IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/teinso/v79y2024ics0160791x24002884.html

Tweeting to be a constitution-writer in Chile: Social media activity, public discourse, and electoral outcomes during pandemic times

Author

Listed:
  • Acuña-Duarte, Andrés A.
  • Campos, Pedro G.
  • León, Javier A.
  • Salazar, César A.

Abstract

We examine the impact of social media activity and content on the electoral performance of 1373 candidates who ran in the 2021 Constitutional election in Chile. In line with the two-step flow of communication hypothesis, estimates from binary and fractional response probit models reveal that candidates with an active Twitter/X account and higher user engagement metrics (i.e., retweets and likes per tweet) are more likely to be elected and secure a larger share of votes. Regarding the content disseminated on social media, the effect of emphasized subjects on electoral outcomes is topic-dependent. Specifically, candidates who focus their posts on sociopolitical issues improve their electoral performance, while tweeting about economics tends to reduce the likelihood of being elected as a constitution-writer in Chile. This could be attributed to the 2021 Constitutional election being part of an institutional response to a series of events, including widespread protests across the country and a strong public demand for profound changes to the Chilean status quo.

Suggested Citation

  • Acuña-Duarte, Andrés A. & Campos, Pedro G. & León, Javier A. & Salazar, César A., 2024. "Tweeting to be a constitution-writer in Chile: Social media activity, public discourse, and electoral outcomes during pandemic times," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:79:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24002884
    DOI: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102740
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X24002884
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102740?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. D. Brook & G. J. G. Upton, 1974. "Biases in Local Government Elections Due to Position on the Ballot Paper," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 23(3), pages 414-419, November.
    2. Kevin Milligan & Marie Rekkas, 2008. "Campaign spending limits, incumbent spending, and election outcomes," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 41(4), pages 1351-1374, November.
    3. Papke, Leslie E. & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M., 2008. "Panel data methods for fractional response variables with an application to test pass rates," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1-2), pages 121-133, July.
    4. Enelow, James M & Munger, Michael C, 1993. "The Elements of Candidate Reputation: The Effect of Record and Credibility on Optimal Spatial Location," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 77(4), pages 757-772, December.
    5. Gary Jacobson, 1985. "Money and votes reconsidered: congressional elections, 1972–1982," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 47(1), pages 7-62, January.
    6. Xiaodong Zhang, 2018. "Social media popularity and election results: A study of the 2016 Taiwanese general election," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-17, November.
    7. Rebecca Morton & Charles Cameron, 1992. "Elections And The Theory Of Campaign Contributions: A Survey And Critical Analysis," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(1), pages 79-108, March.
    8. Mann, Thomas E. & Wolfinger, Raymond E., 1980. "Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 74(3), pages 617-632, September.
    9. Beck, Paul Allen & Dalton, Russell J. & Greene, Steven & Huckfeldt, Robert, 2002. "The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(1), pages 57-73, March.
    10. Robertson, Graeme, 2017. "Political Orientation, Information and Perceptions of Election Fraud: Evidence from Russia," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(3), pages 589-608, July.
    11. Jacobson, Gary C., 1978. "The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(2), pages 469-491, June.
    12. Abramowitz, Alan I., 1988. "Explaining Senate Election Outcomes," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 82(2), pages 385-403, June.
    13. Papke, Leslie E & Wooldridge, Jeffrey M, 1996. "Econometric Methods for Fractional Response Variables with an Application to 401(K) Plan Participation Rates," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 11(6), pages 619-632, Nov.-Dec..
    14. repec:plo:pone00:0145406 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Matthew T. Cole & Ivan Pastine & Tuvana Pastine, 2018. "Incumbency Advantage in an Electoral Contest," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 49(4), pages 419-436.
    2. Julia Cage & Edgard Dewitte, 2021. "It Takes Money to Make MPs: Evidence from 150 Years of British Campaign Spending," Sciences Po Economics Publications (main) hal-03384143, HAL.
    3. Kenneth Benoit & Michael Marsh, 2008. "The Campaign Value of Incumbency: A New Solution to the Puzzle of Less Effective Incumbent Spending," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(4), pages 874-890, October.
    4. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    5. Christopher Magee, 2000. "Why Do Political Action Committees Give Money to Candidates? Campaign Contributions, Policy Choices, and Election Outcomes," Macroeconomics 0004038, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    7. Cagé, Julia & Bekkouche, Yasmine, 2018. "The Heterogeneous Price of a Vote: Evidence from France, 1993-2014," CEPR Discussion Papers 12614, Centre for Economic Policy Research.
    8. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/2ahul47tb09rvqfl9eelv7o5ca is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Abel François & Michael Visser & Lionel Wilner, 2022. "The petit effect of campaign spending on votes: using political financing reforms to measure spending impacts in multiparty elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 192(1), pages 29-57, July.
    10. repec:dbl:dblwop:1392 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/2ahul47tb09rvqfl9eelv7o5ca is not listed on IDEAS
    12. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/1dp7827s4n8ht8fk3qhmeuvd0o is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Pastine, Ivan & Pastine, Tuvana, 2012. "Incumbency advantage and political campaign spending limits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 20-32.
    14. repec:spo:wpecon:info:hdl:2441/1dp7827s4n8ht8fk3qhmeuvd0o is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Thomas Stratmann, 2005. "Some talk: Money in politics. A (partial) review of the literature," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 124(1), pages 135-156, July.
    16. Alessandro Barattieri & Matteo Cacciatore, 2023. "Self-Harming Trade Policy? Protectionism and Production Networks," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 97-128, April.
    17. Nicole M. Mason & Thomas S. Jayne & Nicolas van de Walle, 2017. "The Political Economy of Fertilizer Subsidy Programs in Africa: Evidence from Zambia," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 99(3), pages 705-731.
    18. Céline Nauges, 2018. "Correction to: Water Hauling and Girls’ School Attendance: Some New Evidence from Ghana," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 69(2), pages 447-447, February.
    19. Leila Bengali & Mary C. Daly & Olivia Lofton & Robert G. Valletta, 2021. "The Economic Status of People with Disabilities and Their Families since the Great Recession," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 695(1), pages 123-142, May.
    20. Bendig, David & Schulz, Colin & Möhwald, Maximilian & Pollok, Patrick, 2025. "Fear the loss or welcome the gains? How stock options influence CEO risk-taking in corporate cleantech investments," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 40(2).
    21. Nicholas Sly & Caroline Weber, 2015. "Global tax policy and the synchronization of business cycles," Research Working Paper RWP 15-7, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    22. Baccini, Leonardo & Impullitti, Giammario & Malesky, Edmund J., 2019. "Globalization and state capitalism: Assessing Vietnam's accession to the WTO," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 75-92.
    23. Magnus Lodefalk, 2014. "The role of services for manufacturing firm exports," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 150(1), pages 59-82, February.
    24. Jianhong Mu & Bruce McCarl & Anne Wein, 2013. "Adaptation to climate change: changes in farmland use and stocking rate in the U.S," Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Springer, vol. 18(6), pages 713-730, August.
    25. Jeffrey Milyo, 1998. "The Electoral Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: A Natural Experiment Approach," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 9806, Department of Economics, Tufts University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:teinso:v:79:y:2024:i:c:s0160791x24002884. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/technology-in-society .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.