Party soldiers on personal platforms? Politicians’ personalized use of social media
Abstract
Social media are seen as a catalyst for personalized politics, and social media activity has, therefore, been used as an indicator of personalized representation. However, this may lead to an overestimation because politicians can behave as party soldiers even on their personal social media platforms. This article proposes that we need to examine the content of politicians’ social media communication to evaluate levels of personalized representation and understand the drivers behind it. Based on a full year’s Facebook activity of Danish members of Parliament including 28,000 updates, this study documents two main results. First, politicians do use Facebook to manage their personal image, but they also attend to their party duties. Attending to content suggests that activity measures overestimate personalized representation by at least 20 percentage points. Second, in contrast to expectations, mainly electorally secure politicians personalize communication on social media, which suggests that vote getters may enjoy more party duty leeway.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
Adler ES, Gent CE, Overmeyer CB (1998) The home style homepage: Legislator use of the World Wide Web for constituency contact. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23: 585–595.
Aldrich JH (1995) Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
André A, Depauw S, Martin S (2015) Electoral systems and legislators’ constituency effort: the mediating effect of electoral vulnerability. Comparative Political Studies 48(4): 464–496.
Baum MA, Jamison AS (2006) The Oprah effect: how soft news helps inattentive citizens vote consistently. The Journal of Politics 68(4): 946–959.
Baumgartner Frank R., Breunig Christian, Grossman Emiliano (eds), (2019) Comparative Policy Agendas: Theory, Tools, Data. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.
Bille L (2000) A power centre in Danish politics. In: Heidar K, Koole R (eds), Parliamentary Party Groups in European Democracies. Political Parties behind Closed Doors. London: Routledge, pp. 130–144.
Bøggild T, Pedersen HH (2020) Voter reaction to legislator dissent across political systems. Electoral Studies 68: 102235.
Campbell R, Cowley P, Vivyan N, et al. (2019) Legislator dissent as a valence signal. British Journal of Political Science 49(1): 105–128.
Carey JM (2007) Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92–107.
Carey JM (2009) Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carey JM, Shugart MS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral studies 14(4): 417–439.
Carson JL, Koger G, Lebo MJ, et al. (2010) The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science 54(3): 598–616.
Cross W, Young L (2015) Personalization of campaigns in an SMP system: the Canadian case. Electoral Studies 39: 306–315.
Cross WP, Katz RS, Pruysers S (eds), (2018) The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International, Limited.
Dalton RJ, Farrell DM, McAllister I (2011) Political Parties and Democratic Linkage: How Parties Organize Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Danish Ministry of Culture (2018) Mediernes Udvikling i Danmark. Available at: https://mediernesudvikling.slks.dk/2018/kort-nyt/brug-af-sociale-medier-i-2018/ (accessed on 5 August 2020).
Danish Policy Agendas Project (2003) Danish Policy Agendas Codebook (New Version). Available at http://www.agendasetting.dk/files/uploaded/61201510833PM1.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2022).
Depauw S, Martin S (2009) Legislative party discipline and cohesion in comparative perspective. In: Giannetti D, Benoit K (eds), Intra-party Politics and Coalition Governments. London: Routledge, pp. 103–120.
Drummond AJ (2006) Electoral volatility and party decline in Western democracies: 1970–1995. Political Studies 54(3): 628–647.
Enli GS, Skogerbø E (2013) Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics: Twitter and Facebook as arenas for political communication. Information, Communication and Society 16(5): 757–774.
Esaiasson P (2000) How members of parliament define their task. In: Esaiasson P, Heidar K (eds), Beyond Westminster and Congress. The Nordic Experience. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, pp. 51–82.
Ferreira da Silva F, Garzia D, De Angelis A (2021) From party to leader mobilization? The personalization of voter turnout. Party Politics 27(2): 220–233.
Figenschou TU, Karlsen R, Kolltveit K, et al. (2017) Serving the media ministers: A mixed methods study on the personalization of ministerial communication. The International Journal of Press/Politics 22(4): 411–430.
Gallagher M, Marsch M (1988) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London: SAGE.
Greene ZD, Haber M (2015) The consequences of appearing divided: an analysis of party evaluations and vote choice. Electoral Studies 37: 15–27.
Gulati GJ (2004) Revisiting the link between electoral competition and policy extremism in the US Congress. American Politics Research 32(5): 495–520.
Jackson N (2003) MPs and web technologies: an untapped opportunity? Journal of Public Affairs: An International Journal 3(2): 124–137.
Jackson N, Lilleker D (2011) Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17(1): 86–105.
Jensen H (2002) Partigrupperne i Folketinget. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag.
Karlsen R, Enjolras B (2016) Styles of social media campaigning and influence in a hybrid political communication system: linking candidate survey data with Twitter data. The International Journal of Press/Politics 21(3): 338–357.
Kobayashi T, Ichifuji Y (2015) Tweets that matter: evidence from a randomized field experiment in Japan. Political Communication 32(4): 574–593.
Lilleker DG, Koc-Michalska K (2013) Online political communication strategies: MEPs, e-representation, and self-representation. Journal of Information Technology and Politics 10(2): 190–207.
Martin S (2014) Why electoral systems don’t always matter: the impact of “mega-seats” on legislative behaviour in Ireland. Party Politics 20(3): 467–479.
Mayhew DR (1974) Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
McGregor SC (2018) Personalization, social media, and voting: effects of candidate self-personalization on vote intention. New Media and Society 20(3): 1139–1160.
McGregor SC, Lawrence RG, Cardona A (2017) Personalization, gender, and social media: gubernatorial candidates’ social media strategies. Information, Communication and Society 20(2): 264–283.
Mershon C (2014) Legislative party switching. In: Martin S, Saalfeld T, Strøm KW (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 418–435.
Metz M, Kruikemeier S, Lecheler S (2020) Personalization of politics on Facebook: examining the content and effects of professional, emotional and private self-personalization. Information, Communication and Society 23(10): 1481–1498.
Pedersen HH, Rahat G (2021) Political personalization and personalized politics within and beyond the behavioural arena. Party Politics 27(2): 211–219.
Pedersen HH, vanHeerde-Hudson J (2019) Two strategies for building a personal vote: personalized representation in the UK and Denmark. Electoral Studies 59: 17–26.
Peng Y (2021) What makes politicians’ Instagram posts popular? Analyzing social media strategies of candidates and office holders with computer vision. The International Journal of Press/Politics 26(1): 143–166.
Rahat G, Kenig O (2018) From Party Politics to Personalized Politics. In: Party Change and Political Personalization in Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rahat G, Zamir S (2018) Personalized politics online. In: Cross WP, Katz RS, Pruysers S (eds), The Personalization of Democratic Politics and the Challenge for Political Parties. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield International, Limited, pp. 103–124.
Scarrow S (2015) Beyond Party Members Changing Approaches to Partisan Mobilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schraufnagel S, Li Q, Schuster A (2017) District partisan homogeneity, communications, and the electoral motive: an analysis of the Facebook posts of members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Social Networking 6(2): 148–163.
Statistics Denmark (2016) Folketingsvalget 18. Juni 2015. Danmark, Færøerne, Grønland. Available at: https://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelser/GetPubFile.aspx?id=26329&sid=ftvalg2015 (accessed on 13 January 2022).
Tormey S (2015) The End of Representative Democracy. Cambridge: Polity.
Van Aelst P, Sheafer T, Stanyer J (2012) The personalization of mediated political communication: a review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism 13(2): 203–220.
Van Santen R, Van Zoonen L (2010) The personal in political television biographies. Biography 33(1): 46–67.
Wring D, Ward S (2010) The media and the 2010 campaign: the television election? Parliamentary Affairs 63(4): 802–817.
Zittel T (2015) Constituency candidates in comparative perspective – how personalized are constituency campaigns, why, and does it matter? Electoral Studies 39: 286–294.
Zittel T, Nyhuis D (2019) Two faces of party unity: Roll-call behavior and vote explanations in the German Bundestag. Parliamentary Affairs 72(2): 406–424.
Biographies
Helene Helboe Pedersen is professor in political science at Aarhus University. Her research interests are political representation, political parties, interest groups and parliaments. She has recently published on these matters in Party Politics, European Journal of Political Review and West European Politics [email protected]
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.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: November 17, 2022
Issue published: January 2024
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 795
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 0
There are no citing articles to show.
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
