IGF 2019 WS #123
Personal Data & Political Influence

Political parties use data-driven techniques to varying degrees and in different contexts. Some are just experimenting, some are using volunteers or in-kind support, others have extensive, well-funded strategies. Amongst political campaign strategists, there are a wide range of attitudes about the effectiveness and relevance of such techniques. Some believe they will give them a more modern edge in a new style of politics, others think of them as ‘snake oil’ or inviting a kind of political campaigning they would not like to emulate. Either way, in those contexts where the mood is cautious, many parties don’t want to acci- dentally expose themselves to risk, and others can’t afford not to try the techniques in case they really do work.

↘ Leaders within political parties need to take responsibility for a set of practices that are often outsourced to third parties or put into the hands of marketing, technical or junior support within a campaign. When deciding what approach a political party wants to take, can they align their ethos with their political strategy?
↘ If these practices become normalised in political campaigns then there should be a common agreement about the best ways of implementing them in the democratic process. A consensus about best practices is urgently needed for parties who want
to experiment but don’t want to seem too invasive, drawing clearer lines between ethical and unethical techniques and strategies.

↘ Easy-to-use and cheap-to-deploy techniques, such as micro-targeting services, have the potential to be an equalis- ing force but also to create unfair advantages. These services are easy to set up and affordable; as such, less well-resourced political parties report that they are welcome alternatives to relying on media coverage, which can be hard to get. However, they also advantage larger parties who have spending power and resources to work at scale. Could measures like spending caps help level the playing field?

↘ In some contexts, political parties have talked about a common agreement in which none of the parties use these techniques in a given election. Such agreements can’t hold unless all the parties running in a particular election or campaign agree. There are no known, successful examples of such an agreement to date. Is there an argument for this to be tested again, and how might it be enforced?

↘ A lot of attention is paid to the use of these tools with regards to the acquisition of power. However, evidence shows that such tools are also increasingly being experimented with for the maintenance of power, leading to political parties that run a kind of ‘permanent campaign’. Should we define the ‘rules of the game’ for parties running ongoing influence campaigns outside of election cycles?