1 / 16

Panel on “Political Parties and the Technological Age,”

Innovations in Information Technology in American Party Politics Since 1960 Kenneth Janda Northwestern University. Panel on “Political Parties and the Technological Age,” World Social Science Forum, Montreal, Canada, 12-15 October 2013. Innovation = Progress?. Click on speaker for audio.

myles-flowers
Download Presentation

Panel on “Political Parties and the Technological Age,”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Innovations in Information Technology in American Party Politics Since 1960Kenneth JandaNorthwestern University Panel on “Political Parties and the Technological Age,” World Social Science Forum,Montreal, Canada, 12-15 October 2013

  2. Innovation = Progress? Click on speaker for audio • “Innovations in information technology in party politics,” implies progress. • Howard Dean’s campaign manager: “the Internet is the most democratizing innovation, . . . More than the printing press.” • In The Myth of Digital Democracy,Matthew Hindman argued, “beliefs that the Internet is democratizing politics are simply wrong.” • In Trapped in the Net: Unanticipated Consequences of Computerization, Gene Rochlin warned of unanticipated and undesirable consequences among the promises of technological innovations. • My paper chronicles the evolution of technological innovations in U.S. party politics, asking: • What were the noteworthy innovations in how information is collected, analyzed, and utilized? • How have the American political parties adapted to these innovations since the use of mainframe computers in the 1960 presidential campaign? • While not exhaustive, it provides a fairly comprehensive survey of technological innovations in party politics over the last half-century.

  3. What’s to Come Click on speaker for audio • Data Processing Before the Dawn of Computers • The 1960s: The First Light of Dawn • Democrats first see the light, then go to sleep • Republicans command the daylight • The 1970s: The Mainframe Computer Era • The 1980s: Mainframes Yield to Mini and Microcomputers • The 1990s: The Early Years of the Internet • 2000: Internet “Firsts” in Party Politics • 2004: Internet Usage Affects Party Politics • 2008: Internet Usage Changes Party Politics • 2012: Mobile Devices Open Avenues to the Internet • Caveats about Information Technology in Party Politics • Summary and Conclusions

  4. Data Processing Before Computers • 1880s: Herman Hollerith at the U.S. Census Bureau devised electro-mechanical manipulation of holes punched in cards. • He built card readers for the 1890 U.S. Census and founded the Tabulating Machine Company in 1896. • 1924: His company evolved into IBM. • 1930s:IBM introduced a sorting machine widely used to the end of the punchcard era in the 1980s. • IBM counting-sorters were used in the new industry of public opinion research. • 1947: the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research created to collect, archive, and redistribute punchcard data on opinion surveys. • Polls stored at the Roper Center were used in the first major use of computing technology in political campaigns

  5. The 1960s: Democrats See the Light of Dawn • The DNC sponsored a computer simulation of the 1960 presidential election by Ithiel Pool, Robert Abelson, and Samuel Popkin at MIT. • See Candidates, Issues, and Strategies (1964). • They analyzed 65 polls of 130,000 respondents at the Roper Center in the 1952, 1954, 1956, and 1958 elections. • Instead of predicting the vote, they estimated “the relative gain or loss . . . from adopting one alternative or another.” • In June 1960, they reported to the DNC on the likely Negro vote in the North. • They also simulated public opinion concerning Kennedy’s stance on the religious question. • After winning, the DNC failed to embrace computer technology in preparing for the 1964 election.

  6. The 1960s: Republicans Command the Daylight • Dan Galvin’s Presidential Party Building says the GOP favored a stronger national organization than the Democrats. • In 1964, the RNC undertook its own attempt to apply information technology in a presidential campaign. • It recorded candidates’ speeches on 16mm. microfilm, tagging each speech with binary codes for rapid search and retrieval. • In contrast to the DNC “research” room, where college interns worked in dungarees, the RNC employed professional staff in business attire in offices using the latest technology. • The RNC’s acceptance of information technology meshed with its business orientation and its better funding.

  7. The 1970s: The Mainframe Computer Era • Computers then were largeand expensive, demanded trained technicians, occupied much space, drew a lot of electricity, generated great heat, and required massive cooling capacity. • The RNC acquired its own computer in 1977 and upgraded to a newer one in 1979. • DNC did not get its own mainframe until the early 1980s. • Candidates and even most state parties contracted for services from commercial computing centers. • Computer applications in party politics were mainly for analyzing polling data and for maintaining mailing lists of sympathetic voters and likely contributors.

  8. The 1980s: Mainframes Yield to Mini/Microcomputers • For most of the 1980s, the RNC and DNC relied on mainframe technology for their computing applications. • In 1984, the National Journal said: “The RNC is far ahead of its Democratic counterpart in computer technology. The committee has had a sophisticated computer operation in force for several years.” • In 1984, the RNC relied heavily on CATI system (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviews). • David Broder wrote that he was struck “by the enormous gap between the resources the Republicans and Democrats bring to the presidential campaigns.” • Mini computers (e.g., the VAX in 1977) and microcomputers (e.g., IBM’s PC in 1981) distributed computing away from the national party organizations to party candidates.

  9. The 1990s: The Early Years of the Internet • 1992: Democratic senatorial candidate Jerry Brown, former governor of California, sent e-mail messages to supporters. • 1992: Reform Party members voted for their presidential candidate over the Internet. • 1994: the first official White House web site appeared during President Bill Clinton’s administration. • 1994: Senator Dianne Feinstein created a candidate web site. • 1995: DNC created the first web site for a major party. • By 1995, examples filled a 375-page book, Politics on the Net. • However, only 3 percent of respondents in 1996 said that they ever obtained campaign information via the Internet. • By 1998, the Internet audience was estimated at 50 million (28% of the voting population). • Despite the flurry of Internet activity in 1998 congressional races, campaign consultants mainly experimented with the medium in preparation for the 2000 presidential campaign.

  10. 2000: Internet “Firsts” in Party Politics • 2000:the RNC had 15 people working on Internet technology versus 3 at the DNC. • 2000:Senator McCain held the first Internet Republican presidential fundraiser, raising over $1 million in 48 hours. • Also in 2000, the Arizona Democratic Party held the first binding online primary election. • The RNC registered 1 million activists online. • Early Internet use brought more publicity than campaign wins. • 1992: Jerry Brown’s use of email did not lead to a Senate seat. • 1998: Ted Mondale’s online ad in Minnesota did not win a Senate seat. • 2000: Bill Bradley got $1 million online but not his party’s nomination. • 2000: McCain got $1 million online but not his party’s nomination. • Internet effects were more significant in the 2004 campaign.

  11. 2004: Internet Usage Affects Party Politics • Democrat Howard Dean raised over $1 million for his presidential campaign, eclipsing Bill Bradley’s 2000 amount. • As candidates used the Internet to raise campaign, national restrictions on campaign finance broke down. • The major presidential candidates declined public funds in the primaries, so they could spend over the $37.3 million limit. • Named DNC chair in 2005, Howard Dean revitalized the party’s information technology. • He acquired huge amounts of high quality voter data. • By building a national database from state files for the 2008 election, the DNC leapfrogged over the RNC’s earlier effort. • Daniel Kreiss, Taking Our Country Back:“The Republicans had nationalized their voter file much earlier [but] had built modifications to their database system on an older technology base.”

  12. 2008: Internet Usage Changes Party Politics • 2008: John Edwards was the only major candidate accepting public primary funds, limiting his spending to $42 million. • All the others relied on private sources, especially the Internet. • Ron Paul raised $4 million online in one day. • In January alone, Obama raised $32 million, mostly online. • By July, Obama had raised over $400 million. • Previously, every major party nominee for president accepted public funds (and spending limits) for the general election. • 2008: Obama was the first to forego public funds and limits. • Republican John McCain accepted public funds, limiting his general election spending to $84.1 million. • Internet usage by better-educated voters led to a “digital divide,” contradicting its claimed “democratizing” effect.

  13. 2012: Mobile Devices Open Avenues to the Internet • 1999: first Blackberry; had 14 million subscribers by 2008. • 2007: first Apple iPhone; sold 13 million units by 2008. • 2008: first Android phone; surpassed iPhone by 2011. • 2010: first iPad; sold 80 million by 2012 election. • Users could respond to political messages from anywhere. • Limits on presidential campaign spending effectively ended. • All major presidential candidates refused public funds for both the primary and the general election. • Obama spent over $700 million and Romney over $450 million. • Both campaigns “microtargeted” voters, sending specific messages to selected viewers. • Obama’s effort was done mainly “in house” and outperformed Romney’s effort outsourced to consulting/marketing firms.

  14. Caveats about Information Technology and Party Politics • Despite politicians’ success using the Internet to raise money, success in winning votes is harder to establish. • In 2012, few voters got campaign news via the Internet. • Early in the primary season, 72% reported hearing or seeing campaign television commercials • Only 16% got e-mails, 15% visited a candidate’s website, and only 6% followed the candidate on Twitter or Facebook. • Asked after the election if they “learned something” about the campaign from various news sources: • Most people named some form of television. • Only 25% cited the Internet. • Most American studies have focused on how candidates—not parties—use the technology. • Studies in other countries are more concerned with how partiesuse information technology.

  15. Summary • From the 1960s through the 1980s, the national party committees of played an important role in applying information technology to electoral campaigns. • The RNC devoted more resources to technology than the DNC, and got more impressive results, especially in fund raising. • From 1990 to 2004, party candidates—not party organizations—led in introducing technological innovations. • Beginning with the 2004 presidential election, computer-based technological innovations significantly affected party politics. • Declining costs, increased capabilities, and swift pace of innovationfavored candidatesover organizationsin using information technology to electoral politics • However, party organizations are better suited to collecting and maintaining high quality data on millions of voters. • As the quality of the information being processed becomes increasingly important, institutional size and organizational resources matter once again.

  16. Conclusions • The effects of information technology on party politics has changed over time. • In the 1960s-1980s, only party organizations had mainframe computers, so technology had a centralizing effect on party politics. • By the 1990s, most candidates had microcomputers, so technological innovations had a decentralizing effect. • Today, accurate voter databases are more critical than computing hardware to win votes. • Only central party institutions with professional staffs can acquire, prepare, and maintain high quality voter data. • Does recentralization in party politics from candidates to organizations amount to progress? • The answer depends on the values of the observer. • Thank you for your patience

More Related