ponderings on political phone banking & thoughts on receiving political phone calls (1048 words)
Artikel ansehen
Zusammenfassung ansehen
Yesterday I did some phone banking, calling "persuadable voters" in a swing district to encourage them to vote for the Democratic congressional candidate rather than the "MAGA" incumbent. I volunteer through Swing Blue Alliance (SBA), and the organizers said that this particular bank is the hardest one that SBA hosts. Below are some thoughts how these calls go, with some thoughts on things the caller and receiver can do to improve outcomes.
tl;dr: When and how you identify yourself matters, although in a world shared with telemarketers and scam artists, I'm not sure there's a single best answer.
Yesterday's phone bank
As noted above, yesterday I was calling "persuadable" voters, which means the list includes Republicans and independents as well as Democrats who might or might not vote. Combined with the fact that most people don't want phone calls from strangers to begin with and the fact that *this is a swing district*, there were a lot of hang-ups, a lot of "why do you keep calling me", and a lot of "I'm voting for the other candidate," and a decent amount of "I don't vote."
Believe it or not, not all phone banks are like this. Volunteer-recruiting phone banks are particularly pleasant, because it's volunteers calling other volunteers, often people who have asked to be contacted. But get-out-the-vote (GOTV) phone banks are often not too bad either, because GOTV lists target sympathetic voters. That doesn't mean the experience is stress-free, of course.
Phone-banking process and tradeoffs for the people being called
The instructions that we as phone bankers get can vary, but we are usually instructed to be very conservative in who gets removed from the list:
* No answer -> call back later
* Immediate hang-up -> call back later
* Hangs up on hearing who is calling -> maybe remove from the list (this can vary by phone bank), but usually only if we've also confirmed that we're talking to the correct person
It's in the interest of the political organizations to have well-curated lists, with wrong numbers removed, as well as the numbers of people who will never accept one of these calls. In theory, well-curated lists can also produce better outcomes for the people being called (including not getting called as much if they don't want to be), although I can understand reservations about being forthcoming.
The upshot is that if you want to reduce the number of political calls you receive, it can sometimes be helpful to take a moment to engage, particularly if the call is coming from a legitimate political campaign. Confirming your identity and and explicitly saying that you want to be removed from the list can substantially reduce the number of future calls you'll receive.
On the other hand, I don't want to make blanket recommendations. I'm fairly certain that there are also telemarketers and scammers out there who would be *all too delighted* to have confirmation that they have the correct match between name and phone number. So that sucks. I wish I had a magic formula for recognizing legitimate political calls but the best I can say is that I think volunteers are more likely to treat you like a human being. It's tricky.
Wrong numbers
I think it's usually pretty safe to let callers know if they have the wrong number, though.
* "Hi, is this Sam?" "You have the wrong number." -> Gets flagged as wrong number
* "Hi, is this Sam?" "No." [hang up] -> Call back later
The phone banking script
This brings me around to the phone banking scripts, and how we as phone bankers start the call. There are two general approaches:
* "Hi, am I speaking to Sam?" or
* "Hi, my name is [NAME] and I'm a volunteer for [XYZ CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN]. Am I speaking to Sam?" (or alternatively "is Sam available")
I tend to much prefer *receiving* calls that start with the second template. When a stranger calls me and asks whether I'm me without identifying themselves, my first thought is "Who the f*ck are you?"
But I tried both approaches at the phone bank yesterday, and I ended up feeling better about the first template.
* "Hi, my name is [NAME] and I'm a volunteer for [XYZ CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN]. Am I speaking to Sam?" [immediate hangup] -> No idea whether I reached the right person, code as "call back" or "no answer" (that number will get another call)
* "Hi, am I speaking to Sam?" "Yes, who is this?" "I'm a volunteer for [XYZ CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN]..." [immediate hangup] -> Sam doesn't want to talk to us, maybe code as "refused" (i.e. remove from the list)
There's no guarantee that an immediate hangup will end up being coded as "refused". A clear statement of wanting to be removed is more likely to be coded correctly.
I still feel ambivalent about the two versions of the script, the tradeoff courtesy (identifying myself first) and saving everyone's time (trying to confirm their identity first), but I'm leaning more toward efficiency at the moment.
Bottom line for people receiving political calls
If your sense is that you're getting a call from a legitimate political campaign, it can really help to confirm your identity and clearly express your preferences. If the call is a wrong number, I think it's almost always best to say so.
There's unfortunately no response that will absolutely guarantee against future calls, partly because each campaign usually has multiple organizations calling for them, and partly because mistakes happen. Caller interfaces and instructions can also vary, which also produces inconsistent results. Some lists also have duplicate entries, which is complicated further if multiple people share a phone number.
Closing thoughts
If you live in a U.S. swing district, I send you my sympathies. It's really not sane that the U.S. political system favors strategies where the whole country focuses money and volunteer efforts onto a small number of swing districts. I don't think this system is at all good for democracy nor for political engagement, and I'd really like to see this change. I'm not sure what the best path is for getting there, although I know there are a number of ideas out there, and I'll have an ear to the ground for possible strategies moving forward.
