The Cost of Convenience

• Published date: 01 December 2011
• Date: 01 December 2011
• Author: Elizabeth A. Bennion,David W. Nickerson
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912910382304

Political Research Quarterly
64(4) 858 –869
The Cost of Convenience:
© 2011 University of Utah
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
An Experiment Showing
DOI: 10.1177/1065912910382304
http://prq.sagepub.com
E-Mail Outreach Decreases
Voter Registration
Elizabeth A. Bennion1 and David W. Nickerson2
Abstract
Lower transaction costs have shifted voter registration activities online and away from traditional modes of outreach.
Downloading forms may impose higher transaction costs than traditional outreach for some people and thereby
decrease electoral participation. A randomized, controlled experiment tested this hypothesis by encouraging treat-
ment participants via e-mail to use online voter registration tools. The treatment group was 0.3 percentage points
less likely to be registered to vote after the election. A follow-up experiment sent reminders via text message to
randomly selected people who had downloaded registration forms. The treatment increased rates of registration
by 4 percentage points, suggesting that reminders can ameliorate many of the negative effects of directing people to
downloadable online registration forms.
Keywords
voter registration, e-mail, online, mobilization, civic participation, experiment, procrastination
Despite the easing of voter registration laws since the pas-
Voter registration is a necessary step to electoral par-
sage of the Voting Rights Act in 1965, voter registration
ticipation. Among people registered to vote, roughly 90
remains a bureaucratic hurdle to participating in elections.
percent vote in presidential elections and 75 percent vote
Traditionally in most states,1 to participate in an election a
in midterm elections. Just over 60 percent of nonvoters in
person must track down a voter registration form in a gov-
the United States are eligible citizens who are not regis-
ernment office or come into contact with an organization
tered to vote. Many of these unregistered persons would
conducting a voter registration drive. Once obtained, the
not vote if given the opportunity, but the bureaucratic
form can typically be returned immediately to the same
burden surely prevents some people from voting (Verba,
office or volunteer that provided the registration form. Voter
Schlozman, and Brady 2004). As a result, Hanmer (2009)
registration forms that can be downloaded from the Internet
estimates that overall rates of voter turnout would be 3 to
sidestep the logistical problem of obtaining the form, but
8 percentage points higher were registration requirements
they can isolate the individual and place the responsibility of
abolished. This logic impels civic organizations, political
returning the form to county officials solely on the shoulders
campaigns, and government agencies to conduct registra-
of the voter. In effect, online forms exchange a logistical cost
tion drives to increase rates of registration.
(e.g., locating the form) for a psychic cost (e.g., remembering
Recently the efficacy of mobilization campaigns
to turn in the form).
has been studied experimentally by political scientists
The use of online registration forms is becoming increas-
(e.g., Gerber and Green 2000; Alvarez, Hopkins, and
ingly common. In 2008, Rock the Vote alone had 2.6 million
individuals fill out and download registration forms (Rock
1Indiana University–South Bend, South Bend, IN, USA
the Vote 2009) and roughly 76 percent of the people down-
2University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN, USA
loading the forms were registered to vote on Election Day.
Whether the logistical benefits of online registration out-
Corresponding Author:
David W. Nickerson, Department of Political Science,
weigh the costs is an important question. This article reports
217 O’Shaughnessy Hall, University of Notre Dame,
the results of a field experiment where this shift in costs
Notre Dame, IN 46556, USA
resulted in a decrease in voter registration rates.
E-mail: dnickers@nd.edu

---

Bennion and Nickerson
859
Sinclair 2010; Michelson, Bedolla, and McConnell
decrease rates of registration by 0.5 percentage points,
2009; Arceneaux and Kolodny 2009), but such work
while e-mails from university administrators have essen-
always focuses on voter turnout among those regis-
tially no effect on registration (–0.1 percentage points).
tered rather than examining how to register eligible
Combined with the results from previous experiments,
citizens. Another interesting aspect of these studies of
these experiments lead to the conclusion that e-mail
turnout is the general assumption that voter outreach
directing people to online registration tools slightly
can only mobilize and never demobilize.2 This unidi-
decrease overall rates of voter registration.
rectional assumption may be unproblematic for turn-
To verify that procrastination (i.e., failing to remem-
out in elections where voters must vote by showing up
ber or otherwise follow through on submitting complete
at the polls, but may not apply to registration where an
registration forms) was a contributing factor in this
individual has multiple avenues of registration, each
decrease in turnout, a follow-up experiment was con-
with their own costs.3
ducted during the 2008 primaries by Rock the Vote. Peo-
A previously published experiment concerning voter
ple who had downloaded registration forms, had opted to
registration found the experimental intervention (e-mail
receive text messages from Rock the Vote, and did not yet
messages) to decrease rates of voter registration (Nicker-
appear on the state list of registered voters were randomly
son 2007a),4 where the results nearly crossed the tradi-
assigned to receive a reminder to return the form or to a
tional 0.05 threshold for statistical significance but were
control group that received no further contact from Rock
dismissed by the author:
the Vote until after the registration deadline. These text
message reminders increased rates of voter registration
Psychological mechanisms by which e-mail
by 4 percentage points. This result suggests that online
deterred registration could be hypothesized, but
registration drives can be effective when coupled with
most would strain credulity. If e-mails were truly
active follow-up.
demobilizing, then campaigns should send e-mail
The article begins by describing the literature on Inter-
to the supporters of opponents in order to decrease
net campaigning and explaining our theory of competing
registration rates. That such a strategy would be
costs to voter registration. A set of experiments studying
ridiculed affirms the implausibility of the demobi-
the effectiveness of e-mail–based registration appeals is
lization interpretation of the data. The evidence
then described, followed by a discussion of the results. A
does not permit confidently rejecting the null
follow-up experiment designed to see whether simple
hypothesis of no effect. (Nickerson 2007a, 377)
reminders can correct the detected drop-off in registra-
tion is then presented. The article concludes by discuss-
However, this result could be caused by treatment par-
ing the generalizability of the findings and drawing two
ticipants intending to mail county clerks downloaded
specific policy implications.
registration forms and then bypassing alternative oppor-
tunities to register. That is, knowledge of available down-
Shifting Costs of Voting
loadable registration forms may induce procrastination.
If the participant then fails to submit the form, then
Much of the literature on the Internet and political mobi-
directing traffic to the online tool may have actually
lization has focused on the type of information made
prevented him or her from registering to vote.
available to voters (e.g., Druckman, Kifer, and Parkin
To test this hypothesis, a large field experiment involv-
2009; Druckman et al. 2010). Less attention has been
ing 259,130 participants was conducted during 2006 fed-
paid to how moving traditional campaign tactics online
eral midterm elections to determine whether online tools
alters the transaction costs involved in political participa-
can be used to increase rates of voter registration. The
tion. The effects of online transactions have been studied
participants were students drawn from twenty-six public
extensively by economists, who generally conclude that
universities where administrators agreed to participate in
“the Internet can be conceptualized as a giant machine for
the experiment. Since access to Web sites like Rock the
reducing transaction costs” (Kenney and Curry 2001, p. 64).
Vote cannot be randomized, participants were randomly
The Internet reduces costs by connecting buyers and sell-
assigned to receive e-mails encouraging voter registra-
ers without requiring physical presence, facilitating
tion and linking to the Rock the Vote or Secretary of State
access to information and research, and eliminating the
registration tools. After the registration deadline, students
need for paper and transcription, thereby avoiding errors
in the treatment and control groups at each campus were
and delay, reducing communication time, and allowing
matched against a national voter file using both the home
for monitoring of transactions, delivery, and inventory
and school address of each student. We find that e-mails
(Lucking-Reiley and Spulber 2001). For example, Lehman
from peer leaders (e.g., student government...