Catie Bailard explains her research in more detail. She gave Internet access to a group of Tanzanians before their elections. Bailard theorized that "the Internet would encourage individuals to evaluate the fairness of the Tanzanian presidential election and recount more critically than their peers in the control group." She was proven right, but access to new information wasn't an unalloyed good:
Members of the Internet group were 15 percentage points less likely to believe that the election was conducted fairly and impartially. They were also 12 points more likely to believe that the recount was conducted unfairly when compared to the control group. However, relative to the control group, members of the Internet group were also 11 points less likely to vote.
This suggests that—although the Internet may have provided better information about the integrity of the election—this supposed democratic boon may carry a negative side effect. In this case, it appears that Internet users who became more aware of electoral abuses, seemingly also became less likely to believe that their vote mattered. After all, the belief that an election is not being conducted fairly can produce two very divergent responses: some people may respond by protesting and taking to the streets, while others may simply throw up their hands and stay home. Perhaps, then, both Internet cynics and enthusiasts have it partially right.
The Dish 