Data-driven campaigning and democratic disruption: Evidence from six advanced democracies

Abstract

Data-driven campaigning has become one of the key foci for academic and non-academic audiences interested in political communication. Widely seen to have transformed political practice, it is often argued that data-driven campaigning is a force of significant democratic disruption because it contributes to a fragmentation of political discourse, undermines prevailing systems of electoral accountability and subverts ‘free’ and ‘fair’ elections. In this article, we present one of the very first cross-national analyses of data-driven campaigning by political parties. Drawing on empirical research conducted by experts in six advanced democracies, we show that the data-driven campaign practices seen to threaten democracy are often not manifest in party campaigns. Instead, we see a set of practices that build on pre-existing techniques and which are far less sophisticated than is often assumed. Indeed, we present evidence that most political parties lack the capacity to execute the hyper-intensive practices often associated with data-driven campaigning. Hence, while there is reason to remain alert to the challenges data-driven campaigning produces for democratic norms, we argue that this practice is not inherently disruptive, but rather exemplifies the evolving nature of political campaigning in the 21st century.

Quantifying the potential persuasive returns to political microtargeting

“…Political microtargeting appears to be growing in prevalence ( 8 – 10 ; though see ref. 11 ) and has caused a great deal of public concern. In an especially salient case, prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, the media consulting firm Cambridge Analytica reportedly used unobtrusively collected data from over 50 million Facebook users to target potential voters with political advertisements ( 12 ).…”

Invisible transparency: How different types of ad disclaimers on Facebook affect whether and how digital political advertising is perceived

“…As a result, the scholarly findings on its use almost exclusively reflect the country's specific systemic and intraparty conditions. However, European countries differ from the United States in key areas at the systemic and party level which influence how parties are able to use DPA (for an overview, see Kefford et al, 2022; Kruschinski & Bene, 2022): On the system level, European countries have multiparty systems, strict data protection regimes, or strict campaign rules on donations or political advertising. On the party level, European parties rather have low financial resources and digital marketing know‐how.…”

“…First studies (Kefford et al, 2022; Kruschinski & Bene, 2022; Kruschinski et al, 2022) about the use of DPA in Germany show that all parties draw on Facebook advertising. In comparison to US‐campaigns, the spending and sophistication of DPA practices are rather basic (Kefford et al, 2022).…”

“…First studies (Kefford et al, 2022; Kruschinski & Bene, 2022; Kruschinski et al, 2022) about the use of DPA in Germany show that all parties draw on Facebook advertising. In comparison to US‐campaigns, the spending and sophistication of DPA practices are rather basic (Kefford et al, 2022). However, in a comparison between European countries, German parties bought most Facebook ads, and invested the largest budget on them during the 2019 European Parliament election (Kruschinski & Bene, 2022).…”

Who Does(n't) Target You?

“…These methodologies, while providing valuable insights, also have their limitations: Campaigns are often not willing to share information on how they utilize voter data for targeted ads (Kefford et al, 2022; Kruschinski andHaller, 2017). Further, ad libraries have been criticized for being inadequate (Leerssen et al, 2019; Edelson et al, 2020 and they provide very limited access to the actual targeting criteria used.…”