Working Title....

TITLE

Introduction

In the days leading up to November 6th 2012, popular opinion polls show the race between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney to win the US Presidency as being extremely close. So much so, that on October 31st many polls show a dead heat between the two (see Figure 1). Throughout the election season both parties claimed the polls were skewed for one reason or another, however; it was not the number of Republicans or Democrats present in each polling pool that skewed the numbers. The greatest disparity in Obama winning the election over Romney was not visible in these polls; there was a greater number of youths who turnout for Obama than Romney. Obama had captured sixty percent of the youth (as categorized by being between the ages of 18-29) vote compared to the thirty-six percent who voted for Romney. What encouraged the youth to turn out in such great numbers for Obama?

Throughout this paper the voter spike caused by changes in new technology will be examined. How does new technology motivate young voters to vote and what preexisting deterrents does new technology dissipate? From there we will see if trends continue after the technology is no longer new or if the spike is only prevalent the first year of the technology being utilized.

When running a campaign that has the end goal of obtaining the most powerful office in the nation, presidential hopefuls must do all they can to reach their constituents. If learning how to harness ever changing technologies will allow closer and more personal relationship with these constituents the question is worth exploring. It is key for one candidate to outdo the other in reaching as many as possible. The introduction of social media solved the question of how to reach the masses, but the answer to how to best harness the technology to gain victory is not as clear cut.

It is crucial for presidents and presidential candidates to understand over three-hundred million people are leading very different lives and very different schedules. While it remains the people’s responsibility to obtain information and knowledge from their potential leader, it is just as important for the candidate to make the information readily available to this disparate society.

Literature Review

Why Do People Vote?

In answering the question how to best harness new technology to motivate the youth to vote we must first understand why one votes.To do so we must apply basic economics by the use of rational choice theory (RCT), we can assume that individuals make prudent and logical decisions to provide them with the greatest benefit or satisfaction and these logical individuals act in ways that best satisfy self- interest. When applying RTC to elections, voters will do a cost vs. benefits analyses to decide if the benefits of voting outweigh the costs of voting. “At least since Downs's (1957) seminal work An Economic Theory of Democracy, rational choice theorists have appreciated the ‘paradox of not voting.’ In a large election, the probability that an individual vote might change the election outcome is vanishingly small. If each person only votes for the purpose of influencing the election outcome, then even a small cost to vote like a minor schedule conflict or mildly bad weather should dissuade anyone from voting (Feddersen 99)”. “In addition, participation in an election has opportunity costs: a citizen forgoes the utility of doing other things such as watching TV or visiting friends. A citizen will only participate in an election if additional costs or benefits, i.e., selective incentives (Olson 1965), obtain. There are costs or benefits that occur or do not occur when people participate in an election. In a dictatorship, for example, people who refuse to vote (or vote for the ‘wrong’ party) are arrested or have disadvantages in their occupational career. ‘Not voting’ thus results in negative selective incentives. To be sure, in a democracy those negative selective incentives for abstention are usually absent (Dieter 355)”. With such harsh punishments for absenting from the polls not being an option in the United States, what actions can a candidate take to force the hand of voters that will create a greater benefit for voting than the perceived costs? To make people believe the benefit is greater than the cost increasing the benefit to any reason someone votes will shift the balance in voting’s favor.

The University of Amsterdam did an experiment in 1996 to try to discover why it is people vote. According to Shram and Sonnemans voting is a function of three variables: group identity (x), communication to the audience (y), and individual characteristics of the candidate as they relate to individual characteristics of the voter (z). “Our experimental data supported three hypotheses derived from this model. First, participation increased with group identity. Second, communication enhanced participation. Finally, participation was strongly related to individual characteristics. A simple analysis of the way people learn from their experiences in previous periods is used to argue that any model of voter turnout should take account of myopic adaptive behavior and inertia” (Schram Sonnemans 417).

By the use of social media the cost of voting is lessened by increasing perceived value of x,y,z or any combination of the three.

Group Identity

“Mobilization models assume that groups of ideologically similar voters are coordinated by leaders who share their policy preference. Each leader determines the level of turnout within his group by allocating costly resources to voters. It is as if leaders buy the votes of followers. As examples of such groups, one might think of unions, environmental groups or churches in which members share a common policy perspective and which have an existing organizational structure including leaders who communicate directly with members and members who meet regularly with one another” (Feddersen 105, 106). Social media allows a candidate to become a figurehead equivalent to a pope or priest of their own voters congregation.“Social network sites such as Facebook allowed users to share their political beliefs, support specific candidates, and interact with others on political issues (Vitak 107)”. The leader is better able to coordinate with their constituents by keeping in constant contact, encouraging each and every follower to voice their opinion at the polls for the greater good.

“...Do political activities on Facebook affect political participation among young voters, a group traditionally perceived as apathetic in regard to civic engagement? (Vitak 107). **Discuss how social media could remove apathy among youth via group belonging**

Communication Enhanced Participation

“The second hypothesis addressed is that communication within groups will decrease free-riding, and hence increase turnout. This is motivated by the within-group processes in the Schram and Van Winden model. Discussion will enhance the development of social pressure in the group. Some support is already found by various studies on communication in social dilemma's and in groupwise prisoners' dilemma's. Communication between group members appears to increase the level of contribution (Dawes et al., 1977: Isaac et al., 1985; Isaac and Walker, 1988). Communication provides an opportunity to make promises, to coordinate actions (especially in step-level public goods) and the group identity may be enhanced.”.

Individuals Feelings

The third hypothesis states that there are important differences in individual behavior with respect to turnout. These can be related to differences in individual goals and/or to their background. In the Schram and Van Winden model, individual turnout behavior depends on various individual characteristics, amongst which their 'leadership ability'.

2012 Youth Turnout

In 2012 the estimated number of U.S citizens between the ages of eighteen and twenty-four was 31,359,915. That number is out of the 313,914,00 U.S citizens at the time of the close election, however; the total population is an inaccurate representation of citizen eligible to vote in the 2012 election. Only 244,168,392 citizens were of age to vote (U.S Census Department). If one candidate were able to capture the entirety of their target market (the youth as a whole), they would gain almost thirteen percent of all eligible citizens.

In the 2008 election many were awed by the youth turnout. It was the second largest young voter turnout in history, but four years later America would be shocked again as a 39.7% increase was seen in youth turnout from just the year before (see Figure 2).

*Explain stats more I think. Reference graphs and such….. Why is the youth voter turnout larger? *Compare 2012 to 2008 (see Figure 3) *increase of social media use in the 2008 to 2012 election by both candidates and their target audience Conclusion

In the 90’s, World Wide Web introduced a new way to get ideas not only to the people in the United States, but to people around the world as well. Now in the 00’s, the use of social media has found a way to decrease the cost of voting to the individual, by increasing the perceived value of x,y,z or any combination of the three. It was quick, it was efficient, and it was cheap. There was no need for airtime; no need for paying millions of dollars for a TV spot during popular sports events or entertainment broadcasts, just as the internet before it, social media was deemed the “future” of technology. Technologies sprouting out of Silicon Valley during the first eight years of the decade were quickly adopted by many, and more importantly, by government officials. Starting with the 2008 election, presidential hopeful Barack Obama implemented the use of Twitter and Facebook to reach voters, and attracting a vast majority of the youth vote. Adopting tools set forth by Facebook, Twitter, and the growing amount of internet resources, Barack Obama outplayed opponent John McCain in a crucial way, since McCain did not recognize the importance that social media played with almost every voter in the nation. Four years later, Obama yet again proved by utilizing new social media outlets better than his opponent, victory was still possible.

From the days of voicing opinion over the radio, to pushing ideas via a user’s smartphone, the advancement of communicative technologies over the past seventy years have been observed and utilized by hopeful candidates and presidents, wishing nothing more than to meet the demands of the people. Whether booming voices sent over the airwaves or tweets tapped from the fingertips of the campaigning presidential hopefuls, changes in communications technologies have greatly advanced, and continue advancing, as politics and presidents embrace the changing ways of technology.