IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/8945.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Does Misinformation Demobilize the Electorate? Measuring the Impact of Alleged 'Robocalls' in the 2011 Canadian Election

Author

Listed:
  • Kessler, Anke
  • Cornwall, Tom

Abstract

The paper presents evidence on the effect of voter demobilization in the context of the Canadian 2011 federal election. Voters in 27 ridings (as of February 26, 2012) allegedly received automated phone calls (`robocalls') that either contained misleading information about the location of their polling station, or were harassing in nature, claiming to originate from a particular candidate in the contest for local Member of Parliament. We use within-riding variation in turnout and vote--share for each party to study how turnout changed from the 2008 to the 2011 election as a function of the predominant party affiliation of voters at a particular polling station. We show that those polling stations with predominantly non-conservative voters experienced a decline in voter turnout from 2008 to 2011, and that this effect was larger in ridings that were allegedly targeted by the fraudulent phone calls. The results thus indicate a statistically significant effect of the alleged demobilization efforts: in those ridings where allegations of robocalls emerged, turnout was an estimated 3 percentage points lower on average. This reduction in turnout translates into roughly 2,500 eligible (registered) voters that did not go to the polls. The 95%-confidence interval gives a lower bound estimate of 1,000 fewer votes cast in robocall ridings, which is still a sizable effect.

Suggested Citation

  • Kessler, Anke & Cornwall, Tom, 2012. "Does Misinformation Demobilize the Electorate? Measuring the Impact of Alleged 'Robocalls' in the 2011 Canadian Election," CEPR Discussion Papers 8945, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:8945
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP8945
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ansolabehere, Stephen D. & Iyengar, Shanto & Simon, Adam, 1999. "Replicating Experiments Using Aggregate and Survey Data: The Case of Negative Advertising and Turnout," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 901-909, December.
    2. Lau, Richard R. & Sigelman, Lee & Heldman, Caroline & Babbitt, Paul, 1999. "The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(4), pages 851-875, December.
    3. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Iyengar, Shanto & Simon, Adam & Valentino, Nicholas, 1994. "Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 88(4), pages 829-838, December.
    4. Alan Gerber & Donald Green, 2000. "The effects of canvassing, direct mail, and telephone contact on voter turnout: A field experiment," Natural Field Experiments 00248, The Field Experiments Website.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Brett Gordon & Mitchell Lovett & Ron Shachar & Kevin Arceneaux & Sridhar Moorthy & Michael Peress & Akshay Rao & Subrata Sen & David Soberman & Oleg Urminsky, 2012. "Marketing and politics: Models, behavior, and policy implications," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 391-403, June.
    2. Vincenzo Galasso & Massimo Morelli & Tommaso Nannicini & Piero Stanig, 2022. "Fighting Populism on Its Own Turf: Experimental Evidence," CESifo Working Paper Series 9789, CESifo.
    3. Seerat Sohal & Harsandaldeep Kaur, 2019. "Communicating with Voters on YouTube: Content Analysis of the Relationship Between Advertisement Message Characteristics and Viewers’ Responses," Management and Labour Studies, XLRI Jamshedpur, School of Business Management & Human Resources, vol. 44(1), pages 17-35, February.
    4. Raphaël Soubeyran, 2009. "Contest with attack and defense: does negative campaigning increase or decrease voter turnout?," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(3), pages 337-353, March.
    5. Ruben Enikolopov & Maria Petrova & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2011. "Media and Political Persuasion: Evidence from Russia," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(7), pages 3253-3285, December.
    6. Nunnari, Salvatore & Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2020. "Positive Spillovers from Negative Campaigning," CEPR Discussion Papers 14312, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Alessandro Nai, 2015. "The Maze and the Mirror: Voting Correctly in Direct Democracy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 96(2), pages 465-486, June.
    8. Massimiliano Landi & Chun Seng Yip, 2006. "Campaign Tactics and Citizens’ Electoral Decisions," Macroeconomics Working Papers 22462, East Asian Bureau of Economic Research.
    9. Brett R. Gordon & Wesley R. Hartmann, 2013. "Advertising Effects in Presidential Elections," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(1), pages 19-35, June.
    10. Mitchell J. Lovett, 2019. "Empirical Research on Political Marketing: a Selected Review," Customer Needs and Solutions, Springer;Institute for Sustainable Innovation and Growth (iSIG), vol. 6(3), pages 49-56, December.
    11. Kevin Morris, 2021. "Welcome Home—Now Vote! Voting Rights Restoration and Postsupervision Participation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(1), pages 140-153, January.
    12. Danilo P. Souza & Marcos Y. Nakaguma, 2017. "Determinants and Effects of Negative Advertising in Politics," Working Papers, Department of Economics 2017_25, University of São Paulo (FEA-USP).
    13. Joshua Clinton & John Lapinski, 2004. "Targeted advertising and voter turnout: An experimental study of the 2000 presidential election," Natural Field Experiments 00226, The Field Experiments Website.
    14. Mijeong Baek, 2009. "A Comparative Analysis of Political Communication Systems and Voter Turnout," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 376-393, April.
    15. Enrique García-Viñuela & Ignacio Jurado & Pedro Riera, 2018. "The effect of valence and ideology in campaign conversion: panel evidence from three Spanish general elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 155-179, April.
    16. Jeffrey Milyo & David M. Primo, 2005. "The Effects of Campaign Finance Laws on Turnout, 1950-2000," Working Papers 0516, Department of Economics, University of Missouri, revised 01 Feb 2006.
    17. Scott Feld & Samuel Merrill & Bernard Grofman, 2014. "Modeling the effects of changing issue salience in two-party competition," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 158(3), pages 465-482, March.
    18. Isaac Duerr & Thomas Knight & Lindsey Woodworth, 2019. "Evidence on the Effect of Political Platform Transparency on Partisan Voting," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 45(3), pages 331-349, June.
    19. Balles, Patrick, 2022. "Political Advertising by Special Interest Groups and Voter Participation: The Effects of Less Restrictive Campaign Finance Rules Following Citizens United," VfS Annual Conference 2022 (Basel): Big Data in Economics 264075, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    20. Yanwen Wang & Michael Lewis & David A. Schweidel, 2018. "A Border Strategy Analysis of Ad Source and Message Tone in Senatorial Campaigns," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(3), pages 333-355, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Canadian election 2011; Vote suppression; Voter demobilization; Voter turnout;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:8945. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.