Text Message Get-Out-the-Vote Campaigns
Stanford / Yale / IPA (Malhotra, Michelson, Rogers, Valenzuela and others) · California and multiple US states · 2011
Summary
Text message GOTV experiments revealed something important about civic communication: small, timely reminders produce reliable effects even when people already know about the election and intend to vote. The mechanism appears to be salience and friction reduction — the message makes voting feel immediate and provides information (polling place, hours) that removes a minor but real barrier. Effect sizes are small per contact but the channel is cheap enough that cost-per-vote compares favorably to labor-intensive methods like door-to-door canvassing. The pooled analysis across six studies was important: it established that the effect was not a one-site artifact but a consistent finding across different states, elections, and message formulations. Text GOTV is now among the most thoroughly replicated findings in political behavior research.
Research question
"Do personalized text message reminders increase voter turnout, and do they substitute for or complement other contact methods?"
Methodology
Intervention
Registered voters were randomly assigned to receive personalized text message reminders to vote in the days before an election, including their polling place address, the date and time, and a call to action. Multiple experiments varied message timing (1 day before, 2 days before), personalization level, and message content.
Assignment
Individual-level randomized controlled trial across multiple elections; random assignment from voter rolls in treatment and control groups
Sample size
Pooled across six studies: approximately 125,000 voters
Primary outcome
Verified voter turnout from official records
Effect estimate
Average effect: 0.3–0.9 percentage points across studies; effects are reliable but small per message; at scale (statewide campaigns reaching millions), effects translate to tens of thousands of additional votes
Decision
Results established text messaging as a cost-effective turnout tool (estimated $14–28 per additional vote vs. $29–35 for door-to-door canvassing); adopted widely by campaigns and civic organizations; SMS campaigns now standard in US election operations; subsequent research found diminishing returns with saturation and the importance of message personalization
Result
Positive
Average effect: 0.3–0.9 percentage points across studies; effects are reliable but small per message; at scale (statewide campaigns reaching millions), effects translate to tens of thousands of additional votes
Evidence strength
Strong
Randomized trial, replicated across multiple sites or studies.
Replication status
Replicated
Institution
Stanford / Yale / IPA (Malhotra, Michelson, Rogers, Valenzuela and others)
Location
California and multiple US states
Year
2011
Policy area
Voter Engagement
Mechanism
Information