This research considers the growing use of the internet by campaigns in the United States at the sub-presidential level and its relationship to the digital divide. The primary goal is to understand why candidates’ websites have different levels of quality and whether this is somehow connected to the digital divide. Examining the quality of campaign websites reflects scholarly research concerning information technology, the digital divide and political campaigns and elections. I observe the relative quality of House campaign websites from the 2002 mid-term election in relation to demographic features of a congressional district including race, family income and education. The objective is to predict the quality of these candidate websites using these variables; and, subsequently, to discover whether campaign website quality has a relationship to the digital divide.
Arnold, R.D. ( 1990) The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2.
Attewell, P. ( 2001) ‘The First and Second Digital Divides’ , Sociology of Education74(3): 252-9.
3.
Attewell, P. and J. Battle ( 1999) ‘Home Computers and School Performance’ , The Information Society15(1): 1-10.
4.
Babb, S. ( 1998) ‘The Internet as a Tool for Creating Economic Opportunity for Individuals and Families’, Unpublished dissertation , University of California, Los Angeles.
5.
Barber, B. ( 2001) ‘The Uncertainty of Digital Politics’ , Harvard International Review23(1): 42-7.
6.
Bertot, J.C. and C.R. McClure ( 1998) Moving Toward More Effective Public Internet Access: The 1998 National Survey of Public Library Outlet Internet Connectivity. Washington, DC: National Commission on Libraries and Information Science.
7.
Bimber, B. and R. Davis ( 2003) Campaigning Online: The Internet and US Elections . Oxford: Oxford University Press .
8.
Bucy, E.P. ( 2000) ‘Social Access to the Internet’, Harvard International Journal of Press/ Politics5(1): 50-61.
9.
Carlson, T. and G. Djupsund ( 2001) ‘Old Wine in New Bottles? The 1999 Finnish Election Campaign on the Internet’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics6(1): 68-87.
10.
Corrado, A. and C. Firestone ( 1999) Elections in Cyberspace: Toward a New Era in American Politics. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.
11.
Davis, R. ( 1999) The Web of Politics. New York : Oxford University Press.
12.
Davison, E. and S.R. Cotton ( 2003) ‘Connection Discrepancies: Unmasking Further Layers of the Digital Divide’, First Monday8(3), URL (consulted June 2006): http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue8_3/davison/
13.
Demoussis, M. and N. Giannakopoulos ( 2006) ‘The Dynamics of Home Computer Ownership in Greece’ , Information Economics and Policy18(1): 73-86.
14.
DiMaggio, P., E. Hargittai, C. Celeste and S. Shafer ( 2004) ‘From Unequal Access to Differentiated Use: A Literature Review and Agenda for Research on Digital Inequality’, in K. Neckerman (ed.) Social Inequality , pp. 355-400. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
15.
Downes, E.J. and S.J. McMillan ( 2000) ‘Defining Interactivity: A Qualitative Identification of Key Dimensions’, New Media & Society2(2): 157-79.
16.
Drori, G.S. and Y.S. Jang ( 2003) ‘The Global Digital Divide - A Sociological Assessment of Trends and Causes’, Social Science Computer Review21(2): 144-61.
17.
Fenno, R.F. ( 1978) Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
18.
Gibson, R., D. Gow, C. Bean and I. McAllister ( 2005) Australian Candidate Study, 2001 and 2004. Canberra: Australian Social Science Data Archive, The Australian National University.
19.
Gibson, R., S.J. Ward and L. Wainer ( 2003) ‘The Internet and Political Campaigning: The New Medium Comes of Age?’, Representation39(3): 166-80.
20.
Gownder, J.P. ( 2003) ‘An Online Revolution? I Don’t See It’ , The Washington Post, 6 July, p. B01.
21.
Greer, J. and M. LaPointe ( 2004) ‘Cyber-Campaigning Grows Up: A Comparative Content Analysis of Websites for US Senate and Gubernatorial Races, 1998-2000’ , in R. Gibson, A. Römmele, and S. Ward (eds) Electronic Democracy: Mobilization, Organization and Participation via New ICTs, pp. 116-32. London: Routledge .
22.
Guillén, M.F. and S. Suárez ( 2005) ‘Explaining the Global Digital Divide: Economic, Political and Sociological Drivers of Cross-National Internet Use’, Social Forces84(2): 681-708.
23.
Hagen, M.G. and W.G. Mayer ( 2000) ‘The Modern Politics of Presidential Selection: How Changing the Rules Really Did Change the Game’, in William G. Meyer (ed.) In Pursuit of the White House 2000: How We Choose our Presidential Nominees, pp. 1-55. New York : Chatham House.
24.
Hall, R.L. ( 1996) Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
Hargittai, E. ( 2002) ‘Second-Level Digital Divide: Differences in People’s Online Skills’, First Monday7(4), URL (consulted June 2006): http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_4/hargittai/
26.
Hoffman, D.L. and T.P. Novak ( 1998) ‘Bridging the Racial Divide on the Internet’ , Science280(5362): 390-1.
27.
Hoffman, D.L., T.P. Novak and A.E. Schlosser ( 2000) ‘The Evolution of the Digital Divide: How Gaps in Internet Access May Impact Electronic Commerce’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication5(3), URL (consulted August 2007): http://www. ascusc.org/jcmc/vol5/issue3/hoffman.html
28.
Ireland, E. and P. Nash ( 1999) ‘Campaign 2000: Parties Vie for Internet Dominance’ , URL (consulted August 2004): http://www.campaignadvantage.com/publications/book/campaign2000.html
29.
Kamarck, E.C. ( 2003) ‘Political Campaigning on the Internet: Business as Usual?’, in E.C. Kamarck and J.S. Nye Jr (eds) Governance.com: Democracy in the Information Age, pp. 81-103. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
30.
Katz, J.E. and P. Aspden ( 1997) ‘Motives, Hurdles, and Dropouts’, Communications of the ACM40(4): 97-102.
31.
Katz, J.E., R. Rice and P. Aspden ( 2001) ‘The Internet 1995-2000: Access, Civic Involvement and Social Interaction’, American Behavioral Scientist45(3): 405-19.
32.
Kluver, R., N. Jankowski, K.A. Foot and S.M. Schneider ( 2007) Introducing the Internet and Elections Project . In The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. London: Routledge .
33.
Kraut, R.E., W. Scherlis, T. Mukhopadhyay, J. Manning and S. Kiesler ( 1996) ‘The HomeNet Field Trial of Residential Internet Services’, Communications of the ACM39(12): 55-63.
34.
McLaren, J. and G. Zappalà ( 2002) ‘The "Digital Divide" among Financially Disadvantaged Families in Australia’, First Monday7(11), URL (consulted August 2007): http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue7_11/mclaren
35.
Margolis, M. and D. Resnick ( 1999) ‘Party Competition on the Internet in the United States and Britain’, Harvard International Journal of Politics4: 24-48.
36.
Margolis, M. and D. Resnick ( 2000) Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace Revolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
37.
Margolis, M., D. Resnick and J. Levy ( 2003) ‘Major Parties Dominate, Minor Parties Struggle US Elections and the Internet’, in R. Gibson, P. Nixon and S. Ward (eds) Political Parties and the Internet: Net Gain?London: Routledge .
38.
Mayhew, D.R. ( 1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
Mills, B. and B. Whitacre ( 2003) ‘Understanding the Non-Metropolitan - Metropolitan Digital Divide’, Growth and Change34(2): 219-43.
40.
Mossberger, K., C. Tolbert and M. Stansbury ( 2003) Virtual Inequality: Beyond the Digital Divide. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
41.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration ( 2004) ‘A Nation Online: Entering the Broadband Age’, NTIA Report, Washington, DC: Department of Commerce, URL (consulted February 2006): http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/anol2004/NationOnlineBroadband04.htm
42.
Nei, N.H. and L. Erbring ( 2000) Internet and Society: A Preliminary Report, URL (consulted June 2003): http://www.stanford.edu/group/siqss/Press_Release/Preliminary_Report.pdf
43.
Neu, C.R., R.H. Anderson and T.K. Bikson ( 1999) Sending Your Government a Message: Email Communication between Citizens and Government. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
44.
Norris, P. ( 2001) Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet in Democratic Societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45.
Preece, J. ( 2000) Online Communities: Designing Usability, Supporting Sociability . Chichester: John Wiley & Sons .
46.
Reavy, M.M. and D.D. Perlmutter ( 1996) ‘Presidential Websites as Sources of Information: The Next Knowledge Gap in the Making?’, paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Los Angeles, CA, June.
47.
Rice, R.E. and J. Katz ( 2003) ‘Comparing Internet and Mobile Phone Usage: Digital Divides of Usage, Adoption, and Dropouts’, Telecommunications Policy27(8): 597-623.
48.
Robinson, J.P., M. Kestnbaum, A. Neustadtl and A. Alverez ( 2003) ‘Internet Use and Time Displacement’ , paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA , 27 May.
49.
Shelley, M., L. Thrane, S. Shulman, E. Lang, S. Beisser and T. Larson ( 2004) ‘Digital Citizenship: Parameters of the Digital Divide’, Social Science Computer Review22(2): 256-69.
50.
Stromer-Galley, J. ( 2000) ‘On-line Interaction and Why Candidates Avoid It’ , Journal of Communication50(4): 111-32.
51.
Strover, S. ( 1999) ‘Rural Internet Connectivity’, Rural Policy Research Institute, Columbia, MO. URL (consulted July 2007): http://www.rupri.org/pubs/archive/reports/1999/P99_13/index.html
52.
Ward, S.J. and R.K. Gibson ( 2003) ‘On-line and On Message? Candidate Websites in the 2001 General Election’, British Journal of Politics & International Relations5(2): 108-256.
53.
Ward, S. and W. Lusoli ( 2005) ‘From Weird to Wired: MPs, the Internet and Representative Politics in the UK’, Journal of Legislative Studies11(3): 1-25.
54.
West, D.M. ( 2005) ‘State and Federal E-government in the United States’ , URL (consulted August 2005): http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Taubman_Center/polreports/egovt01us.html
55.
Wilson, E.J. ( 2000) ‘Closing the Digital Divide: An Initial Review’ , URL (consulted May 2007): http://www.internetpolicy.org/briefing/ErnestWilson0700.html
