It’s expensive to get someone to register to vote. The UK’s efforts to register disenfranchised voters, for example, cost on average £16 ($21) per voter, with the most expensive reaching £140 ($184).

Tactics typically involve sending letters to residents encouraging them to register. People who don’t register may then be targeted with door-to-door canvassing asking voters to register — the most expensive part.

So why do governments do it? According to research from Penn State University, engaging your citizens to participate means that they’re more likely to accept a likelihood, even if they disagree with it. Participation also lends itself to improved problem solving skills, with people having to consider multiple sides of an argument.

But getting people registered and voting needs to change with the times. Governments are now applying behavioural insights methods to transform the traditional ways of engaging with citizens. Here's four key tips:

Consider collective financial incentives

Behavioural insights research examines our impulses. Despite the minuscule chance of winning, risk-averse people still play the lottery. The BIT tapped into this intention (known as prospect theory) to power a 2015 intervention which tested the use of lotteries to increase registrations.

Residents in a London borough were offered one of three different options. The first was no lottery, as a control case. Two other streams of citizens were told that one resident would win £1,000 ($1,315) or £5,000 ($6,575) in a lottery if they registered before a certain date.

When the prize was £1,000, there was a 3% increase in registrations — which rose to 4% when the prize was upped to £5,000.

The BIT suggests that lotteries are a cost-effective way of incentivising voters, since individuals focus more on the size of the prize than their chances of winning.

Compared to traditional financial incentives, which are usually divided into small chunks between many people, the large potential pot on offer is a bigger draw even if ultimately the government is handing out less money overall.

“The potential gain from feeling or looking good can be a powerful incentive.”

Financial incentives can also be used in other, more negative, ways. Researchers measuring incentives to vote in the UK in 2019 found that only one incentive in their study worked: reminding people that anyone failing to register may be fined £80 ($105).

Participants who received the reminder were one and a half times more likely to register than those left unreminded.

Draw attention to how people view themselves

Another approach to consider is the use of subtle linguistic cues, drawing on the sense of self, which can increase the likelihood of a response.

A 2011 US study showed that citizens were more likely to go to the polls if they were asked by researchers “How important is it to you to be a voter in the upcoming election?” rather than “How important is it to you to vote in the upcoming election?”. Being “a voter”, a statement of your personal identity, was more powerful than just simply “voting”, an activity.

The BIT in 2015 reflected on the study: “We have a powerful desire to maintain a positive self-image.”

"The team removed any reference to language on participation or duty, like “your vote matters".

"Instead, they included a specific note on the front: “DO NOT IGNORE THIS ENVELOPE. If you live here, then legally you need to respond to this letter.”"

They continued: “the potential gain from feeling or looking good can be a powerful incentive.” They also noted that this desire to look good may not even be conscious.

Don’t fear strong language

In the UK, the electoral register collates the personal information of all those registered to vote in elections. Some demographics can more easily fall off the list: younger people, non-homeowners, certain ethnic minorities and lower earners. Forms are sent to each household to confirm the details of those living in the property.

Initially, over half of homes contacted did not return their forms. To increase response rates, the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT) partnered with the UK’s Electoral Commission.

Their most effective and informed intervention was a modified envelope. In the city of Hull, the envelope used was brown, with a local authority logo — the brown colour and the branding standing out as official among a sea of white envelopes.

The team removed any reference to language on participation or duty, like “your vote matters”, and instead included a specific note on the front: “DO NOT IGNORE THIS ENVELOPE. If you live here, then legally you need to respond to this letter.”

The team found it was particularly effective for households previously considered “hard to reach”. Response rates rose by a quarter as a result of the strengthening of the language used.

A change in tone like this could lead to cost savings. The team calculated that a local authority with 100,000 properties implementing this practice could save £5,000 ($6,575) per year.

Still use the phone, but don’t depend on it

Using SMS or other messages and phone calls to “nudge” citizens is a common way to apply behavioural insights. The tactic is often used before and after patients use health services to incentivise attendance and check for corruption.

And direct messages on smartphones can also have a huge effect on mobilising voters, as long as they’re targeted to the appropriate audience.

Researchers in Brazil turned to WhatsApp to deliver messages to voters, and found it led to substantial increases in turnout among young people. Candidates in the federal and state legislatures were approached to reach out to young voters aged 16-18 and the over-70s — the sections of Brazilian society where voting wasn’t compulsory.

Young people in the cities of Rio de Janeiro and Santa Catarina who received a WhatsApp message from a candidate were significantly more likely to vote by a staggering 76% in Rio and 44% in Santa Catarina. But it doesn’t work for every demographic — the same experiment with older voters was less effective.

And while the Brazilian study gives a very strong result, text messages don’t always demonstrate significant shifts. In the US in 2010, cold, untargeted messages to registered voters about an upcoming state election did increase participation, but only by about 1%.

While studies into the effectiveness of phone calls to increase participation show some impact, this again is not hugely significant. Before the 2008 presidential election in the US, unlikely voters received phone calls encouraging them to plan their visit to the polling station. For all those targeted, voting increased again by 1%.

Auckland Council, New Zealand dismissed the tactic of making phone calls, on the basis of studies in the US, where calls to hook voters had to compete with “annoying” telemarketing messages to cut through.

But bear in mind, traditional in-person canvassing is still proven to be very effective for engaging voters. A 2008 US study has shown that visiting a house to encourage someone to vote meant they were 9% more likely to do so.

There’s sometimes even a “social contagion” effect: housemates who didn’t personally answer the door to canvassers were around 6% more likely to vote as a result of the visit to their home. — Emma Sisk

[Photo credit: Unsplash]