A Comparison of Conventional and Internet Political Mobilization

• Date: 01 November 2006
• Published date: 01 November 2006
• Author: Brian S. Krueger
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X06290911
• Subject Matter: Articles

American Politics Research

Volume 34 Number 6

November 2006 759-776

© 2006 Sage Publications

10.1177/1532673X06290911

http://apr.sagepub.com

hosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

759

Author’s Note: I thank Jack Barry,Samuel Best, and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful

comments.

A Comparison of

Conventional and Internet

Political Mobilization

Brian S. Krueger

University of Rhode Island, Kingston

The high cost of contacting individuals encourages mobilizing institutions to

maximize resources by targeting those most likely to effectively respond,

resulting in stimulation of the politically engaged, civically skilled, and socioe-

conomically advantaged. By dramatically reducing communication costs, the

Internet should eliminate the underpinning of this “rational prospecting.”

However, because most e-mail addresses are not available in public directories

and cultural norms make sending unsolicited e-mail politically risky, individu-

als generally must provide their e-mail address before receiving e-mail mes-

sages from political organizations. Online mobilization campaigns should

disproportionately contact those with the political motivation and technical

ability to submit their e-mail. The author tests these expectations about online

political mobilization using a probability sample survey. Although most of the

long-standing determinants of offline political mobilization fail to predict

online mobilization, political interest and Internet skills powerfully determine

online mobilization. However, because socioeconomic status, civic skills, and

political interest directly predict online skills, these factors indirectly influence

the likelihood of online mobilization.

Keywords: political mobilization; political participation; voting; Internet

use; political e-mail; rational prospecting

Although some consider political mobilization the key to activating the

politically quiescent segments of the public (e.g., Piven & Cloward,

2000), empirical studies consistently find that rather than encouraging polit-

ically disengaged individuals, mobilization efforts disproportionately reach

the politically engaged, the civically skilled, and the socioeconomically

advantaged (Abramson & Claggett, 2001; Brady, Schlozman, & Verba,

1999; Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). Theoretical explanations of this pattern

760 American Politics Research

routinely point to the high costs of contacting individuals and the limited

resources of political organizations (e.g., Brady et al., 1999). To maximize

these resources, mobilizing institutions often use information such as voter

lists combined with census tract data to target those most likely to respond

and respond effectively to political contacts. As a result, by targeting politi-

cal supporters who regularly participate, possess civic skills, and come from

high–socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds, traditional mobilization pat-

terns tend to exacerbate participatory inequality in the United States.

In recent years, the Internet has become an important new medium for

various forms of political mobilization. Internet mobilization played a key

role in both the fundraising and coordination of offline gatherings for Howard

Dean’s Democratic presidential nomination campaign (Levy, 2004). The

nearly 3 million–member MoveOn.org listserv became the primary mech-

anism for both disseminating information and providing political engage-

ment opportunities for numerous causes, most prominently opposition to

President Clinton’s impeachment and the Iraq War (Wolf, 2004). And in

2004, a wide range of electoral campaigns e-mailed supporters encourag-

ing them to take advantage of Meetup.com’s ability to bring together like-

minded political activists (Cornfield, 2004). Given the emergence of the

Internet as a consequential political mobilization tool, scholars should con-

sider whether Internet mobilization conforms to the patterns of more tradi-

tional forms of mobilization.

The distinctive characteristics of the Internet suggest that the long-standing

patterns of traditional mobilization may not be reproduced online. In contrast

with the telephone, postal mail, or door-to-door canvassing, the Internet

offers a communication channel that radically reduces the costs of political

mobilization efforts (e.g., Bimber, 1998; Ward, Gibson, & Lusoli, 2003).

Because sending 1 e-mail message costs nearly the same as sending 1,000,

the Internet seemingly eliminates the need to target only the politically

active members of society. Consequently, the Internet may help level one

important source of participatory inequality.

This research note is the first empirical study to compare the patterns of

online and offline political mobilization using a probability sample survey of

U.S. residents.1I argue that the Internet reduces mobilizing institutions’ com-

munication costs. Yet simply exporting the theoretical framework commonly

used to understand conventional political mobilization (institutional resource

constraints) fails to account for distinct factors relevant to comprehending

Internet mobilization. Accordingly, this note also argues that the unavailabil-

ity of e-mail address lists and the cultural norms against unsolicited online

contact transfer the costs of political mobilization from the institution to the