Political parties and social media campaigning

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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    The underlying assumption in the normalization versus equalization literature is that new technologies benefit their users because professional use of these communication channels can contribute to winning votes, influencing policy debates and outcomes, and even in gaining positions of power. All of these have been labelled central rational goals of politicians (Strøm 1990).

  2. 2.

    Different interpretations exist about what exactly is being normalized or equalized (cf. Gibson and McAllister 2015; Small 2008). In this paragraph, we therefore focus on what they have in common: a focus on inequalities in campaigning opportunities.

  3. 3.

    Still, it could be that 2 years is too short to see normalization taking place. Indeed if one observes no normalization, this could be an artefact of a time frame that is too short. However, our results do show a shift from equalization to normalization between 2010 and 2012, which by itself is a testament of how fast developments went during our time frame.

  4. 4.

    This refers to the "relational dimension" of the normalization–equalization debate: other dimensions are important too, but it goes beyond the scope of this study to investigate those as well.

  5. 5.

    One could, for instance, suggest that over time social media use becomes more professionalized and thereby more expensive (cf. Vaast and Kaganer 2013). Professionalization could indeed be one factor at play with respect of the cost of using social media. However, this still does not tell us how social media use becomes more expensive, which is important to understand whether it becomes too expensive for smaller parties and which parties can circumvent the issue of higher monetary costs.

  6. 6.

    Some comparative studies also include the electoral system (Strandberg 2008), in our one-country study this factor is constant.

  7. 7.

    This analysis of which motivations and resources exist is based on interviews in a flexible list system (the Netherlands). While we generate more general building blocks from these interviews (i.e. our theoretical models is applicable to other systems), the relative impact of the different motivations and resources that we will distinguish might differ. In the Conclusion, we will reflect on what this means particularly for less flexible list systems (e.g. Spain) and for hyper-personalized systems (e.g. UK).

  8. 8.

    From the interviews: “access to advanced software … generates all kinds of new statistics and a lot more data. That is really useful when experimenting” (Interview #3).

  9. 9.

    From the interviews: “A lot of people say social media are cheap. But if you want to do it well, it does cost money. Our most successful posts last year were infographics. If you want to make it look well, it costs money” (Interview #5).

  10. 10.

    From the interviews: “[Time allows me to] “make sure that everybody gets an answer to her question within the hour” (Interview #4). This social media manager used more expensive software and monitored the politicians' time to answer questions. When it took too long, the party answered for them.

  11. 11.

    Others echoed this: “we are constantly reading the news and thinking of things and ways to post it on social media” (Interview #8).

  12. 12.

    The importance of where the voters are also featured in another interview, where the social media manager was ahead of the rest of the party: “I had to convince them and show the value of it, (…) it took a while” (Interview #9).

  13. 13.

    It should be noted that our model is a theoretical one: it is a starting point to formulate expectations for empirical analyses. These expectations can actually be about other new technologies as well: the building blocks (motivations and resources) are likely to be similar.

  14. 14.

    The tension between the populist party leader and the rest of the party has also been noticed by Dolezal (2015, p. 115) in the Austrian context. While the party leader, Strache, was actively using social media, the rest of the party lagged behind.

  15. 15.

    It also makes the Netherlands a most likely case for equalization (cf. Strandberg 2008); if we find no equalization here, it will be unlikely elsewhere.

  16. 16.

    The calibration of variables has been subject to discussion as QCA results have been shown to be sensitive to decisions made in this step (e.g. Krogslund et al. 2015; Paine 2016; Skaaning 2011). However, replication studies showed this to be most problematic for fsQCA, not csQCA (see Skaaning 2011, pp. 398–399).

  17. 17.

    We do acknowledge that not all other parties are equally small and that the three classic parties have lost some of their dominance in the recent elections. As a sensitivity tests, we also ran analyses including D66, PVV, and SP among ‘BIG’. Where relevant, this is discussed in Results section (Section “Bringing in the logical remainders (Step 5)”).

  18. 18.

    Including CU2012 does not change this conclusion.

  19. 19.

    Coding CU2012 as a positive case would mean that (4a) only holds for populist parties, not for all smaller, non-postmaterialist opposition parties.

  20. 20.

    Populist parties consider 'the people' homogeneous; postmaterialist parties heterogeneous/pluralist.

  21. 21.

    But see: Dolezal (2015, p. 115) and Van Kessel and Castelein (2016), who also found that the populist parties underperformed.

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.

  3. Chadwick, A. 2013. The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Inglehart, R., and P. Abramson. 1999. Measuring Postmaterialism. American Political Science Review 93 (3): 665–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jacobs, K., and Spierings, N. 2016. Social Media, Parties, and Political Inequalities. New York: Springer.

  14. Klinger, U., and Svensson, J. 2014. The emergence of network media logic in political communication: A theoretical approach. New media & society 1461444814522952.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Kruikemeier, S. 2014. How Political Candidates Use Twitter and the Impact on Votes. Computers in Human Behavior 34: 131–139.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mudde, C. 2007. Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  28. Rihoux, B., and C. Ragin. 2009. Configurational Comparative Methods: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and Related Techniques. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Book  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Skaaning, S. (2011). Assessing the Robustness of Crisp-Set and Fuzzy-Set QCA Results. Sociological Methods & Research 0049124111404818.

  32. Small, T. 2008. Equal Access, Unequal Success—Major and Minor Canadian Parties on the Net. Party Politics 14 (1): 51–70.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Strøm, K. 1990. A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 565–598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Tromble, R. Forthcoming. The Great Leveler? Comparing Politician-Citizen Twitter Engagement in Three Western Democracies. European Political Science.

  36. Trouw (2011). Kabinet kan door met gedoogsteun SGP. http://www.trouw.nl/tr/nl/4492/Nederland/article/detail/2436331/2011/05/23/Kabinet-kan-door-met-gedoogsteun-van-SGP.dhtml. Accessed 3 Nov 2016.

  37. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Vaccari, C. 2008. Surfing to the Elysee: The Internet in the 2007 French Elections. French Politics 6 (1): 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 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).

  40. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Niels Spierings.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

See Table 4.

Table 4 List of interviewees

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Spierings, N., Jacobs, K. Political parties and social media campaigning. Acta Polit 54, 145–173 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-018-0079-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Election campaigns
  • Social media
  • Populism
  • Political parties
  • Postmaterialism