[Sosfbay-discuss] F.Y.I. Special Election - California Senate District 26

[Ray Tobey]

Alex,

A premiere author 
<http://www.amazon.com/Influence-Psychology-Persuasion-Robert-Cialdini/dp/0688128165> 
on the psychology of persuasion conducted an experiment with important 
implications for political campaigns.

Most of us have been in hotel rooms where a little card asks us to 
participate in a conservation program. Instead of having the staff wash 
the towels everyday, the card suggests that we reuse towels a couple of 
times like we often do at home. Towels on the floor will be washed, 
those hanging on the rack will not.

The job of the psychologist was to figure out what to say on the card to 
get people to participate. He tried 4 versions of the pitch:

   1. Do this for the environment.
   2. Do this for our children.
   3. Do this to save money.


These arguments got between 20 and 30% compliance, each. The final 
version of the card said:

   4. Do this because the majority of hotel guests do it.


This argument got 45% compliance.

It is called the psychology of social proof - humans often do not 
evaluate an argument on its merits. Instead, we observe people around us 
for clues about how to behave. This pattern appears in many 
circumstances. For example, we might go out to dinner where two 
restaurants are side by side. If one is quiet and nearly empty but the 
other full and boisterous, most of us choose the full one because we 
assume our neighbors know where good food is or because this is where 
the trendy crowd eats.

Social proof is one of six motivators of persuasion that psychologists 
have identified.

When you say observe that the winner never answered a serious question, 
you imply that serious questions are relevant to the electoral process. 
I don't think so. You write that California gives bonuses to the worst 
legislators. That may be true, but I believe that legislative 
performance has almost nothing to do with such decisions.

We Greens have been arguing serious questions for many years. We talk 
about legislation, issues, platform, principles. We sound like the first 
3 versions of the social proof experiment, and our election results 
confirm what the psychologists have been saying for many years. /These 
arguments are not persuasive./

In this special election, only 6.16% of those registered 
<http://rrcc.co.la.ca.us/elect/09031288/rr1288pb.html-ssi> actually cast 
a ballot. I could use the district voter roll as case study in 
targeting. I would examine these questions:

   1. Which 6% voted?
   2. How does their psychology differ from the other 94%?
   3. What changes not the thinking, but the behavior of these voters?
   4. Which tactics should a campaign apply to the various groups?


You wrote about campaign organization and there aren't many advocates 
more committed to that than I am. However, I suggest that a thorough 
understanding of political sociology is far more important. Among its 
implications are methods for building strong campaign organizations.

I wouldn't presume to say that I have the answers. Asking the right 
questions is the part I'm working on.

I hope my comments are constructive in addition to lengthy,
- Ray


alexcathy at aol.com wrote:
> Dear Friends,
>
> See pasted below the results of yesterday's special election for 
> California's 26th State Senate District. 
>
> This is the election that I briefly ran in as a Green Party candidate 
> before withdrawing in February. 
>
> A couple of points worthy of note:
>
> At a time when the California State Legislature is a laughingstock, 
> Curren Price is *REWARDED* for his incompetence with a promotion from 
> the state assembly to a better-paying gig in the state senate.  AIG 
> gives bonuses to the world's worst executives. California gives 
> "bonuses" to the world's worst legislators. 
>
> At a time of one of the gravest crises in the history of the United 
> States, Curren Price is going to the California State Senate with 
> 8,442 votes without ever having to answer a single serious question. 
> This is a mockery of democracy and a sad commentary on politics today.
>
> Nathan Shifren, a right-wing, race-baiting Republican wingnut, came in 
> 4th place with 2,731 votes. In a mid-March candidates debate, Shifren 
> bemoaned the presence of "Mexican illegal aliens" in California, the 
> teaching of "Marxist" courses in public schools and free-lunch 
> programs for the poor: He said: "Here's my program: Make your own 
> doggone lunch."  He called for lower taxes and warned, "We can't 
> kowtow to these environmental wackos who want to bring us into the 
> Dark Ages."  So much for the dysfunctional Republican Party as my 
> "choice" for an alternative to the=2 0Democrats. 
>
> Cindy Henderson, the Peace and Freedom Party candidate,  came in 7th 
> in an 8-candidate field with less than 2% of the vote.  So much for 
> the Peace and Freedom Party as an alternative to the Greens. 
>
> I withdrew in February because my analysis of the campaign indicated 
> that the short campaign, continuing high levels of voter apathy, and 
> the need for more money convinced me that my campaign was hopeless. On 
> paper we have 3,000 registered Greens in the district.  With the right 
> kind of campaign organization, I could have gotten around 13% of the 
> vote or even more.  Without campaign organization I would have gotten 
> a lousy single-digit vote and I did not want to embarrass the Green Party.
>
> With Obama and the Democrats already floundering in Washington and the 
> continuing dysfunction of Republicans and Democrats in California, I 
> still think 2010 will be a historic good year for California Greens. 
>
> Alex Walker

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss_lists.cagreens.org/attachments/20090325/a4c0a794/attachment.html>