Politics and Online Social Networking

     Social networking is the process of contacting people to keep updated with each other. Political networking (keeping in touch with campaign workers, supporters, donors, etc) has changed radically over the past several years, and with technology advancing all the time, traditional face-to-face networking has been replaced with instantaneous online tools such as Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. Email has almost completely replaced “snail mail”, while instant messaging, texting and status updates on Facebook and Twitter have changed telephone calls into very short tidbits of information, or sound-bites. Now and in the future, online social networking will be an invaluable aid to political campaigns.

     What started out as an electronic method to aid in business communications, really took off when it was adapted to personal communications. It is a much faster, cheaper and more efficient method of keeping in touch – where a letter may take a couple of days to arrive, the travel of email can be measured in seconds. There are no stamps or envelopes to buy, and if several different people need to be notified then just one email that includes everyone will suffice, as opposed to a separate letter for each person. This has dramatically cut the cost of notifying the public about a candidate’s qualifications, stance on current topics, and calendar of appearances. All of these can now be found within minutes via email or accessing the candidate’s web page. Multiple emails can be sent at all times of the day or night, and the mass emails that were sent out during the 2008 US presidential election organized supporters as never before.

     While emails can be very detailed with loads upon loads of information, text messages and instant messaging cuts out all of the fluff, severely condensing the notes into much smaller doses. The instant gratification of texts and IM’s was taken to the next level by Twitter, particularly during the Iranian election in June of 2009. The results of the election were hotly contested by the Iranian public, but when they protested, those in power fought back – violently. The government in Iran limited the amount of information that the rest of the world would get by banning international reporters and sometimes blocking internet access to their own people. However, they couldn’t just turn the internet off all the time – even they needed to use it. Twitter thus enabled the people on the ground to get the word out to others about what was actually happening, and planning more protests. Once a source of bemusement to many, Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube have quickly become “the” location for candidates to distribute news and updates, without any distractions or interruptions.

     All of these online applications carry one very big difference to traditional face-to-face networking – they are all highly interactive. Indeed, they almost cry out for people to respond, constantly asking for viewpoints and suggestions. In the past, only the candidates were the ones who spoke, through their campaign materials delivered by the Post Office or canvassing volunteers. Now, however, the voting public speaks out through electronic media, especially when they feel they are being threatened. Candidates who are slow to utilize these new tools do not fare well. They can be seen as uncompromising, stodgy, out of touch, and behind the times – none of which would help them to woo voters, especially young people who use online social networking every day.