ASSIGNMENT COVER SHEET

Socy 2038

[School]
College of Arts and Social Sciences
Australian National University
Canberra ACT 0200 Australia
www.anu.edu.au
+61 2 6125 xxxx
firstname.lastname@anu.edu.au

Assignment details
(assignment number, title,
etc)

Assignment 3

Lecturer

Joanna Sikora

Tutor

Joanna Sikora

Tutorial (day and time)

Thursday 1400

Word count

2595

Due date

10/062014

Academic misconduct can seriously jeopardise your academic career, your future, and, if you are an international student, your
ability to stay in Australia to study. The University takes academic misconduct seriously and may take action under the
Procedure: Code of Practice for Student Academic Integrity
(http://policies.anu.edu.au/policies/code_of_practice_for_student_academic_integrity/policy) or the Discipline Rules 2011
(http://about.anu.edu.au/__documents/rules/disciplinerules.pdf).
In submitting this assessment item you declare that:
1.

2.

You understand the ANU College of Arts and Social Sciences assessment policies
http://cass.anu.edu.au/intranet/education/education-policies and the ANU Code of Practice for Student Academic Integrity
http://policies.anu.edu.au/policies/code_of_practice_for_student_academic_integrity/policy.
You have used the referencing system recommended by your lecturer; you have not copied, paraphrased or summarised,
without appropriate acknowledgement, the words, ideas, scholarship or intellectual property of another person; no part of
this work has been written by any other person except where such collaboration has been authorised by the course
convenor; no part of this work has been previously presented for assessment either at the ANU or elsewhere, except
where authorised by the course convenors concerned; no part of this work falsely represents data, observation or other
research activity as genuine, comprehensive and/or original, and you have not invented the data, used data gathered by
other researchers without acknowledgment, or wilfully omitted data to obtain desired results.

PERMISSIONS
I understand that my lecturer may use Turnitin to check the text of my assignment against the Turnitin database, the Web, and
scholarly journals.

I give my permission for my assignment to be added to the Turnitin database.

I give my permission for an Originality Report to be generated for my assignment, but I do not agree that my assignment

can be added to the Turnitin database.

I do not give my permission for an Originality Report to be generated for my assignment. (Note that your lecturer may
choose not to accept your assignment for marking under these conditions, which will affect your ability to pass the course.)

I understand that the University may choose my assignment as an exemplar in moderation, quality assurance, or benchmarking
activities.

I give my permission for my assignment to be used for these purposes

I do not wish to have my assignment used for these purposes

Name

Angus Wilson Mackie

University ID

U5179320

(I tick the above boxes)

Age, Internet Use, and Party Identification

Phone contact

0447 007 754

Introduction
Over the course of the 21st century, one of the more popular topics within political
science has been the role the internet has to play in democracy. For instance, online news
source such as blogs are having an increased impact upon the media cycle (Farrell and
Drezner, 2007). This essay will question whether this theory is applicable to the Australian
political scene. Using data from the 2010 Australian Electoral Survey (AES) (McAllister,
2011?), this essay will seek to assess whether the extent of internet use an individual conducts
is an indicator of said individuals allegiance to a political party.
Theoretical Framework
Ideally, this essay would look at internet use in relation to positioning on the left/right
political axis. The issue with placing oneself on the political spectrum are too numerous to
count. While the basic concept of left/right on the political axis are vaguely understood by
people, there is a variety of identifying features between these two points which make it
difficult to define what each of these specifically mean (Nosek & Haidt, 2012). Most people
measure it through placing parties in relation to one another, which is an issue when one gets
into comparing perspectives of political partisans (Nosek & Haidt, 2012). This suggest an
almost Foucaultian power-relationship model where nothing is concrete, they are instead
defined by their relationships with others (Veyne, 2010, 33). From this point it would
arguably make more sense to measure political identity by party, rather than by a left/right
axis model. Within the Australian context, this can easily be summarised as the Greens sit to
the left of the major political parties, with Labor and Liberal occupying the centre-left and
centre-right spots respectively. This conforms to the Downs-Hoteling Model, which suggests
the major two parties will converge to the centre politically in order to maximise votes. (Cho,
& Duggan, 2009, 852) This also accounts for the Greens, who are taking advantage of a

political space a third party in the more logical position, where they can attract more votes
rather than vying for control in the centre of the political spectrum. The Nationals are in a
different position however, as while they are seen as being close on the spectrum to the
liberals they have a distinct regional focus. This to a certain extent contrasts with accepted
notions of party competition, through the formation of the coalition between these two centreright parties. This is a power sharing arrangement with the Liberals, which for our purposes
will focus on one area; they have agreed to not compete within single member districts in
order to not undermine their voter base (Costar, 2011, 31). We can clearly see that while we
can vaguely locate political parties on the spectrum, it is far more effective to define them in
relation to other parties than to a flawed conceptual axis.
A recent trend within politics is an increase in online tools for campaigning, and
politics in general (Cantijoch & Gallego, 2009, 862). The recent (2014) Indian election
highlighted Narendra Modi, the successful candidate for President, was actively using a
Twitter account, where his main rival did not (Economic and Political Weekly, 2014).
President Obama was similarly successful in pursuing an online strategy, which was able to
galvanise younger and more internet savvy voters to support him over not voting at all.
(Mazmanian, A. 2012,). Logically, more frequent internet users in the age of online politics
would have an increased amount of exposure to political messages, conceivably impacting
their political identification.

Hypotheses

1. Difference in levels of internet use between left wing party supporters and right
wing party supporters
With more progressive online groups being able to drive political debate in a way which
favours their agendas, there must logically have been a support base online who were
supportive of them. Similarly, Indy-media groups have flourished in the online environment
who have been extremely successful in being able to use the medium to spread their message,
when compared with more conservative online presence (Garcelon, 2006). Therefore, there
should be a connection between internet use and a more left leaning political identity.
2. Does an increase in party allegiance change the level of internet use
Within groupings of more avid supporters of movements, there is a trend towards being more
active within that groups activities (Garcelon, 2006). Given the internet age has seen a lot of
these groups becoming active online (Garcelon, 2006), it stands to reason that the more active
supporters of such groups are, the more likely they are to participate in that group. Therefore
hen such groups have an online presence, the more avid supporters should exhibit a greater
participation in that site.
Measurement
The Australian Electoral Survey (AES) conducts a poll just after every Australian Federal
Election (roughly every three years) in order to find out a series of details which may have
influenced the outcome of the election. In addition to this, they garner a variety of
measurements of a variety of activities/possible indicators. The survey is designed to gather
information of peoples political positions and other factors which theoretically influence it.
In order to test the above hypotheses, this essay uses a series of questions from the AES.
These include:
H10: In general, how often do you use the internet?

Several times a day

38.7% (7 points)
About once a day
17.0% (6 points)
Three to five days a week 6.2% (5 points)
One to two days a week
6.0% (4 points)
Every few weeks
3.5% (3 points)
Less often
2.6% (2 points)
Do not use the internet
26.1% (1 point)

From these numbers above, there is a distinct pattern in internet use, where there is a high
frequency of use amidst internet users. This said, there is a notable exception, in that just over
a quarter of respondents to the survey did not use the internet. For the purpose of this
conducting an OLS analysis, each of the values had their value flipped (to what is listed
above) in order to give a greater score to those with greater internet use.
B1: Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as Liberal, Labor, National or what?

Liberal
Labor
National Party
Greens
Other party
No party

37.3%
39.5%
3.4%
4.6%
3.6%
11.7%

As the measurement of someones political identity, B1 is important to this study. However, it

is also comprised of nominal values, which cannot be analysed effectively as a group.
Instead, for the purposes of looking at the effects of internet usage on party identification,
each of these will be looked at as a dummy variable.
B2: Would you call yourself a very strong, fairly strong, or not very strong supporter of
that party?

Very strong supporter

Fairly strong supporter
Not very strong supporter

19.7%
52.9%
27.4%

Extending the party identification by ascertaining the extent of support for a party
theoretically shows that someone is more committed to that party.

These measurements will be looked at primarily in percentages, and from there within party
groups. This is to offset the numerical dominance of respondents who identified as Liberal
and Labor party supporters.
Results

Fig. 1: Levels of Internet use by Party Identification

The interesting points made in

Figure 1, is that there are a series of
pairings.
First, the level of

internet

use by the Greens runs close to

the

internet use of individuals who do

not

identify with a party, with a far

larger

percentage of those groups have

high

levels of internet use. This is particularly

true for the

more frequent users, less so when looking at those who did not use internet at all when
surveyed.
Labor, liberal and minor party supporters are also are almost on par in terms of internet use,
while the Greens have a heavy saturation of frequent internet users. Given this, it is surprising
that there was only a relationship in level of support for a party and level of internet use
amidst Labor and the Nationals. One would have assumed that the Greens would have
exhibited an equally strong relationship, given 2010 was a period where they were no longer
seen as the choice for the protest vote (Blount, 1998).
The nationals break the pattern established by the other parties. Where most parties
have a plurality of supporters who frequently use the internet on a daily basis, the nationals

have more supporters who do not use the internet. This arguably can be expected since the
Nationals do have a focus on rural areas.
Table 1. Regression analysis of Party identification and weighted internet use
Unstandardiz
ed
Coefficients
Std.
B
Error
(Constant)
Greens supporters
Labor supporters
Liberal supporters
National
supporters
Minor Party
Supporter

5.115
0.767
0.619
0.485
0.861
0.181

Standardized
Coefficients
Beta

0.153
0.29 0.065
0.175 0.121
0.176 0.094
0.324 0.063
0.324 0.013

t
Sig.
33.43
8
0
2.644
0.008
3.534
0
2.748
0.006
2.656
0.008
0.559
0.576

a. Dependent Variable: Weighted use of internet

These results are reiterated through a regression analysis. Upon the original weighting
of the weighted internet use variable, there is a high level of internet use with supporters of
the Greens having an above average response, where the other parties fall show. Upon
standardisation, this is still apparent, although variation in a comparative sense is minimal.

Figure three shows some interesting points. While as a group as whole, the null
hypothesis is correct, this does not apply when you look at specific groups of party
supporters. Given our data comes from ordinal sources, we only have to look at the Linearby-Linear Associations, which show that there are a few parties for which the null hypothesis
can be rejected. These include the National party and the Labor party. It is interesting that
these two are the only two where there is any statistical significance through having scores
less than 0.05.

Table 2. Collated Chi-Square tests for correlations between weighted internet use and
weighted party support

Pearson Chi-Square
Valid
responden
ts

Liberal
supporters

Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

Greens
supporters

Labor
supporters

Minor
Party
supporters

df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)

1
2
1
10.49 2
2.665
1866

Pearson Chi-Square

10.883

Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

11.156

Pearson Chi-Square
National
supporters

Value
10.631
a

1.893
789
23.743
a

Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

27.247

Pearson Chi-Square

6.949b

5.441
75

Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

8.907

Pearson Chi-Square

17.89

1.979
100

Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

17.191

Pearson Chi-Square

8.728c

Likelihood Ratio
Linear-by-Linear
Association
N of Valid Cases

10.593

5.772
838

2.923
61

1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
0
1
0
1

0.56

0.57

0.10

0.53

0.51

0.16

0.02

0.00

0.0

0.86

0.71

0.1

0.11

0.14

0.01

0.55

0.3

0.08

a 15 cells (71.4%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .27.
b 16 cells (76.2%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .17.
c 14 cells (77.8%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .64.

With that in mind, looking at the correlations between internet use and strength of
support in the Labor party and the National party (In fig. 4) some interesting trends become
apparent. For those who identify with the nationals, individuals who did not have strong
support for the party they identified with were far more likely to not use the internet (45.5%),
whereas if they were a strong supporter they were far less likely to not use the internet.
Looking at the top two grouping of internet users, there is just over 30% who are not strong
supporters of the nationals. For those who would consider themselves strong supporters, there
are two peaks, with a trend towards being more frequent internet users. This manifests itself
in the top two brackets with a little over 50% considering themselves.
When looking at very strong supporters of the nationals, the pattern presented by not very
strong supporters was reversed. 70% consider themselves to be more frequent internet users.
This suggests that in the case of the nationals there was a clear connection between internet
use and a stronger support for the party. This implies the nationals had far more devoted
followers on the internet.
Table 3. National and Labour supporters strength of support and internet use

National
support
ers

Labor
support
ers

Not strong
support
Strong
support
Very
strong
support
Total
Not strong
support
Strong

Doesn
't Use
Intern
et
45.50
%
30.20
%
10.00
%
32.00
%
23.60
%
26.90

2
9.10
%

3
9.10
%

4
7.00
%

2.70
%
3.50
%
2.60

2.70
%
5.20
%
3.20

20.00
%
6.70
%
9.20
%
7.70

5
4.50
%
9.30
%

6
4.50
%
32.60
%

6.70
%
6.10
%
6.20

40.00
%
25.30
%
14.40
%
15.70

Freque
nt
Interne
t User
Total
27.30
100.0
%
0%
20.90
100.0
%
0%
30.00
%
24.00
%
38.00
%
37.60

100.0
0%
100.0
0%
100.0
0%
100.0

support
Very
strong
support
Total

0%

36.80
%
27.70
%

6.30
%
3.50
%

2.80
%
3.70
%

5.60
%
7.80
%

7.60
%
6.40
%

10.40
%
14.40
%

30.60
%
36.50
%

100.0
0%
100.0
0%

The correlations presented about the supporters of the Labor party present a different
picture. Not so strong supporters of the party had a higher chance of being more frequent
internet users when compared with very strong Labor supporters (38.00% down to 30.60%).
There is a similar trend when there is a reduction in usage of the internet, until you get to the
bottom two groupings of internet use; those who dont use the internet and those who are
quite infrequent with their internet use. The pattern for support of the Labor party reverses,
where there is an increased likelihood of stronger support for the Labor party when the
individual either does not use the internet or does so on an infrequent basis.
When these two correlations are compared, an interesting trend occurs. Popular logic
would suggest that the party which was traditionally presented as being centre-left (Labor)
would have had a greater amount of support amidst its online user groups, given the more
progressive nature the internet is typically given politically. Therefore it is interesting to see
that greater support for this party existed amidst individuals who had little to no internet use.
In contrast, the nationals had the reverse situation. Given the rural nature of the party, this is
surprising given the level of internet in rural areas is far lower than in urban environments
(Ward, Singleton & Martyn, 1998, 117). Said Urban environments have a stronger tendency
to be affiliated with voting towards Labor, so this dichotomy in support in online avenues is
interesting.
These two points are intriguing when we look at percentage of internet use within
each party. As a whole, frequent internet users are far more common within the Labor party,

whereas the Nationals have more supporters who do not use the internet than those who use
the internet on a regular basis.

Summary
While there was certainly a trend after the 2010 elections within the most left leaning major
party, the Greens, towards having the largest percentage of frequent internet users, there was
not a similar correlation within this left leaning group amidst the level of support for the
party.
The idea that left leaning parties had a much higher level of internet use was
definitely supported when you compare the levels of internet use National Party supporters
with that of the Greens. What was an interesting trend was that the Nationals had a significant
trend amidst its internet users of a relationship between an increase in internet use and
The Labor Party and the Liberal Party had very similar levels of internet use amidst
its supporters, which works against the assumption of supporters of left leaning parties having
greater internet usage compared to the supporters of more right wing parties.

References
Anduiza, E., Cantijoch, M. & Gallego, A. 2009, "POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
AND THE INTERNET", Information, Communication & Society, vol. 12, no. 6, pp. 860878.
Blount, S. 1998, "Post materialism and the Vote for the Senate in Australia",
Australian Journal of Political Science, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 441-449.
Cho, S. & Duggan, J. 2009, "Bargaining foundations of the median voter theorem",
Journal of Economic Theory, vol. 144, no. 2, pp. 851-868.
Costar, B. 2011, "Australias curious coalition", Political Science, vol. 63, no. 1, pp.
29-44.
Mazmanian, A. 2012, Obama's 50-State Twitter Campaign, Atlantic Media, Inc.,
Washington.
"Modi's Modus Operandi in the 2014 Elections", 2014, Economic & Political Weekly

Garcelon, M. 2006, "The "Indymedia" experiment: The Internet as movement

facilitator against institutional control", Convergence: The Journal of Research into New
Media Technologies, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 55-82.
Graham, J., Nosek, B.A. & Haidt, J. 2012, "The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and
Conservatives: Exaggeration of Differences across the Political Spectrum: e50092", PLoS
One, vol. 7, no. 12.
Veyne, P. & Lloyd, J. (. 2010, Foucault: his thought, his character, Polity, Malden,
MA; Cambridge, UK.
Ward, Jeff Singleton Paul Martyn Ian 1998, "Did the 1996 Federal Election See a
Blue-collar Revolt against Labor? A Queensland Case-study", Australian Journal of Political
Science, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 117-130.

Appendix I: Syntax
{AES_2010.sav'.}
DATASET NAME DataSet1 WINDOW=FRONT.
RECODE b1 (1=1) (ELSE=0) INTO B1_Lib.
VARIABLE LABELS B1_Lib 'Liberal supporters'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE b1 (2=1) (ELSE=0) INTO B1_Lab.
VARIABLE LABELS B1_Lab 'Labor supporters'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE b1 (3=1) (ELSE=0) INTO B1_Nat.
VARIABLE LABELS B1_Nat 'National supporters'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE b1 (4=1) (ELSE=0) INTO B1_Grn.
VARIABLE LABELS B1_Grn 'Greens supporters'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE b2 (1=3) (3=1) (2=2) INTO b2_weighted.
VARIABLE LABELS b2_weighted 'weighted party support'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE h10 (1=7) (2=6) (3=5) (4=4) (5=3) (6=2) (7=1) INTO h10_Weighted.
VARIABLE LABELS h10_Weighted 'Weighted internet use'.
EXECUTE.
RECODE b1 (5=1) (ELSE=0) INTO b1_Min.
VARIABLE LABELS b1_Min 'Other Parties'.
EXECUTE.
* Chart Builder.
GGRAPH

/GRAPHDATASET NAME="graphdataset" VARIABLES=h10 COUNT()[name="COUNT"] b1

MISSING=LISTWISE REPORTMISSING=NO
/GRAPHSPEC SOURCE=INLINE.
BEGIN GPL
SOURCE: s=userSource(id("graphdataset"))
DATA: h10=col(source(s), name("h10"), unit.category())
DATA: COUNT=col(source(s), name("COUNT"))
DATA: b1=col(source(s), name("b1"), unit.category())
GUIDE: axis(dim(1), label("H10. How often use internet"))
GUIDE: axis(dim(2), label("Percent"))
GUIDE: legend(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior), label("B1. Party
identification"))
SCALE: cat(dim(1), include("7", "6", "5", "4", "3", "2", "1"),
sort.values("7", "6", "5", "4", "3", "2", "1"))
SCALE: linear(dim(2), include(0))
SCALE: cat(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior), include("4", "2", "1",
"3", "5", "6"), sort.values("4", "2", "1", "3", "5", "6"))
ELEMENT: line(position(summary.percent(h10*COUNT,
base.aesthetic(aesthetic(aesthetic.color.interior)))), color.interior(b1),
missing.wings())
END GPL.
REGRESSION
/MISSING LISTWISE
/STATISTICS COEFF OUTS R ANOVA
/CRITERIA=PIN(.05) POUT(.10)
/NOORIGIN
/DEPENDENT h10_Weighted
/METHOD=ENTER B1_Grn B1_Lab B1_Lib B1_Nat b1_Min.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=b2_weighted BY h10_Weighted BY B1_Lib
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=b2_weighted BY h10_Weighted
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=b2_weighted BY h10_Weighted BY b1_Min
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=b2_weighted BY h10_Weighted BY B1_Grn
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT

/COUNT ROUND CELL.

CROSSTABS
/TABLES=b2_weighted BY h10_Weighted BY B1_Nat
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL.
CROSSTABS
/TABLES=b2_weighted BY h10_Weighted BY B1_Lab
/FORMAT=AVALUE TABLES
/STATISTICS=CHISQ
/CELLS=COUNT
/COUNT ROUND CELL.