The interface between politicians and the electorate is a vital component of the infrastructure of democracy and politicians now have many more tools available to communicate and engage with the electorate. Direct contact between politicians and the electorate is associated with increased levels of civic engagement. In this article we examine the responsiveness of politicians in the United Kingdom by conducting: (i) an innovative test of responses to an undecided voter's email and (ii) follow-up interviews with electoral candidates. We found that a majority of electoral candidates had an identifiable email address and more than half responded to our undecided voter's email. However, there were considerable differences in the content relevance of the responses. There were also very few follow-up emails or further contact from the electoral candidates, suggesting only limited evidence of an integrated communication strategy. Electoral candidates also expressed concerns about communicating in a way that was 'on record'. The findings provide a unique insight into the dynamics of communication between politicians and the electorate and the changing nature of the representation interface. Whilst the Internet has the scope for more personalized and two-way communication and for electors to hold politicians to account, it seems that politicians are more focused on campaign advantage rather than renewing the representation interface.
KEYWORDSAccountability, democracy, engagement, representation, responsiveness, political party, transparency, vote
1.IntroductionThe responsiveness of politicians in terms of being contactable and accountable to the electorate is as a key aspect of effective representation (Pitkin 1967). It is important that politicians engage with the electorate and explain policy positions in order to inform voter choice and also to gain an understanding of citizens' concerns. Communication and dialogue is thought to be one of the ways to address the declining levels of civic engagement, in part because of its link with giving citizens a sense of efficacy and building trust (Blank and Dutton 2012; Hansard Society 2014;Margetts 2011;Pattie et al. 2004;Stromer-Galley and Foot 2002).In this context the Internet and on-line communication present both opportunities and challenges for how politicians communicate with the electorate (Coleman and Blumler 2009; Coleman and Shane 2011; Dahlberg 2011; Davis 2010;Enli and Skogerbø 2013;Gibson 2013;Hermans and Vergeer 2013;Jackson 2004;Karpf 2012;Larsson 2014;Lee 2014;Lilleker 2014;Lilleker and Jackson 2010;Lilleker et al. 2011;Lilleker et al. 2015;Strandberg 2013;Vergeer 2013;Vergeer et al. 2013aVergeer et al. , 2013bWard et al. 2008). Tools such as email, blogs, on-line deliberation, forums, party selection tools and Twitter have the potential to bring politicians and the electorate into direct contact, and provide new opportunities for engagement and accountability. Politicians can communicate using the Internet in a personalized way, which goes beyond the...