Does the web transform politics? If this question had been asked during the 2004 presidential race, the answer would have been ‘maybe’ or ‘maybe not’ but in the 2008 presidential race, there is no doubt that web has in a number of ways transformed politics. The web has transformed politics in how the fund is raised & that too quickly, how the supporters are mobilized and how web can create a ‘buzz’ among a demography that has been more or less latent yet so precious (in terms of number of votes).

It’s too early to know for sure whether this transformation can lead to actual votes in the election but if it does, a new era of presidential election would prevail where web would be a major channel for delivering a message to a mass. One of the obvious advantages of web is that it can bypass the mainstream media and save money on television marketing. This has specially been a great advantage to underdog candidates.

The highest voter turnout from the 18 to 25 demographics was 42.3% during the 2004 election. It was a 5.8 % increase than the election in 2000. Internet campaign can create the ‘buzz’ or generate enthusiasm from young people. If the candidates address the issues that young people care about, they are more likely to vote. Social marketing by the current candidates not only allow them to organize and raise money, but also allow people to feel more connected to a candidate. Hilary Clinton raised $7.5 million in the first part of February (8 days to be precise) but Obama raised the same amount in one and half days!! This is in addition to 13.5 and 32 million that they raised in January. This is just phenomenal. This was possible for Obama as he has support from all kinds of tech individuals as they know how to use the medium to spread message. Obama apparently achieved this by reaching more donors even though they happened to be less wealthy in sharp contrast to Clinton. Obama is tapping in the young voters who have low turnouts in the past while Clinton in primarily tapping on supporters in the 40’s through their 60’s.

In an age where we vote for the so called ‘idols’ whom we don’t even know about (we don’t even expect anything in return!), voting for a representative that would lead the country where the voters want it to be is lucrative indeed. Therefore, yes, the web has transformed politics and will continue to do so in the near future.

“Transforming politics” is a big idea, but in all of the areas I can think of, the web does seem poised to make some impact.

Information about the mechanics of voting: much easier to find, at any hour. You can look up your polling places, find out what time-off laws there may be, get a voter-registration application, etc. This might not sound like a big deal, but missing deadlines, not knowing what to do, and being too busy have been cited as important reasons for voters not turning out. http://www.census.gov/prod/2006pubs/p20-556.pdf

Voter turnout: The apparent voter turnout has dipped since the 60’s, with, IIRC, a minimum in 1996. One reason may be that there are more noncitizen residents and felons now than in the past; neither of these groups can vote vote but they are often counted in the potential voters statistics. I am not sure that the web can help with this part. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0554%28200112%2995%3A4%3C963%3ATMOTVV%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W

I have also heard some say that the dip in voter turnout since the 60’s is correlated with television viewing; it appears that television replaced politics-heavy media such as newspapers and radio. In this case, the web can help to the extent that netizens are exposed to politics, and hurt to the degree that there is so much stuff online that it can be easy to isolate oneself. Do we have any notion whether we are getting people interested who wouldn’t be otherwise, or just getting better resources into the hands of those who are already interested?

Fundraising: Much easier to do grassroots fundraising, I would say.

Information about candidates: This is, I think, something where the web really can shine. I can google for myriad analyses, read the candidates’ statements, watch and re-watch debates, all in a way that I didn’t dream of at a young age. The first election I remember was the ‘88 presidential election. I probably saw stuff on TV, knew my parents were voting Dukakis because they didn’t want any more of Reagan or his followers. My third grade class followed along the end part of the process; we learned about the electoral college and all that. But what I remember most vividly is a picture in the lower right hand corner of a page in Junior Scholastic or Weekly Reader or whatever it was at school: Dukakis in a teacup? I wasn’t even old enough to know what a teacup ride was, or to have any idea what amusement parks were like, so the picture didn’t make much sense to me. Today, I could probably find much more information, so long as I had access to an internet connection.

Basanta, I want to hear more about how the political system works in Nepal. Do you see an effect there as well?

I am a bit torn. Yes, I think the web is transforming politics, but how much of that transformation is based on who the candidates are in this election? We have two *controversial* democratic candidates at the forefront, bringing race and gender into the mix. This alone has increased voter turnout for various individuals who may have never even voted before. The argument against this, I suppose, would be that some of these demographics may not have access to technology. Who knows…just a thought and a bit democratic in bias.

I thought this study was interesting, particularly, Chapter 4 within this PDF:

http://www.ipdi.org/UploadedFiles/Polifluentials%20Report%20-%20Final.pdf