Reaching Low-Propensity Voters: What Works and What Doesn't

Most campaigns treat low-propensity voters like they’re just forgetful regular voters. Send more mailers. Make more phone calls. Buy more digital ads. Then they wonder why turnout stays flat despite spending millions.

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: low-propensity voters aren’t just high-propensity voters who need better information. They’re an entirely different audience that requires a fundamentally different approach. They’ve made a conscious choice to stay home, and that choice usually makes perfect sense given their experiences with politics.

After reviewing the latest research on voter mobilization and non-voter behavior, I’ve learned that most organizations are wasting resources on tactics that research proves don’t work. Here’s what the data actually shows.

Who Are Low-Propensity Voters, Really?

Forget the stereotypes. Low-propensity voters aren’t apathetic or uninformed. According to the Knight Foundation’s comprehensive study of 100 million non-voters, they’re actually more diverse, younger, and less affluent than active voters, but they’re not disengaged from their communities. They volunteer at similar rates to frequent voters. They just don’t see voting as an effective way to create change.

The numbers are staggering: roughly 100 million eligible Americans didn’t vote in 2016, representing 43% of the eligible voting-age population. The Knight Foundation found that chronic non-voters are not a monolithic group—they span the political spectrum, every education and income level, and every walk of life.

What distinguishes them isn’t apathy but alienation. The study revealed that 38% of non-voters are not confident that elections represent the will of the people, and they’re more likely to say the system is rigged. They’re less likely to believe votes are counted fully and accurately, or that decisions made in Washington have a strong impact on their lives.

Non-voters also engage less with news—they’re twice as likely as active voters to passively encounter news versus actively seeking it out. They report not having enough information about candidates and issues to decide how to vote. Their media diets involve less news and more entertainment compared to active voters.

Why Traditional Tactics Fail Spectacularly

Most campaigns pour money into tactics that research shows have minimal impact. A groundbreaking Yale study published in Science Advances tested 49 high-profile ads from the 2016 presidential campaign on 34,000 people through 59 randomized experiments. The results were stark: political ads moved a candidate’s favorability rating only 0.05 points on a five-point scale. The effect on voting intention was even smaller—a statistically insignificant 0.007 percentage points.

“There’s an idea that a really good ad, or one delivered in just the right context to a targeted audience, can influence voters, but we found that political ads have consistently small persuasive effects across a range of characteristics,” the Yale researchers noted. Positive ads worked no better than attack ads. Republicans, Democrats, and independents responded similarly. Ads in battleground states weren’t more effective than those in non-swing states.

Tech for Campaigns’ 2024 Digital Advertising Report revealed another crucial insight: Democrats spent $400 million more than Trump overall but only $8 million more on digital mobilization. While Harris allocated just 4.6% of her digital budget to mobilization, Trump directed 9%—nearly double. On Meta specifically, Trump spent 41% of his budget on mobilization while Harris allocated only 13%.

Phone banking performs particularly poorly. Field experiments have consistently shown that phone calls from commercial phone banks produce no measurable increase in turnout—zero effect. Meanwhile, each piece of direct mail raises turnout by only half a percentage point in households receiving the mail.

The problem isn’t just the medium—it’s the mismatch between tactics and audience. Traditional approaches assume people already believe voting matters. Low-propensity voters need to be convinced of that first.

What Actually Works: The Data on Personal Connection

While most tactics fail, research points to what does work: authentic, personal outreach with the right approach.

Face-to-face canvassing remains the gold standard. Field experiments have shown that door-to-door canvassing produces an 8 percentage point increase in turnout among those contacted—16 times more effective than mail and infinitely more than phone calls.

But the approach matters enormously. Tech for Campaigns discovered that abortion messaging—despite being a top Democratic priority—was 3-5 times more expensive per conversion than their top-performing creative when trying to mobilize low-propensity Democrats. This held true even in states with abortion on the ballot. The lesson: issues that motivate base voters don’t necessarily motivate irregular voters.

The messenger matters too. Tech for Campaigns found that using nano and micro influencers for down-ballot races generated 5-9x higher engagement than typical content. When they put paid support behind influencer posts, engagement rates were 42% higher than standard political creative. The key was using trusted local voices rather than political figures.

Messages That Actually Move People

Stop talking about civic duty. The Knight Foundation research shows that non-voters have already concluded the system doesn’t work for them. Abstract appeals to democratic participation confirm their belief that politics is for other people.

What works instead, based on the research:

Focus on immediate, tangible impacts. Tech for Campaigns found their most cost-effective messages were those that connected directly to voters’ daily lives—not broad policy positions.

Use platform-native content. The 2024 analysis revealed both parties wasted money running the same TV ads on digital platforms. Tech for Campaigns noted that nearly 50 cents of every presidential campaign dollar went to TV-style ads—even on digital platforms where they underperform. Commercial advertisers understand that what works on TV fails on digital—political campaigns haven’t caught up.

Build year-round, not just during elections. Right-wing advocacy groups decreased Meta spending by just 3% in off-years, while left-wing organizations slashed spending by 75%, according to Tech for Campaigns. This continuous presence builds the trust and familiarity that one-time campaign pushes can’t achieve.

The Timing Reality Check

The Tech for Campaigns analysis revealed a crucial strategic difference: successful mobilization requires sustained investment, not last-minute surges. Right-wing media companies and advocacy groups maintained consistent digital presence year-round, building owned audiences that dwarfed their left-wing counterparts.

By 2024, leading right-wing media companies like PragerU and The Daily Wire had 2x the Instagram followers and 1.5x the YouTube subscribers of top left-wing equivalents like Courier Newsroom and NowThis Impact. When including associated speakers and podcasters, those numbers rose to 8x on Instagram and 6x on YouTube.

The lesson is clear: you can’t build trust in the final weeks of a campaign. Low-propensity voters need to see consistent, authentic engagement from sources they trust—and that takes time to develop.

A Playbook Based on Evidence

Based on the actual research, here’s what works for reaching low-propensity voters:

Invest in face-to-face contact. Despite being labor-intensive, research shows it remains 16 times more effective than mail and infinitely more than phone banking.

Develop platform-specific content. Stop recycling TV ads on digital platforms. The Tech for Campaigns report shows political campaigns lag 42 percentage points behind commercial advertisers in digital allocation (36% vs 78%).

Focus on mobilization, not persuasion. Trump’s strategic allocation of 41% of Meta spending to mobilization (versus Harris’s 13%) demonstrates the importance of getting identified supporters to actually vote rather than trying to change minds.

Build owned audiences year-round. The dramatic advantage right-wing media built through consistent off-year investment shows the cost of treating politics as seasonal.

Use trusted local voices. The 5-9x engagement boost from local influencers proves that messenger matters more than message.

The Bottom Line

The data is unequivocal: most political spending is wasted on tactics that don’t work. While campaigns spent $15.9 billion in 2024, with Democrats outspending Republicans by $400 million in the presidential race alone, the money went to approaches research shows are ineffective.

Low-propensity voters aren’t waiting for better information or more reminders. The Knight Foundation found they’re twice as likely as active voters to say they don’t feel they have enough information, yet their real issue is trust: 38% don’t believe elections represent the will of the people.

Changing that requires more than better targeting or slicker ads. It requires what the research consistently shows works: genuine human connection through face-to-face contact, trusted local messengers, and sustained year-round engagement that builds real relationships.

The next time someone suggests another round of phone banking or a bigger TV buy to reach non-voters, show them the data. In a world where political ads move favorability by 0.05 points and phone calls have zero effect on turnout, it’s time to stop doing what’s always been done and start doing what actually works.

Ready to put this into practice? Start by identifying the trusted voices in your community who can authentically connect with non-voters. Then give them the resources and time—not just in October, but all year—to build the relationships that actually drive turnout.