Voting: The Role Of Gamification In The United States
Every two years on the first Tuesday in November, millions of Americans head to their local polling station for Election Day. Being able to vote in a free and fair democratic election is a is a right that activists in the suffrage and civil rights movements fought for with their blood, sweat, and tears. Those activists and many others saw voting as an agent of change and an important civic duty. However, the mindset that voting is important has changed over the past few decades. According to a study done by the Pew research center, the United States voter turnout trails most developed countries; and the 2016 Presidential election’s voter turnout rate was at a 20-year low (Regan, 2016). One of the leading issues that scholars and politicians alike face when trying to tackle this
…show more content…
problem is that there are multiple causes for lowering turnout rates. Whether it be the lines at the polls, lack of transportation, or the belief that their vote doesn’t carry much weight, more and more potential voters aren’t expressing their right to vote. Anthony Downs concluded in his book An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957) that rational individuals should abstain from voting because the individual costs that burden a voter outweigh the benefits of actually voting. Voting is a pillar of American democracy, and it is necessary to find a solution that makes citizens want to go to the polls instead of being told they have to. Therefore, the implementation of gamification into the United States voting process would increase voter turnout and civic engagement by rewarding ordinary citizens who become politically engaged and vote.
The term gamification can be defined as an attempt to influence a user’s behavior through “classic game rewards” and repetitive tasks designed within a game.
The theory of gamification holds that people – consumers, coworkers, or students – respond naturally and efficiently to competition, reward, and the type of simulated risk that have made video games such a cultural phenomenon since the 1980’s (Dewey, 2013). Elements of videogame mechanics have been implemented in companies across the country for marketing, training, education and wellness programs. However, gamification’s potential is extremely high. In 2011 researchers at the University of Washington created a game called ‘Fold it’ (Anderson, 2012). The game called upon citizens from across the world to try and figure out the mystery of a how a key protein folds. The way the protein folded was an important step for scientists who were in search of a cure for the HIV virus. The game drew 46,000 participants; and the mystery that had eluded scientists for over fifteen years was solved in ten days. If gamification is used responsibly and correctly, it can become an effective tool that could solve serious problems through
crowdsourcing.
The “Serious Gaming” movement began in 2004 when Presidential candidate Howard Dean created a game to simulate late canvassing in the Iowa caucus. “Serious games” deal with serious social, economic, health, and educational issues and are increasingly being seen as an important means of engaging new audiences and providing new tools to persuade participants of specific sociopolitical agendas (Anderson, 2012). Since voter turnout rates have been seriously decreasing, the application of a serious game to the political process could increase civic engagement. The number of votes cast in the 2012 Elections was less than those in the 2004 and 2008 Elections, despite the fact that $6 billion dollars was spent to influence the outcome.
Voter turnout is extremely important, especially in close elections. Even though one individual vote may not alter the course of an election, an attitude that embodies that idea would be detrimental to American democracy. For example, the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Frank Gore was decided by Florida. After a recount the state of Florida was decided by 537 votes in favor of George W. Bush, making him the 43rd President of the United States of America (Zichermann, 2012). When the leader of the free world is determined by as few as 537 votes, it is important that a vast majority of Americans vote in favor of that candidate.
Due to low turnout rates and its influence through pop-culture, MTV created a “Fantasy Election” for the 2012 Elections. According to MTV the main objective of the game was “to serve as an ‘on-ramp’ into the 2012 elections for young people who were exhibiting ‘election-avoidance’” (Foxman, 2014, p. 460). The game, designed similar to a fantasy football, allowed users join a league with other individuals, draft candidates who they supported, and then compete within their league to score the most points. Fantasy election had 137,819 unique visitors: 16,967 that registered to play and 10,106 who actually participated by joining a league (Forelle, 2014, p. 457). Although the average user only spent four minutes on the site, the user participated in hundreds of thousands of bonus activities, which ranged from reading articles to answering quiz questions and watching television shows. The game awarded weekly and monthly prizes to increase user engagement. A study done after the election found that seventy-five percent of respondents said the primary reason they played Fantasy Election was to win prizes (Foxman, 2014, p. 460). The Fantasy Election program was the first large-scale attempt at gamifying the political process through multiple potential forms of engagement, including taking direct political action, such as attending rallies, acquiring knowledge about candidates, and broadcasting political information on Facebook and Twitter.
There are many critics of the gamification of serious issues, many of whom state their concern being the efficacy of using extrinsic rewards to inculcate long-term commitment by users. Ian Bogost was a co-developer of the “The Howard Dean for Iowa Game”; however, he believes that the gamification of the U.S. political process is “bullshit” and that it would just turn into a “disingenuous corporate ploy” (Forelle, 2014, p. 456). Other issues that critics cite is that users will not develop long-term engagement. MTV’s Fantasy Election found that one of the major difficulties was determining an effective way of gamifying candidate accountability, which is a major source of information and points in the game (Foxman, 2014, p. 458). In addition, the game lacked information about smaller candidates and local representatives. Susan Crawford, a Harvard professor and former technology policy assistant in the Obama White House, said requiring people to implement the mechanics of reward-based gaming as a common expectation is not optimal. “There have to be other routes to excellence in work, health, and education; there have to be ways to explore, invent, create, and avoid—it can’t be that we’ll be adding up points for every salient element of our lives” (Anderson, 2012). In sum, the majority of critics believe that if civic engagement is tied to a monetary reward rather than a sense of duty to the community or nation or a feeling of self-efficacy in the political arena, then it stands at odds with the fundamental ideals of democratic citizenship (Rainie, 2012).
The study done by MTV a few months after the election did find some beneficial results as well. One user explained that the game’s effects were not transformative but rather were persistent. The Fantasy Election user stated that “After the game ended, I found myself wishing it was still transpiring. I had grown accustomed to playing. I was still checking in to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report daily. I also acquired a newfound knowledge about the wealth of available news sources” (Foxman, 2014, p. 460). This testimony along with other findings led to the conclusion that there is potential in gamification for more and deeper civic engagement. Other beneficial findings that were found included the fact that “a consequence of playing the game, was that players became more informed about the election,” and that “over 90% of respondents said they voted this year, including 7% who had not voted in the past elections” (Foxman, 2014, p. 463).
Although the implantation of gamification into the political process is a relatively novel idea, a number of ideas have been proposed that could effectively increase civic engagement. The basic elements of each game need to remain the same and should have the same end goal of inspiring someone to vote on election day. These basic necessities include receiving points for registering to vote, becoming educated on issues and candidates that interest them, and finding their polling location and actually voting on election day. More advanced concepts that users could earn points for include attending a live town hall, watching the presidential debates, and reading and sharing news articles. Another interesting idea that could potentially help combat the fake news epidemic would be to take points away from participants who share articles about a candidate or issue that is factually inaccurate. These basic concepts would be able to shape a platform that would be effective at informing candidates while also encouraging civic engagement.
In order to strive for maximum user engagement and participation, it is important to make the process social and competitive in nature. At each step of the process, users should be notified of their progress and be able to see how they are faring towards the goal. This could involve the implementation of a leadership board that compares a user against others in their friend group, region and country as well. Then, the user’s progress would be tracked from one election to the next — giving them an effective civic participation score. After this, participants who earn a designated number of points would then be entered into a voter lottery, where they would be eligible for a multitude of prizes. A lottery system is more efficient than other proposals that offer direct benefits for voting because “it doesn’t directly offer cash for action, reduces the ability to cheat, and makes the reward relevant to everyone – not just the poor” (Zichermann, 2012). Also, regardless of whether or not a user’s preferred candidate wins or loses, they would still be eligible to win something.
No matter what one’s perspective is on the state of civic engagement in the United States today, there is one thing that is undeniable: The U.S. continues to spend more on its elections than any other nation while voter turnout rates continue to decrease. The conventional ways of advertising over the television and through the mail have become ineffective in todays society. Human’s in general do not like being told what to do, and gamification can solve the voter turnout problem by providing a less combative, cheaper, and informative method of encouraging users to vote. A gamified political process would also increase voter turnout, create a well-informed electorate and would fix the cost burden that voters face when going to the polls on election day.
problem is that there are multiple causes for lowering turnout rates. Whether it be the lines at the polls, lack of transportation, or the belief that their vote doesn’t carry much weight, more and more potential voters aren’t expressing their right to vote. Anthony Downs concluded in his book An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957) that rational individuals should abstain from voting because the individual costs that burden a voter outweigh the benefits of actually voting. Voting is a pillar of American democracy, and it is necessary to find a solution that makes citizens want to go to the polls instead of being told they have to. Therefore, the implementation of gamification into the United States voting process would increase voter turnout and civic engagement by rewarding ordinary citizens who become politically engaged and vote.
The term gamification can be defined as an attempt to influence a user’s behavior through “classic game rewards” and repetitive tasks designed within a game.
The theory of gamification holds that people – consumers, coworkers, or students – respond naturally and efficiently to competition, reward, and the type of simulated risk that have made video games such a cultural phenomenon since the 1980’s (Dewey, 2013). Elements of videogame mechanics have been implemented in companies across the country for marketing, training, education and wellness programs. However, gamification’s potential is extremely high. In 2011 researchers at the University of Washington created a game called ‘Fold it’ (Anderson, 2012). The game called upon citizens from across the world to try and figure out the mystery of a how a key protein folds. The way the protein folded was an important step for scientists who were in search of a cure for the HIV virus. The game drew 46,000 participants; and the mystery that had eluded scientists for over fifteen years was solved in ten days. If gamification is used responsibly and correctly, it can become an effective tool that could solve serious problems through
crowdsourcing.
The “Serious Gaming” movement began in 2004 when Presidential candidate Howard Dean created a game to simulate late canvassing in the Iowa caucus. “Serious games” deal with serious social, economic, health, and educational issues and are increasingly being seen as an important means of engaging new audiences and providing new tools to persuade participants of specific sociopolitical agendas (Anderson, 2012). Since voter turnout rates have been seriously decreasing, the application of a serious game to the political process could increase civic engagement. The number of votes cast in the 2012 Elections was less than those in the 2004 and 2008 Elections, despite the fact that $6 billion dollars was spent to influence the outcome.
Voter turnout is extremely important, especially in close elections. Even though one individual vote may not alter the course of an election, an attitude that embodies that idea would be detrimental to American democracy. For example, the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Frank Gore was decided by Florida. After a recount the state of Florida was decided by 537 votes in favor of George W. Bush, making him the 43rd President of the United States of America (Zichermann, 2012). When the leader of the free world is determined by as few as 537 votes, it is important that a vast majority of Americans vote in favor of that candidate.
Due to low turnout rates and its influence through pop-culture, MTV created a “Fantasy Election” for the 2012 Elections. According to MTV the main objective of the game was “to serve as an ‘on-ramp’ into the 2012 elections for young people who were exhibiting ‘election-avoidance’” (Foxman, 2014, p. 460). The game, designed similar to a fantasy football, allowed users join a league with other individuals, draft candidates who they supported, and then compete within their league to score the most points. Fantasy election had 137,819 unique visitors: 16,967 that registered to play and 10,106 who actually participated by joining a league (Forelle, 2014, p. 457). Although the average user only spent four minutes on the site, the user participated in hundreds of thousands of bonus activities, which ranged from reading articles to answering quiz questions and watching television shows. The game awarded weekly and monthly prizes to increase user engagement. A study done after the election found that seventy-five percent of respondents said the primary reason they played Fantasy Election was to win prizes (Foxman, 2014, p. 460). The Fantasy Election program was the first large-scale attempt at gamifying the political process through multiple potential forms of engagement, including taking direct political action, such as attending rallies, acquiring knowledge about candidates, and broadcasting political information on Facebook and Twitter.
There are many critics of the gamification of serious issues, many of whom state their concern being the efficacy of using extrinsic rewards to inculcate long-term commitment by users. Ian Bogost was a co-developer of the “The Howard Dean for Iowa Game”; however, he believes that the gamification of the U.S. political process is “bullshit” and that it would just turn into a “disingenuous corporate ploy” (Forelle, 2014, p. 456). Other issues that critics cite is that users will not develop long-term engagement. MTV’s Fantasy Election found that one of the major difficulties was determining an effective way of gamifying candidate accountability, which is a major source of information and points in the game (Foxman, 2014, p. 458). In addition, the game lacked information about smaller candidates and local representatives. Susan Crawford, a Harvard professor and former technology policy assistant in the Obama White House, said requiring people to implement the mechanics of reward-based gaming as a common expectation is not optimal. “There have to be other routes to excellence in work, health, and education; there have to be ways to explore, invent, create, and avoid—it can’t be that we’ll be adding up points for every salient element of our lives” (Anderson, 2012). In sum, the majority of critics believe that if civic engagement is tied to a monetary reward rather than a sense of duty to the community or nation or a feeling of self-efficacy in the political arena, then it stands at odds with the fundamental ideals of democratic citizenship (Rainie, 2012).
The study done by MTV a few months after the election did find some beneficial results as well. One user explained that the game’s effects were not transformative but rather were persistent. The Fantasy Election user stated that “After the game ended, I found myself wishing it was still transpiring. I had grown accustomed to playing. I was still checking in to The Daily Show and The Colbert Report daily. I also acquired a newfound knowledge about the wealth of available news sources” (Foxman, 2014, p. 460). This testimony along with other findings led to the conclusion that there is potential in gamification for more and deeper civic engagement. Other beneficial findings that were found included the fact that “a consequence of playing the game, was that players became more informed about the election,” and that “over 90% of respondents said they voted this year, including 7% who had not voted in the past elections” (Foxman, 2014, p. 463).
Although the implantation of gamification into the political process is a relatively novel idea, a number of ideas have been proposed that could effectively increase civic engagement. The basic elements of each game need to remain the same and should have the same end goal of inspiring someone to vote on election day. These basic necessities include receiving points for registering to vote, becoming educated on issues and candidates that interest them, and finding their polling location and actually voting on election day. More advanced concepts that users could earn points for include attending a live town hall, watching the presidential debates, and reading and sharing news articles. Another interesting idea that could potentially help combat the fake news epidemic would be to take points away from participants who share articles about a candidate or issue that is factually inaccurate. These basic concepts would be able to shape a platform that would be effective at informing candidates while also encouraging civic engagement.
In order to strive for maximum user engagement and participation, it is important to make the process social and competitive in nature. At each step of the process, users should be notified of their progress and be able to see how they are faring towards the goal. This could involve the implementation of a leadership board that compares a user against others in their friend group, region and country as well. Then, the user’s progress would be tracked from one election to the next — giving them an effective civic participation score. After this, participants who earn a designated number of points would then be entered into a voter lottery, where they would be eligible for a multitude of prizes. A lottery system is more efficient than other proposals that offer direct benefits for voting because “it doesn’t directly offer cash for action, reduces the ability to cheat, and makes the reward relevant to everyone – not just the poor” (Zichermann, 2012). Also, regardless of whether or not a user’s preferred candidate wins or loses, they would still be eligible to win something.
No matter what one’s perspective is on the state of civic engagement in the United States today, there is one thing that is undeniable: The U.S. continues to spend more on its elections than any other nation while voter turnout rates continue to decrease. The conventional ways of advertising over the television and through the mail have become ineffective in todays society. Human’s in general do not like being told what to do, and gamification can solve the voter turnout problem by providing a less combative, cheaper, and informative method of encouraging users to vote. A gamified political process would also increase voter turnout, create a well-informed electorate and would fix the cost burden that voters face when going to the polls on election day.