Digital media are often blamed for accelerating the decline of political parties as channels for citizen participation. By contrast, we show that political engagement on social media may revitalize party activities because these platforms are means for both party members and ordinary citizens to discuss politics and engage with and around political parties. Using online surveys conducted in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom, we find that party members engage in a wider variety of party-related activities than average respondents, but the same can also be said of nonparty members who informally discuss politics on social media. Moreover, the strength of the relationship between party membership and engagement decreases as the intensity of political discussion on social media increases. This suggests that political discussions on social media can narrow the divide in party-related engagement between members and nonmembers, and to some extent flatten rather than reinforce existing political hierarchies. Finally, we find that the correlation between party membership and engagement is stronger in Germany, where party organizations are more robust, than in Italy and the United Kingdom, highlighting the role of party organizational legacies in the digital age.
The American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). 2015. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 8th Edition. Oakbrook Terrace, IL: AAPOR.
2.
AnsteadNickChadwickAndrew. 2009. “Parties, Election Campaigning and the Internet: Toward a Comparative Institutional Approach.” In The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, ed. ChadwickAndrewHowardPhilip N., 56–71. London: Routledge.
3.
BawnKathleenCohenMartinKarolDavidMasketSethNoelHansZallerJohn. 2012. “A Theory of Political Parties: Groups, Policy Demands and Nominations in American Politics.” Perspectives on Politics10 (3): 571–97.
4.
BlaisAndré. 2007. “Turnout in Elections.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior, ed. DaltonRussell J.KlingemannHans-Dieter, 621–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
5.
ChadwickAndrew. 2007. “Digital Network Repertoires and Organizational Hybridity.” Political Communication24 (3): 283–301.
6.
ChadwickAndrew. 2009. “Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance.” I/S: Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society5 (1): 9–41.
7.
ColemanStephen. 2005. “The Lonely Citizen: Indirect Representation in an Age of Networks.” Political Communication22 (2): 197–214.
8.
DaltonRussell J.1984. “Cognitive Mobilization and Partisan Dealignment in Advanced Industrial Democracies.” The Journal of Politics46 (1): 264–84.
9.
EdwardsArthur. 2006. “ICT Strategies of Democratic Intermediaries: A View on the Political System in the Digital Age.” Information Polity11 (2): 163–76.
10.
EnosRyan D.HershEitan D.2015. “Party Activists as Campaign Advertisers: The Ground Campaign as a Principal-Agent Problem.” American Political Science Review109 (02): 252–78. doi:10.1017/S0003055415000064.
11.
GibsonRachel. 2015. “Party Change, Social Media and the Rise of ‘Citizen-Initiated’ Campaigning.” Party Politics21 (2): 183–97.
12.
GibsonRachelCantijochMarta. 2013. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline?”The Journal of Politics75 (3): 701–16.
13.
Gil de ZúñigaHomeroMolyneuxLoganZhengPei. 2014. “Social Media, Political Expression, and Political Participation: Panel Analysis of Lagged and Concurrent Relationships.” Journal of Communication64 (4): 612–34.
14.
Gil de ZúñigaHomeroValenzuelaSebastiàn. 2011. “The Mediating Path to a Stronger Citizenship: Online and Offline Networks, Weak Ties and Civic Engagement.” Communication Research38 (3): 397–421.
15.
HeaneyMichael T.RojasFabio. 2015. Party in the Street: The Antiwar Movement and the Democratic Party after 9/11. New York: Cambridge University Press.
16.
HeidarKnut. 2006. “Party Membership and Participation.” In Handbook of Party Politics, ed. KatzRichardCrottyWilliam, 301–15. London: Sage.
JacksonNigel A.LillekerDarren G.2009. “Building an Architecture of Participation? Political Parties and Web 2.0 in Britain.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics6 (3–4): 232–50.
19.
JunUwe. 2011. “Volksparteien under Pressure: Challenges and Adaptation.” German Politics20 (1): 200–22.
20.
KingGaryHonakerJamesJosephAnneScheveKenneth. 2001. “Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation.” American Political Science Review95 (1): 49–69.
21.
KirchheimerOtto. 1966. “The Transformation of the Western European Party Systems.” In Political Parties and Political Development, ed. PolombaraJoseph LaWeinerMyron, 177–200. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
22.
KreissDaniel. 2012. Taking Our Country Back: The Crafting of Networked Politics from Howard Dean to Barack Obama. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
23.
KwakNojinWilliamsAnnWangXiaoruLeeHoon. 2005. “Talking Politics and Engaging Politics: An Examination of the Interactive Relationships between Structural Features of Political Talk and Discussion Engagement.” Communication Research32:87–111.
24.
LawsonKay, ed. 1980. Political Parties and Linkage: A Comparative Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.
25.
MairPeter. 1995. “Political Parties, Popular Legitimacy and Public Privilege.” West European Politics18 (3): 40–57.
26.
MargettsHelen. 2006. “Cyber Parties.” In Handbook of Party Politics, ed. KatzRichard S.CrottyWilliam, 528–35. London: Sage.
27.
MargolisMichaelResnickDavid K.2000. Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace “Revolution.”London: Sage.
28.
MoscaLorenzoVaccariCristianValerianiAugusto. 2015. “An Internet-Fuelled Party? The Five Star Movement and the Web.” In Beppe Grillo’s Five Star Movement: Organisation, Communication and Ideology, ed. TronconiFilippo, 127–52. Farnham: Ashgate.
29.
NielsenRasmus Kleis. 2012. Ground Wars: Personalized Communication in Political Campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30.
NorrisPippa. 2003. “Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, Participation and Party Websites.” Party Politics9 (1): 21–45.
31.
NorrisPippa. 2006. “Recruitment.” In Handbook of Party Politics, ed. KatzRichard S.CrottyWilliam, 89–108. London: Sage.
32.
NorrisPippaCurticeJohn. 2008. “Getting the Message Out: A Two-Step Model of the Role of the Internet in Campaign Communication Flows during the 2005 British General Election.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics4 (4): 3–13.
33.
OserJenniferHoogheMarcMarienSofie. 2013. “Is Online Participation Distinct from Offline Participation? A Latent Class Analysis of Participation Types and Their Stratification.” Political Research Quarterly66 (1): 91–101.
34.
PanebiancoAngelo. 1988. Political Parties: Organization and Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
35.
PasekJosh. 2015. “When Will Nonprobability Surveys Mirror Probability Surveys? Considering Types of Inference and Weighting Strategies as Criteria for Correspondence.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Published electronically August8. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edv016.
36.
RojasHernandoPuig-i-AbrilEulalla. 2009. “Mobilizers Mobilized: Information, Expression, Mobilization and Participation in the Digital Age.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication14 (4): 902–27.
37.
ScarrowSusan. 2015. Beyond Party Members: Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
38.
SchlozmanKay LehmanVerbaSidneyBradyHenry E.2010. “Weapon of the Strong? Participatory Inequality and the Internet.” Perspectives on Politics8 (2): 487–509.
39.
Stromer-GalleyJennifer. 2014. Presidential Campaigning in the Internet Age. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
40.
VaccariCristian. 2013. Digital Politics in Western Democracies: A Comparative Study. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
41.
VaccariCristianValerianiAugustoBarberáPabloBonneauRichJostJohn T.NaglerJonathanTuckerJoshua A.2015. “Political Expression and Action on Social Media: Exploring the Relationship between Lower-and Higher-Threshold Political Activities among Twitter Users in Italy.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication20(2): 221–39.
42.
ValerianiAugustoVaccariCristian. 2015. “Accidental Exposure to Politics on Social Media as Online Participation Equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.” New Media & Society. Published electronically November18. doi:10.1177/1461444815616223.
43.
Van BiezenIngridMairPeterPoguntkeThomas. 2012. “Going, Going . . . Gone? The Decline of Party Membership in Contemporary Europe.” European Journal of Political Research51 (1): 24–56.
44.
WardStephenGibsonRachel. 2009. “European Political Organizations and the Internet. Mobilization, Participation and Change.” In Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, ed. ChadwickAndrewHowardPhilip N., 25–39. London and New York: Routledge.
45.
WhiteleyPaul. (2011). “Is the Party Over? The Decline of Party Activism and Membership across the Democratic World.” Party Politics17 (1): 21–44.
46.
WhiteleyPaulSeydPatrick. 2003. “How to Win a Landslide by Really Trying: The Effects of Local Campaigning on Voting in the 1997 British General Election.” Electoral Studies22 (2): 301–24.
47.
WojcieszakMagdalena E.MutzDiana C.2009. “Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?” Journal of Communication59 (1): 40–56.
48.
WrightScott. 2012. “Politics as Usual? Revolution, Normalization and a New Agenda for Online Deliberation.” New Media & Society14 (2): 244–61.
49.
XenosMichaelMoyPatricia. 2007. “Direct and Differential Effects of the Internet on Political and Civic Engagement.” Journal of Communication57 (4): 704–18.
