Background: individual calculus and its limits
Riker and Ordeshook (1968) explained turnout as a calculation of a vote's influence, its costs and a sense of civic duty. Yet such individual-centered models struggled to explain the paradox of voting and changes in turnout over time, so a perspective developed that focuses on an external factor: who asks people to participate.
The politics of mobilization
Rosenstone and Hansen (1993) attributed much of the decline in U.S. turnout after the 1960s to reduced mobilization by parties and social movements. They argued that politicians, to use limited resources efficiently, selectively mobilize people who are influential and likely to respond. Huckfeldt and Sprague (1992) showed that party canvassing interacts with local social structure, and Brady and colleagues (1999) found that recruiters target those most likely to say yes. Verba and colleagues' (1995) civic voluntarism model also includes recruitment networks as a key factor.
The rise of field experiments
Gerber and Green (2000) used a randomized field experiment in New Haven to compare door-to-door canvassing, phone calls and mail, reporting that face-to-face contact raised turnout most. Gerber and colleagues (2008) found in a large-scale experiment that social pressure mailings threatening to reveal neighbors' voting records sharply increased turnout. This work spread causal measurement of mobilization effects throughout political science.
FAQ
- What is voter mobilization theory in simple terms?
- People sometimes vote on their own, but they participate far more when a party or someone they know contacts them directly and asks them to vote.
- Which mobilization methods work best?
- Field experiments find that face-to-face conversations and messages using social pressure work much better than phone calls or ordinary mail.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Riker, W. H., & Ordeshook, P. C. (1968). A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review, 62(1), 25–42. The calculus of voting background.
- Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1992). Political parties and electoral mobilization: Political structure, social structure, and the party canvass. American Political Science Review, 86(1), 70–86. Party canvassing and social structure.
- Rosenstone, S. J., & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. Macmillan. The landmark book on mobilization.
- Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Harvard University Press. Resources, engagement and recruitment.
- Brady, H. E., Schlozman, K. L., & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93(1), 153–168. Selective recruitment of activists.
- Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94(3), 653–663. Field experiment on canvassing.
- Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48. Social pressure mailings boost turnout.