Burgers and Ballots

by Julia M. Klein
  • Comments (0)
  • Email
  • ShareThis
  • Print
  • Text Size A A A

When Americans go to the polls in November, it won’t be for the booze. That’s so 1874. But if you’re Donald P. Green, a professor of political science at Columbia, you might look at those nineteenth-century elections, in which balloting was a raucous activity often accompanied by live music and free-flowing whiskey, and ponder the connection between a party atmosphere and a voter turnout rate that regularly approached 80 percent. Then, because you’re a social scientist, you might conduct an experiment.

That’s what Green did during elections in 2005: he hosted family-friendly events that attracted around one hundred people in New Haven, Connecticut, and another hundred in Hooksett, New Hampshire, with hamburgers and cotton candy instead of public balloting and Old Forester. It was, as he admits, “a professor’s attempt to throw a party,” but the festivals drew on the notion that what gets voters to the polls is “connection — the feeling of being invited to the election.”

With the 2012 presidential election likely to be close, Republicans and Democrats will be making efforts to mobilize voters by, among other things, knocking on doors in crucial districts. That’s a testament to two of Green’s contributions to his field: the principle that the more personal a campaign contact, the more cost-effective in increasing turnout; and the idea that political scientists, like other social scientists, can test their hypotheses through experiments.

That principle took some time to develop. In the 1990s, Green and Alan S. Gerber, then colleagues in Yale’s political science department, were separately studying the effects of campaign spending on elections: specifically, how many campaign dollars did it take to produce a vote? But both researchers were frustrated by their own methodology.

“The problem was that incumbents who were vulnerable raised and spent more than those who weren’t vulnerable,” Green says from his Hudson Valley home office, surrounded by stacks of books and articles about campaigns and elections around the world. “Candidates who spent the most performed the worst — so it almost seemed as though the money hurt them.”

Challengers presented a different conundrum: did they do well because they spent a lot, or was the spending a marker for attributes like experience or charisma that attract both votes and money? “That’s where we were in 1998,” Green says. “We would grouse about the fact that, short of a randomized experiment, we might never know the answer. And then we said, ‘Maybe we should do a randomized experiment.’”

That insight led to a groundbreaking study of voter mobilization in New Haven, a seminal 2004 book (with a second edition in 2008) titled Get Out the Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout, and a new subfield of political science that applies scientific methodology to research questions. The latest Gerber-Green collaboration is Field Experiments: Design, Analysis, and Interpretation, published in May.

  • Email
  • ShareThis
  • Print
  • Recommend (74)
Log in with your UNI to post a comment

The best stories wherever you go on the Columbia Magazine App

Maybe next time