This is at once a how-to book for aspiring politicians and a book with loftier ambitions. The author narrowly lost a 1992 Minnesota state legislative election, and much of the book is an exposition of the notes he assiduously took based on 7,500 doorstep conversations with potential voters. At the same time, the book has a normative point to make—claiming that a “healthy democracy” depends on personal interactions between aspiring politicians and average citizens.

The introduction is bold and thought provoking. It argues that face-to-face conversations between candidates and voters are essential to a healthy democracy because both learn from these conversations, because door knocking will lead to more competitive races, and because these conversations will engage citizens in public affairs. “By doorstep democracy,” James H. Read states,” I mean the practice by which an elected official or candidate for elective office initiates in-person conversations with as many of the district's eligible voters as possible, asks for each individual's vote, invites substantive discussion of public issues, and allows the voter to codetermine the discussion agenda” (p. 177).

After an explanation of how the author became involved in politics, subsequent chapters in the book follow a pattern: On the basis of his campaign notes, he relates a series of anecdotes and ties his experience back to the book's theme, the significance of personal voter contact. This is easier to accomplish in some chapters than others. In Chapter 2, he classifies the kinds of conversations he had with voters on their doorsteps (i.e., sympathetic, informative, tense, multiissue). In Chapter 5, he summarizes his experience by discussing the specific issue of abortion policy with voters at their homes.

In other chapters, the link between Read's campaign experience and the book's argument about the importance of personalistic politics is more tenuous. In Chapter 3, he illustrates how he used the media to portray himself as a “hardworking [future] representative,” which was consistent with his door-knocking strategy. However, the book's principal argument is mostly an afterthought in this chapter. Chapter 4's discussion of the campaign's financing is not, to my reading, linked to the doorstep democracy concept at all.

The anecdotes related are often telling, but not always. One Holdingford resident who asked for the return of a $20 donation after the author's pro-life credentials were questioned makes a lasting impression on the reader. Other anecdotes proceed like a parade of barely related memories.

In the penultimate chapter, Read recapitulates the final days of the race and sets forth some evidence to support his claim that having doorstep interactions with voters is a good political strategy. For instance, in the two elections before his 1992 race, Democrats could muster no more than 32% of the votes, while he garnered 49%. In addition, there was evidence that his campaign tactic energized voters—68% of registered voters cast a vote in the presidential race, and nearly as many (66%) cast a vote in his contest (more than participated in the district's congressional race).

We might quibble about the evidence marshaled in support of Read's argument that door knocking is good strategy politically and also good for democracy. He acknowledges that he has no information about how much door knocking his opponent conducted. There is no evidence that the door-knocked residents of his district were more likely than those households he skipped to participate in the election or to show interest in public affairs. There are claims that electronic media cannot replace face-to-face interactions between candidates and voters, but little to no proof. There is no evidence to support the claim that voters are more responsive to a personal contact by the candidate than by a campaign volunteer. Finally, a citation to Don Green's work (Donald Green and Alan Gerber, Get Out the Vote!, 2004) notwithstanding, the book makes very little effort to situate itself within political science scholarship. Richard Fenno's work (Home Style: House Members in Their Districts, 1978) in particular comes to mind.

In the end, though, this is not chiefly a social scientific work but an aspirational call for voters and candidates to consider speaking to one another more often. With that goal in mind, the book is a success.