LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Gaber, Ivor (2016)
Publisher: University of Florida Press
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects:
The 2015 General Election in the UK was the first to take place in the UK with Twitter as an important part of the social media landscape. This pilot project looked at 16 constituencies along England’s South Coast in order to investigate what impact, if any, Twitter had had on the campaign and the result and to investigate the efficacy, or otherwise, of using Twitter as a tool for studying election campaigns in terms of candidate and local party activism. On the basis of an analysis of almost half a million tweets the analysis concluded that there appeared to be a correlation between the rate at which parties and/or candidates responded to incoming tweets and their relative electoral performance but this was not demonstrable for all parties (it applied in particular to Labour and UKIP candidates). In addition, high rates of reply also appeared to have a positive impact on constituency turnout figures. The findings are not yet conclusive but suggest that Twitter could be a good indicator of general levels of local party activism. The research also sought to understand how candidates used Twitter differently and established a number of candidate ‘classifiers’. It also investigated the issues agenda that was dominating Twitter conversations during the campaign and found that Twitter’s agenda was closer to the public’s than was that of the national media. The research also monitored the regional and local media in the 16 constituencies and discovered that their issues agenda was closer still to the public’s. Overall it is difficult to conclude that Twitter had a major impact on the election campaign.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • Coleman, S. (2001) Online campaigning. In Britain Votes 2001 (ed. Norris, P.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.115-124.
    • Daily Telegraph (2015) The Election debates: who won according to Twitter, Daily Telegraph undated http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11512203/Election-debatesWho-does-Twitter-think-is-winning.html (accessed 3 September 2015).
    • Denver D and Hands J (1992) Constituency Campaigning, Parliamentary Affairs 4 (4): 528-544 Di Grazia, J., McKelvey, K., Bollen, J and Rojaet, F. (2013) More Tweets, More Votes: Social Media as a Quantitative Indicator of Political Behaviour, Social Sciences Research Network PLoS ONE (8, 11), 27 November 27.
    • Gaber, I. (2006) Dislocated and Distracted: Media, Parties and the Voters in the 2005 General Election Campaign, British Politics, 1(3): 344-366.
    • Gaber' I. (2013) The 'hollowed-out election' or where did all the policy go? Journal of Political Marketing 12(2/3): 211-225.
    • Gerbaudo, P. (2012). Tweets and the Streets: Social Media and Contemporary Activism, London: Pluto Books.
    • Gibson, R. and McAllister, I. (2015) Normalising or Equalising Party Competition? Assessing the Impact of the Web on Election Campaigning, Political Studies 63(3): 529-547.
    • Hawkins, R. (2015) Tories' £100,000 a month Facebook bill. BBC News Online, 5 February, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31141547 (accessed 29 August 2015).
    • Himmelweit, H.T., Humphreys, P. and Jaeger, M. (1985) How voters decide (Revised ed.), Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
    • Hindman, M. (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    • Jensen, M. (2015) Social Media and Political Campaigning: Changing Terms of Engagement? Paper presented to 'Digital Media, Power, and Democracy in Election Campaigns Workshop', Washington, DC, 2-3 July.
    • Lay, R. and Redlawsk, D. (2006) How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
    • Margaretten, M. and Gaber, I. (2014) The Crisis in Public Communication and the Pursuit of Authenticity: An Analysis of the Twitter Feeds of Scottish MPs 2008-2010, Parliamentary Affairs 67(2): 1-23.
    • Margetts, H. (2006) Cyber Parties. In Handbook of Party Politics (ed. R.S. Katz and W. Crotty), London: Sage, pp. 258-535.
    • Messina, J. (2015) Why the GOP Can't Get No Satisfaction, Politico Magazine, 17 May, http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/jim-messina-british-elections118001_Page2.html#ixzz3ckJ6G7yM (accessed 29 August 2015).
    • Miller, C. and Hogarth, R. (2015) the first social media election? Demos Quarterly, July, http://quarterly.demos.co.uk/article/issue-6/ge2015-the-first-social-media-election/ (accessed 29 August 2015).
    • Morozov E (2009) The Net Delusion: How Not to Liberate the World, London: Penguin Books.
    • Email communication, 5 August 2015 Email communication, 6 August 2015.
    • 10. Email communication, 20 August 2015.
    • 12. Email communication, 4 August 2015.
    • 13. E-mail from local newspaper editor, 29 August 2015.
    • 14. E-mail from local news agency editor, 29 August 2015.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article