Gareth O'Callaghan: Social media has changed the landscape of elections

Not that long ago, the main sources of influence that extended far into our lives, shaping our views and beliefs, were our parents, our teachers, and the church.

The influence of any one of them was just an extension of the other two, and that influence also included our political views and the decisions we made.

None of that stands for much anymore. Our main source of influence now, and how our values and beliefs take shape, is social media. And in the run-up to the local and European elections on June 7, it has its pros and cons — depending on what you might be wishing for.

If you cast your mind back less than ten years, posters on lampposts and front porch conversations carried quite a sway when it came to who we voted for on polling day. 

Meeting a candidate face to face, pressing the flesh, a sincere smile, and a two-minute “How is everything?” chat was often all it took; because we mostly knew already who we would be voting for. Those days are long gone.

Airbrushed posters have become annoying, more so when they block road signs and traffic signals.

Social media is the new election poster. The outcome of elections will be decided by what we read from others who share our interests and concerns on social media outlets, and how we react to ‘political influencers’, with X, Facebook, and Instagram being the main contenders.

When people can’t make up their minds about something, social media will almost conclusively make that decision for them; in the same way that if we don’t need any convincing, that we’re certain about what we believe, social media can reaffirm that certainty in order to justify our belief. 

Social media cuts out the need to talk to candidates because often the candidate’s affirmation is not the same as the real-life stories from other like-minded people we discuss issues with online.

If there is one certainty to come from the June elections, it’s that social media will utterly control the outcome of the forthcoming general election.

Posters and door-to-door cold calls by candidates are a waste of valuable time these days. The landscape of Haughey-Ahern politics I grew up with has vanished. In the time it takes candidates to have a ten-minute conversation with voters, they could have spoken to an audience of thousands on a live Facebook or X update.

Social media has now become the key driver in voting behaviour, and no matter how strategists might try to play that down, it is the future. Over 40% of Americans aged 19-29 say their primary source of news comes from social media. Some 22% aged 30-49 say the same. Only 6% and 3% respectively of those aged 50-64 and 65-plus turn to social media for news, preferring instead traditional newspaper and television outlets.

Supporting a political party because it was the family tradition to do so belongs back to the days of The Waltons. Parish-pump politics is in the skip. Social media has breached all the old traditions. 

Other people’s concerns are now aligned with our own concerns. Social media draws us back, each platform keeping its followers hooked — strength in numbers; and therein lies the basis of influence. There’s no more toeing the party line, unless you have a vested interest in a particular party.

X's rise in popularity since before covid, and how it influenced millions during the worst of the pandemic, was nothing short of staggering. It won’t be a surprise if we witness a repeat of that in the run-up to elections all over the world, including Ireland.

Evidence from surveys carried out in the US — primary elections, and analysis of millions of tweets — suggests that X's mostly uncensored content may have been a major deciding factor in persuading voters with more moderate views to vote against Donald Trump.

It’s proof that social media can also act as a devil’s advocate when it comes to influencing people’s views and deciding on voting patterns. For many, X is a sewer; but for others, it’s a challenge: to jump from the high diving board into the unknown and to debate issues that matter. In the uncharted landscape of social media, it’s how you connect that decides who will respond, and how you then react.

India’s multi-phase general election is currently ongoing, running from April 19 until June 1. It’s the world’s largest election, in which 960 million people are eligible to vote. It’s estimated that almost half a billion are social media users, mostly using WhatsApp, YouTube, or both. In India, social media plays an enormous role. 

Many politicians have moved away from television and radio to directly communicate with voters, with almost every politician using X as a direct line at this crucial point in the election.

They have dedicated teams utilising every popular social media outlet, which allows them direct contact. They also use well-known influencers to persuade their own followers. WhatsApp is the vanguard of the election campaign, with daily messages promoting a politician’s agenda. 

By using electoral roll searches, politicians have a strong idea of who will or will not vote for them, so this gives them the opportunity to focus on the uncertainties of those who might still be persuaded to vote for them in order to boost their results.

Many of the candidates are aware that the encrypted platforms, such as Telegram and WhatsApp, are also the strongest sources of misinformation because there is no system in place for policing and checking.

India’s general election is completely driven by the influence of social media, as will be the case in Ireland’s next general election. Most of India’s primary candidates have brand managers who know just how immeasurably valuable social media is when it comes to decision influencing.

The main problem is not misinformation — explicitly false information that is relatively easy to see through — but a slow flow of innuendo and nuance, which can have a polarising effect on voters. This is how radicalisation finds its way into the process of normalisation: what was once regarded as outrageous can quickly become acceptable.

Our cultural landscape might be starkly different to that of India, but human minds don’t differ all that much when it comes down to the reasons that drive us to the ballot box in order to exact change and demand to have our concerns addressed and respected.

For the time it takes to call to houses and stand at garden gates, politicians might increase their chances by embracing the always-live diet of social media, connecting on a level that voters feel more comfortable using. It might not feel so comfortable for the politican, but the hard work involved in the process of getting elected should never feel comfortable. Use it or lose it.