ÌìÃÀÊÓƵ

Candidates are scrambling to reach voters before our Aug. 10 primary election. They’re showing up on doorsteps and intersections, knocking and waving for your attention. But in the ever-evolving landscape of political campaigns, it’s worth considering whether these in-person campaigns are still effective. Or does technology offer better solutions?

As an introvert, the prospect of knocking on strangers’ doors was nothing short of terrifying when I first ran for office. Ironic as it may seem, I switched my major from journalism to American studies because I felt uncomfortable talking to strangers. So, I doubt any candidate has ever wanted the ability to campaign remotely as much as I did.

My initial victory can be attributed to the undeniable power of personal connection in winning elections, so I made peace with the process.

My opponent had more money, more mailers and more name recognition. But with my small team of volunteers, I knocked on more doors. And while I did everything I could to avoid taking that first step toward a new door every morning, I enjoyed it more and more with time.

Most conversations allowed me to build trust, understand my constituents’ concerns and demonstrate my commitment to serving them.

Of course, there are some unpleasant interactions. You wake up a baby when you ring the doorbell and face an exhausted grandmother. You happen upon someone drunk in the afternoon who propositions you from their window. Or a dog jumps out of nowhere.

But for the most part, people are kind, children are excited to see you and the dogs just bark.

After 10 years of knocking on doors, I fully accepted that face-to-face interactions had unparalleled power to engage and mobilize voters. The personal touch creates bonds that transcend the superficiality of social media posts and sound bites, pulls down boundaries. As a candidate, it kept me close to the real concerns of actual voters that would otherwise be drowned out in internet forums.

But as I watched the pandemic force many candidates to shift to a fully online organizing model, I wondered if voters and candidates would also find solutions to improve digital communications in future elections.

As Civil Beat’s Ashley Miller detailed earlier this week, Hawaii’s politicians have added TikTok to the list of platforms they’re using to reach voters. At the very least, most local candidates are using Facebook and Instagram to keep their names in front of voters.

However, Campaign Spending Commission data shows that only 12% of the money spent on advertising this year has gone to digital platforms, suggesting that candidates are not investing much in online voter outreach.

So, are they missing out? Yes.

Social media allows for creating personalized content that resonates with specific voter groups, which can significantly impact their voting behavior. Microtargeting, a strategy that uses data about individuals’ preferences, demographics and online behavior to segment them into small groups for targeted messaging, is.

For new candidates, increasing voter turnout could drastically improve their chances as low-frequency voters are likely less committed to the incumbent.

Given our state’s abysmal track record with voter turnout, microtargeting on social media platforms would help new candidates reach voters less likely to engage through traditional methods. The lower cost of digital ads than conventional mailers makes this strategy particularly attractive for campaigns with limited budgets.

So, while social media’s impact on political campaigns grows, creating genuine personal connections with voters is still the best strategy for local candidates.

Of course, door-to-door canvassing remains the time-tested method for voter mobilization. In the early 1920s, campaigners efforts specifically to turn out voters when participation was especially low.

It remains one of the few proven methods for increasing voter turnout, mainly when campaigns target the voters that they expect to vote for them. To improve turnout, local campaigns could continue in-person canvassing while using microtargeted social media ads to reinforce their messages.

However, the efficacy of social media and in-person canvassing is limited to turnout efforts. Most and do little to persuade voters. So, if candidates are focused on changing voters’ minds, they have limited options that we know work.

First, as my own experience suggests, door-to-door campaigning by the candidate can persuade voters in the candidate’s favor.

conducted during the 2020 election showed that candidate canvassing increased the candidate’s vote by 3 percentage points and the vote margin by 6 percentage points in a two-candidate race. The study also showed that the candidate’s efforts were successful despite 75% of households not even opening their door to speak to the candidate, who left a note on the door instead.

Second, a candidate’s surrogates can engage in “deep canvassing” or take the time to have longer, more in-depth conversations with voters on their doorstep. Traditionally, canvassers aim to reach as many voters as possible by delivering a few talking points and handing out campaign materials. Deep canvassing values quality over quantity.

With this method, volunteers are trained to ask voters questions, learn about their experiences and craft a personalized appeal after they’ve formed a connection. Though time-consuming, that deep canvassing is a far more effective use of volunteer time. Again, if local campaigns can utilize digital targeting methods to identify the demographics open to their candidate, they could better focus their efforts.

So, while social media’s impact on political campaigns grows, creating genuine personal connections with voters is still the best strategy for local candidates. Ultimately, the most effective campaigns will be those that use digital tools to boost in-person efforts, but technology is far from replacing face-to-face methods for electoral success.