Mobilization efforts by parties and candidates during election campaigns tend to reach those who are more likely to vote in the first place. This is thought to be particularly consequential for turnout among the young. Harder and less cost-effective to reach, young adults are less mobilized and vote less often, creating a vicious circle of demobilization. However, new forms of political communication—including online and text messaging—have created expectations this circle might be broken. Is this happening? We examine data from Module 4 of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems surveys, looking at the prevalence of different types of party contacts in 38 countries, the profile of voters who are reached, and the effects of these efforts on turnout. New forms of party contacting do matter for turnout and partially reduce the age gap in contacting, but still fail to compensate for the much larger differentials that persist in traditional forms of contacting.
AldrichJHGibsonRKCantijochM, et al. (2016) Getting out the vote in the social media era: are digital tools changing the extent, nature and impact of party contacting in elections?Party Politics22(2): 165–178.
3.
Anduiza PereaE (2002) Individual characteristics, institutional incentives and electoral abstention in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research41(5): 643–673.
4.
AnsteadN (2017) Data-driven campaigning in the 2015 United Kingdom general election. The International Journal of Press/Politics22(3): 294–313.
5.
ArceneauxKNickersonDW (2009) Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of 11 field experiments. American Journal of Political Science53(1): 1–16.
6.
BennettCJ (2016) Voter databases, micro-targeting, and data protection law: Can political parties campaign in Europe as they do in North America?International Data Privacy Law6(4): 261–275.
7.
BhattiYDahlgaardJOHansenJH, et al. (2016) Is door-to-door canvassing effective in Europe? Evidence from a meta-study across six European countries. British Journal of Political Science1–12. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123416000521 (accessed January 8 2018).
8.
BirchS (2005) Single-member district electoral systems and democratic transition. Electoral Studies24(2): 281–301.
9.
BimberB (2014) Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 130–150.
10.
BlaisA (2000) To Vote or Not to Vote?: The Merits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
11.
BondRMFarissCJJonesJJ, et al. (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature489: 295–298.
BoulianneS (2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 524–538.
14.
BroockmanDEGreenDP (2014) Do online advertisements increase political candidates’ name recognition or favorability? Evidence from randomized field experiments. Political Behavior36(2): 263–289.
15.
CutrightP (1963) Measuring the impact of local party activity on the general election vote. Public Opinion Quarterly27: 372–386.
16.
CuttsDFieldhouseEJohnP (2009) Is voting habit forming? The longitudinal impact of a GOTV campaign in the UK. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties19(3): 251–263.
17.
DaleAStraussA (2009) Don’t forget to vote: text message reminders as a mobilization tool. American Journal of Political Science53(4): 787–804.
18.
FarrellDMSchmitt-BeckR (2003) Do Political Campaigns Matter?: Campaign Effects in Elections and Referendums. London: Routledge.
19.
FieldhouseECuttsDWiddopP, et al. (2013) Do impersonal mobilisation methods work? Evidence from a nationwide get-out-the-vote experiment in England. Electoral Studies32(1): 113–123.
20.
GerberASGreenDPKaplanEH (2004) The illusion of learning from observational research. In: ShapiroISmithR (eds) Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 251–273.
21.
GershtensonJ (2003) Mobilization strategies of the democrats and republicans, 1956-2000. Political Research Quarterly56(3): 293–308.
22.
Gil de ZúñigaHMolyneuxLZhengP (2014) Social media, political expression, and political participation: panel analysis of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication64(4): 612–634. DOI: 10.1111/jcom.12103.
23.
GlennNDGrimesM (1968) Aging, voting, and political interest. American Sociological Review33(4): 563–575.
24.
GosnellH (1927) Getting Out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
25.
GreenDPGerberAS (2016) Voter mobilization, experimentation, and translational social science. Perspectives on Politics14(3): 738–749.
26.
GreenDPMcGrathMCAronowPM (2013) Field experiments and the study of voter turnout. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties23(1): 27–48.
27.
GreenDPYorkEA (2017) Field experiments in political behavior. In: FisherJFieldhouseEFranklinMN, et al. (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Elections, Voting Behavior and Public Opinion. Abdingdon: Routledge, pp. 509–520.
28.
HershED (2015) Hacking The Electorate: How Campaigns Perceive Voters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
HoltKShehataAStrömbäckJ, et al. (2013) Age and the effects of news media attention and social media use on political interest and participation: Do social media function as leveller?European Journal of Communication28(1): 19–34.
30.
HoogheMVissersSStolleD, et al. (2010) The potential of Internet mobilization: an experimental study on the effect of Internet and face-to-face mobilization efforts. Political Communication27(4): 406–431.
31.
HuckfeldtRRSpragueJ (1995) Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32.
JohnPBrannanT (2008) How different are telephoning and canvassing? Results from a ‘get out the vote’field experiment in the British 2005 general election. British Journal of Political Science38(03): 565–574.
33.
KarpJABanducciSA (2007) Party mobilization and political participation in new and old democracies. Party Politics13(2): 217–234.
34.
KarpJABanducciSABowlerS (2008) Getting out the vote: party mobilization in a comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science38(1): 91–112.
35.
KarpJA (2012) Electoral systems, party mobilisation and political engagement. Australian Journal of Political Science47(1): 71–89.
36.
KramerG (1971) The effects of precinct level canvassing on voting behavior. Public Opinion Quarterly34: 560–572.
37.
KruegerBS (2006) A comparison of conventional and Internet political mobilization. American Politics Research34(6): 759–776.
38.
KruegerBS (2010) Opt in or tune out: Email mobilization and political participation. International Journal of E-Politics (IJEP)1(4): 55–76.
39.
MaddalaGS (1983) Limited-Dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
MalhotraNMichelsonMRRogersT, et al. (2011) Text messages as mobilization tools: the conditional effect of habitual voting and election salience. American Politics Research39: 664–681.
41.
MalhotraNMMichelsonMRValenzuelaAA (2012) Emails from official sources can increase turnout. Quarterly Journal of Political Science7: 321–332.
42.
MilbrathL (1965) Political Participation. Chicago: Rand McNally.
43.
MagalhãesPCSegattiPShiT (2016) Mobilization, informal networks and the social contexts of turnout. In: PaulABGuntherRMagalhãesPC, et al. (eds) Voting in Old and New Democracies. Milton Park: Routledge, pp. 64–98.
44.
MilbrathLWGoelML (1977) Political Participation: How and Why do People Get Involved in Politics?Chicago: Rand McNally.
45.
MerriamCEGosnellHF (1924) Non-voting: Causes and Methods of Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46.
NickersonDW (2006) Hunting the elusive young voter. Journal of Political Marketing5(3): 47–69.
47.
NickersonDW (2007) Does email boost turnout?Quarterly Journal of Political Science2(4): 369–380.
48.
NorrisP (2000) A Virtuous Circle: Political Communications in Postindustrial Societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
49.
NymanP (2017) Door-to-door canvassing in the European elections: evidence from a Swedish field experiment. Electoral Studies45: 110–118.
50.
PanagopoulosC (2016) All about that base: changing campaign strategies in US presidential elections. Party Politics22(2): 179–190.
51.
PanagopoulosCFranciaPL (2009) Grassroots mobilization in the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Political Marketing8: 315–333.
52.
PlasserFPlasserG (2002) Global Political Campaigning: A Worldwide Analysis of Campaign Professionals and their Practices. Westport, CT: Praeger.
53.
PowellGBJr (1986) American voter turnout in comparative perspective. The American Political Science Review80: 17–43.
54.
PutnamRD (2001) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
55.
RevillaMOchoaCLoeweG (2017). Using passive data from a meter to complement survey data in order to study online behavior. Social Science Computer Review35(4): 521–536.
56.
RosenstoneSJHansenJM (1993) Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: MacMillan.
57.
ShafferSD (1981) A multivariate explanation of decreasing turnout in presidential elections, 1960–1976. American Journal of Political Science25(1): 68–95.
58.
ShirkyC (2011) The political power of social media: technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign affairs90: 28–41.
59.
StevensDBishinBG (2011) Getting out the vote: minority mobilization in a presidential election. Political Behavior33(1): 113–138.
60.
StrateJMParrishCJElderCD, et al. (1989) Life span civic development and voting participation. American Political Science Review83(2): 443–464.
61.
VaccariC (2017) Online mobilization in comparative perspective: digital appeals and political engagement in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Political Communication34(1): 69–88.
62.
VerbaSSchlozmanKLBradyHE (1995) Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
63.
WildeJ (2000) Identification of multiple equation probit models with endogenous dummy regressors. Economics letters69(3): 309–312.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
