I find it interesting how local candidates have used the internet as a primary source for campaign information. I have lived in several suburbs of North Carolina cities but I have never seen local political candidates use websites for any sort of campaigning.
Have these sites made a different impact on local voters or have voters even seen the sites at all?
With the exception of two one incumbents (Jim Ward and Joal Broun) all of the candidates in Chapel Hill and Carrboro races as well as the school board race had campaign web sites. Interestingly, no Hillsborough candidates were online except the Mayor whose web site was apparently leftover from his first campaign 2 years ago. All of these links are available at http://orangepolitics.org/elections-2007.
I asked Ruby who pointed out that this is not the first year that sites have been used and past years can be seen at http://orangepolitics.org/elections-2006 and http://orangepolitics.org/elections-2005.
How has the information age has changed local election processes? Has it deterred from the traditional way local candidates run for office? Has it had a positive effect on local politics? Or has it made any real effect at all? The topic is open for discussion.
[Update: Removed Joal's name upon finding out about her web site. -Ed.]
Issues:
Comments
I'm not an expert in this
I'm not an expert in this area, but Moonlight.com apparently took over my 2005 domain name, so the website you see if you clicked on the link to 2005 candidates is not my website and never was. I closed my account with a website builder company after the election, and that was that. The domain name must have been up for grabs. I'm okay with it because I've had my wordpress blog for a while now using laurineasthom.wordpress.com.
While Jim and Joal could
While Jim and Joal could certainly argue that as popular incumbents they didn't need web sites this year, I still think that having a presence online gives every candidate an opportunity to speak directly to potential supporters without going through the media filter. It also makes is easier for voters to find and contact the candidates.
And beyond that, having a blog that's open to comments shows that the candidate is interested in hearing from constituents and engaging in a public conversation about the issues that matter to us. Mark Chilton and Dan Coleman have blogs but usually without comments enabled. I think Mike Kelley, Will Raymond, and Sally Greene were the only candidates that fully engaged with voters in this way.
Joal actually did have a
Joal actually did have a website:
http://joalbroun.com/
Wow! Thanks Tom, that was
Wow! Thanks Tom, that was news to me. I'll add that to the election info page now. Looks like maybe it was created in the last few weeks.
I'm even more confused about candidates who take the time to create web sites but don't tell anyone about them! ;-)
As Lydia Lavelle proved on
As Lydia Lavelle proved on Election Day, there is no substitute for door-to-door campaigning, talking to voters on their porches and in their yards. Lydia walked all over Carrboro. Her energy and friendly approach made the difference. Other candidates tucked flyers in my door without stopping to speak.
That said, I looked closely at candidates' websites with an eye toward both design and content. Junky/clunky websites demonstrated poor taste and/or bad judgement. Most of them featured the same rhetoric, revealing little of special note about the candidate except the size of his or her ego. But those who were spunky enough to use the Internet in these modern times got extra mileage, no question; and those who didn't bother lost points.
Having real physical
Having real physical relationships with constituents and potential voters is essential. Websites can augment and strengthen real relationships. Campaign websites can help deepen relationships by helping voters learn about yourself and your platform. Contrary to common belief the Internet does not isolate people from one another. It brings them together. (evidence: There has been a massive increase in physical meetups inspired by online social networks.)
Effectiveness of campaign websites GREATLY depends on how the candidates use them. Setting up a page or two and then doing nothing provides little results. But developing a strategy on how to use modern web tools to generate content about the candidate can have a massive effect. Especially if you organize your supporters to create content with you. (writing blog posts, shooting video and audio, writing commenting) Candidates who create weblogs must post to them often AND link to other sites to see results online. This strategy must start MONTHS before campaigns begin. Why? Google. The largest number of links to your site will be from this search engine giant. Getting your name high in the search results page will require time. Without a ranking in the top five your chances of being 'googled' (aka being found online) are slim.
One of the greatest challenges in understanding the effect of campaign websites is measuring their use. Google Analytics and other web stat software can help. But only if you have an understanding of what the data you are gathering is saying. The number of hits per day is not an accurate way to measure a sites success. Even this basic info is less valuable without a holistic online strategy in place.
Another major value of campaign websites is influencing the influencers. In addition to doing paper press releases you can write on your blog. This allows candidates to have real time control of their voice. Journalists and bloggers read candidate websites and political forums. Why? Because active sites with tons of commenters provide valuable street level information. (ex. who knows what? how can they be contacted?) The beat of the 21st Century political journalist is a virtual one. Getting out your point of view online can have a massive effect on news stories and their quality.
Then there is speed. Websites can deliver information about a candidate to millions of people instantly. If a candidate controls the tempo and quality of information they control message. If a journalist writes a piece and gets something wrong you can correct them online fast. Before the misunderstanding can have an effect on the campaign.
Lydia Lavelle decided
Lydia Lavelle decided early-on that she would take her campaign to front porches instead of front pages. In our opinion of politics at the local level: Websites, blogs and interviews, etc. are very effective at underpinning a strong campaign…but engaging the townspeople face to face is the best way to connect with people. I think it takes character, confidence and compassion to meet people on their turf, find out what's on their mind and ask them to vote for you. For the voter, this affords them a whole different dynamic when judging a candidate: Vocal inflexion, eye contact, candid responses…these help voters make their own determination as to whether a candidate is trustworthy and sincere, rather than relying on media opinion, rhetoric, or negative campaigning to influence them.
With that strategy in mind, we decided to use the website as a hub of reliable information about Lydia, rather than the fulcrum of the campaign. We had several goals with the website, in no particular order:
• Launch our website early (we launched in early July) so that voters would be familiar with Lydia and her message prior to the door-to-door campaign.
• Create a tapestry of Lydia's life, qualifications, accomplishments, so voters could identify with her personally and professionally.
• Communicate details about Lydia's perspective on some Carrboro issues, but also her overall vision for the town.
• Keep the content current. Obviously the biographical data would be static, but we wanted to keep voters coming back for updated news, interviews, questionnaires, etc.
• Realizing that campaign signs, pamphlets, etc. can only disseminate brief messages, we wanted to use those to heavily promote the website where extensive information was available. Her website was on every piece of material we produced.
• Help us keep a finger on the pulse of what interests the voters, by analyzing the website statistics. (I.e. What issues were voters clicking on the most? Which page were they visiting more often than others?)
• Create a branding that would be associated with Lydia. I arbitrarily chose to focus on her extensive experience in trails and greenways, and she approved a free website template that I found which I thought conjured up a green warm-fuzzy.
• Easily navigable: Use buttons and tabs that were simple and concise where a visitor could find exactly what they were looking for within a few seconds, rather than get discouraged and leave the site.
• Make it sticky: I wanted people who come to visit the site to learn about Lydia to STAY on the site and not be lured off-topic by clicking on various links. I hyperlinked other articles and media, but when possible I paraphrased or linked only to information about Lydia, not other candidates or sites. Other candidates are responsible for promoting themselves; it was my duty to represent Lydia.
• Provide a portal for communication between Lydia and the townspeople. Lydia enjoys the honesty of direct communication, and we wanted a home base where voters could contact Lydia, one on one.
• We chose a domain name (www.lydialavelle.com) that we could transition from a campaign site to a sitting alderman site, if Lydia was elected. We will be overhauling the site before too long, and hope people will continue to use it to stay in touch with Lydia and her role in Carrboro government.
So there you have it, our website story in a nutshell. I'm no website guru, and I don't have a tender ego, so I welcome any feedback that any of you seasoned professionals want to bestow. Maybe you can make it easier for me next time around! Brian R, you pointed out some positive attributes of campaign websites that didn't even occur to me! Thanks.
On a personal note, I want to thank all of the people who voted for Lydia on Tuesday. She truly is a remarkable, sensible and intelligent person. She has successfully mediated disputes for me that I thought were irreconcilable. She has revealed new perspectives that have given me pause to re-examine many of my hard-headed opinions. I was very excited Tuesday night for Lydia…but I am even more excited for the residents of Carrboro. You all have elected a remarkable lady to help lead Carrboro. For those of you who didn't cast a ballot for Lydia, I am confident in reassuring you that she will just as vigorously represent you as those who voted for her. Congratulations, Carrboro.
I've lived in the same house
I've lived in the same house for 22 years and when Lydia knocked on my door a few weeks ago it was the first time I'd ever seen a politcal candidate in my neighborhood. I agree, there's nothing like a face to face.
Curious about how people end
Curious about how people end up at a candidate's website in the first place. The internet begins as basically a passive medium (barring annoying pop-ups) -- something or someone else has to point you to a page and get you to go there. So a webpage is the second of a two-step (or more) process of presenting a candidate to the electorate. Where have candidates found voters are most likely to go to find the html to get to their website? Ads? Signs? Links from other (endorsers'?) websites? Embedded in news story?
After that, I'm curious about the percentage of webpage visitors who are other media vs. those who are "just" individual voters. And I certainly wonder about generational differences in how voters learn about candidates. Was the web as important as the DTH to UNC students in learning about candidates? (Of course, the DTH is now as much an on-line as ink/paper newpaper, but it's still at least one step in that 2+ step process of getting to a candidate's website.)
I would never argue that web
I would never argue that web site is a replacement for actual talking to voters. As Lydia showed this year, and as Mark Chilton has shown since 1991, canvassing door-to-door is the best way to meet voters and give them the best impression of you. Not just because you took the time to be on their doorstep, but also because meeting a REAL person is going to lead you to like and TRUST them so much more. This goes for volunteers canvassing as well, although usually not as powerful as meeting the candidate herself.
As a blogger, I rely heavily on candidate web sites for information, but I also think any person who wants to tell their friends who to vote for would find it useful as well, for example. Also for finding ways to volunteer or donate to a campaign. So it seems like there are two distinct audiences: those seeking information (bloggers, journalists, curious types), and potential supporters who might get more engaged in the campaign..
I think people find campaign
I think people find campaign websites like this: (in no particular order)
1) Google Search
2) Links from other popular websites/blogs
3) Campaign paper literature
4) Campaign signs
5) Email
6) Word of mouth
Would be nice to do some exit polls next year with questions that focus on the effect of the Internet on elections. Wana help? UNC Students/Faculty? J-School!? Damon? :)
Also I wonder how many local candidates have email lists?
Brian, that would make a
Brian, that would make a fine senior thesis or J-School survey.
My web site has proven to be
My web site has proven to be a valuable tool. I spent roughly an hour a day knocking on doors (most days), but since I work evenings I got answers at about 10 to 20% of those doors. I left my little calling card at every door I knocked on, and I noticed an increase in hits on my web site on days I worked the doors.
I seem to be getting more notice there post election. I'm reminded of the old Bob seeger song - "Beautiful Loser".
I intend to use the site for more creative purposes in the future. I have a vast stockpile of essays, poems, and rants to stick on there, and I know I will write more.
Now I must learn how to blog!
Chuck Morton
www.chuckmorton.org