Talk:Get out the vote

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Murat39e. Peer reviewers: Lubnasebastian, Jurgen.Prambs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

In my recent changes, I attempt to remove some negative bias, especially since it was better placed in the discussion on negative campaigning.

I also remove the use of the term "partisan" as many campaigns are non-partisan (but trying to elect a specific candidate or support a specific cause.)

World view tag

This article is clearly written with a United States and possibly Canadian bias. Needs to be reviewed to reflect the possibilities for the procedure in other contexts. Which is why I placed the {{worldview}} tag. Ansell 05:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Weird turn of phrase

Why use a non-idiomatic phrase like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.146.179 (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

"0.5% difference"

I have again removed the statement that "a well-organized effort probably gains a candidate on the order of half a percentage point". I suspect the reference is to a particular type of election in a particular country. Political campaigns take place in all democratic countries and might range from a US presidential election with 100+m voters to a local authority election with maybe 500. So there will be considerable variation in the value of GOTV. As it stands this reference is unclear and potentially misleading, and should certainly not be in the lead of the article. asnac (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

• Find a better reference then. Removal of cited material based on your gut feeling is not how it's done on Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 03:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • It's evidently based on an American study - and article has already been tagged for its regional bias - so I've relocated it from the lead to another section. asnac (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Expanding the GOTV in practice section

The "Field Experiments" study cited for the 2-3% turnout increase figure does not, in fact, say 2-3% is the correct increased turnout amount. It says "Analyzing the effects of 71 canvassing treatments reveals a weighted average CACE of 2.536, with a 95% confidence interval of (1.817, 3.255). In some ways this estimate understates the influence of canvassing because many of the studies target low propensity voters. For example, the Michelson (2006) study found that canvassing increased turnout among young Latino voters from 7.0% to 9.4%. Given a contact rate of 50%, the estimated CACE is 4.8 percentage points. This statistically significant increase would be even more impressive in percentage terms given the low base rate of voting."

Note the word "understates". In other words, the weighted average understated the influence of canvassing because many of the studies were not of average voters. If they had been, the canvassing turnout increase would have been higher. The authors then cited the Michelson study as an example: 4.8%. This is in line with the 2016 overview I cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tannline (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

There's more and more info available on GOTV, so I think what I wrote will help bring it up to date. See below.

The guide to grassroots elections Get Out the Vote determined that GOTV efforts yielded one vote every 15 door knocks ($31 dollars per vote), 189 pieces of direct mail ($91 dollars per vote), or 35 phone calls ($35 dollars per vote).

Other studies have found that GOTV methods contribute little to none to voter turnout. One field experiment found that GOTV phone calls were largely ineffective, and that ease of access to polling locations had the largest impact on voter turnout.

There is also the argument that GOTV targets a more affluent demographic, which is already more likely to vote. Less politically engaged demographic and socioeconomic groups are sometimes neglected in GOTV efforts.

GOTV is often most effective when potential voters are told to do so "because others will ask" Voters will then go to the polls as a means of fulfilling perceived societal expectations. Paradoxically, informing voters that turnout is expecting to be high was found to increase actual voter turnout, while predicting lower turnouts actually resulted in less voters. Murat39e (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Get out the vote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141018102110/http://gotv.research.yale.edu:80/ to http://gotv.research.yale.edu/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)