By Michael Cornfield and Lee Rainie
Sunday, November 5, 2006
When computers and the Internet first asserted themselves in Americans' imaginations in the early 1990s, some foresaw a golden era of politics. As citizens gained more access to information and as their voices more easily projected into the political discourse via bulletin boards, Web sites and Internet mailing lists, candidates would have more reason to deliberate directly with voters. Campaigns would become cheaper and more honest, while the power of lobbyists, consultants and other middlemen would fade.
Recently, as we've gained more experience with our technological toys, a fearful new thread has emerged: Forget the golden era. Through partisan blogs, political Web sites and customized news, the Internet only hardens our views, polarizes our politics.
So, is the Internet the lever for direct democracy? Or is it a wedge for political polarization? Either conclusion may prove too simple. To understand how technology may reshape politics in the years ahead, consider what we've learned from the initial decade of online campaigning, and how our various fears and hopes have fared:
The Internet has transformed political fundraising, advertising and mobilization.
Not so much. However you measure it, online fundraising has indeed increased substantially over the past eight years. The high-water mark, sure to be topped in 2008, is the reported $80 million in Internet donations that Sen. John Kerry raised for his 2004 presidential bid. This year, the liberal group MoveOn.org has raised more than $20 million, most of it online, and total online fundraising could reach $100 million. That's less than one-20th of total campaign fundraising this election cycle, which the Center for Responsive Politics puts at $2.6 billion.
Furthermore, the bulk of the political cash raised online is still being spent on tried-and-true outreach efforts such as television advertising, direct mail and telephone calls. In other words, 21st-century fundraising is paying for the same old-fashioned communications mechanisms that have dominated U.S. politics since the 1960s.
Estimates by the research firm PQ Media indicate that online campaign advertising increased to $40 million this year, compared with $29 million during the 2004 election cycle. By contrast, spending on television spots alone may have hit $2 billion this year, said Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group.
Meanwhile, e-mail is not close to challenging direct mail and phone calls as ways to reach voters: A Pew Research Center survey last month found that 38 percent of registered voters had received phone calls about the midterm campaigns, while only 15 percent had received e-mail.
In 2004, political scientists J. Quin Monson and D. Sunshine Hillygus tracked 1,606 voters during the last three weeks of the campaign for Brigham Young University's Center for the Study of Elections and Democracy. Less than 4 percent of the sample reported receiving a political e-mail message. All told, they received 2,466 unique pieces of direct mail, 9,627 phone calls and 399 personal visits -- but only 254 unique campaign e-mail messages.
The Internet "Balkanizes" politics.
Yes, on issues such as national security and the economy, voters' views have grown more partisan over the past generation -- but that began long before PCs and Internet access became staples of middle-class life.
Internet use may reinforce that trend. Surveys show that the Internet helps people seek out others who share their beliefs. And 30 percent of Internet users customize their daily news and analysis, sometimes relying on partisan blogs or preferred sites that can deliver tailor-made and self-reinforcing news and opinions to their screens.
But that is not the whole story. A Pew Internet survey also found that, during the 2004 presidential campaign, Internet users were more likely than non-users to be aware of differing political views, including on issues such as the merits of Kerry and President Bush, the war in Iraq, free trade and same-sex marriage. It seems that the Internet opens doors to all kinds of information, whether we agree with it or not.
The Internet brings new voters to the polls.
The jury is still out. Studies of the 2000 and 2004 elections suggest that people who obtain political news online are more likely to have voted than those who don't. But the causal arrow is more like a spinning weather vane here: It could be that politically active citizens are simply more likely to scour the Web for additional insight or ammunition.
Many factors affect the chance that a person will vote. Following the Bush-Kerry election in 2004, a Pew survey found that those with strong partisan identification were much more likely to have voted. Better educated people were more likely voters: The impact of a college degree on the chances someone will vote is twice as large as the impact of frequent political Internet use.
YouTube is the new "killer app" that will transform U.S. politics.
Each 24-month election cycle features a motherboard of new campaign devices, techniques and software applications, all generating a rush to judgment about their transformative effects.
This year's hot new function is YouTube. Now any candidate who nods off at hearings (Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana), runs away from questioners (Rep. Sue Kelly of New York), or comes up with unusual words with which to address opposition videographers (Sen. George Allen of Virginia) must continually monitor YouTube to see what citizen media-creators have wrought.
That said, post-election research probably will confirm the evidence from past campaigns. Online videos will have registered with some voters. Yet for most, the political news and information on television and in newspapers will have been more routinely part of their lives. It is also likely that the greatest impact of YouTube material will have come through its amplification by the parties and mainstream media.
Looking ahead, the Internet's role in politics will keep evolving as technology advances and users adapt it for new purposes. Someday, the iconic Internet president may emerge, dominating the medium like FDR on the radio and JFK and Ronald Reagan on television. But thus far, the most compelling narrative about the Internet and politics is not about candidates' skill with new media. Rather, it centers on activists' use of e-mail and Web sites; small donors' contributions online; bloggers' passion to debate issues; and amateur videographers' search for "gotcha" moments. Perhaps that is the best contribution this technology can make to democracy.
Michael Cornfield is vice president of public affairs at Electionmall.com, a nonpartisan campaign technology company. Lee Rainie is director of the Pew Internet and American Life Project.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.