• Home
  • Journals
    • American Political Science Review
    • Perspectives on Politics
    • PS: Political Science & Politics
    • Journal of Political Science Education
    • All Journals
  • Awards
  • Career Paths
  • People
  • Diversity & Inclusion
  • Teaching
    • APSA Educate
  • Tell Us Your Story!
News
  • [ May 19, 2022 ] Can Theatre Disrupt Biases in the US? Civic Education
  • [ May 19, 2022 ] Evaluating Muslim American Representation Journals
  • [ May 19, 2022 ] Meet 2022 RBSI Scholar, William Taylor, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
HomeCivic EngagementNudging Students to Register, Vote, and Engage in Politics

Nudging Students to Register, Vote, and Engage in Politics

November 8, 2019 Civic Engagement, RAISE the Vote, Student Voting, Voter Education and Engagement, Voting Comments Off on Nudging Students to Register, Vote, and Engage in Politics

Lori Kumler, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Mount Union, is a guest contributor for the RAISE the Vote Campaign. The views expressed in the posts and articles featured in the RAISE the Vote campaign are those of the authors and contributors alone and do not represent the views of APSA.

Nudging Students to Register, Vote, and Engage in Politics

by Lori Kumler, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Mount Union

Interviewer: Why did you vote?
Student: Because I can.

For many students, “Because I can.” is not a sufficient reason to vote. The question of how we can increase student political participation is both an important and complicated question—one for which universities and other organizations devote considerable amounts of time. A quick Internet search reveals several organizations devoted to increasing college students’ political participation: All in Campus Democracy Challenge, Campus Compact, and Students Learn Students Vote Coalition, among others. In grappling with the issue of student registration, voting, and political engagement at the University of Mount Union, a team of faculty, staff, and students took a new approach (for us) in the 2016 presidential election and found some success. Our efforts centered on fall presidential debate watch gatherings featuring several key elements: campus partnerships, attendance incentives targeting student groups with critical mass, student leadership, and voting/registration resources. Following the debates, we created permanent campus “stations” with voting, registration, and engagement resources.

In the following paragraphs, I will describe both of these efforts, but first, I turn briefly to a key theory behind these efforts.

In making resources available to students and providing opportunities for engagement, campuses create scaffolding to assist students in making the choice to vote—what Sunstein and Thaler (2008) termed “choice architecture.”[i] The structure that campuses provide to make choices, such as making voting resources readily available, building a culture of political participation, or providing transportation assistance to the polls, can aid students—“nudge” them—towards a decision to participate. In a parallel research study, I undertook with one of our outstanding undergraduate majors, we found that attending one of our sponsored debate watch events seemed to nudge a group of otherwise non-participators to register and vote.

Our efforts centered on fall presidential debate watch gatherings featuring several key elements: campus partnerships, attendance incentives targeting student groups with critical mass, student leadership, and voting/registration resources. Following the debates, we created permanent campus “stations” with voting, registration, and engagement resources.

During the summer and fall of 2016, Mount Union’s political science department partnered with several campus entities including student affairs, our center for public service, campus Greek organizations, and student-led campus media (newspaper and radio station). These partnerships enabled the University to successfully market and host debate events. For example, student affairs and the center for public service provided resources and information to communicate and host our events, including funding for refreshments and trivia prizes, student volunteers, and vital connections with Greek organizations. For years our office of student affairs had carefully cultivated a culture of leadership and community mindedness among Greek students that we successfully harnessed. It is important, however, to recognize that our relatively small student body likely made these types of cross-campus partnerships easier.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, we knew that to get numerous students to participate—and to reach a larger audience regarding voting, registration, and election engagement—we needed to entice a critical mass of students to attend.

Given the large proportion of our students who hold membership in Greek organizations (25%) and the inherent participatory orientation of Greek culture on campus, we focused our energies on Mount Union’s eight campus Greek groups. Financial incentives provided the essential thrust for Greek student participation; fraternities and sororities compete heatedly for philanthropy funding (money raised by each Greek organization that is then given to their charity). We announced that each Greek organization (women’s and men’s) with the highest participation at campus debate watch events would receive $150 towards their charity.

Figure 1. Students watching presidential debate at sponsored event, Fall 2016.

Third, we engaged student leaders across campus.

Importantly, political science students held many key leadership positions on campus including membership in Greek organizations and student government, as well as more obvious leadership of political science department clubs/societies such as Pi Sigma Alpha, Pre-law society, and Sigma Iota Rho. We pulled heavily from a key group of majors with multiple memberships and tasked these student leaders with opening the events, coordinating trivia questions and prizes, and disseminating information and forms on registration and absentee voting during the debates.

Finally, each debate watch event provided voting, registration, and engagement resources.

As simple as registering to vote may seem, it can be a substantial hurdle for many students (as evidenced by questions they ask when given forms to register). We opened each event with a student-led talk on civility and information on voter registration and absentee/vote by mail ballots. Student and faculty hosts passed out forms to attendees and answered questions. The event utilized two screens: one screen projecting the debate and a smaller screen beside it that projected an event Twitter feed. Student hosts manned the Twitter feed and reposted tweets from other feeds highlighting debate content. At various points during the debate, student leaders asked political trivia questions and handed out prizes for correct responses.

From here, we return to our main question: did we manage to increase student voting, registration, and engagement?

As expected, students who watched debates—at our events or elsewhere—were significantly more likely to register and vote, to discuss politics with others, and to feel competent in their political participation and knowledge.

Findings in our parallel study indicated both expected and unexpected results, ultimately suggesting that we did have an effect among students who otherwise might not have participated. As expected, students who watched debates—at our events or elsewhere—were significantly more likely to register and vote, to discuss politics with others, and to feel competent in their political participation and knowledge. Unsurprisingly, the types of students who like to watch debates also seem to be politically participatory. But what about those students who might not normally attend a debate, register, or vote? To understand whether we had reached those less politically inclined, we examined a specific group of students who met two criteria: those who watched only one debate and who watched at one of our sponsored events. We reasoned that these students most likely watched that debate in order to help their Greek organization win the incentive; in other words, these students were likely “nudged” to watch through our incentive structure and through peer expectations. We compared these students to what would have been their default status had they not participated in one event: they would have been non-participants. In a statistical comparison, these one-time, nudged debate watchers were significantly more likely to register to vote and to vote than were non-watchers. Furthermore, non-watchers actually rated themselves more participatory in Greek organization events than did one-time participants, so we cannot point to nudged watchers being inherently more participatory than non-watchers.

Figure 2. Civic corner installed in campus cafe.

As encouraged as we were, presidential elections—and the debates that accompany them—occur only once every four years. Registration, voting, and political participation should happen every year, and the latter two multiple times a year. How could we provide permanent choice architecture for student political engagement? We did so in the form of two campus kiosks in high traffic areas on campus. Termed “Civic Corner,” each one provides voter registration forms, absentee ballot request forms, blank postcards for students to write their representatives, and a fixed tablet to look up voting, registration, and government information. Completed postcards and forms can be placed in a locked mailing box with postage paid by the University. We have assisted our local high school and several other universities with putting together their own customized Civic Corners.

 

Universities undoubtedly play an important role in student political participation. Although there is likely no one “best” way to increase student participation, we are encouraged by our abilities to make it easier for students to decide to vote and to politically engage. Why should we make the effort? Because we can make the difference.


[i] Sunstein, Cass and Richard Thaler. 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Lori Kumler is an Associate Professor of Political Science and International Studies at the University of Mount Union. Her research interests include youth political participation, climate policy, and water policy. You may contact her at kumlerlm@mountunion.edu.

  • All in Campus Democracy Challenge
  • Campus Compact
  • Civic Corners
  • Pi Sigma Alpha
  • Students Learn Students Vote
Previous

Proposal for New Civic Engagement Organized Section of the American Political Science Association

Next

How Many Citations to Women Is “Enough”? Estimates of Gender Representation in Political Science

Related Articles

2020 Elections

How Colleges Can Help Overcome the National Poll Worker Shortage

September 3, 2020 2020 Elections, Civic Education, Civic Engagement, Student Voting, Voter Education and Engagement, Voter turnout, Voting Comments Off on How Colleges Can Help Overcome the National Poll Worker Shortage

By Andrew J. Seligsohn and Emily Bottie The opportunity for every American to vote in a free and fair election is at risk. In a typical year, 56% of poll workers (the people who staff […]

2020 Elections

Best Practices in Encouraging Student Registration, Voting, and Democratic Engagement

November 25, 2019 2020 Elections, Civic Engagement, RAISE the Vote Comments Off on Best Practices in Encouraging Student Registration, Voting, and Democratic Engagement

Jennifer J. Hora, Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Valparaiso University, and Kylie Schreiber Wolf, Valparaiso University, are guest contributors for the RAISE the Vote Campaign. The views expressed in the posts […]

Civic Engagement

Civics in the Lion’s Den: How the University of Arkansas – Fort Smith promotes civic engagement on campus

January 24, 2020 Civic Engagement, Democratic Engagement, RAISE the Vote, Student Registration, Student Voting 2

Williams Yamkam, assistant professor and Chair of the campus chapter of the American Democracy Project at  the University of Arkansas, is a guest contributor for the RAISE the Vote Campaign. The views expressed in the […]

Follow Us

  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube

Latest from APSA Journals

PS: Political Science and Politics

  • Evaluating Muslim American Representation

    May 19, 2022 0
    Evaluating Muslim American Representation By Nazita Lajevardi, Michigan State University and Liesel Spangler, Independent Scholar There is growing concern about the status of Muslims in the United States today. Anti-Muslim attitudes are pervasive (Kalkan, Layman, [...]
  • Creditable Civic Engagement? Aligning Work on Civic Activity with Faculty Incentives

    May 18, 2022 0
    Creditable Civic Engagement? Aligning Work on Civic Activity with Faculty Incentives By Kenneth W. Moffett and Laurie L. Rice, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville Less than two years into our time as assistant professors, our university’s [...]
  • Creating “Civic Sense”: Implementing Civic Engagement Courses in All Disciplines

    May 17, 2022 0
    Creating “Civic Sense”: Implementing Civic Engagement Courses in All Disciplines By Connie Jorgensen, Piedmont Virginia Community College In August 2020, Piedmont Virginia Community College (PVCC), a small community college in Charlottesville, Virginia, launched a five-year [...]

Recent Posts

  • Can Theatre Disrupt Biases in the US?
  • Evaluating Muslim American Representation
  • Meet 2022 RBSI Scholar, William Taylor, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Copyright © I American Political Science Association

 

Loading Comments...