Jon Garfunkel
December 2024
Campaigning in digital media has been actively pursued for almost 3 decades now. But we still need to ask: how well does it work? Particularly against a "classic" campaign model, in which a campaign follows the elementary democratic practices of presenting issues and discussing them. We discuss here.
the classic campaign model
In a "classic" campaign mode - candidates start by sharing their personal qualifications & positions.
And then, the campaign starts.
Events happen, candidates react with statements, and opponents make statements to their reactions.
Through this all, the public gets involved, not just as partisan supporters, but in coming up with questions, reacting, sharing their experiences.
By election day, voters have enough information, or know where to find it.
That's the classic model, at least.
We do know that campaigns have grown absurd at the national level; this isn't new though. Over 60 years ago, historian Daniel Boorstin coined the word "pseudo-event" to mean the manufactured event that increasingly drives public relations and campaigns.
But least on the local level, we should be able to cut through the nonsense.
We know the issues, and the candidates are willing to engage with them.
So how do we get there?
In local election, most candidates have a bias away from social media towards "retail" campaigning of meeting people 1-on-1 in public. It's the most enjoyable, and carries the least risk (particularly with no cameras rolling, as they might be on larger campaigns). The downside is that it doesn't at all scale. You can only reach so many people at the train station or the farmer's market. To scale, that is to reach vastly more people, one needs media of any kind.
The obvious public platform today is Facebook - particularly for local elections where "retail conversations" can, and do, happen. Civic groups have been established in local communities, and moderators often do a fair part of ensuring that the participants are, in fact, members of the community and well-behaved. While discussions are not without controversy and rancor, people still learn what the issues are, and which candidates have which positions (see also The Public Opinion Matrix)
And yet, there remain objections. Facebook and other virtual communities suck people into unending debates (which quite regularly get nastier), and most people hate to be chained to their computer or phone trying to defend themselves in real time. Often this is due to lacks a good moderator who can more aggressively step in and close discussions. Certainly, Facebook could help by making it easier to downplay (see Improving Civil Discourse Online).