Parties, Candidates and Citizens On-Line - Åbo Akademi

2001, 30; Pedersen & Saglie 2005, 362; Römmele 2003, 14; Smith 2002, 177). Catch-all
and cartel parties would probably focus on top-down elements (Römmele 2003, 12).
Arguably, the type of party organization and tradition can lay its mark on party
activity on-line. It is, however, important to separate the models of party organization
from the general party goals. Consequently, where Römmele (2003, 12) states that vote
maximization can be brought together with the catch-all- and cartel-party models, I argue
that such a view might be questionable. While most parties probably pursue vote
maximization to some degree, especially catch-all parties, cartel-parties also focus on
staying among those with power and keeping the status quo (Aarnio & Pekonen 1999, 192-
196; Pekonen 1997). Consequently, office-maximization or maximization of policy
influence is also part of the goals of a cartel-party. In sum, one type of party should be
considered as pursuing several goals rather than linked to one specific goal (cf. Kitchelt
2001, 276; Strom 1990, 570).
Party size & resources
In the research of party internet activity (e.g. Cunha et al. 2003; Gibson et al. 2003a;
Gibson & Ward 2002; Margolis et al. 2003; Newell 2001), a significant amount of
attention has been paid to explaining differences in party internet presence and website
sophistication with differences in party size and associated resource strength (Gibson et
al. 2003c, 80; Norris 2003). In the theories of equalization and normalization, scholars
have put forward conceptual scenarios concerning the ability of fringe, and minor parties
to compete with the major parties online – both in terms of presence and performance
(Margolis & Resnick 2000; Margolis et al. 2003, 57-58). In brief, the equalization theory
perceives campaigning on the web to increase the smaller parties’ chances of keeping up
with their major counterparts. The normalization scenario paints an opposite picture. The
major parties have both greater leverage in guiding voters to their sites and more
resources to pour into constructing and maintaining sophisticated websites (Gibson et al.
2003a, 50; Margolis et al. 2003, 57-58). Consequently, campaigning on the internet is
unlikely to cause any widespread changes in party competition and power structures.
However, even though resources may play a significant role in setting up and
maintaining a party website, the linkage to the type of online communication – in terms
of top-down or bottom-up – carried out by a party is yet unclear (cf. Gibson et al. 2003b,
80). Gibson et al. (2003c) noted that smaller parties place large expectations in the
medium while major parties fair better in terms of web presence and website functionality
and design. Party size appears to restrain what a party can afford to do on its website
rather than determine what type of communication is preferred (cf. Gibson et al. 2003a, 50;
Löfgren 2000, 60; Nixon et al. 2003, 240). Party size may also affect a party’s general view
90