It's simple, popularity helps in politics, especially when people "like" you. And according to Facebook, during the November elections the candidate who more people "liked" won in 71% of elections. For Twitter the candidates with more followers won in 74% of elections. But in a away this isn't that surprising. Because elections are based upon the opinions of the American people, a direct correlation can easily be seen because millions of Americans are apart of both Facebook and Twitter, and they are merely transferring what they say on social networking sites to the ballot. Yet the predictions are obviously not 100% accurate as Facebook failed to predict correct results from some "high profile" elections. For example, Delaware's Christine O' Donnell, a tea party Republican running for Senate, had more Twitter and Facebook fans than her Democratic opponent. But the star of the " I am not a witch" ad could not seem to win more than a measly 17% of the vote.
Now is it possible that social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter have the power to effectively predict the outcomes of elections? Or are they simply just inaccurate popularity charts, in which the people completely change their mind when filling out the ballot?
10 comments:
This is very interesting because i never thought of social networking sites, such as facebook and twitter, being a big part of elections. However, i don't feel that what people do on these networks necessarily predict who will when an election. Most of the time people add, like, or tweet about things because they are a biggest thing being talked a lot about. Like Bryce brought up in his post, Christine O' Donnell recieved many friends on both facebook and twitter, but that was due to the huge controversy abut her being a witch. See people were attracted her because of all the talk about her so people were interested in her.
I can also see that people would add a politician on facebook or twitter because they like them and desire to vote for them. These social network sites are weird things and people can have different incentives for why they add or like these politicians. I don't believe that facebook or twitter can predict who is going to win, but i feel at times they can give you some insight onto who is popular at the time or who is being talked a lot about.
I don't think the issue is that people completely change their mind when filling out the ballot; rather, the social networks may inaccurately represent the overall population. Social networks like Facebook and Twitter appeal a selective group of people, thus excluding some eligible voters. However, taking into account the sheer number of users of on either social network, I don't think the selectivity poses a huge problem. Overall, I believe that Facebook and Twitter are good indicators a an election's outcome.
Although Facebook and Twitter can eventually be great predictors in voting behavior, I don't think they are just yet. Most users of Facebook and Twitter are not eligible to vote and there are still many "old" people, who do not use either of these social mediums, so until practically everyone, or a super majority of eligible voters in the U.S. are using such social mediums and stating their political opinions on it, I think we have to put the idea that Facebook and Twitter are good predictors of elections on hold.
I think this is very interesting because to some extent these networking sites represent the citizens [at least the ones who use Twitter and Facebook], with even more transparency, because people feel a bit sheltered and distant when they are online rather than a face-to-face discussion of politics. resulting in more honesty, and possibly heightened interest.
I agree with Christians point that people will follow, like, or tweet, things of controversy, and that is one of the obvious reasons that social networking sites can't be relied on as public opinion, however they could be telling signs for unofficial outlooks
I feel that although it's fun to look at Facebook and twitter trends...they cannot accurately predict election results.
To me, Facebook and Twitter are popularity contests...but accurate public opinion polls. In the case of O'Donnell, she is well known and popular, so people are more likely to click "like" jut for fun, not for honest opinion. They might like her for her humor...but not for her policies.
Another factor is that Facebook and Twitter are not accurate representations of the American population. They are more popular with the younger population (though adults have begun using them). Obama used Facebook very effectively during his campaign and I believe that with the right strategy, they can be great ways to reach the younger generation.
I don't think Facebook or Twitter can truly predict the results of elections. Some people support an individual running for election just for fun or because his or her friends are but it doesn't necessarily mean that everyone is going to vote. A lot people that are actively on Facebook and Twitter and not old enough to vote yet. People don't usually take things seriously if it's on Facebook or Twitter and some people think of things as a joke. I guess it can be useful more of campaigning for an election rather than actually predicting the results.
I think that these networking sites are just beginning to take off as a way of "predicting" elections. As of now, the people who use these sites are mostly youth, most of who can not even vote. To me, this translates as these sites are not a good representation of the population. However, I think more and more people in all different generations are going to start using these sites. Therefor, the "follows" and "likes" will soon become more accurate of the population and will definitely be able to predict elections.
For candidates, I think it's very important to start campaigning on these sites in the future. They should keep voters informed and share their views and even their likes to make them seem more of a friendly, real person.
I really don't believe that Facebook or Twitter could potentially predict any future elections. Sure, Christine O' Donnell could hold the upper hand against her opponent with her many Facebook and Twitter friends...but that doesn't prove anything. Sure, I guess you could say she's "popular," but it doesn't mean she's going to win the election. I don't think people should take these social networking sites too seriously; after all, it's just Twitter.
Social networking sites may just be the new campaign stage. I think it is perfectly legitimate to use popularity from sites such as Facebook and Twitter to predict election outcomes since they do represent public opinion. However a major downfall may be in the margin of error because these sites are mainly used by younger people who are either unable to vote, or as historically proven, less likely to turn out on election day.
I agree with a lot of what's being said here. Facebook and Twitter are good at tracking what's cool and trendy at the moment, but nowadays, that changes every second. What's in now will be out in five minutes. That's not something that translates well to politics because we're looking for someone we want for the long hall. All those added followers and friends might just be because of some funny sketch or joke on Saturday Night Live or the Daily Show. It does not track geniune opinions about the politician. We'll have to wait and see if they can turn into anything more than that.
Post a Comment