Lost in Technology? Political Parties and the Online Campaigns of Constituency Candidates in Germany's Mixed Member Electoral System

Abstract

The Internet is changing the technological context of election campaigns in dramatic ways. The question of the larger impact of this development on the structures and strategies of election campaigns has stimulated two competing hypotheses. The orthodox view perceives the new medium as facilitating centralized election campaigns that allow party headquarters to target and mobilize groups of voters in more efficient and direct ways. A revisionist view stresses the Internet as a means for individual constituency candidates running candidate-centered campaigns at the local level. From this perspective, the Internet has a decentralizing effect on the structure of election campaigns. This article tests both hypotheses on the basis of the German Candidate Study 2005. It looks in particular at the impact of the electoral context on the style of constituency candidates' online campaigns in the German Federal Elections of 2005.

‘Show me the money and the party!’ – variation in Facebook and Twitter adoption by politicians

“…In their analysis of Facebook adoption by U.S. House of Representatives candidates, they have consistently found that the candidates with the greatest financial resources are the most likely to have employed Facebook. The positive effect of resources also extends to Twitter and beyond the United States with evidence from Australia (Gibson & McAllister, 2015), Austria (Dolezal, 2015), Germany (Zittel, 2009), andSwitzerland (Klinger, 2013) confirming the positive relationship. Thus, we might infer that with such overwhelming evidence we could classify this as an established pattern.…”

A Platform for Individualized Campaigning? Social Media and Parliamentary Candidates in the 2009 Norwegian Election Campaign

“…The parties control the nomination process, and once that process is over the possibility of being elected depends solely on the party vote. In systems that allow for more personal voting, such as the mixed German system or the Finnish system, new media might increase existing tendencies towards individualized campaigning (Zittel 2009). …”

“…The technology undoubtedly offers tools to better implement the central party campaign strategy, and enables parties to communicate more directly with the campaign organizations and voters. However, as mentioned above, new ICTs don't only present centrifugal incentives; they also provide individual candidates with new opportunities to run campaigns more independently of the central party and offer them a new platform for self-presentation (Zittel 2009). However, technology and technological use are shaped by existing practices (Neuman 1991(Neuman , 2001Anstead and Chadwick 2008;Karlsen 2010a), and to some extent the effect of technology on individualized campaigning will depend on the contextual characteristics of the campaign environment.…”

“…1 However, the most common view is arguably that new technology will increase the centralization powers of the parties: the technology offers tools to better implement the central party campaign strategy and enables parties to communicate more directly with the campaign organization and voters (Farrell and Webb 2000;Norris 2000). To some extent the technological effect on individualized campaigning will depend on the contextual characteristics of the campaign (Zittel 2009;Karlsen 2010a). In the United States, the Internet and new online social media have received much attention when it comes to campaign organization.…”

“…Internet technology, especially the new online social media and Social Networking Sites (SNS) like Facebook, provides individual candidates with new opportunities to run campaigns more independently of the central party (Zittel 2009). 1 However, the most common view is arguably that new technology will increase the centralization powers of the parties: the technology offers tools to better implement the central party campaign strategy and enables parties to communicate more directly with the campaign organization and voters (Farrell and Webb 2000;Norris 2000).…”