A multiple-candidate website is a way of promoting multiple candidates running on the same platform all in one place. The candidates are usually all from the same party or all side together on a major campaign issue. In essence, they become a ’slate’ of candidates, hoping to win an election together.
The positives:
A multiple-candidate website works well as an issue-based or grassroots campaign website. It can be used as a hub to introduce the candidates and lead voters to related websites and other online material.
Rather than three or four websites for each candidate, there is an efficiency in promoting a single website. It can be a focal point for advertising and online fundraising.
Obviously, it costs less to build a single site than to have each candidate build their own.
Slate websites can work well for local political parties. Parties have a general platform, and can be used to promote individual candidates, often by having a short candidate bio and linking out to individual websites, if they have one.
The negatives:
It may be difficult for voters to square the candidate’s differing views on certain issues. This assumes, of course, that the candidates have more than just a simple bio and ’share’ all the issue pages. In our experience, it’s unlikely that everyone will agree entirely on a single set of issue positions.
This is why local campaign party websites often work better. Parties have a general platform, and can be used to promote individual candidates, often by having a short candidate bio and linking out to their individual websites.
If candidates are each fundraising separately, collecting donations through a shared sit e can be tricky.
On a practical level, it can be extremely difficult to get content or updates on the website. Even a single campaign can have a hard time updating a websites. If every candidate requires their approval before change to the website can be made, nothing will get updated. That’s why in either case, we recommend recruiting a web coordinator to handle updates.
Finally, sharing a site limits the freedom of the candidates to each ‘do thier own thing’. Even if one or two decide to really work their part of the website, they may end up overshadowing the other candidates who have posted less material on the site.
Finally:
Keep in mind that running a slate of candidates does not mean that all or none will win. We’ve seen instances where half the slate has won, and half did not. Similar candidates, similar positions. Particularly in local elections, success often comes down to how well a person is known and liked (or disliked).
Ultimately, each candidate wins or loses on his or her own merits. Whether a slate of candidates should combine online efforts or not depends entirely on the circumstances… and the campaigns
Anyone else have any personal experience with this?
You may be interested in these related articles:
Tags: campaign advertising, local campaigns, local election, local politics