The Voter Gravity staff is on the road again. While we spend most of our time on laptops and smartphones engaging with clients, we appreciate opportunities to meet many face-to-face. Election season is in full swing and it’s good to see conservative political candidates reaching their voters and doing great work.

Here’s a heads up on two upcoming events and one awesome resource:

Voter Gravity at State Policy Network Annual Meeting, Sept. 23-26

Google’s Chief Innovation Evangelist and Voter Gravity board member Michele Weslander-Quaid and Voter Gravity CEO Ned Ryun are set to speak at the “Creating a Culture of Innovation” panel hosted by Voter Gravity at the SPN Annual Meeting in Denver, CO. Join us on Thursday, Sept. 25, from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. to hear how to create a culture of innovation and utilize the power of data and technology to lead positive change in the areas of messaging, policy advancement and fundraising. Click here for more info. Also stop by the Voter Gravity booth in the exhibit hall to say hi to Ned!

Voter Gravity at DC TechDay, Oct. 2

We’re looking forward to exhibiting with 150+ DC Startups at DC TechDay on Oct. 2 from 10 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the National Building Museum. DC TechDay brings together a great pool of tech enthusiasts looking to celebrate emerging venture. Attendance is free. In DC? Drop by! dctechday.com

New Download: Twitter Elections Guide

This month Twitter published a helpful 137-page guide for elected officials and candidates that details the do’s and don’ts of how to effectively use Twitter. Access it here.

Is paying between $7-$19 dollars per vote too much? Not when you compare it to the $60 per vote that campaigns pay for direct mailings. When you send people to campaign door-to-door, it averages out to $15 per vote if you pay them $10 per hour. Of course, if they volunteer, it doesn’t cost you anything. This is one of the reasons why voter canvassing is the most tried, true and effective way to gain support as a campaign. In an in depth piece exploring the effectiveness of voter canvassing, Assistant Professor of Political Science at The University of Alabama Dr. George Hawley referenced several fascinating studies done by Green and Gerber, the preeminent scholars on campaign techniques. He notes:

“They estimated that face-to-face voter mobilization increases voter turnout by 53 percent among those canvassed in a local election. These results are congruent with older studies, such as those conducted by Rosenstone and Hansen and Verba, Schlozman, and Brady. In their analysis of all the major studies conducted on voter canvassing, Green and Gerber found that the overwhelming majority of all research on the subject indicates that voter canvassing boosts turnout. Based on their thorough examination of all the relevant research, they concluded that one additional vote is generated for every fourteen voters that canvassers contact. In a tight race, effective voter contact can make the difference between victory and defeat. As they noted in the conclusion of a 2003 study of canvassing in local elections (which concluded that as few as twelve face-to-face contacts with voters were necessary to earn an additional vote), at a large scale, voter canvassing can have an impressive effect and be worth the expense.”

This means that if you pay canvassers $10 per hour and they travel in pairs; making 8 contacts per hour, you will be paying that $15 per vote. Read the full paper for more insight on face-to-face campaigning: In The Trenches: What Republican Operatives Need to Know About Voter Canvassing.

An innovative study in 2004 revealed just how much political parties, partisan media, and non-profit groups combine efforts when it comes to fundraising. Koger, Masket, and Noel created 50 false identities and from those names made donations to different political organizations. They then tracked each identity.

Continue reading →

A Voter Gravity client ran a petition using SurveyMonkey. He wanted to add all email addresses collected with the petition to his email list in MailChimp. He also wanted to make sure he had a record in Voter Gravity of each individual that signed the petition, so that he could easily organize and categorize them.

It’s a fact of life: politics can get dirty. Issue, policy and personal attacks are not uncommon. What strategies work in responding to negative attacks from your opponent?

In a Voter Gravity white paper titled Mailbox Metrics: The Data-Driven Impact of Campaign Direct Mail, Dr. George Hawley, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama, analyzed and compiled research on the direct mail and its effects on campaigns. In his research he came across some fascinating information connecting direct mail strategy and negative campaigning:

Pfau et al. found that a well-timed and orchestrated direct mail campaign can decrease the persuasiveness of an attack campaign on a candidate.Specifically, they found that direct mail can “inoculate” a potential voter against potentially-damaging attacks. If a candidate knows that his or her opponent is going to raise specific issues and make specific attacks, it may be in the candidate’s best interest to address these issues first via direct mail, and present the information in the most favorable light possible. Inoculation techniques furthermore seem to be effective whether they are targeted at people who already agree with a position or argument, those who are neutral, or those who oppose a position or argument.

Direct mail is often used in many different ways throughout a campaign, but has not been proven to make a difference in regards to GOTV. Using direct mail to deflect an attack campaign attacks is actually one of the effective ways to use mail.

For more findings on the effectiveness of political direct mail, read Dr. Hawley’s report here:Mailbox Metrics: The Data-Driven Impact of Campaign Direct Mail.

We all know that there is a ton going on around the clock in the ethereal world that is the internet; but have you ever wondered just how much is actually happening? These stats give us a glimpse into how much we do online (whether it’s productive activity is TBD) in just 60 seconds.

Continue reading →

Independent voters might seem like a daunting obstacle at first glance: they have their own political preferences that might not be able to be generalized, their voting might be unpredictable, and yet you so urgently need them for your campaign to be successful.  But are “independent” voters really all that people make them out to be? According to a recent paper by University of Alabama professor Dr. George Hawley that has been released by Voter Gravity, they are in fact more politically biased than most would think they are.  He writes:

It turns out that most of these so-called independents will admit to preferring one party over the other. The number of true independents is actually small, and always has been. More importantly, these independent “leaners” are often just as partisan as people who immediately admit to supporting a political party. In fact, they may be more dedicated to their party.

As such, it is important to understand the actual voting patterns from previous elections as well as other geographic or social data that might indicate how an independant might vote. This data can be found researched and ready to go in tech formats on the market from groups like Voter Gravity.  Is this data really important for determining who to target?  Dr. Hawley continues:

Affiliating with a party is one of the most important predictors of vote choice, but many of those who affiliate with the opposing party can be peeled away. Hillygus and Shields describe a category within the electorate called “persuadable voters.” These voters typically describe themselves as members of a political party, but they disagree with that party on one or more very important issue. Without a push, this issue is not likely going to sway their standing decision to vote for a particular party. However, if a campaign pushes that issue, either through a targeted message or more generally, such voters can be persuaded to abandon their party on Election Day.

Thus we can see that identifying and targeting independent voters will be critical to achieving success in your campaign. Check out Dr. Hawley’s full report here.

Every campaign guru will say a candidate needs to be knocking on doors to drum up support for your cause and help identify with voters, but does it really work? Furthermore, even if it does work, is it worth a candidate’s time? According to a paper by University of Alabama professor Dr. George Hawley released by Voter Gravity, it does make a big difference — actually, it can make THE difference. He writes:

Donald Green and Alan Gerber are the most renowned scholars of campaign techniques. In a 2000 study, they estimated that face-to-face voter mobilization increases voter turnout by 53 percent among those canvassed in a local election. These results are congruent with older studies, such as those conducted by Rosenstone and Hansen and Verba, Schlozman, and Brady In their analysis of all the major studies conducted on voter canvassing, Green and Gerber found that the overwhelming majority of all research on the subject indicates that voter canvassing boosts turnout. Based on their thorough examination of all the relevant research, they concluded that one additional vote is generated for every fourteen voters that canvassers contact. In a tight race, effective voter contact can make the difference between victory and defeat.

So, clearly it makes a noticeable, impactful difference. But does that mean that a candidate should spend time and money on canvassing instead of using volunteers and money in other areas? Not if part of your canvassing plan includes modern technology. Dr. Hawley explains that knocking on doors of voters who have already determined who they are going to vote for is, in fact, a waste of time. This is why the integration of voter identification and likely voting tendencies is so vital. He summarizes:

In a close race, effective canvassing can make the difference between victory and defeat. However, in a world of limited time, money, and volunteers, you need to target your canvassing efforts on those who can be persuaded to vote for your candidate. Because we are dealing with human beings, there is always a stochastic element – until we directly ask them, we do not know for sure if a person is planning to vote, for whom they plan to vote, or whether they can be persuaded. However, we now know enough about turnout and vote choice to make reasonable decisions regarding whom to target, and possess the technology to put that knowledge to work.

Please find Dr. Hawley’s full analysis and results here.

I know you’ve been waiting with bated breath for a Voter Gravity update. So now you can take a breath and I’ll catch you up on what we’ve been cooking up on this end.
 
First, we’ve been focused on some more under the hood stuff. We want the Voter Gravity system to move even faster and get ready for the real heavy part of the campaign season this fall. So I could describe to you everything we’ve been doing behind the scenes, but suffice it to say we’ve been focused on vroom, vroom speed. This includes massively streamline the process for opening new accounts.

Second, we’ve added some new features to our phone system by integrating with ShoutPoint. This means all your robo calls and townhalls are now integrated with the Voter Gravity database. There are two more cool features coming with the phone system by the end of the month, so stay tuned on that front.

Lastly, we’ve been working on our Knowledge Center and helping new clients get off the ground even faster with Voter Gravity and becoming more comfortable with the process. If you have suggestions on what you’d like to see in regards to videos or pro-tips, let us know.

With under a hundred days to go until Election Day 2014, we thought it would be helpful to re-emphasize some of the best GOTV practices going into the heart of the campaign season.

1. If you’re going to actually take the time to send people door-to-door, or you yourself are going door-to-door, remember that the most impactful part about the doors is actually knocking and having a live conversation with voters. To go door-to-door and just leave a door hanger or palm card is to essentially ruin a good walk and kill trees for no purpose. And while walking is good for you, please don’t let the trees have sacrificed in vain. Have live conversations with voters. Give and get information. We released a white paper on door-to-door work a few months back. If you’ve not basked in the brilliance of George Hawley, please do so now.
2. Please don’t think that robo calls are going to turn people out to vote. No, no, no. In fact in the last few weeks of a campaign, all you’re really doing is helping fund vendors’ retirement accounts and helping them buy really cool toys for themselves; and driving voters insane in the process, so not exactly a win-win. If you want to do robo calls, do IVRs (robo surveys) a good 6 weeks out from the election to help gather more data on voters.
3. Emphasize live calls if you’re going to use phones for GOTV. Stats show that it runs a strong second best to live conversations on doorsteps.
4. Use the data you collect at the doors or on the phones to be better informed moving forward. The data you collect from voters should educate and inform you on how a message is resonating, what demographics are responding the strongest, and even where you should be spending money, whether on mail or other messaging channels.
5. And last but not least, don’t kick voters’ cats. Or dogs. They don’t appreciate it and neither do the voters.
6. Oh, and a freebie(s): Don’t tear down opponent’s yard signs and don’t get all crazy in putting out yard signs at polling places the night before (pretty sure people showing up to vote actually already have a purpose for why they got in a car, drove however many miles, to go in and vote; I’ve never heard of people driving to a polling place undecided.)