The effects of precinct-level canvassing on voter behavior
GH Kramer - Public Opinion Quarterly, 1970 - academic.oup.com
GH Kramer
Public Opinion Quarterly, 1970•academic.oup.comHow do the millions of hours spent in each election on door-to-door canvassing affect voters'
behavior? Data from the SRC election surveys of 1952. 1956, 1960, and 1964 are analyzed
by maximum-likelihood methods to estimate the effects of such canvassing. Personal contact
is found to be effective in increasing turnout, but not effective in influencing voter preferences
for presidential, congressional, or local-office candidates. Repeated contacts are also found
to be relatively ineffective.
behavior? Data from the SRC election surveys of 1952. 1956, 1960, and 1964 are analyzed
by maximum-likelihood methods to estimate the effects of such canvassing. Personal contact
is found to be effective in increasing turnout, but not effective in influencing voter preferences
for presidential, congressional, or local-office candidates. Repeated contacts are also found
to be relatively ineffective.
Abstract
How do the millions of hours spent in each election on door-to-door canvassing affect voters' behavior? Data from the SRC election surveys of 1952. 1956, 1960, and 1964 are analyzed by maximum-likelihood methods to estimate the effects of such canvassing. Personal contact is found to be effective in increasing turnout, but not effective in influencing voter preferences for presidential, congressional, or local-office candidates. Repeated contacts are also found to be relatively ineffective.