In this article, we examine the static and dynamic factors that explain the use of the Twitter social media platform by all active Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) during the Fall and Winter of 2015–2016. Our analysis demonstrates that MEPs have an incentive to take to Twitter that varies across the European Parliament's (EP) highly segmented legislative calendar, but that MEPs are also affected by more constant differences in their national political parties and electoral systems of origin, as well as by their home constituencies. Our findings contribute to a picture of the EP as a diverse legislature that fosters diverse legislator interests with respect to voter outreach.
AbélèsM (1992) La vie Quotidienne au Parlement Européen. Paris: Hachette.
2.
AdiAEricksonKLillekerDG (2014) Elite tweets: analyzing the Twitter communication patterns of Labour Party peers in the House of Lords. Policy & Internet6(1): 1–27.
3.
AlesinaACohenGDRoubiniN (1993) Electoral business cycle in industrial democracies. European Journal of Political Economy9(1): 1–23.
4.
BowlerSFarrellDM (1993) Legislator shirking and voter monitoring: impacts of European Parliament electoral systems upon legislator-voter relationships. Journal of Common Market Studies31(1): 45–69.
5.
BowlerSFarrellDM (2011) Electoral institutions and campaigning in comparative perspective: electioneering in European Parliament elections. European Journal of Political Research50(5): 668–688.
6.
BrookerPBarnettJCribbinT, et al. (2015) Have we even solved the first ‘big data challenge?’ Practical issues concerning data collection and visual representation for social media analytics. In: SneeHHineCMoreyY, et al. (eds) Digital Methods for Social Science: An Interdisciplinary Guide to Research Innovation. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 32–50.
7.
BusbyA (2013) ‘Normal parliament’: exploring the organisation of everyday political life in an MEP’s office. Journal of Contemporary European Research9(1). http://www.jcer.myzen.co.uk/index.php/jcer/article/view/439 (accessed 27 May 2016).
8.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417–439.
9.
DanielWT (2013) When the agent knows better than the principal: the effect of education and seniority on European Parliament rapporteur assignment. Journal of Common Market Studies51(5): 832–848.
10.
DanielWT (2015) Career Behaviour and the European Parliament: All Roads lead through Brussels?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11.
DanielWTThierseS (2018) Individual Determinants for the Selection of Group Coordinators in the European Parliament. Journal of Common Market Studies, forthcoming. DOI 10.1111/jcms.12690.
12.
European Commission (2014) Eurobarometer 80.1 (2013). ZA5876 Data file Version 1.0.0. Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.
13.
FarrellDMScullyR (2010) The European Parliament: one parliament, several modes of political representation on the ground?Journal of European Public Policy17(1): 36–54.
14.
FennoRF (1978) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. New York City: Longman.
15.
GainousJWagnerKM (2014) Tweeting to Power: The Social Media Revolution in American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
GattermannKVasilopoulouS (2015) Absent yet popular? Explaining news visibility of members of the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research54(1): 121–140.
17.
GibsonRKRömmeleA (2009) Measuring the professionalization of political campaigning. Party Politics15(3): 265–293.
18.
GolbeckJGrimesJMRogersA (2010) Twitter use by the U.S. Congress. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology61(8): 1612–1621.
19.
GrahamTBroersmaMHazelhoffK, et al. (2013) Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters. Information, Communication & Society16(5): 692–716.
20.
HixSMarshM (2011) Second-order effects plus pan-European political swings: an analysis of European Parliament elections across time. Electoral Studies30(1): 4–15.
21.
HoboltSBWittrockJ (2011) The second-order election model revisited: an experimental test of vote choices in European Parliament elections. Electoral Studies30(1): 29–40.
22.
JacksonNLillekerD (2011) Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies17(1): 86–105.
23.
JefferyCHoughD (2001) The electoral cycle and multi-level voting in Germany. German Politics10(2): 73–98.
24.
KaedingM (2004) Rapporteurship allocation in the European Parliament. European Union Politics5(3): 353–371.
25.
KruikemeierS (2014) How political candidates use Twitter and the impact on votes. Computers in Human Behavior34: 131–139.
26.
KruikemeierSvan NoortGVliegenthartR, et al. (2015) Nederlandse politici op Twitter: wie, waarover, wanneer, en met welk effect?Tijdschrift voor Communicatiewetenschap43(1): 4–22.
LillekerDG (2014) Political Communication and Cognition. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
29.
LillekerDGSchweitzerEJ, et al. (2011) Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication26(3): 195–213.
30.
LillekerDGKoc-MichalskaK (2013) Online political communication strategies: MEPs, e-representation, and self-representation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics10(2): 190–207.
31.
MargarretenMGaberI (2014) The crisis in public communication and the pursuit of authenticity: an analysis of the Twitter feeds of Scottish MPs 2008–2010. Parliamentary Affairs67(2): 328–350.
32.
MayhewDR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University.
33.
MershonCShvetsovaO (2008) Parliamentary cycles and party switching in legislatures. Comparative Political Studies41(1): 99–127.
34.
NordhausWD (1975) The political business cycle. The Review of Economic Studies42(2): 169–190.
35.
ObholzerLDanielWT (2016) An online electoral connection? How electoral systems condition representatives’ social media use. European Union Politics17(3): 387–407.
36.
PopaSASchmittHHoboltSB, et al. (2015) EES 2014 Voter Study Advance Release Notes. Mannheim: MZES, University of Mannheim.
37.
RehCHéritierABressanelliE, et al. (2013) The informal politics of legislation explaining secluded decision making in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies46(9): 1112–1142.
38.
ReifK (1984) National electoral cycles and European elections 1979 and 1984. Electoral Studies3(3): 244–255.
39.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order national elections – a conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1): 3–44.
40.
RingeN (2010) Who Decides, and How?: Preferences, Uncertainty, and Policy Choice in the European Parliament. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
41.
RodríguezJLMadariagaAG (2016) Going public against institutional constraints? Analyzing the online presence intensity of 2014 European Parliament election candidates. European Union Politics17(2): 303–323.
42.
SchmittHPopSAHoboltSB, et al. (2015) European Parliament Election Study 2014. ZA5160. Cologne: GESIS Data Archive.
43.
SchultzKA (1995) The politics of the political business cycle. British Journal of Political Science25(1): 79–99.
44.
ShiMSvenssonJ (2006) Political budget cycles: do they differ across countries and why?Journal of Public Economics90(8–9): 1367–1389.
45.
SmallTA (2008) Equal access, unequal success – major and minor Canadian parties on the net. Party Politics14(1): 51–70.
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.
