey, Michael (1989).The Demobilization of American Voters. New York: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banducci, Susan, and Karp, Jeffrey (2001). Mobilizing American voters:a reassess-ment.Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Associa-tion,San Francisco.

  • Berinsky, Adam, Burns, Nancy, and Traugott, Michael (2001).Who votes by mail?A dynamic model of the individual-level consequences of voting-by-mail systems. Pub-lic Opinion Quarterly65:178–197.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blydenburgh, John (1971). A controlled experiment to measure the effects of personal contact campaigning.Midwest Journal of Political Science15: 365–381.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brians, Craig, and Grofman, Bernard (2001). Election day registration 's effect on U.S. voter turnout. Social Science Quarterly 82: 170–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brody, Richard (1978).The puzzle of political participation in America. In Anthony King (ed.), The New American Political System,pp.287–324.Washington,DC: American Enterprise Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cain, Bruce, and McCue, Ken (1985).The efficacy of registration drives. Journal of Politics47:1221–1230.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira, Gregory, Clausen, Aage, and Patterson, Samuel (1990).Partisan mobilization and electoral participation.Electoral Studies9:191–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caldeira, Gregory, Patterson, Samuel, and Markko, Gregory (1985).The mobilization of voters in congressional elections.American Political Science Review79:490–509.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, Angus (1966).Elections and the Political Order. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conway, Margaret (2000).Political Participation in the United States. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doppelt, Jack, and Shearer, Ellen (1999).Nonvoters:America 's No-Shows. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eagly, Alice (1974).Comprehensibility of persuasive arguments as a determinant of opinion change.Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology29:758–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eldersveld, Samuel (1956). Experimental propaganda techniques and voting behavior. American Political Science Review50:154–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, Leandre, Priester, Joseph, Petty, Richard, and Wegener, Duane (1998).The impact of attitude accessibility on elaboration of persuasive messages. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin24:339 –352.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, Alan, and Green, Donald (2001).Do phone calls increase voter turnout?A field experiment.Public Opinion Quarterly65,75 –85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, Donald, and Gerber, Alan (2000a). Reclaiming the experimental tradition in political science.Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Washington,DC.

  • Green, Donald, and Gerber, Alan (2000b).The effects of canvassing,telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout:A field experiment. American Political Science Review:94:653 –663.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John (1992).Political parties and electoral mobiliza-tion:political structure,social structure,and the party canvass.American Political Science Review86:70 –86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackman, Robert (1987).Political institutions and voter turnout in the industrial de-mocracies. American Political Science Review81:405 –423.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, Robert (1993).Voter mobilization in the 1986 midterm election.Journal of Politics55:1081 –1099.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jason, Leonard, Rose, Thomas, Ferrari, Joseph, and Barone,Russ (1984). Personal versus impersonal methods for recruiting blood donations.Journal of Social Psychol-ogy123:139 –140.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karp, Jeffrey, and Banducci, Susan (2001).Absentee voting,mobilization,and partici-pation.American Politics Research29:183 –195.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kilgard, Susan (1999). Identification and formal organizational communication:Ex-ploring links between messages and membership. Ph.D.dissertation, Arizona State University.

  • Kleppner, Paul (1982).Who Voted?The Dynamics of Electoral Turnout, 1870 –1980. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knack, Stephen (1995). Does motor voter work?Evidence from state level data.Jour-nal of Politics57:796 –811.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kornbluh, Mark (2000).WhyAmerica Stopped Voting. New York: New York University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, Gerald (1970). The effects of precinct-level canvassing on voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly34:560 –572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupfer, Michael, and Price, David (1972). On the merits of face to face campaigning. Social Science Quarterly53:534 –543.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, William (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence.In E.F. Borgatta and W.W. Lambert (eds.),Handbook of PersonalityTheoryand Research, pp.1130 –1187. Chicago: Rand McNally.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, Roy, Bositis, David, and Baer, Denise (1981). Stimulating voter turnout in a primary:Field experiment with a precinct committeeman. International Political Science Review2:445 –460.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oliver, Eric (1996). The effects of eligibility restrictions and party activity on absentee voting and overall turnout. American Journal of Political Science40:498 –513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petty, R., Ostrom, T., and Brock, T.(1981).Cognitive Responses in Persuasion.Hills-dale,NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piven, Frances, and Cloward, Richard (2000).WhyAmericans Still Don ’ t Vote.Boston: Beacon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, David, and Lupfer, Michael (1973). Volunteers for Gore:the impact of a pre-cinct level canvass in three Tennessee cities. Journal of Politics35:410 –438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reams, Margaret, and Ray, Brooks (1993).The effects of three prompting methods on recycling participation rates:a field study. Journal of Environmental Systems22: 371 –379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhine, Staci (1995). Registration reform and turnout change in the American states. American Politics Quarterly23:409 –426.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, Steven, and Hansen, Mark (1993).Mobilization,Participation,and De-mocracyin America.New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, Steven, and Wolfinger, Raymond (1978).The effect of registration laws on voter turnout.American Political Science Review72:22 –45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schaffner, Brian, and Streb, Matthew (2000).Voters without cheat sheets:the educa-tion bias of the nonpartisan ballot.Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,Washington,DC.

  • Schaffner, Brian, Streb, Matthew, and Wright, Gerald (2000).Teams without uni-forms:The nonpartisan ballot in state and local elections. Political Research Quar-terly53:7 –30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, Jaideep, and Fitzsimons, Gavan (2000).The effects of analyzing reasons for brand preferences:Disruption or reinforcement? Journal of Marketing Research37: 318 –330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Southwell, Priscilla, and Burchett, Justin (2000). Does changing the rules change the players?The effect of all-mail elections on the composition of the electorate. Social Science Quarterly81:837 –845.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, Ruy (1987).WhyAmericans Don ’ t Vote.New York: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teixeira, Ruy (1992).The Disappearing American Voter.Washington,DC: Brookings.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman (1972).Participation in America.New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wells, Scott (2001).Engaging the non-engaged in politics:a study of campaign 2000. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association,San Francisco.

  • Wielhouwer, Peter, and Lockerbie, Brad (1994).Party contacting and political partici-pation, 1952 –1990.American Journal of Political Science38:211 –229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winders, Bill (1999).The roller coaster of class conflict:class segments,mass mobiliza-tion,and voter turnout in the U.S.,1840 –1996.Social Forces77:833 –862.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, Raymond, and Rosenstone, Steven (1980).Who Votes? New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, John (1992).The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Florida Atlantic University, P.O. Box 3091, Boca Raton, FL, 33431

    David Niven

Authors
  1. David Niven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Niven, D. The Limits of Mobilization: Turnout Evidence from State House Primaries. Political Behavior 23, 335–350 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015461422528

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015461422528

Search

Navigation