TV, Twitter and influence on voting habits

A casual analysis of the general election we’ve just had in the UK reveals an interesting perspective on the influence of ‘old’ versus new (= social) media.

It was widely anticipated that social media would play a massive role in this year’s election, as it had done for Obama in the US. But while there were some instances where social media (Twitter, mainly) did have an effect (in countering the Clegg ‘Nazi slur’ issue, for example), it was pretty much sidelined by the TV debates.

What’s really interesting, in the cold light of the day after polling, TV didn’t have much influence either. After the televised debate series it was widely expected that Clegg and the LibDems would massively increase their share of the vote, if not seats won, and would be able to exert intense pressure on the two larger parties to implement electoral reform.

It didn’t happen, despite me staying up until 3.30 waiting for the breakthrough to be announced. In the end, voters seem not to be influenced either by social media or the TV and voted pretty much how they’d always voted.

It turns out that voting is much much harder to influence than anyone expected. Good thing too.

(End note: A year or so ago I gave a presentation in which I poo-pooed The Influentials idea that one in ten people tell the other nine how to vote, what to buy, etc. Afterwards, I met fellow speaker Emanuel Rosen, author of The Anatomy of Buzz, who told me that in the US it’s true, and that he pretty much is told how to vote by someone else (he didn’t say who). So maybe there’s a big cultural divide in the influence of voting that is pertinent here.)