Web 2.0 and the Electoral Process

by Fred Stutzman
November 27, 2007

Politics is an industry that changes very slowly. The value of an earnest handshake and door-to-door campaigning has remained steady for decades, even centuries; when it comes to winning elections, politicians value a sure thing.

Over the past ten years, however, the internet has created a revolution in the way political campaigns are waged. In the 2004 presidential election, candidates Kerry and Bush raised 95 million dollars via the internet (Reference 1), with millions more going to political action groups and other candidates. In the 2006 senatorial races, Republican George Allen's campaign was badly damaged when a video of Allen using a slur was posted to internet video-sharing websites.

Today, politicians place significant emphasis and effort on their internet presence, and Web 2.0 technologies are changing the way we interact with candidates. In this article, we're going to look at some of the ways internet technologies are changing politics, from the ways we consume political information down to how we make political candidates our "friends."

My Candidate Has More Friends than Your Candidate

Source: techPresident.com

When discussing the intersection of Web 2.0 technologies and the 2008 presidential campaign, the first place to start is techPresident.com (disclosure: I am a contributor to techPresident.com). Established in 2007, the non-partisan site explores how presidential candidates are using the Web, featuring commentary from a number of high-level consultants, scholars, and pundits. Notably, the site also features a number of charts, tracking Web 2.0 datapoints such as the number of "friends" a candidate has on social network sites, how many times he or she has been mentioned in the blogosphere, and how much traffic the candidate's website is getting; clearly, a departure from the polling and fundraising metrics of old. But do these "new media" metrics matter? Before we decide, let's explore how the candidates are using Web 2.0 technologies.

Social Networks

With tremendous popularity and userbases in the hundreds of millions, social networking sites such as MySpace and Facebook offer candidates access to a large number of potential supporters. According to techPresident.com, Ron Paul has collected over 36,000 friends on Facebook, leading Republican candidates. Barack Obama, the leading Facebook friend-maker among Democratic candidates, has 160,000 friends. This raises the classic social networks question--"What do friends represent?" We'll get to that question in just a second.

Social networks offer unique opportunities for political candidates. One of our main actions on a social network site is to describe of our identity--what we like, who we're connected to, what sort of ideals we support. The support of a political candidate is very much an identity statement, so it makes sense that we will turn our social network profiles into places of support for candidates. In essence, the support of a candidate on a social networking site is very much like applying a bumper sticker to your car, except that the social network site affords an interactive experience.

Beyond making identity statements, social networks create opportunities for viral information flow. In a social network, we can see our friends and share information with them. Features such as the Newsfeed on Facebook make viral information sharing a core element of the site. As a result, information can spread widely in viral information networks. A number of political "groups" on Facebook benefited from viral information flow. The first, a group created for Barack Obama, leveraged the Facebook Newsfeed, adding thousands of supporters a day and eventually topping out at 380,000 members. More recently, a group created for perhaps-not-faux presidential candidate Stephen Colbert drew over 1.4 million members; that group continues to grow daily.

Impressive numbers--just like Obama's and Paul's friends totals--but what do they represent? Does adding a political candidate as a social network friend, or joining a political group in a social network really mean anything? In Bowling Alone, a book exploring the decline of social capital in American society, Robert Putnam discusses how clubs, such as the AARP, are larger than ever--but the effort to join and sustain membership in these clubs is simpler than ever, largely requiring a few moments a year to write a check. Are we seeing a similar phenomenon with social networks? Do our political statements mean anything because they only require the click of a mouse? These are some of the questions that we'll see answered over the course of the 2008 campaign.

Video Sharing Sites

Will 2008 be the YouTube election? If you load a candidate's website, it's likely that you'll see streaming video prominently featured. A number of presidential candidates declared their candidacies via online video. And a certain video spoof of Apple's famous 1984 ad generated shockwaves through both the blogosphere and mainstream media.

During the 2004 election cycle, campaigns produced over 7,000 political ads. These ads were run more than 1.5 million times during the 2004 cycle (Reference 2). Even without the internet, video is an integral part of a modern campaign; video sharing sites clearly stand to extend the influence of video in political campaigns.

To illustrate the power of video sharing, let's refer to a few examples. We've already talked a little about George Allen's "Macaca" moment; what made this a defining moment? Nowadays, many of us carry video-recording devices, be they cell phones, cameras, or low-profile digital recorders. In essence, we're always ready and able to record rich multimedia content. Video sharing sites provide the unlimited distribution network, effectively transforming any camera-carrying citizen into a potential journalist.

However, its not only about the distribution--you've still got to create interesting content to capture eyeballs. The illustrative moment here is the Hillary Clinton 1984 video, in which a Barack Obama supporter remixed Hillary Clinton into Apple's iconic 1984 ad. Using a desktop computer and footage collected from the Web, this remixed ad became an overnight sensation, garnering tremendous interest and speculation as to the identity of the ad's creator. Ultimately, it was discovered that the creator was a political operative (acting independently, supposedly), but the point was made. With video tools and distribution networks accessible by many of us, the media landscape of political campaigns will change.

My Social Media Candidate

So far, we've concentrated on two major Web 2.0 technologies--social networking sites and video sharing networks--and explored implications of their use for the 2008 election. While these two technologies are influential, they aren't the only tools candidates are using to get an edge in 2008. Let's take a look at some other tools the candidates are using.

Twitter

One of the more interesting, personal uses of social media in political campaigns has been candidate use of Twitter. As I've explored, Twitter is a site that allows individuals to post brief, 140-character messages to their friends and contacts. Due to Twitter's limited messages space, many use it as a way to convey personal information--and this includes presidential candidates. I've been able to find four candidates using Twitter--John Edwards, Barack Obama, Fred Thompson and Joe Biden--though it's quite possible there are more, or unofficial Twitter sites for the candidates. Exploring candidate Twitters, they're somewhat self-promoting, but also reflective. Edwards, the first candidate to use Twitter and a relatively prolific Twitterer, often posts about his family, as well as notes about where he'll be speaking.

Candidate Social Networks

Candidate web presence is also changing, moving from static home pages to dynamic experiences. One of the most interesting trends has been the creation of candidate social networks, in which supporters of a candidate can join a particular candidate's social network. Two examples are John McCain's McCainSpace, and Barack Obama's network my.barackobama.com. Comparatively speaking, none of these sites rival mainline social networks such as MySpace or Facebook, but they do provide supporters a robust platform for supporting a candidate, as well as potentially connecting with fellow supporters.

Meetups and Eventful

Meetup.com, popularized during the 2004 election, is a service that enables like-minded individuals to schedule "meetups"--social meetings around a cause. As election 2008 heats up, we can expect campaigns to encourage and leverage meetups, whether they be scheduled through Meetup.com or candidate websites (it seems that candidates favor "house parties," in which you organize a party at your house to support a candidate). Either way, it is an interesting online-to-offline interaction, one potentially very valuable for candidates.

Source: techPresident.com

Eventful.com, an events-management site, has introduced an interesting tweak to the equation with Eventful Demands. With Eventful Demands, individuals "demand" (or more politely, "request") that a candidate appear in a specific location with many supporters. So far, only Ron Paul and John Edwards have given in to demands, but there's an interesting possibility there.

What Do the Experts Say?

I wanted to bring in some outside opinions on the technologies to watch during the 2008 election campaign, so I spoke to a number of experts. I posed the question "What participatory or Web 2.0 technology will have the most significant impact on the 2008 presidential campaign, and why?" and received a number of interesting responses.

Josh Levy, associate editor of techPresident.com, feels that "online video will continue to be the most influential aspect of 'social media' being used in the 2008 cycle, in part because of its innate immediacy. A televised debate question about health care asked by a traditional journalist forces candidates to regurgitate canned statements. But that same question asked on video by someone suffering from cancer can infuse the issue with new emotional weight." Mindy Finn, eDirector for Mitt Romney's campaign, agrees: "It looks like YouTube has, and will continue to have, the most prominent role in communications and interactivity related to the 2008 presidential campaign. YouTube videos are disseminated via so many other mediums--cable news, blogs, email, candidate and third-party websites, Facebook and MySpace, among others."

Micah Sifry, co-founder of the Personal Democracy Forum and executive editor of techPresident, has a slightly different view. He feels that "the technology that will have the biggest impact on 2008 is the community, and specifically sites that are designed ... to be giant collection points for thousands of blogger/diarists. These sites--I'm thinking of DailyKos, RedState, OpenLeft, TalkingPointsMemo, the DailyPaul, and BraveNewFlms--act as sieves, spurs, and switching stations. They filter important news upward from the obscure, they push their readers to urgent actions, and they connect like-minded activists to each other laterally." In essence, we'll crowdsource our news filtering in 2008, elevating interesting and politically useful stories to national prominence through these technologies.

I'm Running for President. Can We Be Friends?

With participatory media, we're finding new ways to connect and have relationships with political candidates. While a "friendship" on a social network site may not mean too much, these Web 2.0 tools hold significant promise for redefining our relationship with our leaders. What if a president did pay attention to Twitter? What if he or she did take advantage of crowdsourcing and news-filtering tools, finding new ways to connect with us? Perhaps the campaign is a microcosm of what we can expect, or hope for in the future--leaders who use tools to connect with us, to address our concerns, and to provide better governance. While none of these tools guarantee such a cheery outcome, the shift we're seeing as candidates embrace these tools is promising.

References

1. Panagopoulos, C. and Bergan, D. (2007) "Online Fund-Raising and Contributors in the 2004 Presidential Campaign." Social Science Computer Review, 25(4).
2. Shah, D. et. al. (2007) "Campaign Ads, Online Messaging, and Participation: Extending the Communication Mediation Model." Journal of Communication, 57.