In a democracy, voting is more than just choosing a leader. It is a declaration of citizenship and belonging. High voter turnout strengthens legitimacy, holds governments accountable, and often reflects greater participation from marginalised groups, who are otherwise at risk of being underrepresented. Yet, around the world, democracies are being contested and face a growing challenge: fewer people are showing up to vote.
Why does this matter? When voter turnout decreases, politics risks becoming skewed towards those who already have power, wealth, or influence, as these groups have a resource advantage and tend to vote more consistently. Groups such as youth, women, minorities or the poor are often among those most likely not to vote when turnout decreases. While this disengagement is often driven by existing distrust in political systems, their absence from the ballot box also risks deepening inequality, and eroding trust further, creating a cycle of exclusion and disengagement. This raises a pressing question: what strategies can actually increase voter turnout and ensure more voices are heard?
Social scientists around the world have put this to the test through hundreds of experiments: from door-to-door canvassing to phone calls and text nudges. While these efforts share the same goal, which is to increase participation, their effectiveness depends heavily on context, culture, and delivery. Here is what we know about three of the most studied non-partisan voter mobilisation strategies.
Door-to-door canvassing: The old-school strategy that still works
When it comes to mobilising voters, few strategies are as personal or as well studied as knocking on someone’s door. At its core, door-to-door canvassing relies on face-to-face interaction. A volunteer or organiser visits a potential voter at home, reminds them why their voice matters, and provides practical information about how and where to vote.
The classic US evidence comes from a field experiment by political scientists Alan Gerber and Donald Green, who found that personal visits in the 1998 Connecticut elections boosted turnout by nearly nine percentage points. Follow-up studies across six American cities found increased turnouts of up to 14 percentage points. This showed that in the US context, face-to-face contact worked far better than phone calls or mail.
But does this hold true everywhere? In Europe, a large meta-analysis found that door-to-door canvassing raised turnout by less than one percentage point on average. High baseline participation, cultural norms against doorstep politics, and proportional representation systems help explain why personal visits do not carry the same punch there as in the US.
Elsewhere, results vary widely. In Pakistan, door-to-door campaigns targeting women increased turnout by up to 13 points and even helped them vote more independently, while speaking to male household “gatekeepers” boosted women’s electoral participation further. In China, student turnout rose 15 points after peer door-to-door canvassing. By contrast, in Bangladesh, similar campaigns backfired in opposition-leaning areas where ‘neutral’ reminders were seen as veiled partisan interference. A reminder that in polarised settings, even simple outreach can be misinterpreted and mistrusted.
While personal visits can be highly effective, their reach is limited—so what happens when campaigns turn to the phone instead?
Mobilising by phone campaigns: authenticity matters
Telephone outreach promises scale at lower cost compared to face-to-face outreach. But are calls as effective as personal visits? The evidence is mixed.
Automated ‘robocalls’ usually fail, and sometimes even reduce turnout by irritating voters. Live calls, however, especially when conversational, culturally relevant, and in the voter’s preferred language can boost turnout by two to four percentage points.
In Los Angeles, bilingual calls to Asian American communities increased turnout by several percentage points. Similarly, Latino voters responded positively to unscripted, authentic conversations, while scripted calls had little effect.
What this shows is that it is not the words on the script that matter, but the caller’s tone, authenticity, and connection to the community.
But in an age where fewer people pick up calls, campaigns have turned to something quicker and cheaper: the text message.
SMS reminders: A cheap nudge with big benefits
Many people plan to vote but forget or get too busy. A short, well-timed reminder can make a difference.
One of the earliest studies in the US on text reminders for voters, a single text boosted turnout by about three percentage points at a cost of less than $2 per additional vote, making it one of the cheapest tools available. In Europe, effects are smaller but still positive, particularly among young people and immigrant groups. In Norway, first-time voters who received a text were four percentage points more likely to cast a ballot.
Text messages also have ripple effects. In Denmark, young adults who received reminders often encouraged parents or siblings to vote, spreading the impact across households.
That said, SMS reminders aren’t a silver bullet. Their effectiveness depends on timing, credibility, and trust in the sender. In high-trust societies, a message from election authorities can feel neutral and persuasive. In more polarised or low-trust settings, however, even a simple reminder may be viewed with suspicion.
What the evidence tells us
Across these three strategies, one lesson stands out: there is no universal fix. A knock on the door may inspire voters in the US or Pakistan, but may backfire in polarised settings like Bangladesh. A phone call in someone’s own language can boost participation, while a robocall falls flat. A simple text reminder can get young people to the polls, but only if the sender is trusted.
Taken together, these studies remind us that mobilising voters isn’t just about technology or tactics. It’s about trust, authenticity, and making citizens feel that their voices matter. Democracy is not strengthened by numbers alone, but by the connections that make participation meaningful. In the end, mobilising voters isn’t just about getting numbers up, it’s about trust, connection, and making sure democracy truly includes everyone.
Wafa Alam is a Chevening scholar (2024/2025) studying MA in Governance, Development and Public Policy at IDS. She is a Senior Research Fellow at BRAC James P Grant School of Public Health, BRAC University.
