Normalising or Equalising Party Competition? Assessing the Impact of the Web on Election Campaigning
| DOI | 10.1111/1467-9248.12107 |
| Published date | 01 August 2015 |
| Author | Rachel K. Gibson,Ian McAllister |
| Date | 01 August 2015 |
| Subject Matter | Article |
bs_bs_banner
P O L I T I C A L S T U D I E S : 2 0 1 5 V O L 6 3 , 5 2 9 – 5 4 7
doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12107
Normalising or Equalising Party Competition?
Assessing the Impact of the Web on Election
Campaigning
Rachel K. Gibson
Ian McAllister
University of Manchester
Australian National University
A core question addressed by parties and internet scholars is whether the medium is equalising or normalising levels
of inter-party competition, Are minor parties better placed to compete for voters’ attention online (equalisation), or
do major parties continue to dominate (normalisation)? To date, most research has supported the latter scenario
through ‘supply-side’ comparisons of website content in a single election. This article re-examines the debate using
Australian surveys of election candidates conducted between 2001 and 2010. As well as providing the first
longitudinal study of this question, we link the supply side with voter responses and compare how well the parties
recruit support through their web campaigns. Our results confirm that major parties dominate in the adoption of
personal websites, although minor parties are stronger users of social media. Both strategies are effective in gaining
votes, suggesting that the web may be rebalancing if not equalising party competition.
Keywords: political parties; internet; campaigning; digital; normalisation
The increasing use of the internet as a political communication medium led to considerable
speculation about the possibilities for a new social and political order that would involve
the redistribution of power away from established players, and out toward previously
unheard and marginalised voices in society (Castells, 1996; Dahlberg, 2001; Negroponte,
1995; Rheingold, 1993). In the context of political parties this prospect formed a particu-
larly compelling theme for research and led to development of the ‘equalisation’ thesis,
which argued that in the online environment smaller parties were able to overcome the
disadvantages they typically faced in the offline media environment and could more
effectively communicate their message to a wider audience (Corrado and Firestone, 1996).
Initial empirical research appeared to support the equalisation thesis (Gibson and Ward,
1998; Margolis et al., 1999). However, subsequent studies reported a pattern of dominance
by the major parties that became labelled the ‘normalisation’ thesis. Instead of an equali-
sation in offline patterns of inter-competition occurring online, current imbalances were
simply being replicated (Gibson et al., 2003a; 2003b; Newell, 2001; Tkach-Kawasaki,
2003). Growing web use among voters meant that the larger parties increasingly saw the
added value of online campaigning and were prepared to invest in it. By the middle of the
last decade most studies appeared to point toward the conclusion that normalisation had
indeed become the ‘norm’, and the internet was not providing any obvious benefit to
smaller parties.
The normalisation perspective continued to gain support in analyses of party and
candidate home pages conducted over the past decade (Lilleker et al., 2011; Schweitzer,
2008; 2011; Small, 2008; Vaccari, 2008). However, some authors have pointed to the
possibility of a return to the equalisation scenario with the rise of Web 2.0 or social media
© 2014 The Authors. Political Studies © 2014 Political Studies Association
530
R A C H E L K . G I B S O N A N D I A N M c A L L I S T E R
tools (Gueorguieva, 2008; Kalnes, 2009; Strandberg, 2009). These highly popular social
spaces offer a much cheaper platform for parties and candidates to establish a presence
compared with the investment required for purpose-built personalised websites. Using
Facebook and Twitter, smaller parties can organise their existing supporters better and
potentially connect to a wider and younger audience than that to which they might
otherwise have had access.1 Such efforts might ultimately help to improve their electoral
prospects.
This study develops our understanding of the normalisation vs. equalisation debate in
the context of inter-party competition in several key ways. First, we re-present and test the
arguments as a cyclical hypothesis which explains parties’ use of the web over time, rather
than as competing individual explanations applied at a single time point – usually national
elections. We see this as a more nuanced and accurate interpretation of the debate to date.
We do so using a unique data source that measures website and social media adoption by
Australian election candidates across four elections. Second, we combine this ‘top-down’
perspective with an analysis of electoral outcomes to measure the impact of web campaigns
on popular support. This extension from a ‘supply-side’ study to one examining ‘demand’
or voter responsiveness permits a more comprehensive assessment of the equalisation–
normalisation thesis. More specifically, although patterns of adoption among elites may
suggest that major parties have an advantage in regard to the provision of web campaign-
ing, if this does not lead to any electoral gains then it becomes questionable whether the
activity is actually reinforcing their position of dominance. Conversely, if smaller parties
are capitalising on their digital campaign efforts but not gaining any inroads into popular
support, then it becomes difficult to see how this is leading to a rebalancing of power
within the system. By extending the time period covered and looking beyond simply web
presence to impact, our analysis provides the most robust and comprehensive test of the
normalisation–equalisation debate than has previously been conducted.
Equalisation and Normalisation Perspectives
The idea that the internet would redistribute power from established elites to more
marginalised groups is not confined to the study of political parties. From the early 1990s
onward scholars heralded the internet’s democratising implications (Dahlberg, 2001;
Negroponte, 1995; Rheingold, 1993). Early moves by parties in the UK and US in
particular prompted speculation that party systems would see a rebalancing of power
toward the minor players. The internet, with its low entry costs and fast and unmediated
reach into people’s homes, presented an opportunity for those marginalised by the estab-
lished media to convey their message to a wider audience (Corrado and Firestone, 1996;
Gibson and Ward, 1998; Rash, 1997). Initial empirical evidence tended to support the
equalisation thesis. Rachel Gibson and Stephen Ward’s (1998, p. 22) study of the 1997 UK
general election, for example, concluded that ‘far from leaving the minor parties in the dust
the internet appears to be doing more to equalize exposure of parties’ ideas to the
electorate compared to other media’.
As the empirical evidence began to accumulate, the expectation of a more level playing
field came under increasing pressure as studies of party sites in national elections revealed
a growing dominance by the major parties (Conway and Domer, 2004; Gibson et al.,
© 2014 The Authors. Political Studies © 2014 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2015, 63(3)
T H E W E B A N D E L E C T I O N C A M P A I G N I N G
531
2003a; Semetko and Krasnoboka, 2003; Ward and Gibson, 1999). Based mainly on
comparisons of website content, these studies pointed to a trend whereby the larger,
well-resourced parties ran better designed multi-functional sites which delivered more
information and greater opportunities for participation and financial donations. The find-
ings were seen as countering the earlier findings of equalisation and leading instead to a
scenario of ‘normalisation’ whereby internet use shored up the power of existing elites
(Margolis and Resnick, 2000). Outside the party sphere the argument had particular
resonance at the individual level where a digital divide was quickly identified in favour of
higher socio-economic status citizens who were already active in political and civic life
(Norris, 2001; 2003).
Conclusions about a normalisation and reinforcement of the power of existing elites
resulting from the adoption of digital tools has continued to gain support in the online
parties literature (Carlson and Strandberg, 2005; Jackson, 2007; Koc-Michalska and Vedel,
2009; Small, 2008; Strandberg, 2009; Vaccari, 2008; Williams and Gulati, 2007), although
some exceptions to these trends have been noted, suggesting that a ‘third way’ between the
poles of normalisation and equalisation may be emerging. Green parties in particular have
been found to offer sites that often rival those of the major parties in terms of the richness
of their content and levels of interactivity (Conway and Domer, 2004; Gibson and Ward,
2003; Gibson et al., 2003a; 2003b; Newell, 2001; Norris, 2001; Schweitzer, 2005; 2008;
Tkach-Kawasaki, 2003). The far right has also been notable in its efforts to utilise the web
to communicate with supporters. The medium is typically seen as offering considerable
benefits for such parties due to the anonymity it provides to users in accessing and
exchanging information and also in the way it allows them to bypass the traditional media
which they see as either ignoring or distorting their message (Bratten, 2005; Caiani and
Parenti, 2009; Whine, 2000).
While most of the studies supporting normalisation have been based on comparing
website contents, a small number have introduced some ‘demand-side’ evidence and
examined how far these...
To continue reading
Request your trial