Suchergebnisse

Using a combination of randomized experiments and survey data, this article presents evidence relevant to two debates in political science. The first is between those scholars who favor an online processing model of how American citizens process political information before elections, and those scholars who favor a memory-based model of opinion formation. The second debate is between students of voting behavior who favor the use of randomized experiments and those who favor public opinion surveys. The article examines the results of get-out-the-vote campaigns by three community organizations during California's 2008 general election. Shortly after the election, individuals were surveyed about whether they had been contacted. Eligible voters who did not recall having been contacted but who, in fact, had been contacted were more likely to vote than were the respondents in the control group. This finding is consistent with the online processing model. Moreover, the individuals who completed the post-election survey were more likely to vote than was typical of the larger pool of participants in the field experiments. The unrepresentativeness of the survey respondents leads to inflated assessments of the effectiveness of the get-out-the-vote campaigns, and highlights the challenge of constructing representative samples for election surveys. Adapted from the source document.

Political trust is an important determinant of individual political behavior and government effectiveness and an indication of the health of civil society. Declining trust among Americans is well documented. Surveys of Latino immigrants indicate that they are also cynical about government,but it is not clear whether this distrust takes the same form or is distinctive due to a racialized outlook and experience. This essay analyzes a set of 56 interviews with California immigrants of Latino (mostly Mexican) descent. The results indicate that some Latino immigrants distrust the governmentbecause they believe the government is racist, suggesting they have acculturated into an ethnic minority subculture. But others are more like Anglo Americans in their cynicism, citing concerns such as lying politicians; this suggests they have socially incorporated into the American mainstream. Still other responses are less predictable, the result of a nuanced acculturation process. These findings reflect the multiple identities adopted by immigrants and the multiple borders they face as they adaptto life in the United States.

Objectives. The objectives of this article are to test whether Latino canvassers are more effective than non‐Latino canvassers at increasing voter turnout among young Latinos, and to test whether young Latinos are more receptive to a mobilization message that stresses ethnic group solidarity or one that emphasizes civic duty.Methods. A randomized field experiment, conducted in Fresno, California in the fall of 2002, is the basis for the results reported here.Results. Young Latino voters targeted by Latino canvassers are more likely to be contacted. However, once contacted, Latinos reached by non‐Latino canvassers are just as likely to turn out to vote as are those reached by non‐Latino canvassers. The mobilization effect is particularly strong among voters who have participated in at least one prior election.Conclusions. The importance of using Latino canvassers to get out the Latino vote is confirmed, but should not be overemphasized. More importantly, this experiment demonstrates that door‐to‐door canvassing can have a substantively large and statistically significant effect on turnout among young Latinos, a demographic group often overlooked by parties and campaigns.