Elections are the distinctive feature of our representative democracy. In theory, citizens can use their vote to hold incumbents accountable and to choose new representatives who are competent and aligned with their preferences.
In practice, elections only generate such desirable outcomes insofar as voters rely on adequate information to make their choice. Whether or not that is the case can have dramatic social and economic consequences, since the quality and ideology of elected officials tend to affect the policies they implement.
The weeks immediately preceding elections represent a crucial period, during which the electorate is flooded with information. Elections often feature new parties and candidates, and even the propositions and track records of those who have stood for office before may have changed since then. Campaign information can help voters assess incumbents, compare the qualities and positions of all candidates, and reconsider their own policy preferences. While candidates expend great effort to communicate with voters, interpersonal discussions and the coverage of the campaign by the media also provide rich information.
On the other hand, however, campaigns may have minimal effects, as most people would have decided whom to vote for long in advance, based on group identities and party attachments. Within a given election, younger and less educated voters may be more influenced by campaign information, but voters who identify strongly with a party are less so.
Not long ago, the capacity for political campaigns to influence voters in Malta was small in partisan general elections and decreased as Election Day approached. The result was that people remained loyal to one political party and resisted crossing lines as their partisanship became more activated the closer they got to casting a ballot.
The internet, however, has given people unprecedented access to information about elections and enabled them to express their opinions, interact with candidates and get actively involved in electoral campaigns. The social media platforms are giving a voice to people who would not normally take part in political debate.
They are useful platforms for political parties to present their agenda to the electorate and to mobilise a larger support base for their causes. The cost of communicating with voters can be substantially lower via this medium than via broadcast media, given the availability of free blog and video-sharing platforms and social media. Small political parties with limited resources and independent candidates in particular can benefit from this type of communication.
Online media may undermine applicable rules on electoral campaigning, especially broadcast advertising rules. Furthermore, in a country like ours that imposes a period of election silence on the last day before the election, preventing campaigning and reporting of the results, pre-election opinion polls or exit polls, and the shift of electoral reporting and campaigning to online platforms have made it more difficult to monitor the observance of these rules. This is all the more difficult since many violations of election silence originate from websites operating outside the Maltese jurisdiction.
Gatekeeping, message targeting and opinion shaping are taking place on opaque internet intermediaries. By virtue of their new position in not only hosting the audience that political parties wish to reach but also the targeting tools and the all-important user data, they sit on top of a new power hierarchy.
Our recent elections have long featured a scepticism about whether politicians tell the truth, but a new debate is emerging about post-truth, or post-fact politics, and the role of social media in propagating rumour and untruth. The factual basis of politics has been in part supported by a filter of journalism ethics and fact-checking. As a greater proportion of electoral information is now shown independently of such editorial gatekeeping, for example, on social media, this raises questions about the efficiency of these filters.
The factors that influence voters in political elections for public office are important to politicians, campaign managers, and marketers. Developing a better understanding of these factors is particularly important today, in an age when social interactions are increasingly made via social media, with greater political divisiveness, and where true swing voters and political independents are thought to be diminishing in number. In this political environment, exploring the factors that influence general elections and the methods that can be used by campaigns with small budgets is more important than ever.
A better understanding of the factors that influence voters will help campaigns with limited time and finances better allocate their resources. Candidates have a finite amount of time, particularly during the crucial weeks prior to election day, and campaigns seek to allocate candidate time optimally. Should that time be spent door-to-door campaigning, at rallies, or making commercials? Campaigns also have limited financial resources, and raising money is often difficult.
The fraction of people who decide which candidate to vote for in the last weeks before an election is difficult to estimate directly. Indeed, it is hard for voters to assess the likelihood that they will stick to their vote intention, ex ante, or to recall the exact date they made up their mind, ex post.
In times of public frustration with the status quo, for example, candidates without traditional political experience can leverage their outsider status to appeal to voters seeking radical change.
Of course, candidates, parties and campaigners use different tactics in the run-up to an election to try and influence how you vote.
At the end of the day, though, it's what is cast into the ballot box that counts most.
Dr. Mark Said