Social Media And Political Engagement

Congress, 80% of our representatives use social media to engage with constituents. That has never been done before and is changing how politicians respond. We even see some votes in Congress made based on their Facebook feedback.”(The Economic) The Internet is like being there in the whole scene. Missing out information is impossible, a simply Google search, all the information is stored. When computers came out, it cost thousands, now it’s cheaper and faster. There’s tablets and phones with the opportunity to surf the web. More than half the candidates have some type of social media, either them or a fan.

Although the book was not published too long ago, the fact that it was published in 2008 makes it unable to account the changes that have come about in the United States that have made it easier for young adults to become more involved in politics. Lewis-Beck notes that “few young adults express a strong party attachment, whereas those with a lifetime of experience do” (145). While young adults may not have as high of a voter turnout as older generations, this is not necessarily the only way to measure the political activity of a cohort. When the research by Lewis-Beck was published, social media was only beginning to become popular. Facebook was only four years old, and Twitter only two. Now, the younger generation has taken to social network services, like Facebook and Twitter, to spread voter education. Additionally, the utilization of websites like Change.org to express contempt with certain political views has become more common among younger

The Civil Rights movement in the U.S. during the 1950’s and 60’s showed how effective activism is on political issues. Under the leadership of major civil figures, most notably Dr. Martin Luther King, the organized and peaceful movement brought about major change to the civil rights of African Americans and other minorities. Moreover, this movement made historical strides in changing U.S. policy, and did so without the use of social media. Today, social media activism is merely a means to an end. Social media can share a vast amount of information, and raise awareness on a broad spectrum of issues. However, the ability to make major changes on government policy, as proven by many occurrences in history, requires high-risk activism under an organized hierarchy. I argue that social media is not an effective tool for political actions because it lacks the necessary traits to make an effective impact.

Overall, our theory that social media use is a cause for voter turnout was not supported through our tests. Our results from our hypothesis chi-square test, our regression analysis, and also our predicted probabilities test show that social media use does not have a significant effect on voter turnout in the 2012 presidential election. Our theory may have been flawed in thinking that less people are dependent on social media than we originally thought. This can been seen in our graphic that a majority people do not use social media at all for obtaining political information. Social media sites are still on the rise and are not as widely/frequently used as we previously anticipated. The millennial generation and generation z are the most common

Social media can also play a vital role in influencing the political decisions of its users. Multiple studies have been conducted measuring Facebook’s impact on young people. Some suggest that young Internet users are more influenced by other young people online. Others suggest young voters seem to trust older users’ evaluations more (Lee). People who intend to vote need to understand that they have to think for these issues themselves. There is nothing wrong with discussing these issues with others online, but why constantly let others decide for you? Politicians have to use social media

And according to surveys and studies conducted by Pew Internet & American Life Project people who use social networking sites as an outlet for civic engagement are way more active in traditional political, nonpolitical, and civic participation than those people who do not use internet at all (Smith, Schlozman, Verba, & Brady).

Social media is having a much greater impact on these electoral campaigns than we even realize. The Obama campaign of 2008 is considered one of the greatest achievements of social media. Sophisticated at the time, it mobilized supporters to make small donations and organized a massive voter turnout in key cities and states. Now, in 2016, everyone already knows how to do it. But what is really interesting is how social media are replacing the conventional political tactics and propaganda that have existed since television played an important role for the first time in 1960. I think that social medias are changing the way of making the political campaign today, because social medias have an essential power among voters. The trick is always the same: to get the message between the sender and

612). Social media encourages people to express themselves politically by providing them with a convenient platform, and this in turn leads them to participate politically (Gil de Zúñiga et al. 615). On the negative side, some believe that the low commitment to engage with issues online leads many to neglect to learn more about the causes or participate in any meaningful way. This kind of unengaged activism is known as “slacktivism” (LaRiviere et al. 12). While it is true that it is impossible to guarantee online participation, the simple act of consuming news on social media and expressing political opinions online with friends can lead to political participation offline (Gil de Zúñiga et al.

These platforms can catalyze discourses on a variety of issues on the political and social spectrum. Whether it is environmental issues, immigrant rights, antiwar protests, criticism against state policies, or support for activists around the world, social media has shown us the diversity, and sometimes maddening complexity, of political voices (ibid). Nonetheless, what makes social media so easy and effective is its decentralized nature; it is inexpensive, driven by networks, and entails few boundaries, if any (ibid). It is the democratic nature of social media that makes it accessible to users who wish to be heard (ibid). A limitation of social media activism is that some movements begin with good intentions, but soon after, people with no deep understanding of the cause infiltrate the community. Ideologies can clash and ugly debates can transpire. Sometimes the new discussion slowly drifts away from the original cause. Hopefully, future research will suggest these communities do more good than harm and contribute to thoughtful discussion and learning of social

The use of social media sites remain as atop down information feed rather than interacting active input as issues can become polarising resulting in conflict leading to bad publicity to elected officials (Fredricks & Foth 2012, p 246). Those that already have an interest in a local issue will seek out other mechanisms of public participation (Fredricks & Foth 2012, p 248). The use of the internet in public participation requires a technical knowledge that may involve training in some areas (Seltzer & Mahoundi 2013 p. 11). Additionally utilising telecommunications requires a decent network (Leighninger 2012 p. 4).

In the United States, roughly 81% of the population uses the Internet every day in some way.(15) This high penetration rate confirms how omnipresent new media is within the population. With the advent of this new media age, have come revolutions in the way that we live our lives. One of the most important changes brought by the new media age concerns the very basis of human engagement and sociality. Whereas past communities existed primarily in physical locations, individuals were dependent on transportation, mail delivered by the postal system, and technology such as the telephone to connect with one another.(16) The arrival of new media, specifically the Internet and email, has allowed for the possibility of widespread interpersonal interactions that take place in non-physical locations.(16, 17) However, while the age of new media has transformed how individuals engage online, it has also shown what seems to be a lack of participation in these civic aspects in the offline realm. For the past several decades, social science scholars have been concerned with the affects that new media is having on civic engagement. One of the best-known authors on the topic, Robert Putnam, has described an overall decline in civic engagement over the last half of the twenty-first century. His main contention was focused on a decrease in activity in both social groups, such as bowling leagues, as well as political participation, such as attending town hall meetings and voting.(12) Putnam is

As a logical consequence, Postmes and Brunsting (2002) reasoned that the Internet is changing society because people's cognitive processes, triggered by access to information and communication, replace the strong social ties that traditionally underpin committed activism. In simpler words, in the past, humanity used the herd instinct as the main driving force behind committed forms of activism. Thanks to the Internet, we climb another step or three on the evolutionary ladder, and simply do away with the herd instinct and replace it with reason. The argument, if put this way, does not sound particularly strong. What can be taken away is that social media is still evolving, that social media changes the way we – or most of us communicate, that social media is used in social and political activism, and that the Internet increases quantitative if not qualitative access to information.

As technology develops rapidly in the modern society, the broad social influence it brings is also widely discussed, especially about its effects on social change. In the past, social movements were raised without the help of technology, specifically without social media, whereas social media has recently played a non-ignorable role. The connection between social media and social activisms concerned, here come some different voices. Few people maintain that social media now has no practical influence on social change, while others hold the opposite view, thinking social media is already a crucial factor in it. Personally speaking, I agree with the second kind of view: it is true that social media is not able to create social movements by itself in today’s world, but it plays an important and essential part in making real social change.

Social media has grown at phenomenal rates over the past decade, with its rise being easily visible in several fields such as publishing, business, and activism, among others. The rise of its use in the field of politics is well known by those who are on and off social media, as a result of increasing number of politicians using this global platform to their maximum advantage.

In today’s world, it is not difficult to find people, especially young adults, staring at their smartphone screen everywhere they go. Especially the social media platform Facebook has started to become an essential part of everyone’s daily life as one of the most influential communication tools. Beyond the role of social networking platform where you find your high school classmates, Facebook has evolved to a “mass communication media” that impacts both economic and political activities. Examples of Facebook influencing the study of International Political Economy are plenty and prevalent, including its roles in spreading information about jobs and wage information, discovering new products and services, sharing reviews on