助成

Institute forInternational Policy Studies
・Tokyo・

IIPS International Conference“The IT Revolution and the Transformation of Society”

Tokyo
November 5-6, 2003

“Web Campaigning from a Global Perspective”
By
Dr. Rachel Gibson
Deputy Director & Research Fellow,
ACSPRI Centre for Social Research (ACSR)
Australian National University‘Web Campaigning from a Global Perspective’
Rachel K. Gibson
Centre for Social Research, The Australian National University

Paper prepared for ‘The IT Revolution and the Transformation of Society’ Conference
convened by the Institute for International Policy Studies (IIPS), Tokyo. November 5-7,
2003.

Introduction

Since the mid-1990s parties around the world have been moving into cyberspace. During
most of these early years it was not evident that many of them had any clearly definedideas about what the Internet would prove useful for, and how they should present
themselves on it. As time has passed, however, a number of key uses for the newtechnology have emerged, as well some common trends in website content andappearance. Paramount among those uses has been the increasing use of the World Wide
Web (WWW) and email as electioneering tools for parties and candidates. This paper
aims to chart the development of parties’ use of the Web in their campaigning efforts(supply side) and explore how much difference these efforts are making with theelectorate as a whole (demand side). What results does cyber-campaigning produce, ifany, among voters? Does it play a decisive role in terms of changing minds, if not hearts?
The analysis covers developments in cyber-campaigning across a number of contexts but
has particular emphasis on Europe, the US, and Australia. Beginning with an historical
overview, we chart the rise of Web campaigning since the mid-1990s in the US and thenmove to look at the academic research that has attempted to compare and contrast website
content and quality and also explain the distribution of party and candidate sites. After
identifying some of the key elements within the cyber-campaign tool box, and the factorsthat appear to promote its practice, we then turn to look at the audience for election
websites and discuss the crucial issue of how far having a website actually matters forparties. Although an obvious measure of success may be whether the site actually
produces an increase in the electoral support for the party, it may be that such anindicator of ‘success’ raises the bar unnecessarily high, and that cyber-camapigns
advantage parties and candidates in subtle and diffuse ways. Having an attractive anduser friendly website may contribute to a positive image of organisational competence
and more importantly contemporary relevance?

The Development of Cyber-campaigning
Although the Internet had been used in a limited capacity during the US Presidential
elections of 1992, it was the 1996 election cycle that saw the start of the concerted cybercampaign with Bob Dole and Bill Clinton both running high profile websites. Candidates
for other national and state level offices also invested in the technology with many Senate,gubernatorial and House races seeing some evidence of online campaigning (Epstein,
1996; Hall, 1997). In general, however, sites were seen as rather static and dull, withcandidates simply migrating their offline content to the online environment, often withlittle to no editing. Content tended to comprise a photograph, some biographicalinformation, a policy or position statement and contact details that often incorporated anemail address. Although some sites offered some multimedia facilities and downloads ofscreensavers, interactivity was not a strong feature. Presidential sites in particular camein for heavy criticism, being considered unimaginative, and focusing too heavily on
information and not offering a greater of interaction (Reavy and Perlmutter, 1996;
McKeown and Plowman, 1998; Stone, 1996).
Aside from the web, however, candidates did deploy the technology in wider andmore direct ways. As Bimber (1998) reports, campaign headquarters for the major andminor parties were also beginning to use email along with more traditional
communication methods for voter persuasion. Despite this widening use, however,observers doubted its overall ability to have much influence on the outcome, at least overthe next two election cycles (Corrado, 1996; Just, 1997).
Beyond the US, cyber-campaigning also gathered steam in other national contexts
from the mid to late 1990s. The British general election of 1997, heralded by somepundits as the ‘first Internet election’, certainly did see the first extensive use of the new
ICTs by the parties to communicate with the voters (Ward and Gibson, 1998). In otherparts of Europe, particularly the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, but
extending down to the poorer nations in the South, such as Greece and Portugal, parties
were also waking up to the need to establish some kind of Web presence (Gibson, Nixon
and Ward, 2003; Tops, Voerman and Boogers, 2002; Gibson, et al. 2000; Cunha et al.,
2003; Voerman 1999) Further afield in Australia and New Zealand, parties were showing
signs of taking their campaigns onto the Web for the first time during elections held in1998 and 1999 respectively (Roper, 1999; Gibson and Ward, 2002). Elsewhere in the
Asia-Pacific region, Japanese politicians showed interest in running personal websites asearly as 1995, however, due to restrictions placed on use of advertising during election
campaigns, direct electioneering through websites was significantly curtailed comparedwith other countries (Tkach-Kawasaki, 2003). Overall, however, as in the US sites weregenerally seen as rather static with content being migrated from the offline environment.
Parties on the whole, therefore, while they seemed cognisant of the importance in gaining
a foothold in cyberspace, were largely unclear about exactly what to with their sites once
they had arrived there.
Despite there being a growing movement worldwide by parties in a range ofcountries to use the Internet and WWW, most of the ‘landmarks’ discussed in cybercampaigning have been taken from the experience of the US. This is no doubt due in partto the wider platform that exists for innovation and change in campaign techniques in theUS, with its high frequency of elections combined and more individualised candidatecentered political system. Additionally, the focus on the US as the engine and ‘exporter’of new campaign tools has by now become an established feature of discussions of theliterature on parties and elections. The term ‘Americanisation’, while subject to somedebate, is still used by many to capture the global shift toward the more media intensive
and professionalised methods by those engaged in electioneering. Following through thedevelopments occurring in the US, therefore, as a signifier of the overall changing natureof Web campaigning, by 1998, this trend toward the unimaginative ‘layering’ of the Web
on top of existing media strategies was still seen as a defining trait, although there were
obvious instances where the new medium did appear to come into its own (Kamarck,2003).
The victory of the independent candidate Jesse Ventura in 1998 in the Minnesota
gubernatorial race was widely credited to his clever use of the Web and email to build a
support base, particularly among younger voters (Fineman, 1999). Certainly use
continued to widen among candidates with D’Alessio reporting a doubling of the numberof sites maintained by Senate, House and Gubernatorial candidates from 18.7 in 1996 to
43 per cent by 1998. Figures from The Democracy Online Project put the proportion at
46 per cent across these races in 1998.1 In addition, survey data gathered by Faucheuxfrom 270 House, Senate and gubernatorial candidates revealed over half reporting some
type of feedback mechanism on their site (1998:25). Davis and Owen (1998) underscoredthis increasing functionality, noting that options for gaining voters opinions, help andmoney were appearing more widely. However, it was noted that such features weredirected more at using the new medium to generate resources than to encourage

participation per se (Leiter, 1995; Selnow, 1998). In addition, the facilities forcontributing were generally not made possible directly across the Net, with interested
parties being asked to download and mail back a form or provide their addresses to becontacted at a later date (Kamarck, 1998; Dulio, Goff and Thurber, 1999). Indeed, forevery Jesse Ventura, there were also prominent failures with a series of candidates
running specifically designed and highly publicised Internet campaigns (Wendel Turnerin West Virginia, Doug Ross in Michigan) only to lose rather emphatically. This lacklustre performance of the Internet to serve as a vote mobiliser was certainly reflected in
the findings from a survey of Media professionals and IT specialists run by Democracy
Online Project in advance of the 2000 Presidential race. The data revealed a strong
degree of scepticism about the utility of Internet-campaigning with almost half of the 128
respondents considering that it would be of little importance in the forthcoming election.2
By 2000 use of the Internet had become virtually ubiquitous in Presidential
politics, and was spreading rapidly among candidates and local parties. Kamarck (2003)
reports that for state-level races in the US over 90 per cent of the major party candidates
had a website and that the proportion of contenders in House races had gone from a thirdin 1998 to two thirds. The candidacy of John McCain in the Republican presidential
primaries and his apparent success in raising money from Internet donations marked ashift in attention to online campaigning from simple message dissemination to resource
generation. Reports that close to half a million dollars was added to the campaign coffersfrom Internet donations after his win in the New Hampshire primary caught the media’s
attention, with estimates rising into the millions shortly thereafter (Kornblut andAbraham, 2000; Birnbaum 2000). These figures were subsequently queried, however,with claims being made that the amounts were actually raised from telephone calls, withcredit card details subsequently being entered onto the website for processing.3
It was not just McCain, however, who succeeded in exploiting the newopportunities for revenue raising. Al Gore was reported to have raised $1.6 million via
the Net in the second quarter of 2000, from an overall total of $33.8 million, while
estimates for George Bush were proportionally lower, $2.6 million, from a total of justover 90 million dollars. Overall, approximately 10 per cent of campaign funds raised for
the Presidential race across both parties were reportedly generated using the Internet.4 No
doubt the increasing attention to this aspect of Web campaigning resulted from the US
Federal Election Commission ruling that online credit card donations were eligible formatching funds (von Sternberg, 2000).

In addition to fund raising, attention also turned to generating resources of theflesh and blood variety, with volunteers being encourage to sign up as E-Leaders by the
Democrats from their National Committee homepage. E-leaders’ responsibilities included
creating an e-precinct with at least ten undecided voters, who would then be sent party
and personal messages of support for the Gore/Lieberman ticket. Ralph Nader’s attempts
to encourage vote-swapping between Green party supporters across states to help unseat
incumbents also represented a new ‘strategic’ focus to candidates exploitation of the new
medium. Although these efforts did not pay off in the sense that they delivered victory,
they caught the popular imagination. In the UK general election that followed, serious
efforts were made by Liberal Democrat candidates and parties to encourage tacticalvoting among their own and Labour supporters to defeat Tory candidates, using appeals
from the websites. Also explicit vote swapping sites were established to cement thepractice further.
Attention to the online efforts by parties and candidates receded somewhat during
the 2002 mid-term elections. Those studies undertaken revealed Web campaigning tohave entered something of a ‘holding pattern’ with 65 per cent of all candidates for US
House, Senate and gubernatorial elections reported to have sites.5 In addition, thoseofferings that were on display were not necessarily given the highest priority by
campaign teams. Data from Rightclick Strategies, a Web marketing firm, revealed that on
average only one quarter of major party sites in House and gubernatorial elections wereactually updated on election day itself. In addition, the sites’ basic mobilisation efforts
were strongly criticised with only around one in ten making basic polling location
information available and only seven per cent of all sites succeeding in sending any email
reminders to supporters to vote.6 Even Phil Noble, a strong promoter of the use of thetechnology in campaigns and elections accepted that 2002 had seen ‘no breakthroughs’.
There was some jump in online fundraising of major party candidates sites, up fromaround one quarter in 2000 to 55 per cent in 2002. Campaign teams were also crafting
more visually appealing direct emails to send action alerts and campaign updates, as well
as utilising SMS to send reminders to voters to turnout.7 Overall, however, he concluded
that parties were still continuing to use the new medium in an old way, most commonly
by putting TV ads on their websites. Such a practice, he comments “…is simply dragging
the old media into the new. It’s like in 1950 putting a new television camera in front of aradio newsreader behind a microphone and calling it TV.”8

Since 2002, it would appear that the Internet campaigning has started to turn acorner in terms of its movement into the mainstream as an electioneering tool.
Throughout most of 2003, attention has focused on Howard Dean, one of the Democraticpresidential candidates, as the new face of Internet-based campaigning. Leading a
campaign he describes as built on ‘mouse pads, shoe leather and hope’, Dean’s candidacy
was given its most significant boost to date by his win in the MoveOn.org online primaryin June.9 MoveOn being an online protest organisation established during the Clinton
impeachment saga that continued afterwards, promoting a left-wing agenda. Reports that
Dean had raised almost one million dollars in one day from online donations after the
victory were widely reported in the media.10 While comparisons with McCain have been
made, the scale and depth of the Dean campaign team’s use of the Web is generally
acknowledged as taking cyber-electioneering to a new level. His use of the‘Meetup.com’ website since the beginning of 2003 to facilitate ‘face to face’ discussion
among his supporters across the States, along with the coordination of a rapid online
response to any critics through the so-called Dean Defense Forces (DDF) email list, andthe targeting of leading ‘bloggers’ - key opinion formers on the Web have moved his
Internet-based electioneering beyond any narrow fund-raising ambitions toward ‘realworld’ vote mobilisation efforts. Joe Trippi, Dean’s campaign manager, who is credited
as the real ‘brains’ behind the Internet operation considers that the medium has now
matured into a real force that really could ‘turn’ an election, and that the 2004 election
will prove it to be so.11 What JFK was to television, and Goldwater and McGovern wereto direct mail, Dean is to the Internet, enthuses Simon Rosenberg, president of the centrist
New Democrat Network.12 Such sentiments are not limited to the practicioners, however.
Larry Sabato declared in an online article that the medium is now finally living up to its
promise, and is shaping up “to be one of the primary vehicles for both organization andcoverage from now on.”13 Given the changes to campaign finance law passed in 2002
that, if upheld by the Supreme Court, would force parties to rely much more heavily on awider base of small donations, and the exemption granted to the Internet as a recipient of‘soft money’, the stage is set for its importance to increase exponentially.14
Despite the increasing commitment of party managers and campaign officials tothe benefits of using the web, there is not unbridled optimism in all quarters. At a recent
VoxPolitics debate on the development of the 2004 cyber-campaign for the US
Presidency, Derek Parkinson, a technology commentator pointed to the need to placecurrent enthusiasm in a longer term perspective. While one could not dismiss the powerof the Internet in that it had served to turn a ‘no-hoper’ in to a ‘genuine candidate’, itsability to deliver Dean the nomination and the ultimate prize of the Presidency was
doubtful.15 Picking up on this issue of unsustainability, Nicholas Thompson, a writer for
theGlobalist, an online magazine about global economics and culture also called attention
to the ephemeral nature of Internet-based campaigning. Pointing to those politicians who
have touted the Internet as vital to their election victories, he argues that most had since
failed to see through their policy promises. Jesse Ventura being a classic case in point“…the qualities that have led to their failures are the same ones promoted by IT-driven
politics…excess style and short [on] substance…”. The quick fire IT-based approach,while it may generate momentum and publicity, does not then carry over into theinstitutional job of governance.16 Following this line of argument, Chris Suellentrop, awriter for the online magazine Slate, commented that while noone could dispute Dean’s
pioneering status in Internet campaigning, such tactics have ceded considerable control tounofficial activist groups who are well placed to “hijack” his campaign to their own ends.
Comparing Dean to the killer ‘app’ Napster in the online music industry, he argues thatthe candidate no doubt has the potential to “upend” and “transform” the way in which
political organisations operate in election campaigns. However, like Napster, ultimately
he may end up receding into the shadows, swamped by those very forces he has
unleashed.17

Academic studies of campaign sites: content and distribution
More systematic analysis of how the Web is being used as a campaign medium
has been found in the increasing number of academic studies of sites’ content as well as
the spread of those sites by parties and candidates during election periods.
Site Content
Work by Margolis et al. (1997) in the US and Ward and Gibson (1998) in the UK
offered some the first attempts to categorise and compare site content and quality.
Generally speaking, these analyses have dissected sites by assigning their various features
to correspond to certain basic functions that political actors perform in election periods.
This includes most commonly, the basic transmission of information to down voters(which would include items such as party histories, biographies of candidates and press
releases) and the gathering of opinion, comment or questions from voters to feed back to
the party (through email, opinion polls). In addition, more specialised studies have also
focused on the more medium-specific features of Web communication, which include thepossibilities for inter-organisational linkage and networking through hypertext links andinteractive participation between voters, and also voters and elites via chat rooms and
Q&A sessions. These items, having been grouped into these functional categories arethen converted to some type of scale (additive or ordinal) and scores for each site
calculated accordingly. These data then allow for more definitive conclusions to be
drawn about parties’ relative emphasis on the range of possible modes of communication
online. Namely, do parties favour the more fixed model of downward distribution of
information to voters or are they open to allowing input in return? If they do promote
feedback, how far is it of the controlled ‘one-way’ type and how far do they allow for
more free flowing multi-way speech to take place. Finally, are parties keen to use theirsites as a means to connect with the outside Web world and which type of sites are they
most keen to link to?
Variants on these coding schemes have been applied now in a wide range ofnational contexts since the late 1990s with the resulting datasets leading to a number ofkey cross-national trends in Web campaigning being identified, as well as someindividual country differences. In terms of similarities, it seems that one of the major
traits of parties and politicians exploitation of the Web across the world is its ‘stop-start’nature, in that it is largely structured around election cycles. Resources are poured into
sites in the lead-up to polling day to keep them fresh and updated, but then they are left tolanguish afterward. A second and related key finding has been that as Web use has
widened among voters and parties have woken up to its utility as a campaign tool, adivide has emerged between the major and minor parties in the quality of the sites
produced. Basically, the former have channelled more resources into the design andfunctionality of their sites, offering more of everything, particularly in the areas requiring
database connectivity, such as search facilities and submitting personal details forvolunteering and membership. In the early days of parties’ use of the net, studies from theUK, the US, Italy and the Netherlands were quick to note the lack of any clear disparities
in site content, with the medium being hailed as something of a leveller in terms of
quality of the political message being delivered (Gibson and Ward, 1998; Gibson et al.,
2000; Margolis et al., 1997, 1999; Newell, 2001;; Voerman, 1999). More recent studiesof the British and German national parties websites in the 2001 and 2002 parliamentaryelections, however, have revealed a clear divide to have opened up in their quality andvisibility (Gibson, Römmele and Ward, 2003; Gibson et al. 2003). In addition, the larger
parties have more recently shown initiatives toward linkage of the website into a broader
digital communications strategy targeting mobile phones and wireless devices, as well asbuilding databases to better inform canvassing and direct mailings (Peterson and Seifert,
2003).
Despite this evidence of a ‘normalising’ of party competition in cyberspace, withthe larger parties becoming more effective at harnessing the power of the digital
revolution, it is notable that the smaller players remain committed users of the medium.
According to recent surveys and interviews with communications personnel, the minor
parties are much more likely to rate the Internet and WWW as more important thantelevision, radio, and newspapers for communicating their message than their majorcounterparts (Gibson, Römmele and Ward, 2003; Gibson et al. 2003). New ICTs, while
not levelling the playing field, are still seen as offering a better foothold for the less wellknown candidates and parties to extend their reach to a new audience and galvanise
support than other mass communication tools. Certainly, if the Dean phenomenon is any
guide, it does appear that the Internet can still function as an ‘outsiders’ medium,propelling a relatively unknown name into the forefront of national politics.
One final major finding emerging from these empirical studies is the nonadventurous approach adopted by parties and candidates in developing their website
content. Campaign and ‘peace-time’ websites are generally the vehicles for downward
dissemination of information rather than recruitment of users’ opinions and thepromotion of participation. This tendency is confirmed by one of the few large scalecomparative analyses performed on party websites across the world by Pippa Norris(2001). Her analysis looked at a total of 399 websites in November 2000 and coded themaccording to how far their content focused on downward and upward flows of
information. The results revealed a stronger emphasis on the provision of basic
information about parties, with opportunities for joining discussion groups, emailingparty leaders and politicians or donating money being present far less frequently (2001:
163).
Nestled within these broader trends, of course, regional and country differences
also exist. One of the main areas of distinction that appears to separate campaigningstyles on the Internet is the extent to which it is personalised. The US, having acandidate-centered system, offers a prime example of this type of campaigning. As wasnoted earlier, this more ‘distributed’ and decentralised model of site creation is possibly
one of the key reasons why it dominates in accounts of innovation and development in
Web campaigning. In addition, fundraising, while a feature of campaign websites in othercountries has, as the accounts above noted, become particularly prominent in the US.

This emphasis no doubt also has its roots in the institutional design of the system, with acampaign finance regime that provides for independent revenue raising by candidates instate and federal elections. Of course cultural outlook and historical events also maketheir mark on the approach parties make to voters. By way of contrast, for example,
Italian party websites have been conspicuous in the absence of pleas for money, not due
to any prohibition on raising funds in this way but as a reaction against the revelations ofcorruption that have beleaguered the party system since the late 1980s (Gibson et al.,2000).
Elsewhere in Europe, where strong party systems and unitary states prevail, mostwork has been focused on national parties use of new ICTs, with less activity being seenamong individual candidates (Gibson, Nixon and Ward, 2003). In Britain, work by
Gibson and Ward (1998) Ward and Gibson (1999, 2003) has revealed an evolution inparties’ Web style toward more direct marketing tactics online with parties showing keeninterest in subscribing users to email news bulletins. In the 2001 election, the Labour
party took the extra step of using SMS to send text messages out to mobile users in thehope of reminding them to vote. Of course, some of the most ‘wired’ parties in the world
are in those countries with the highest and fastest growing levels of Internet use. Parties
in Denmark, Sweden and Norway have long held a presence in cyberspace, and although
they have not been seen as particularly trailblazing in campaigning online, they haveshown a marked commitment to developing fora for internal member discussion overtime. (Hoff and Löfgren, 1997; Löfgren 2000; Pederson and Saglie, 2003).
Further South, regional differences have been ascribed to party systems in
Portugal, Greece, Italy and Spain in that they have been seen to be holding out against therising tide of ‘normalisation’ and the growing dominance of the major players. The small‘anti-system’ Portugese Communist Party is held up as a shining exemplar of thiscounter-trend, being one of the first to establish a website that has gone on to beconsistently rated as one of the best in the country (Cuhna et al., 2002). The slower
spread of Internet use across the population, however, may in part explain this greater
evenness of performance. Once penetration has reached the same level as one finds in thenorth European countries and the incentives for taking the Web increase, one might
expect similar gaps in the quality of party sites to develop. While one might also expect
the same pattern of activity to develop across the countries of eastern Europe where
Internet penetration levels are considerably lower than even those of southern Europe,
analysis by Semetko and Krasnoboka (2003) of sites in Russia and Ukraine has pointedalready to a divide in quality opening up between the parliamentary parties and thoseoutside. Further research by March (2003) on Russia confirmed this divide although henoted that the overall quality of the sites was surprisingly high given the very small
audience. In seeking to explain this aggressive approach to website development, Marchargued that many of the new parties in the former Communist countries were particularly
keen to show their ‘progressive’ credentials and that they are part of a new politics
agenda. Taking a proactive stance toward the new digital technologies, therefore, would
be one important and obvious way for them to do so. Krasnoboka and Semetko (2003), ina follow up study to their 2001 analysis, however, make the point that so far, the mostmeaningful Internet-based political action in the region has taken place beyond the party
system, on independent news websites.
Crossing to the Southern hemisphere to Japan, it appears that much of the early
flurry of activity in Web campaigning also occurred outside of the party sphere, with atleast 40 MP’s being reported as having gone online prior to the 1995 Upper House
elections (Tkach-Kawasaki 2003). Indeed, one of the more prominent examples of Web
campaigning emerged in the battle for the leadership of the Liberal Democratic Party(LDP) in 2000 when Kato Koichi attempted to unseat the incumbent Yoshiro and took to
the Web to build up support for his bid. Then in 2001, Prime Minister Koizumi was also
seen to turn to the Web to fend off an internal leadership challenge. The less vigorous
approach to the Web found among Japanese parties may be explained in part by thehighly volatile nature of the party system during the 1990s after it emerged from a long
period of one-party rule. It is also clear, however, that Web campaigning has been
actively discouraged by governing politicians who have applied the highly restrictive
rules on media use contained in the Public Offices Election Law (POEL) to parties andcandidates websites The effect has been to make any changes in website content illegal
during the official election season. Such measures are seen as designed to deprive the
newly emerging rival parties to the LDP of the oxygen of publicity. Recent reports,
however, have suggested that this moratorium is in the process of being amended with aneye to an eventual lifting of the ban entirely. Approval of changes to the POEL to allow
for Internet-based distribution of manifestoes is expected to take place in time for theUpcoming Lower House elections in 2003.18
Distribution and diffusion of sites
Systematic analysis regarding the distribution of sites and identifying the most prominent
political actors in Web campaigning has taken off more recently, as usage by candidates

and parties has spread beyond the national level. Examination of these patterns haverevealed that a number of key factors are at work in determining whether and how soon aparty establishes a site. As was noted above, major parties are now moving into a more
obvious position of dominance, a finding that is underscored by the evidence from table 1
which lists the dates of website establishment for a range of parties in four major
democracies.
Table 1 about here.
This pattern is also confirmed by the analysis of Norris (2001) discussed earlier, which
revealed that whereas over 50 per cent of the major parties included in the analysis
maintained an online presence (i.e. those gaining over 20 per cent of seats in parliament),
less than 40 per cent of fringe parties (those obtaining less than three per cent of seats)
did so (2001: 157).
Beyond party status, however, it is important to look at other factors that may play a rolein determining use of the Internet. Ideology or party outlook, for example, also appears to
be important. As table 1 shows, it is the mainstream left-wing parties that appear to be
more likely to be the early adopters of the technology with the US Democrats, theAustralian and British Labour parties, and the Social Democrats in Germany all moving
to set up websites before their right-wing rivals. However, further evidence provided by
Norris reveals that right-wing parties may make up for later start with better and morefunctional sites. Conservative and Christian Democrat parties scored consistently higher
on her information and interactivity scales than did Social Democrats (Norris, 2001:164).
This conclusion is supported by findings from the US which indicated that despite thefact that the Democrats stole the march on the Republicans in establishing their national
website in June 1995 (albeit by a matter of days)19, research on the actual content of thesites revealed Republican sites to have the edge over the Democrats, with each site
providing information on making financial contributions, getting on mailing lists and on
the candidate’s stand on some policies (Tedesco, Miller and Spiker 1999). These
differences were also reflected in the respective National Committee’s websites,
according to a report in Slate, Microsoft’s online magazine, which found volumes of
position papers on the DNC site but more glitz on that of the RNC.20 Differences
continued into the 2000 election cycle with Democrat nominees for the US Senate being
reported as more substantive, albeit more dull, in their Web offerings than Republicans,
who were seen as more ‘Web savvy’ offering volunteer options, voter registrationinformation, a market place, audio, video, motion graphics, links, pop-up features(Puopolo 2001).
Outside the US, Ward and Gibson (2003) concluded that party outlook also appeared
to interact with party status as a determinant of the extent and quality of Web
campaigning in the General election of 2001. Their examination of local websites for thethree main parties local branches and individual candidates showed the Liberal
Democrats, despite being the smallest of the big three, were the most ‘wired’ in terms ofthe number of sites that were operated and also in terms of the quality of those sites.
Although no party exhibited exceedingly high levels of Web sophistication at the local
level, and sites generally focused on the static dissemination of information, those
operated by Liberal Democrats did tend to have more interactivity and user friendlinessthan those operated by Labour and Conservative. Significantly, such divergence was not
captured by the national level study of election sites, with Labour and the Conservatives
running sleek and professionally designed sites (Gibson et al., 2003). Further afield inAustralia, Gibson and Ward (2003) also found evidence of party outlook or ethos
affecting use of the Web in their analysis of the sites maintained by the two major parties
and one minor party – The Greens – at the state and territory level during 2001. Contrary
to expectations, Green parties were actually found to ‘punch’ well above their weight interms of the number and functionality of the sites they offered. It was speculated that themore interactive capabilities of the medium, as well as its environmental ‘cleanliness’and cheapness, increased the incentives for Greens to use the Web. In addition, the moreeducated and middle profile of Internet users was also seen to increase the incentive forGreens’ to use the Web, given that their voters are more likely to come from such groups.
Beyond these party-specific factors driving utilisation of the Web, other studies havealso pointed to some wider electoral dynamics that need to be taken into account when
explaining political actors use of the Web. Incumbency is one such factor that has been
identified as associated with the inclination, or lack thereof, to operate a site. Klotz(1997) reports that among the major parties, those Senators seeking re-election were lesslikely to have websites. One of the reasons for this of course, is that sitting politicians canand often do, rely on their official government sites instead of putting up their own
campaign sites (D'Alessio 2000). Kamarck’s analysis from 1998 and 2000, however,showed that by 2000 this gap between challenger and incumbent had shrunk toinsignificance for Senate and gubernatorial races. However, for House races, challengers
were still significantly more likely to run a site. In explaining this she notes that this isnot due to House incumbents being more complacent. Rather, it is that in any given year,
House incumbents are far more likely to run unopposed than those in statewide races.
Thus, the level of competition they face is generally lower. However, where competitive
races do emerge, House incumbents are much more inclined to use the Web (Kamarck,
2003:88).
A survey by Netelection.org in 2000 supports this point, showing that 78 per cent ofincumbent congressional candidates were found to have established websites incompetitive districts compared with 50 per cent in more secure districts (Lynch 2001).
Underscoring this, evidence from the British 2001 general election has signalled therelevance of electoral competitiveness as a stimulus to Web campaigning, with thetightest races (margin of victory less than one per cent) being far more likely to see bothincumbent and the principal challenger online than other contests (Ward and Gibson
2003).
Finally, in terms of individual traits among cyber-campaigners at a more personal anddemographic level, very little information exists. Findings from Greer and LaPointe’s(2003) examination of the campaign sites of candidates for statewide office between 1998
and 2000 suggests that the gender bias in use of the new media at the mass level is notnecessarily replicated at the elite level. Although far fewer of the total number of sites
identified belonged to women, (15 per cent in 1998 and 13 per cent in 2000) this isreflective of the smaller proportion of women nominated for these offices by the major
parties. Other individual traits of candidates, aside from gender have not been fully
investigated, in any of these studies. Following the patterns uncovered in general Internet
use, one might expect a bias toward the more educated, higher occupational status
candidates. Age would also be expected to play a significant difference, with younger
candidates (i.e. below 40 years of age) showing a greater familiarity with the medium,than those in the older age brackets.
Based on the variance emerging from these studies at that the sub-national level,
therefore, it would appear that there are some common factors that we can identify in ourefforts to explain parties’ and individual candidates’ propensity to use the Web for
campaigning. First, despite minor parties enthusiasm, we expect major parties todominate. Second, we would expect the individual resources that candidates bring to thetask of campaigning influence their use of the web, mainly in terms of being young andeducated. And third, political resources should play a role, mainly through incumbency,
but also through legislative experience and being a long-standing party member, whichshould enable them to access party resources to assist with setting up and maintaining a
website.

Voters’ Use of the Internet in Election Campaigns
Given this growth in activity and enthusiasm among political elites toward
deployment of the Web as a means to woo voters, the sixty four million dollar question
remains as to whether these efforts are reaping any rewards? The answer to this of course
depends on what one uses as a measure of success? Placing the bar at the lowest level,
one can argue that actually getting voters to view a site is a ‘win’ for a party, since themedium relies upon user initiative to in find the sites in the first place. Parties andcandidates cannot push their message onto voters as they can on other mediums like
television, they must sit and wait for visitors to find them. Beyond that first visit,
however, a stronger mark of success would be influencing them to seek further
information on the party or person being promoted, such that awareness of their message
was raised in a positive fashion. Ultimately, however, if a website could actually serve topersuade someone to support the cause in terms of volunteering their time or evensecuring their vote, this would clearly mark its greatest success.
Looking first at the success of campaign websites in terms of attracting an
audience (the ‘if you build it do they come’ question), one can argue that the evidence is
not suggestive that the parties are scoring particularly high marks in this area. Overall,surveys on the Internet using populations’ Web habits reveal there to be an appetite forelection related news around the world. Figure1 reveals that the US leads the way withover 30 per cent of its online users having accessed the Web for election news during
2000.
Figure 1 about here
The UK and Australia lag somewhat behind with less than 20 per cent of Internet
users turning to the medium for such information during the most recent national electionseason. These figures also need to be compared with the numbers looking for election
news in other media, such as newspapers, since these show that many more voters (overfifty per cent) are looking for information from these more traditional sources. In addition,subsequent figures from the 2002 election season in the US have actually showed a dropin the proportions accessing online news, with 22 per cent reporting having done this.21
Such a decline, however, the report goes on to argue is consistent with an overall fall inlevels of political interest among the electorate during mid-term elections, and occurredin 1998 as well. Within this overall pattern of Net use for election information, however,
it is clear that those going directly to party and candidate websites is quite small in
number and may actually be in real decline. The Pew Center data reveal that while CNN
and the major dailies took the lions share of those seeking information, attracting over 60
per cent of online users, only 11 per cent reported viewing candidates’ sites. While thisnumber represented a rise from seven per cent in 2000, it was down from 25 per cent in
1996.22 Similar work during the British election in 2001 conducted by the WorkFoundation offered even less inspiring findings. Overall only 15 per cent of online users
anticipated looking for campaign news on the Internet (slightly lower than the BES
estimates reported in figure 1), and within that group only one third, or 2 per cent of theentire sample, planned to visit party-specific sites.23 Data from a specially commissioned
NOP survey on political organisations use of the Internet in the UK conducted in thefollowing year confirmed this rather dismal picture for the parties, with only four per centof those online reporting that they had ever visited a party site.24 The statistics for other
European countries and Australia reported in figure 2 using Eurobarometer data largely
repeats this picture, with parties coming in as one of the least favoured sources of
information.
Figure 2 about here
Translating these figures into actual numbers we can see that rather a bleak
picture emerges regarding websites overall ability to influence voters’ attitudes or theoutcome of an election. In the UK it amounted to less than one and a half million votersbeing prepared to locate party-specific information in advance of the election. Of course,
if those voters were actually persuaded by what they saw to support the party or
candidate, and enough of them were located in a constituency where the race wasparticularly competitive, then one can argue that the Internet may indeed may somedifference to the outcome. Evidence regarding the impact of sites is not particularly
extensive. However, Pew data again proves particularly useful in this regard. As figure 3
shows it appears that such sites do have a strong potential to influence the vote intentionof those who view them, with younger voters proving particularly persuadable.
Figure 3 about here
According to survey data from late 2000, just over two fifths of online news consumers
say that their vote choice was affected by the information they received, this rising to half

of all those aged 18- 29 years. The same study also reports more specifically for those
who took the time to visit candidate or campaign-specific websites, a third thought they
were useful, although it does not indicate whether their vote decision was changed bythem.25 A subsequent and more indepth report on the 2002 online campaign and citizens
response issued by the Pew Center moderates this picture of effectiveness, however.
While 61 per cent of respondents said the Internet had been of some importance to themin deciding how to vote, up from two per cent in 2000, the numbers saying it had proved
very important almost halved from 14 per cent to eight. In addition when quizzed about
whether online information had swayed their vote for or against a particular candidate,
one quarter admitted that it had, a fall from 34 per cent in the previous mid-term electionsin 1998. Overall, only 13 per cent of those looking for online news wanted to findinformation to help them make their voting decision. Most people simply wanted to learn
more about what was going on (43 per cent) and just under one quarter sought
information to reinforce their existing preference.26
In the midst of these rather contradictory findings, additional research from the
UK on voters’ attitudes to what is offered online by parties and political organisations
offers some solace to Web campaigners looking for a ‘net’ effect. The figures from anational survey conducted in May 2002 reported that of those who had contacted apolitical party online, either through email or visiting the website, four in ten indicatedthat they would not have done so had the Internet option not been available to them.27 As
figure 4 makes clear this proportion was even greater for pressure groups, alternative andmainstream media organisations.
Figure 4 about here
When probed further about the experience, approximately one third of those visiting theparty websites found the experience to be rewarding enough to make them want to findout more, as figure 5 shows.
Figure 5 about here
Five per cent of visitors, however, actually became less interested in the party as a result.
This positive response was repeated and magnified for the other types of organisations
included in the analysis with over half of those visiting an indy media site saying theywould not have done so had they not had the Net option. This aggregate evidence has
been supported by more qualitative data drawn from focus groups held during the 2001

General election. As part of their E-lection study, the Work Foundation recruited a small
pool of undecided voters from two marginal electorates and had them locate a series ofnational and local campaign sites and more general news sites in the setting of an Internet
cafe. Overall, the exposure resulted in an almost uniform reversal of the initial scepticism
voiced toward the sites, with most participants reporting that they found the sites usefuland preferable to leaflets and direct mailings. Sites that were rated positively increased
regard for the party. Interestingly, it was also that the participants reported they weremore likely to trust the information that they found online, but were also highly critical of
the site if they considered its performance weak. Both of these responses were considered
to stem from the personal labour invested by the participant in locating the site.
These data reveal, therefore, that while Web campaigning may not yet be
effective in influencing the majority or even a significant minority of the hearts andminds of voters, this is largely a problem relating to access than to the content of sites.
Once voters view the contents of a campaign-specific site, they generally appear to
respond positively to the messages received. A complicating factor here, however, is thatthe requirement of finding the website, although it may raise the barrier to reaching a
mass audience, may also be vital to creating a sense of ownership and control amongusers once they arrive at the site, which may in turn be responsible for creating the morepositive responses reported above. Thus, it may be that the challenge for Web
campaigners is to find a way to address this paradox such that the ‘push’ aspect of themedium becomes more ubiquitous in drawing voters in, but not so invasive as to makethe viewing of the Internet message an entirely passive experience. Although somehapless candidates have engaged in spamming as one means of reconciling thesecontradictory impulses, the concept of ‘viral politics’ – a unique type of peer to peer
communication through jokes or emailed stories via the Internet – appears to be a far
more fruitful strategy. Certainly the Howard Dean phenomenon has, to a large degree,
taken off through this more indirect recruitment and mobilisation strategy. The big
question of course now is whether he can sustain the momentum his online campaign has
generated and turn the mouse clicks into votes during the 2004 primary season.

1

Figures are based on press reports and taken from ‘Online Democracy By The
Numbers’ a presentation by Ryan Thornburg’s in January 1999 at a conference
organised by The Democracy Online Project, George Washington University.
Available at <http://democracyonline.org/databank/conf1numbers.shtml>
Accessed on 07/07/01.

2‘Digital Snapshot’ March 24, 2000. The Democracy Online Project, George
Washington University. . Available at<http://democracyonline.org/databank/march2000survey.shtml> Accessed on
07/07/01.

3‘Experts Want to Dissect McCain’s Internet Fundraising’ Rebecca Fairley Raney.
The New York Times on the Web Feb 18, 2000. Available at<www.ntytimes.com/li…ch/00/02/cyber/articles/18campaign.html > Accessed on
19 February 2000. ‘Volunteers’ Actions Lead Skeptics to Question McCain’s
Online Donations.’ Rebecca Fairley Raney. The New York Times on the Web Feb
12, 2000. Available at<www.ntytimes.com/li…ch/00/02/cyber/articles/12campaign.html > Accessed on
14 February 2000.

4‘Click! E-lection Evoloution’ Chris Allbritton. New York Daily News Online
September 24, 2000. Available at <http://www.nydaily news.co…24/New_York_Now/Technology/a-81212.asp> Accessed on 1 October 2000.

5‘Candidate Web Sites in the 2002 US Election’ Kirsten A. Foot and Steven M.
Schneider. Available at http://politicalweb.info/reports/web-sphere-analysis.pps >Accessed on July 29, 2003.

6‘Ready on e-Day: A Web Analysis of the Major Campaigns in 2002’ Rightclick
strategies Available at < http://www.rightclicks.com/e-day/e-day.pdf > Accessedon July 28, 2003.

7‘Internet and Campaign 2002 Analysis’ Special Report by Phil Noble. Politics
Online Nov 4, 2002. Available at<http://netpulse.politicsonline.com/soundoff.asp?issue_id=6.18 > Accessed on 6
November, 2002.

8

Phil Noble ‘From Novelty to Necessity.’ A Special Report for Netpulse 6.18
November 4, 2002. Available at <http://netpulse.politicsonline.com/soundoff.asp?issue_id=6.18> Accessed on 6
November 2002.

9‘Howard Dean: Politics in Cyberspace’ NewsMax.com July 5, 2003. Available at<http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/4/161644.shtml> Accessedon July 20, 2003.

10‘Dean’s Grass-Roots Cash Cow’ by E. J. Dionne Jnr. Washingtonpost Available
at <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A239372003Jul7.html?referrer=email> Accessed on July 20, 2003.

11‘Dean.com’ by Ryan Lizza. The New Republic Online 23 May 2003. Available at< http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030602&s=lizza060203> Accessed on 4 June
2003.

12

Dean’s Grass-Roots Cash Cow’ by E. J. Dionne Jnr. Washingtonpost Available at<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A239372003Jul7.html?referrer=email> Accessed on July 20, 2003.

13‘Howard Dean: Politics in Cyberspace’ NewsMax.com July 5, 2003. Available at<http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/7/4/161644.shtml> Accessedon July 20, 2003.

14‘Internet and Campaign 2002 Analysis’ Special Report by Phil Noble. Politics
Online Nov 4, 2002. Available at<http://netpulse.politicsonline.com/soundoff.asp?issue_id=6.18 > Accessed on 6
November, 2002.

15

Derek Parkinson ‘The Message, Not the Medium’ Netpulse 7.15. October 16,
2003. Available at<http://netpulse.politicsonline.com/soundoff.asp?issue_id=7.15> Accessed on 20
October 2003.

16‘The Internet and Political Campaigns’ Nicholas Thompson. June 16, 2003. theGlobalist. Available at<http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/printStoryId.aspx?StoryId=3249>
Accessed on July 28 2003.

17‘Peer-to-Peer Politics’ Chris Suellentrop. July 14, 2003. Slate. Available at<http://slate.msn.com/id/2085610/> Accessed on July 28th, 2003.

18‘Campaign with the Web’ Editorial for asahi.com October 4, 2003. Available at<http://www.asahi.com/english/opinion/TKY200310040120.html> Accessedon October 20, 2003.
‘Which Party is Webbier?’ Eve Gerber. Slate November 16, 1999. Available at<http://www.slate.com/netelection/entries/99-11-16_55991.asp> Accessed on 24
December 1999.

19

20

22

Which Party is Webbier?’ Eve Gerber. Slate November 16, 1999. Available at<http://www.slate.com/netelection/entries/99-11-16_55991.asp> Accessed on 24
December 1999
‘Political Sites Gain, But Major News Sites Still Dominant’ January 5, 2003. The
Pew Research Center for People and The Press, Pew Internet and American Life.
Available at <www.pewinternet.org/reports/pdfs/PRC_PIP_Election_2002.pdf>
Accessed on October 6, 2003.
‘Youth Vote Influence by Online Information’ issued by the Pew Internet andAmerican Life Project. Dec 3, 2000. Available at<http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/reports.asp?Report=27&Section=ReportLev
el1&Field=Level1ID&ID=94>. Accessed on January 12, 2001. These findings
are supported by a survey of American adults conducted in November 2000 forthe Democracy Online Project (based at George Washington University) thatexamined use of the Internet for election-related information, see ‘Post-Election
2000 Survey on Internet Use for Civics and Politics’ December 4, 2000. The
Democracy Online Project, George Washington University. Available at<http://democracyonline.org/databank/dec2000survey.shtml> Accessed on
07/07/01.
23‘Whatever Happened to the E-Lection’ James Crabtree. The Work Foundation.
2001. Available at <http://www.theworkfoundation.com/pdf/Election
percent20designed1.pdf> Accessed December 2001.

24‘UK Political Participation Online: the public response’ Gibson, R.K, Lusoli, W
and S. Ward. A report published for the ESRC ‘Internet and Political
Organisations and Participation’ project. Available at <http://www.ipop.org.uk/>
under ‘Results’. Accessed on October 23, 2003.
‘Youth Vote Influence by Online Information’ issued by the Pew Internet andAmerican Life Project. Dec 3, 2000. Available at<http://www.pewinternet.org/reports/reports.asp?Report=27&Section=ReportLev
el1&Field=Level1ID&ID=94>. Accessed on January 12, 2001. These findings
are supported by a survey of American adults conducted in November 2000 for
the Democracy Online Project (based at George Washington University) thatexamined use of the Internet for election-related information, see ‘Post-Election
2000 Survey on Internet Use for Civics and Politics’ December 4, 2000. The
Democracy Online Project, George Washington University. Available at<http://democracyonline.org/databank/dec2000survey.shtml> Accessed on
07/07/01.

25

26

27

‘Untuned Keyboards: Online Campaigners, Citizens, and Portals in the 2002
Elections’ March 2003. Michael Cornfield and Lee Raine. Pew Internet andAmerican Life Project. Available at<www.pewinterent.org/reports/pdfs/PIP_IPDI_Politics_Report.pdf> Accessed on
October 6, 2003.
‘UK Political Participation Online: the public response’ Gibson, R.K, Lusoli, W
and S. Ward. A report published for the ESRC ‘Internet and Political
Organisations and Participation’ project. Available at <http://www.ipop.org.uk/>
under ‘Results’. Accessed on October 23, 2003.

References
Bimber, B. (1998) ‘The Internet and Political Mobilization’ Social Science Computer
Review. 16(4): 391-401.
Birnbaum, J. (2000) ‘Politicking on the internet’, Fortune, March, pp. 84-6.
Corrado, A. (1996) ‘Elections in cyberspace: prospects and problems’, in A. Corrado and
C. Firestone (eds), Elections in Cyberspace: Toward a New Era in American
Politics, Washington, D.C.: The Aspen Institute.
Cunha, Carlos, Irene Martin, Janes Newell and Luis Ramiro. (2003) ‘Southern European
parties and party systems, and the new ICTs.’ In Gibson, Rachel K., Paul Nixon
and Stephen J. Ward (eds.) Net Gain?: Political Parties and the Internet London:
Routledge: 70-97.
D'Alessio, D. (2000) ‘Adoption of the World Wide Web by American politicalcandidates, 1996-1998’, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, pp.
556-68.
Davis, R. and Owen D. (1998) New Media and American Politics, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Dulio, D.A., Goff, D. L. and Thurber, J.A. (1999) ‘Untangled web: Internet use during
the 1998 election’, PS: Political Science & Politics, 32, 1, pp. 53-9.
Epstein, E. (1996) ‘Election ’96 internet style’, PC World, May, pp. 174-80.
Faucheux, R. (1998) ‘How campaigns are using the internet: An exclusive nationwide
survey’, Campaigns & Elections, September, pp. 22-6.
Hall, M. (1997) ‘One to one politics in cyberspace’, Media Studies Journal, 2, pp. 97-103.
Just, M.R. (1997) ‘Candidate strategies and the media campaign’, in G.M. Pomper et al.
(eds), The Election of 1996: Reports and Interpretations, Chatham, NJ: Chatham
House Publishers.
Greer, Jennifer and Mark E. LaPointe (2003) ‘Cyber-Campaigning grows up. A
comparative content analysis of websites for US Senate and gubernatorial races,
1998-2000’ in Gibson, Rachel K. Andrea Römmele and Stephen Ward (eds.)
Electronic Democracy London: Routledge (forthcoming).
Gibson, Rachel K. , Andrea Rommele, and Stephen Ward (2003) ‘German Parties andInternet Campaigning in the 2002 Federal Election’ German Politics Vol. 12, 1,
79-108.
Gibson, Rachel K. Michael Margolis, David Resnick and Stephen Ward (2003): ‘Election
Campaigning on the WWW in the US and the UK: A Comparative Analysis.’
Party Politics. 9 (1): 47-76.
Gibson, Rachel K. and Stephen J. Ward (2003)’ Letting the Daylight in?: Australianparties’ use of the World Wide Web at the state and territory level’ in Gibson,

Rachel K., Paul Nixon and Stephen J. Ward (eds.) Net Gain?: Political Parties
and the Internet London: Routledge: 139-160.
Gibson, Rachel K., Paul Nixon and Stephen J. Ward (2003) eds., Net Gain?: Political
Parties and the Internet London: Routledge.
Gibson, Rachel K. and Stephen J. Ward (2002) ‘Virtual Campaigning: Australian Parties
and the Internet’, Australian Journal of Political Science, 35 (1): 99-122.
Gibson, Rachel K., J. L. Newell, and S. J. Ward (2000) ‘New parties, new media: Italian
party politics and the Internet’, Southern European Society and Politics. 5(1):123-42
Gibson, Rachel K. and Stephen J. Ward. (1998). ‘UK Political Parties and the Internet:
Politics as Usual in the New Media?’ Harvard International Journal ofPress/Politics, 3 (3): 14-38.
Kamarck, Elaine C. (1998) ‘Stalking the wild netizen: the new cyber-campaign’,
Newsday, October 25, p. B4
Kamarck, Elaine C. (1999) ‘Campaigning on the Internet in the Elections of 1998’
in Kamarck, Elaine C. and Joseph Nye (eds.) democracy.com? Governance in a
Networked World.. Hollis Publishing: Hollis, NH, 99-124.
Kamarck, Elaine C. (2003) ‘Political Campaigning on the Internet: Business as Usual?’ inKamarck, Elaine C. and Joseph S. Nye Jr. governance.com: Democracy in the
Information Age. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press: 81- 103.
Klotz, Robert (1997) ‘Positive Spin: Senate Campaigning on the Web’ PS: Political
Science and Politics XXX(3):482-486.
Kornblut, A.E. and Abraham, Y. (2000) ‘Campaign 2000 / Republicans touting
conservative themes, Bush shifts tone in SC’, The Boston Globe, February 3, p.
A28.
Leiter, L. (1995) ‘Goodbye BBQ and buttons; Hello web and home page’, Insight on theNews, September 25, pp. 46-8.
Lynch, M. (2001). E-lection wrap-up. Chief Executive Magazine, January, pp. 24-8.
March, L. (2003)
Margolis, Mike, Resnick, David and Chin-chang Tu. (1997) ‘Campaigning on theInternet: Parties and Candidates on the World Wide Web in the 1996 Primary
Season’. Harvard International Journal of Press Politics , 2 (1): 59-78.
Margolis, Mike, Resnick, David and Joel Wolfe (1999) ‘Party Competition on theInternet: Minor Versus Major Parties in the UK and USA’, Harvard International
Journal of Press/Politics, 4 (4): 24-47.
McKeown, C.A. and Plowman, K.D. ‘Reaching publics on the web during the 1996
presidential campaign’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD, August
1998.

Newell, James L (2001) ‘Italian Political Parties on the Web’ Harvard International
Journal of Press Politics, Vol. 6, 60-87.
Norris, Pippa (2003) ‘Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, Participation and Party
Websites’ Party Politics 9(1): 21-46.
Norris, Pippa (2001) The Digital Divide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Puopolo, S. (2001) ‘The web and U.S. senatorial campaigns 2000’, The American
Behavioral Scientist, 44, 12, pp. 2030-47.
Reavy, M. M. and Perlmutter, D. ‘Presidential websites as sources of information: The
next knowledge gap in the making?’, paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication in Los
Angeles, June 1996.
Roper, J. (1999). ‘New Zealand political parties online: the World Wide Web as a tool for
democratization or political marketing.’ in C. Toulouse and T. Luke eds. thePolitics of Cyberspace. London: Routledge, 69-83.
Selnow, G. (1998). The Electronic Whistle-Stop: The Impact of the Internet on American
Politics, Westport, CT: Praeger.
Semetko, H. and N. Krasnoboka (2003) ‘The Political Role of the Internet in Societies inTransition: Russia and Ukraine Compared.’ Party Politics 9(1): 77-104.
Krasnoboka, N. and H. Semetko (2003) ‘“Electronic Revolution”:The role of the Internetin the ongoing protest actions in Ukraine’ Paper presented at the ‘Changing Mediaand Civil Society’ workshop, ECPR Joint Sessions, Edinburgh, UK.
Stone, B. 1996. ‘Politics ‘96’ Internet World November: pp.44-50.
Tkach-Kawasaki, L. (2003) ‘Politics@Japan: Party Competition on the Internet in Japan’
Party Politics 9(1): 105-123.
Tedesco, J.C. et al. (1999) ‘Presidential campaigning on the information superhighway:
An exploration of content and form’, in L.L. Kaid and D. G. Bystrom (eds), The
electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication, Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tops, Peter, Voerman, Gerrit and Marcel Boogers (2000) ‘Political Websites During the1998 Parliamentary Elections in the Netherlands’, in Hoff, Jens, Horrocks, Ivan
and Peter Tops (eds), Democratic Governance and New Technology, London:
Routledge, pp. 87-100.
von Sternberg, B. von (1999) ‘Cyber campaign is getting crowded’, Star Tribune, June 3,
p. A6.
Ward, Stephen J. and Rachel K. Gibson (2003) ‘ On-line and on message? Candidate
websites in the 2001 General Election’ British Journal of Politics andInternational Relations 5(2): 108-256.

Ward, Stephen J. and Rachel K. Gibson (1998) “The First Internet Election? UK Political
Parties and Campaigning in Cyberspace.” in Ivor Crewe, Brian Gosschalk andJohn Bartles (eds.) Political Communications: The General Election Campaign of1997.
Voerman, G. (1999) ‘Distributing Electronic Folders: The Digital Electoral Campaign of1998 in the Netherlands.’ Documentatie-centrum Nederlandse Politieke Partijen,
University of Groningen

Table 1:
Party website start dates
UK

Germany

Australia

US

LabourOct ’94

SPD
August ’95

ALP
July ‘94

Libertarian Party
March ‘94

Conservatives
Oct ’95

CDU
October ‘95

Liberal Party
Feb ‘96

Democrat NC
June ’95

LiberalDemocrats
1995

FDP
December ‘95

Democrats
1997

Republican NC
June ‘95

UlsterUnionists
Nov ’95

GreensNov ‘96

Greensearly ‘98

Reform Party
October ‘95

SNP
Feb ‘96

PDS
April ‘98

National Party
1998

Green Party
1996

Figure 1
Sources: US ‘Youth Vote Influenced By Online Information’ Pew Internet & American Life Project, December 2000; UK British
Election Study, 2001; Australian Election Study, 2001

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

% online during election% of online population looked forelection news on the Internet% followed election in newspapers

US (Nov 2000)

UK (June 2001)

Australia (Oct2001)

Figure 2:
Where do online users go for their political information
Sources: Australian Election Study, 2001; Eurobarometer 53.0 April/May 2000

40
35
30
25

Parties
Government depts
Online news sources
Email contact public official

20
15
10
5
0

Australia

UK

FranceGermany

SwedenItaly

Figure 3:
Did online news affect vote choice in Nov 2000 US elections?
Source: ‘Youth Vote Influenced By Online Information’ Pew Internet & American Life Project, December 2000

100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

No
Yes

18-29 yrs

30-49 yrs

50+ yrs

Figure 4
Do websites and e-mail increase your audience?: evidence from the UK
Source: NOP/ESRC sponsored poll May 2002 (n = 252)s in g le is s u e p ro tes t c am p a ig n

Organisations

c h a rity o r p res s u re g ro u p

p o litic a l p a rty

a n ti-c a p ita lis t g ro u p / n e tw o rk

a lte rn a tiv e / in d e p e n d e n t m e d ia o rg a n is a tio nm ain s tre am n e w s o rg a n is atio n

0

25

50

75

C u m u la tiv e p e rc e n ta g e
D o n 't k n o w
W ou ld n ot h a v e c o n tac te d
W ou ld h a v e c o n tac te d100

Figure 5:
Do websites and email increase political organisations support?
Source: NOP/ESRC sponsored poll May 2002 (n=252)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Actually became more involved
More likely to become actively involved
More likely to find out more
No differenceLess likely to become involved

Political Party

Charity/NGO

Anti-capitalist
group

Singleissue/protest
network