Mobilizing different types of voters: The influence of campaign intensity on turnout in direct democratic votes

Abstract

A well-established body of literature links voter turnout to political campaigns. In this view, intensive campaigns increase the perceived salience of a decision, fostering information-seeking and, ultimately, turnout. The existing literature has also advanced our understanding of how direct democratic institutions influence turnout in elections. Yet we still know little about whether and to what extent campaign efforts influence voter turnout in direct democratic votes, and we know even less about who is mobilized. We claim that campaign intensity has differentiated effects across voters, depending on voters' participation profile. To test this claim we use a rich dataset of official turnout data covering more than 40 direct democratic votes in Switzerland. The results support our claim. While intensive political campaigns overall foster citizens to turn out to vote, they do so especially for "selective" (or "intermittent") voters, who need to decide anew at each ballot whether to turn out or not. Interestingly, we also find that frequent abstainers are not immune from campaign effects, and get almost as strongly mobilized as selective voters in highly intensive campaigns.

‘This time I’m (not) voting’: A comprehensive overview of campaign factors influencing turnout at European Parliament elections

“…We hence echo the observation made in other electoral contexts (e.g. Arceneaux and Nickerson, 2009; Goldberg et al., 2019a) that mobilization efforts differ for citizens in the EU.…”

“…It is reasonable that specific campaign efforts do not exert additional (positive) effects for respondents who are already certain that they will vote (e.g. Goldberg et al., 2019a; Hillygus, 2005). Similarly, for those respondents who have decided on an abstention early on, campaign effects may not provide a sufficient boost (e.g.…”

“…The literature has mostly documented positive effects of campaign exposure and engagement for turnout, but has also shown that these effects differ across countries and types of election. Furthermore, research from the United States and Switzerland shows that campaign efforts have differential effects for those citizens who are in doubt about whether or not to participate in an election (or referendum) in comparison to definite voters or abstainers (Arceneaux and Nickerson, 2009; Goldberg et al., 2019a; Hillygus, 2005). No studies have investigated the influence of a multi-faceted campaign environment in the context of EP elections, and it is still an unresolved question whether the different activities and modes of exposure equally and positively contribute to electoral participation on the EU level.…”

“…We further assess the effects of these campaign efforts for different parts of the electorate, in acknowledgment of the fact that some individuals are easier to mobilize than others – for example because citizens will turn out anyway or abstain from voting irrespective of the number of campaign contacts they have (e.g. Arceneaux and Nickerson, 2009; Goldberg et al., 2019a). Only by simultaneously accounting for different activities and assessing the effects for different voter groups can we understand the mobilizing effects of citizens’ exposure to and engagement with campaigns preceding EP elections.…”

Disentangling Referendums and Direct Democracy: A Defence of the Systemic Approach to Popular Vote Processes

“…To be sure, the literature usually distinguishes four main institutional popular vote designs -mandatory referendums, top-down referendums, facultative referendums, and popular initiatives (Altman 2011, 11;Setälä 2006, 705- -that can be implemented in various ways (el- Wakil and Cheneval 2018). From this perspective, the involvement of representatives, which in turn varies depending on whether popular votes are triggered in a bottom-up or top-down way and on specific campaign regulations, has been shown to impact voters' levels of knowledge on issues put to popular votes (see e.g., Sciarini and Trechsel 1996;Reidy and Suiter 2015;Goldberg, Lanz, and Sciarini 2019). And while empirical evidence does suggest that minority oppression is more common in jurisdictions that allow for popular initiatives (Dyck 2016; Lewis 2013), 9 other popular vote processes might actually empower minorities (Chambers 2018;Cheneval and el-Wakil 2018).…”