Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 1, pp 215–234 | Cite as

Getting Personal? The Impact of Social Media on Preferential Voting

  • Niels SpieringsEmail author
  • Kristof Jacobs
Original Paper


Ever since the successful presidential campaign of Barack Obama in 2008, attention has been drawn to the political impact of social media. However, it remains to be seen whether the successful Obama campaign is the exception or the rule. Our research focuses specifically on the impact of social media on preference voting. First it seeks to establish whether candidates make use of social media during election campaigns and whether voters in turn follow politicians. Afterwards it examines to what extent social media make a difference and yield a preference vote bonus. Theoretically, two types of effects are outlined, namely a direct effect of the number of followers a candidate has and a statistical interaction effect whereby a higher number of followers only yields more votes when the candidate actively uses the social media. To carry out our analysis, we make use of a unique dataset that combines data on social media usage and data on the candidates themselves (such as position on the list, being wellknown, exposure to the old media, gender, ethnicity and incumbency). The dataset includes information on all 493 candidates of the 10 parties that received at least one seat in the Dutch 2010 election. It turns out that candidates are eager to use social media, but that relatively few people follow candidates. There is a significant interaction effect of social media usage and the number of followers, but that effect appears to be relatively small.


Social media Preference voting Voting behavior Political parties Political Communication Twitter 



We explicitly want to thank Reinout de Vries and Jonneke Stans from EMMA Communicatie for their generous help and for providing us with data on Twitter usage. We also want to thank the participants of the 2012 ECPR Joint Session workshop ‘Parties and Campaigning in the Digital Era’, and Laura Sudulich, Rachel Gibson and Andrea Römmele in particular for their useful comments.


  1. Andeweg, R. B. (2005). The Netherlands: the sanctity of proportionality. In M. Gallagher & P. Mitchell (Eds.), The Politics of electoral systems (pp. 491–511). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andeweg, R. B., & Irwin, G. (2005). Governance and politics of the Netherlands (2nd ed.). Houndmills: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, R. M., Fariss, C. J., Jones, J. J., Kramer, A. D. I., Marlow, C., Settle, J. E., et al. (2012). A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature, 489(7415), 295–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Colomer, J. M. (2011). Introduction: personal and party representation. In J. M. Colomer (Ed.), Personal representation. The neglected dimension of electoral systems (pp. 1–20). Colchester: ECPR.Google Scholar
  5. Crawford, K. (2009). Following you: disciplines of listening in social media. Continuum, 23(4), 525–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Darcy, R., & McAllister, I. (1990). Ballot position effects. Electoral Studies, 9(1), 5–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Geys, B., & Heyndels, B. (2003). The influence of ‘cognitive sophistication’ on ballot layout effects. Acta Politica, 38(4), 299–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gibson, R. (2009). New media and the revitalization of politics. Representation, 45(3), 289–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2011). Do online election campaigns win votes? The 2007 Australian “youtube” election. Political Communication, 28(2), 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson, R. K., & McAllister, I. (2012, April). A net gain? Web 2.0 campaigning in the Australian 2010 election. Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Antwerp, Belgium 10–15.Google Scholar
  11. Grimmer, J., Messing, S., & Westwood, S. (2012). How words and money cultivate a personal vote: the effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. American Political Science Review, 106(4), 703–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hoff, J. (2010). Election campaigns on the internet: how are voters affected? International Journal of E-Politics, 1(1), 22–40.Google Scholar
  13. Jacobs, K., & Leyenaar, M. (2011). A conceptual framework for major, minor and technical electoral reform. West European Politics, 34(3), 495–513.Google Scholar
  14. Jungherr, A. (2012). Online campaigning in Germany: the CDU online campaign for the general election 2009 in Germany. German Politics, 21(3), 317–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Karlsen, R. (2011). A platform for individualized campaigning? Social media and Parliamentary candidates in the 2009 Norwegian election campaign. Policy & Internet, 3(4), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karp, J., Banducci, S., & Bowler, S. (2008). Getting out the vote: Party mobilization in a comparative perspective. British Journal of Political Science, 38(1), 91–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krebs, T. B. (1998). The determinants of candidates’ vote share and the advantages of incumbency in city council elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 921–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lutz, G. (2010). First come, first served: the effect of ballot position on electoral success in open ballot PR elections. Representation, 46(2), 167–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McDermott, M. L. (1997). Voting cues in low-information elections: candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 270–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oosterveer, D. (2011). Facebook nog niet groter dan Hyves in Nederland. Accessed 12 March 2012.
  21. Rackaway, C. (2007). Trickle-down technology? The use of computing and network technology in state legislative campaigns. Social Science Computer Review, 25(4), 466–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shirky, C. (2011). The political power of social media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28–41.Google Scholar
  23. Smits, F., & Spierings, N. (2012). Sociale integratie en het kijken naar nieuwsprogramma’s als determinanten voor het Wisselen van politieke partijkeuze in de periode 1994–2006. Mens en Maatschappij, 87(2), 150–173.Google Scholar
  24. Sudulich, M. L., & Wall, M. (2010). “Every little helps”. Cyber campaigning in the 2007 Irish general election. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 7(4), 340–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Swigger, N. (2012). The Online Citizen: Is Social Media Changing Citizens’ Beliefs about Democratic Values? Political Behavior. doi: 10.1007/s11109-012-9208-y.
  26. Thijssen, P., & Jacobs, K. (2004). Determinanten van voorkeurstemproporties bij (Sub-)lokale Verkiezingen. De Antwerpse Districtsraadsverkiezingen van 8 Oktober 2000. Res Publica, 46(4), 460–485.Google Scholar
  27. Vergeer, M., Hermans, L., & Sams, S. (2011). Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning. The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics. doi: 10.1177/1354068811407580.
  28. Wauters, B., Weekers, K., & Maddens, B. (2010). Explaining the number of preferential votes for women in an open-list PR system: an investigation of the 2003 federal elections in Flanders (Belgium). Acta Politica, 45(4), 468–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wilson, J. (2009, February 25). Not another political Zombie. New Mathilda Online. Retreived October 5, 2012, from
  30. Zhang, W., Johnson, T. J., Seltzer, T., & Bichard, S. L. (2010). The revolution will be networked. The influence of social networking sites on political attitudes and behavior. Social Science Computer Review, 28(1), 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Management Research, Department of Political ScienceRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations