The retweet overlap network (RON) method has proved to be successful in quantifying the distances between political parties in multiparty democracies. These distances are frequently used in political science to explain the formation of coalitions and governments. This article explores how data collected from Twitter can be related to ideological similarities between political parties, drawing on an extended development of the RON method that calculates the overlaps between the communities of retweeters of the most influential users in a political discussion. The method is applied to two conversations in Twitter during the last two General Elections in Spain in 2015 and 2016. Our results are consistent with the dynamics and the outcomes of the bargaining processes after both elections and support the Spanish President’s statement on the reasonableness of a government of the Popular Party, the Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, and the Citizens–Party of the Citizenry after the Spanish General Elections in 2016. This work links quantitative analysis of the overlaps of the parties’ communities of retweeters with the theories of coalition and government formation. It contributes to the exploration of Twitter metrics that can be used as new indicators of the support for coalitions in multiparty democracies.
AragónP.KapplerK. E.KaltenbrunnerA.LaniadoD.VolkovichY. (2013). Communication dynamics in Twitter during political campaigns: The case of the 2011 Spanish national election. Policy and Internet, 5, 183–206. doi:10.1002/1944-2866.POI327
2.
AusserhoferJ.MairederA. (2013). National politics on Twitter: Structures and topics of a networked public sphere. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 291–314. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050
3.
BäckH. (2003). Explaining and predicting coalition outcomes: Conclusions from studying data on local coalitions. European Journal of Political Research, 42, 441–472. doi:10.1111/1475-6765.00092
4.
BäckH.DumontP. (2007). Combining large-n and small-n strategies: The way forward in coalition research. West European Politics, 30, 467–501. doi:10.1080/ 01402380701276295
5.
BäckH.DumontP. (2008). Making the first move: A two-stage analysis of the role of formateurs in parliamentary government formation. Public Choice, 135, 353–373. doi:10.1007/s11127-007-9267-5
6.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science, 26, 1531–1542. doi:10.1177/0956797615594620
7.
BoutetA.KimH.YonekiE. (2012). What’s in twitter: I know what parties are popular and who you are supporting now! In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (pp. 132–139). doi:10.1109/ASONAM.2012.32
8.
boydd.GolderS.LotanG. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on twitter. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.1109/HICSS.2010.412
9.
BrunsA. (2012). How long is a Tweet? Mapping dynamic conversation networks on Twitter using GAWK and GEPHI. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 1323–1351. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2011.635214
BrunsA.HighfieldT. (2013). Political networks on Twitter: Tweeting the Queensland state election. Information, Communication & Society, 16, 667–691. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.782328
12.
BudgeI.KemanH. (1990). Parties and democracy: Coalition formation and government functioning in twenty states. Comparative European Politics. doi:10.1093/0198279256.001.0001
13.
Casero-RipollesA.FeenstraR. A.TormeyS. (2016). Old and new media logics in an electoral campaign: The case of Podemos and the two-way street mediatization of politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 21, 378–397. doi:10.1177/1940161216645340
CeronA. (2016). Inter-factional conflicts and government formation do party leaders sort out ideological heterogeneity?Party Politics, 22, 797–808. doi:10.1177/ 1354068814563974
16.
CeronA.CuriniL.IacusS. M. (2015). Using sentiment analysis to monitor electoral campaigns: Method matters—Evidence from the United States and Italy. Social Science Computer Review, 33, 3–20. doi:10.1177/0894439314521983
17.
CeronA.D’AddaG. (2016). E-campaigning on Twitter: The effectiveness of distributive promises and negative campaign in the 2013 Italian election. New Media & Society, 18, 1935–1955. doi:10.1177/1461444815571915
18.
ChristakisN. A.FowlerJ. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. The New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 2249–2258. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0706154
19.
ClausetA.ShaliziC. R.NewmanM. E. J. (2009). Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Review, 51, 661–703.
20.
CohenR.RuthsD. (2013). Classifying political orientation on Twitter: It’s not easy! In Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 91–99). Cambridge, MA: AAAI Press. Retrieved fromhttps://aaai.org/Press/Proceedings/icwsm13.php
21.
ColleoniE.RozzaA.ArvidssonA. (2014). Echo chamber or public sphere? Predicting political orientation and measuring political homophily in Twitter using big data. Journal of Communication, 64, 317–332. doi:10.1111/jcom.12084
22.
ConoverM. D.RatkiewiczJ.FranciscoM.GonçalvesB.FlamminiA.MenczerF. (2011). Political polarization on Twitter. International Conference on Web and Social Media, 133, 89–96. doi:10.1021/ja202932e
23.
DebusM. (2009). Pre-electoral commitments and government formation. Public Choice, 138, 45–64. doi:10.1007/s11127-008-9338-2
D’heerE.VerdegemP. (2014). Conversations about the elections on Twitter: Towards a structural understanding of Twitter’s relation with the political and the media field. European Journal of Communication, 29, 720–734. doi:10.1177/ 0267323114544866
26.
DiGraziaJ.McKelveyK.BollenJ.RojasF. (2013). More tweets, more votes: Social media as a quantitative indicator of political behavior. PLoS One, 8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0079449
27.
FowlerJ. H.ChristakisN. A. (2009). Dynamic spread of happiness in a large social network: Longitudinal analysis over 20 years in the Framingham Heart Study. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 338, 1–13. doi:10.1136/bmj.a2338
28.
FreelonD.LynchM.AdayS. (2015). Online fragmentation in wartime: A longitudinal analysis of Tweets about Syria, 2011–2013. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659, 166–179. doi:10.1177/0002716214563921
29.
Gayo-AvelloD. (2012). “I wanted to predict elections with Twitter and all I got was this Lousy Paper”—A balanced survey on election prediction using twitter data. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1204.6441, 13. doi:10.1234/12345678
30.
Gayo-AvelloD. (2013). A meta-analysis of state-of-the-art electoral prediction from Twitter data. Social Science Computer Review, 31, 649–679. doi:10.1177/ 0894439313493979
31.
González-BailónS.Borge-HolthoeferJ.MorenoY. (2013). Broadcasters and hidden influentials in online protest diffusion. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 943–965. doi:10.1177/0002764213479371
32.
GrahamT.JacksonD.BroersmaM. (2016). New platform, old habits? Candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch general election campaigns. New Media & Society, 18, 765–783. doi:10.1177/1461444814546728
33.
GrofmanB. (1982). A dynamic model of protocoalition formation in ideological n-space. Behavioral Science, 27, 77–90. doi:10.1002/bs.3830270108
34.
GrotzF.WeberT. (2016). New parties, information uncertainty, and government formation: Evidence from Central and Eastern Europe. European Political Science Review, 8, 449–472. doi:10.1017/S1755773915000120
35.
GschwendT.StoetzerL.ZittlauS. (2016). What drives rental votes? How coalitions signals facilitate strategic coalition voting. Electoral Studies, 44, 293–306. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.06.011
36.
Guerrero-SoléF. (2017). Community detection in political discussions on Twitter: An application of the retweet overlap network method to the Catalan process towards independence. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 244–261. doi:10.1177/0894439315617254
37.
Guerrero-SoléF.Corominas-MurtraB.López-GónzalezH. (2014). Pacts with Twitter. Predicting voters’ indecision and preferences for coalitions in multiparty systems. Information, Communication and Society, 17, 1280–1297. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.920040
38.
Guerrero-SoléF.Mas-ManchónL. (2017). Estructura de los tweets publicados durante las campañas electorales de 2015 y 2016 en España [Structure of the political tweets during the electoral campaigns of 2015 and 2016 in Spain]. El profesional de la información, 26, 805–815. doi:10.3145/epi.2017.sep.03
39.
HemphillL.OtterbacherJ.ShapiroM. (2013). What’s congress doing on Twitter? In Proceedings of the 2013 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (p. 877). doi:10.1145/2441776.2441876
40.
HimelboimI.McCreeryS.SmithM. (2013). Birds of a feather Tweet together: Integrating network and content analyses to examine cross-ideology exposure on Twitter. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 40–60. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12001
41.
HinckleyB. (1972). Coalitions in congress: Size and ideological distance. Midwest Journal of Political Science, 16, 197–207. doi:10.2307/2110055
42.
HubertyM. (2015). Can we vote with our tweet? On the perennial difficulty of election forecasting with social media. International Journal of Forecasting, 31, 992–1007. doi:10.1016/j.ijforecast.2014.08.005
43.
JacobsonS.MyungE.JohnsonS. L. (2015). Open media or echo chamber: the use of links in audience discussions on the Facebook Pages of partisan news organizations. Information, Communication & Society, 19, 875–891. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2015.1064461
JungherrA. (2014). The logic of political coverage on Twitter: Temporal dynamics and content. Journal of Communication, 64, 239–259. doi:10.1111/jcom.12087
46.
JungherrA.JürgensP.SchoenH. (2011). Why the pirate party won the German election of 2009 or the trouble with predictions: A response to Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T. O., Sander, P. G., & Welpe, I. M. “Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment.”Social Science Computer Review, 30, 229–234. doi:10.1177/0894439311404119
47.
JungherrA.SchoenH.JürgensP. (2016). The mediation of politics through Twitter: An analysis of messages posted during the campaign for the German Federal Election 2013. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 50–68. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12143
48.
JungherrA.SchoenH.PoseggaO.JürgensP. (2016). Digital trace data in the study of public opinion an indicator of attention toward politics rather than political support. Social Science Computer Review, 35, 336–356. doi:10.1177/0894439316631043
49.
KimM.ParkH. W. (2012). Measuring Twitter-based political participation and deliberation in the South Korean context by using social network and Triple Helix indicators. Scientometrics, 90, 121–140. doi:10.1007/s11192-011-0508-5
50.
La FondT.NevilleJ. (2010). Randomization tests for distinguishing social influence and homophily effects. In The 19th International Conference (pp. 601–610). doi:10.1145/1772690.1772752
51.
LarssonA. O.IhlenØ. (2015). Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections. European Journal of Communication, 30, 666–681. doi:10.1177/0267323115595525
52.
LarssonA. O.MoeH. (2013). Representation or participation? Twitter use during the 2011 Danish election campaign. Javnost, 20, 71–88.
53.
LaverM. (1998). Models of government formation. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 1–25. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.1.1.1
54.
LeeE. J. (2013). Effectiveness of politicians’ soft campaign on twitter versus TV: Cognitive and experiential routes. Journal of Communication, 63, 953–974. doi:10.1111/jcom.12049
55.
LiuZ.LiuL.LiH. (2012). Determinants of information retweeting in microblogging. Internet Research, 22, 443–466. doi:10.1108/10662241211250980
56.
MartinL. W.StevensonR. T. (2001). Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 33–50.
57.
MartinL. W.VanbergG. (2003). Wasting time? The impact of ideology and size on delay in coalition formation. British Journal of Political Science, 33, 323–332. doi:10.1017/S0007123403000140
58.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444. doi:10.1146/ annurev.soc.27.1.415
59.
MetaxasP. T.MustafarajE.WongK.ZengL.KeefeM. O.FinnS. (2015). What do retweets indicate? Results from user survey and meta-review of research. Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, 1, 658–661.
60.
MicóJ. L.Casero-RipollésA. (2014). Political activism online: Organization and media relations in the case of 15M in Spain. Information, Communication & Society, 17, 858–871. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2013.830634
61.
MölderM. (2017). Which measure of political difference between parties works better? A comparison in predicting coalition formation. Electoral Studies, 46, 26–38. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.12.004
62.
MolyneuxL. (2015). What journalists retweet: Opinion, humor, and brand development on Twitter. Journalism, 16, 920–935. doi:10.1177/1464884914550135
63.
MorstatterF.PfefferJ.LiuH.CarleyK. (2013). Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter’s streaming API with Twitter’s firehose. In Proceedings of ICWSM (pp. 400–408). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-05579-4_10
64.
NickB.LeeC.CunninghamP.BrandesU. (2013). Simmelian backbones: Amplifying hidden homophily in Facebook networks. Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM), 525–532. doi:10.1145/2492517.2492569
65.
OrriolsL.CorderoG. (2016). The breakdown of the Spanish two-party system: The Upsurge of Podemos and Ciudadanos in the 2015 General Election. South European Society and Politics, 21, 469–492. doi:10.1080/13608746.2016.1198454
66.
ParkC. S. (2013). Does Twitter motivate involvement in politics? Tweeting, opinion leadership, and political engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 1641–1648. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2013.01.044
67.
ParmeleeJ. H. (2014). The agenda-building function of political tweets. New Media & Society, 16, 434–450. doi:10.1177/1461444813487955
68.
PengT. Q.LiuM.WuY.LiuS. (2016). Follower-followee network, communication networks, and vote agreement of the U.S. members of congress. Communication Research, 43, 996–1024. doi:10.1177/0093650214559601
69.
PlesciaC.AichholzerJ. (2017). On the nature of voters’ coalition preferences. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 27, 254–273. doi:10.1080/17457289.2016.1270286
70.
PlotkowiakT.Stanoevska-SlabevaK. (2013). German politicians and their twitter networks in the bundestag election 2009. First Monday, 18. doi:10.5210/fm.v18i5.3816
71.
RomeroD. M.MeederB.KleinbergJ. (2011). Differences in the mechanics of information diffusion across topics. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on World Wide Web (p. 695). doi:10.1145/1963405.1963503
72.
SchleiterP.BeluV.HazellR. (2017). Hung parliaments and the need for clearer rules of government formation. The Political Quarterly, 88, 404–411.
73.
SimónP. (2016). The challenges of the new Spanish multipartism: Government formation failure and the 2016 general election. South European Society and Politics, 21, 493–517. doi:10.1080/13608746.2016.1268292
74.
SkopekJ.SchulzF.BlossfeldH. P. (2011). Who contacts whom? Educational homophily in online mate selection. European Sociological Review, 27, 180–195. doi:10.1093/esr/jcp068
75.
SkoricM.PoorN.AchananuparpP.LimE. P.JiangJ. (2012). Tweets and Votes: A Study of the 2011 Singapore General Election. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI (pp. 2583–2591). Washington, DC: IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved fromhttps://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2116261&picked=prox
76.
ThelwallM. (2010). Emotion homophily in social network site messages. First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v15i4.2897
77.
TufekciZ. (2014). Big questions for social media big data: Representativeness, validity and other methodological pitfalls. In ICWSM ‘14: Proceedings of the 8th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 505–514). Ann Arbor, MI. Retrieved fromhttp://www.aaai.org/Press/Proceedings/icwsm14.php
78.
TumasjanA.SprengerT. O.SandnerP. G.WelpeI. M. (2010). Predicting Elections with Twitter. In Proceedings of the Fourth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 178–185). Retrieved fromhttp://www.aaai.org/Library/ICWSM/icwsm10contents.php
79.
VargoC. J.GuoL.McCombsM.ShawD. L. (2014). Network issue agendas on Twitter during the 2012 U.S. presidential election. Journal of Communication, 64, 296–316. doi:10.1111/jcom.12089
80.
VercesiM. (2016). Coalition politics and inter-party conflict management: A theoretical framework. Politics and Policy, 44, 168–219. doi:10.1111/polp.12154
81.
VergeerM.HermansL. (2013). Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 18, 399–419. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12023
82.
VoldenC.CarrubbaC. J. (2004). The formation of oversized coalitions in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 521–537.
83.
VolkensA.LehmannP.MatthiessT.MerzN.RegelS.WernerA. (2015) The Manifesto data collection. Manifesto Project. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). doi:10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2017a
84.
WilliamsH. T. P.McMurrayJ. R.KurzT.Hugo LambertF. (2015). Network analysis reveals open forums and echo chambers in social media discussions of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 32, 126–138. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.03.006
