« September 11, 2006 | Main | September 14, 2006 »
September 12, 2006
the other side
Yesterday, I was interviewed (briefly) on an Oklahoma radio station about youth voting. While I waited for the interview to begin, I listened to Rush Limbaugh--not my usual entertainment. Limbaugh facetiously argued that we should "celebrate" 9/11 the same way we recognize other national holidays, with fire sales, days at the beach, and shopping trips. It was actually kind of funny as a satire of materialism. Limbaugh ended by saying (in a rough paraphrase): If you don't like that idea, you should be even more angry that the left in this country always forgets about 9/11, except for once a year.
I could respond that I am on the political left and I am still grieving for my fellow human beings who were murdered on that day. Two cities that I love still bear its scars. Or I could note that I ride the Washington Metro for 90 minutes a day and fear being blown to bits by terrorists, a fate that is a lot less likely in red states.
But there's no point in responding. I mention Limbaugh's remarks only as a reminder to myself, as a proponent of deliberation, dialogue, cooperation, bipartisanship, etc. There is a conversation going on that's divisive to the point of abusive. It feels like an attack--not on my opinions--but on my fundamental identity as an American.
I generally don't like to focus on Limbaugh and his ilk, because there's a very worthwhile conversation to be had with America's many principled conservatives. Highlighting people like Limbaugh makes it easier to ignore the responsible right. Besides, there are leftists with minds as crabbed and closed as Limbaugh's. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to ignore him, because we might fool ourselves into thinking that everyone (despite their differences in values and perspectives) wants to coooperate, deliberate, and address common problems. In fact, some people--including some who have big audiences--just want to slash and burn.
Posted by peterlevine at 9:20 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
campaigning: what works
I just voted in the District of Columbia primary election, having been personally approached by at least five candidates (mostly at my Metro stop), called at home by three live volunteers, sent countless letters, and barraged with a dozen or more "robocalls" (automated phone messages). Which form of outreach works best?
With help from CIRCLE, Young Voter Strategies has released a publication called Young Voter Mobilization Tactics (pdf). The heart of the report is a list of findings about the cost-effectiveness of various forms of campaigning, when directed at people under 30. We are able to present estimates of the extra votes cast per dollar spent in various ways. These estimates are based on genuine field experiments, in which organizations contact a random group of potential voters and leave the rest carefully untouched. They then compare actual voter records to see the difference in turnout rates. They also keep track of expenses. By dividing the expenses by the difference in turnout rates, we can estimate the efficiency of each method.
Top findings:
1. Youth can be efficiently mobilized. Costs can be as low as $8/additional vote, which is very attractive: campaigns generally expect a much lower yield from broadcast advertisements.
2. The more personalized and interactive the contact, the more cost-effective it will be. Door-to-door campaigning is highly efficient. Robocalls are a complete waste of money. They certainly make me mad. I would almost vote against the candidates who purchased them, except that I fear dirty tricks. (Pretending to send a robocall on behalf of your opponent might work quite well.)
3. Despite repeated efforts to find more effective messages, it appears that the medium matters, not the message. For example, if you organize a phone bank, it doesn't matter whether your callers use positive or negative scripts, simply provide information, or invoke civic duty. I find this a strange result, because calling someone is a communicative act, and I would think that what is communicated would matter. But perhaps the very fact that people are contacted makes them feel valued and encourages them to vote.
We do this kind of research, by the way, as part of a larger strategy. We hope to convince parties and candidates that it pays to mobilize young people. When young people are contacted about elections, they are more likely to discuss issues, understand the system, and feel efficacious. Therefore, giving them more attention in elections should make them more active participants.
Posted by peterlevine at 8:32 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack