Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-qr5l4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-05T09:31:22.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Great Leveler? Comparing Citizen–Politician Twitter Engagement Across Three Western Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Rebekah Tromble
Rebekah Tromble*
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science, Leiden University, Pieter de la Court gebouw, Wassenaarseweg 52, 2333 AK Leiden, The Netherlands
*
E-mail: r.k.tromble@fsw.leidenuniv.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Social media are the great social leveler – or so some commentators would have us believe. Social media put the power of communication directly into the average person’s hands. They also present opportunities for politicians to improve their contacts with the common person – to directly share their messages with and better understand the concerns of constituents. This study explores whether and to what extent the potential for such citizen–politician engagement is fulfilled. Deploying an original dataset of tweets from politicians in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States, this exploratory study examines the interlocutors with whom politicians engage reciprocally via Twitter. The results show that a large share of politicians’ genuinely reciprocal exchanges includes average citizens. Although there is much room for improvement, this study suggests that Twitter is indeed opening spaces for citizens and policymakers to engage one another on matters of political import.

Keywords

Twitterpolitical engagementsocial mediapolitical communication

Information

Type
Research
Information
European Political Science , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 223 - 239
Copyright
Copyright © 2016 European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anstead, N. and Chadwick, A. (2008) ‘Parties, election campaigning, and the internet: toward a comparative institutional approach’, in Chadwick, A. and Howard, P.N. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, London: Routledge, pp. 56-71. Google Scholar
Baxter, G. and Marcella, R. (2012) ‘Does Scotland “like” this? Social media use by political parties and candidates in Scotland during the 2010 UK General Election campaign’, Libri 62(2): 109-124. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Becker, T. and Slaton, C.D. (2000) The Future of Teledemocracy, Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
Bennett, W.L. and Segerberg, A. (2013) The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, J. and Bruns, A. (2012) ‘(Not) the Twitter election: the dynamics of the #ausvotes conversation in relation to the Australian media ecology’, Journalism Practice 6(3): 384-402. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burson-Marsteller, (2014) Twiplomacy: Heads of State and Government and Foreign Ministers on Twitter, New York: Burson-Marsteller.Google Scholar
Coleman, S. (2005) ‘The lonely citizen: indirect representation in an age of networks’, Political Communication 22(2): 197-214. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, S. and Blumler, J.G. (2009) The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, S. and Spiller, J. (2003) ‘Exploring new media effects on representative democracy’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 9(3): 1-16. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corrado, A. and Firestone, C.M. (eds.) (1997) Elections in Cyberspace: Toward a New Era in American Politics, Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute.Google Scholar
Dahlgren, P. (2005) ‘The internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation’, Political Communication 22(2): 147-162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. (2010) ‘New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation’, New Media & Society 11(8): 1-20. Google Scholar
D’heer, E. and Verdegem, P. (2014) ‘Conversations about elections on Twitter’, European Journal of Communication 29(6): 720–34.Google Scholar
Enli, G.S. and Skogerbø, E. (2013) ‘Personalized campaigns in party-centred politics’, Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 757-774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evans, H., Cordova, V. and Sipole, S. (2014) ‘Twitter style: an analysis of how house candidates used Twitter in their 2012 campaigns’, PS. Political Science & Politics 47(2): 454-462. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R. and McAllister, I. (2015) ‘Normalising or equalising party competition? Assessing the impact of the web on election campaigning’, Political Studies 63(3): 529-547. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, R., Newell, J.L. and Ward, S.J. (2000) ‘New parties, new media: Italian party politics and the internet’, South European Society and Politics 5(1): 123-142. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glassman, M.E., Straus, J.R. and Shogan, C.J. (2010) ‘Social networking and constituent communications: member use of Twitter during a two-month period in the 111th Congress’, Journal of Communication Research 2 2–3 219-233. Google Scholar
Golbeck, J., Grimes, J.M. and Rogers, A. (2010) ‘Twitter use by the U.S. Congress’, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 61(8): 1612-1621. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, T, Broersma, M., Hazelhoff, K. and van’t Haar, G. (2013) ‘Between broadcasting political messages and interacting with voters’, Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 692–716.Google Scholar
Graham, T., Jackson, D. and Broersma, M. (2016) ‘New platform, old habits? Candidates’ use of Twitter during the 2010 British and Dutch General Election campaigns’, New Media & Society 18(5): 765-783. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, W.J., Moon, B. and Grant, J.B. (2010) ‘Digital dialogue? Australian politicians’ use of the social network tool Twitter’, Australian Journal of Political Science 45(4): 579-604. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, J. (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere, Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Hauben, M. and Hauben, R. (1998) Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and Internet, Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Science Press.Google Scholar
Huang, F.L. (2016) ‘Alternatives to multilevel modeling for the analysis of clustered data’, Journal of Experimental Education 84(1): 175-196. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, N. and Lilleker, D. (2011) ‘Microblogging, constituency service and impression management: UK MPs and the use of Twitter’, The Journal of Legislative Studies 17(1): 86-105. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jungherr, A. (2016) ‘Twitter use in election campaigns: a systematic literature review’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13(1): 72-91. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsson, A.O. and Ihlen, Ø (2015) ‘Birds of a feather flock together? Party leaders on Twitter during the 2013 Norwegian elections’, European Journal of Communication 30(6): 666-681. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, E.J. and Shin, S.Y. (2014) ‘When the medium is the message: how transportability moderates the effects of politicians’, Twitter communication’, Communication Research 41(8): 1088-1110. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maireder, A. and Ausserhofer, J. (2013) ‘Political discourses on Twitter: networking topics, objects, and people’, Twitter and Society, New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version. (2014b) The Manifesto Data Collection, Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
Margolis, M. and Resnick, D. (2000) Politics as Usual: the Cyberspace Revolution, London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margolis, M., Resnick, D. and Levy, J. (2003) ‘Major parties dominate, minor parties struggle: US elections and the internet’, in Gibson, R., Nixon, P. and Ward, S. (eds.) Political Parties and the Internet: Net Gain?, London: Routledge, pp. 51-69. Google Scholar
Margolis, M., Resnick, D. and Wolfe, J. (1999) ‘Party competition on the internet: minor versus major parties in the UK and USA’, Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 4(4): 24-47. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mocanu, D., Baronchelli, A. and Perra, N., Goncalves, B., Zhang, Q. and Vespignani, A. (2013) ‘The Twitter of Babel: mapping world languages through microblog platforms’, PLOS. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moe, H. and Larsson, A.O. (2013) ‘Untangling a complex media system: a comparative study of Twitter-linking practices during three Scandinavian election campaigns’, Information, Communication & Society 16(5): 775-794. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morris, D. (1999) Vote.com: How Big Money Lobbyists and the Media are Losing their Influence and the Internet is Giving Power to the People, Los Angeles: Renaissance Books.Google Scholar
Newman, N. (2010) #UKelection2010, Mainstream Media and the Role of the Internet: How Social and Digital Media Affected the Business of Politics and Journalism, Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.Google Scholar
Nye, J.S., Zelikow, P.D. and King, D.C. (eds.) (1997) Why People Don’t Trust Government, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parmelee, J.H. and Bichard, S.L. (2011) Politics and the Twitter Revolution: How Tweets Influence the Relationship between Political Leaders and the Public, New York: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Pharr, S.J. and Putnam, R.D. (eds.) (2000) Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?, Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rash, W. (1997) Politics on the Net: Wiring the Political Process, New York: W. Freeman.Google Scholar
Rheingold, H. (1995) The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerised World, London: Minerva.Google Scholar
Sæbø, Ø (2011) ‘Understanding Twitter use among parliament representatives: a genre analysis’, in Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A. and de Bruijn, H. (eds.) Electronic Participation, Berlin: Springer, pp. 1-12. Google Scholar
Shapiro, A. (1999) The Control Revolution: How the Internet is Putting Individuals in Charge and Changing the World We Know, New York: Affairs.Google Scholar
Small, T. (2010) ‘Canadian politics in 140 characters: party politics in the Twitterverse’, Canadian Parliamentary Review 33(3): 39-45. Google Scholar
Stegmueller, D. (2013) ‘How many countries for multilevel modeling? A comparison of frequentist and Bayesian approaches’, American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 748-761. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergeer, M. (2015) ‘Twitter and political campaigning’, Sociology Compass 9(9): 745-760. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vergeer, M. and Hermans, L. (2013) ‘Campaigning on Twitter: microblogging and online social networking as campaign tools in the 2010 General Elections in the Netherlands’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 18(4): 399-419. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zittel, T. (2003) ‘Political representation in the networked society: Americanisation of European systems of responsible party government?’, Journal of Legislative Studies 9(3): 32-53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar