Scholars have emphasized the need to deepen investigation of intraparty politics. Recent studies look at social media as a source of information on the ideological preferences of politicians and political actors. In this regard, the present article tests whether social media messages published by politicians are a suitable source of data. It applies quantitative text analysis to the public statements released by politicians on social media in order to measure intraparty heterogeneity and assess its effects. Three different applications to the Italian case are discussed. Indeed, the content of messages posted online is informative on the ideological preferences of politicians and proved to be useful to understand intraparty dynamics. Intraparty divergences measured through social media analysis explain: (a) a politician’s choice to endorse one or another party leader, (b) a politician’s likelihood to switch off from his or her parliamentary party group; and (c) a politician’s probability to be appointed as a minister.
BäckHDebusMMüllerWC (2011) The ideological cohesion of political parties. An evaluation of the method of deriving MPs’ policy positions from parliamentary speeches. Paper presented at the workshop Cohesion, Dissent and Partisan Politics in European Legislatures, ECPR Joint Sessions, 12-16 April, St. Gallen, Switzerland.
2.
BakkerREdwardsEHoogheL. (2015) 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey. Version 2015.1. Available on chesdata.eu. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.
3.
BarberáP (2015) Birds of the same feather Tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis23(1): 76–91.
4.
BenoitKHerzogA (2017) Text analysis: estimating policy preferences from written and spoken words. In: BachnerJWagner HillKGinsbergB (eds) Analytics, Policy and Governance. Yale: Yale University Press.
5.
BernauerJBräuningerT (2009) Intra-party preference heterogeneity and faction membership in the 15th German Bundestag: a computational text analysis of parliamentary speeches. German Politics18(3): 385–402.
6.
BoireauM (2014) Determining political stances from Twitter timelines: the Belgian parliament case. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, St. Petersburg, 18–20 November 2014, pp. 145–151.
7.
BondRMessingS (2015) Quantifying social media’s political space: estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on Facebook. American Political Science109(1): 62–78.
8.
BoucekF (2009) Rethinking factionalism: typologies, intra-party dynamics and three faces of factionalism. Party Politics15(4): 455–485.
9.
BoutetAKimHYonekiE (2013) What’s in Twitter, I know what parties are popular and who you are supporting now!Social Network Analysis and Mining3: 1379–1391.
10.
CeronA (2012) Bounded oligarchy: how and when factions constrain leaders in party position-taking. Electoral Studies31(4): 689–701.
11.
CeronA (2015) The politics of fission: analysis of faction breakaways among Italian parties (1946-2011). British Journal of Political Science45(1): 121–139.
12.
CeronACuriniL (2014) The letta cabinet(s): government formation and (in)stability in times of crisis. A spatial approach. Italian Politics29(1): 143–159.
13.
CeronACuriniL (2016) e-Campaigning in the 2014 European Elections: The emphasis on valence issues in a two-dimensional multi-party system. Party Politics. Epub ahead of print 12 April 2016. DOI: 10.1177/1354068816642807.
14.
CeronAd’AddaG (2015) E-campaigning on Twitter: the effectiveness of distributive promises and negative campaign in the 2013 Italian election. New Media & Society. Epub ahead of print 10 February 2015. DOI: 10.1177/1461444815571915.
15.
ConoverMGonçalvesBRatkiewiczJ. (2011) Predicting the political alignment of twitter users. In: Privacy, Security, Risk and Trust (PASSAT) and 2011 IEEE Third Inernational Conference on Social Computing (SocialCom), Boston, MA, 9–11 October 2011, pp. 192–199.
16.
ConwayBAKenskiKWangD (2013) Twitter use by presidential primary candidates during the 2012 Campaign. American Behavioral Scientist57(11): 1596–1610.
17.
DebusMBräuningerT (2009) Intra-party factions and coalition bargaining. In: GiannettiDBenoitK (eds) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 121–145.
18.
Di VirgilioAGiannettiDPedrazzaniA. (2015) Party Competition in the 2013 Italian Elections: Evidence from an Expert Survey. Government and Opposition50: 65–89.
19.
EckerA (2015) Estimating policy positions using social network data: cross-validating position estimates of political parties and individual legislators in the polish parliament. Social Science Computer Review. Epub ahead of print 23 September 2015. DOI: 10.1177/0894439315602662.
20.
FleisherJSeyfriedM (2015) Drawing from the bargaining pool: determinants of ministerial selection in Germany. Party Politics21(4): 503–514.
21.
GiannettiDBenoitK (eds) (2009) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government. New York, NY: Routledge.
22.
GiannettiDLaverM (2009) Party cohesion, party discipline, party factions in Italy. In: GiannettiDBenoitK (eds) Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Government, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 146–168.
23.
GiannettiDPedrazzaniA (2016) Rules and speeches: how parliamentary rules affect legislators’ speech making behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly. Epub ahead of print 11 May 2016. DOI: 10.1111/lsq.12130.
24.
GreeneZCeronASchumacherG. (2015) The nuts and bolts of automated text analysis: comparing different document pre-processing techniques in four Countries. Paper presented at the 73rd Midwest Political Science Association Conference, 16-19 April 2015, Chicago.
25.
GreeneZHaberM (2014) Leadership competition and disagreement at party national congresses. British Journal of Political Science. Epub ahead of print 20 October 2014. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123414000283.
26.
GreeneZHaberM (2017) Maintaining partisan ties: Preference divergence and partisan collaboration in Western Europe. Party Politics23(1): 30–42.
HellerWBMershonC (2008) Dealing in discipline: party switching and legislative voting in the Italian Chamber of deputies, 1988-2000. American Journal of Political Science52(4): 910–924.
29.
IbenskasRSikkA (2017) Patterns of Party Change in Central and Eastern Europe, 1990–2015. Party Politics23(1): 43–54.
30.
KamCBiancoWTSenedI. (2010) Ministerial selection and intraparty organization in the contemporary British parliament. American Political Science Review104(2): 289–306.
31.
KingAOrlandoFSparksD (2011) Ideological extremity and primary success: A social network approach. Paper presented at the 2011 MPSA Conference, 31 March – 3 April, Chicago, USA.
32.
KingGHonakerJJosephA. (2001) Analyzing incomplete political science data: an alternative algorithm for multiple imputation. American Political Science Review95(1): 49–69.
33.
KlüverH (2009) Measuring Interest group influence using quantitative text analysis. European Union Politics10: 535–549.
34.
KöllnA-KPolkJ (2017) Emancipated party members: Examining ideological incongruence within political parties. Party Politics23(1): 18–29.
35.
LarssonAO (2013) “Rejected bits of program code”: why notions of “politics 2.0” remain (mostly) unfulfilled. Journal of Information Technology & Politics10(1): 72–85.
36.
LehmannPMatthießTMerzN. (2015) Manifesto corpus. Version: 2015a. Berlin: WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
37.
LivneASimmonsMPAdarE. (2011) The party is over here: structure and content in the 2010 election. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference AAAI Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, Barcelona, 17–21 July 2011, pp. 201–208.
38.
McGannAJ (2002) The advantages of ideological cohesion: a model of constituency representation and electoral competition in multi-party democracies. Journal of Theoretical Politics14: 37–70.
39.
MedzihorskyJLittvayLJenneEK (2014) Has the tea party era radicalized the republican party? evidence from text analysis of the 2008 and 2012 Republican primary debates. PS: Politics and Political Science47(4): 806–812.
40.
PedrazzaniAPintoL (2015) The electoral base: the ‘political revolution’ in evolution. In: TronconiF (eds) Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement. Organisazion, Communication and Ideology, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 75–98.
41.
ProkschS-OSlapinJB (2009) WORDFISH: Scaling software for estimating political positions from texts. Version 1.3. available at: http://www.wordfish.org (accessed 22 January 2009).
42.
ProkschS-OSlapinJB (2012) Institutional foundations of legislative speeches. American Journal of Political Science53(3): 520–537.
43.
ProkschS-OSlapinJB (2015) The Politics of Parliamentary Debate: Parties, Rebels, and Representation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SchoberMFConradFGAntounC. (2015) Precision and disclosure in text and voice interviews on smartphones. PLoS ONE10(6): e0128337. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0128337
45.
SeddoneA (2012) Per chi suona la campana. Uno sguardo sugli endorsement. Questioni Primarie4: 7–8.
46.
SlapinJBProkschS-O (2008) A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science52(3): 705–722.
47.
Somer-TopcuZ (2017) Agree or disagree: How do party leaders changes affect the distribution of voters’ preferences. Party Politics23(1): 66–75.
48.
SylwesterKPurverM (2015) Twitter language use reflects psychological differences between democrats and republicans. PLoS One10(9): e0137422. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0137422.
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.
