Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-ttsf8 Total loading time: 0.185 Render date: 2021-07-27T10:57:55.526Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Nongovernmental Campaign Communication Providing Ballot Secrecy Assurances Increases Turnout: Results From Two Large-Scale Experiments*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Abstract

Doubts about the integrity of ballot secrecy persist and depress political participation among the American public. Prior experiments have shown that official communications directly addressing these doubts increase turnout among recently registered voters who had not previously voted, but evaluations of similar messages sent by nongovernmental campaigns have yielded only suggestive effects. We build on past research and analyze two large-scale field experiments where a private nonpartisan nonprofit group sought to increase turnout by emphasizing ballot secrecy assurances alongside a reminder to vote in a direct mail voter mobilization campaign during the 2014 midterm election. Our main finding is that a private group’s mailing increases turnout by about 1 percentage point among recently registered nonvoters. This finding is precisely estimated and robust across state political contexts, but is not statistically distinguishable from the effect of a standard voter mobilization appeal. Implications and directions for future research are discussed.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Alan S. Gerber (alan.gerber@yale.edu) and Gregory A. Huber (gregory.huber@yale.edu) are Professors in the Department of Political Science, Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, 77 Prospect Street, PO Box 208209, New Haven, CT 06520-8209. Albert H. Fang (albert.fang@yale.edu) and Andrew Gooch (andrew.gooch@yale.edu) are Postdoctoral Associates in the Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University, 77 Prospect Street, PO Box 208209, New Haven, CT 06520-8209. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2017.16

References

Bishop, Cortlandt F. 1893. History of Elections in the American Colonies. New York: Columbia College.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claassen, Ryan L., Magleby, David B., Monson, J. Quin, and Patterson, Kelly D.. 2008. ‘‘At Your Service’: Voter Evaluations of Poll Worker Performance’. American Politics Research 36:612634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N. 2001. ‘On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame?’. Journal of Politics 63(4):10411066.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, Eldon C. 1917. A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fredman, Lionel E. 1968. The Australian Ballot: The Story of an American Reform. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Biggers, Daniel R., and Hendry, David J.. 2014. ‘Ballot Secrecy Concerns and Voter Mobilization: New Experimental Evidence About Message Source, Context, and the Duration of Mobilization Effects’. American Politics Research 42(5):896923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, and Dowling, Conor M.. 2013a. ‘Is There a Secret Ballot? Ballot Secrecy Perceptions and Their Implications for Voting Behaviour’. British Journal of Political Science 41(1):77102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Hill, Seth J.. 2013b. ‘Do Perceptions of Ballot Secrecy Influence Turnout? Results from a Field Experiment’. American Journal of Political Science 57(3):537551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P., McGrath, Mary C., and Aronow, Peter M.. 2013. ‘Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout’. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 23(1):2748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovland, Carl I., and Weiss, Walter. 1951–1952. ‘The Influence of Source Credibility on Communication Effectiveness’. Public Opinion Quarterly 15:635650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. ‘Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections’. American Political Science Review 88(1):6376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, Michelson, Melissa R., and Valenzuela, Ali Adam. 2012. ‘Emails from Official Sources Can Increase Turnout’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 7(3):321332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wigmore, John H. 1889. The Australian Ballot System as Embodied in the Legislation of Various Countries. Boston, MA: C.C. Soule.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Gerber et al supplementary material

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Gerber et al supplementary material

Gerber et al supplementary material 1

Download Gerber et al supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 907 KB

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Nongovernmental Campaign Communication Providing Ballot Secrecy Assurances Increases Turnout: Results From Two Large-Scale Experiments*
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Nongovernmental Campaign Communication Providing Ballot Secrecy Assurances Increases Turnout: Results From Two Large-Scale Experiments*
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Nongovernmental Campaign Communication Providing Ballot Secrecy Assurances Increases Turnout: Results From Two Large-Scale Experiments*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *