Can Social Media Combat Political Apathy and Win Elections?

I could have easily chosen an organisation to profile this week, paired it with a fancy ad, listed some impressive sales figures and typed it up in no time at all. But I've chosen to go down a slightly different route and examine how social media is changing the way political parties and politicians engage with members of the community. This comes down to more than sales and more than profit. It is of importance to everyone, not just a select few.  With political apathy a hot topic both in Australia and internationally, there has never been a greater need for engagement, resonance and promotion. And therein lies the role of social media.

Whilst many people wouldn't feel comfortable airing their political views at a dinner party, web-based forums and pages present an entirely different context for discussion, one in which almost complete anonymity allows users to express their true opinions. NSW ALP secretary Sam Dastyari claims: 

Political parties in Australia are effectively organised around this notion of meetings.  But that's not really a model of engagement for the 21st century.  It's actually a whole generation of ideas that you don't want to miss out on. Getting people involved in politics in the 21st century may not necessarily mean formal party membership in the mode that we view party membership.

 He raises some good points, but there are also points of contention. What is social media, if not a series of mini-meetings between respondents? Besides the setting, what exactly changes? Surely it won't be too long before political parties in Australia start measuring engagement by their followers or how many conversations they're generating, rather than the outdated and archaic 'political party membership.' I don't know any of my friends that are members of a political party, nor do they wish to be. But I know many that follow a party or politician on Twitter, or read their blogs and discuss them in online forums. Does that suggest apathy? I'll let you be the judge.

Looking at it from an international context, the 2008 US election was the first to occur in the social media age, and many attributed Obama's win to his ability to engage and garner support through social media. 

The video below, whilst a bit dry, offers a fantastic insight into the Obama team's approach - the fact that they saw social media as a critical component of their campaign, not an afterthought, is something which I personally took out as a key point of difference, especially at that point in time when social media strategies hadn't developed to the level they're at today. 

In November 2008, Obama had approximately 2.5 million Facebook likes, 115,000 Twitter followers and 50,000,000 YouTube views. At the time, these figures were considered huge. As a comparison, John McCain had around 600,000 Facebook likes. 

Fast forward to the present day: Obama has approximately 27,880,000 Facebook likes, 18,754,000 Twitter followers and 215,050,000 YouTube views. Does this massive growth say more about Obama's popularity or social media's popularity? Why has one social media platform spiked in popularity more so than others?

Firstly, I think it says a lot about the phenomenal growth of Twitter as a means of conversation and engagement. I'd also argue that in 2008, YouTube was probably the most established of the three platforms, yet it still had some way to go. I think ultimately this proves the reach and effectiveness of social media, and it has changed future political campaigns forever, especially when it comes to engaging with the 'apathetic' youths of today. But I'd be interested to hear your thoughts. Does present-day politics engage  you? What could political figures and parties be doing, especially digitally, to improve their brand and resonance amongst members of the community?