'Whatever happened to the E-Lection?' asks a report from the Industrial Society, which modestly describes itself as comprising 'the UK's leading thinkers and advisers on the world of work'.
The question refers to the non-existent role the internet has played in the election campaign. As part of its iSociety project on the impact of IT on the UK the society conducted polling and focus group research in two marginal seats.
The results are interesting: 'Cyber-citizens,' the research found, 'are less likely to vote, express less interest in direct contact with political parties and ignore expensive political party websites'. According to the report's author, James Crabtree, only 2 per cent of internet users say they are certain to use the net to obtain information about the election campaign; and a massive 84 per cent declare their intention to avoid politics online.
The research also suggests that internet users are less engaged with politics than their unwired brethren - and so are less likely to make the trip to the polling station on 7 June.
'This election has not seen the dawn of a new era of digital democracy', says Crabtree. 'We spoke to voters in marginal seats such as Enfield Southgate, and found that people don't realise there is an election online. The wired generation are voting with their mouse [sic] to stay online, but off-message'.
Hmmm. Informal research by this columnist conducted according to the ancient journalistic methodology of typing words into Google and following links at random suggests one possible explanation for this online apathy.
This is that while the off-line election may be dreary, its online manifestations are infinitely worse. The main party sites, for example, are tedious beyond belief. (The only difference is that while the Tories have a dotcom URL, the others are content to be dot-orgs.)
The so-called humourous sites (for example www.amielectableornot.com) or the ones offering Javascript animations of John Prescott (hitting or being hit) are commercialised or plain puerile. The epidemic of anti-candidate email jokes that circulated in the US during the presidential election doesn't seem to have materialised here.
There's been very little domain-name foolery either. Although www.toriessuck.com has been registered (by one David Chamberlain of Wandsworth), other promising domain names remain tantalisingly available.
One would have thought that some enterprising soul (even if it was only William Hague in precautionary mood) would have nabbed www.dumpthetories.com or www.torybastards.com, both of which were up for grabs when I last checked. Interestingly,www.portillo.com has been registered, by one JK Hullett of Reno, Nevada, but www.portilloforleader.com is free to perform useful work after 7 June, as is www. dumphague.com. On the other side www.gordon brown.com has already been registered by one Reza Sobati of London NW8, who may know something we don't.
But in general what's missing from this election is the wit, irreverence and tomfoolery that any encounter with men in suits generally evokes in the net community. Remember www.amipresidentornot.com as the US presidential election ground to its grisly conclusion?
Why, one wonders, do UK voters not make more use of www.anagramgenius.com - a marvellous site that reveals that 'William and Ffion Hague' is an anagram for 'I am handling a foul wife'?
The web is still wonderful for plain old-fashioned information, though. Someone at Keele University has put up a fantastically informative site www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/ge01.htm. And several sites provide tactical voters with the information they need to make a decision on 7 June.
For example, www.keepthetoriesout.co.uk, includes a neat calculator that works out the best anti-Tory vote on the basis of the last five opinion polls.
It's a bit OTT just now, but will come in useful next time when we have to find the best way of dumping our most hubristic ruler since Cromwell.
