Political communication has transformed drastically since the Internet made its way into the political arena. Political parties seem unable to do without a website or a social networking profile any longer, particularly in election campaigns. One of the many approaches to studying online political communication is measuring specific website features political parties, politicians and candidates utilize in order to engage visitors in the political process. Even though the analysis of online political communication has evolved over the years, website-feature analysis is still a valid instrument to study political actors. The explanations sought to understand website-feature utilization are found in earlier cross-national comparative studies (technological and human development) as well as new ones (political systems characteristics, ideology, participation and engagement). This study looks back on two prior cross-national comparative research projects and reports on a cross-national comparative analysis of 1026 candidate and party websites from 17 countries participating in the European Parliament (EP) elections of 2009. To analyze these data, some methodological improvements are made compared to earlier studies.
AndersonPJMcLeodA (2004) The great non-communicator? The mass communication deficit of the European Parliament and its press directorate. JCMS-Journal of Common Market Studies42(5): 897–917.
2.
AnsteadNChadwickA (2009) Parties, election campaigning, and the Internet. In: ChadwickAHowardPN (eds) Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge, pp. 56–71.
3.
BimberB (1998) The Internet and political transformation: populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity31: 133–160.
4.
BimberBDavisR (2003) Campaigning Online: The Internet in US Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
5.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14: 417–439.
6.
ChenP (2010) Adoption and use of digital media in election campaigns: Australia, Canada and New Zealand. Public Communication Review1: 3–26.
7.
CohenJCohenPWestSG. (2003) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
CoxGW (1997) Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World’s Electoral Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CunhaCMartinINewellR. (2003) Southern European parties and party systems, and the new ICTs. In: GibsonRNixonPWardS (eds) Net Gain? Political Parties and the Impact of New Information Communication Technologies. London: Routledge, pp. 70–97.
10.
CzesnikMKotnarowskiMMarkowskiR (2010) EES (2009) contextual dataset codebook, advance release, 16/05/2010. Available at: www.piredeu.eu.
11.
De VreeseCH (2005) The spiral of cynicism reconsidered. European Journal of Communication20(3): 283–301.
12.
De VreeseCH (2009) Second-rate election campaigning? An analysis of campaign styles in European Parliamentary elections. Journal of Political Marketing8(1): 7–19.
13.
De VreeseCHBanducciSASemetkoHA. (2006) The news coverage of the 2004 European Parliamentary election campaign in 25 countries. European Union Politics7(4): 477–504.
FarrellDM (2001) Electoral Systems: A Comparative Introduction. London: Palgrave.
20.
FlickingerRSStudlarDT (2007) One Europe, many electorates? Models of turnout in European Parliament elections after 2004. Comparative Political Studies40(4): 383–404.
21.
FootKASchneiderSMDoughertyM (2007a) Online structure for political action in the 2004 US congressional electoral web sphere. In: KluverRJankowskiNWFootKA. (eds) The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. London: Routledge, pp. 92–103.
22.
FootKASchneiderSMKluverR. (2007b) Comparing web production practices across electoral web spheres. In: KluverRJankowskiNWFootKA. (eds) The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. London: Routledge, pp. 243–260.
23.
FranklinMNVan Der EijkCOppenhuisE (1996) The institutional context: turnout. In:Van Der EijkCFranklinMN (eds) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 306–331.
24.
GibsonRKRömmeleA (2001) Changing campaign communications – a party-centered theory of professionalized campaigning. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics6(4): 31–43.
25.
GibsonRKMargolisMResnickD. (2003) Election campaigning on the WWW in the USA and UK – a comparative analysis. Party Politics9(1): 47–75.
26.
GronlundKSetäläM (2007) Political trust, satisfaction and voter turnout. Comparative European Politics5: 400–422.
27.
GueorguievaV (2008) Voters, MySpace, and YouTube – the impact of alternative communication channels on the 2006 election cycle and beyond. Social Science Computer Review26(3): 288–300.
28.
HadjarABeckM (2010) Who does not participate in elections and why is this? A multilevel analysis of social mechanisms behind non-voting. European Societies12(4): 521–542.
29.
HansonGHaridakisPMCunninghamAW. (2010) The 2008 presidential campaign: political cynicism in the age of Facebook, MySpace, and YouTube. Mass Communication and Society13(5): 584–607.
30.
JacksonNALillekerDG (2010) Tentative steps towards interaction. The use of the Internet in the British European Parliament election 2009. Internet Research20(5): 527–544.
31.
KemanH (2007) Experts and manifestos: different sources – same results for comparative research?Electoral Studies26(1): 76–89.
32.
KleinnijenhuisJVan HoofAMJOegemaD (2006) Negative news and the sleeper effect of distrust. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics11: 86–104.
33.
KluverRJankowskiNWFootK. (eds) (2007) The Internet and National Elections: A Comparative Study of Web Campaigning. London: Routledge.
34.
LappasGChatzopoulosSYannasP (2008) Parliamentary candidates running on the Web for the 2004 Greek national elections. Journal of Political Marketing7(3/4): 256–277.
35.
LillekerDGMalagónC (2010) Levels of interactivity in the 2007 French presidential candidates’ websites. European Journal of Communication25(1): 25–42.
36.
LillekerDGKoc-MichalskaKSchweitzerEJ. (2011) Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: searching for a European model of Web campaigning. European Journal of Communication26(3): 195–213.
37.
LubbersMScheepersP (2010) Divergent trends of euroscepticism in countries and regions of the European Union. European Journal of Political Research49(6): 787–817.
38.
LusoliW (2005) A second-order medium? The Internet as a source of electoral information in 25 European countries. Information Polity10: 247–265.
39.
MarshMFranklinMN (1996) The foundations: unanswered questions from the study of European elections, 1979–1994. In: Van Der EijkCFranklinMN (eds) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 11–32.
40.
NorrisP (2000) The Internet in Europe: a new North−South divide?Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics5(1): 1–12.
41.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide? Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet Worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
NorrisP (2003) Preaching to the converted? Pluralism, participation and party websites. Party Politics9(1): 21–45.
PfetschB (2004) From political culture to political communications culture: a theoretical approach to comparative analysis. In: EsserFPfetschB (eds) Comparing Political Communication: Theories, Cases, and Challenges. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 344–366.
46.
RaeD (1968) Fractionalization of some European party systems. Comparative Political Studies1(3): 413–418.
47.
RasbashJCharltonCBrowneWJ. (2009) MLwiN (Version 2.1). Bristol: Centre for Multilevel Modelling, University of Bristol.
48.
RaudenbushSWBrykAS (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods, 2nd edn.London: SAGE.
49.
ScholtenORuigrokN (2006) Politiek en politici in het nieuws in vijf landelijke dagbladen [Politics and Politicians in the News of Five Newspapers]. Amsterdam: Persinstituut/Nieuwsmonitor.
50.
SchweitzerEJ (2008) Innovation or normalization in E-campaigning? A longitudinal content and structural analysis of German party websites in the 2002 and 2005 national elections. European Journal of Communication23(4): 449–470.
51.
SchweitzerEJ (2010) Global patterns of virtual mudslinging? The use of attacks on German party websites in state, national and European Parliamentary elections. German Politics19(2): 200–221.
52.
SeawrightJGerringJ (2008) Case selection techniques in case study research: a menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly61(2): 294–308.
53.
SemetkoHA (2007) Political communication. In: KlingemannHDDaltonRJ (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 123–143.
54.
SemetkoHADe VreeseCHPeterJ (2000) Europeanised politics – Europeanised media? European integration and political communication. West European Politics23(4): 121–141.
55.
StrandbergK (2009) Online campaigning: an opening for the outsiders? An analysis of Finnish parliamentary candidates’ websites in the 2003 election campaign. New Media & Society11(5): 835–854.
56.
Van OsRJankowskiNWVergeerM (2007) Political communication about Europe on the Internet during the 2004 European Parliament election campaign in nine EU member states. European Societies9(5): 755–775.
57.
VergeerMHermansL (in press) Campaigning on Twitter. Micro-blogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication.
58.
VergeerMHermansLSamsS (in press) Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: the exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics, doi: 10.1177/1354068811407580.
59.
WuHDDahmenNS (2010) Web sponsorship and campaign effects: assessing the difference between positive and negative web sites. Journal of Political Marketing9(4): 314–329.
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.
