Reddit mentions of The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns

Yanna Krupnikov (YK):Much of the research in political science focuses on the idea that people aren’t likely to change their minds Even though many scholars (see for example Lodge and Taber’s [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Rationalizing-Cambridge-Studies-Political-Psychology/dp/052117614X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478273033&sr=8-1&keywords=lodge+and+taber)) find this in many contexts, but not all people are immune to persuasion.

First – and most obviously – people who have weak opinions are most open to new information and changing views. But its more than just a weak opinion. In their [book] (https://www.amazon.com/Persuadable-Voter-Issues-Presidential-Campaigns/dp/0691143366/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478273091&sr=8-1&keywords=hillygus+and+shields), Hillygus and Shields show that people who have positions that are in some way unusual for their partisan group (so, for example Republicans who hold a liberal position on one issue or Democrats who hold a conservative position on one issue) are also more likely to change their minds.

Your question is about individual characteristics, but there is also the question of context. Some people are more or less open to persuasion depending on the context they are in. In my own research with Eric Groenendyk, I've shown that once you put someone into a very combative, political context, their “shields” go up and they become much more likely to dismiss a lot of information. In contrast, you may find people to be more open to political information in a situation that is less combative and less political.

Similarly, Bashir’s [work] (http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/lockwood/PDF/Bashir%202013.pdf) in psychology suggests that people are resist \ information transmitted by those who call themselves “activists.”

So, what this may suggest people are more likely to resist information from those who have a long history of trying to persuade them or a long history of combative behavior but may be more welcoming of new information from those that they do not necessarily view as having purely political goals.

Of course, some people are closed to persuasion no matter what, but for others context/persuader may play a key role.

It's generally if a particular issue touches your life in a direct personal way, such as the way agricultural policy affects farmers. Partisan attachments are very deeply held, symbolic, emotional, and hard to change -- so for anything to trump that it usually has to be deeply personal as well. But that's probably only for one or two issues, at most.

There's also a concept of "cross-pressures," which basically means some voters belong to multiple social groups that pull them in conflicting directions, such as black Republicans or Baptist Democrats, and some research says these are the people who are most likely to buck their party's issue positions. But although that's independent of partisan identification, it's probably not what you meant by "independent opinions" -- it's just dependent on social pressures by groups other than parties.

More recently, there was a book by Sunshine Hillygus and Todd Shields that re-interprets "cross-pressured" as voters who disagree with their own party on one or more issues. However, IIRC they are primarily concerned with the effects of this incongruence rather than the cause of it.

I'm not sure there's much research about what could make somebody a truly independent, rational, critical thinking, engaged, citizen who makes decisions about all issues for him/herself without deferring in any way to group or partisan attachments. Many people sincerely believe that describes them, but empirically it's difficult to find a whole lot of evidence for that at all.

Having done opponent research and fundraising for state democrats in Chicago, I can tell you that without a doubt, the smaller the election, the better it is for the majority party. In non presidential elections or any local elections, people that do vote will vote the party line or according to the name they recognize. Chicago is a very segregated city. If the district/ward is primarily Polish or German, having a Polish or German name is very necessary to be elected as a judge or alderman. In the Irish wards, Flanagan, O'Malley, etc. are just as powerful. Because people often only go to vote for one position, they will often go with whatever feels comfortable or good for the others they don't recognize.

As to your contention that abstention is a good thing, it really is not unless there is a consequence for abstention such as no candidates being elected. During a modern campaign, the goal is to get the people who have voted before to show up at the polls and then try to swing the undecideds to your side. The other goal is to lower the turnout for your opponent. While most people think it is about motivating people to vote in general, such a strategy is almost guaranteed to lose unless you have unlimited funds. A good book to read is The Race to 270. It covers the 2000 and 2004 campaigns and demonstrates the change from macro campaigns to micro or targeted campaigns. (I spent my whole undergrad studying campaigns). By pinpointing specific areas with higher concentrations of voter turnout, a campaign can spend their money effectively. Imagine sabermetrics in baseball, but for political campaigns. It's why Bush could win 2000 elections by choosing very specific Florida counties that were Red in past elections to recount (Gore failed to realize the strategy until it was too late) and winning the 2004 election without carrying the national vote. I have already gone on too much, but essentially Karl Rove figured out that certain issues and targeting certain groups was much more effective than trying to rally people to vote.

What this all means is that there are always going to be a certain number of people who vote for each side and then a certain number of voters that are undecideds. It is much cheaper to focus on your base and those voting undecided than to galvanize new people to take time to vote and vote for you. Therefore the incentive is not to come up with good ideas, but to pander to the known voters. Its why the Tea Party had such a strong presence in 2010 despite being so small. They were loud and they voted.

So abstaining without consequence is a bad thing because it only reinforces the campaign strategies that are the most successful and cost effective.

If you are interested in campaign and voting politics check out these books:

Get Out The Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. They do a great breakdown of cost/benefits of specific campaign strategies like mailers, meet and greets, TV spots, etc.

The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns. They do a good job of defining and tracking wedge issues (e.g. abortion, guns, etc.) and how modern campaigns use them to split the opponents base or unify their base. One of the key arguments is that it is often in one or both sides' best interest to not solve a wedge issue. It's fascinating in light of Obamacare and the way that has become a wedge issue.

tl;dr It is cheaper and more effective to target areas with large concentrations of voters than to try to persuade non-voters to vote in the first place. I also recommend PS 411 for any current or future Illini undergrads.