A Comparison of Conventional and Internet Political Mobilization

Abstract

The high cost of contacting individuals encourages mobilizing institutions to maximize resources by targeting those most likely to effectively respond, resulting in stimulation of the politically engaged, civically skilled, and socioeconomically advantaged. By dramatically reducing communication costs, the Internet should eliminate the underpinning of this “rational prospecting.” However, because most e-mail addresses are not available in public directories and cultural norms make sending unsolicited e-mail politically risky, individuals generally must provide their e-mail address before receiving e-mail messages from political organizations. Online mobilization campaigns should disproportionately contact those with the political motivation and technical ability to submit their e-mail. The author tests these expectations about online political mobilization using a probability sample survey. Although most of the long-standing determinants of offline political mobilization fail to predict online mobilization, political interest and Internet skills powerfully determine online mobilization. However, because socioeconomic status, civic skills, and political interest directly predict online skills, these factors indirectly influence the likelihood of online mobilization.

Keywords

political mobilization political participation voting Internet use political e-mail rational prospecting

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramson, P. , & Claggett, W. (2001). Recruitment and political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 54, 905-916.

Ansolabehere, S. , Iyengar, S. , Simon, A. , & Valentino, N. (1994). Does attack advertising demobilize the electorate? American Political Science Review, 88, 829-838.

Bailey, D. (2000). Election 2000: The Y2K political explosion. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5, 86-88.

Best, S. , & Krueger, B. (2004). Internet data collection. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Best, S. , & Krueger, B. (2005). Analyzing the representativeness of Internet political participation. Political Behavior, 27, 183-216.

Bimber, B. (1998). The Internet and political mobilization. Social Science Computer Review, 16, 391-401.

Bimber, B. (2003). Information and American democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Brady, H. , Schlozman, K. L. , & Verba, S. (1999). Prospecting for participants: Rational expectations and the recruitment of political activists. American Political Science Review, 93, 153-168.

Bucy, E. (2000). Social access to the Internet. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 5, 50-61.

10.

Coombs, K. (1999, February). Online voter mobilization: The Gilmore model. Campaigns & Elections, pp. 26-28.

11.

Cornfield, M. (2004). New and improved. Campaigns & Elections, pp. 25-25, 42-42.

12.

Delli Carpini, M. (2000). Gen.com: Youth, civic engagement, and the new information environment. Political Communication, 17, 341-349.

13.

Fallows, D. (2003). Spam: How it is hurting e-mail and degrading life on the Internet. Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available from Pew Internet and American Life Project Web site, http://www.pewinternet.org/

14.

Farnsworth, S. , & Owen, D. (2004). Internet use and the 2000 presidential election. Electoral Studies, 23, 415-429.

15.

Fuller, J. (2004). Equality in cyberdemocracy? Gauging gender gaps in on-line civic participation. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 938-957.

16.

Gershtenson, J. (2003). Mobilization strategies of the Democrats and Republicans, 1956-2000. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 293-308.

17.

Goldstein, K. , & Ridout, T. (2002). The politics of participation: Mobilization and turnout over time. Political Behavior, 24, 3-29.

18.

Grossman, S. (2004). Keeping unwanted donkeys and elephants out of your inbox: The case for regulating political spam. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 19, 1553-1575.

19.

Johnson, T. , & Kaye, B. (2003). A boost or bust for democracy? Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8, 9-34.

20.

Krueger, B. (2002). Assessing the potential of Internet political participation in the United States: A resource approach. American Politics Research, 30, 476-498.

21.

Leege, D. , Wald, K. , Krueger, B. , & Mueller, P. (2002). Politics of cultural differences: Social change and voter mobilization strategies in the post-new deal period. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

22.

Levy, S. (2004). Dean’s net effect is just the start. Newsweek, 143, 73-73.

23.

McCullagh, D. (2003). Dean campaign says it spammed. CNET.com. Retrieved May 10, 2006, from http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5065141.html

24.

National Telecommunications and Information Administration . (2000). Falling through the net: Toward digital inclusion. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce.

25.

Norris, P. (2002). Political campaigning on the Internet: Business as usual? In E. Kamarck & J. Nye, Jr. (Eds.), Governance.com (pp. 81-103). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

26.

Owen, D. (2000). Service learning and political socialization. PS: Political Science & Politics, 33, 638-640.

27.

Piven, F. F. , & Cloward, R. (2000). Why Americans still don’t vote: And why politicians want it that way. Boston: Beacon.

28.

Reilly, M. , & Deutsch, K. (1999, February). Making the most of a Website: Rules to follow. Campaigns & Elections, pp. 28-32.

29.

Rosenstone, S. , & Hansen, J. M. (1993). Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.

30.

Shah, D. , Mcleod, J. , & Yoon, S. (2001). Communication, context, and community. Communication Research, 28, 464-506.

31.

Tolbert, C. , & McNeal, R. (2003). Unraveling the effects of the Internet on political participation? Political Research Quarterly, 56, 175-185.

32.

Trippi, J. (2004). The revolution will not be televised: Democracy, the Internet, and the overthrow of everything. New York: HarperCollins.

33.

Verba, S. , Schlozman, K. L. , & Brady, H. (1995). Voice and equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

34.

Ward, S. , Gibson, R. , & Lusoli, W. (2003). Online participation and mobilization in Britain: Hype, hope and reality. Parliamentary Affairs, 56, 652-668.

35.

Weber, L. , Loumakis, A. , & Bergman, J. (2003). Who participates and why?: An analysis of citizens on the Internet and the mass public. Social Science Computer Review, 21, 26-42.

36.

Wielhouwer, P. (2003). In search of Lincoln’s perfect list: Targeting in grassroots campaigns. American Politics Research, 31, 632-669.

37.

Wolf, G. (2004, September). Weapons of mass mobilization. Wired Magazine, pp. 1-4.