Restricted accessOtherFirst published online 2007-12
Party profiles on the web: an analysis of the logfiles of non-partisan interactive political internet sites in the 2003 and 2004 election campaigns in Belgium
During recent election campaigns non-partisan party profile websites (PPWs) have become hugely popular in various countries with multiparty systems, sometimes even attracting 25 percent of all voters. On these interactive websites, PPW users respond to policy questions, and their answers are used to calculate the distance between their own preferences and party agendas, resulting in an individualized `party profile'. PPWs can be seen as one of the few innovations in election campaigning that fully exploit the internet's interactive opportunities. The analysis in this article of the log files of 2003 and 2004 Belgian PPWs demonstrate that PPW users tend to be highly educated, male and young. Party and policy preferences of late PPW users (the final days before the elections) are not more crystallized than those of early PPW users (40 days before the elections). The article concludes with speculation on what this finding might reveal about campaign dynamics.
American Sociological Association (1999) Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
2.
Berelson, B., P. Lazarsfeld and W.N. McPhee (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a PresidentialCampaign. Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Bimber, B. (2000) `Measuring the Gender Gap on the Internet', Social Science Quarterly81(3): 868—76.
4.
Bimber, B. and R. Davis (2003) Campaigning Online.The Internet in U.S. Elections . New York: Oxford University Press .
5.
Coleman, S. (1999) `Can the New Media Invigorate Democracy?', Political Quarterly70(2): 16—22.
6.
Coleman, S. (2005) `New Mediation and Direct Representation: Reconceptualizing Representation in the Digital Age', New Media & Society7(2): 177—98.
7.
Dalton, R. and M. Wattenberg (eds) (2000) Parties without Partisans. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
Davis, R. and D. Owen (1998) New Media and American Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9.
Diener, E. and R. Crandall (1978) Ethics in Social and Behavioral Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10.
Directie Verkiezingen (2004) Belgische Verkiezingen sinds 1830 [Belgian Elections since 1830]. Brussels: FOD Binnenlandse Zaken. (Consulted November 2004) http://www.elections.fgov.be/
11.
Erikson, R., C. Panagopoulos and C. Wlezien (2004) `Likely (and unlikely) Voters and the Assessment of Campaign Dynamics', Public Opinion Quarterly68(4): 588—601.
12.
European Social Survey (2004) URL (Consulted June 2005): http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/
13.
Gibson, R. and S. Ward (2000a) `British Party Activity in Cyberspace: New Media, Same Impact?', in R. Gibson and S. Ward (eds) Reinvigorating Democracy? British Politics and the Internet, pp. 107—28. Aldershot: Ashgate.
14.
Gibson, R. and S. Ward (eds) (2000b) Reinvigorating Democracy? British Politics and the Internet. Aldershot: Ashgate .
15.
Hebecker, E. (2002) `Experimentieren für den Ernstfall. Der Online-Wahlkampf, 2002' [`Experiments for the Case of Emergency. The Online Elections 2002'] , Aus Politik und ZeitgeschichteB49—50: 48—54.
16.
Hooghe, M. and P. Stouthuysen (2001) `Het gebruik van het Internet door de Vlaamse politieke partijen' [`The Use of the Internet by Flemish Political Parties'], Res Publica43(4): 507—27.
17.
Hooghe, M. and S.Vissers (2006) Still a Digital Divide? Trends in Internet Access and Use, 1997—2005. Leuven: Centre for Citizenship and Democracy.
18.
Internet Service Providers Assocation (2004 ) 22ste marktonderzoek: 31 oktober, 2004 [22nd Market Research, 31 October 2004]. Brussels: Internet Service Providers Assocation (Consulted June 2005) http://www.ispa.be
19.
Jennings, M.K. and V. Zeitner (2003) `Internet Use and Civic Engagement. A Longitudinal Analysis', Public Opinion Quarterly67(3): 311—34.
20.
Johnston, R. (1992) `Party Identification and Campaign Dynamics', Political Behavior14(2): 311—31.
21.
Katz, J., R. Rice and P. Aspden (2001) `The Internet, 1995—2000, Access, Civic Involvement, and Social Interaction', American Behavioral Scientist45(3): 405—19.
22.
Korupp, S. and M. Szydlik (2005) `Causes and Trends of the Digital Divide', European Sociological Review21(4): 409—22.
23.
Margolis, M. and D. Resnick (2000) Politics as Usual.The `Cyberspace Revolution'. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
Morris, D. (1999) Vote.com. New York: Renaissance.
25.
Mossberger, K., C. Tolbert and M. Stansbury (2003) Virtual Inequality. Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
26.
Nationaal Instituut voor de Statistiek (2002 ) Enquâte naar de arbeidskrachten, 2002 [Labour Market Census 2002]. Brussels: Nationaal Instituut voor de Statistiek. (Consulted August 2004) http://statbel.fgov.be/downloads/lfs2017-,2003_nl.xls
27.
Nationaal Instituut voor de Statistiek (2003 ) Bevolking en Huishoudens Totale en Belgische bevolking [Belgian Population Census and Households]. Brussels: Nationaal Instituut voor de Statistiek. (Consulted August 2004) http://statbel.fgov.be/pub/d2/p201y2003_nl.pdf
28.
Norris, P. (2001) Digital Divide. Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
Norris, P. (2002) `Campaign Communication', in L. LeDuc, R. Niemi and P. Norris (eds) Comparing Democracies2, pp. 127—47. London: Sage.
30.
Norris, P. (2003) `Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, Participation and Party Websites', Party Politics9(1): 21—45.
31.
Papacharissi, Z. (2004) `Democracy Online: Civility, Politeness, and the Democratic Potential of Online Political Discussion Groups', New Media & Society6(2): 259—83.
32.
Romer, D., K. Kenski, P. Waldman, C. Adasiewicz, and K.H. Jamieson (2003) Capturing Campaign Dynamics.The National Annenberg Election Survey. New York: Oxford University Press.
33.
Shannon, C. (1948) `A Mathematical Theory of Communication', The Bell System Technical Journal27: 379—423, 623—56.
34.
Stefik, M. (1995) Introduction to Knowledge Systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
35.
Stromer-Galley, J. (2004) `Interactivity as Process and Interactivity as Product', The Information Society20(5): 391—4.
36.
Tkach-Kawasaki, L. (2003) `Politics@Japan: Party Competition on the Internet in Japan', Party Politics9(1): 105—23.
37.
Ward, S. R. Gibson and W. Lusoli (2003) `Online Participation and Mobilisation in the UK: Hype, Hope and Reality', Parliamentary A fairs56(4): 652—68.
38.
West, D. (2004) E—Government and the Transformation of Service Delivery and Citizen Attitudes, Public Administration Review64(1): 15—27.
39.
Williams, A. (2006) The Internet Election. Perspectives on the Web in Campaigning, 2004. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
40.
Willis, S., and B. Tranter (2006) `Beyond the `Digital Divide': Internet Diffusion and Inequality in Australia, Journal of Sociology42(1): 43—60.
