Most of the recent literature that investigates voter turnout and mobilization finds little or no impact on turnout as a result of get-out-the-vote (GOTV) phone drives. This article describes four field experiments embedded within GOTV phone drives conducted in the San Francisco Bay Area in November 2002 and October 2003. One of the drives was strictly nonpartisan, two were explicitly partisan (Democratic), and the last was quasi-partisan in that it was explicitly in opposition to a municipal proposition. These experiments were designed to investigate whether GOTV phone drives are effective tools for increasing turnout. None of the GOTV phone drives with a partisan or quasi-partisan component resulted in a detectable increase in voter turnout. The overall results raise serious questions about the efficacy of GOTV phone drives, particularly those with the intent of affecting electoral outcomes.
Adams, William C., and Dennis J. Smith. 1980. Effects of telephone canvassing on turnout and preferences: A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly44:389-395.
2.
Bennett, Stephen Earl, and David Resnick. 1990. The implications of non-voting for democracy in the United States. American Journal of Political Science34:771-802.
3.
Brady, Henry E., Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 1999. Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review93:153-168.
4.
Citrin, Jack, Eric Schickler, and John Sides. 2001. More democracy or more democrats? The impact of universal turnout on Senate elections. Presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
5.
Converse, Philip. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and discontent, ed. David Apter, 206-261. New York: Free Press.
6.
DeNardo, James. 1980. Turnout and the vote: The joke’s on the Democrats. American Political Science Review74:406-420.
7.
DeNardo, James. 1986. Does heavy turnout help Democrats in presidential elections?American Political Science Review87:1298-1304.
8.
Downs, A.1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
9.
Gant, Michael M., and William Lyons. 1993. Democratic theory, nonvoting, and public policy: The 1972-99 presidential elections. American Politics Quarterly21:185-204.
10.
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 1999. Does canvassing increase voter turnout: A field experiment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences96 (19): 10939-10942.
11.
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000a. The effect of a nonpartisan get-out-the-vote drive: An experimental study of leaf letting. Journal of Politics62 (3): 846-857.
12.
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2000b. The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review94:653-663.
13.
Gerber, Alan S., and Donald P. Green. 2001. Do phone calls increase voter turnout? A field experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly65:75-85.
14.
Gosnell, Harold F.1927. Getting-out-the-vote: An experiment in the stimulation of voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
15.
Green, Donald P.2003. Mobilizing African-American voters using direct mail and commercial phone banks: A field experiment. New Haven, CT: Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University.
16.
Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2001. Getting out the youth vote: Results from randomized field experiments. New Haven, CT: Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University.
17.
Green, Donald P., and Alan S. Gerber. 2002. Reclaiming the experimental tradition in political science. In Political science: The state of the discipline, 3rd ed., ed. Helen V. Milner and Ira Katznelson, 805-832. New York: Norton.
18.
Green, Donald P., Alan S. Gerber, and David W. Nickerson. Forthcoming. Getting out the vote in local elections: Results from six door-to-door canvassing experiments. Journal of Politics.
19.
Grofman, Bernard, Guillermo Owen, and Christian Collet. 1999. Rethinking the partisan effects of higher turnout: So what’s the question?Public Choice99:357-376.
20.
Highton, Benjamin, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 2001. The political implications of higher turnout. British Journal of Political Science31:179-223.
21.
Maslow, Abraham. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York: Harper.
22.
McNulty, John E. 2003.Phone-basedGOTV: What’s on the line? Field experiments, 2002-2003.Presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
23.
McNulty, John E. 2004. Partisan get-out-the-vote drives and turnout. Presented at the 2004 annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
24.
Miller, Roy E., David A. Bositis, and Denise L. Baer. 1981. Stimulating voter turnout in a primary: Field experiment with a precinct committeeman. International Political Science Review2:445-460.
25.
Nagel, Jack H., and John E. McNulty. 1996. Partisan effects of voter turnout in senatorial and gubernatorial elections. American Political Science Review90:780-793.
26.
Nagel, Jack H., and John E. McNulty. 2000. Partisan effects of voter turnout in presidential elections. American Politics Quarterly28:408-429.
27.
Radcliff, Benjamin. 1994. Turnout and the democratic vote. American Politics Quarterly22:259-276.
28.
Ranney, Austin. 1983. Channels of power. New York: Basic Books.
29.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
30.
Schattschneider, E. E.1960. The semi-sovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
31.
Tucker, Harvey J., and Arnold Vedlitz. 1986. Does heavy turnout help Democrats in presidential elections?American Political Science Review87:1291-1298.
32.
Wolfinger, Raymond E., and Steven J. Rosenstone. 1980. Who votes?New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
33.
Zaller, John R.1992. The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
