It is election season and pundits are lamenting poor voter
turn-out [1]. Could change management increase
voter turn-out? There is ample evidence that it would.
In this article, we will review the three standard
techniques to change behavior and how they may be applied to voting.
To change behavior, we need to make the behavior
1.
Easy:
Provide support to make behavior easier to perform
2.
Compelling:
Make behavior more meaningful for participant
3.
Social:
Engage social network to encourage behavior
1.
Make
it easier
If voting was a retail transaction, it would go bankrupt.
What if Starbucks required registration, provided few places to buy, and then
required customers to wait in a long line. Once customers reached the barista
they needed to prove they were Starbucks customers. To increase voting we
should borrow from the retail masters.
Voting That Fits Voter’s Habits
The part of the brain dedicated to planning in advance is
the smallest portion and tires easily. Pre-registration relies on this weakest
cognitive tool and forces voters to think about voting months in advance.
Voting for many is decided closer to election day. A handful of states have eliminated registration or allow same day registration. States with Election Day Registration have consistently higher turnout than states that require hyper-organization. [2]
More evidence on the impact of registration is the fact that
those who do not move and hence do not need to re-register, vote more often.
Pre-registering voters is a technique used in Germany
and Finland. Compared to other European countries, they enjoy higher than
average turn-out. Pre-registering works because it is a form of “opt-in”; a
classic change management tool that was popularized by Thaler and Sunstein in
their book Nudge.
Convenient as Starbucks
Voting centers that are located where people already visit
increased voting by 10%. This is analogous to placing an ATM at the grocery
store or a Starbucks every few miles. Much of the increase is for voters who
would normally stay home. [3]
A longer voting period also increases convenience and
reduces peak load so lines are shorter.
Church groups and other advocacy groups are grass roots
efforts to help citizens with the process of voting.
It is also an example of social
support which will be discussed later.
2.
Increase
Meaning
My Vote Counts
Indicators show that when an election is deemed important,
voting increases. Presidential elections on average have higher turnout than
other elections. An election that is close generates higher turn-out than a
lopsided race. Swing states turn-out more heavily.
Similarly advocacy groups encourage voter turn-out by
focusing voters on an issue where their vote could sway the outcome.
To further increase the value of each citizen’s vote, many
have advocated eliminating the electoral college and counting the popular vote
directly.
Rational allocation of districts is another tactic to increase
participation. We need to avoid gerrymandering which increases the odds
significantly for one party or the other and distorts the voting process. [4]
3.
Add Social
Support
Role Models Rule
Parental voting patterns impact their offspring. Married
voters vote more than singles due in some part to social support.
Peer Pressure Works
The Swiss have experimented with social support by signaling
who has avoided their civic duty. This works well in villages where citizens
already enjoy strong social bonds. Sharing information about non-voting
citizens, appeared to shame the malcontents into voting. [5]
Although the Swiss approach does not fit our culture, its
use of peer signaling has merits.
Feedback Loop
Apple used signaling when it first introduced its iPod. Apple’s
unique style of earbuds signaled to others that the wearer was a hip Apple
user. The earbuds became a positive feedback loop by increasing visibility which
led to more users which then further increased visibility to attract even more
users.
Analogous to earbuds, the “I voted” sticker could be used to
signal that voting is a social norm. Stickers have been handed out after voting
for years, but unless the individual voted early and wore with pride, then his
fellow citizens would not benefit from his good example. Switching from
stickers to social network badges that would accrue for each election would
make voters more visible. [6]
Tear Down Barriers
For me, voting is already easy, compelling and socially
supported. I vote using an absentee ballot. Since I move infrequently, I rarely
need to bother with registration. As a naturalized citizen I feel a special
honor to vote. Discussion of the issues with
friends and family reinforces my commitment.
But what about those voters whose circumstances make voting
difficult? We can use these simple and low-cost change management techniques to
“Get Out The Vote!”
Notes:
1. Surprise
– Voting is Holding Steady, Not Declining.
The impression that voter turnout
is declining is erroneous. Most voter
turn-out calculations use number of voters compared to the total population of
adults to calculate a percentage such as 52%.
But total adult population also
includes ineligible voters such as felons and noncitizens. Ineligible voters grew from 2 to 10% during
the period when voting supposedly declined.
When Dr. Michael McDonald, a
professor of public affairs at George Mason University, used eligible voters
rather than total adult population, he found that voter turn-out held
steady. Read more at Dr. McDonald's website >>
Although the decline is over-hyped,
we can still do better than 55 to 60% of eligible voters.
2. Increase in voting where pre-registering is
eliminated
As documented by Brennan Center for Justice in its Voting
Rights paper, “Voting rights advocates have long praised Election Day Registration
(EDR). Because
it has existed in some states for nearly forty years, there is a substantial
record of its benefits. States with EDR have consistently had higher turnout than
states without, and the top five states for voter turnout in 2008 were all EDR
states. There is also evidence that EDR
specifically increases turnout among young voters.” Read the full report [PDF] >>
3. Voting
centers located conveniently increases participation. Read more at Science Daily >>
4. “Winner
take all” holds down voting
The winner take all of
presidential politics is making voters in many states feel disenfranchised
leading to less voting. In addition, like-minded individuals living in the same
areas (blue states on the coasts and red states in the heartland and south)
reduces turn-out since the majority is likely to win. Read more at The New York Times >>
5. The
Swiss experiment to use peer pressure to encourage voting. Read the paper [PDF] >>
In addition, U.S. researchers did
a similar experiment with good results. Read the article at Political Science Mag >>
No comments:
Post a Comment