registration

We talk a lot here about the importance of field work and peer to peer campaigning as the gold standard for getting people to the polls. But what exactly does that mean and why, in the day to day operations of a campaign is it important? How does it work and how does it fit into the internal workings of a well-run campaign?

If you've ever asked yourself these questions, you need to go read this piece at FiveThirtyEight.com explaining the importance of "voter contacts":

The other day, after Jonathan Martin wrote a piece that suggested John McCain’s field campaign was moving up closer into competition, we wrote that if Martin’s reporting is accurate with McCain's numbers, the state of the organizing race is now something more like a 35-to-1 edge for Obama rather than the 567-to-1 edge it held earlier in the summer. That’s not a field office edge or number of organizers edge, that’s the voter contacts edge, and both ratios are absurd.

Despite publishing an inside scoop on Obama’s Ohio numbers, our piece didn’t make much noise. But it’s not because the numbers aren’t shocking – they are – it’s because reporters and most people don’t really understand how to put voter contacts in context. Marc Ambinder will note that the Obama campaign has “preternatural self-confidence" about its strategy, but that confidence has to come from some type of hard data.

So let’s explain what voter contacts are, and what they are not. A voter contact occurs whenever someone from a campaign – organizer or volunteer – collects information from a voter about candidate preference or indecision, party preference (strong, lean, independent), or important issues to that voter in making the ultimate choice between candidates. A contact would ideally get an answer on all these questions to qualify as a contact, but even if the voter is only able or willing to give some meaningful data feedback, that counts. It takes about 4 attempts for every 1 contact, or roughly 25%.

Every bit of information gleaned helps the campaign make choices about how to target these voters for further messaging and GOTV. A strong Obama supporter will be targeted for volunteer work, early voting and/or GOTV. A strong McCain supporter will likely be ignored. A voter who describes herself as normally a Republican but who is undecided in this race and has health care as a critical issue will be targeted with persuasion mail pieces and/or person-to-person contacts about each candidate’s health care positions and voting records.

In case you missed it . . .

• A loophole in Ohio voting law that will allow for one-stop registration and voting this fall could be a huge boon to Obama (and young voters) in the state.
• Yesterday activists launched a campaign on Facebook against Evan Bayh as the potential VP pick called 100,000 Strong Against Evan Bayh. You would already know this if you were friends with Future Majority on Facebook.
• Huckabee youth group "Huck's Army" is now recruiting for McCain.
• Future Majority friend, activist, and videographer "noneck" Noel Hidalgo was deported from China this week for filming protests in Tiananmen Square. Noel and his crew might be following me around during the DNC convention producing video for FM. Let's hope it doesn't get quite so dicey in Denver.
• Jared Polis won his primary in Colorado and will go on to become the next Democratic congressman in his district. Not only that, he is the first openly gay candidate elected to congress and he may well be one of - if not the - youngest congressman in the country. I'm proud to have had Jared as a guest in our live blog series. Congrats to him and everyone who worked on the campaign.
• I'm sure I don't need to tell you this, but in the next few days, Barack Obama will announce his VP nominee via text message. This was a great idea on their part. They probably received thousands of cell phone numbers that can now be used to get out the vote in November via text.
• The New York Times has more on that in Garret Graff's op-ed about text messaging in the Presidential campaign.
• Blender asked the candidates about their favorite songs. John McCain - what happened to Usher? I thought he was your favorite artist?
• The Washington Post has the skinny on the hottest parties at the DNC.
• In Nevada, a 22 year old is running against an incumbent state Senator who has held office since 14 years before his challenger was born.
• The Wall Street Journal finally picked up on James Fowler's study of the Colbert Bump.
• Generation Vote has a put together a Youth policy platform.
• The Post Chronicle has some thoughts about what Obama's youth supporters need to do post-election day.
• Tom Friedman actually wrote a decent piece about McCain's energy policy.
• It's Getting Hot in Here explains the whole "Gang of 10" energy compromise and why it's a win for Obama.
• David Burstein of 18 in '08 explains the significance of just one vote.
• Medill reports that this may be the geekiest of all conventions.
• Wow:

Charles Franklin at Pollster.com has an interesting analysis (with graphs) of the relationship between age, voter turnout, and share of the electorate.

Franklin argues that even though younger voters are turning out in greater numbers, and were a huge factor in making Kerry competitive in '04, they still turn out less reliably, and it's in Obama's best interest to court the 58+ crowd. It's a pretty evenhanded analysis and you should go read it.

That said, I have two bones to pick.

First, as I've often noted, young or older voters isn't an either or proposition. It's about balance. How do you allocate resources to each group and what is the most effective way to do that. Peter Levine, the director of CIRCLE, has, I think, the correct response:

To be sure, older voters are prime targets. No one would advise a campaign otherwise. The question is where an extra dollar of campaign money makes the most difference. I would not be surprised if the marginal impact is actually greater among the young. Youth voting rose proportionally in 2004 and made a difference in the campaign. That happened despite very modest levels of investment in youth voting by the Democratic Party and nominee. It's quite plausible that each dollar spent on youth paid off quite nicely. (See our estimates of cost-effectiveness here; although unfortunately we cannot compare impact by age group.)

This is something I've heard a lot recently from folks - that registration and GOTV of youth is cheaper than persuasion of older voters (usually because it requires far few contacts). Something to think about.

My second bone to pick is that I think Franklin isn't seeing the forest for the trees. Even if there is movement between parties among older voters, we know that for the most part people's partisan habits generally stay fixed after their first few major elections. Dollars spent reaching out to young voters now builds those loyalties and lays the groundwork for future elections. It builds the party and helps break the mutual cycle of neglect we've seen between American youth and the political process. That's a positive long-term benefit not at all considered in Franklin's analysis.

It's not necessarily Franklin's fault. His website is dedicated to polling analysis of the current race - not long term party building. But it's something that should be discussed as a potential ROI on youth outreach. Too often polling analysis misses that bigger picture.

Fair Vote has an interesting piece up giving a good explanation as to why young voters turnout in lower numbers than older voters. The gist is this - young voters face more barriers to registration than do older voters and are thus registered at lower rates. Young voters who are registered turn out at comparable rates to older voters:

The Registration Gap
While young people are paying attention to this election and voting in record numbers, there is still a worry that come November, candidates who rely on the youth vote will be disappointed. It’s not because young people don’t want to vote, it’s because there are too many bureaucratic hurdles preventing youth participation. In 2004, 72% of the general population was registered to vote and 88.5% actually voted. In contrast, only 58% of 18 to 24-year-olds were registered, but surprisingly, over 81% showed up on Election Day. This shows that there is not really a participation gap, but there is definitely a registration gap.

There are likely four reasons why youth turnout in Iowa and New Hampshire has been so high:

1. Outreach by the campaigns - particularly the Obama campaign
2. Continued outreach by organizations outside the Democratic Party that has been ongoing since 2004.
3. A civic spirit and anger at the current state of the country among Millennials.

The fourth reason, and I think one of the untold stories about both the Iowa Caucuses and the New Hampshire Primary, is that both states practice EDR: Election Day Registration.

Election Day reports of record turnouts saw may precincts running out of ballots and demanding more from the SOS office, particularly in some college towns. The Progressive State Network is already reporting that in at least one precinct, EDR made up 10% of all voters. National studies by Demos and Election Line have shown that states with EDR have significantly higher turnout, and that EDR can be a huge boost to youth participation, increasing turnout by as much as 14% among younger voters. As I've written before, this is already the case in Iowa, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Maine, Montana, Idaho, Wisconsin and Wyoming. And there are active campaigns to implement EDR happening in California, Maryland, Michigan, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon and Vermont. If we're looking to expand the electorate and bring more people - particularly young people - into the political system, expanding EDR to all states is clearly a necessary first step.

This has been, and likely will continue to be, a battleground between those who want greater youth participation - and greater participation overall - and those who don't. Even as Iowa and New Hampshire are showing us the benefits of lowering barriers to participation, conservatives are working to raise more barriers to keep poor, elderly, black, and young people away from the polls. A voter ID law originating in Indiana is currently before the Supreme Court, and it is likely that the Roberts Court will uphold the law. As Steve Rosenfeld notes in a piece on AlterNet, it is laws like these that keep voter turnout rates so low among certain groups - particularly young people and african americans:

The real barrier to student voting in 2008 is not admonitions from the Clintons. It is a patchwork of state laws, according to Rosenfeld, that discourage student voting. Arizona, for instance, rejects out-of-state driver's licenses as an acceptable voter ID. The same is true in Indiana. New Hampshire requires students to register at local government offices. Virginia allows local election officials to decide if a dormitory qualifies as a "domicile." Some do, Rosenfeld said, and some do not. New Mexico restricts the number of voter registration forms one person may carry at a time. And Texas has new penalties for "improperly" helping people with absentee ballots.

Many of these laws -- particularly the voter ID laws and restrictions on registration drives -- have come into effect since the last presidential election. State legislatures, usually with Republican majorities, adopted the measures to combat "voter fraud," or what the GOP has said is people impersonating other voters for partisan benefit. What's notable about these laws is they affect an entire state electorate, while the problems provoking their adoption almost always concern a handful of individuals. That disparity has led many voting rights advocates to say these laws are meant to discourage Democratic voters.

These laws do little to make our elections more secure or reliable. Actual instances of voter fraud of the kind that could be prevented by stricter ID laws is virtually non-existent. All these laws do is limit the size of the electorate to keep certain groups out of the ballot box. I know it's hard to focus on anything other than the election during a Presidential cycle - and for all I know very little chance of implementing new voting laws until after November. But come January 2009, implementing EDR should be one of the primary goals of youth groups - non partisan and partisan alike. Higher turnout is the key to getting more power for young people in our political system.

MoveOn just announced the launch of a very useful new application: VotePoke

VotePoke allows you to double check your registration. If you're not registered, the website will get you registered using the Rock the Vote/CREDO online voter registration widget. In just a few clicks, you'll be all set.

Once you're done registering, the site prompts you to check your friends' voter registrations and invite them to register if they have not already done so.

This is the first presidential cycle in a long time where anyone outside of Iowa or New Hampshire will have a say in selecting the parties nominees. Super Tuesday is going to be huge this year. Voter Registration deadlines are rapidly approaching (if they haven't already passed). This is a great little tool to get as many people registered as possible in time for February 5th. Give it a try and spread the word.

Props to New Era Colorado for this funny PSA about vote-by-mail. Between this and the Pink Bunnies, young voter turnout should be high this year in the Mountain West. Feel the wrath . . .

Project Vote has released a new report on the final turnout breakdowns for the 2006 midterm elections: Representational Bias in the 2006 Electorate (pdf). The report contains some interesting, if not altogether unexpected, information about the breakdown of the youth electorate.

According to Project, Vote, despite ending a two decade decline (pdf) in turnout during midterm election, the youth vote came out at only half of its potential force in 2006, and that number itself hides the fact that voter registration among 18-29 year olds was still only at 51% of the eligible population.

The report also revealed some not unexpected disparities in voter turnout among different racial/ethnic groups. African American and Latino men continue to vote at much lower rates than their white counterparts, with women in those demographics performing substantially better. The most surprising piece of news was the extremely low rate at which young Asian American/Pacific Islander Americans voted - just 13% of eligible AA/PI young men came to the ballot box. That's pretty incredible since this is not typically a demographic that you hear a lot about, particularly in connection to voting rights and disparities at the ballot box. There is a whole sector of the youth electorate that apparently is not voting and has no one advocating on their behalf to increase their registration and turnout rates.

Project Vote's report illustrates the problem, but the organization is also working to push solutions. This weekend they published an op-ed on MyDD highlighting policy fixes such as election day registration, and laws criminalizing voter intimidation as just two of a number of policy proposals to solve this. Similar proposals have been endorsed by both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Currently, there is some form of Election Day Registration legislation working its way through the legislature in 21 different states, and estimates by Demos suggest that such legislation could boost youth turnout by as much as 14%. This seems like one of the surest ways to increase the power of young people in our political system, erase the representational biases that Project Vote has identified.

I recognize that election day registration is not necessarily the most sexy issue, especially compared to Global Warming, the war in Iraq, Darfur, or any number of global catastrophes that seem to be piling upon one another. Yet the results of successful EDR camapigns in other states are so apparent, that I can't help but wonder why we don't see more visible campaigns on the part of progressive youth organizations to support these simple voting reforms.

When hundreds of thousands of young latinos marched in the streets to protest HR4437, which would have established a border fence and instituted a variety of anti-migrant measures, their chant was "Today we march, tomorrow we vote."

In some respects this turned out to be true. The Hispanic vote swung dramatically towards the Democrats. Yet in others, it was less so. New voter registrations failed to materialize after the rallies.

A lack of political experience helps explain why the flow of new registrations has been halting. Some activists acknowledge that their groups have yet to master the nuances of voter registration drives -- a typically face-to-face task more complex than mobilizing a march. Others complain that political parties with the most to gain haven't financed registration efforts.

"Until the money is spent, 'Today We March, Tomorrow We Vote' will always just be a slogan," said Nativo Lopez, president of the California-based Mexican-American Political Association. "A million new registrations would cost about $10 million. Is anybody willing to pay that? I haven't seen it."

A new effort by Voto Por Tu Futuro (Vote 4 UR Future) seeks to change that. The effort is a partnership between Telemundo, mun2 - a youth focused channel - as well as political organizations like Rock the Vote, the US Hispanic Leadership Institute,and Democracia USA. Vote 4 UR Future appears to be primarily a media campaign, with PSAs and in-show advertisements directing young latinos to register to vote. In this, it would seem to most resemble MTV's Choose or Lose, a media blitz which funneled hundreds of thousands of young Americans to Rock the Vote's online voter registration tool in 2004.

In and of itself, this is a great first step. As NDN has noted, Hispanics are an important, growing portion of the electorate, and since the immigration debate they are voting Democratic by margins of 3-1. By 2050, they will be 1/4 of all voters, and they are already 18% of all Millennials. NDN also identifies young latinos, who are more acclimatized than their parents, as the political influencers in their households. Campaigns that reach out to and politicize these young voters make inroads to the larger Hispanic community.

Of course, this is only the first step. Registration is important, but it is all for naught if turnout doesn't increase as well. There is no indication as of yet as to what the campaigns GOTV strategy will be, though its partnership with Rock the Vote might give some indication. Research by Young Voter Strategies (now the research arm of Rock the Vote) show peer to peer outreach to be the most effective form of voter mobilization. We might see neighborhood canvasses in high-concentration hispanic neighborhoods led by one of the campaign's partner organizations.

Canvassing, however, is incredibly expensive. Especially for nonprofits with small budgets. The most likely form of GOTV we'll see is text message reminders in the weeks leading up to the election. When young 1st and 2nd generation americans rallied against punitive immigration legislation in 2006, those rallies were organized primarily by text message and social networking. According to a report by the New Politics Institute, Hispanic youth are twice as likely as whites to have a cell phone as their primary means of communication. Text Message GOTV seems a tactic ideally suited to turning out this community, and it is proven to be an effective GOTV tool. A recent study by Working Assets, Princeton, and the University of Michigan revealed that text message reminders are effective at bumping turnout by up to 5%, at the incredibly low cost of $1.56 per voter (compared to $30 for door to door canvasses). That's not a bad return on investment for cash-strapped non profits serving the Hispanic community.

For Democrats, this long overdue focus on Hispanics could potentially mean large gains in the South West, particularly in the swing state of New Mexico, where Hispanics already comprise over 30% of the electorate. How successful this campaign will be is an open question, nevertheless, this is an important development, and something to follow in the coming months.

• The MySpace Impact Channel just got a makeover. The political section of MySpace is now actually readable and usable.
• In other MySpace news, the site is now partnering with PayPal on what it is describing as a "viral" fundraising widget. The site says it will also be rolling out special profiles for political activists and organizations. Look out FaceBook and Think MTV.
• New America Foundation notes that despite the passage of the Cost of College Reduction Act, there is still a chance that the new Pell Grant maximum will not be fully funded if President Bush vetoes the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education Budget Bill. So far it's not clear whether or not the budget will pass with a veto proof majority.
• Over 500 organizations are now using the Rock the Vote voter registration Widget, including Tyra Banks, who has apparently registered 700 young women of color since she featured the widget in a show with Barack Obama.
• The Washington Post turns a critical eye on Obama's youth strategy.