How we win: one by one

Joel Dignam

One-on-one conversations are the most effective way of moving someone to vote Green. The more people who vote Green, the more seats we win, and the more influence we have in parliament.

Nothing is more effective than one-on-one conversations.

When it comes to changing behaviour (such as how, or if, someone votes), one-on-one conversations are the most effective measure. Vast amounts of research into voter mobilisation in the US can be boiled down to one line: “Door-to-door canvassing by friends and neighbors is the gold-standard mobilisation tactic….”1 A recent study on attitudinal change, published in Science, shows that a 10 minute conversation at the door can “markedly reduce prejudice for at least 10 months.”2 And while there is relatively little research into voter persuasion in Australia, the evidence points in the same direction: that personal conversations are more effective than impersonal tactics like direct mail3. While field testing of campaign tactics is a relatively new approach, the results continue to corroborate the overall conclusion that the most personal tactics are the most powerful.

Conversations are effective because they are personal.

It's harder for the research to explain why one-on-one conversations are so impactful. What's worth understanding is that every voter subconsciously uses heuristics, or decision-making shortcuts, to decide how to vote. Heuristics include things like name familiarity, what the voter has done in the past, and copying what other people are doing4. One-on-one conversations leverage this in two ways. Firstly, they influence voting heuristically - a personal interaction with a Greens supporter becomes a useful experience that increases name recall and creates social proof of the party's support. Secondly, a higher-quality interaction makes it more likely that the voter won't use heuristics, and will instead think consciously and reflectively (not reflexively!) about their vote5. If, like me, you think that most people would vote Green if they thought about it, this is a good thing.

Ultimately, one point bears remembering: most people, unlike Greens volunteers, don't spend much time at all thinking about the election or how they will vote. “A face-to-face conversation,” notes Elizabeth Levy Paluck6, “is not minor when compared with other interventions used to influence political or social attitudes.” This being the case, a one-on-one conversation is likely to be quite a major influence for the voter, and have a corresponding impact on their vote.

How to have effective one-on-one conversations.

So conversations are powerful because they are personal. But what can we do to make our one-on-one conversations as powerful as possible?

An effective one-on-one conversation should use questions to assist someone to reach their own conclusion about how they can use their vote to create the world they want. It should not feel like a debate, nor an info session. People should get to figure it out for themselves: humans resent being persuaded and tend to have a backlash if they feel like their ability to choose is being undermined7. Effective canvassers ask strategic questions to journey with the voter to a better understanding of their own values and priorities, and then to develop the voter's own understanding of the role of voting in creating the world they want.

That's all a bit big picture, but here are three principles that will help keep you on track:

1. Above all, leave a good impression (heuristics are powerful!). Be pleasant. Smile. You don't have to agree with everything they say, but always validate their points, and avoid contradiction. Simply leaving an impression of 'that lovely Greens person' is one of the best things you can do.
2. It's not an argument. It's not a jousting match. It's not a debate. It's a conversation. Aim to learn about them, understand why they tick, why they feel the way they do. It's surprising, but simply giving someone the rare experience of being genuinely listened to can be transformative.
3. It's a numbers game. You won't have a good interaction with everyone. Don't waste your time on people who won't consider voting Greens. Ask yourself - is this person open to changing their views? Are we actually getting somewhere? It's not about 'scoring' in every encounter. Be willing to let it go and move on.

One-on-ones make winning fun

Using one-on-one conversations at scale in our campaigns has helped the Greens to new successes. Yet, this tactic isn't revolutionary. In some ways, it's fundamental to the Greens pillar of grassroots, participatory democracy. One-on-one conversations allow us to have unmediated, unscripted, genuine encounters with a range of different voters. Yes, these conversations are powerful. Yes, they mean more Greens get in. But, perhaps most excitingly, they engage more voters and strengthen community connections.

References

1. Green, D. and Gerber, A. (2008). Get out the vote. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
2. Broockman, D. and Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), pp.220-224.
3. Lam, P. and Peyton, K. (2013). Voter Persuasion in Compulsory Electorates: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Australia.
4. A great resource on heuristics is Kahneman, D. (2013). Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
5. Petty, R. and Cacioppo, J. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19.
6. Paluck, E. (2016). How to overcome prejudice. Science, 352(6282), pp.147-147.
7. Hass, R. G., & Grady, K. Temporal delay, type of forewarning, and resistance to influence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 11, 459- 469.