This election was billed as the social media election by Â many pundits, and some political parties.
The Internet party in particular banked their success on social media.
Kim Dotcom and his little band of failures including Callum Valentine, a supposed social media genius, all told us that their much vaunted apps would secure them victory.
They also told us that their masses of Facebook likes and Twitter followers were going to get them over the line.
They were wrong.
Matthew Beveridge even had an entire blog devoted to analysing and writing about the social media election. He was wrong too.
Matthew has written a blog post about the effects of social media, where he finally cottons on to what I have been saying for a very long time.
I am a huge fan of social media. I love how it allows candidates, MPs and parties to talk directly to voters. I love how it allows people, who would never otherwise meet, to interact with each other and to learn from each other. But it has its limitations. It is very much a self selecting environment. It is incredibly easy to end up with a timeline that is nothing but an echo chamber.
For a number of people on the left, and even some parties on the left. I have a feel this is what has happened. They have seen all the talk about how it is time to change the government. About how the media is biased. How about dirty politics will resonate with the electorate. As well as about many other issues. But they forget that social media in general, and Twitter in particular, are not accurate representations of the rest of the electorate. I blogged earlier about how when dirty politics was being talked about on Twitter, it wasnât really connecting with the electorate. The articles that were being read on TVNZ, Herald and Stuff were not the ones about dirty politics. They were about the every day things that mattered to, or interested, average voters.