Stephan Shakespeare: The importance of person-to-person contact in politics

Mathematicians have found a pattern in the distribution of votes that casts new light on a key driver of voting behaviour. Their research is across hundreds of elections in many countries over several decades, but in spite of great variations in the political and economic conditions prevailing for each of them, what they have found appears to be an underlying pattern. Interestingly, it holds irrespective of when the election was held, suggesting that recent changes in technology, media, and campaigning techniques haven’t greatly changed the basics.

Unfortunately I haven’t seen the research itself, only the write-up in the New Scientist (13th October 2007), and so I can’t say whether these bold claims stack up. Their conclusion appears to be that the most important driver of what proportion of total votes a candidate (as opposed to the popularity of a party and its policies) gets is person-to-person contact. A candidate tries to convince other people to vote for him or her. Those who have become convinced then influence those with whom they come into contact.

Pretty obvious, one might say, and certainly it is an assumption behind many successful campaigning techniques, especially ones used in the US in recent elections. But in one sense maybe it isn’t so obvious: many political strategists have concentrated almost wholly on the ‘air war’, that is, messages via the media.

The authors of this study wouldn’t deny the importance of the candidate’s communication in the media – this is after all the nearest that most of the population will ever come to contact with the candidate. However, this research should remind us that we neglect traditional personal contact campaigns at our peril.

As I say, I haven’t had access to the original research, so I’m merely surmising, but this does seem to me to underline an argument I’ve made before, that we over-value the role of the media, and under-value the creation of true advocacy relationships.

One mistake is to believe that public opinion is driven top-down by the commentariat. It’s a point that the commentariat often make, not surprisingly, because people always think their own work is terribly important. But as a pollster (another profession which is often tempted to proclaim too confidently, as I’m about to do here) I see no evidence that the media leads opinion. Yes, the media has the powerful role of providing the platform, and that is highly influential. But people rarely think the things that the media would like them to think. People’s opinions derive much more from the own experiences, their own relationships, the conversations they have, their own peculiar take on the events that pass before them, than they do from anything they read. For example, the celebrity-heroes that people trust are often not the ones that the media expected. Newspapers are more often chasing the views of their readers than changing them. Public opinion on a whole range of topics stubbornly refuses to budge along the lines that editorials promote.

If the authors of this research are right (and I have understood correctly) then much more attention should be paid to creating direct contact between candidates and the population. In practical terms that must mainly be done through the advocacy of the ‘connectors’, that is, the party enthusiasts. This is why it was so dangerous for the Conservative Party high command to appear to disdain their own members.

People are more likely to be persuaded to vote Conservative (or Labour or Liberal Democrat) by the advocacy of people they personally know. Therefore if we are not to have a ‘core vote’ strategy (and I certainly agree we should not), then we must nevertheless have a campaigning strategy that turns our core supporters from grumblers to enthusiasts. If you aim to make territorial gains, to create a broader coalition, then you must build out from your foundations. Rejuvenating the party as a proper party - that is, as a two-way flow of ideas, information, and voice - is an unattractive proposition these days, but it matters. I think it's why the Liberal Democrats actually fulfil that old cliche of 'punching above their weight', the reason they always do better in real campaigns than their opinion-poll numbers suggest. It's worth imitating.

Comments

[Treacle]

Amen to every word

Politics is about people, which is why where we have strong Associations where we campaign on the doorstep and in the street we hold on when the bad times come.

On the other hand:

Ribble Valley, Eastleigh, Christchurch, Guildford:

Camvassing, surveys, communication, relevance - and talking to the media abour 1379th on my list....

[Tony Makara]

I agree that some people prefer the personal touch but there are others who look at the national picture and it is those who have to be reached by air, web and printed press. There is certainly no doubt that voters appreciate a candidate who pounds the pavements but there are also the cynics too who say "We only see you at election time" so any sort of personal approach needs to be followed up regularly by party activists. Little things like the promise of a complaints hotline would enhance a candidates standing. People certainly feel more engaged if they have a right of redress.

[tart]

COMMENT OVERRIDDEN FOR IRRELEVANCE

[Moral minority]

Christchurch?

Chris Chope has increased his majority massively since winning the seat back from the Lib Dems! His majority is now 15,559 compared to 2165 in 1997. The Lib Dems won the 1993 by-election with a majority of 16,427.

Treacle should be praising Chris's fantastic electoral performance in Christchurch!! It is due to very hard work throughout each Parliamentary term.

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

And Nigel Evens has a big majority in Ribble Valley!

[Don Hoyle]

At the risk of tipping off our opponents, who read this blog, apparently, this is correct.

I won my first borough council election by 6 votes. I stood against a Labour activist, ex-MK Mayor whose name, to this day, adorns the "This council chamber was opened by..." plaque in MK Civic Offices; I always reckon that it was the half-dozen people I spoke to in the street, and handing them leaflets, that did it.

[CJ]

Interesting that such an important subject receives only 5 comments on its thread - is that a record?

Or does it mean that everyone agrees and they're out knocking doors and not in, like me, looking at this site?

[Jameel]

Looks interesting. Do you have the name and authors of the paper?