Bob222,

Firstly, you brought up a figure of 0.1% of the population coming to a website, which was your main piece of evidence for saying people aren't interested. But now you're saying "real success of the website in the campaign would be determined by not visitors alone". What was the point of bringing up vistors to a site in the first place when now you're saying that doesn't really matter compared to these new factors you've brought up? There seems to be some inconsistency in what you're acutally trying to prove here.

As for your main question, "For the QLD election if the greens or libs, or nats put millions into the website, would it really have made a huge difference to the outcome?" I don't think anyone can assume you have to spend millions on a website in order for it to be successful. But I do think you have to make it functional for people. And you have to give people a reason to keep coming to a site. And I think Web 2.0 technology provides more functionality and more of a reason to keep coming back than Web 1.0 technology. After all, O'Reilly Media (who coined the term "Web 2.0") says one of the facets of Web 2.0 is "network effects created by an architecture of participation". Keyword there is "participation".

Also, Web 2.0 technology doesn't cost a lot of money. It's not something you invest millions in. Setting up a blog or a wiki won't blow your budget. So, I don't see how you assume Web 2.0 will cost "millions".

And of course Web 2.0 won't change people's minds itself. It all depends on how a candidate uses such communication technology. However, I do think that Web 2.0 technology has significant advantages in connecting with voters than Web 1.0. As Dann pointed out, there are some risks and disadvantages -- especially where political opponents and spammers are concerned. But I still feel Web 2.0 is very useful to reach voters, and there's already examples of such participatory media both in Australia and abroad.

Stephen, thanks for the article. Like many things in Australia, Australia is significantly behind the US in relation to the effective use of the internet in political campaigning but I suspect this will change.

Having been a close observer in the US of both the 2000 and 2004 Presidential experience I would offer another point. In the United States, due to voluntary voting, the internet becomes much more significant as a voter mobilisation tool. While in Australia, compulsory voting limits the usefulness of that applicability, I think it is still extremely useful for minor or start-up political parties. In fact I would go as far to argue that a move to voluntary voting combined with a web 2.0/ 3.0 etc approach could radically transform the political landscape in this country.