Social networking sites are an effective medium for political campaigning and mobilisation

24/04/2010 yannickb 12 comments

Social networking sites have proven to be at the forefront of political success all over the world. They are now a fundamental communications tool in every aspect of the community, and a limitless source of information for campaign strategy. The use of social networking sites in political parties spans across increased media exposure, funding, participation and has increased mobilisation and enthusiasm in numerous recent political campaigns. Social networking sites are now proven to be unsurpassed in their effectiveness to gather and communicate a targeted political message, raising the stakes in strategy and aggressive social media participation.

Over the past two decades online social networking sites and systems have been effectively used to increase political dialogue. In 1996 email was widely used across social networks as a means of facilitating people and groups for political purposes (Bimber 1998). The catchphrase ‘Think’ was distributed through friendship networks on MySpace during the 2006 Belgian election to stimulate discussion and thought around voting preference and to encouraging votes to reconsider voting for a far right party (Quintelier and Vissers 2008). In 2007 it was estimated that 40% of all social networking users had used Myspace and Facebook as a source for political information in the United States (US) and 20% of people used these sites to discover the political interests of their friends (Zhang et. al., 2010). It has been suggested that Myspace is so effective that it should be a key part to any campaign strategy (Gueorguieva 2007). In 2006 in a survey of Myspace users over 18 found that they were three times more likely to take part in online political discourse (O’Malley 2007).These trends indicate a re-invigoration of political interest among people because of the use of social networking sites and indicates that social networking sites should be considered as a major element in any political campaign.

The use of social networking sites by political parties and other politically active groups has increased. These groups have realised using of social networking potentially increases political mobilisation. The Internet has become a fast and low-cost communication tool and enables quick and easy aggregation of political information among potential voters (Bimber 1998). Campaign managers have seen the potential for increased fund-raising and recruiting of new volunteers (Gueorguieva 2007; Zhang et. al., 2010). Barack Obama successful used Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, Facebook among others to communicate and mobilise people. He also had a $2 million dollar custom campaigning and social networking site built called MyBarackobama.com (Walmsley 2008; Crow 2008; Talbot 2008). The Republican party used social networking sites during the 2008 to promote candidate John McCain, even at 71 years of age, which demonstrated their understanding of the importance of its use (Crow 2008). Political parties are now actively engaging with social networking sites as part of their campaign strategies.

Political campaign strategies have successfully used social networking sites to increase campaign funding. Howard Dean, in 2004, was the first US politician to explore the financial value in using the Internet as part of his campaign strategy. He successfully used the Internet to facilitate small donations online instead of the traditional big fund-raising events (Crow 2008; Walmsley 2008; Rhoads 2008). During this same year Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry raised $80 million in online donations. Within two months of creating a MySpace page during the US 2006 election cycle one Republican candidate raised donations by 20% (Gueorguieva 2007). The Barack Obama campaign during the 2008 US presidential election raised $55 million in one month – 80% were online donations and 90% of those were under $200 each. This was before he had run a single fund-raising event (Walmsley 2008; Talbot 2008).

There is great potential for political parties to raise large sums of money in short periods of time using social networking sites through micro-fund-raising. The use of micro-donations not only enable candidates to raise funds rapidly it gives a sense of involvement and participation to those who have donated, no mater how small the amount. Obama gave ownership of the campaigns success to the millions who support him through minor donations on the Internet and not through the usual large donations by interest groups (Crow 2008). This creates a sense of involvement in the individual by participating in the political process.

Through micro-donations by way of social networking sites, political candidates can politicise an opposition candidates who use a more traditional large individual amount funding model. In the case of Barack Obama, he was able to accuse his opponents of compromised political motivations because they receive large donations from lobby and interest groups, which may not be representative of the interests of their constituents (Crow 2008). The broader implications of micro-funding for a candidate include a sense of greater transparency, less influence from interest groups and better representation of the broader public’s interest.

The rapid rise of new communications channels also adds challenges both personal and professional for politicians in the media spotlight. The added exposure poses new risks which lead to greater accountability. It is easy to be filmed anywhere, uploaded and go viral within a very short period of time. The potential gains have been seen by political strategists and political parties in American politics. Some party campaigners have been known to hire film crews to follow not only their own candidates but the opposition candidates as well. The easy process of uploading and distributing video content through YouTube allows uncensored speeches to be easily critiqued and heightens the candidates’ risk of contradictory arguments. An example of this high-level of exposure can be see in the 2006 US election cycle as one senator was filmed making a racial slur, which was shortly after uploaded to YouTube and aggregated quickly, becoming a ‘most viewed’ video (Gueorguieva 2007). Utilising the increased exposure of political candidates adds another dimension to political campaigning. Social media sites increase the ease and speed of smear campaigning of opposition candidates.

Whilst political parties may not have the level of control they would like over the content that is distributed, social networking sites have facilitated an increase in the rate of political participation. It has the potential to be as effective a political motivator as voluntary associations (Quintelier and Vissers 2008). Quintelier and Vissers recount that “online activities forge connections between people that might actually increase levels of political participation” (Vissers 2008 p.413). If you equate the apparent increased use of social networking sites for political purposes, you could argue that the increased use equals increased political participation (Zhang et. al., 2010). Evidence from a number of studies supports the theory that the Internet has beneficial effects on online political involvement (Quintelier and Vissers 2008). “Internet use encourages higher levels of political participation: for example, forwarding e-mails with political content, online voting, and so forth” (Vissers 2008 p.415). And online communications through social networking sites can aid in political engagement (Zhang et. al 2010). This increasing participation and engagement of politically active people requires political parties to develop new systems to communicate and target new audiences.

Social networking sites create an easily accessible medium for people to find, distribute and absorb political information. YouTube and other social media sites allows campaign strategies to easily target limitless voters with great communication power (Gueorguieva 2007). According to a Pew Internet and American Life study, 46% of American voters have used the Internet, text messaging or email for political mobilisation, discussion and to access political news and information (Walmsley 2008). 35% of people in the US watched political videos on YouTube (Walmsley 2008). This ease of access combined with new technologies enables campaigners to strategically target and customise their marketing approach.

Social networking sites enable a more targeted approach to election campaigning. The US Republican 2008 presidential campaign used an internal database, called the Voter Volt, matched with internet searches to advertise to potential voters using social networking sites (Rhoads 2008). These new technologies combined with the use of social networking sites not only increases the accuracy of the campaign message through targeted advertising, it has also helped to increase the size of the audience. During the 2008 US Election new technologies allowed The Republican National Committee to increase the number of potential voters on their database by 6-fold compared to their 2004 campaign (Rhoads 2008). The use of these new tools have the added potential to increase mobilisation.

Barack Obama’s understanding of the importance of social networking sites and good ‘netiquette’ was a key in mobilising and engaging potential voters. Political observers perceive Barack Obama’s understanding social networking sites as well as his use of ‘mybarackobama.com’ as a key factor in his election success (Zhang et. al., 2010). Crow describes ‘mybarackobama.com’ as “the first 21st-century platform for mobilising political support,” (Crow 2008, p.39). Barack Obama stated that the use of these online services allowed him to communicate without being filtered or edited through corporate media. Obama would ‘follow’ people on Twitter minutes after ‘following’ him, demonstrating his understanding of good netiquette (Walmsley 2008). Central to his campaign, Obama needed to be as omnipresent as possible by ensuring he was on as many of the new social networking sites as possible. It was the fact Obama made the social networking tools central to his campaign strategy and used them to mobilise and organise supporters that made them such a valuable asset (Talbot 2008). Obama understood that the key was not just having a profile on social networking sites, but it was how it was managed. This was central to the campaign that enabled him to mobilise millions of American voters.

The numbers of politically active citizens online and offline are expanding throughout the world via the new communications role of the Internet (Quintelier and Vissers 2008). Obama had 2.4 million Facebook ‘friends‘ signed up by the end of his campaign, while McCain had 624,000 (Zhang et. al., 2010). The Iranian government has also embraced the Internet to help spread a pro-government message and offer online forums for discussion (Rahimi 2003).

Iran, with a majority of young people, has rapidly expanded its use of the Internet and social networking sites as a means of open political communication. Rahimi (2003) sees the Internet as tool of growing potency in the destabilizing of the authoritarian rule of Iran in the journey towards democracy. During the post-2009 election protest Twitter was logging 220,000 tweets about Iran (Last 2009). In a small amount of time Iran has built a large online community that allows people to communicate outside of the cultural restrictions of their country The use of the Internet and social networking are supplementing political discussion. Pro-reformist groups in Iran have seen the Internet as an alternative platform from where they can mobilise support and increase political conversations (Rahimi 2003).

Iranian politically active groups have also seen the potential for social networking sites to mobilise offline protests. Grassroots democracy advocates have also embraced the Internet including a student movement in Iran mobilising against conservatives by staging discussions in chat rooms and other online communications during a time when the state had closed physical meeting locations. They used the Internet to organise events and street protests (Rahimi 2003).

The use of social networking sites specifically including Facebook, Flickr, YouTube, Twitter and Mashups were utilised in the 2006 Kenyan election for mobilisation, information sharing, and to raise money in a restricted time. In Kenya, social media was seen as a way to get involved in the political process as a response to the mainstream media having been gagged by the government (Makinen & Kuira 2008). The same systems that have been so efficient at increasing the reach and participation of people in democratic countries have provided a platform for open political discussion and mobilisation in countries that have previously been less able to be involved.

In Zimbabwe and Kenya online communications have been used to distribute information where the government control has prohibited other communications mediums. Zimbabwe have used email social networks to distribute information outside of state controlled media (Rahimi 2003). Perspectives and commentary on the post-2006 election crisis in Kenya were seen in online networking sites as a way to criticise the media and government and it was found that views and discussion topics seen in social networking sites were much more diverse that seen in mainstream media (Makinen & Kuira 2008). “Social media offered swifter, more subjective, and more detailed coverage during a fast moving and changing situation” (Makinen & Kuira 2008 p330). During the Kenya post-election crisis people mobilised a website called Ushahidi for people to collaboratively report where violent clashes has taken place (Makinen & Kuira 2008). The use of social networks in these countries has enabled a more open dialogue for political discussions. This has also has greater potential in countries with more wide-spread internet use.

The use of social networking sites has become effective in propagating content across communications mediums, shaping decisions we make as a society. People can join groups and causes that can bring them in contact with the broader community.allowing both bridging and bonding capital in political participation (Zhang et. al., 2010). Zhang et. al., (2010) recounts that 22% of people seeking campaign information used social networking sites as a source in the US 2008 presidential campaign. Social networking sites are used to not only find out information about a candidate but also assist in the decision making process (Zhang et. Al 2010). The notion that social networking sites have the potential to influence a voters’ decision highlights the importance of the platform. However the implications of this is on the broader community are as yet unaccounted for.

The over-representation of youth online may have created political mobilisation of a single community (Quintelier and Vissers 2008). As most young people rely on social network sites for political information, It is believed that social networks will only serve to increase the gap between those who are engaged and those who are not (Zhang et. al., 2010). However, Quintelier and Vissers (2008) also suggests that “even if we control for socioeconomic status, sociodemographic factors, voluntary engagement, and political attitudes, various Internet-related activities have a positive influence on levels of offline and online political participation” (Quintelier and Vissers 2008 p.423).

The demographic for the internet has widened and social networking is no longer just for young people (Walmsley 2008). In 2006 over 50% of American YouTube and Myspace users were 35 years or older, and the proportion of 12 to 17 year olds were declining (Gueorguieva 2007). Social networking sites do not just represent a young demographic. Politically engaged people and political participation is increasing throughout the community through the use of social networking sites.

Social networking is taking a more substantial role in political process in recent years. Not only has it been effectivly utilised by political parties in the campaign cycles of western countries, political issues groups and otherwise unrepresented minorities, but also as a means of open and uncessored communication for citizens in countries with oppressive government control over other media conduits. The use of these online tools have seen a shift in the funding models of political parties through the highly effective use of micro-donations. These sites have expanded the reach and accuracy of strategically targeted communications by political parties to potential voters. There is an increase in political participation and people garner a greater sense of contribution through the use of social networking sites and social media, influencing involvement with political parties in the greater community. Social networking sites have proven to be a powerful political tool and we can only expect that it will grow limitlessly along side the political machine.

References

Bimber, B. (1998). “The Internet and Political Mobilization: Research Note on the 1996 Election Season.” Social Science Computer Review 16(4): 391-401. Retrieved March 29 from http://ssc.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi/reprint/16/4/391.

Crow, D. (2008, May). Slugging it out online. Spectator Business,(1), 38-39. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1997057961&Fmt=3&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD (Document ID: 1997057961).

Gueorguieva, V. (2008). “Voters, MySpace, and YouTube: The Impact of Alternative Communication Channels on the 2006 Election Cycle and Beyond.” Social Science Computer Review 26(3): 288-300. Retrieved March 29 from http://ssc.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi/reprint/26/3/288.

Last, J. (2009). TWEETING WHILE TEHRAN BURNS. Current,(515), 9. Retrieved April 24, 2010, from Academic Research Library. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdlink?index=13&did=1888331261&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=2&VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1269846294&clientId=22212 (Document ID: 1888331261).

Makinen, M. and M. Wangu Kuira (2008). “Social Media and Postelection Crisis in Kenya.” International Journal of Press/Politics 13(3): 328-335. Retrieved March 29 from http://hij.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/13/3/328.

O’Malley, G. MySpace Announces Jan. 1 Presidential Election. Online Media Daily (2007) Retrieved March 31 from http://www.mediapost.com/publications/index.cfm?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=58191&passFuseAction=PublicationsSearch.showSearchReslts&art_searched=&page_number=0

Talbot, D. (2008, September). How Obama Really Did It. Technology Review, 111(5), 78-83,7. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1545481511&Fmt=4&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD (Document ID: 1545481511).

Rahimi, B. (2003) CYBERDISSENT: THE INTERNET IN REVOLUTIONARY IRAN. Middle East Review of International Affairs, Vol 7. Number 3. Retrieved 1 April 2010 from http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2003/issue3/jv7n3a7.html

Rhoads, C. (2008, October 29). Campaigns Turn to New Web Tactics to Tap Fresh Supporters. Wall Street Journal (Eastern Edition), p. A.1. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1584408981&Fmt=4&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD (Document ID: 1584408981).

Quintelier, E. and S. Vissers (2008). “The Effect of Internet Use on Political Participation: An Analysis of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium.” Social Science Computer Review 26(4): 411-427. Retrieved on March 31 from http://ssc.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi/reprint/26/4/411

Walmsley, A. (2008, July). Campaigning 2.0 could swing UK vote. Marketing,14. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1540569391&Fmt=3&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD. (Document ID: 1540569391).

Zhang, Weiwu, Johnson, Thomas J., Seltzer, Trent, Bichard, Shannon L. (2010) The Revolution Will be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes and Behavior. Social Science Computer Review 2010 28: 75-92. Retrieved April 1, 2010 from http://ssc.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi/reprint/28/1/75

Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.

Social Networks campaign, campaigning, Facebook, micro-funding, mobile internet, mobilisation, online networking, political, politics, Social Networking

Edit in Admin

Comments

Written by janette about 2 years ago.

As you say, communication is two-way platform and it takes skill to doit effectively in the online environment.

I am looking forward to seeing how Rudd and Abbott (if they are still the leaders at the time of the next election) use the online community to sell their policies and get their message out.

I browsed the links you added. Interesting data from Belgium.
Written by TomEvans about 2 years ago.

I had missed the story that Jo highlighted about the SA Government attempting to introduce legislation prohibiting people from making political comments anonymously. It is hard to know where the SA Attorney General was going with this. His back down is unconvincing. I am not sure what growing up with the internet had to do with it. The issue always was freedom of speech. It is incredible that a Labor Government would think of introducing legislation that infringes freedom of speech.
Written by Nat about 2 years ago.

Yannickb
I enjoyed reading a paper about America politics, it was refreshing after the recent bombardment from Australian media on the mining super tax and federal budget (just think, the WA budget is around the corner!) Just on that point, how can the states really know how many money is coming after only one or two weeks of the federal budget announcements (they are not even in senate debate yet), however that is digressing.
Importantly your paper argued well on SNS effectiveness for political motivation and although Janette’s comments question over-representation of youth today that will not always be the case in the near future.

For Australia our politicians need to update and adapt just like everyone else, they are no exception to needing political motivation on topics if not voting. Jo rasies a good point, hopefully the rest of Australia can learn from SA.
Written by JoG about 2 years ago.

Hi Yannick, I found your paper to bring to light an interesting area of SNS use. You presented a number of good examples of the way that SNSs are being used to spread political messages.

It is interesting to note that although political parties are attempting to engage more actively through their use of SNSs, that some may also attempt to regulate political commentary on these sites. For example, the South Australian government decided earlier this year to legislate that all political commentary during an election campaign must be accompanied with the writer’s real name and postcode. The effect of this would have been that no one would be able to post comments about the election on their blog sites or SNS pages if their posts were anonymous. The concern being that a political party member would not declare themselves and make spurious remarks about the opposing party. This attempt to regulate anonymous political commentary created a public backlash and the South Australian Attorney General, Michael Atkinson quickly repealed the law. In explaining his decisions he said:”I miscalculated the strength of feeling among teenagers and people in their 20s who have grown up with the internet and blogging and I underestimated their desire to have as a right the ability to make political commentary in the election period anonymously or under an assumed name.” This brings up issues not only related to political expediency but also the right to online privacy and anonymity. It will be interesting to see how the Internet is used in future electoral campaigns especially given the benefits demonstrated by the examples in your paper.

Thanks for the insights into this area,
Jo

SA backs down on Internet comment curb (2010). Retrieved May 13 from http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/03/2808495.htm
Written by yannickb about 2 years ago.

Hi Michael

Thanks for the feedback. I think Australian politics has been very active in utilising social media tools to engage with the public and open discussions around policy and the introduction of legislation. Australian politicians have been quick to realise the potential of Twitter to aggregate their opinions on policy, announcements and news through the mass uptake from all sides of politics (tweetmp 2009; ozpollietweeters n.d; Landauer 2009).

In Australia, as I’m sure you are aware of, we have compulsory voting which changes the way in which government needs to engage with the public, and removes elements of political mobilization which I have discussed in my paper that relate to the American democratic system, as sites like mybarackobama.com were in part functioning to mobilise people to vote. I would say that political campaign strategies in the upcoming election would be careless not to utilise all facets of social media as Barack Obama was so successful in doing to communicate, un-edited, with the community to ‘get their message across’, (Walmsley 2008; Talbot 2008). As we have seen recently, that potentially people are swayed by the five-second media grabs from mass media’s reporting of politics in Australia. Just think of Tony Abbott’s successful use of ‘big new tax’ in relation to not just the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but also now with the Mining Super Profits Tax.

Australian Politicians on Twitter (n.d) Retrieved May 11 from http://ozpollietweeters.pbworks.com/.
Landauer (2009) Which Australian Politicians are on Twitter?, OpenAustralia. Retrieved May 11 from http://blog.openaustralia.org/2009/04/30/which-australian-politicians-are-on-twitter/.
Talbot, D. (2008, September). How Obama Really Did It. Technology Review, 111(5), 78-83,7. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1545481511&Fmt=4&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD (Document ID: 1545481511).
TweetMP – Transparency in Australian Government. (2009) Politicians on Twitter. Transparency in Australian Government. Retrieved May 11 from http://tweetmp.org.au/mps/tweeters
Walmsley, A. (2008, July). Campaigning 2.0 could swing UK vote. Marketing,14. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1540569391&Fmt=3&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD. (Document ID: 1540569391).
Written by yannickb about 2 years ago.

Hi Tom

Thanks for the feedback. I had a read of the literature you have suggested and agree with you that it is looking more closely at the early stages of the campaign cycle. My understanding from the literature is that the jury is still out on whether there is a direct increase in political engagement of young people because of social networking sites and if this connection actually increases the rate of voter participation in countries where voting is optional. I would say though that on the other hand there appears to be a substantial number of studies that have indicated an increase as opposed to the studies that suggest otherwise. I would suggest that you have a look Quintelier, E. and S. Vissers (2008). “The Effect of Internet Use on Political Participation: An Analysis of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium.” Social Science Computer Review 26(4): 411-427.

Quintelier and Vissers (2008) seem to have some evidence (although they indicate further research needs to happen) to suggest and increase in at least online political discussions amongst young people and in some cases an increase in interest in the political process and knowledge as well.

Quintelier, E. and S. Vissers (2008). “The Effect of Internet Use on Political Participation: An Analysis of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium.” Social Science Computer Review 26(4): 411-427. Retrieved on March 31 from http://ssc.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi/reprint/26/4/411
Written by Sky about 2 years ago.

It’s heartening to think that social networking sites might help with the decreasing levels of participation in party politics that we’ve seen in the last few decades. I do wonder a little whether:
1) demographic differences in access to and use of the Internet (and SNSs in particular) might mean that a shift towards online campaigning will further disempower marginalised sections of the voting population? And, on a related note,
2) whether tendencies towards homophily (hanging out with other people who share your opinions) online might mean that a shift towards online campaigning further polarises political opinions on key issues?
Written by yannickb about 2 years ago.

Hi Michael

Thanks for the feedback. I think Australian politics has been very active in utilising social media tools to engage with the public and open discussions around policy and the introduction of legislation. Australian politicians have been quick to realise the potential of Twitter to aggregate their opinions on policy, announcements and news through the mass uptake from all sides of politics (tweetmp 2009; ozpollietweeters n.d; Landauer 2009).

In Australia, as I’m sure you are aware of, we have compulsory voting which changes the way in which government needs to engage with the public, and removes elements of political mobilization which I have discussed in my paper that relate to the American democratic system, as sites like mybarackobama.com were in part functioning to mobilise people to vote. I would say that political campaign strategies in the upcoming election would be careless not to utilise all facets of social media as Barack Obama was so successful in doing to communicate, un-edited, with the community to ‘get their message across’, (Walmsley 2008; Talbot 2008). As we have seen recently, that potentially people are swayed by the five-second media grabs from mass media’s reporting of politics in Australia. Just think of Tony Abbott’s successful use of ‘big new tax’ in relation to not just the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, but also now with the Mining Super Profits Tax.

Australian Politicians on Twitter (n.d) Retrieved May 11 from http://ozpollietweeters.pbworks.com/.
Landauer (2009) Which Australian Politicians are on Twitter?, OpenAustralia. Retrieved May 11 from http://blog.openaustralia.org/2009/04/30/which-australian-politicians-are-on-twitter/.
Talbot, D. (2008, September). How Obama Really Did It. Technology Review, 111(5), 78-83,7. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1545481511&Fmt=4&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD (Document ID: 1545481511).
TweetMP – Transparency in Australian Government. (2009) Politicians on Twitter. Transparency in Australian Government. Retrieved May 11 from http://tweetmp.org.au/mps/tweeters
Walmsley, A. (2008, July). Campaigning 2.0 could swing UK vote. Marketing,14. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1540569391&Fmt=3&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD. (Document ID: 1540569391).
Written by yannickb about 2 years ago.

Hi Janette

Yes, I think that careful planning is required when politicians use SNSs and that it can’t simply be a process of have a presence on these sites. Politicians need to ensure they understand netiquette and social norms around the use of SNSs, that they are two way communications platforms. The Republican party I discussed in my paper found this out the hard way. They understood the need to utilise these sites, but failed to understand the importance of engaging with their audience and suffered as a consequence. The Democratic Party on the other side made this a central part of their campaign strategy and use the communications platform successfully to be inclusive of their audience and giving the audience a sense of importance in the process (Crow 2008).

The over-representation of young people as you have highlighted is an important issue, especially earlier in the start of this century. In recent times however, there has been large shifts in the demographics of online people and we are drawing closer to social networking sites participants representing a much broader audience of people from a range of backgrounds and age groups (Quintelier and Vissers 2008).

Crow, D. (2008, May). Slugging it out online. Spectator Business,(1), 38-39. Retrieved April 19, 2010, from ABI/INFORM Global. http://proquest.umi.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/pqdweb?did=1997057961&Fmt=3&clientId=22212&RQT=309&VName=PQD (Document ID: 1997057961).
Quintelier, E. and S. Vissers (2008). “The Effect of Internet Use on Political Participation: An Analysis of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium.” Social Science Computer Review 26(4): 411-427. Retrieved on March 31 from http://ssc.sagepub.com.dbgw.lis.curtin.edu.au/cgi/reprint/26/4/411
Written by Michael N about 2 years ago.

Convincingly argued with good examples. It will be interesting to see how and what types of social media will play a part in the forthcoming Australian Federal elections.
Written by janette about 2 years ago.

It is important, as you point out, that for politicians to use SNS effectively, it is not enough that they just create a profile on social networking sites, but their site has to be managed well and the politician and his ‘team’ need to be aware of the correct use of netiquette.

The question about the over-representation of youth online having created political mobilisation of a single community is interesting. Many people love debating politics and I would guess that the views of this community would spill over into other communities – family and friends, work colleagues, etc.

I would also be interested to see the SNS usage statistics of Australian pollies.
Written by TomEvans about 2 years ago.

Hi Yannickb,

Your paper was very interesting and raises very similar points to my paper although we have emphasised different aspects of the argument.

I liked your points on how contributing to the campaign through micro-funding helped individuals create a sense of involvement in the political process and also how Barack Obama was able to accuse his opponents of receiving large donations from lobby and interest groups which may have been in conflict with the interests of their constituents thus compromising the integrity of their campaign.

However our mutual point about how social networking sites increase political participation has been challenged in the literature “Baumgartner and Morris (2009) conducted research into the use that young people made of social networking sites in the early stages of the 2008 US presidential election. “The study shows that in spite of the promise SN sites hold for increasing political interest and participation among a chronically disengaged cohort, users are no more inclined to participate in politics than are users of other media”. Their research found that users of SN sites are no more knowledgeable about politics and their participation seems to be limited to internet activity only – most are still not likely to vote. I think that their research may not have taken into account that the early stages of an election are not as appealing to people as its final stages much like any race doesn’t get interesting until the end so their findings may just reflect that. As we both found there is plenty of literature that supports our position but perhaps SN sites increase the participation of people who are already politically interested.

What are your thoughts?

Comment Pages:

Online Conference on Networks and Communities

Social networking sites are an effective medium for political campaigning and mobilisation

Comments

Categories

Tags

Latest comments

Meta