Political parties and candidates have not been immune to the changes that the Internet and social media have introduced in electoral campaigns. Yet, as the use of digital media by political elites is becoming a norm in the United States, in Europe, the decision to develop an online presence depends on the cross-national differences regarding candidates’ constraints and incentives. European Parliament elections present an exceptional comparative opportunity to measure this potential diversity. Using an original database on the online presence of more than 5000 candidates competing under the label of incumbent parties in 2014, we demonstrate that there are two relevant groups of nonadopters, and that candidates’ online campaign intensity varies significantly depending on incumbency and the ballot structure in their countries.
AdamSMaierM (2011) National parties as politicizers of EU integration? Party campaign communication in the run-up to the 2009 European Parliament election. European Union Politics12(3): 431–453.
2.
AllowayTAllowayR (2012) The impact of engagement with social networking sites (SNSs) on cognitive skills. Computers in Human Behavior28(5): 1748–1754.
3.
AnsolabehereS (2006) The paradox of minimal effects. In: BradyHJohnstonR (eds) Capturing Campaign Effects, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, pp. 29–44.
4.
AnsteadNChadwickA (2008) Parties, election campaigning, and the Internet. Towards a comparative institutional approach. In: ChadwickAHowardPN (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, New York: Routledge, pp. 56–71.
5.
Barbera P, Bonneau R, Egan P, et al. (2014) Leaders or followers? Measuring political responsiveness in the U.S. Congress using social media data. In: 110th American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, 28–31 August.
6.
BimberB (2014) Digital media in the Obama campaigns of 2008 and 2012: Adaptation to the personalized political communication environment. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 130–150.
7.
BoulianneS (2009) Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of research. Political Communication26(2): 193–211.
8.
BowlerSFarrellD (2011) Electoral institutions and campaigning in comparative perspective: Electioneering in European Parliament elections. European Journal of Political Research50(5): 668–688.
9.
BradyHJohnstonRSidesJ (2006) Capturing Campaign Effects, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
10.
CainBFerejohnJFiorinaM (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
11.
CarlsonTDjupsundG (2001) Old wine in new bottles? Candidates on the Internet in the 1999 Finnish parliamentary election campaign. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics6(1): 68–87.
12.
CarlsonTStrandbergK (2008) Riding the Web 2.0 Wave: Candidates on YouTube in the 2007 Finnish National Elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics5(2): 159–174.
13.
De VreeseCHBanducciSSemetkoHA (2006) The news coverage of the 2004 European Parliamentary election campaign in 25 countries. European Union Politics7(4): 477–504.
14.
DruckmanJKiferMParkinM (2007) The technological development of congressional candidate web sites: How and why candidates use web innovations. Social Science Computer Review25(4): 425–442.
15.
DruckmanJKiferMParkinM (2009) Campaign communication in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review103(3): 343–366.
16.
DruckmanJKiferMParkinM (2013) U.S. congressional campaign communications in an internet age. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties24(1): 20–44.
17.
FootKASchneiderC (2006) Web Campaigning, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
GibsonRWardS (2000) A proposed methodology for studying the function and effectiveness of party and candidate web sites. Social Science Computer Review18(3): 301–319.
19.
GibsonR (2013) Party change, social media and the rise of ‘citizen-initiated’ campaigning. Party Politics21(2): 183–197.
20.
GieblerHWüstA (2011) Campaigning on an upper level? Individual campaigning in the 2009 European Parliament elections in its determinants. Electoral Studies30(1): 53–66.
21.
GulatiGJWilliamsCB (2013) Social media and campaign 2012: Developments and trends for Facebook adoption. Social Science Computer Review31(5): 577–588.
22.
HansenKKosiara-PedersenK (2014) Cyber-campaigning in Denmark: Application and effects of candidate campaigning. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 206–219.
23.
HixSMarshM (2011) Second-order effects plus pan-European political swings: An analysis of European Parliament elections across time. Electoral Studies30(1): 4–15.
24.
HoboltSFranklinM (2011) Introduction: Electoral democracy in the European Union. Electoral Studies30(1): 1–3.
JensenCSpoonJJ (2010) Thinking locally, acting supranationally: Niche party behaviour in the European Parliament. European Journal of Political Research49(2): 174–201.
27.
KarlsenR (2010) Fear of the political consultant. Campaign professionals and new technology in Norwegian electoral politics. Party Politics16(2): 193–214.
28.
KarlsenRSkogerboE (2013) Candidate campaigning in parliamentary systems: Individualized vs. localized campaigning. Party Politics19(1): 1–12.
29.
Koc-MichalskaKLillekerDSurowiecP (2014) Poland’s 2011 online election campaign: New tools, new professionalism, new ways to win votes. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 186–205.
30.
LarssonAOKalsnesB (2014) Of course we are on Facebook: Use and non-use of social media among Swedish and Norwegian politicians. European Journal of Communication29(6): 653–667.
31.
LarssonAOMoeH (2011) Studying political microblogging: Twitter users in the 2010 Swedish election campaign. New Media & Society14(5): 729–747.
32.
LillekerDKoc-MichalskaK (2013) Online political communication strategies: MEPs, E-representation, and self-representation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics10(2): 190–207.
33.
LillekerDKoc-MichalskaKSchweitzerE (2011) Informing, engaging, mobilizing or interacting: Searching for a European model of web campaigning. European Journal of Communication26(3): 195–213.
34.
LongJSFreeseJ (2006) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd edn. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
35.
LupiaAPhilpotT (2008) Views from inside the net: How websites affect young adults’ political interest. The Journal of Politics67(4): 1122–1142.
36.
MarcinkowskiFMetagJ (2014) Why do candidates use online media in constituency campaigning? An application of the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Information Technology & Politics11(2): 151–168.
37.
MargolisMResnickD (1999) Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace Revolution, London: Sage.
38.
NewellJ (2001) Italian political parties on the Web. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics6(4): 60–87.
39.
NixonPJohanssonH (1999) Transparency through technology: The Internet and political parties. In: HagueBLoaderB (eds) Digital democracy: Discourse and democracy in the information age, London: Routledge, pp. 135–152.
40.
NorrisP (2001) Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
41.
NorrisP (2003) Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, Participation and Party Websites. Party Politics9(1): 21–45.
ReifKSchmittH (1980) Nine second-order national elections: A conceptual framework for the analysis of European election results. European Journal of Political Research8(1): 3–45.
44.
RogersE (2003) Diffusion of Innovations, 4th ed. New York: Free Press.
45.
Sadow J and James K (1999) Virtual billboards? Candidate web sites and campaigning in 1998. In: 95th American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Atlanta, September.
46.
SchmittHHoboltSBPopaSA (2015) Does personalization increase turnout? Spitzenkandidaten in the 2014 European Parliament elections. European Union Politics16(3): 347–368.
47.
SelnowGW (1998) Electronic Whistle Stops: The Impact of the Internet on American Politics, Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
48.
Statistical Office of the European Communities (2014) EUROSTAT: Information Society Key Indicators. Luxembourg: Eurostat.
49.
StegmuellerD (2013) How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches. American Journal of Political Science57(3): 748–761.
50.
StrandbergK (2013) A social media revolution or just a case of history repeating itself? The use of social media in the 2011 Finnish parliamentary elections. New Media & Society15(8): 1329–1347.
51.
SudulichMLWallMFarrellD (2013) Why bother campaigning? Campaign effectiveness in the 2009 European Parliament elections. Electoral Studies32(4): 768–778.
52.
VaccariC (2008) Research note: Italian parties’ websites in the 2006 elections. European Journal of Communication23(1): 69–77.
53.
VaccariC (2010) Technology is a commodity: The internet in the 2008 presidential election. Journal of Information Technology & Politics7(4): 318–339.
54.
VergeerMHermansL (2013) Campaigning on Twitter: Microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 general elections in the Netherlands. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication18(4): 399–419.
55.
VergeerMHermansLCunhaC (2012) Web campaigning in the 2009 European Parliament elections: A cross-national comparative analysis. New Media & Society15(1): 128–148.
56.
VergeerMHermansLSamsS (2011) Online social networks and micro-blogging in political campaigning: The exploration of a new campaign tool and a new campaign style. Party Politics19(3): 477–501.
57.
WilliamsCBGulatiGJ (2012) Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society15(1): 52–71.
58.
YiMJacksonJParkJ (2006) Understanding information technology acceptance by individual professionals: Toward an integrative view. Information & Management43(3): 350–363.
59.
ZittelT (2003) Political representation in the networked society: The Americanisation of European systems of responsible party government?The Journal of Legislative Studies9(3): 32–53.
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.
