It’s a well-worn axiom that elections are won by “turnout”: the rate at which one’s supporters actually go to the polls and cast ballots. (The term also encompasses the associated mechanisms of getting them to do so: emails, text messages, door-knocking, TV ads, etc.) Separate from the project of convincing opponents or undecideds that you (or the candidate who employs you) is the best choice, turnout is the art and science of converting potential non-voters into actual voters.
And although the above may always be true, non-voters don’t get as much attention as they might. In a New York Times Magazine essay, Marcela Valdes seeks to remedy that. Drawing from the 2017 book “The American Nonvoter” by Lyn Ragsdale and Jerrold G. Rusk, Valdes finds relevant vote-motivating factors that resonate with today’s political ambiance. “Ragsdale and Rusk find that two things make ambivalent voters more inclined to action,” Valdes writes: “high contrast between the candidates and destabilizing national or international events like economic recessions, wars or the pandemic. When the world feels risky and the differences between the candidates are striking, decisions feel easier to make and the stakes of not voting feel higher. These conditions influence all voters, not just ambivalent ones, which may explain why turnout for presidential elections has improved since 1996, even as America’s polarization has increased, and why it leaped in 2020 to its highest point in more than a century.”
Worth noting, too, is that turnout operations are evolving with media-consumption habits. At Campaigns and Elections, Sean J. Miller quotes Democratic consultant Pili Tober as saying: “The reality is that the folks that we used to think we can find on local and Spanish media, now if you ask them, they get their news from TikTok—and it’s across generations. It’s not just young people.” Influencer marketing, another consultant tells Miller, will likely play a role in 2024.
No comments:
Post a Comment