“We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.” – Thomas Jefferson 

This sentiment holds a profound truth in an American democracy, which thrives on the active involvement of the common citizen in political affairs. Through social networking sites such as Twitter, Facebook and Instagram, participation has been greatly amplified. It is possible now to be politically active without ever revealing your identity. Social media is instrumental  as a campaign tool, for the organization of political demonstrations, the creation and organization of civic organizations, and much more. All of these have become critical to our American political system. Thus began the rise of social media giants that have raised concerns about their role in deepening political polarization. 

However, before we can consider this threat, we must first determine what constitutes “participation” in the American political system. The concept is rather vague and, ranges from voting in an election to simply reciting the pledge of allegiance could be considered political participation. Some define it as “voluntary activities undertaken by the mass public to influence public policy.” Though when it comes to social media, the definition becomes murky. Does retweeting a political tweet that you agree with constitute political participation? After all, are you really trying to directly influence public policy? It is important that we consider actions that may indirectly influence public policy and political participation. Political participation, for the purposes of this article, will include any type of action that directly or indirectly contributes to political change. 

Nowhere can we see the increasingly profound effect of social media in our American political system more than in our elections. The 2008 Presidential Election was the turning point in media usage. Polls by the Pew Research center show that a full three quarters of internet users went online during the 2008 election to take part in, or get news and information about the 2008 campaign. Since then, the importance of internet news sources over traditional media has significantly increased. Similar to Kennedy’s use of the television to gain a decisive edge over Richard Nixon in the 1960 election, the Obama campaign predominantly utilized social media. Although both Obama and McCain’s campaign utilized virtual campaigning through social media, Obama was far more successful. This is because of the Obama campaign’s aggressive leveraging of platforms such as Facebook and Youtube to engage with voters. On average, 26% of Obama voters on the internet would post political content supporting their candidates online, compared to just 16% of McCain voters. 49% of Obama voters shared text messages related to the campaign, while only 29% of McCain supporters did so. There were similar disparities in other categories, such as volunteering online and online donations.The Obama campaign especially took advantage of Youtube, posting free ads that users could share and were more likely to be receptive to than unavoidable TV ads. Such a difference resulted in Obama having hundreds of thousands more online supporters (2 million on Facebook to McCain’s 600,000) than both McCain and Democratic rival Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, during the Republican primaries, Ron Paul showed the astounding potential of the internet when he collected six million dollars in a single day for his campaign, more money than any other presidential candidate in US history has collected in one day. All of this to say that social media has allowed citizens to become more intimate with politics than ever before. By sending ads or political messages to friends and family through social media or donating through websites, they could directly participate in the political system in a process that normally necessitates thousands of dollars and hundreds of volunteers. Such political participation proved decisive in winning the 2008 presidential election, where Obama swept voters aged under 25 years old. In subsequent elections, both parties would recognize the potential of social media and would take full advantage of it. 

Social media has revolutionized more than elections. It has come to play a fundamental role in facilitating the growth and organization of protest movements. Social media allows the exchanging of content that quickly expresses anger, concern, hope, and calls to action to a large group of people. Two major American protest movements stand out in particular, the Occupy Wall Street movement and the George Floyd/Black Lives Matter protests. The Occupy Wall Street movement was started by a small Canadian anti-consumerist group. Through blog posts and websites, the news of the planned protest proliferated throughout the internet. Two days after the protest began on Sept. 17, 2011, a Facebook page for the demonstrations was started, and just one month later, there were 125 other related facebook pages related to the movement. The protest quickly grew and soon became international news, inspiring similar movements in other countries. While the Occupy movement got off with a flurry of online campaigning, the George Floyd protests were sparked by a single video of Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck. The video spread like a wildfire throughout social media, generating much debate and anger. The subsequent online firestorm galvanized the nation, leading to the prominence of the Black Lives Matter movement. Using social media, people organized demonstrations throughout the country that made national headlines. This was during the COVID-19 pandemic which forced many to stay inside and yet, social media offered another medium of protesting. People could participate in calling for social and police reform not through physical protests, but simply by posting tweets, Instagram stories and through other social media outlets. This ensures that virtually anyone and everyone, no matter where they were and what their background was, would be able to contribute to the movement and push for change. Both Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter are just two of the many examples of the role social media plays in bringing about change. These two movements were the catalyst for major debate and legislation on the state and federal level on their respective issues, and without social media their impact would likely have been significantly diminished. Before the age of social media, these two protest movements would have relied heavily on other methods to spread their message across the country. Without social media and the ability of users to share images, videos, and texts, the George Floyd video would never have spread as quickly as it did. Without social media, the Occupy Wall Street movement would never have gained the international prominence it did. The public support for these events and the subsequent response would have been far more muted. 

Despite the great opportunities that social media has for participation, there is great reason to be cautious about the growth of social media in our political system. In the past few years social media has played no small part in the dangerous political polarization and the rise of extremist groups in the United States. A 2009 poll found that politically active users are increasingly moving to websites that have a biased point of view, especially young users. A full third of political users got their information from websites that share a view that they agreed with. Since that poll was taken 12 years ago, that number is likely now much higher. Social media not only facilitates, but actively encourages this trend. A decade ago, prominent social media activist Eli Pariser predicted a future in which social media algorithms skew the variety of information we get online in favor of content we favor. At the time, he worried that might lead to political polarization through less exposure to divergent viewpoints. Now, we live in a time where political compromise and cooperation seems to be on the decline, where hyperpartisanship is on the rise. This charged situation is highly volatile and poses the greatest threat to our democracy because it allows the rise of radical groups on both ends of the political spectrum. We have also seen the consolidation of social media giants, with platforms such as Twitter falling under the control of a few wealthy people. The leaders of these tech giants have refused to take responsibility for the partisan environment they have contributed to. It’s critical that the owners of these cites be held accountable for their platforms. We saw firsthand on Jan. 6 the deadly consequences of this polarization. If this trend continues, we may never be able to reach political compromise, such a key characteristic of a democracy, ever again.

Never before in our history has political participation been so accessible to the American citizen. Never before have the citizens had such an influential voice. Like all new technologies, we must harness the power of this relatively new technology. It has been just over a decade since social media was first used in the 2008 elections, but it has already grown to become an integral component of our politics. The future holds great promise if we are able to weather the dangerous storms of political polarization and extremism. Social media has the potential to bring us ever closer to a government by the people, for the people.