Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2024-11
Does Digital Campaigning Make a Difference for Individual Candidates in an Open List Proportional Representation System? The Case of the 2019 Election in Belgium
This article looks at the equalization/normalization problem through the lens of campaign spending and investigates the effect of expenses for digital tools on the electoral result of individual candidates in an open list proportional representation system. A multilevel analysis of the campaign expenses of 1253 serious contenders in the Belgian 2019 concurrent federal, regional, and European elections shows that the investment in both owned Web 1.0 media and paid Web 2.0 media does not have an effect on electoral performance. Investing in traditional tools, by contrast, does have a significant positive effect. While most candidates use digital tools, they invest only a small part of their budget in these, which may explain the absence of a digital expense effect. These findings put the use of digital campaigning in perspective, showing that the effect of paid online tools should not be overestimated, and that the role of traditional campaigning is still dominant.
AbramowitzAI (1988) Explaining Senate Election Outcomes. The American Political Science Review82 (2): 385–403.
2.
AndreADePauwSShugartMS, et al. (2017) Party Nomination Strategies in Flexible-List Systems : Do Preference Votes Matter ?Party Politics23 (5): 589–600.
3.
BenoitKMarshM (2003) For a Few Euros More: Campaign Spending Effects in the Irish Local Elections of 1999. Party Politics9 (5): 561–582.
4.
BenoitKMarshM (2010) Incumbent and Challenger Campaign Spending Effects in Proportional Electoral Systems: The Irish Elections of 2002. Political Research Quarterly63 (1): 159–173.
5.
BoutecaNSmuldersJMaddensB, et al. (2019) “A Fair Day’s Wage for a Fair Day’s Work”? Exploring the Connection between the Parliamentary Work of MPs and Their Electoral Support. The Journal of Legislative Studies25 (1): 44–65.
6.
CheibubJASinG (2020) Preference Vote and Intra-Party Competition in Open List PR Systems. Journal of Theoretical Politics32 (1): 70–95.
7.
CopelandLRömmeleA (2014) Beyond the Base? Political Parties, Citizen Activists, and Digital Media Use in the 2009 German Federal Election Campaign. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11 (2): 169–185.
8.
CorradoAFirestoneC (1996) Elections in Cyberspace: Toward a New Era in American Politics. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
9.
DodeigneJPiletJ-B (2021) Centralized or Decentralized Personalization? Measuring Intra-Party Competition in Open and Flexible List PR Systems. Party Politics27 (2): 234–245.
10.
DodeigneJPutG-JTeuberF (2023) Is Electoral Intraparty Competition More Intense in Urban Areas?Electoral Studies. Epub ahead of print 24 February 2023. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2022.102571
11.
DugganA (2020) Campaign Spending and Electoral Integrity: Assessing the Plausibility of the Challenger Spending Efficacy. PhD Thesis, Trinity College, Dublin.
12.
FolkeORickneJ (2020) Who Wins Preference Votes? An Analysis of Party Loyalty, Ideology, and Accountability to Voters. Journal of Theoretical Politics32 (1): 11–35.
13.
GeysBHeyndelsB (2003) Influence of “Cognitive Sophistication” on Ballot Layout Effects. Acta Politica38 (4): 295–311.
14.
GibsonRWardS (2000) An Outsider’s Medium? The European Elections and UK Party Competition on the Internet. British Elections & Parties Review10 (1): 173–191.
15.
GibsonRK (2020) When the Nerds Go Marching in: How Digital Technology Moved from the Margins to the Mainstream of Political Campaigns. Thousand Oaks, CA: Oxford University Press.
16.
GibsonRKMcAllisterI (2006) Does Cyber-Campaigning Win Votes? Online Communication in the 2004 Australian Election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties16 (3): 243–263.
17.
GibsonRKMcAllisterI (2011) Do Online Election Campaigns Win Votes? The 2007 Australian “YouTube” Election. Political Communication28 (2): 227–244.
18.
GibsonRKMcallisterI (2015) Normalising or Equalising Party Competition? Assessing the Impact of the Web on Election Campaigning. Political Studies63 (3): 529–547.
19.
GreenDPKrasnoJS (1988) Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections. American Journal of Political Science32 (4): 884–907.
20.
GreenDPKrasnoJS (1990) Rebuttal to Jacobson’s “New Evidence for Old Arguments.”American Journal of Political Science34 (2): 363–372.
21.
HansenKMKosiara-PedersenK (2014) Cyber-Campaigning in Denmark: Application and Effects of Candidate Campaigning. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11 (2): 206–219.
22.
JacobsKSpieringsN (2016) # Social Media, Parties, and Political Inequalities. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
23.
JacobsonGC (1978) The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review72 (2): 469–491.
24.
JacobsonGC (1990) The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments. American Journal of Political Science34 (2): 334.
25.
JankowskiM (2016) Voting for Locals: Voters’ Information Processing Strategies in Open-List PR Systems. Electoral Studies43: 72–84.
26.
JohnstonRPattieC (2006) Candidate Quality and the Impact of Campaign Expenditure: A British Example. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties16 (3): 283–294.
27.
KarvonenL (2010) The Personalization of Politics. A Study of Parliamentary Democracies. Colchester: ECPR Press.
28.
Koc-MichalskaKLillekerDGSurowiecP, et al. (2014) Poland’s 2011 Online Election Campaign: New Tools, New Professionalism, New Ways to Win Votes. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11 (2): 186–205.
29.
KruschinskiSBeneM (2022) In Varietate Concordia?! Political Parties’ Digital Political Marketing in the 2019 European Parliament Election Campaign. European Union Politics23 (1): 43–65.
30.
LusoliW (2005) The Internet and the European Parliament Elections : Theoretical Perspectives, Empirical Investigations and Proposals for Research. Information Polity10 (34): 153–163.
31.
MaddensBPutGJ (2013) Office Effects and Campaign Spending in a Semi-open List PR System: The Belgian/Flemish Federal and Regional Elections 1999-2010. Electoral Studies32 (4): 852–863.
32.
MaddensBSmuldersJWolfsW (2019) De Prijs van Politiek: Over de Portefeuille van de Partijen. Leuven: Lannoo Campus.
33.
MaddensBWautersBNoppeJ, et al. (2006) Effects of Campaign Spending in an Open List PR System: The 2003 Legislative Elections in Flanders/Belgium. West European Politics29 (1): 161–168.
34.
MargolisMResnickDK (2000) Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace `Revolution′. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
35.
MargolisMResnickDWolfeD (1999) Party Competition on the Internet in the United States and Britain. Harvard International Journal of Press/politics4 (4): 24–47.
36.
NorrisP (2003) Preaching to the Converted?: Pluralism, Participation and Party Websites. Party Politics9 (1): 21–45.
37.
PaldaFPaldaK (1998) The Impact of Campaign Expenditures on Political Competition in the French Legislative Elections of 1993. Public Choice94 (1): 157–174.
38.
PattieCJJohnstonRJFieldhouseEA (1995) Winning the Local Vote: The Effectiveness of Constituency Campaign Spending in Great Britain, 1983–1992. American Political Science Review89 (4): 969–983.
39.
PutGJMaddensB (2015) The Effect of Municipality Size and Local Office on the Electoral Success of Belgian/Flemish Election Candidates: A Multilevel Analysis. Government and Opposition50 (4): 607–628.
40.
RömmeleAGibsonR (2020) Scientific and Subversive: The Two Faces of the Fourth Era of Political Campaigning. New Media & Society22 (4): 595–610.
41.
SamuelsD (2001) Incumbents and Challengers on a Level Playing Field: Assessing the Impact of Campaign Finance in Brazil. The Journal of Politics63 (2): 569–584.
42.
SandbergLACÖhbergP (2017) The Role of Gender in Online Campaigning: Swedish Candidates’ Motives and Use of Social Media during the European Election 2014. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14 (4): 314–333.
43.
SchroederLSjoquistDStephanP (2017) Understanding Regression Analysis: An Introductory Guide, 2nd edn.Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences 57. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
SouthernR (2015) Is Web 2.0 Providing a Voice for Outsiders? A Comparison of Personal Web Site and Social Media Use by Candidates at the 2010 UK General Election. Journal of Information Technology and Politics12 (1): 1–17.
45.
SouthernRLeeBJ (2018) Politics as Usual? Assessing the Extent and Content of Candidate-Level Online Campaigning at the 2015 UK General Election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties29 (2): 1–20.
46.
SpieringsNJacobsK (2014) Getting Personal? The Impact of Social Media on Preferential Voting. Political Behavior36 (1): 215–234.
47.
SudulichMLWallM (2009) Keeping Up with the Murphys? Candidate Cyber-Campaigning in the 2007 Irish General Election. Parliamentary Affairs62 (3): 456–475.
48.
SudulichMLWallM (2011) How Do Candidates Spend Their Money? Objects of Campaign Spending and the Effectiveness of Diversification. Electoral Studies30 (1): 91–101.
49.
SuiterJ (2015) Political Campaigns and Social Media: A Study of #mhe13 in Ireland. Irish Political Studies30 (2): 299–309.
50.
TavitsM (2010) Effect of Local Ties On Electoral Success and Parliamentary Behaviour: The Case of Estonia. Party Politics16 (2): 215–235.
51.
TrummS (2022) Online Versus Offline: Exploring the Link between How Candidates Campaign and How Voters Cast Their Ballot. European Journal of Political Research61 (2): 485–502.
52.
VaccariC (2013) Digital Politics in Western Democracies: A Comparative Study. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.
53.
Van AelstPMaddensBNoppeJ, et al. (2006) Van de studio naar de kamer? Over de relatie tussen media en voorkeurstemmen bij de verkiezingen van 2003. In: FiersSReynaertH (eds) Wie zetelt? De gekozen politieke elite in Vlaanderen doorgelicht. Tielt, Belgium: Lannoo Campus, pp.163–176.
54.
Van AelstPSheaferTStanyerJ (2012) The Personalization of Mediated Political Communication: A Review of Concepts, Operationalizations and Key Findings. Journalism13 (2): 203–220.
55.
Van AelstPStrömbäckJAalbergT, et al. (2017) Political Communication in a High-Choice Media Environment: A Challenge for Democracy?Annals of the International Communication Association41 (1): 3–27.
56.
Vanden EyndeGMaddensB (2021) Explaining Digital Campaign Expenses: The Case of the 2018 Legislative Elections in Colombia. Journal of Information Technology & Politics19 (3): 302–315.
57.
Vanden EyndeGPutG-JMaddensB (2022) The Coming of Age for Paid Digital Campaigning: Equalization or Normalization in the 2019 Belgian Federal Elections?Online Information Review. Epub ahead of print 3 October 2022. DOI: 10.1108/OIR-12-2021-0679
58.
VanlangenakkerIMaddensBPutG-J (2013) Career Patterns in Multilevel States: An Analysis of the Belgian Regions. Regional Studies47 (3): 356–367.
59.
VieiraVAde AlmeidaMISAgnihotriR, et al. (2019) In Pursuit of an Effective B2B Digital Marketing Strategy in an Emerging Market. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science47 (6): 1085–1108.
60.
WautersBPittoorsGMoensP (2019) Het gebruik van de voorkeurstem bij de parlementsverkiezingen van 26 mei 2019. Report, Gent University, Belgium, 26 May.
61.
WautersBThijssenPVan AelstP, et al. (2018) Centralized Personalization at the Expense of Decentralized Personalization. The Decline of Preferential Voting in Belgium (2003–2014). Party Politics24 (5): 511–523.
62.
WautersBWeekersKMaddensB (2010) Explaining the Number of Preferential Votes for Women in an Open-List PR System: An Investigation of the 2003 Federal Elections in Flanders (Belgium). Acta Politica45 (4): 468–490.
63.
XenosMAFootKA (2005) Politics As Usual, or Politics Unusual? Position Taking and Dialogue on Campaign Websites in the 2002 U.S. Elections. Journal of Communication55 (1): 169–185.
64.
ZaroualiBDobberTDe PauwG, et al. (2022) Using a Personality-Profiling Algorithm to Investigate Political Microtargeting: Assessing the Persuasion Effects of Personality-Tailored Ads on Social Media. Communication Research49 (8): 1066–1091.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
