chapter one – introduction
TRANSCRIPT
Chapter One – INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
While Nigeria’s 2015 presidential elections have largely been acknowledged as a
victory for democracy — with the first ever victory of an opposition candidate –it
was also a model in how social media brings transparency to the electoral process.
President-elect Muhammadu Buhari’s All Progressive Congress’s (APC) party
lead in the vote last year quickly became apparent a few hours after polling units
closed. Thanks to technology that enabled Nigerian voters use social media to
share each step of the process. The use of social media in elections has become a
key tool in determining the fate of candidates and parties at polls, and in
checkmating electoral fraud. With social media and digital communication
increasingly being used for reporting incidents in elections, political parties and the
electoral body INEC need to come to terms with the power of citizens in
monitoring elections and preventing the alteration of results. To this extent, social
media makes it possible for citizens’ votes to count. Nigerian democracy and
Nigerians have more to gain than to lose in the social media sphere that has taken
over ways of communication among people globally.
A tremendous change in the Nigerian political process has been the rise of
social media. How social media has influenced politics in Nigeria is prominently
shown in the way that political parties were unable to change election results as
they were coming out of the various polling stations. The use of platforms such as
Facebook, Blackberry Messenger, WhatsApps, Twitter, Blog, YouTube and
Instagram has emerged as an important means of electioneering and the policing of
election results. The power of social media played a prominent role during the
2015 presidential election in Nigeria.
At the March 28, 2015 Nigeria presidential election, social media played a
prominent role not only during the electioneering campaign but also during
mandate protection by ensuring election results were broadcast before the official
announcements by the INEC.
Fourteen political parties that comprises of PPN, HOPE, APA, UPP, KOWA,
ACPN, UDP, PDP, ADC, NCP, APC, AD, CPP, AA contested for the 2015
Nigeria presidential election. The main focus is on the two leading political parties
in Nigeria: PDP and APC.
Few hours after voting, observers and citizens had started broadcasting election
results announced in their respective voting centers through social media. This
drew the attention of political parties, local and international observers towards the
comprehensive tracking and analyses of these results trending on different
platforms, giving a clear lead to the All Progressive Congress (APC) in the North-
East, North-West, South-West, and a struggle with PDP in the North Central. It
also quickly revealed the People’s Democratic Party’s lead in the South-East and
South-South parts of Nigeria. The agitation spawned by the election results on
social media subsequently led the PDP to accuse APC of posting fake election
results, while charging Nigerians to totally disregard results issuing from these
platforms and to wait for INEC to announce the official result. Indeed, Nigerians
waited for the official announcement from INEC. However, there was no major
difference between the results announced by INEC and those that had trended on
social media. Oseni, Audu Liberty. “Nigeria: Social Media Revolutionizes
Nigerian Elections.” Premium Times. Premium Times, 5 April 2015. Web. 16 May
2016.
The extent to which social media proves effective in attracting young
Nigerians to electoral activities now makes it possible for citizens’ votes to count.
Democracy and Nigerians have more to gain through social media that has taken
over communications among young citizens globally. Oseni, Audu Liberty.
“Nigeria: Social Media Revolutionizes Nigerian Elections. “ Premium Times.
Premium Times, 5 April 2015. Web. 16 May 2016.
The emergence of social media in elections has obviously frustrated Nigerian
politicians and stopped criminal strategies of changing election results by returning
officers in collaboration with political parties. The social media age is a revolution
for Nigerian democracy; those who must win election must win the will of the
people. The days of changing election results by the returning officers have gone!
This indeed has shown that the media had a major impact in the outcome of 2015
Presidential election in Nigeria. Oseni, Audu Liberty. “Nigeria: Social Media
Revolutionizes Nigerian Elections. “ Premium Times. Premium Times, 5 April
2015. Web. 16 May 2016.
In summary, the emergence of social media and it’s utilization in elections have
obviously frustrated unscrupulous Nigerian politicians and forestalled the erstwhile
strategy of changing election results through the collaboration between corrupt
returning officers and political parties. This is a revolution to Nigerian democracy;
those who must win elections must win the genuine support of the people. Youth
engagement and participation were the game changers in the 2015 Nigerian
elections. Taiwo, Jide T. “Youth Engagement and Participation: The Game
Changer in the 2015 Elections.” Medium. Medium, 1 April 2015. Web. 16 May
2016.
1.2 Rational/Theoretical Framework
Use of Social Media for Political Activities
According to Kaplan and Haenlein (2010, 60-61), social media are “a group of
internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological
foundations of Web 2.0 and that allow the creation and exchange of user generated
content” (p. 61). The terms Web 2.0 and ‘user-generated content’ serve as
significant factors in social media. Web 2.0 is a platform in which content and
applications are created and modified by all users (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010).
Thus, ‘user-generated content’ is “the various forms of media content that are
publicly available and created by end users” (Kaplan & Haenlein, 2010, p.61).
Social media, especially Facebook and Twitter, have many active users in
Nigeria. Facebook as you know is a social networking site created by Mark
Zuckerberg and his friends in early 2004. Originally, Facebook was launched for
student of Harvard University, with a harvard.edu email address. In 2006,
Facebook became open to the public. Now, after a decade, Facebook has grown
tremendously and became the largest social media site in the world according to
(Constine, 2014).
Creating a social media strategy for use during political campaigns has
become an essential part of every candidate’s plan to get into office. With social
media sites often getting more traffic than an official campaign website. It’s
important for candidates to get connected (Arev0005, 2016).
“The use of social media in today’s campaign is not only important – it is
critical,” says Hubert “Sonny”. Nearly 2.5 billion on total user on different
platform around the world which means this is a good opportunity for candidates to
target a large number of voters quickly, constantly and at low cost.”
Expert says that social become a common practice for politicians to spend a
huge time campaigning through social media website as part of their marketing
strategy.
Expert says that social media become a common practice for politicians to spend a
huge time campaigning trough social media website as a part of their marketing
strategy.
“From now on, social media will have a huge impact on elections,” Massey says.
“With the speed of communications and the numbers of people involved, the
impact has to be significant.” But sometimes social media is also being used
against certain candidates. Spreading blog against each other trying to create
something that we sometimes called unethical behavior is completely normal on
their part which is most of us are not surprise at all.
1.2.1 Social media introduction; from traditional media to web 2.0
The earth has a population of around 7.1 billion people. The number of social
media users and internet users increases on daily basis. Nearly 50% of the today’s
population uses some sort of social media sites. A look into the 2013 info graphic
of global internet, mobile and social engagement, carried out by
Wearesquared.com; showed the tremendous increase in social media users from
1.47 billion users in 2012 to 1.73 billion in 2013. This is an 18% increase in one
year only and it has even been predicted that the number of social networking
audience will reach 2.55 billion by 2017 (Ahmad, 2013).
The internet began as a giant bulletin board system (BBS) which allowed its
users to exchange software, data, messages and news. The increasing popularity of
social media as well its platform in facilitating exchange of information between
users can consequently be seen as an advancement back to the internet’s roots.
However, because of the technical evolution over the past 20 years, and a different
form of virtual content sharing, social media is obviously becoming ever more
powerful and influential than the BB of the late 1970’s (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010,
60).
Social media concept came to existence around the millennium. In
understanding the formal meaning of the term social media it is expedient to
explain the two related concepts that are often named in conjunction with it. The
first one is known as “web 2.0” and the second one “user generated content”
(UGC). Social media is built on web 2.0, a term that is used to describe the
significant changes that occurred on the World Wide Web around the millennium.
The online information environment has evolved from a world in which users
searched and consulted information (Web 1.0) to a world where they are now able
to generate and spread information themselves (Web 2.0). As a consequence,
traditional sources of information lose control over the content and distribution of
the message resulting in a more complex communication process. A unique feature
is that a message on social media is spread by users themselves while direct
contact with the source is minimal (Helm, 2008).
The term social media covers a wide array of different communication
outlets including social networking, video- and picture-sharing, blogs, and
microblogs (Tinker & Fouse, 2009). The channels differ in terms of their purpose,
i.e. some channels are used for dissemination purposes only (e.g. RSS feeds) while
other channels allow engagement (i.e. the source can engage/communicate directly
with the audience). As a consequence, the resources (i.e. time, staff effort and
cost) required on each channel differ.
User generated content is a recently established term that achieved
increasing popularity in 2005 when describing publicly available forms of media
content that was created by users. It focuses on all the different ways in which
people can use social media.
Users generated content needs to fulfill three requirements to be considered as such
according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD). Firstly it has to be published on a publicly accessible website or on a
social networking site. It also needs to show a certain amount of creative effort and
finally it needs to have been created outside of professional routines and practices
(Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, 61).
Social media is a group of internet-based applications that are built both on
the ideological and technological foundations of web 2.0 but also the creation and
exchange of user generated content. There are various types of social media within
this general definition, e.g. Wikipedia, Facebook, YouTube and Twitter are all part
of this large group of different social media platforms. Social media is in other
words where users can participate, create and share content (Kaplan & Haenlein
2010, 61).
The World Wide Web has given the public new ways to access information.
It can therefore be argued that people have become less dependent upon traditional
media outlets such as printed media for information about current events. The
public has in a way become its own medium, by sharing information on social
media (Thevenot 2007, 287-289). One could argue that with the increased
popularity of social media it is making traditional media outlets outdated to a
certain extent. It has become easier for social media to gain a critical role as
agenda setters and to steer the public discourse, thus coming closer to becoming a
prominent media source in its own right.
1.2.2 Agenda setting theory and surrounding impacts
Several sources of media outlets have huge impact in our regular life. Whether at
work, home, or basically remaining in an open spot one is never a long way from
being presented to some kind of media. It scatters data to us day by day in daily
papers, magazines, radio, and TV, through our cell telephones, the web or through
other advanced media sources, for example, online networking. With different
types of new correspondence innovations coming into focus every day we are
continually being presented to new sorts of media (Hodkinson 2011, 1-2). As
illustrated before, social media is an active and fast moving domain which is
changing rapidly. One might think that social media and traditional media are poles
apart but in fact they are closely connected (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, 61-68).
At the point when the World Wide Web made its passage into the regular
lives of individuals, conventional media outlets, for example, daily papers
additionally exchanged on to the web. It is possible that they did as such solely or
in blend with their customary structure. The media is successful with regards to
advising the general population about which issues are critical at a given time and
the force of the media lies by the way they can pick themselves what issues are
talked about or boycotted. Motivation setting hypothesis concentrates on the
capacity the media has in affecting the themes that are on general society's plan. At
the point when an issue is often and unmistakably secured in the media, the
residents will begin seeing it as more essential than the ones that get lesser scope
(Coleman, et al 2009, 147).
The bases of this mass communication hypothesis can be followed back to
the year 1922 when Walter Lippmann contended that the news media builds the
general opinion of the world. From that point forward contemporary researchers
have extraordinarily extended that thought (Coleman, et al 2009, 147). Agenda
setting hypothesis was consequently created by Maxwell McCombs and Donald
Shaw in their investigation of the 1968 presidential decisions or "The sanctuary
slope study". In their study, they figured out how to show how the media decides
the popular's sentiments on issues, demonstrating a solid connection between's
what the media secured as the key decision issues and what the voters in Chapel
Hill, North Carolina, respected to be the essential issues in the races. The
discoveries in the Chapel Hill study showed a solid correspondence between
various media outlets, for example, daily papers, magazines and TV. McCombs
and Shaw figured out how to demonstrate that the need issues on the news begin to
be considered as the need issues of people in general (McCombs & Shaw, 1972).
After the study of Chapel Hill, the plan setting model has been reproduced in
more than 400 studies, covering a wide assortment of issues and stretching out to
expansive scope of nations (McCombs 2004, 36). Whenever editors, newsroom
staff or telecasters choose to present news, they are assuming a huge part in
forming political reality, which consequently plays a vital variable in political
battles. With regards to legislative issues, the media can set the plan for a crusade
by picking an applicant that will get more scope than another and specific points to
cover (Baran & Dennis 2011, 294-295).
Media sources give people in general pieces of information about which
issues are thought to be the terrific issues confronting society today. They do this
by showing news in a specific way. The news that is thought to be essentially more
critical gets an unrivaled arrangement in the daily paper is featured on sites or gets
the front of a magazine. Nonetheless, news that end up in the less unmistakable
areas of the papers or increase less scope when all is said in done wind up being
seen as less vital in the general population's eye (McCombs 2004, 2).
The media scene is changing quickly and it is hence vital to address the
appropriateness of motivation setting hypothesis to the new media environment.
Intuitive web applications are increasing more impact and conventional media is
no more the particular motivation setter. Web organizing locales like online
networking destinations and web journals are not bound by the bureaucratic
schedules and sources like the customary media. That gives them chance to report
through the dynamic, ongoing array of pertinent assessments and points of view
shared by other online media outlets (Meraz 2009, 700-702).
With regard to agenda setting, the media also holds the power to be able to
set the perspective on current issues which results in them being framed in a
certain way. This has been called framing effects (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, 65).
The public does not have the ability to be up to speed with everything that is on the
daily agenda. That is why some trusts in the media to inform them on important
issues with reliable and detailed information. Democracy is partly based on the
rights of the public to accurate information. But even though the information
presented in the media can be accurate, it might not be impartial. Since the media
choose which issues are covered they can also choose if they want to interpret
news material in a positive or negative manner (Coleman, et al 2009, 147).
In The Handbook of Journalism Studies from 2009, it is talked about how
antagonistic news appears to have more noteworthy effect on individuals' lives
than positive news. Negative news scope for the most part tends to wind up more
unambiguous and newsworthy (Entman, et al 2009, 165). Different studies have
demonstrated that adversely surrounded messages have more prominent effect than
decidedly confined messages. It is along these lines not astounding that the media
tends to talk about occasions in a negative light. In this way it can be contended
that it is more hard to get positive scope than negative scope (O‘Neill & Harcup
2009, 165).
This is particularly inconsistent with the individuals who have a personal
stake in enhancing their picture, for example, government officials. As of late
legislators have demonstrated an enthusiasm for exploiting online networking as
opposed to utilizing the conventional media. That way they can get their
conclusions crosswise over and connect with people in general without dealing
with editors or journalists. Since government officials can't control the scope that
they get in the conventional media they tend to utilize online networking locales to
enhance their picture. Utilizing online networking themselves they can control how
rapidly and proficiently the news achieves the general population and in the
meantime they can advance a positive reputation about their battles. It can be
contended that having government officials swinging to social networking has
besides opened the civil argument amongst them and people in general, as
legislators and the general population can make inquiries and get answers to them
rapidly and effortlessly on the web. Support and coordinated effort is one of the
fundamental belief systems for online networking as beforehand examined. It is
available for everyone online who looks to acquire data quickly or make a
commitment to the level headed discussion (Kaplan & Haenlein 2010, 65). It can
consequently be contended that online networking has fairly made ready for a
superior deliberative vote based system forms and a more open discourse (Cogburn
& Vasquez 2011, 193-194).
1.2.3 Social media and deliberative democracy
As already talked about there has been an expanding enthusiasm for utilizing
online networking as a political device in the late years. Political administration is
by all accounts more customized with assistance from web 2.0, with government
officials attempting to be more available through long range interpersonal
communication locales wanting to build their notoriety among voters. At the point
when people in general is not dynamic or doesn't participate in political exchanges,
it debilitates popular government. The World Wide Web has made another type of
stage for open interest. It has fashioned another path for individuals to take an
interest in legislative issues (Gunnar Helgi Kristinsson 2007, 45-60).
Jürgen Habermas is very much known for his hypothesis on deliberative
majority rules system and the general population circle. He had a place with the
supposed Frankfurt School and his compositions have been basic for hypothetical
talks in regards to majority rules system (Boham & Rehg 1997, 36). As indicated
by the idea of Habermas, general society circle is an unbiased social space for
basic open deliberation among individuals who assemble to talk about matters
uninhibitedly that worries them all in all. Political interest is instituted through the
medium of talk and subjects purposeful about their basic issues. People in general
circle are open and available for the general population. Political open circles
incorporate media that screen and reprimand the state, social developments and
gatherings that take political activities (Habermas 1991, 27-31).
Deliberative democratic circle hypothesis has turned out to be progressively
famous while analyzing web majority rule government. Backers of this hypothesis
see the Internet as a stage for deliberative popular government prompting the
development of discerning general conclusion. As indicated by numerous
scientists, professionals, and web popular government reporters, the web is a
deliberative advanced open circle which can be a perfect spot for expanded
investment in legislative issues (Şen 2012, 490).
The World Wide Web gives a chance to communication and serves as an
essential in the deliberative procedure as an examination device. Long range
interpersonal communication outlets energize opportunity of expression and with
the immeasurable number of sites data turns out to be more open. The web has
some of the time been alluded to as a ''deliberative space'' that can be exceptionally
vote based (Boham & Rehg 1997, 36). Jürgen Habermas recommends that data,
citizenship, government, and the general population circle are interconnected
through media (Habermas 1991, 147-147). Taking a closer look at web 2.0 and
social media from the Habermas' open circle viewpoint, they can be seen as
"facilitators" of a pondering space where individuals can trade their thoughts and
contemplation's transparently and uninhibitedly. As to this another idea called
"digital vote based system" has been presented, as a techno social objective that
expects to make a superior working open circle. This is accomplished by giving
individuals access to political guidance, feedback, and representation through the
mass correspondence media (Cogburn & Vasquez 2011, 194).
Political life is turning out to be progressively pervasive with web 2.0 since
it cultivates a more extensive cluster of routes for the general population and
private life to happen. With new correspondence innovations and social base, the
string between general society and private life are turning out to be hazier
(Cogburn and Vasquez 2011, 194). General society circle is consequently subject
to significant changes. Some have even gone so far as to contend that it is very
nearly eradication, with the PC interceded correspondence scene getting all the
more intense and that it has assumed the position of café talks (Boeder, 2005).
Web 2.0 and social media have an awesome potential to enable subjects and
permitting them to impact change. A few researchers have even gone so far as to
stamp the web 2.0 as another "coliseum for investment in broad daylight life''. The
web could hence be seen as an effective political instrument where free and open
talk inside a basic open circle assumes an unequivocal part (Gimmler 2001, 21).
Social networking is directly connecting people in ways that were not possible
aforetime. Web 2.0 hence becomes a tool that can motivate citizens to take
collective action and effect change (Cogburn & Vasquez 2011, 193-194).
It can be argued that social media has created a new political dialogue. It has
taken the power of political messaging away from the traditional mass media
model and has instead put it into the peer-to-peer public discourse. It has allowed
information and opinions to travel across networks allowing different people to
participate as opinion leaders (Rutledge, 2013). Social media does not create
democracy itself, but it can encourage people to be involved in community
discussion through social media (Shirkey, 2011). With regard to democracy, the
potential of social media lies in its support of the civil society and the public
sphere. It can be seen as a platform for national liberation and pro-democracy
movements (Şen 2012. 490).
1.3 Statement of the Problem
The following statement of problem represents the foundation of this research:
To what extent did the use of social media impact the 2015 presidential election in
Nigeria?
1.4 Purpose of the study
The purpose of this paper is to investigate the relationship between social media
use and politics during the 2015 Presidential in Nigeria; and therefore, to add to
and expand on previous findings. Based on the fact that, recently, some scholars
discovered a difference in the effect of media use for acquiring news and media
use for entertainment purposes (Gil de Zuniga et al. 2012: 321), this paper
concentrates on the impact of using social media with the purpose gathering news
on political participation. In addition, due to social media’s interactive nature, the
author of this paper argues that it is not only necessary to use these platforms as a
source of information (as in traditional forms of media or Web 2.0 media), but
beyond that, it is essential to be politically active on these platforms (liking,
posting, sharing political content, etc.).
In order to explore this issue, both theoretical and empirical perspectives are
employed. The study is based on quantitative research design and the chosen
strategy of inquiry is survey research. Based on a literature review of relevant
existing studies within (social) media use and political participation, a
questionnaire is designed for collecting data from Nigerian young adults aged
between 18 and 35 years old.
The purpose of this research strategy is to gain a quantitative description of the
target population’s use of social media (Facebook, Blogs and Twitter, etc.) during
the 2015 presidential elections and their levels of engagement in political activities.
The data collected from the questionnaire is used in a hierarchical multiple
regression, testing the correlation between social media use and political
participation, while controlling for socio-demographic factors and known
predictors of political participation (such as political knowledge, political efficacy
and political discussions)
1.5 Research Question
This research question for this research thesis is:
Main Question: What is the effect of use of social media in political campaigns on
Individual voters in Nigeria?
To further address this question, the following three sub-research questions were
researched:
Sub-Questions:
1. Is social media increasing voter participation in elections?
2. Does a social medium have influence only on younger generation during
elections?
3. Is Social Media successful in engaging the first time voters in elections?
The objective of this research is to examine the impact of social media in 2015
Nigeria Presidential election and also, the analysis of how social media users
utilize social media networking for political purposes. The research will also help
in understanding if social media actually have any impact on Nigeria individual
voters and help them decide their final casting ballot.
1.5.1 Summary and Hypothesis
The evolution of social media has raised different opinions about the impact it has
during political elections. As these technologies evolve and change, their use by
citizens also evolves and changes. As a result it becomes increasing challenging to
measure the impact these sources have on the electorate. These issues contribute to
the lack of acceptance for weather or not social media is an effective tool for
targeting voters during election in Nigeria.
I draw the hypothesis constructed in this research from the existing literature on
social media’s role in electoral participation, voter behavior and on general
politics. Based on the past research and the trends in Nigeria, I hypothesize that:
H1: The existence of social media in a political campaign positively impacts
participation among voters aged 18-35 in Nigeria.
H2: There is a significant positive relationship between the use of social media in
a political campaign and the support for a candidate among voters aged 18-35
years in Nigeria.
These both hypotheses are based on the literature facts and arguments presented
below in the research.
1.6 Significance of the Study
It is the right time to identify broad trends in social media, which are and have
influencing power on the voter’s behavior. This data would also be of significance
to political campaigning heads, future political contenders and election
commission of India. The research can help them formulate their strategies for
future upcoming elections.
The research will also help to improve the public understanding of what role social
media plays in a election campaign in today’s scenario. Social media is a latest
development in Indian political scenario but has great potential for growth. All the
stakeholders will have keen interest of such kind of a research.
1.7 Limitations of the study
This research is for young Nigerians between the ages of 18-35 years. It is
not possible to know the influence of social media on older voters as they
are not active on social media, not educated and internet facility not readily
available.
Because of the mass rigging and under age voting witnessed in the last
presidential election, especially as reported in the northern part of Nigeria,
the classification of ages of 18-35years is not error-proof and again it is not
possible to know who is a first time voter based on the age declared by the
voters.
The testing of the hypothesis we have proposed here will be sort of
backward-compactible. Elections in Nigeria are held every 4 years. The
outcome of the test of the proposed hypothesis would have been more
credible if research is done during an election year and hypothesis are tested
pre and post-election.
Coverage of sampling is limited due to funding and violence in some parts
of the country. A broader study would have covered all the regions of the
country so that analysis of influence of social medial will not only be based
on the more educated southern region of the country but also the less
educated northern region.
Due to the limited funding, primary research was limited to survey samples.
It would have been better to engage in interviews with various key players in
the social media campaigns in the last election especially as the key political
parties all have offices of social media under their media departments.
Due to poor electricity, high cost of the internet and poor use of technology
coverage of social media is still poor in Nigeria. The study concentrates on
the very few who could afford the high cost associated with participating in
social media in developing countries such as Nigeria
1.8 Scope/delimitation of the Study
In Nigeria democracy, elections finalize political decisions (The Independent
2014). Elections are evidently important to the political parties and candidates,
who are running with the objective of getting victory, which are receiving a
majority of the votes. To achieve this, candidates must have their followers and
supporters both cast a ballot, and cast it in the favor of the contender. This research
therefore, examines what influence Facebook, Blogs and Twitter had on voters
when, as a social media platform was used to send specific messages asking
individual voters to cast their ballot during 2015 Nigeria presidential election.
The research is limited to the scope of registered voters in Nigeria who use
Facebook, Blogs, and Twitter as a social networking tool. The scope of the
research does not include unregistered voters who have not previously casted a
vote or do not cast a ballot currently. The research also does not include the
discussion on political party’s strategies, political campaigns and parties standing
on social issues. Although these play a role in influencing individual voters and
their decision to vote, are outside the scope of this research.
The scope of the study is limited to only three social media platforms, which are
Facebook, Blogs and Twitter and particularly in all Nigerian states. However, the
data is also gathered for two other social networking sites – Google+ and LinkedIn
to have a broader interpretation scope.
1.9 Operational definition of terms
Social media: Are computer mediated tools that allow people to create, share or
exchange information, ideas and pictures/videos in virtual
communities and online networks.
Voter: A person who has attained the voting age and has the right to vote for
a candidate in an election.
Web 2.0: A term that is used to describe the significant changes that occurred
on the World Wide Web around the millennium
Internet: An interconnected group of computer networks allowing for
electronic communication.
Election: The formal process of selecting a person for public office or of
accepting or rejecting a political proposition by voting.
Facebook: A popular free social networking website that allows registered users
to create profiles, upload photos and video, send messages and keep in
touch with friends, family and colleagues.
Twitter: A free social networking micro blogging service that allows registered
members to broadcast short posts called tweets
Blog: A web site on which someone writes about personal opinions,
activities, and experiences
Campaign: An organized effort which seeks to influence the decision making
process within a specific group.
INEC: (Independent National Electoral Commission) is the electoral body
which was set up to oversee elections in Nigeria in 1998. The INEC's
origin goes back to the period before Independence when the Electoral
Commission of Nigeria was established to conduct 1959 elections.
Registered Political Parties for 2015 presidential election in Nigeria
PPN: Peoples Party of Nigeria.
HOPE: Hope Party.
APA: African Peoples Alliance.
UPP: United Progressive Party.
KOWA: Kowa Party.
ACPN: Allied Congress Party of Nigeria.
UDP: United Democratic Party.
PDP: People’s Democratic Party.
ADC: African Democratic Congress.
NCP: National Conscience Party.
APC: All Progressives Congress
AD: Alliance for Democracy
CPP: Citizens Popular Party
AA: Accord Alliance