Political Parties in Search of the Youth

 
PIIS013216250021398-0-1
DOI10.31857/S013216250021398-0
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Director of the Scientific Center of Digital Sociology «Yadov-center»
Affiliation: Russian State University for the Humanities
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Occupation: Deputy Director of the Scientific Center of Digital Sociology «Yadov-center»
Affiliation: Russian State University for the Humanities
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameSotsiologicheskie issledovaniya
EditionIssue 12
Pages64-75
Abstract

The article "Political Parties in Search of the Youth" is devoted to the analysis of political parties’ activity in social media during the 2021 election campaign to the State Duma. We have studied parties’ actions in eight social media: Facebook, VK, OK, Instagram, Telegram, Tik Tok, YouTube, and Twitter. A total of more than 1.5 thousand accounts were analyzed. It was found that those parties that were most active in social media got the best results in the elections. There was a contradiction between the parties' efforts to build an audience in social media and the methods they used to disseminate information. Many used methods belonged to the "old school", or were associated with attempts to use the authority of the offline leaders, the discourse actively used clerical language, which led the youth to unfollow. To change this situation, parties are beginning to actively involve young people in their headquarters to work in social media. Election campaigns are becoming hybrid, mixing old and new forms, introducing gamification and politainment. Results of the research have led us to the conclusion that the role of young people in election campaigns has changed fundamentally: from passive statists they become trendsetters, and life-wise politicians turn out to be their followers, imitating and copying the behavior patterns of 20-year-olds.

Keywordssocial media, elections, political parties, online leaders, network power, parliament, youth, influencers, electoral campaigns, weak ties
AcknowledgmentThe reported study was funded by RFBR and EISR according to the research project № 21-011-31795.
Received24.12.2022
Publication date27.12.2022
Number of characters34459
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 1, views: 505

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Balackiy A.M. (2016) Social Media in Electoral Management: Problems and Prospects. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Ser. «Istoricheskie nauki» [Vestnik of Omsk University. Ser. "Historical Sciences"]. No. 4: 167–171. (In Russ.)

2. Baumgartner J.C., Mackay J.B., Morris J.S., Otenyo E.E., Powell L., Smith M.M., Waite B.C. (2010) Communicator-in-chief: How Barack Obama used new media technology to win the White House. Lexington Books.

3. Bruns A., Moon B. (2018) Social media in Australian Federal elections: comparing the 2013 and 2016 campaigns. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. Vol. 95. No. 2: 425–448.

4. Deterding S., Dixon D., Khaled R., Nacke L. (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining "gamification". In: Proceedings of the 15th International academic MindTrek conference: Envisioning future media environments. New York: Association for Computing Machinery: 9–15.

5. Gigauri D.I. (2021) State Duma Elections 2021: Blogs, Social Media and Party Identity in Virtual Space. Sociodinamika [Sociodynamics]. No. 11: 1–21. (In Russ.)

6. Granovetter M.S. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Psychology. Vol. 78. Iss. 6: 1360–1380.

7. Howard P.N., Woolley S., Calo R. (2018) Algorithms, bots, and political communication in the US 2016 election: The challenge of automated political communication for election law and administration. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. Vol. 15. No. 2: 81–93.

8. Martyanov D.S. (2016) Political bot as a profession. Politicheskaya ekspertiza: POLITEKS [Political Expertise: POLITEX]. No. 12 (1): 74–89. (In Russ.)

9. Nieland J.U. (2008) Politainment. The International Encyclopedia of Communication. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

10. Prensky M. (2001) Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon. Vol. 9. No. 5: 1–6.

11. Skovsgaard M., Van Dalen A. (2013) Dodging the gatekeepers? Social media in the campaign mix during the 2011 Danish elections. Information, Communication & Society. Vol. 16. Iss. 5: 737–756.

12. Toffalini F., Abba M., Carra D., Balzarotti D. (2016) Google Dorks: Analysis, Creation, and New Defenses. In: International Conference on Detection of Intrusions and Malware, and Vulnerability Assessment. San Sebastian: Springer: 255–275.

13. Vasilkova V.V., Legostaeva N.I. (2019) Social bots in political communication. Vestnik RUDN. Ser.: Sociologiya [Bulletin of the RUDN University. Ser.: Sociology]. No. 19 (1): 121–133. (In Russ.)

14. Velikaya N.M., Malinin A.Y. (2021) Media-activity of new political parties on the eve of elections to the State Duma VIII convocation: a sociological analysis. Vestnik RGGU. Ser. «Filosofiya. Sociologiya. Iskusstvovedenie» [Bulletin of RSUH. Series "Philosophy. Sociology. Art History”]. No. 3: 84–98. (In Russ.)

15. Yakovleva Y.M. (2011) Network discourse as a genre: scenario, directing, props. Observatoriya kul'tury [Culture Observatory]. No. 4: 115–118. (In Russ.)

16. Zhang W. (2016) Social media and elections in Singapore: comparing 2011 and 2015. Chinese Journal of Communication. Vol. 9. Iss. 4: 367–384.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up