Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

the great leveler? comparing citizen–politician Twitter engagement across three Western democracies

  • Research
  • Published:
European Political Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Social media are the great social leveler – or so some commentators would have us believe. Social media put the power of communication directly into the average person’s hands. They also present opportunities for politicians to improve their contacts with the common person – to directly share their messages with and better understand the concerns of constituents. This study explores whether and to what extent the potential for such citizen–politician engagement is fulfilled. Deploying an original dataset of tweets from politicians in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, this exploratory study examines the interlocutors with whom politicians engage reciprocally via Twitter. The results show that a large share of politicians’ genuinely reciprocal exchanges includes average citizens. Although there is much room for improvement, this study suggests that Twitter is indeed opening spaces for citizens and policymakers to engage one another on matters of political import.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anstead, N. and Chadwick, A. (2008) ‘Parties, election campaigning, and the internet: toward a comparative institutional approach’, in A. Chadwick and P.N. Howard (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 56–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, G. and Marcella, R. (2012) ‘Does Scotland “like” this? Social media use by political parties and candidates in Scotland during the 2010 UK General Election campaign’, Libri 62(2): 109–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker, T. and Slaton, C.D. (2000) The Future of Teledemocracy. Westport, CT: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W.L. and Segerberg, A. (2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burgess, J. and Bruns, A. (2012) ‘(Not) the Twitter election: the dynamics of the #ausvotes conversation in relation to the Australian media ecology’, Journalism Practice 6(3): 384–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burson-Marsteller, (2014) Twiplomacy: Heads of State and Government and Foreign Ministers on Twitter, New York: Burson-Marsteller.

  • Coleman, S. (2005) ‘The lonely citizen: indirect representation in an age of networks’, Political Communication 22(2): 197–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S. and Blumler, J.G. (2009) The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, S. and Spiller, J. (2003) ‘Exploring new media effects on representative democracy’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 9(3): 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corrado, A. and C.M. Firestone (eds.) (1997) Elections in Cyberspace: Toward a New Era in American Politics, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren, P. (2005) ‘The internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation’, Political Communication 22(2): 147–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, A. (2010) ‘New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation’, New Media & Society 11(8): 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • D’heer, E. and Verdegem, P. (2014) ‘Conversations about elections on Twitter’, European Journal of Communication 29(6): 720–34.

  • Enli, G.S. and Skogerbø, E. (2013) ‘Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics’, Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 757–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, H., Cordova, V. and Sipole, S. (2014) ‘Twitter style: an analysis of how house candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns’, PS: Political Science & Politics 47(2): 454–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R. and McAllister, I. (2015) ‘Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning’, Political Studies 63(3): 529–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R., Newell, J.L. and Ward, S.J. (2000) ‘New parties, new media: Italian party politics and the internet’, South European Society and Politics 5(1): 123–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glassman, M.E., Straus, J.R. and Shogan, C.J. (2010) ‘Social networking and constituent communications: member use of Twitter during a two-month period in the 111th Congress’, Journal of Communication Research 2(2–3): 219–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golbeck, J., Grimes, J.M. and Rogers, A. (2010) ‘Twitter use by the U.S. Congress’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(8): 1612–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graham, T, Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K. and van’t Haar, G. (2013) ‘Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters’, Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 692–716.

  • Graham, T., Jackson, D. and Broersma, M. (2016) ‘New platform, old habits? Candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch General Election campaigns’, New Media & Society 18(5): 765–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, W.J., Moon, B. and Grant, J.B. (2010) ‘Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter’, Australian Journal of Political Science 45(4): 579–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hauben, M. and Hauben, R. (1998) Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and Internet, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huang, F.L. (2016) ‘Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data’, Journal of Experimental Education 84(1): 175–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, N. and Lilleker, D. (2011) ‘Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 17(1): 86–105. doi:10.1080/13572334.2011.545181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jungherr, A. (2016) ‘Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13(1): 72–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsson, A.O. and Ihlen, Ø. (2015). ‘Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections’, European Journal of Communication 30(6): 666–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, E.J. and Shin, S.Y. (2014) ‘When the medium is the message: how transportability moderates the effects of politicians’ Twitter communication’, Communication Research 41(8): 1088-110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maireder, A. and Ausserhofer, J. (2013) ‘Political Discourses on Twitter: Networking Topics, Objects, and People. Twitter and Society’, New York: Peter Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version. (2014b) The Manifesto Data Collection, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, M. and Resnick, D. (2000) Politics as Usual: the Cyberspace Revolution, London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, M., Resnick, D. and Levy, J. (2003) ‘Major parties dominate, minor parties struggle: US elections and the internet’, in R. Gibson, P. Nixon and S. Ward (eds.) Political Parties and the Internet: Net Gain? London: Routledge, pp. 51–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Margolis, M., Resnick, D. and Wolfe, J. (1999) ‘Party competition on the internet: minor versus major parties in the UK and USA’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 4(4): 24–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mocanu, D., Baronchelli, A., Perra, N., Goncalves, B., Zhang, Q. and Vespignani, A. (2013) ‘The Twitter of Babel: mapping world languages through microblog platforms’, PLoS http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0061981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moe, H. and Larsson, A.O. (2013) ‘Untangling a complex media system: a comparative study of Twitter-linking practices during three Scandinavian election campaigns’, Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 775–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, D. (1999) Vote.com: How Big Money Lobbyists and the Media are Losing their Influence and the Internet is Giving Power to the People, Los Angeles: Renaissance Books.

  • Newman, N. (2010) #UKelection2010, Mainstream Media and the Role of the Internet: How Social and Digital Media Affected the Business of Politics and Journalism, Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nye, J.S., Zelikow, P.D. and King, D.C. (eds.) (1997) Why People Don’t Trust Government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parmelee, J.H. and Bichard, S.L. (2011) Politics and the Twitter Revolution: How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public, New York: Lexington Books.

  • Pharr, S.J. and Putnam, R.D. (eds.) (2000) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rash, W. (1997) Politics on the Net: Wiring the Political Process, New York: W. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rheingold, H. (1995) The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerised World, London: Minerva.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sæbø, Ø. (2011) ‘Understanding Twitter use among parliament representatives: a genre analysis’, in E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh and H. de Bruijn (eds.) Electronic Participation, Berlin: Springer, pp. 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shapiro, A. (1999) The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know, New York: Affairs.

    Google Scholar 

  • Small, T. (2010) ‘Canadian politics in 140 characters: party politics in the Twitterverse’, Canadian Parliamentary Review 33(3): 39–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stegmueller, D. (2013) ‘How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches’, American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 748–61.  

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergeer, M. (2015) ‘Twitter and political campaigning’, Sociology Compass 9(9): 745–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vergeer, M. and Hermans, L. (2013) ‘Campaigning on Twitter: microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 General Elections in the Netherlands’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18(4): 399–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zittel, T. (2003) ‘Political representation in the networked society: Americanisation of European systems of responsible party government?’, Journal of Legislative Studies 9(3): 32–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Political Science, Leiden University, Pieter de la Court gebouw, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK, Leiden, The Netherlands

    rebekah tromble

Authors
  1. rebekah tromble
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to rebekah tromble.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

tromble, r. the great leveler? comparing citizen–politician Twitter engagement across three Western democracies. Eur Polit Sci 17, 223–239 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0022-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-016-0022-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation