Calculations on Internet campaigning: implications for democracy.

At the start of the 2003 local election campaign, I asked the Policy Officer of EDDC what I could (and could not) say in an 'internet web page' used as part of my campaign. She said she had no idea - which is about 'par for the course' for some of the staff who hold responsible positions at East Devon District Council. The Electoral Commission sent me clear and logical guidance within a few days of being asked. Their letter is reproduced below. Reading it will help make sense of the analysis that follows.

Letter from Electoral Commission to clarify law on campaign websites.

7 April 2003

Dear Dr Wozniak

Use of the internet in election campaigns

Thank you for your email of 3 April 2003, regarding the use of Internet in election campaigns.

In answer to your first query, the law relating to the 'imprint' which details the printer and publisher of election material does not apply to the Internet or any other online medium at present. Although campaigners are not legally required to include any identifying information on campaign websites, I would suggest that it might be useful to include some basic information which will help voters to clearly understand who has arranged for the material to be published.

We have recently published a report and recommendations relating to the use of the Internet in election campaigns. We have recommended that, in future, the legal requirement for an imprint should be extended to cover online election campaign material, including websites, email and SMS text messages. I have enclosed a copy of the report for your information.

Your second query relates to the cost of establishing and maintaining web pages which contain election campaign material. I hope that the following advice will help to clarify the position. Where a website is set up specifically, and solely, for a candidate's campaign, all costs incurred in the setting up of the site, and any costs incurred in the running of the site during the regulated period (including a relevant proportion of expenditure incurred on monthly line rental) constitute election expenses and must be treated as such.

Where a website developed for another purpose is adapted to promote a candidate's campaign any costs incurred in adapting the site or in the running of the site during the regulated period (including a relevant proportion of expenditure incurred on monthly line rental) constitute election expenses and must be treated as such.

Where a candidate is provided with any commercial services for the development and running of their website (e.g. provision of domain name, graphic design services etc) for free or at a discount of more than 10% of commercial value this would constitute notional expenditure. The value of notional expenditure is the difference between the actual expenditure incurred on an item or service and the commercial value of that item or service. Notional expenditure of over £50 constitutes an election expense and must be reported and treated as such. In most instances notional expenditure of over £50 will also constitute a donation to the candidate and must be treated and reported as such.

No expenditure is incurred where a person voluntarily provides his own services (such as typing) in his own time and free of charge.

The email address of the Commission is info@electoralcommission.org.uk
Their website is  http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk

If I had conducted a 'traditional' campaign to cover about 3000 houses I would have had to pay between £30 and £200 for printing election leaflets - depending on size, use of colour, etc. In the past I have paid around £50 per campaign. I have also had to spend weeks tramping the streets delivering them in all weathers. When I won a by-election in 1998 I had about 20 people helping me. Major parties in Sidmouth deploy between 20 and 30 ppp (people per party!)

There are implications here for which 'sectors' of the electorate might feel left out. Parties may target those sectors known to be 'connected' and affluent because they are (in the main) those that vote. Parties could spend a large amount on preparing websites yet the costs could be lost within other web-based work and could never be accounted for accurately. Independent candidates could benefit because an army of dedicated helpers to push leaflets through doors would no longer be required - an independent candidate could reach just as many voters at the press of a button as could the candidate of a major party.

My own view is that the internet will replace traditional leafleting within maybe 10 years but that there will never be an easy way of 'getting known on the doorsteps' which counts for so much when you are an independent candidate. It counts for much less (in fact, almost nothing) if you are the 'poodle' picked by a major party because so many people vote for a party irrespective of the calibre of a candidate - especially in Sidmouth!

What follows is the account of how a 'pure internet' election campaign was attempted in Sidmouth in May 2003. Despite the result (bottom in both town and district council elections), consider the amount of material that serious candidates could put on the web and which could be read at leisure by 'serious' voters and all for virtually zero cost. Even getting a message across at a parliamentary election could cost only pennies.

However, there were several reasons for my poor result. This was the first election after significant ward boundary changes and many voters were confused as to who they were voting for. There were literally scores of ballot papers returned with no crosses on them  - something never seen before locally. Within this confusion, a candidate who had not even delivered any election material would be at a significant disadvantage.

It is well known also that many people simply put all election leaflets to one side and look at them briefly just before going out to vote. No leaflet, no vote! Another factor was the excellent poll result by an independent candidate who was a sitting councillor but who had so annoyed the staff at Sidmouth Town Council that he had been 'banned from the premises' on the vote of all the rest of the councillors. Apparently this is legal (?!). There had been substantial press coverage in the couple of months before the election. This man collected a major 'underdog and sympathy' vote, coming top of the Town Council poll and doing very well even at District Council level. There was also a young female 'Green Party' candidate who did exceptionally well for a first showing at a District election - and without any past experience at Town Council level. In all, the 'anti-Tory' vote was split many ways - Lib-Dems, Labour, Green, and two independents. My garden and "anti Britain in Bloom" stance continued to cost me many votes.  

A survey of Sidmouth electors (draft text)

The population of Sidmouth is around 14,000 most of whom (about 12,000) are of voting age. Home use of the Internet is probably lower than the national average. Maybe 30% of households or 5,000 adults have access either themselves or via a spouse. Probably no more than a 'hard core' of 200 residents regularly use People's Network computers in the library. Much of the use is by visiting students and young hotel workers from overseas. The number of 'keen internet users' in the town will be considerably lower - maybe only 1000. A recent campaign to connect Sidmouth to BT broadband struggled to gain even a few hundred signatures. These are only estimates. The important point is to compare them with the known small number of people who logged on to read an election leaflet produced by a 'high profile and controversial' candidate.

On 29/30 April (just before the polls on 1 May) a survey was conducted of 100 electors from within the Sidford District Ward (which comprises 2719 houses and about 4800 electors). The selection was not truly random because 9 roads were chosen that were representative of the different social groups (and geographical spread) within the area. 100 electors who happened to be at home when I called were then asked a series of 9 questions to help determine how influential and useful the internet had been in my experimental campaign. The survey took around 8 hours to complete, the main problem being finding 100 people who were at home. Well over 90% of those who answered the door were happy to answer all the questions. (The few who were not were excluded from the survey results.)

A crude attempt was made to choose numbers of houses within each 'social group' to mirror the overall population of the area, but obviously this was approximate. The results probably paint a reasonably representative picture of Sidmouth as a whole but with some reservations. These include:

• Sidford Ward does not include any of the most expensive areas of Sidmouth. Therefore the sample would be biased towards 'middle Sidmouth'. The effect would not be appreciable because the fraction of 'very expensive' houses taking the town as a whole is quite small.

• the survey was conducted mainly during hours when working families would have one or both members at work. Therefore the sample will be biased towards views of people who do not work either because they are retired or because they are unemployed. Again, the bias would not be large because Sidmouth contains an unusually high fraction of retired people.

• Sidford Ward contains a large fraction of all the Local Authority (and ex-LA) housing in Sidmouth. However, these areas are known to have a poor voting record.

100 electors answered the questions. No attempt was made to 'canvass support' for my election campaign. People were merely asked questions about the extent to which they knew of or had viewed my internet election leaflet. The only two sources of information about this were an article in the local paper and (for the website as a whole) a display panel in my garden and a small amount of local publicity a few weeks previously. There was also an election 'flyer' displayed in the local post office.

The questions were as follows:

1. Do you buy the Sidmouth Herald? (Several people who said they obtained it 'secondhand' from a neighbour in order to save money counted as 'yes'.)
   
2. Did you read the election addresses of all the candidates that were printed in the Herald a couple of weeks ago?
   
3. If so, did you recognise that (as an experiment) my main election leaflet this year was going to be on the internet? (In other words, did you read the relevant page thoroughly or just skim across it!)
   
4. Do you have access to the internet at home?
   
5. Do you have access to the internet at work?
   
6. Have you ever used the internet computers in Sidmouth library? (If so how much?)
   
7. Do you know how to use the internet?
   
8. Do you intend to vote?
   
9. Have you looked at my election leaflet on the internet (and will you now do so if you are able)?

The results show the extent to which the internet has penetrated society in Sidmouth, and the extent to which it might prove useful in future electioneering. There are implications also for the claims that should be made for People's Network computers.

1. 18 people did not take or read the Herald. 82 did. This is probably a high percentage for a small local paper. The most amazing reason given for not reading it was a lady who said she stopped when the price increased (from 32 to to 36p per week). She was "appalled" that it now included small sections dedicated to news in villages a few miles away. "I have no interest in those and I do not see why I should pay to read about them".

2. Out of the 82 people above, 50 said they had read the details that candidates had provided about themselves and their campaigns.

3. Out of the 50 above, 27 owned up to having recognised the fact that my election leaflet was on the internet. In addition, one man had guessed as much having seen the large display notice in my garden.

4. A total of 29 people (out of the 100) said they had access to the internet at home. However, these did not directly overlap the group above.

5. Only 9 people had access to the internet at work - and of these 7 also had it at home. This suggests that people who use the technology at work are most likely also to have it at home.

6. Out of a total of 100 people, only three had used the People's Network computers. One of these was a man whose home computer had broken and he was awaiting buying a replacement. In addition, one said her husband had used it 'a couple of times' and one (a man who was a young 93 years old) said he might try it soon just out of interest. No-one questioned was a 'regular user'.

7. Out of 100, 38 people knew how to use the internet even if they did not at present have access to it either at home or work. There was (obviously) a strong overlap here but with 5 people knowing how to use it but (at present) not having access. Of these, only one used the library computers.

8. An amazing total of 82 people said they intended to vote - but intentions are not always translated into action! People usually tell candidates that they intend to vote - it might seem rude to say otherwise. A total of 18 said they would not be voting - most of them because "all politicians are the same and you're all as bad as each other."

9. Only 2 people out of 100 had looked at my election leaflet on the internet - and this within the area where I was standing as a candidate! One had work access, one at home - and both lived in the same road. A further eight said they had intended to look at it or were going to do so (and probably half were not telling the truth).

go to index page