Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-5c569c448b-t6r6x Total loading time: 0.335 Render date: 2022-07-01T16:18:49.660Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true

Parties are No Civic Charities: Voter Contact and the Changing Partisan Composition of the Electorate*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 November 2016


In contrast to non-partisan Get Out the Vote (GOTV) campaigns, political parties do not aim to increase turnout across the board. Instead, their principal goal is to affect the outcome of an election in their favor. To find out how they realize this aim, we carried out a randomized field experiment to evaluate the effect of campaign visits and leafleting by Conservative Party canvassers on turnout in a marginal English Parliamentary constituency during the 2014 European and Local Elections. Commonly-used campaign interventions, leaflets and door-knocks, changed the composition of the electorate in favor of the Conservative Party, but did not increase turnout overall. Supporters of rival parties, particularly Labour self-identifiers, were significantly less likely to mobilize in response to Conservative campaign contact than Conservative supporters. In contrast to the non-partisan GOTV literature, we show that impersonal campaign leaflets were as effective in shaping the local electorate in the Conservative’s favor as personal visits. The common practice of contacting all constituents irrespective of their party preferences was effective as a campaign tactic, but had no civic benefits in the aggregate.

Original Articles
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

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.)



Florian Foos, Postdoctoral Researcher Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zurich ( Peter John, Professor of Political Science and Public Policy, Department of Political Science, University College London, The Rubin Building, 29/31 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9QU ( The authors are very grateful to Jacob Rees-Mogg MP for agreeing to host the study in North East Somerset, and to the constituency workers and canvassers for delivering the intervention and collecting the data so efficiently. The article was first presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago, April 2015, Panel 23-6 ‘What Works Best? Field Experiments Comparing Mobilization Tactics.’ We thank the participants, in particular the discussant, Lisa Bryant, for their comments. The authors also thank Don Green for his valuable comments on an earlier draft of the paper and Alex Coppock for advice on the statistical analysis. The authors are also grateful to three anonymous reviewers and the editor for their close attention to the manuscript. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit


Adams, William C., and Smith, Dennis J.. 1980. ‘Effects of Telephone Canvassing on Turnout and Preferences: A Field Experiment’. Public Opinion Quarterly 44(3):389395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin. 2007. ‘I’m Asking for Your Support: The Effects of Personally Delivered Campaign Messages on Voting Decisions and Opinion Formation’. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1:4365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arceneaux, Kevin, and Kolodny, Robin. 2009. ‘Educating the Least Informed: Group Endorsements in a Grassroots Campaign’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):755770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, Michael A., Daniel J. Hopkins, and Todd Rogers. 2016. “Unresponsive and Unpersuaded: The Unintended Consequences of a Voter Persuasion Effort.” Political Behavior 38(3):713746. Accessed 5 November 2016.Google Scholar
Barton, Jared, Castillo, Marco, and Petrie, Ragan. 2014. ‘What Persuades Voters? A Field Experiment on Political Campaigning’. The Economic Journal 124(574):293326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard, Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix, and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Midway reprint ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coppock, Alexander. 2015. ‘12 Things You Need to Know About Multiple Comparisons’. EGAP. Available at, accessed 5 November 2016.Google Scholar
Dale, Allison, and Strauss, Aaron. 2009. ‘Don’t Forget to Vote: Text Message Reminders as a Mobilization Tool’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):787804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doherty, David, and Adler, E. Scott. 2014. ‘The Persuasive Effects of Partisan Campaign Mailers’. Political Research Quarterly 59:203210.Google Scholar
Enos, Ryan D., Fowler, Anthony, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2014. ‘Increasing Inequality: The Effect of GOTV Mobilization on the Composition of the Electorate’. The Journal of Politics 76(1):273288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 1976. ‘The Voting Decision: Instrumental and Expressive Aspects’. The Journal of Politics 38:390413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foos, Florian. 2015. ‘Bringing the Party Back in: Mobilization and Persuasion in Constituency Election Campaigns’. PhD Thesis, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Foos, Florian, and de Rooij, Eline A.. 2016. ‘The Role of Partisan Cues in Voter Mobilization Campaigns: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment’. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Gerber, Alan. 2004. ‘Does Campaign Spending Work?: Field Experiments Provide Evidence and Suggest New Theory’. American Behavioral Scientist 47(5):541574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan, Green, Donald, and Larimer, Christopher. 2008. ‘Social Pressure and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment’. American Political Science Review 102(1):3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald P. 2004. ‘Results from a Partisan Phone and Canvassing Mobilization Campaign in Pennsylvania Primary Election’. Institution for Social and Policy Studies, Yale University. Available at Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2008. Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., Aronow, Peter M., and McGrath, Mary C.. 2013. ‘Field Experiments and the Study of Voter Turnout’. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 23(1):2748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hillygus, Sunshine D., and Shields, Todd G.. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1970. Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Thomas M., and McClurg, Scott D.. 2005. ‘The Mobilization of Core Supporters: Campaigns, Turnout and Electoral Composition in United States Presidential Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 49(4):689703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and Arceneaux, Kevin. 2007. ‘Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising’. American Journal of Political Science 51(4):961981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendall, Chad, Tomasso Nannicini, and Francesco Trebbi (2014). How do voters respond to information? Evidence from a randomized campaign. The American Economic Review 105(1):322353.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul Felix, Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1948. The Peoples Choice: How the Voter Makes Up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign . New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What they Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNulty, John E. 2005. ‘Phone-Based GOTV – What’s on the Line? Field Experiments With Varied Partisan Components, 2002-2003’. The Science of Voter Mobilization. Special Editors: Donald P. Green and Alan S. Gerber’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601:4165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2005. ‘Partisan Mobilization Using Volunteer Phone Banks and Door Hangers’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 601(1):1027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2006. ‘Forget Me Not? The Importance of Timing in Voter Mobilization’. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. August 31-September 2 2006, Pennsylvania Convention Center, Philadelphia, PA.Google Scholar
Nickerson, David W. 2007. ‘Quality is Job One: Volunteer and Professional Phone Calls’. American Journal of Political Science 51(2):269282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, David W., Friedrichs, Ryan D., and King, David C.. 2006. ‘Partisan Mobilization Campaigns in the Field: Results from a Statewide Turnout Experiment in Michigan’. Political Research Quarterly 59(1):8597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyhan, Brendan, and Reifler, Jason. 2010. ‘When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions’. Political Behavior 32:303330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pons, Vincent. 2014. ‘The Determinants of Political Behavior : Evidence from Three Randomized Field Experiments’. PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Pons, Vincent. 2016. Will a Five-Minute Discussion Change Your Mind? Harvard Business School Working Paper 16-079: Google Scholar
Pons, Vincent, and Liegey, Guillaume. 2016. ‘Increasing the Electoral Participation of Immigrants. Experimental Evidence from France’. Harvard Business School Working Paper 16-094. Available at Google Scholar
Ramiro, Luis, Morales, Laura, and Jimenez-Buedo, Maria. 2012. ‘The Effects of Party Mobilization on Electoral Results. An Experimental Study of the 2011 Spanish Local Elections’. Paper prepared for the IPSA conference, July.Google Scholar
Rogers, Todd, Fox, Craig R., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2012. ‘Rethinking Why People Vote: Voting as Dynamic Social Expression’. In Shafir Eldar (ed.). The Behavioral Foundations of Policy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shaw, Daron R., Green, Donald P., Gimpel, James G., and Gerber, Alan S.. 2012. ‘Do Robotic Calls from Credible Sources Influence Voter Turnout or Vote Choice? Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment’. Journal of Political Marketing 11:231245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shi, Ying. 2015. ‘Cross-Cutting Messages and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Same-Sex Marriage Amendment’. Political Communication (forthcoming) 10.1080/10584609.2015.2015.1076091.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Foos and John Dataset

Supplementary material: PDF

Foos and John supplementary material

Foos and John supplementary material 1

Download Foos and John supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 195 KB
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure 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 saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ 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.

Parties are No Civic Charities: Voter Contact and the Changing Partisan Composition of the Electorate*
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Parties are No Civic Charities: Voter Contact and the Changing Partisan Composition of the Electorate*
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save 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 used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Parties are No Civic Charities: Voter Contact and the Changing Partisan Composition of the Electorate*
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? *