1. Mediated and networked politics
Social media and the Internet as
mediators between politicians and voters
Presentation held at the
EPP campaign managers meeting
20-21 October 2011
Dr. Maurice Vergeer
Department of communication

2. Problems
•Low and declining voter turnout
•Little trust in politicians and politics

3. 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1979
1981
1984
1987
1989
1994
1995
1996
1999
2004
BE
DK
DE
IE
FR
IT
LU
NL
UK
EL
ES
PT
SE
FI
CZ
EE
CY
LT
LV
HU
MT
PL
SI
SK
BG
RO
2007
AT
2009

4. Solutions?

5. ONLINE CAMPAIGNING

6. History of campaigning

7. Pre-modern campaigns
Tools
Print media, rallies,
meetings, foot soldiers
Mode / style
Labor-intensive,
interpersonal, amateur
Orientation to
Mobilizing, voters = loyal
voter
partisans
Internal power
Local-centric
distribution

8. Pre-modern campaigns
Modern campaigns
Print media, rallies,
Broadcast television news,
meetings, foot soldiers
news advertisements, polls
Labor-intensive,
Capital-intensive,
interpersonal, amateur
mediated, indirect
Orientation to
Mobilizing, voters = loyal
Converting and mobilizing,
voter
partisans
voters = loyal partisans
Tools
Mode / style
and floating
Internal power
distribution
Local-centric
National-centric

9. Pre-modern campaigns
Modern campaigns
Professional
campaigns
Tools
Broadcast television news, Internet, direct mail
meetings, foot soldiers
news advertisements, polls
Labor-intensive,
Capital-intensive,
Capital-intensive,
interpersonal, amateur
Mode / style
Print media, rallies,
mediated, indirect
marketed, targeted,
continuous
Orientation to
Mobilizing, voters = loyal
Converting and mobilizing, Interactive, voters =
voter
partisans
voters = loyal partisans
consumers
and floating
Internal power
distribution
Local-centric
National-centric
Local-/national centric,
bifurcation

10. Party sites compared across countries
Pippa Norris (2001)
Web feature analysis
•Information function
•Communication function
Developmental explanations
• Technological development
• Human development
• Political development

11. • Kluver, Foot, Schneider & Jankowski (2007)
• Web sphere analysis
- Political parties
- Labour unions
- NGOs
• European focus
• Party sites were best equipped

12. • Advanced and extended replication of web feature analysis

13. Candidate websites
European Parliament elections 2009
Sample: 17 countries
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Austria
Belgium
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hungary
Ireland
The Netherlands
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Sweden
United Kingdom

14. Methodology
• All party and campaign websites
• Random sampling of candidates with websites, but . . .
• Always including the top three candidates per party
• 288 party and campaign websites
• 738 candidate websites
• All websites were archived digitally
• Elaborate coding scheme
• Coding by local experts
• Advanced analyses
- factor analysis, hierarchical linear models

15. Four distinct dimensions of website features
• Informing
• Personal Reputation
• Connecting & Sharing
• Audio-visualisations

16. 1,0
0,9
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,1
0,0
Informing
Personal reputation
Connecting & Sharing
Audio-visualizations

17. ALDE
EPP
Information
GUE / NGL
Personal Reputation
S&D
GREENS / EFA
Connecting & Sharing
ECR
Audio-visualizations
EFD

18. Macrolevel explanation?
Political systems variables
•Fractionalization
•Proportionalism
•Voting system

19. Personalisation
• Personalisation
- Politician representing the party
• Personalisation
- Politician as a person

20. 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

21. THREE DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALIZATION ON CANDIDATE
WEBSITES
•Professional
•Home and Family
•Personal preferences

22. 1,6
1,4
1,2
1,0
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0,0
professional
home and family
personal preferences

23. ECR
EPP
S&D
Personal preferences
ALDE
GREENS / EFA
Personal favorites
EFD
Home & Family
GUE / NGL

24. NEW ERA OF CAMPAIGNING?

25. Two new and related developments
• Online political networking
• Personalisation

26. Political capital online
• Social networking sites
• Microblogging

27. Social networking sites
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Facebook
Twitter
Bebo
Hyves
Youtube
Flickr
Picassa
And many many more

28. Premodern campaigns
Modern campaigns
Professional
campaigns
Tools
Broadcast television news, Internet, direct mail
meetings, foot soldiers
news advertisements, polls
Labor-intensive,
Capital-intensive,
Capital-intensive,
interpersonal, amateur
Mode / style
Print media, rallies,
mediated, indirect
marketed, targeted,
continuous
Orientation to
Mobilizing, voters = loyal
Converting and mobilizing, Interactive, voters =
voter
partisans
voters = loyal partisans
consumers
and floating
Internal power
distribution
Local-centric
National-centric
Local-/national centric,
bifurcation

29. Pre-modern campaigns
Modern campaigns
Professional
Personal campaigns
campaigns
Tools
Broadcast television news, Internet, direct mail
Weblogs, micro-blogs,
meetings, foot soldiers
news advertisements, polls
social networking sites
Labor-intensive,
Capital-intensive,
Capital-intensive,
Low-cost, computer-
interpersonal, amateur
mediated, indirect
marketed, targeted,
mediated, networked,
continuous
Mode / style
Print media, rallies,
personalized, amateur
Orientation to
Mobilizing, voters = loyal
Converting and mobilizing, Interactive, voters =
Hyper interactive, voters
voter
partisans
voters = loyal partisans
consumers
= interested, personal
Local-/national centric,
Local-/national-centric,
bifurcation
individual and
and floating
Internal power
distribution
Local-centric
National-centric
networked

30. TWITTER
AS A CAMPAIGN TOOL

31. The Dutch parliament elections of 2010
Significantly larger implementation of Twitter
as a campaign instrument

32. But …
What does it do?
Level the playing field?
equalisation hypothesis
or
Nothing changes
normalisation hypothesis

33. TWITTER ADOPTION RATE IN
THE NETHERLANDS 2010

34. Twitter
Several indicators
Number of people following the candidate (followers)
Number of people followed by candidate (following)
Number of Tweets (number of original messages)
Number of replies

35. 100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

41. EXPLAINING TWITTER
ADOPTION

43. Subscribing to Twitter
• Party age is unrelated to Twitter adoption
• Ideology is unrelated to Twitter adoption
• Candidate rank on election list is related (higher ranked ->
more adoption)
• External shock is related: loss of seats if prior elections ->
more adoption)
• Internal shock (leadership uncertainty) is unrelated

44. Subscribing to Twitter
• Male and female candidates adopt Twitter as likely
• Younger candidates adopt Twitter more likely

45. The number of tweets
• The longer a candidate is subscribed to Twitter, the more
Tweets s/he sends

46. The number of followers
• The older the party is, the more followers the candidate has
• The higher ranked the candidate, the more followers s/he
has
• The more seats the party won in the last elections, the more
followers the candidate has
• Candidates from parties with leadership uncertainties have
more followers
• Candidates who are subscribed longer, have more
followers

47. The number of following
• The lower ranked candidates follow more other people on
Twitter
• Candidates from parties who lost in prior elections follow
more others on Twitter
• Candidates from parties with leadership uncertainty follow
less others on Twitter
• Longtime subscribers to Twitter follow more others on
Twitter

48. The number of reciprocated relations
(follower and following)
• Candidates of parties that have leadership uncertainties
have less reciprocated relations on Twitter
• Longtime subscribers have more reciprocated relations in
Twitter

49. Trends running up to Election Day
MICRO-BLOGGING ACTIVITIES

50. Research questions
1. To what degree do candidates and the public engage in
public discussions on the Web?
2. To what extent is do parties engage in online
communications?
3. Do discussions take place within the boundaries of the
party (i.e. many small ideological public spheres
consisting of homogeneous networks) or are they
crossing party boundaries?

51. • All candidates
• All tweets in 40 days prior to Election Day
• Inner circle
All tweets of Twitter users that follow candidates
• Outer circle
Twitter users , not following candidates,
but who can be (re)tweeted to

52. Findings
• All messages: n=4,451,128 sent out by the
candidates and the inner circle of the candidates
• nearly half of all messages is undirected, i.e. sent
to no one in particular.
• About a third is sent to people on Twitter not
following any candidates (i.e. outer circle).
• Little over a sixth of the messages are sent to
people following at least one candidate,

53. CDA
PvdA
SP
VVD
PVV
GL
CU
D66
PvdD
SGP
NN
TON
MenS
HNL
Partij1
Piraten
09-jun-2010
08-jun-2010
07-jun-2010
06-jun-2010
05-jun-2010
04-jun-2010
03-jun-2010
02-jun-2010
01-jun-2010
31-mei-2010
30-mei-2010
29-mei-2010
28-mei-2010
27-mei-2010
26-mei-2010
25-mei-2010
24-mei-2010
23-mei-2010
22-mei-2010
21-mei-2010
20-mei-2010
19-mei-2010
18-mei-2010
17-mei-2010
16-mei-2010
15-mei-2010
14-mei-2010
13-mei-2010
12-mei-2010
11-mei-2010
10-mei-2010
09-mei-2010
08-mei-2010
07-mei-2010
06-mei-2010
05-mei-2010
04-mei-2010
03-mei-2010
02-mei-2010
01-mei-2010
Number of tweets by politicians during last 40 days of
campaign
1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0

54. CDA
pvda
SP
VVD
PVV
GL
CU
D66
PvdD
SGP
NN
TON
MenS
HN
P1
Piraten
09-jun-2010
08-jun-2010
07-jun-2010
06-jun-2010
05-jun-2010
04-jun-2010
03-jun-2010
02-jun-2010
01-jun-2010
31-mei-2010
30-mei-2010
29-mei-2010
28-mei-2010
27-mei-2010
26-mei-2010
25-mei-2010
24-mei-2010
23-mei-2010
22-mei-2010
21-mei-2010
20-mei-2010
19-mei-2010
18-mei-2010
17-mei-2010
16-mei-2010
15-mei-2010
14-mei-2010
13-mei-2010
12-mei-2010
11-mei-2010
10-mei-2010
09-mei-2010
08-mei-2010
07-mei-2010
06-mei-2010
05-mei-2010
04-mei-2010
03-mei-2010
02-mei-2010
01-mei-2010
120
Number of tweets sent to politicians during
last 40 days of campaign
100
80
60
40
20
0

55. 50
Number of replies by politicians during last
40 days of campaign
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
CDA
pvda
SP
VVD
PVV
GL
CU
D66
PvdD
SGP
NN
TON
MenS
HN
P1
Piraten

56. Candidates’ political blogging sphere
COMMUNICATION NETWORKS

73. • Only few replies
• Little reciprocity in general
• Reciprocity decreases when activity increases
• Level playing field?

74. Conclusion
• Social media’s success kills the social part of social
media
• Successfull candidates turn social media into mass
media

75. So . . .
… back to square one?

76. Thank you for your attention
Maurice Vergeer
Web: www.mauricevergeer.nl
Email: m.vergeer@maw.ru.nl
Twitter: @mauricevergeer

77. Sources
• Hermans, L. & Vergeer, M. (forthcoming). Personalisation in e-campaigning
Cross national comparison of personalisation strategies used on candidate
websites in EP-elections 2009. New media & Society.
• Vergeer, M. Hermans, L. & Sams, S. (2011). Is the voter only a tweet away?
Micro-blogging during the 2009 European parliament Election campaign in the
Netherlands, First Monday, 16(8).
• Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. (2011). New public deliberations. Twitter as a new
campaign tool for public discussions. Paper presented at World Association of
Public Opinion Research (Wapor).
• Vergeer, M., Hermans, L. & Sams, S. (in press). Online social networks and
micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool
and a new campaign style. Party Politics.
• Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Cunha, C. (forthcoming). Political parties,
candidates, and Web campaigning in the 2009 European Parliament elections. A
decade of cross-national comparative website-feature analysis
• Vergeer, M., Lim, Y.S., & Park, H.W. (2011). Mediated relations: new methods to
study online social capital. Asian Journal of Communication, October 2011 issue

78. • Vergeer, M., & Hermans, L. Campaigning on Twitter. Twitter as a campaign tool
in the general elections 2010 in the Netherlands. (submitted for publication)
• Kluver R, Jankowski NW, Foot K and Schneider SM (eds.) (2007) The Internet
and National Elections. A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning: London:
Routledge.
• Norris P (2001) Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the
Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Van Os R., Jankowski NW and Vergeer M (2007). Political communication
about Europe on the Internet during the 2004 European Parliament election
campaign in nine EU member states. European Societies 9(5): 755-775.