At the risk of seeming like I only publishing tediously long academic pieces, I will post my paper for Advanced Campaigns and Elections for critique and suggestion, primarily as it has to with online data collection and this kind of thing is ripe for it anyway. I promise I will return to my previous format of random rants regarding Republican realities, but in due time. So now, without further ado, my paper on what I'll be doing during most of next semester in American University. Enjoy!
Introduction
The greatest goal of democracy is to empower the citizenry to work with its government for the greatest overall good. Until recently, this goal had to be met through the necessary compromise of representative majority, where in many cases, a few would represent many, usually in a manner which was necessarily fitted towards a trustee role rather than a pure delegate format. At bare minimum, there were relatively few instances where the representatives could reliably communicate with their constituents; as with any proportional representation, input would only be as fast as the communication that was available during that time. But now, as with every other area of communication, the face of political communication is changing like never before.
The age of digital instant communication has changed much of our world already, and the time has come where it can begin to modify the processes and structures of democracy as well. By creating and utilizing interactive forums, policymakers can gain access into a great untapped reserve of previously unreachable constituencies in a way that is truly unprecedented. This separates itself from generalized public polling because this method allows politicians to get access to these voters in their native environment- engaging interest at the source. While this potential is still largely untapped by the mainstream political elite, there has been a rise in the political targeting of Web 2.0 platforms, which are basically interactive websites which allow user-driven content distribution through instantaneous communication. This demarcates a clear difference between dynamic websites, like social networks and Wikipedia-like pages, and static websites with set pages and no real interaction. These websites have been used heavily for election campaigning recently, specifically for the 2008 presidential election. Examples of these interactive websites targeted for campaigning are Facebook, MySpace and YouTube, where, while there is little evidence the candidates are making any significant changes due to the input of the content users, content is making headway into the consciousness of these core voters.
It remains to be seen whether these kinds of applications will have any sort of digital “second life” if the candidate they represent actually attains office, and whether they would have any purpose as such. Yet on their face, web campaign applications set a new kind of election precedent; now, more than ever in the history of our democracy, the grassroots support of individuals has a better opportunity to decide who does (and perhaps who does not) make it into the Oval Office.
Research of this nature can be very difficult as it deals with constantly evolving technology; therefore it is rather challenging to build from existing peer-reviewed research, as it would necessarily be outdated by its time of publication. More relevantly, effects of these applications will have to be determined based on measurable outputs, as in many cases there can be significant overlap in involvement by individuals who may even choose to be in online groups solely to antagonize those who agree with the stated purpose of the group. In order to see whether there is any effect of these online and consequently ethereal campaign applications, the involvement must correspond with some real-world variable, in this case, voter turnout. This may work well as an indicator as having an effective online presence may help a candidate capture the recent upward trend in young voters (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement [CIRCLE], 2005). By capitalizing on this fledgling trend, candidates can ensure not only a greater visibility to a normally underrepresented and therefore ripe demographic, but also create a solid branding that will encourage the corresponding generation to increase civic engagement and also boost potential for future generations. In this light, the importance of studying the effects of online campaigning cannot be overstated.
By focusing on web applications and their importance to internet social networking in the 18-24 demographic, I can isolate a particular area candidates have campaigned in for the 2008 election and gauge their efficacy through a well-designed pre- and post-election survey. This paper will review literature on traditional and current turnout by this demographic, social networking as an effective campaigning medium, surveying techniques, and finally suggest a research design that will cover potentially instrumental variables in web applications.
Literature Review
In examining the background necessary for conducting research on the 2008 presidential election, it is crucial to understand how voter education can lead to voter participation, the importance of young voter participation, social networking, and historical internet campaigning.
The Importance of Voter Education in Young Voter Participation
When looking at young voter participation, it is important to look at the theories of political knowledge accumulation, specifically the economic theory of public opinion discussed in Glynn, Herbst, O’Keefe, Shapiro and Lindeman. This economic theory reduces demand for additional knowledge down to self-interest- at the equilibrium of personal demand and information “supply”; one may find the range of political knowledge. Using this interpretation, there is just enough political knowledge available for people to act within their rational self interest. Voters without enough information may not vote when the relative costs of participation- information acquisition and voting- are too high. In fact, there may be a free-rider effect, where less-educated citizens rely on better informed citizens to vote for them rather than taking in the knowledge as well (Glynn 2004). In fact, the concept that voter turnout may be increased through increased voter education is supported by the findings of Niemi and Weisberg in 2001, where it is shown that less educated citizens are more likely to feel disengaged than citizens with a higher level of educational background. Abramson, Aldrich and Rohde enforce this point by citing a study which showed the greatest decline in voter turnout coming from the two least educated groups while college graduates (which are at the upper end of the 18-24 age bracket) maintained a consistent turnout (2007). This also matches with what is already being shown in current political participation- as education increases, the possibility one will have watched presidential debates also rises (Pew 2008). Issue specialization leaves significant gaps in overall understanding of the political realm (Niemi and Weisberg, 101). Together with the findings of Glynn et al., there becomes a clear need for a generalized source for political knowledge. Currently, campaigns have left “holes” in issue connection through their campaign websites (iCrossing, 2007). This is crucial in understanding the importance of political knowledge as when voters are not fully informed, they make “significantly better [choices] than they would by chance, but significantly less well than they would with complete information” (Bartels,1996).
The Apathy of Young Voters
The 18-24 year old voting block votes less frequently than the rest of the population. There is also a significant age correlation for political participation: those watching presidential debates- those aged 65+ watched the debates at a 22% higher rate than those in the 18-29 bracket (Pew Research Institute, 2008). This clearly points to an isolation of younger voters in more than just voting, but also in desire for involvement through traditional fields. More recently, there has been an upsurge in these new voters which has been attributed to the new web political presences. There has also been some skepticism about whether that reflects a new trend or whether it is a minor fluke (CIRCLE, 2005).
There have been many new kinds of voting efforts which have tried to reach out to younger voters in new ways, with varying degrees of success. What campaigns have found brings a moderate degree of success is having a separate campaign that specifically targets younger voters with a personal touch. In 2004, there were wide-scale campaigns targeting young voters with personal messages and other advertisements. These resulted in a net increase in turnout of 5%. Partisanship affected the campaigns positively, as did specific targeting. These results show that it is possible to make ground in the electorate, even if moderate, by targeting young voters (Friedrichs, Nickerson, Mervilde and York 2006). Therefore, the crucial ingredient missing is a medium through which voters in the 18-24 year bracket can get political information in a relevant way to their experience.
Involvement in Social Networking, and Potential for Younger Voters
The internet is an increasingly well-used tool in the 2008 election, and studies show that more people are using electronic media to form opinions on candidates than ever before. 42 percent of voters now look to the internet for information about candidates (iCrossing, 2007). Of that percentage, traditional news sources dominate at 88% of voters looking at internet for information, while the actual campaign websites for the candidates garnered only a paltry 30 percent (Ibid). 42 percent go to what this report calls “social media” sites (Ibid). As the age group gets lower, more people visit these social media sites. Specifically, 61 percent of 18-24 year olds and 55 percent of 25-34 year olds look for election information on user-driven content sites ranging from YouTube to Wikipedia and various blogs (Ibid). 75 percent of college students have a Facebook account and 82 percent had checked that account within 24 hours. (Institute of Politics, 2007). This trend suggests a specific focus for younger voters in greater numbers using social networking to find information about candidates. This fits with the data from the Pew Research Center- there has been a steady increase in use of the internet as a resource for political knowledge- the numbers for those who have “regularly learned something from” internet sources has grown from 9% in 2000 to 13% in 2004 to 24% in 2008 (2008). There is also a visible shift from TV and newspaper consumption to internet sources for the source with the “most election news”- between 2004 and 2007 internet jumped from 21 to 46 while TV and Newspaper dropped 15 and 6 points, respectively (Ibid). And while there was a downward trend in younger voters watching televised debates, there is a reverse trend in watching clips of candidates online- on average younger voters are more likely than older voters to have watched online campaign video.
Current and Previous Campaign Internet Involvement
This ongoing 2008 Presidential race represents the largest explosion of political use and popularity of internet applications. However there are some records of prior presidential elections where the internet has played a significant role- 2004 was the year when many fundamental aspects of internet campaigning first made their appearances- ironically through the Democratic candidate of Howard Dean. Cornfield points out 5 areas in which Dean’s campaign “revolutionized online campaigning”- News-based fundraising appeals, internet-arranged local meetings/meet-ups, blogging, internet referenda and group decision (Cornfield, n.d.). Specifically relating to younger voters is the social networking aspects of blogging and interactive content, which were significant in Dean’s campaign. While certainly not new, political blogs were taken to the next level when Dean’s “Blog for America” posted 2,910 entries and received 314,121 comments, one of which started a project resulting in 115,632 handwritten letters sent to Iowa and New Hampshire voters (Ibid). Targeting methods originating in Dean’s campaign were later used in the Bush and Kerry campaigns, where three out of four Kerry campaign emails contained action boxes for money and 78% of Bush campaign emails contained boxes for referring friends to the campaign (Ibid). This is all very ironic because it was the internet that some say brought his campaign to an end- after the now-infamous “Dean Scream”, which has become somewhat of a moniker for highly publicized political blunder spread over the internet, his whole campaign was “brought down with blinding speed” (CBS News, 2006). This is a political lesson which would have been very beneficial for Sen. George Allen to have learned in the 2008 election cycle- according to one source,
Theory and Expectations
My primary purpose in this research is to find interesting trends in political Facebook applications. The ultimate goal is to find which methods of increasing participation actually affect turnout.
• Candidate pages with more direct communication to the user will create more user engagement with the campaign. When the application gives the end-user the impression that they have inside knowledge about the campaign, the end-user will feel significantly more engaged with the campaign.
• User-content driven application creates even more engagement. The chief benefit of having interactivity on any level of web design is that it allows the users to feel like they are a part of the process. This allows more issue-based connection with candidates- web applications have an incredible ability to cover issues left unaddressed by campaigns, and therefore may create more connection than the static webpage would (iCrossing, 2007).
• Targeted messaging can be critical in addressing concerns new voters have in voting. Messages targeting the specific concerns about voting for the first time can significantly increase the chances the voter will turn out that day. Research suggests voters in this demographic are on the verge on many issues, and while they do not want a guarantee by the government, some calculated assistance can make the difference in ensuring young voters come out and vote (Graduate School of Political Management, 2004).
• Users may avoid political association because they still support a former candidate. Subscription to a candidate profile may not translate into turnout, especially in the case of those who support candidates who are no longer in the race. A mediating factor will be whether the candidate in question has publically endorsed the party nominee to the satisfaction of the respondent, in which case there may be a mediating effect.
• Users may avoid political association because of potential polarization. Facebook provides a lot of information about its users publically, which is simultaneously a good thing and a bad thing. Many people want to avoid politics, not because they are not interested, but because they do not want to potentially lose friends or make people angry about it. In some cases, there may be a negative stigma associated with being of a particular party or identification- some respondents may still turn out but avoid these applications or pages to avoid making public statements.
Research Design
To gauge the response of voters in the 18-24 year age bracket and particularly to gauge turnout, a survey will need to be conducted. This study will gauge the effect of 2008 presidential online campaigning through Facebook- both campaign pages, which are managed through the campaigns of the candidates, and applications, which are moderated through third parties, will be gauged. In this study, 18-24 year olds will be asked if they have active accounts through Facebook and prior questions about their involvement therein, particularly with political pages and applications, and then about their political involvement through voting behavior.
Facebook was chosen as the social network of choice as candidates have pages already set up and political applications well underway- while MySpace has applications, the organization and development is nowhere near where the point that Facebook is already. Applications are viewed less as a measure of campaigning, but as independent involvement on the part of online supporters. This will be compared against the data involved with the campaign pages. The applications will be gauged on their interaction with the survey respondent- whether the respondent actively sought the application or was invited, how often the respondent uses the application, whether that respondent then invited other people to use the application, basically what kind of impact it is having. The campaign websites will be based on user interaction and recollection of how much interaction the respondent has with the campaign website. As many candidates have kept their Facebook pages running well after their campaign is officially closed, I ask if they continued to remain supporters of the politicians after the election is over. I will also need to find out if there were any notifications sent out supporting the party by the candidates who did not attain the nomination.
As no poll I personally know of currently exists that is conducting this kind of research, I will need to formulate my own. The kind of survey that would be most conducive to this would be an online poll capable of taking data comparable to that of the NES election questionnaires (presumably through the http://www.surveymonkey.com login affiliated through Tulane) which could most directly target the demographic and ask questions about their behavior and interaction with election applications to determine the variables discussed in Appendix A. See Appendix B for the design- loosely modeled after the NES post-election survey, it goes through two main sections- Facebook usage (particularly application usage) and political involvement. From here, the data will be comparing political applications and their use as predictors of political involvement.
For the purposes of attracting users to take this survey, there will be targeted rewards and sweepstakes entries pending completion and as I have available supplies. With luck, I can get grants and scholarships for the sweepstakes- this remains to be seen, but it should not be too difficult. After much consideration, I will only be conducting this survey after the election instead of before and after the election. A pre-election survey would only provide information about whether the earlier intentions of the Facebook users carried out till the election- not as pertinent to the actual study as I had originally supposed. Also, complications from creating follow-up, increased incentive and trackback for the study, while manageable, would have a greater chance to introduce more error into the process.
The preliminary targets for sending the survey data will be drawn from a client list in the age bracket ranging from 18 to 24, presumably purchased from a source like http://www.nrgresearchgroup.com. This will be the primary base for where the population will come from. From here, the sample will be split between Facebook users and non-Facebook users. If this is not a feasible option, Facebook advertisements may substitute for invitations from a list, and then there would have to be adjustments made to the final results to reflect the population and demographics of Facebook application users.
The benefit of this research design is that it lends itself well to many different kinds of findings- here, the final dependent variable is turnout, but different combinations of independent variables serve to explain that turnout and can work together in creating different outcomes while maintaining the theory described earlier. When looking at Appendix A, several key models emerge. The primary findings from this study will be from the first two variables from the Independent variable category. The first is the most obvious- whether increased usage of applications or readership of candidate profile information leads to an increase in turnout. That will prove if a correlation between usage of internet campaigning methods and turnout exists. The second is also important for future study- finding out what aspects of Facebook applications and politician profiles are most attractive to application users will be significantly beneficial to future campaigns so that the most attractive side can be most heavily emphasized.
However, other important findings may be derived from this data set which can enhance the strength of these findings- for the applications section, this could produce data which helps determine whether outside influence or personal initiative determines turnout or involvement, where usage is the dependent variable and initiative vs. invitation is the independent variable. In this case, a non-correlation can be a very positive thing as it means that content drives usage more than individual initiative- essentially that regardless of the “free-rider” friend invitation effect, content is driving usage rather than the other way around.
In the context of the profile pages, understanding the background of a single supporter may provide more predictive context than even the support itself. Other candidates simultaneously supported by the respondent may indicate remaining bitterness about the turnout of the primaries. One thing I have personally noted is that Mike Huckabee, whose page I followed on Facebook, after losing his long-shot bid at the nomination, not only endorsed McCain over traditional media forms, but online and to his Facebook followers as well. This may serve as a predictor of last-minute turnout and may spell out a subtle difference between Republican and Democrat turnout- as the Republicans have had time to rally around McCain and at the publishing of this paper there is no unified Democratic nominee, there may be resounding resentment at the time of the election. These effects can be measured at this critical juncture by inquiring into whether there are other pages the respondent is currently subscribed to which reflect that sort of split background.
Of course, at that juncture it may largely depend on the degree to which other former candidates are willing to rally around their new nominee, which is why the other variable is in place- to determine whether the other groups are being offset by rallying effects. Here, if, say, a disgruntled democratic voter supported a candidate who was not the nominee and was involved to the degree where they would maintain that page out of solidarity with that candidate, were that candidate to give their vocal and undivided support to the party nominee, the disenfranchised democrat would be one of the first to find out through the politician profile. If the respondent does not find out about that endorsement or for some reason that vocal support does not make it onto the Facebook fan page, it would explain a corresponding disenfranchisement and drop in turnout. So here, solidarity and loyalty to the nominee are predictors of turnout, but additional campaign profiles endorsing the nominee can have a reinforcement effect.
(Expected) Results
Respondents with no Facebook account are still asked for their political actions as a group to test against for political participation. The theory is that as this group has the least opportunity to take advantage of the social networking opportunities of Facebook and the corresponding political information which is especially well suited towards their age group, they will be the most politically disaffected of all the respondents, and will show the least amount of political participation. Even though they provide no perspective on effective elements of Facebook applications, their data serves as a baseline for political involvement against which all other data is judged. Independently interesting is the general percentage of 18-24 year olds with Facebook accounts. As this figure is continuously growing, getting a current number on the growth of this community should be independently important to future surveys and studies.
The next highest level of political participation will be expected from those who have a Facebook account, but neither adds political applications nor supports any presidential candidates. My theory is that their involvement will be necessarily higher as they will at least have the opportunity to pick up on political information through chance invitations by friends or through advertisements by groups or campaigns. In this case, almost every Facebook account-holder should have some awareness that the campaigns are available and the opportunity is there if they so choose- they are much more likely to come across random bits of political knowledge than those without accounts. Also, this political knowledge will be packaged in a much more digestible format than traditional political knowledge mediums allow, therefore the retention capability will be higher. Carrying that concept forward, the overall time spent on Facebook should be a general indicator of overall likelihood of political participation- even those without political applications or politician pages.
The level after that will be between the account-holding group which has the applications without the candidate support and the account-holding group with the candidate support but without political applications. It will be very interesting to see which will have higher turnout; based on the theory of campaign appeal through personalized message opportunity, I predict that those with candidate ties will generally be more likely to turn out for their candidate given that their candidate is the nominee, but those with political applications will be differentiated based on how often they use their applications. On average, the two may not be statistically different because they are so close together, but I expect those with the closer ties to the campaign to have generally higher turnout. What makes this so interesting is that the reasons for being involved with a campaign and not a political application or installing a political application but not supporting a candidate will probably be very disparate. In the case of the political application holder, he or she may not feel comfortable with a candidate, or may not want to display their support of a candidate publically, yet still want to have an area to publically discuss political issues or consume news about politics. This is why the question about appeal is so important- why applications are added may have a lot to do with what is done with the application. Then again, I may find that the content itself drives turnout rather than other influences.
Clearly, the highest turnout of all is expected of those account holders who have both the political applications and the candidate support pages. This is based on how relative exposure to campaigns should decrease voter apathy and increase the likelihood of turnout and opportunity for mobilization. Of course this will fluctuate based on application usage, candidate connection and nominee presence/endorsement, but overall this should represent the highest turnout as they are most significantly exposed to both the campaign and the opportunity for involvement.
Turnout will also be significant when looking at the second independent variables- the feature selection. This survey includes the following options for why people added the application: to get information about election; find other supporters; show public support for candidates; debate others online; whether friend invited; not sure. In this data, it will be interesting to identify trends of interest in politics and hopefully find some level of crossover between the applications and the pages. This may also help with identifying differences between applications and pages, where pages may be more indicative as they show more obvious visible support and those seeking to publically align themselves with the candidate. Again, this will be mediated by the effect of whether there are other former candidate pages still being subscribed to, but the most significant effect out of all of the data will be which trends identified can be linked with the highest turnout. If there is significant data pointing to a trend which seems to have a lot of related turnout, it can be helpful for future internet campaigning purposes- by emphasizing certain elements of applications or pages, and they can be properly advertised and most effectively utilized.
The opposite effect can also be addressed- those who did not add the application or page have an opportunity to explain why they did not want to add the page. The two are similar for the purposes of comparison, each with options for: I do not add Facebook applications/pages; privacy concerns- everyone can see my positions (which can also lead to the development of friend limit theory); time consuming (usage or reading updates); not interested in politics; not interested in particular candidate; do not know. For these cases a lot of potential reasons for non-involvement are addressed- these have been added due to personal observation- some people simply do not add applications because it messes with the aesthetics of their profile pages in some way, and it really does not mean altogether too much about their personal politics, it merely means they do not add extraneous information. Same goes for those with privacy concerns, although it has less to do with aesthetics, it has the same or more to do with public appearance. Of course if the person is very interested in politics, those considerations will probably not be as important, but then again these individuals are more likely to turn out regardless. The benefit of the application is that it provides reinforcement effects for those moderately interested in politics and increases their exposure to relevant information. However, here too campaigns can use this information to more effectively target users and minimize the off-putting effects.
Also important in finding out how these pieces fit together is finding out whether more people come because they wanted the application before finding it or because they were invited by friends. This is important because, as mentioned earlier, this data can show whether application involvement is determined by prior interest or by reaction to content (this will also be an important filter through which turnout can be seen) without prior interest. This will cancel out those with the original incentive to actually find the application on their own and the actual ability for the application or pages to increase the turnout of otherwise less politically motivated can be gauged.
Other indicators that may prove interesting are the “friends invited” variable and the amount of time spent on Facebook as a control for political involvement and overall exposure to general political factors respectively. If I get a significant number of people who have invited other friends, it may be interesting to see whether those people found the application themselves or if they were themselves invited- this may again be an indicator of content-driven or previous interest. While many already-interested people may have gotten their invitation from their interested friends, the most involved people should be the ones who personally found the application. This will be seen through the lens of the demographic information.
Finally, demographic information can be used as necessary- although admittedly not the point of the entire exercise, there may be some interesting findings from that, especially along political lines and whether there are significant trends among general Facebook users, especially political ones. Strong partisans should be more likely to turn out anyway, but there should be some reinforcement effects through the applications, pages and other political options through Facebook. Through the demographic backend questions, the other questions can be improved in scope- questions about personal involvement, turnout and usage all filter through these pre-existing preferences. This will add a lot of dimension to the final study and perhaps later research done through the corresponding data set.
In all cases, it is clear that while many of the variables may not result in anything statistically worth reporting on, there is a lot of opportunity to find some interesting information. Specifically in the case of whether content can drive turnout or if it all has to do with whether the recipient was active or passive in their support, the findings of this survey will be instrumental in deciding which approaches should be stressed in developing applications for future campaigns.
References
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Rohde, David W. “Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections.” Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007. 96.
Bartels, Larry M. “Uninformed votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science: 40 (1996). 217.
CBS News “YouTube Making Politicians Sweat- Gaffes Caught On Tape, Posted On Popular Web Site Impacting Races” CBS Broadcasting Inc. 2006. Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/earlyshow/main2039588.shtml
The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. 2005. “Youth Voter Turnout 1992 to 2004: Estimates from Exit Polls.” Accessed 30 April 2008.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Youth_voting/CIRCLE_Paper35.pdf
Cornfield, Michael. “THE INTERNET AND CAMPAIGN 2004: A Look Back at the Campaigners.” Pew Research Center. Accessed 30 April 2008. 1-3.
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Cornfield_commentary.pdf
Friedrichs, Ryan, Nickerson, David, Mervilde, Laura, and York, Tegan. 2006. “Young Voter Mobilization in 2004- Analysis of Outreach, Persuasion and Turnout of 18-29 Year Old Progressive Voters” Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.skylinepublicworks.com/downloads/Young%20Voter%202004%20Analysis.pdf
Glynn, Carroll J., Herbst, Susan, O’Keefe, Garrett J., Shapiro, Robert Y. & Lindeman, Mark. “Public Opinion.” 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. 2004.
Graduate School of Political Management. 2004. “New Voters Brief.” George Washington University Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Youth_voting/new_voters_brief_0504.pdf
iCrossing. 2007. “How America Searches: Election '08.” iCrossing Digital Marketing Company Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.icrossing.com/articles/how_america_searches_election_2008.pdf
Institute of Politics. 2007. “The 12th Biannual Youth Survey on Politics and Public Service.”Harvard University Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.youngvoterstrategies.org/index.php?tg=fileman&idx=get&id=1&gr=Y&path=Research&file=Harvard+IOP+Spring+2007+Executive+Summary.pdf
The Pew Research Center. “Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008 - Social Networking and Online Videos Take Off.” 2008. Accessed 30 April 2008. http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/384.pdf
Pierce, Charles P. (17 June 2007). “Mud in the digital age.” Boston Globe, Third Edition, 36.
Niemi, Richard G., and Herbert F. Weisberg. “Controversies in Voting Behavior.” 4th Ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001.
Political Campaigning in a Web 2.0 World: Facebook and the Youth Vote
Introduction
The greatest goal of democracy is to empower the citizenry to work with its government for the greatest overall good. Until recently, this goal had to be met through the necessary compromise of representative majority, where in many cases, a few would represent many, usually in a manner which was necessarily fitted towards a trustee role rather than a pure delegate format. At bare minimum, there were relatively few instances where the representatives could reliably communicate with their constituents; as with any proportional representation, input would only be as fast as the communication that was available during that time. But now, as with every other area of communication, the face of political communication is changing like never before.
The age of digital instant communication has changed much of our world already, and the time has come where it can begin to modify the processes and structures of democracy as well. By creating and utilizing interactive forums, policymakers can gain access into a great untapped reserve of previously unreachable constituencies in a way that is truly unprecedented. This separates itself from generalized public polling because this method allows politicians to get access to these voters in their native environment- engaging interest at the source. While this potential is still largely untapped by the mainstream political elite, there has been a rise in the political targeting of Web 2.0 platforms, which are basically interactive websites which allow user-driven content distribution through instantaneous communication. This demarcates a clear difference between dynamic websites, like social networks and Wikipedia-like pages, and static websites with set pages and no real interaction. These websites have been used heavily for election campaigning recently, specifically for the 2008 presidential election. Examples of these interactive websites targeted for campaigning are Facebook, MySpace and YouTube, where, while there is little evidence the candidates are making any significant changes due to the input of the content users, content is making headway into the consciousness of these core voters.
It remains to be seen whether these kinds of applications will have any sort of digital “second life” if the candidate they represent actually attains office, and whether they would have any purpose as such. Yet on their face, web campaign applications set a new kind of election precedent; now, more than ever in the history of our democracy, the grassroots support of individuals has a better opportunity to decide who does (and perhaps who does not) make it into the Oval Office.
Research of this nature can be very difficult as it deals with constantly evolving technology; therefore it is rather challenging to build from existing peer-reviewed research, as it would necessarily be outdated by its time of publication. More relevantly, effects of these applications will have to be determined based on measurable outputs, as in many cases there can be significant overlap in involvement by individuals who may even choose to be in online groups solely to antagonize those who agree with the stated purpose of the group. In order to see whether there is any effect of these online and consequently ethereal campaign applications, the involvement must correspond with some real-world variable, in this case, voter turnout. This may work well as an indicator as having an effective online presence may help a candidate capture the recent upward trend in young voters (The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement [CIRCLE], 2005). By capitalizing on this fledgling trend, candidates can ensure not only a greater visibility to a normally underrepresented and therefore ripe demographic, but also create a solid branding that will encourage the corresponding generation to increase civic engagement and also boost potential for future generations. In this light, the importance of studying the effects of online campaigning cannot be overstated.
By focusing on web applications and their importance to internet social networking in the 18-24 demographic, I can isolate a particular area candidates have campaigned in for the 2008 election and gauge their efficacy through a well-designed pre- and post-election survey. This paper will review literature on traditional and current turnout by this demographic, social networking as an effective campaigning medium, surveying techniques, and finally suggest a research design that will cover potentially instrumental variables in web applications.
Literature Review
In examining the background necessary for conducting research on the 2008 presidential election, it is crucial to understand how voter education can lead to voter participation, the importance of young voter participation, social networking, and historical internet campaigning.
The Importance of Voter Education in Young Voter Participation
When looking at young voter participation, it is important to look at the theories of political knowledge accumulation, specifically the economic theory of public opinion discussed in Glynn, Herbst, O’Keefe, Shapiro and Lindeman. This economic theory reduces demand for additional knowledge down to self-interest- at the equilibrium of personal demand and information “supply”; one may find the range of political knowledge. Using this interpretation, there is just enough political knowledge available for people to act within their rational self interest. Voters without enough information may not vote when the relative costs of participation- information acquisition and voting- are too high. In fact, there may be a free-rider effect, where less-educated citizens rely on better informed citizens to vote for them rather than taking in the knowledge as well (Glynn 2004). In fact, the concept that voter turnout may be increased through increased voter education is supported by the findings of Niemi and Weisberg in 2001, where it is shown that less educated citizens are more likely to feel disengaged than citizens with a higher level of educational background. Abramson, Aldrich and Rohde enforce this point by citing a study which showed the greatest decline in voter turnout coming from the two least educated groups while college graduates (which are at the upper end of the 18-24 age bracket) maintained a consistent turnout (2007). This also matches with what is already being shown in current political participation- as education increases, the possibility one will have watched presidential debates also rises (Pew 2008). Issue specialization leaves significant gaps in overall understanding of the political realm (Niemi and Weisberg, 101). Together with the findings of Glynn et al., there becomes a clear need for a generalized source for political knowledge. Currently, campaigns have left “holes” in issue connection through their campaign websites (iCrossing, 2007). This is crucial in understanding the importance of political knowledge as when voters are not fully informed, they make “significantly better [choices] than they would by chance, but significantly less well than they would with complete information” (Bartels,1996).
The Apathy of Young Voters
The 18-24 year old voting block votes less frequently than the rest of the population. There is also a significant age correlation for political participation: those watching presidential debates- those aged 65+ watched the debates at a 22% higher rate than those in the 18-29 bracket (Pew Research Institute, 2008). This clearly points to an isolation of younger voters in more than just voting, but also in desire for involvement through traditional fields. More recently, there has been an upsurge in these new voters which has been attributed to the new web political presences. There has also been some skepticism about whether that reflects a new trend or whether it is a minor fluke (CIRCLE, 2005).
There have been many new kinds of voting efforts which have tried to reach out to younger voters in new ways, with varying degrees of success. What campaigns have found brings a moderate degree of success is having a separate campaign that specifically targets younger voters with a personal touch. In 2004, there were wide-scale campaigns targeting young voters with personal messages and other advertisements. These resulted in a net increase in turnout of 5%. Partisanship affected the campaigns positively, as did specific targeting. These results show that it is possible to make ground in the electorate, even if moderate, by targeting young voters (Friedrichs, Nickerson, Mervilde and York 2006). Therefore, the crucial ingredient missing is a medium through which voters in the 18-24 year bracket can get political information in a relevant way to their experience.
Involvement in Social Networking, and Potential for Younger Voters
The internet is an increasingly well-used tool in the 2008 election, and studies show that more people are using electronic media to form opinions on candidates than ever before. 42 percent of voters now look to the internet for information about candidates (iCrossing, 2007). Of that percentage, traditional news sources dominate at 88% of voters looking at internet for information, while the actual campaign websites for the candidates garnered only a paltry 30 percent (Ibid). 42 percent go to what this report calls “social media” sites (Ibid). As the age group gets lower, more people visit these social media sites. Specifically, 61 percent of 18-24 year olds and 55 percent of 25-34 year olds look for election information on user-driven content sites ranging from YouTube to Wikipedia and various blogs (Ibid). 75 percent of college students have a Facebook account and 82 percent had checked that account within 24 hours. (Institute of Politics, 2007). This trend suggests a specific focus for younger voters in greater numbers using social networking to find information about candidates. This fits with the data from the Pew Research Center- there has been a steady increase in use of the internet as a resource for political knowledge- the numbers for those who have “regularly learned something from” internet sources has grown from 9% in 2000 to 13% in 2004 to 24% in 2008 (2008). There is also a visible shift from TV and newspaper consumption to internet sources for the source with the “most election news”- between 2004 and 2007 internet jumped from 21 to 46 while TV and Newspaper dropped 15 and 6 points, respectively (Ibid). And while there was a downward trend in younger voters watching televised debates, there is a reverse trend in watching clips of candidates online- on average younger voters are more likely than older voters to have watched online campaign video.
Current and Previous Campaign Internet Involvement
This ongoing 2008 Presidential race represents the largest explosion of political use and popularity of internet applications. However there are some records of prior presidential elections where the internet has played a significant role- 2004 was the year when many fundamental aspects of internet campaigning first made their appearances- ironically through the Democratic candidate of Howard Dean. Cornfield points out 5 areas in which Dean’s campaign “revolutionized online campaigning”- News-based fundraising appeals, internet-arranged local meetings/meet-ups, blogging, internet referenda and group decision (Cornfield, n.d.). Specifically relating to younger voters is the social networking aspects of blogging and interactive content, which were significant in Dean’s campaign. While certainly not new, political blogs were taken to the next level when Dean’s “Blog for America” posted 2,910 entries and received 314,121 comments, one of which started a project resulting in 115,632 handwritten letters sent to Iowa and New Hampshire voters (Ibid). Targeting methods originating in Dean’s campaign were later used in the Bush and Kerry campaigns, where three out of four Kerry campaign emails contained action boxes for money and 78% of Bush campaign emails contained boxes for referring friends to the campaign (Ibid). This is all very ironic because it was the internet that some say brought his campaign to an end- after the now-infamous “Dean Scream”, which has become somewhat of a moniker for highly publicized political blunder spread over the internet, his whole campaign was “brought down with blinding speed” (CBS News, 2006). This is a political lesson which would have been very beneficial for Sen. George Allen to have learned in the 2008 election cycle- according to one source,
As badly as Dean was hurt by the constant… replay of his scream the night of the 2004 Iowa caucuses, it was nothing compared to what happened to… George Allen in his re-election campaign last year, when he was caught on video calling an Asian man "macaca," … a racial slur… The video of Allen went "viral" almost immediately and penetrated the political consciousness so deeply that Allen couldn't recover. (Pierce, 2007).History’s lessons, it appears, even in the case of very recent history, if not learned, can come back with a vengeance. However, not all of the lessons were negative, and many positive things came from the 2004 elections which are still having influence today. Altogether, the online community represents an opportunity unlike any other in American history- not only because it represents a new avenue for political involvement, but it also increases overall involvement even in other areas of politics-
Each online audience has a larger potential for activism than its offline counterparts simply because it has more communications and persuasion tools to exploit… The more citizens use the internet, the more they might expect from campaigners and political journalists: rapid responses to information searches; a multiplicity of perspectives available on controversies; short and visually arresting promotional messages; drill-down capacities into referenced databases; more transparency from, and access to, institutions and players. Meanwhile, on the supply side of the political equation, candidates, groups, and parties now have models for how to use the internet to raise money, mobilize voters, and create public buzz. The new benchmarks established in 2004 could well be matched and surpassed in 2008. (Cornfield, n.d.).This neatly represents the expectations for this paper- unfortunately there are no major scholarly peer-reviewed articles pertaining to this particular subject, yet the general consensus seems to be that this election year will surpass every other year.
Theory and Expectations
My primary purpose in this research is to find interesting trends in political Facebook applications. The ultimate goal is to find which methods of increasing participation actually affect turnout.
• Candidate pages with more direct communication to the user will create more user engagement with the campaign. When the application gives the end-user the impression that they have inside knowledge about the campaign, the end-user will feel significantly more engaged with the campaign.
• User-content driven application creates even more engagement. The chief benefit of having interactivity on any level of web design is that it allows the users to feel like they are a part of the process. This allows more issue-based connection with candidates- web applications have an incredible ability to cover issues left unaddressed by campaigns, and therefore may create more connection than the static webpage would (iCrossing, 2007).
• Targeted messaging can be critical in addressing concerns new voters have in voting. Messages targeting the specific concerns about voting for the first time can significantly increase the chances the voter will turn out that day. Research suggests voters in this demographic are on the verge on many issues, and while they do not want a guarantee by the government, some calculated assistance can make the difference in ensuring young voters come out and vote (Graduate School of Political Management, 2004).
• Users may avoid political association because they still support a former candidate. Subscription to a candidate profile may not translate into turnout, especially in the case of those who support candidates who are no longer in the race. A mediating factor will be whether the candidate in question has publically endorsed the party nominee to the satisfaction of the respondent, in which case there may be a mediating effect.
• Users may avoid political association because of potential polarization. Facebook provides a lot of information about its users publically, which is simultaneously a good thing and a bad thing. Many people want to avoid politics, not because they are not interested, but because they do not want to potentially lose friends or make people angry about it. In some cases, there may be a negative stigma associated with being of a particular party or identification- some respondents may still turn out but avoid these applications or pages to avoid making public statements.
Research Design
To gauge the response of voters in the 18-24 year age bracket and particularly to gauge turnout, a survey will need to be conducted. This study will gauge the effect of 2008 presidential online campaigning through Facebook- both campaign pages, which are managed through the campaigns of the candidates, and applications, which are moderated through third parties, will be gauged. In this study, 18-24 year olds will be asked if they have active accounts through Facebook and prior questions about their involvement therein, particularly with political pages and applications, and then about their political involvement through voting behavior.
Facebook was chosen as the social network of choice as candidates have pages already set up and political applications well underway- while MySpace has applications, the organization and development is nowhere near where the point that Facebook is already. Applications are viewed less as a measure of campaigning, but as independent involvement on the part of online supporters. This will be compared against the data involved with the campaign pages. The applications will be gauged on their interaction with the survey respondent- whether the respondent actively sought the application or was invited, how often the respondent uses the application, whether that respondent then invited other people to use the application, basically what kind of impact it is having. The campaign websites will be based on user interaction and recollection of how much interaction the respondent has with the campaign website. As many candidates have kept their Facebook pages running well after their campaign is officially closed, I ask if they continued to remain supporters of the politicians after the election is over. I will also need to find out if there were any notifications sent out supporting the party by the candidates who did not attain the nomination.
As no poll I personally know of currently exists that is conducting this kind of research, I will need to formulate my own. The kind of survey that would be most conducive to this would be an online poll capable of taking data comparable to that of the NES election questionnaires (presumably through the http://www.surveymonkey.com login affiliated through Tulane) which could most directly target the demographic and ask questions about their behavior and interaction with election applications to determine the variables discussed in Appendix A. See Appendix B for the design- loosely modeled after the NES post-election survey, it goes through two main sections- Facebook usage (particularly application usage) and political involvement. From here, the data will be comparing political applications and their use as predictors of political involvement.
For the purposes of attracting users to take this survey, there will be targeted rewards and sweepstakes entries pending completion and as I have available supplies. With luck, I can get grants and scholarships for the sweepstakes- this remains to be seen, but it should not be too difficult. After much consideration, I will only be conducting this survey after the election instead of before and after the election. A pre-election survey would only provide information about whether the earlier intentions of the Facebook users carried out till the election- not as pertinent to the actual study as I had originally supposed. Also, complications from creating follow-up, increased incentive and trackback for the study, while manageable, would have a greater chance to introduce more error into the process.
The preliminary targets for sending the survey data will be drawn from a client list in the age bracket ranging from 18 to 24, presumably purchased from a source like http://www.nrgresearchgroup.com. This will be the primary base for where the population will come from. From here, the sample will be split between Facebook users and non-Facebook users. If this is not a feasible option, Facebook advertisements may substitute for invitations from a list, and then there would have to be adjustments made to the final results to reflect the population and demographics of Facebook application users.
The benefit of this research design is that it lends itself well to many different kinds of findings- here, the final dependent variable is turnout, but different combinations of independent variables serve to explain that turnout and can work together in creating different outcomes while maintaining the theory described earlier. When looking at Appendix A, several key models emerge. The primary findings from this study will be from the first two variables from the Independent variable category. The first is the most obvious- whether increased usage of applications or readership of candidate profile information leads to an increase in turnout. That will prove if a correlation between usage of internet campaigning methods and turnout exists. The second is also important for future study- finding out what aspects of Facebook applications and politician profiles are most attractive to application users will be significantly beneficial to future campaigns so that the most attractive side can be most heavily emphasized.
However, other important findings may be derived from this data set which can enhance the strength of these findings- for the applications section, this could produce data which helps determine whether outside influence or personal initiative determines turnout or involvement, where usage is the dependent variable and initiative vs. invitation is the independent variable. In this case, a non-correlation can be a very positive thing as it means that content drives usage more than individual initiative- essentially that regardless of the “free-rider” friend invitation effect, content is driving usage rather than the other way around.
In the context of the profile pages, understanding the background of a single supporter may provide more predictive context than even the support itself. Other candidates simultaneously supported by the respondent may indicate remaining bitterness about the turnout of the primaries. One thing I have personally noted is that Mike Huckabee, whose page I followed on Facebook, after losing his long-shot bid at the nomination, not only endorsed McCain over traditional media forms, but online and to his Facebook followers as well. This may serve as a predictor of last-minute turnout and may spell out a subtle difference between Republican and Democrat turnout- as the Republicans have had time to rally around McCain and at the publishing of this paper there is no unified Democratic nominee, there may be resounding resentment at the time of the election. These effects can be measured at this critical juncture by inquiring into whether there are other pages the respondent is currently subscribed to which reflect that sort of split background.
Of course, at that juncture it may largely depend on the degree to which other former candidates are willing to rally around their new nominee, which is why the other variable is in place- to determine whether the other groups are being offset by rallying effects. Here, if, say, a disgruntled democratic voter supported a candidate who was not the nominee and was involved to the degree where they would maintain that page out of solidarity with that candidate, were that candidate to give their vocal and undivided support to the party nominee, the disenfranchised democrat would be one of the first to find out through the politician profile. If the respondent does not find out about that endorsement or for some reason that vocal support does not make it onto the Facebook fan page, it would explain a corresponding disenfranchisement and drop in turnout. So here, solidarity and loyalty to the nominee are predictors of turnout, but additional campaign profiles endorsing the nominee can have a reinforcement effect.
(Expected) Results
Respondents with no Facebook account are still asked for their political actions as a group to test against for political participation. The theory is that as this group has the least opportunity to take advantage of the social networking opportunities of Facebook and the corresponding political information which is especially well suited towards their age group, they will be the most politically disaffected of all the respondents, and will show the least amount of political participation. Even though they provide no perspective on effective elements of Facebook applications, their data serves as a baseline for political involvement against which all other data is judged. Independently interesting is the general percentage of 18-24 year olds with Facebook accounts. As this figure is continuously growing, getting a current number on the growth of this community should be independently important to future surveys and studies.
The next highest level of political participation will be expected from those who have a Facebook account, but neither adds political applications nor supports any presidential candidates. My theory is that their involvement will be necessarily higher as they will at least have the opportunity to pick up on political information through chance invitations by friends or through advertisements by groups or campaigns. In this case, almost every Facebook account-holder should have some awareness that the campaigns are available and the opportunity is there if they so choose- they are much more likely to come across random bits of political knowledge than those without accounts. Also, this political knowledge will be packaged in a much more digestible format than traditional political knowledge mediums allow, therefore the retention capability will be higher. Carrying that concept forward, the overall time spent on Facebook should be a general indicator of overall likelihood of political participation- even those without political applications or politician pages.
The level after that will be between the account-holding group which has the applications without the candidate support and the account-holding group with the candidate support but without political applications. It will be very interesting to see which will have higher turnout; based on the theory of campaign appeal through personalized message opportunity, I predict that those with candidate ties will generally be more likely to turn out for their candidate given that their candidate is the nominee, but those with political applications will be differentiated based on how often they use their applications. On average, the two may not be statistically different because they are so close together, but I expect those with the closer ties to the campaign to have generally higher turnout. What makes this so interesting is that the reasons for being involved with a campaign and not a political application or installing a political application but not supporting a candidate will probably be very disparate. In the case of the political application holder, he or she may not feel comfortable with a candidate, or may not want to display their support of a candidate publically, yet still want to have an area to publically discuss political issues or consume news about politics. This is why the question about appeal is so important- why applications are added may have a lot to do with what is done with the application. Then again, I may find that the content itself drives turnout rather than other influences.
Clearly, the highest turnout of all is expected of those account holders who have both the political applications and the candidate support pages. This is based on how relative exposure to campaigns should decrease voter apathy and increase the likelihood of turnout and opportunity for mobilization. Of course this will fluctuate based on application usage, candidate connection and nominee presence/endorsement, but overall this should represent the highest turnout as they are most significantly exposed to both the campaign and the opportunity for involvement.
Turnout will also be significant when looking at the second independent variables- the feature selection. This survey includes the following options for why people added the application: to get information about election; find other supporters; show public support for candidates; debate others online; whether friend invited; not sure. In this data, it will be interesting to identify trends of interest in politics and hopefully find some level of crossover between the applications and the pages. This may also help with identifying differences between applications and pages, where pages may be more indicative as they show more obvious visible support and those seeking to publically align themselves with the candidate. Again, this will be mediated by the effect of whether there are other former candidate pages still being subscribed to, but the most significant effect out of all of the data will be which trends identified can be linked with the highest turnout. If there is significant data pointing to a trend which seems to have a lot of related turnout, it can be helpful for future internet campaigning purposes- by emphasizing certain elements of applications or pages, and they can be properly advertised and most effectively utilized.
The opposite effect can also be addressed- those who did not add the application or page have an opportunity to explain why they did not want to add the page. The two are similar for the purposes of comparison, each with options for: I do not add Facebook applications/pages; privacy concerns- everyone can see my positions (which can also lead to the development of friend limit theory); time consuming (usage or reading updates); not interested in politics; not interested in particular candidate; do not know. For these cases a lot of potential reasons for non-involvement are addressed- these have been added due to personal observation- some people simply do not add applications because it messes with the aesthetics of their profile pages in some way, and it really does not mean altogether too much about their personal politics, it merely means they do not add extraneous information. Same goes for those with privacy concerns, although it has less to do with aesthetics, it has the same or more to do with public appearance. Of course if the person is very interested in politics, those considerations will probably not be as important, but then again these individuals are more likely to turn out regardless. The benefit of the application is that it provides reinforcement effects for those moderately interested in politics and increases their exposure to relevant information. However, here too campaigns can use this information to more effectively target users and minimize the off-putting effects.
Also important in finding out how these pieces fit together is finding out whether more people come because they wanted the application before finding it or because they were invited by friends. This is important because, as mentioned earlier, this data can show whether application involvement is determined by prior interest or by reaction to content (this will also be an important filter through which turnout can be seen) without prior interest. This will cancel out those with the original incentive to actually find the application on their own and the actual ability for the application or pages to increase the turnout of otherwise less politically motivated can be gauged.
Other indicators that may prove interesting are the “friends invited” variable and the amount of time spent on Facebook as a control for political involvement and overall exposure to general political factors respectively. If I get a significant number of people who have invited other friends, it may be interesting to see whether those people found the application themselves or if they were themselves invited- this may again be an indicator of content-driven or previous interest. While many already-interested people may have gotten their invitation from their interested friends, the most involved people should be the ones who personally found the application. This will be seen through the lens of the demographic information.
Finally, demographic information can be used as necessary- although admittedly not the point of the entire exercise, there may be some interesting findings from that, especially along political lines and whether there are significant trends among general Facebook users, especially political ones. Strong partisans should be more likely to turn out anyway, but there should be some reinforcement effects through the applications, pages and other political options through Facebook. Through the demographic backend questions, the other questions can be improved in scope- questions about personal involvement, turnout and usage all filter through these pre-existing preferences. This will add a lot of dimension to the final study and perhaps later research done through the corresponding data set.
In all cases, it is clear that while many of the variables may not result in anything statistically worth reporting on, there is a lot of opportunity to find some interesting information. Specifically in the case of whether content can drive turnout or if it all has to do with whether the recipient was active or passive in their support, the findings of this survey will be instrumental in deciding which approaches should be stressed in developing applications for future campaigns.
References
Abramson, Paul R., Aldrich, John H., Rohde, David W. “Change and Continuity in the 2004 and 2006 Elections.” Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2007. 96.
Bartels, Larry M. “Uninformed votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.” American Journal of Political Science: 40 (1996). 217.
CBS News “YouTube Making Politicians Sweat- Gaffes Caught On Tape, Posted On Popular Web Site Impacting Races” CBS Broadcasting Inc. 2006. Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/26/earlyshow/main2039588.shtml
The Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement. 2005. “Youth Voter Turnout 1992 to 2004: Estimates from Exit Polls.” Accessed 30 April 2008.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Youth_voting/CIRCLE_Paper35.pdf
Cornfield, Michael. “THE INTERNET AND CAMPAIGN 2004: A Look Back at the Campaigners.” Pew Research Center. Accessed 30 April 2008. 1-3.
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/Cornfield_commentary.pdf
Friedrichs, Ryan, Nickerson, David, Mervilde, Laura, and York, Tegan. 2006. “Young Voter Mobilization in 2004- Analysis of Outreach, Persuasion and Turnout of 18-29 Year Old Progressive Voters” Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.skylinepublicworks.com/downloads/Young%20Voter%202004%20Analysis.pdf
Glynn, Carroll J., Herbst, Susan, O’Keefe, Garrett J., Shapiro, Robert Y. & Lindeman, Mark. “Public Opinion.” 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: Westview Press. 2004.
Graduate School of Political Management. 2004. “New Voters Brief.” George Washington University Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/Youth_voting/new_voters_brief_0504.pdf
iCrossing. 2007. “How America Searches: Election '08.” iCrossing Digital Marketing Company Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.icrossing.com/articles/how_america_searches_election_2008.pdf
Institute of Politics. 2007. “The 12th Biannual Youth Survey on Politics and Public Service.”Harvard University Accessed 30 April 2008. http://www.youngvoterstrategies.org/index.php?tg=fileman&idx=get&id=1&gr=Y&path=Research&file=Harvard+IOP+Spring+2007+Executive+Summary.pdf
The Pew Research Center. “Internet's Broader Role in Campaign 2008 - Social Networking and Online Videos Take Off.” 2008. Accessed 30 April 2008. http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/384.pdf
Pierce, Charles P. (17 June 2007). “Mud in the digital age.” Boston Globe, Third Edition, 36.
Niemi, Richard G., and Herbert F. Weisberg. “Controversies in Voting Behavior.” 4th Ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2001.
