Political parties and social media campaigning

A qualitative comparative analysis of parties’ professional Facebook and Twitter use in the 2010 and 2012 Dutch elections
Original Article

Abstract

Do new media level the playing field during election campaigns (‘equalization’) or do they mirror existing inequalities between parties (normalization)? Empirical studies come to contradictory findings. Part of the answer is in the timing: first social media level the playing field, afterwards bigger parties see the benefit and invest in it. Yet, this raises a new question: given that social media are cheap and easy to use, how can investing in them tip the balance? Based on a critical assessment of the literature and in-depth interviews, we advance a new theoretical framework to address both contradictions: the motivation-resource-based diffusion model. We link this model to the broader party and campaigning literature and formulate expectations, in terms of party size and ideology, about which parties use social media professionally. Afterwards, we conduct a crisp-set qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) of the Dutch parties (2010 and 2012 elections) to assess these expectations. We find that populism, postmaterialism, and party size matter but in different ways in the different phases of diffusion.

Keywords

Election campaigns Social media Populism Political parties Postmaterialism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to express our gratitude to the three anonymous reviewers whose useful feedback significantly strengthened the final version of this article. In addition, we are thankful to the interviewees for their time and insights and Dr. Liesbeth Hermans for her thorough and critical feedback on an earlier version of this work. All remaining flaws are ours.

References

  1. Andeweg, R., and G. Irwin. 2005. Governance and Politics of the Netherlands. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Berg-Schlosser, D., De Meur, G., Rihoux, B., and Ragin, C. 2009. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) as an Approach. Configurational comparative methods 1–18.Google Scholar
  3. Chadwick, A. 2013. The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dietz, R. 2013. Tweede Kamerleden op Twitter: tijdens en na de verkiezingen. http://www.marketingfacts.nl/berichten/politici-op-twitter-tijdens-en-na-de-verkiezingen. Accessed 7 May 2015.
  5. DNPP 2016. Leden Per Jaar. http://dnpp.ub.rug.nl/dnpp/themas/leden/per_jaar. Accessed 12 Sept 2016.
  6. Dolezal, M. 2015. Online Campaigning by Austrian Political Candidates: Determinants of Using Personal Websites, Facebook, and Twitter. Policy & Internet 7 (1): 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Drees, M. 2012. #navigator of #nav13: Luuk Tielemans. http://recruitmentmatters.nl/2013/01/23/navigator-of-nav13-luuk-tielemans/. Accessed 28 Sept 2015.
  8. Gibson, R., and I. McAllister. 2011. Do Online Election Campaigns Win Votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” Election. Political Communication 28 (2): 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gibson, R., and I. McAllister. 2015. Normalising or Equalising Party Competition? Assessing the Impact of the Web on Election Campaigning. Political Studies 63 (3): 529–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gibson, R., and S. Ward. 2000. A Proposed Methodology for Studying the Function and Effectiveness of Party and Candidate Web Sites. Social Science Computer Review 18 (3): 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gulati, G., and C. Williams. 2013. Social Media and Campaign 2012 Developments and Trends for Facebook Adoption. Social Science Computer Review 31 (5): 577–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Inglehart, R., and P. Abramson. 1999. Measuring Postmaterialism. American Political Science Review 93 (3): 665–677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobs, K., and Spierings, N. 2016. Social Media, Parties, and Political Inequalities. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. Klinger, U., and Svensson, J. 2014. The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New media & society 1461444814522952.Google Scholar
  15. Koc-Michalska, K., D. Lilleker, P. Surowiec, and P. Baranowski. 2014. Poland’s 2011 Online Election Campaign: New Tools, New Professionalism, New Ways to Win Votes. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 11 (2): 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kreiss, D. 2016. Seizing the Moment: The Presidential Campaigns’ Use of Twitter During the 2012 Electoral Cycle. New Media and Society 18 (8): 1473–1490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krogslund, C., D. Choi, and M. Poertner. 2015. Fuzzy Sets on Shaky Ground: Parameter Sensitivity and Confirmation Bias in fsQCA. Political Analysis 23 (1): 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kruikemeier, S. 2014. How Political Candidates Use Twitter and the Impact on Votes. Computers in Human Behavior 34: 131–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larsson, A., and H. Moe. 2014. Triumph of the Underdogs? Comparing Twitter Use by Political Actors During Two Norwegian Election Campaigns. SAGE Open 4 (4): 2158244014559015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Louwerse, T. (2013). Beperkte groei ledenaantallen partijen. http://blog.tomlouwerse.nl/2013/02/beperkte-groei-ledenaantallen-partijen.html. Accessed 20 Oct 2016.
  22. Margolis, M., D. Resnick, and J. Wolfe. 1999. Party Competition on the Internet in the United States and Britain. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 4 (4): 24–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mudde, C. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paine, J. 2016. Still Searching for the Value-Added Persistent Concerns About Set-Theoretic Comparative Methods. Comparative Political Studies 49 (6): 793–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Partij voor de Dieren. 2005. Beginselverklaring. https://www.partijvoordedieren.nl/beginselverklaring. Accessed 26 May 2015.
  26. Ragin, C. 2007. Fuzzy Sets: Calibration versus Measurement. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, ed. J.M. Box-Steffensmeier, H.E. Brady, and D. Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rihoux, B., and De Meur. G. 2009. Crisp-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (csQCA). Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques, ed. Charles C. Ragin and B. Rihoux. London: Sage, pp. 33–68.Google Scholar
  28. Rihoux, B., and C. Ragin. 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rooduijn, M. 2014. The Mesmerising Message: The Diffusion of Populism in Public Debates in Western European Media. Political Studies 62 (4): 726–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schweitzer, E. 2011. Normalization 2.0: A Longitudinal Analysis of German Online Campaigns in the National Elections 2002–9. European Journal of Communication 26 (4): 310–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skaaning, S. (2011). Assessing the Robustness of Crisp-Set and Fuzzy-Set QCA Results. Sociological Methods & Research 0049124111404818.Google Scholar
  32. Small, T. 2008. Equal Access, Unequal Success—Major and Minor Canadian Parties on the Net. Party Politics 14 (1): 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Strandberg, K. 2008. Online Electoral Competition in Different Settings: A Comparative Meta-analysis of the Research on Party Websites and Online Electoral Competition. Party Politics 14 (2): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Strøm, K. 1990. A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 565–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tromble, R. Forthcoming. The Great Leveler? Comparing Politician-Citizen Twitter Engagement in Three Western Democracies. European Political Science.Google Scholar
  36. Vaast, E., and E. Kaganer. 2013. Social Media Affordances and Governance in the Workplace: An Examination of Organizational Policies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 19 (1): 78–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vaccari, C. 2008. Surfing to the Elysee: The Internet in the 2007 French Elections. French Politics 6 (1): 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Kessel, S., and Castelein, R. 2016. Shifting the Blame. Populist Politicians’ Use of Twitter as a Tool of Opposition. Journal of Contemporary European Research 12(2).Google Scholar
  39. Vergeer, M., and L. Hermans. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vergeer, M., L. Hermans, and S. Sams. 2013. Online Social Networks and Micro-blogging in Political Campaigning The Exploration of a New Campaign Tool and a New Campaign Style. Party Politics 19 (3): 477–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Williams, C., and G. Gulati. 2012. Social Networks in Political Campaigns: Facebook and the Congressional Elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society 15 (1): 52–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Sociology, RSCRRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.IMRRadboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations