Voter participation in US local elections consistently lags behind turnout rates in national elections, particularly in suburban jurisdictions. While voting reminders, or “nudges,” have been consistently linked to increased turnout in high-salience national elections, and have demonstrated promise in local elections, research on their effectiveness in these lower-salience contexts remains limited. This study uses a non-partisan, get-out-the vote field experiment during a contested local election in the United States to test the effectiveness of established voter engagement methods, specifically mailers, in increasing turnout. Given their documented success in varied election contexts, these methods were expected to yield small but measurable increases in local voter turnout. However, contrary to expectations, the findings reveal that postcard mailers, regardless of message content, had no statistically significant effect on turnout. These null results raise important questions regarding the promise of traditional voter mobilization tactics in low-salience, local elections and help clarify the conditions under which these approaches are feasible and may or may not support local political engagement.
AldrichJH (1993) Rational Choice and Turnout. American Journal of Political Science37 (1): 246–278.
2.
AndersonCDLoewenPJMcGregorRM (2018) Implementation Intentions, Information, and Voter Turnout: An Experimental Study. Political Psychology39 (5): 1089–1103.
3.
AndersonMFaverioMParkE (2024) How Teens and Parents Approach Screen Time. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
4.
AnziaSF (2012) Partisan Power Play: The Origins of Local Election Timing as an American Political Institution. Studies in American Political Development26 (1): 24–49.
5.
BennionEANickersonDW (2022) Decreasing Hurdles and Increasing Registration Rates for College Students: An Online Voter Registration Systems Field Experiment. Political Behavior44 (3): 1337–1358.
6.
BhattiYDahlgaardJOHansenJH, et al. (2018) Can Governments Use Get-Out Letters to Solve Europe’s Turnout Crisis? Evidence from a Field Experiment. West European Politics41 (1): 240–260.
7.
BrownNE (2014) Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. New York: Oxford University Press.
8.
BrownSDPerrellaAMKayBJ (2010) Revisiting Local Campaign Effects: An Experiment Involving Literature Mail Drops in the 2007 Ontario Election. Canadian Journal of Political Science43 (1): 49–67.
9.
BryanCJWaltonGMRogersT, et al. (2011) Motivating Voter Turnout by Invoking the Self. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108 (31): 12653–12656.
10.
BryantLAHanmerMJSafarpourAC, et al. (2022) The power of the state: How postcards from the state increased registration and turnout in Pennsylvania. Political Behavior, 44: 535–549.
11.
CampbellAGurinGMillerWE (1954) The voter decides. Row: Peterson
12.
CancelaJGeysB (2016) Explaining Voter Turnout: A Meta-Analysis of National and Subnational Elections. Electoral Studies42: 264–275.
13.
CarenN (2007) Big City, Big Turnout? Electoral Participation in American Cities. Journal of Urban Affairs29 (1): 31–46.
14.
CivettiniAJRedlawskDP (2009) Voters, Emotions, and Memory. Political Psychology, 30(1): 125–151.
CraigSCNiemiRGSilverGE (1990) Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political behavior, 12(3): 289–314.
17.
DaleAStraussA (2009) Don’t Forget to Vote: Text Message Reminders as Mobilization Tool. American Journal of Political Science53 (4): 787–804.
18.
FDA (2023) Adjusting for Covariates in Randomized Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biological Products: Guidance for Industry. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/148910/download
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.
French BourgeoisLde la SablonnièreR (2023) Realigning Individual Behavior with Societal Values: The Role of Planning in Injunctive-Norm Interventions Aimed at Increasing Voter Turnout. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy23 (1): 155–173.
21.
García BedollaLMichelsonMR (2012) Mobilizing inclusion: Transforming the electorate through get-out-the-vote campaigns. Yale University Press.
22.
GarziaDFerreira da SilvaF (2022) Negativity and Political Behavior: A Theoretical Framework for the Analysis of Negative Voting in Contemporary Democracies. Political Studies Review20 (2): 282–291.
23.
GerberASGreenDP (2000) The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. American Political Science Review94 (3): 653–663.
24.
GerberASGreenDP (2012) Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation. New York: W.W. Norton.
25.
GerberASGreenDPLarimerCW (2008) Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment. American Political Science Review102 (1): 33–48.
26.
GerberASGreenDPShacharR (2003) Voting May Be Habit-Forming: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment. American Journal of Political Science47 (3): 540–550.
27.
GeysB (2006) Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-Level Research. Electoral Studies25 (4): 637–663.
28.
GreenDPGerberAS (2015) Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout, 3rd edn. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
29.
GreenDPGerberAS (2008) Get out the vote: How to increase voter turnout2nd edn.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
30.
HajnalZLLewisPG (2003) Municipal Institutions and Voter Turnout in Local Elections. Urban Affairs Review38 (5): 645–668.
31.
HolmanMR (2014) Sex and the City: Female Leaders and Spending on Social Welfare Programs in U.S. Municipalities. Journal of Urban Affairs36 (4): 701–715.
32.
HuberGAGerberASBiggersDR, et al. (2022) Can Raising the Stakes of Election Outcomes Increase Participation? Results from a Large-Scale Field Experiment in Local Elections. British Journal of Political Science52 (4): 1635–1650.
33.
ImbensGWRubinDB (2015) Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
JenkeLHuettelSA (2016) Issues or Identity? Cognitive Foundations of Voter Choice. Trends in Cognitive Sciences20 (11): 794–804.
35.
JenkeLHuettelSA (2020) Voter preferences reflect a competition between policy and identity. Frontiers in psychology, 11: 566020.
36.
KaniovskiSMuellerDC (2006) Community Size, Heterogeneity, and Voter Turnout. Public Choice129 (3–4): 399–415.
37.
KahnemanD (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Girou
38.
LappieJMarschallM (2018) Place and Participation in Local Elections. Political Geography64: 33–42.
39.
LeeflangPSSpringPNVan DoornJ, et al. (2013) Identifying the Direct Mail-Prone Consumer. Journal of Global Scholars of Marketing Science23 (2): 175–195.
40.
LeRouxKFusiFBrownAG (2020) Assessing E-Government Capacity to Increase Voter Participation: Evidence from the U.S. Government Information Quarterly37 (3): 101483.
41.
LeRouxKLangerJPlotnerS (2022) Nonprofit Messaging and the 2020 Election: Findings from a Nonpartisan Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment. Nonprofit Policy Forum14 (2): 157–183.
42.
LevinePAbromowitzD (2023) Challenges Reported by Candidates for Local Office. State and Local Government Review55 (2): 139–152.
MalhotraNMichelsonMRValenzuelaAA (2012) Emails from Official Sources Can Increase Turnout. Quarterly Journal of Political Science7 (3): 321–332.
45.
MannCBArceneauxKNickersonDW (2020) Do negatively framed messages motivate political participation? Evidence from four field experiments. American Politics Research, 48(1): 3–21.
46.
MannCBMayhewG (2015) Voter Mobilization Meets E-Government: Turnout and Voting by Mail from Online or Paper Ballot Request. Journal of Political Marketing14 (4): 352–380.
47.
MillerPReynoldsRSingerM (2017) Mobilizing the Young Vote: Direct Mail Voter Guides in the 2015 Chicago Mayoral Election. Research & Politics4 (4). DOI: 10.1177/2053168017738410.
48.
NickersonDW (2008) Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments. American Political Science Review102 (1): 49–57.
49.
PanagopoulosC (2013) Extrinsic Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Voting. Journal of Politics75 (1): 266–280.
RamirezR (2005) Giving voice to Latino voters: A field experiment on the effectiveness of a national nonpartisan mobilization effort. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science601(1): 66–84.
52.
RochaRRTolbertCJBowenDC, et al. (2010) Race and Turnout: Does Descriptive Representation in State Legislatures Increase Minority Voting?Political Research Quarterly63 (4): 890–907.
SchraufnagelS (2023) Voting Restrictions and Public Health: An Analysis of State Variation 1996–2020. State and Local Government Review56 (1): 60–75.
55.
SchurLShieldsTKruseD, et al. (2002) Enabling Democracy: Disability and Voter Turnout. Political Research Quarterly55 (1): 167–190.
56.
SilagadzeNChristensenHSSirénR, et al. (2023) Perceptions of Inequality and Political Participation: The Moderating Role of Ideology. Political Studies Review21 (2): 285–305.
57.
SunsteinCR (2015a) The Ethics of Nudging. Yale Journal on Regulation32: 413–450.
58.
SunsteinCR (2015b) Nudges Do Not Undermine Human Agency. Journal of Consumer Policy38: 207–210.
59.
SunsteinCR (2016a) People Prefer System-2 Nudges (kind Of). Duke Law Journal66: 121–167.
60.
SunsteinCR (2016b) The Ethics of Influence: Government in the Age of Behavioral Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
61.
SunsteinCR (2017) Human Agency and Behavioral Economics: Nudging Fast and Slow. Cham: Springer.
62.
SunsteinCR (2023) Eight Misconceptions about Nudges. Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 23–20, 13February. Rochester, NY: SSRN.
63.
TownsleyJ (2025) Is It Worth Door-Knocking? Evidence from a United Kingdom-Based Get-Out-the-Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment on the Effect of Party Leaflets and Canvass Visits on Voter Turnout. Political Science Research and Methods13 (1): 21–35.
VillanovaDBodapatiAVPuccinelliNM, et al. (2021) Retailer Marketing Communications in the Digital Age: Getting the Right Message to the Right Shopper at the Right Time. Journal of Retailing97 (1): 116–132.
