Chapter 14 Exercises

Conceptual Exercises

Exercise 14.1 — The Calculus of Voting Using the formula EU(vote) = P × B − C + D, construct a hypothetical scenario where a rational actor should vote and one where they should not. What value of D is required to make voting rational if P = 1/1,000,000, B = $1,000 in expected policy value, and C = $20 (time cost)?

Exercise 14.2 — Expressive vs. Instrumental Motivations Interview three people you know about why they vote or why they don't. Code their responses as primarily instrumental (voting to influence outcomes), expressive (voting as duty or identity), or social (voting due to social pressure). What pattern do you find? How does this compare to the theoretical predictions?

Exercise 14.3 — Structural Barriers Audit Research your state's voter registration system. Identify: a) Whether the state has automatic voter registration b) What ID requirements exist for in-person voting c) How voter rolls are maintained and what the purge policy is d) Whether the state offers early voting or no-excuse absentee voting Write a 400-word assessment of the structural barriers to participation in your state compared to the national average.

Exercise 14.4 — The GOTV Evidence Hierarchy Rank the following interventions from most to least evidence-based for turnout mobilization, and briefly justify your ranking: robocall reminders, peer-to-peer text messages, door-to-door canvassing by volunteers, Facebook ads, social pressure mailers, live phone calls by paid callers. For each, identify the key study (if you can find one) that supports your ranking.

Exercise 14.5 — Habit Formation and Electoral Design If voting habit is formed through early experiences, what are the implications for the design of electoral systems? Propose two specific policy reforms that could increase long-term turnout by facilitating habit formation among young or first-time voters. For each, describe the mechanism, the anticipated effect size, and any tradeoffs.

Analytical Exercises

Exercise 14.6 — Turnout Propensity Scoring You have a voter file with 10 voters and the following attributes:

a) Without a formal model, rank these voters from highest to lowest turnout propensity for the upcoming 2024 election. Explain your reasoning.

b) Assign a numerical propensity score (0–100) to each voter based on a simple rule: start at 50, add 10 for each prior election voted in, add 5 if age > 45, subtract 5 if registered Unaffiliated.

c) Which voters would you prioritize for GOTV contact if your campaign's goal is to maximize expected votes from a fixed canvassing budget? Explain the logic.

Exercise 14.7 — Calibration vs. Discrimination A turnout model predicts the following probabilities for five voters, and here are their actual outcomes:

a) Was the model well-discriminated? (Did higher scores correspond to actual votes?) b) Is there evidence of miscalibration? (Do the probabilities seem to reflect actual rates?) c) For campaign resource allocation purposes, which matters more here — calibration or discrimination?

Exercise 14.8 — Differential Turnout Simulation A hypothetical state has the following voting-age population composition: - Group A (45% of population, 65% support Candidate X): turnout rate 70% - Group B (35% of population, 40% support Candidate X): turnout rate 55% - Group C (20% of population, 80% support Candidate X): turnout rate 45%

a) Calculate Candidate X's expected vote share under these turnout assumptions. b) Now assume a mobilization campaign increases Group C's turnout to 60%. Recalculate Candidate X's expected vote share. c) What does this exercise illustrate about the relative value of persuasion versus mobilization?

Applied Exercises

Exercise 14.9 — Campaign Resource Allocation Memo You are Nadia Osei, and you have 5,000 canvassing hours to allocate in the Garza-Whitfield race. You have three target pools:

• Pool 1: 15,000 low-propensity (score 25–45) voters with strong Garza support scores (75+). Expected GOTV lift if contacted: 8 percentage points. Cost: 0.5 hours/contact on average.
• Pool 2: 20,000 medium-propensity (score 50–65) voters with moderate Garza support (55–70). Expected GOTV lift if contacted: 4 percentage points. Cost: 0.3 hours/contact.
• Pool 3: 8,000 high-propensity Garza base voters (score 80+, support 85+). Expected GOTV lift if contacted: 1 percentage point. Cost: 0.2 hours/contact.

a) Calculate the expected total votes generated per hour for each pool. b) What is the optimal allocation if you are purely maximizing expected votes? c) Jake argues you should allocate at least 20% of hours to Pool 3 for base morale reasons. How many expected votes does this cost you compared to the pure optimization? d) Is Jake's argument legitimate? Under what circumstances might maintaining base morale generate enough indirect votes to justify the cost?

Exercise 14.10 — The Ethics of Social Pressure The Gerber-Green-Larimer (2008) social pressure mailer showed an 8-point turnout effect — the largest ever documented for a single intervention. However, it also generated substantial voter anger and complaints. The mailer included neighbors' voting records, which some recipients found invasive.

Write a 500-word memo from the perspective of a campaign ethics officer advising whether to deploy this tactic in the Garza campaign. Address: (a) the effectiveness argument, (b) the privacy/consent concerns, (c) the potential for backlash, and (d) whether there are modified versions of the tactic that preserve the effect while reducing the harm.