View transcript
- Oh, boy.

- [Man] That's beautiful

- [Woman] Can you place the card.

- Yeah.

- [Woman] Now pick it up.

- Hello, welcome to, "After Dark Online," Agree to a Degree Compliance. My name is Kathleen Maguire and I'm part of the team, that produces After Dark Online. I'd like to begin by acknowledging that, while this program was recorded remotely, the home of After Dark, the Exploratorium, is located on the traditional lands, of the Ramaytush Ohlone People, and we pay our respects to elders both past and present. As the country is preparing for a major election, this month at, After Dark, we're presenting a series of programs, Agree to a Degree, that steps back to look at some of the key factors, that influence personal and collective decision making, and the effects these influences have, on the democratic process. Our previous weeks programs uncovering uncertainty, and voting unraveled can still be found on our website, YouTube channels and Facebook page. So, tonight, compliance, we'll be looking at how free is your choice. Do you follow the rules or do you subvert them when you can? You'll learn about how pure groups, authority figures, and forms of persuasion can determine, whether you'll follow the flock or back the trend. Later tonight, you'll be hearing from Emily Lee, Director at San Francisco Rising, who will share insights into increasing voter turnout. We'll start things off with a conversation called, "Why Do You Do," with Heike Winterheld, In this conversation we'll be considering how our choices, can be influenced by peers and authority. Heike Winterheld is the Program Director of Social Sciences at the Exploratorium and directed the social research, and advising for Middle Ground, a public space installation at the main branch, of the San Francisco Public Library, which was a major project of the Exploratorium last year. Heike's joined in conversation with my colleague, Sam Sharkland. To offer a little bit of framing for that conversation, we're kicking things off with a short video, produced as part of the Exploratorium's, Middle Ground project called, "Power of a Bogus Uniform." In this short piece, you'll see just how influential a small nod to authority, like a uniform can be in prompting compliance. Please enjoy, "Power of a Bogus Uniform." And then "Why Do You Do," with Heike Winterheld.

- [Narrator] When do people follow directions? This is Herbie. He looks official but he's really not in charge of anything, except a radio and a fake uniform. He's part of an experiment, here along the San Francisco waterfront to find out, how likely are people to follow someones directions. Let's see what happens when he makes a request.

- Sir, if I could have you switch hands, with your bag, please, that'd be great. Use your other hand to pull the bag.

- Why so?

- It's just as a safety measure on this area, thank you.

- Really?

- We'd appreciate it, thanks.

- Right handed?

- Thank you so much, that's great. Sir, can you do me a favor real quick? We're trying to get this corner down right here. If you could help me. I think you weigh a little bit more than me, perhaps. If you could just kind of stump right here. Maybe, with both feet, just like jump on it. Yeah, like a quickly, jump.

- What are you trying to do?

- Just trying to make it more even here. Thank you so much. Really appreciate it, thank you so much. Gentlemen, if I could ask for all of your help here, for one second, please. We're trying getting this comer down, and I feel like collectively, we could probably do it together. If we all jump onto this the same time. If you could just jump onto it with me, like kind of three, one, two, three. Great, thank you so much. I really appreciate it. Hi folks, if I could just have you buckle that back up. Buckle that backpack back up. Great, thank you. Do you know each other? What's your relationship.

- Boyfriend and girlfriend.

- Oh, could you hold hands, please? Yep, great, thank you, thank you.

- [Narrator] Most of the people follow Herbie's directions, no matter how strange. But what happens without the uniform?

- Ma'am, could you carry the bag on the other side, please? Can you folks sit down, please. Slow down. Folks, if I could ask you a favor real quick. We're trying to get this comer down. If you guys could just come over here, and jump on this corner with me.

- No.

- Okay. Excuse me, ladies. Can you do me a favor? We're trying to get the corner of this down. Perhaps, you could just to jump on it a little bit. No, okay.

- [Narrator] Poor Herbie, he's lost his authority. Not like when he looked important. Then nine out of 10 people went along with this requests.

- All right, everybody back off their bikes. You put this foot in front. Yep, great, thanks. In one, two, three. Great. And then everyone go ahead and take three steps back. One, two, three steps back. Okay, go ahead, you're good. Thank you so much.

- [Narrator] It makes you think, when do you follow the rules and when do you not? How do you respond to a uniform?

- Well, thanks for joining us, Heike. As you know, this month in After Dark, we're looking at how people come to consensus, or how we might all make choices for our society. In some ways this is reflected, in the democratic political process when people vote, which is a very reductionist way of exercising choice. But you're a social psychologist, and you know that people's choices, are influenced in many different ways. And we just watched a video, that's pretty humorous, seeing how folks acted or reacted in certain circumstances. And we wanna get back later in this conversation, as to why people may have reacted that way. But can you tell us first what it is about our social nature that might lead to some of the ways that we behave or act?

- Yeah, so being social really helped us survive, in a nutshell, that's the super short answer. From an evolutionary perspective, we are built for group living. Living in a group and working in a group, has many benefits for survival. When humans existed in groups, they had an easier time hunting and gathering, building shelter, alerting each other to danger, being there for each other when people get injured, or fall ill. So, all these advantages that come with group living, that actually promote survival, require us to think and behave socially. So, with the benefits of group living, also come a lot of demands on us to develop strategies, that allow us to navigate social life. It's easier to hunt in a group but it also brings with it, the possibility that people starts to argue, over the same piece of meat, a problem you wouldn't have if you were living by yourself. So, we had to figure out how to resolve conflict, how to control our impulses, how to figure out what other people prefer and expect, and then how to change, so that we can meet those expectations. So, we had to evolve tendencies and skill sets, and capacities that that allowed us to navigate social life, but also to connect and bond with each other. And we've developed all sorts of, again, skills and capacities or traits. Some of those superpowers would include, just understanding that other people have interstates, and then also inferring what those states are, inferring accurately what those states are. Our capacity for language. Our capacity for affection. Also imagining how other people think of us, right? Imagining how other people perceive us. That's also something we had to figure out, to coordinate social life successfully.

- So what would the consequences be evolutionarily, if we didn't know how to sympathize, or cooperate with groups?

- Well, drastically we would just aggress against each other probably a lot because we would have not figured out, how to adjust to each other. How to successfully coordinate social interaction, this give and take that's necessary, to achieve agreement on certain things. Without these tendencies that allow us to do that, we may have not survived. There may have been real survival consequences, to this actually. Does that answer the question at all or? Yeah, and the video that we watched the beginning, was part of a public installation that the Exploratorium did that exists in physical form, in front of the Main Library in San Francisco. But there's also an online component, that people can explore at exploratorium.edu. And Middle Ground is intended as a place, where people can observe other human behavior, and see how they influence each other, see how they think about each other. Can you talk about the premise of Middle Ground, and kind of what you hope people, take away from that experience?

- Yeah, we hoped to foster public understanding, of how science can help us make sense, of why we do what we do especially that, which we are often not aware of, or those tendencies that often occur automatically, like stereotyping or judgements, that we make about each other so quickly, or also influence strategies, influence that other people exert on us. A lot of that social influence occurs without our awareness, it can be very subtle sometimes. other people don't even have to actually be present. It can also be just the imagined, or the implied presence of others that affects us. And we often comply or conform to other people, again, without thinking too much about. It's very automatic tendency because conforming to other, or looking to others as a source of information, is again, one of these evolved tendencies, that facilitated group living. If you are in a situation that's ambiguous, you don't know what to do, You don't know how to interpret it, the best thing to do is to actually, look for what other people are doing, or to see whether other people interpret the situation, in the same way as you do. So, we wanted to get people to become aware, of some of those tendencies, that they might recognize in themselves, but not necessarily question. So, we wanted to also get people, to reflect on their own compliance tendencies, or their own use of compliance strategies and so on.

- So, witnessing how other humans behave in a group, or as individuals can affect even unknowingly, how we behave or act. Are there any experiments that you can speak to, that kind of show where these tendencies might manifest?

- Yes, there's a lot of research actually, research that shows that we can be automatically influenced, by just imagining significant others for instance. But also the early research actually on social influence, is extremely important. The work that has basically shown how easily we conform, or I should say why we also conform. One way of conforming is... Well, I should say one reason for why be conform, is trying to figure out a situation, trying to get information about a situation. Another form is wanting to fit in. Wanting to be socially accepted, wanting to be liked by a group. And the former type of influence information, or social influence is one that, really studies have demonstrated, and I don't wanna get into the details of that research. It showed basically that people conform to each other, even when it's a wrong group. Norm people still start a converge on the norm. But what's interesting, I think to mention is, the followup research, so the research that wanted to show, that there are limits to conformity, the followup research by Solomon Ashe especially, in the mid 50s, who said, "We know people conform but surely, "there's gotta be a limits, "when a situation is not ambiguous." 'Cause the previous research had shown that, it's ambiguous situations that generate conformity a lot. So, you said if a situation is clear cuts, if it's very clear what the answer is, let's see what happens then, surely people won't conform. So, he used aligned judging task. It's a very simple task. You're are being shown, if you were a participant, you're being shown a set of lines, three lines that at different length. And there is a separate line that has a certain length, and you are asked to pick which of the lines, matches best to this separate line. And it's very clear there aren't close in length. So, it's spread pretty obvious which one is the best match. And there's a twist to the experiment. He ran it in groups and most people, except for one were confederates. So, they were basically instructors to give the wrong answer blatantly wrong answer and there was only one person, who was the real participant. The poor person was thoroughly confused, because they thought it's very clear what the answer is, but then everybody else said, "No, it's the other line," which obviously couldn't be the right answer. And it turned out that 75% of participants, did actually conform to that group statement, at least some of the time. A few people or no people, nobody actually confirmed all of the time, but most people at least some of the time. And it was quite shocking to see that, to see how people can actually go against, what they believe to fit in with the group. And when people were asked anonymously, you wouldn't find the same results. They were actually saying what they really believe, which shows that in this case, it's not information influence. People were not looking to others, for what the right answer is. They knew what the right answer is. But in this case they were actually giving the wrong answer, because they wanted to fit in. They wanted to be accepted.

- These participants, when they have to give a public answer, they conformed with the crowd, but when they gave their answer privately, they gave an answer that they actually believe, more often to be correct?

- Yeah, exactly, yeah.

- And this isn't your area of research, but I'm wondering if you think that a similar human tendency could exist between looking at election results, either the opinion polls beforehand, that are public and known to be public, versus how people actually vote in private anonymous ways.

- I mean, when you vote obviously you have privacy, right? Other people don't see how you vote, but what people say they're gonna do can definitely differ from what it is that they're ultimately gonna do. Depending on their environment, they may be ashamed to say that, they are supporting a certain candidate, because they know full well, that there would be social sanctions. So, they not gonna say it, they may even impose say something different. They may say what's expected of them, based on their environment, their own social environment, but then actually voted differently.

- So, that sounds like peer social influence, and looking at compliance, we can think about it, as being told what to do in different ways. Can you differentiate compliance from conformity for us?

- Yes, when you think of different forms, of social influence, social psychologists distinguish three broad categories, conformity and compliance and then obedience. And if you think of them on a continuum, of increasing social pressure, conformity does not actually involve any, or doesn't have to involve any social overt, social pressure at all or no explicit social pressure. We conform automatically, and nobody tells us to do what we are to do, what we are doing. Compliance involves a direct request from someone else, and that can be really anybody. So, the request can come from anyone in your environment. It can be somebody that you know. It can be somebody that you don't know, like a salesperson. It can be a charity organization asking you to donate. It can be even a sign asking you to do something, sending you a message, trying to get you to comply. So, it doesn't even have to involve a person necessarily, but there is a request and an obedience, versus a directive from an authority figure.

- And this brings me to two of my favorite, exhibit components and Middle Ground, one, the video that we watched, but there's also online. You can find an exhibit called, "Do Not Push This Button," which is just a sign that's asking for compliance. But what do we see when people interact with this exhibit?

- Yeah, I'll talk about the, "Don't Push The Button" first, so they don't push the button. It's interesting because, it tells you to not push the button, but then you see a counter that basically shows you, how many people push that button in the past. And obviously a lot of people did that push that button. They did not follow the instructions. This is really trying to get people to think about, what rules and whose rules, they are following in their lives. So, it's unexpected that's trying to get people to reflect, on their behavior. But it also reminds of research on descriptive norms, where you can sometimes find interesting effects. Descriptive norms are basically, descriptions of what other people are doing. So, if I tell you what the norm is, "This many people are conserving energy after 6:00 PM." This would be a descriptive norm I'm sharing with you. And usually when we learned about, what other people are doing it's very motivating for us, 'cause we wanna conform. We wanna do what these people are doing, especially if it's a good thing. And sometimes descriptive norms, are being used to advance social goods, right? We try to tell people whatever it's, that we're trying to get them to do. Good things like conserving energy, or consuming less damaging food products, or fewer alcoholic beverage, what have you. And one of the problems is though, it depends on what people are already doing, because if you are a person, who is way below the threshold, for example, it gives you leeway to some extent, to do the opposite of what you're being asked to do. So, "Don't Push This Button," reminds me a bit of that, where if you see, say you are a person who is usually conforming to the rules and you do what a sign tells you to do, again, you see how many people actually push that button, you might actually encourage you to do, the opposite of what you'd normally do.

- So, much like in social influence and conformity, when we see other people are in a way, we might be tendency to act like those other people. But even with this study that you're talking about, even if we intellectualize a rule, we don't have to see people doing something else. But even if we just think that other people are doing things that might affect how we behave.

- Yes, we don't have to actually witness it. And it's important to keep that in mind, when we try to get people to do things, and to think about how people might feel about the messages. There's research for instance on what sorts of messages, are promoting border behavior, you know, get getting people to vote. And it turns out that a lot of messages, try to convey that fewer people actually are voting. They try to get you to vote, saying it's a shame that so few people are actually voting. And it turns out that this is not the best strategy, because people can actually conform to that not voting, because you're sending the message, that most people don't vote. So, if you are already thinking of not voting, then that's what you might conform to. So, it can be more effective to say, "Many people are voting, almost everybody's voting, "so you better go do the same." So, considering what people are already doing, and how we think about those messages is important, but people don't have to actually witness behavior, yeah.

- So, there's the implicit conformity, on what we think we see, or that we think other people are doing. And then in the video we watched, there is kind of this explicit compliance, to a direct figure. What makes that figure so powerful in this example, "Power of a Bogus Uniform?"

- Yeah, so in that video clip which was a very liberal, I don't even wanna say replication, 'cause it sounds like we wanted to replicate the experiment, which we didn't wanna replicate it, but it's a demonstration, I should say a demonstration of this research, that he was as different levels of authority, to see who people are more likely to comply with. And an authority figure is something, that'd be often associated with, considerable experience or expertise, and expertise can also be conveyed by the white lab coats, for instance in toothpaste commercials, of what you're not. But it doesn't even have to mean, that the person has actual power over us, but they are still very powerful, social influence agents, even though they can't do anything to us really, but we associate still that uniform, or certain pieces of clothing with considerable expertise. And that's a shortcut in a way for us sometimes, to figure out what the correct course of action might be, because if a person really is an authority in their field, or if a person does actually, have that experience that they claim to have, then it makes a lot of sense, to just do what it is that they say. The problem is that sometimes people just convey authority, but don't actually have a lot of experience, or they may for you into thinking that, they have power over you from certain batches or symbols. And in that case if we aren't aware, that there is the sometimes automatic tendency, to just do what others ask us to do, then it can end up badly. We may do things that are either unwise or even unethical, if we comply without thinking about, who that person actually is.

- And in this demonstration, in the video, I think there's something else at play, that people might be taken by surprise by this request, even though they deal with requests all day.

- Yes, that's a factor I believe that helped us there a lot, to get people to comply. Typically when people get asked for the same thing, day in, day out, they started to be valid refusal scripts in their minds. If you get approached a lot by people asking you for change, you start to come up with a script, or the same thing that you're gonna say, just going to say, "Sorry, I have no cash on me." And in this case, this was a very unusual request on one, right? So, people are usually not asked to stump on a coin, or on change. So, this was new which again, they didn't have a refusal script for, and it puts people in a position where they are more likely to act on the automatic tendencies that they have, or those innate inborn tendencies that they have. And then also, as you say, they were caught off guard. This was not a situation where you'd expect, a guy like Herbie in a uniform to stand and ask you, to do something right by the beach. So, this two factor, being caught off guard, and also being asked to do something very unusual, made it more likely, for these automatic tendencies to kick in.

- And in this instance of this demonstration, it's kind of just unusual, curious things, that it's played for laughs, but what do you think we can learn, when we see this behavior in other people, or how we might take it forward, when we encounter something similar?

- Again, the awareness of these tendencies, and starting to examine the origin, of some of these tendencies can be helpful, when you encounter future situations like this. The next time you encounter somebody, telling you to do something, that doesn't sit quite right with you, but they seem to have authority, you might sort of think of questions, that you could ask that person, or just ask the person to show some evidence, for their author already, right? Is this really a person, will ask them for a badge. If it's expertise that they claim to have, ask them some questions about this, what are their qualifications and so on? So, I think again, awareness of automatic tendencies, to go along with other people, because we think they know better can be helpful, because we know what's happening, and be protective in future situations, that people may be in where may comply, without questioning what they are complying with.

- And conformity and compliance and obedience. We're looking at ways that people take up action, or take up behavior based on these three things. In Middle Ground, you've also talk about something called, Loafing, where there is a tendency for inaction. Can you talk a little bit about that, and the exhibit that helps describe that?

- Yes, yeah, that's an interesting question, because we talk mainly about, and often that's also what we suggest about, behaviors that people are doing. We trying to get people to do things, and less about not doing things. social loafing, it's a behavioral pattern, such that we invest less efforts in a task, when it's completed in a group. So, when we are submerged in a group, and we each have to work on a certain piece of the task, and if our individual efforts can't be seen, can't be identified, we tend to slack off a little bit. So, that's what social loafing is. And the exhibit was inspired by a very early study, that Max Ringelmann did using rope pulling, to demonstrates the phenomenon of social loafing. And in the exhibit, you're basically being asked, to work in a group and pull on a rope, but we have a weight that you can see on a screen, that shows how much weight, the group as a whole basically pulls. And there's a second round asking you to pull again, but it tells you that this time, each person's individual efforts, it's gonna be identified, it's gonna be made public. And then people can compare the weight basically, that they pulled the second time, against the weight that they pulled the first time, and see whether or not someone in the group socially loafed. And social loafing, it's interesting. It's reminiscent of freeloading, playing the system, trying to just gain from other people. Social loafing is a bit different, 'cause people in lab studies, often report that they aren't even aware that they did it. They said, "Oh, I had no idea." So, it seems to be, again, one of this automatic tendencies, that's triggered when other people are around us. And it's also adaptive. The more people work on a task, what's the saying "Many hands," Gosh, there's a saying I can't remember it right now.

- "Make light work."

- There we go. That's it. So, it doesn't make sense. It's becoming problematic obviously, if some people put in all they've got and other stodge. So, as far as unequal distribution of effort, it's becoming problematic. And you can disrupt it, by making individual efforts identifiable, but also by letting people know that the individual effort, actually affects the group performance. And that is something people don't necessarily think about consciously but once you--

- Is it fair to look at social loafing, compare it to why people may vote or not vote, that if they assume that other people are doing the work, that they might need to do less?

- Yes, I think it's fair. It's one of these behaviors where especially, if you may have not enough information, about how voting operates, where you might think so many people are voting, and I have only one voice, it doesn't matter. So, when you outsource this efforts to other people, that I think it definitely play a role in here. And many people, you hear this, many people say "It doesn't really matter. "I'm not just going to make a difference with my own vote." Problem is if everybody thinks that. Yeah, so.

- And this next question, might be a little bit more philosophical, but I'm wondering if there's a way, that we can tell the difference or ask ourselves, when following the rules or complying or obeying, is for the benefit of us in society or for when it's not, because it sounds like there can be strategies, to encourage compliance to either end.

- Yes, and people certainly use them to either end. And sometimes it is difficult to know if you are the target, if you're being asked to comply with something. Sometimes it's clear but sometimes it's not. And history is full of examples where people thought, they're going to comply with something, that's actually of benefits to society, and then later it turned out there was a hidden agenda, to all of this and bad things happened. And again, especially in efforts that are large, and they go on over time, it's sometimes difficult to know. There isn't really a test, right. It's not easy sometimes to figure this out. And also people's agenda sometimes change and develop. But some of the things that people can do with, one, engage critical thinking skills, just asking questions about who they are complying with, who benefits from my compliance. Asking about the rationale for the compliance. Is it evidence base for example, or is somebody just talking saying this is what should be done without any evidence. And also the more we feel we are doing the right thing, the more convinced we are that we are doing the right thing, the more important it actually is, to look also at people who are not complying, because another human tendency confirmation bias, plays a role there or can play a role there as well. Once we are convinced that we are doing the right thing, and we start trying to convince other people, to also join us in that effort, we start to look for evidence that supports what we believe, and what we are doing and we become less and less likely, to look at evidence that could actually contradict, what that is that we are doing. So, it's important to also look at people who are assisting and asking why are they resisting. Is their argument evidence-based? Is their rational evidence-based, or are they just making stuff up? Is there something to it? And to engage once all moral compasses as well, 'cause we, again, look for the people, also to see what they think is the right thing to do. If we don't know, we might look to other people, for guidance there and sometimes people around us, think there is the right course of action, or it's the moral thing to do, but we have a nagging feeling of doubt, and emotions can of course interfere with critical thinking. So, you have to be careful but on the other hand, they also convey important information. So, if you feel something is wrong, it's important to look into it.

- Well, that's good advice, even though they seem to be invisible forces, that influence how we might behave, we always have the opportunity to engage critical thinking.

- Yes, yeah. Asking questions and also asking questions, we may not necessarily think of, to disrupt the confirmation bias. And going out and engaging with the opposition, or with people who think differently can be very helpful, even though it's painful sometimes.

- Well, thank you for sharing your research, and some of the work you did with Middle Ground. Appreciate your time tonight, Heikel.

- Thank you so much, Sam. a lot of fun.

- All right, see you later.

- Up next, vote. Yes, with Emily Lee and Charlotte Hill, Emily Lee is the Director at San Francisco Rising, an alliance of grassroots organizations, led by people of color and a political home, for San Franciscans, who care about justice and sustainability. They build power through deepening multiracial solidarity, educating and mobilizing voters, working closely with policymakers, organizing and developing leaders of color. Emily is a recognized leader in electoral organizing, with particular expertise in Multiracial Alliance Building, Community Labor Partnerships, Volunteer Engagement, Multilingual Field Operations and Ethnic Media. Emily previously spent 10 years doing youth organizing, and ultimately serving as the Political Director, at the Chinese Progressive Association, who are a founding member of SF Rising. She's joined in conversation by Charlotte Hill, a PhD candidate at the Goldman School Public Policy, at UC Berkeley. Charlotte's research explores how structural reforms, might improve American democracy. She sits on the national boards of Fair Vote, a leading election reform organization and represent us, a nationwide bi-partisan anti-corruption campaign. Both of these groups aim to help Americans policy process, better serve the interests of all Americans, and not just of those who are already wealthy and powerful. She also recently served, on the San Francisco Elections Commission, which oversees local elections. In this conversation they'll be examining how, not all people who can vote do, So, what are the barriers to ensure that, as many people vote as possible? And what are the strategies, that can encourage people to vote? In this conversation they'll share their insights, into increasing voter turnout. Take it away, Emily and Charlotte.

- Thank you, Emily and Charlotte, for joining us this evening. As you know, this program we're trying to unpack, and look at some of the democratic processes, and voting is foundational to that. And both of you have experience in increasing voter turnout. Can you talk a little bit about, how you've connected in the past around this issue?

- Yeah, so thanks for having us with you today, Sam. I first met Charlotte when she was the, San Francisco Elections Commissioner last year. And we started talking, because Charlotte was doing some research, and as a commission I was looking into, how to improve voting rates and voter participation, among certain populations in San Francisco, and particularly amongst low income communities, and communities of color in San Francisco, which really aligns with the work that I do, at San Francisco Rising because our mission is specifically to increase voter participation, voter turnout, and the civic engagement of low income communities, in the black, Latinx, Chinese and Filipino communities in San Francisco. So, it was really great for us to meet each other, and start talking about this issue which is near and dear, I think to both of our hearts around, how do we really make elections and voting participatory, and accessible to people? There's a lot of systemic barriers, and we can kind of see that even just looking at, some of the statistics in San Francisco, around voter turnout. So, we can see that, especially in like years, where there's not huge presidential elections, or there's not a lot of things that are drawing people, to the ballot or to the polling place. For example in 2019 there was not a lot of huge big races, in that general election and so in November, 2019, the turnout was really low. It was 42% of all eligible voters, that actually voted in San Francisco. However, if you look at 2018, you can see that that really increases a lot. When that was the midterm elections, and everyone was kind of very engaged. There was a lot of national conversation, about what was happening that election. And so in that year the turnout for San Francisco was 74%. So, I think and obviously this year 2020, we have a huge election with so many things on the ballot, from the national to the local level, that we expect the turnout to be even higher than 2018. And so I think it really fluctuates, but I think what's consistent is that in general, low income communities and communities of color, are always voting at lower rates, than their higher income counterparts or white voters. And so I think there's something to be looked at around, how we really ensure democratic participation, across the board for everyone. And we wanna look at some of these systemic barriers, that are in place that actually prevent people, from being able to easily access voting, or to understand and know how to vote. So, that's kind of where me and Charlotte, really touch base and talk more about, looking at it from our perspective, which is locally on the ground in San Francisco, and then Charlotte's doing all this research, across the board, that's kind of a more big picture. So, I'll let Charlotte talk more about that.

- Yeah, I think that's right. And a lot of my research has focused on the barriers, that different groups, and the broader voting eligible population face, when it comes to participating on election day. And one of the big categories or barriers, that I've uncovered time and again, and many, many other scholars have as well, is what we call information barriers, and people not having the information that they need, in order to be able to easily participate, and disparities and information across groups. A lot of my research has focused on young people, and why young people don't vote. And there's a popular idea out there, that young people just don't really care, that they're not interested in politics. But when you look at survey data, trying to measure how much people care about elections, how important they think they are, you consistently see that, the vast majority of young people in America, do think that politics is important. They think elections are important. They think that their vote matters. They intend to vote at similar rates to older people. And then when election day comes around, time and again, we see that young people vote at pretty low rates, and there are similar trends when it comes, to people of color versus white people, or lower income folks versus higher income folks. Well, if it's not an interest issue, what is it? You start seeing that young people disproportionately report not knowing how to register to vote, not knowing where to go to register, not knowing their state's policy, on something like vote by mail, which we know this year is especially important. Really on any question you ask, that has to do with the information, that you need to participate, young people have less of it. And they are also less likely, to know where to turn to get that information. I think a lot of folks would say, "Well, you just Google it," but you have to know the words to Google. And every step along the way, is an additional little barrier, a little cognitive burden, that someone takes on to participate. So, Emily and I, you know, our conversations have largely focused on that. Emily's team is already providing a lot of this information to San Francisco voters. So, then how do we measure, the impact of giving that information to voters overall, and then to certain groups versus others?

- So, it sounds like a current system, as you mentioned, has its own systemic and institutional barriers. There are some countries that have compulsory voting, which kind of try to enforce voter turnout. And it sounds like based on statistics we see, we only get a fraction of voters out. What would that look like to implement compulsory voting? Would that be a solution do you think?

- I can speak to this first. So, there are other countries that have compulsory voting. Australia comes to mind and they see quite high turnout, as a result or near universal turnout. And typically what happens is someone who doesn't vote, they get some sort of fine or penalty for not participating, similar to not paying your taxes. And I think that the goal of universal turnout, is great, right? When certain groups don't participate, as high of rates as other groups, our democracy is distorted. The people who get elected don't represent the public. The policies they decide to put on the agenda, and the way that they decide to vote gets distorted. So yes, we want full turnout. But what the compulsory voting idea, I think fails to recognize is that, as you were just saying, differences in turnout right now, don't just reflect some groups of people, not caring about politics. And so you've got to tell them they have to do it, in order to vote. They reflect systematic barriers, that are imposed more on some groups than on others. So, we know for instance, that if you are a person of color in America, you face dramatically longer wait times, when you go to your polling place in order to vote. We know that you on average, have fewer polling places available to you, when you go to vote. We can look at male voting and we know that, you're more likely to move more often, so not have stability in your address, and you're gonna have to registered to vote more often. It's going to be harder for you, to get a mail ballot delivered to you. We could talk about barriers till the end of the day. And so, until you address those barriers, compulsory voting is just going to amplify then, because now you're saying, not only do you face these barriers, that make it hard to vote make you turn out, and if you don't we're going to levy a fine on you. So, there's a big equity concern there. So, what I recommend is taking a step back, understanding what are the big issues, that are preventing people from turning out. They have to do a lot with broader structural issues, like people not having as much money, not living in neighborhoods, that give them as much opportunity, and access to participate. And how do we address some of these things, through our policy rather than just kind of, putting the burden on voters to show up, no matter how costly it is for them.

- Yeah, I really agree with you there, Charlotte. I think that we need to make voting, something that people really see, their own intrinsic self interest, and value in their contribution to voting, and shaping the policies, and the representatives of their local government, all the way up to the White House. And there's a certain value in doing that, that's about really engaging people, and providing them with whatever they need, to be able to vote versus assuming they're not doing it, because they don't want to, or they just don't care or they're lazy. I just think that that stuff is very loaded, right? It has a lot of assumptions. And I think that the goal is to make voting, something where people do it, because they understand how connected it makes them, to the community they live in, right. It's about actually explaining to folks, "If you vote on these issues that are on your local ballot, "this will impact your life and your family, "and your neighbors in this way." And then what we found is when we do that kind of outreach, and education in the community people are very clear. They're very clear about why they should vote. But the reality is too often, we don't have the adequate amount of resources, or there's not enough outreach done to those communities, that are low frequency voters to really explain to them, "Here's what's at stake in this election. "Here's how you can actually help shape, "what's happening in your neighborhood, in your community." And once people hear about it, and they get access to the, you know, making it easy for them to do it where it's like, "Yeah, all you have to do is, "here's how you register to vote by mail. "You don't have to walk down to your polling place, "or to city Hall to vote. "We can easily help you do that, "or we can do it in your language." Like San Francisco is a very diverse community. And we have some of the best probably, language access laws in San Francisco and yet still we, with our teams and our staff, go out to door, knock people are them. We often hear from voters who are non English speakers, where English is not their first language. They often say to us, "Oh, you're the first person who's actually, "reached out to me about this election. "I didn't even know there was an election, "coming up this year." So, we got that message from so many voters in 2019, in that general election that was very low turn out. It was, I think something like 47%, and so many voters who spoke Spanish said to us, "You're the very first person who's ever knocked on my door, "who ever talked to me and told me there was an election. "And so now that I know about it, yes, I want to vote." But actually there just isn't that level of outreach, to those communities in their language. Also by trusted messengers. And so I think that's the kind of role, that we see as really valuable in our organizations, providing that type of resource access, and so that we actually support people. in doing something that's not that easy. For some folks that might be very easy, but for others it's like, "Okay, if I don't speak the language who do I call? "How do I navigate it? "How do I find out if I'm registered, "where my polling place is?" And everyone gets a lot of junk mail. So, even though there's notices that get sent out, often people don't notice. And they're like, "Okay, I'm just gonna throw this, "with the rest of the chunk mail." And so I do think it's one of those things that, there's a lot that can be done, to really make voting easier and more accessible, before we jump to the assumption, that like compulsory voting is gonna be the solution, when we have so much work to do ahead of us actually.

- So Emily, it sounds like the work, that you and your team do is really outreach and education, and it's not minimal effort, but it's just kind of baseline communication, for on the ground, understanding people's reasons, for not voting. Does it mean back out to kind of policy and structure, Charlotte, can you talk about, even if everyone were well informed, what exists now that is preventing people, and what is your research revealed, about ways that that might change?

- Yeah, so I've approached this problem, from two different directions in my research. One is to survey people and ask them about different stages, in the voting process. And as I said, what sort of information do they have, but also what other resources do they, or do they not have in order to participate? So, "Do you have a personal transportation?" That's really important if most people, are still turning out to vote at a polling place, or "Do you know where your closest mail drop boxes?" And not everyone knows that. "Do you have the stamps that you need, "to mail in your application to register to vote, "or to your completed mail ballot?" So, I ask those types of questions, to try to get a sense for what the barriers are. But then I also do research, just looking at States that have passed reforms, that are aimed at making voting easier. And I say, when these reforms get passed, what happens with turnout, right? Like they're just kind of settle the theory aside, and just say what happens in theoretically. And what I and my coworkers, I work with some folks with Jake Brownback, at the University of Washington and Adam Bonica, and Hakim Jefferson at Stanford. And in one study with Jake Brownback, I found that when same day registration laws, are passed in States, these are laws, that let people go to their polling place, and register at the same time that they vote. So, basically taking a two step process, and turning it into a one step process. When States pass same day registration laws, turn out goes up across the board, but it disproportionately goes up for young people, who is we know are also disproportionately people of color, in this country. And so we saw somewhere between, a five and a 10 percentage point increase in turnout for everyone and the largest gains, for the youngest Americans. And when we look at Universal Mail Voting, in Ohio we have universal male voting, and they'll eat for a long time in this country. When we look at all male voting, and specifically look at Colorado, which has an excellent model, for how it conducts its elections, we see that as a result of implementing, this mail voting system, turn out once again, goes up for everybody, but it disproportionately goes up for young people, for people of color especially black people. They see the largest gains from the system. It goes up for the lowest education folks. So, the largest gains for people, with less than a high school education, slightly less large, for people with only a high school education, slightly less large for people with some college, and just go up the education ladder, And the largest gains for people, with the least household wealth. So, people with five or $10,000 in household wealth, seeing the largest gains there in terms of turnout. So once again, what does that tell us? It tells us that with just tweaks of the voting rules, where you're sending everybody a ballot to their home, so they don't have to go outside the home to access that, and they can fill it out in the comfort of their own house, and not have to wait in line the polling place. When you make that tweak that's enough, to lower barriers dramatically for people who were clearly, that was what was keeping them out of the system, not a lack of interest in voting. You can throw away that ballot that gets mailed to you, if you don't want to fill it out, but people are taking the time to fill it out, and to send it back. So I mean, that to me is, it's almost more proof of the systemic barriers, than what people say in surveys, right. We just know that if we change the laws, to make things easier more people participate. So, that's why I always say they're pretty simple changes. Let people register to vote at their polling place, right. Don't have arbitrary registration deadlines, that are two or three or four weeks before an election, 'cause most people aren't thinking about, registering to vote a month ahead of election day. They're thinking about doing all of this on election day, when everyone in their community is turning out to vote. And then put the information that people need to participate in front of them as directly and as frequently as possible. The work that Emily and SF Rising is doing, is critically important, but I think Emily would agree, like ideally they wouldn't need to exist, right? Ideally that work would not be being done, by a nonprofit organization. This would be the function of our government institutions, to make sure that the vast majority of people, were participating in our elections.

- Yeah, and I do think that, you know, just to give credit, to the San Francisco Department of Elections, which has moved so many reforms in the last few years, that were not necessarily mandated by State, but which San Francisco has decided, to kind of take a very proactive approach, including that type of same day registration, having early vote centers so that you can, you know, for in 2019 for the first time you could vote early, about, I think it was the four days before the election, not just at City Hall, but you can actually do it in two different other locations in San Francisco, at San Francisco State University, thereby increasing young voter turnout, and also at a community center in the Bay View, which also has one of the lowest voting rates, in San Francisco. So, I do think that there is a lot that the City has done, which really should be applauded, and should kind of be seen as a model for other cities. And I do think of obviously like everywhere, we have ways to grow and improve as well. And a lot of that does depend on resources. And so how do we make sure as we're going into cities, and counties across the state across the country, are going into this recession and having severe deficits, that these deficits don't negatively impact people's ability to even just have their basic democratic right to vote, has been a concern that we have seen. And I think the other thing to note is that, for young voters, we've also done some registration of young voters, on these college, campuses, but also in high schools, because in San Francisco, you can actually pre-register voters, so that when they're 16 and 17, and they're gonna turn 18 soon, they can actually fill out a registration form, so that when they actually turn 18, the department already has their voter registration card, and they can basically implement it and process it, on their 18th birthday. So, then that's a time of life when young people are like, "Oh, you know, maybe not right now," but previously we're in a lot of transition, upon possibly moving out of their parents' house, moving to a different State or different City, maybe going to school. And so they're in a transition time in their life, where actually getting that preregistration, is super critical, because then in the middle of this kind of big changes, they can actually be like, "Oh, I did that two years ago, actually so I'm good. "I'm registered to vote at my permanent address, "which might be my parents' address. "And so I'll always know that." And it just is one of these things where, research has shown I'm sure, Charlotte, you've shown this too, which is when people start voting young, that creates it's a habit in their life. And so when it's a lifelong habit you do it every year, and you don't forget it, because it's just something that's been become habituated, and it's something that you started doing, when you were 18 years old. And potentially in San Francisco, that might change this year, because there's actually a ballot measure, to year 16 and 17 year olds the right to vote, in San Francisco municipal election. So, we could see that changing as well, where even starting at a younger age, people are gonna be voting in elections, depending what happens this November.

- Yeah, I will also add. There's interesting research suggesting that, when young people in particular are voting, they can serve as important conduits, to older people in their families, especially in immigrant communities, and nonwhite communities where often you have parents, who maybe do not speak English as their native language, but who would like to participate, but are a little less tied into the networks, where they would get this kind of information, about elections and their kids, might be going to public school or going to university, and more connected to these networks. And so when we bring the young people in, they're then sharing that information with their parents, and their grandparents and helping boost that turnout, and they're trusted messengers, 'cause they're part of the family. Another important reason, to make sure that people are registered to vote, that maybe people who are watching aren't as aware of, it has to do with what voter mobilization programs, tend to look like inside political campaigns, and in grassroots political organizations. So, right now it's September. We're less than two months, from the general election in November. And every organization that cares about voter turn out, is doing what's called, G-O-T-V, Get Out To Vote, right. Historically there would be door knocking. Right now there are a lot of phone calls being made, and text messages are being sent, social ads being run, millions and millions of dollars being spent on this. And almost everyone is starting, from the same universal people, which is folks who are registered to vote, 'cause people know that it is historically pretty expensive, to try to get someone from being a non-registered to a registrant. But if someone's already registered, then you can just really do your best to get them to vote. And so what that means is that people who are registered, will be contacted five, 10, 15 times this election cycle, by different organizations, and by various political campaigns urging them to turn out. But if you never registered to vote, you might get contacted a couple of times, by folks who are trying to get you to register. Maybe if you live in a swing State, and like every other bit of information about you, suggest that you would support a particular candidate, if you were to register, like they might invest that effort, but they're probably not going to. And so what we have is this kind of vicious cycle, where the people who are already engaged, can get more engaged, but the people who haven't taken that initial step, which as I said before, it's not as sexy as voting, registering to vote is a step that you have to do beforehand and you don't get a sticker for it, right. And if you don't belong to a community, where people are urging you to do that, and where you see registration drives everywhere, your parents took you to the polls when you were a kid, if that's not your experience, the chances are that not only will you not register, but you won't get this onslaught of information, that increases your likelihood of voting. So, that's why I really like to focus, especially on the reforms that would get people, in the top of that funnel, the registration part. And once they're in there, we see that the differences in turnout, across different groups tend to be much smaller, like among registered voters, you still see pretty high youth turnout. You see pretty high turnout among voters of color, in this country. But the big disparities tend to come earlier, at the registration stage.

- That leads me to my final question, as we wrap things up, and that has to do with personal agency, right. So, for viewers out there, who want to help increase voter turnout, it sounds like A, number one is make sure you're registered. That's the closest thing you can do for yourself. But from each of your perspectives, both in kind of community engagement or civic engagement and other legislative changes, can you say one or two things that an individual can do, to help increase voter participation?

- Yeah, I would say that from what we've seen, doing person to person outreach the doors and on the phones, that oftentimes the process of voting can be very confusing, and if you've ever voted in San Francisco, you should know why because the ballots are like, they literally take an hour, maybe an hour plus to get through, because there's so many local ballot measures. There's so many state ballot measures. And then you add on candidate races, and San Francisco is a very political city in the sense that there's a lot of different policies, that are getting passed every election cycle. And the reality is overwhelming for a lot of people. And so we've definitely had people who were like, "Oh yeah, I got my ballot but I don't know. "Just it's gonna take so long or it's so complicated. "And there's so many key pieces of paper." And then you throw on Ranked-Choice Voting, which is supposed to give voters more choice. But I do have to share that in 2018, when we had an election for an interim Mayor, to fulfill Ed Lee's role when he passed away, that when we were doing outreach to people saying, "Oh, did you know? "Yeah, there's a Mayor election. "It's important election. "You should really vote this June in 2018." And people were like, "But I don't understand. "Like, don't we just have one mayor? "So, why do I have to pick three and Rank-Choice Voting?" And Rank-Choice Voting has been around for, I think over a decade now in San Francisco, and still there are voters who don't understand really, how Rank-Choice Voting works. And more recently in 2019, I think, yeah it was 2019, they expanded the option, so you can actually rank more than three. You can vote rank up to 10 candidates. So, then you've got this like giant grid that's like, it's almost like taking the SATs or like some, you know, you have those things you're gonna fill in all the bubbles. It isn't overwhelming for people. So, I think it's like the process of investing, and that voter education is really necessary, because even for people who might have all like, you know, if they're not the first time voters but it's like, it really is a process. And so we have to look at things from their perspective too, like, well, "How do we make this easier for somebody? How do we explain it in a way that's more simple, "and direct and clear?" And it's just like something you have to get educated on, like composting or recycling. It's like, "How do I know which thing to put in which bin?" I do think that's something that we need to integrate, into all levels of like society and education. Is like, how do you learn how to do that, as part of school or part of your neighborhood association, or whatever it is that you're active in your community, because I just have to say it is not easy for, especially for people who are then struggling, because this might be their first time voting, or they might be immigrants, and like navigating a new way of voting might be different. So, I do think there's a lot of these kinds of berries, that are, you know, it's personal quote unquote, but it's also like Charlotte's been mentioning, it's like, well, there's things that we can do in the system to make it easier and more accessible for people. Because at the end of the day, people want to do something, that's not super complicated, right? Like you want voting to be like an experience, that people actually want to do. And sometimes we don't think about the user experience, of like voters themselves. So, I do think that's an important part. And then the other thing I would mention is that, this might just be a sign of our political times, but I do think there's a lot of political disenfranchisement and a sense that like, "What I do doesn't really matter." And that's not something we can just fix easily, by fixing a voting system. There's actually a bigger systemic issue, like how we in society engage people and the way it runs. And there's a big sense from communities, who've been very disappointed and say, "Well, I voted last election, "and I haven't seen a big change in the affordability. "I haven't seen a big change in like, "the better jobs for my community. "Like I haven't seen those changes, "and so is my voting actually doing anything?" And I think there's a real disconnect between, people who just engage people, when there's an election coming around, versus folks who are doing that kind of work year round, just say, "We actually need to be empowering these communities, "and empowering voters all year round, "not just when it comes time for them to cast their ballot." And so it tends to be much more transformational, and less transactional in that sense, of how do we really bring people's participation, to all levels of just how their community works, how their local government works, because they don't feel invested in that, and feeling like their vote matters, then why should they engage, right? And that's not their fault, you know. Actually that's a bigger like issue, that we have to talk about collectively. And so I do think because of systemic racism and sexism, and access to opportunities, there's a lot of people who just feel like, "Well, from my personal experience, "I haven't seen that voting has improved my life that much." And so we can actually be real about that, and show people like we're actually here, yes, that's valid critique. And also how do we actually make sure that the policies, that people are voting for actually do benefit them, and they see those benefits directly, right? So, I do think that's kind of the big, more complicated aspect of why people voted down, but I'll stop there and I'll let Charlotte weigh in.

- I think that's so important. And to this question of people are hearing, about all of these challenges in the world of voting, and asking, "Well, what do I do right now?" Like I care about this election, and increasing in this election which I've gotta say, is the most important election in any of our lifetimes. I firmly believe that at least at the federal level. First of all, as I said, any organization that cares about boosting turnout, is running an operation right now, if it has the resources to do so to boost turnout, either locally or at the State level, or at the national level. So, a simple Google search will bring you, to a lot of those groups. If you live in the Bay Area, I'm going to plug SF Rising, and get in touch with them and see if there are ways, that you can contribute to help increase participation, here in the Bay Area. And as Emily said, don't just get involved for a month and a half, right? Like stay involved and build those relationships. But yeah, at the federal level as well, you can make phone calls, you can write text messages, you can write postcards, urging people to turn out on the data side. I can say that all of those, have been proven to increase turnout. And if you are just like, you don't wanna talk to people, but you still wanna make a difference, which is often how I'm feeling at the end of the day, even just signing up to send some text messages, where you're kind of clicking a button, and engaging with people that way, you can help increase participation. But I do just wanna reiterate that, that's a nice short term boost, but what we really need is a combination of, as we've said, kind of the systems transformation in this country, where we start from the place of saying it is our goal, to get everyone able to vote and to do so easily, right. And to pair that with kind of a civic transformation, where we don't think about elections, as divorced from democracy as this thing that come around, every two years or four years, where we do a quick get out the vote operation, but instead as an opportunity for people, to weigh in on how they're feeling about, the state of democracy in that moment, and then the day after the election, they're back to talking with their policy makers, and making sure that they're being listened to. And we see democracy as infused, through every day of our lives as citizens, right? Yeah, that's about it. Just transform everything.

- Well, you gotta start somewhere. Thank you, both Charlotte and Emily for your time, and sharing your thoughts about this. We appreciate making the effort, to kind of help inform some of our audiences. So, take care and we'll see you next time.

- Thank you, Sam.

- Thank you.