Traditional mobilization tactics pre-suppose that the best (if not only) indicator of likelihood of voting in the future is voting in the past. However, there are many forms of political participation that are utilized and needed for a healthy democracy to function. Establishing a consistently participatory and representative electorate requires a broader understanding of the gateways through which people enter politics. This project examines one such gateway, asking: Can an incidental form of political participation impact future likelihood to participate in politics? Using a novel dataset that tracks four forms of participation with administrative data and multiple statistical tests, I find that participation in an incidental form of political activity (signing a petition) has a positive impact on an individual’s likelihood to participate in multiple forms of political activity in the future. The size of this impact is even larger for individuals who have not been as active in politics in the past.

Does participation in a low-cost, incidental, political act increase the likelihood of participating in politics in the future? Previous research has indicated that being asked to participate in politics, on average, is associated with higher rates of participation. However, the nature of classic tactics often means that large portions of eligible participators (mainly those who have not participated in the past) get left out of these mobilization programs. This study takes a broader view of mobilization, asking what impact being asked to take immediate action (in this case, sign a petition) has on reported intention to participate in other forms of political activity. Using a lab-based experiment, I randomly assigned individuals to be offered to sign a petition on an issue relevant to their community (lighting on their university’s campus at night). I then measured self-reported behavioral variables such as intention to participate in other modes of participation in the future using a survey. Findings indicate that being asked to sign a petition does have a positive impact on intentions to participate in politics in the future. There is also evidence that this relationship may be strongest among those who had not been especially active in politics in the past. The study also begins to explore the possible drivers of this relationship, including efficacy. On this front, findings show more mixed results.

Historically, nonvoters have often been characterized as disinterested in politics, or even too lazy to vote. This depiction of nonvoters as “civic slackers” has persisted in media portrayals and academic literature. I hypothesize that at least some nonvoters still participate in politics in other ways. I use existing survey data to highlight that current societal and academic understandings of people who do not vote may be incomplete. In a preliminary analysis, I find that many survey respondents who reported not having voted in the 2020 presidential election, also reported participating in at least one form of non-voting political activity. I call these individuals participatory nonvoters. In further analysis, I find that these participatory nonvoters are a distinct group demographically. They vary in notable ways from nonvoters who do not participate in politics in other ways, voters who do not participate in politics in ways outside of voting, and voters who do participate in politics outside of voting.