Thomas Z. Freedman is former senior advisor to President Bill Clinton and president of Freedman Consulting, LLC, a strategic consulting firm.

Soccer moms, gun owners and low-information swing voters. These are just a few of the oft-cited voting blocs trotted out every election year—ones that, we are told, politicians must win over in order to beat their opponents. But this year, based on my time spent on Capitol Hill, in the White House and working for nonprofits and on presidential campaigns, I’d say it’s time to add a new voting bloc to the list: a section of the electorate that uses the Internet regularly and shows a surprising ability to coalesce behind issues that affect their digital life.

Call them “cybercitizens.”


It’s hard to know just how many motivated cybercitizens are out there, but a good starting point is to look at the slice of the population that spends the most time on the Internet. To be sure, not all heavy Internet users are politically active. But if you count them, their total numbers are surprisingly large: In the 2014 midterms, people who spent at least six hours a day on the Internet made up a quarter of the voting bloc. And a significant number of these voters seem to care deeply about politicians’ stances on technology issues, such as support for a free and open Internet.

As a group, these cybercitizens don’t want anyone to limit what they can find on the Internet, and increasingly they view the future as dependent on getting more people and services on the Web.

Not only have they begun to show their power in American politics, but they promise to be a growing voting faction for a long time. Already they’ve helped achieve significant victories on issues like net neutrality, which sets the rules of the road to keep Internet companies from restricting what you can and can’t read. Before long they will likely be weighing in on more mainstream issues. In 2016, and election cycles ahead, candidates would be well advised to pay attention to this increasingly influential segment of voters.

Who are they? If you break down the set of Americans who are on the Internet six hours or more daily, in some ways, the demographics of this group are what one might expect: young, white males with a fair amount of education. But it would be a mistake to generalize, since they are actually more diverse in gender and age than one might think. When we looked at the polling of likely 2016 voters who use the Internet six hours or more daily, more than two-thirds—68 percent—were between the ages of 18 to 49. In other words, pretty young. And 67 percent were white, 12 percent black and 15 percent Hispanic. Among the group of voters who use the Web a lot, 30 percent were women between 18-49 and 38 percent were men in that age range. And of these voters who were over the age of 50, there were more women than men.

For a long time, issues of the Web and Internet policy seemed far removed from core political concerns. But the way people live and work changes their sense of political priorities. Just as the rise of the industrial era led to increasing concern about worker protections and safety—and laws on the five-day workweek, the eight-hour workday and worker safety—today workers using the Internet are more focused on the environment they work in, turning it into a policy and political issue.

I’ve seen this transformation firsthand. In one of my first jobs in politics as legislative director for then-Rep. Chuck Schumer (D-New York), he stressed the importance of a seemingly esoteric measure to help software developers. I wondered why he seemed so concerned about a tiny issue. In the 1990s, I worked in the White House as senior adviser to President Bill Clinton—the job involved looking for new, emerging policy issues and I was surprised by how many topics seemed to have some, albeit often small, digital components.

Now, as president of a consulting firm that works with philanthropies, nonprofits and digital companies, we’ve followed issues related to building a more open Internet. And a funny thing happened as seemingly oddball issues like net neutrality and Internet piracy moved through the political system these past couple of years: They have developed a passionate, effective, large and growing constituency.

Take two recent examples of traditional D.C. fights in which this voting bloc flexed its muscles. In 2012, large companies and content producers in Hollywood fought to pass wide-ranging legislation aimed at fighting online piracy—spending $91 million on lobbyists and ads. But more than 3 million people sent emails to Congress in opposition, and the legislation, called SOPA/PIPA (Stop Online Piracy Act/PROTECT IP Act), was defeated.

At the time, conventional wisdom in Washington attributed the defeat to a variety of forces—the lobbying of Google, a unique alliance of liberals, conservatives and libertarians, as well as the simple fact that it is always easier to stop legislation than enact it.

It’s harder to explain the surprising success in a second fight—this one over net neutrality. Opponents of an obscure-sounding regulation, Title II, spent tens of millions more lobbying against it. And conservatives were united this time in the sense that government should “stay out” of the Internet (despite its origins in government investments) and threats that net neutrality would ruin the economy.

But what started as a ragtag set of groups and interested advocates quickly tapped into a surprising truth: Most Americans want an open Internet. They want the government to stay out when it might penalize opinion or commerce on the Web, but a majority of voters are perfectly happy for government to protect the Web if it seems to help guarantee companies can’t slow down some content in order to promote their own websites.

In polling this April, we asked likely voters to choose between two apparent evils—we need net neutrality rules to protect us from big Internet service providers, or the government rules on these issues amount to a government takeover of the Internet and put a Washington bureaucracy in charge of the Internet. Given that choice, 58 percent of respondents were more concerned with stopping big providers, compared with 33 percent who opposed it and more feared a government takeover.

John Oliver lit the match that ignited this community when he did a segment on Title II on his late-night HBO show. Suddenly almost 4 million people emailed the Federal Communications Commission. Not long after, President Barack Obama, already sympathetic to open Web arguments, issued a jaw-dropping declaration: He favored the regulation, as well. Presto, it shortly became the policy of the nation. Of course, it’s worth noting it wasn’t just citizen advocates—there are multibillion-dollar corporations on both sides of the issue. But what was remarkable was the role popular culture and real people played, not just inside the Beltway lobby shops.



Recent polling we’ve conducted shows there is a good reason for both parties to respect this new, important voting bloc. These cybercitizens are numerous, active and are unusually focused on how important the Web is to America’s future.

In a poll last year, we asked likely voters: “Which of the following industries do you think is the most important to building a strong economy for America’s future?” Voters could choose from a typical variety of choices—manufacturing, energy, health care and defense, as well as Internet and tech.

The results? More than three times as many voters who use the Internet six hours or more per day see Internet and technology as the most important economic industry compared with those who don’t use the Web. That may seem obvious, and perhaps that is the point. There is a new huge industry in America, and folks who live and work in it a lot think it is really crucial.

The most significant new fact about these voters may be just how many there are. We conducted exit polling after the 2014 midterms and found an astounding 24 percent of voters said they spent six hours or more a day on the Web. That’s consistent with the fast pace of growth in Internet use in the past. While not all these voters are focused on Internet issues, it is a large base to draw from.

For many, the Web is not only social or even an information source—it is a key way they make a living. And when we asked in polls about the role former startups like Amazon, eBay and Google now play in creating jobs, these voters get it. Among these voters, large majorities say we need to keep the Web open because it makes it possible for job-creating companies to grow.

Cybercitizens see the Web in a specific way with key values, ones that mirror many of their fellow citizens’ views of our country itself. They say it is important that the Web be free, open and full of opportunity. They are willing to back laws designed to do that—and oppose rules that don’t. When voters who use the Internet six hours or more per day were told a government official is committed to protecting a free and open Internet, 37 percent said they would be much more likely to vote for them and 32 percent said they would be somewhat more likely to vote for them. Together, that represents a clear majority who think that preserving an open Internet makes a politician more attractive.

Perhaps most interesting about these voters, while the country may have once seen the Internet as a luxury or entertainment tool, majorities now see it as essential. Among digital voters, 70 percent said the Web is essential and should be open to all. That may not seem like a political question, but it has profound implications. Once a significant number of voters start saying the Web is not just a place where companies set the rules, but a common area where the public has profound interests, it changes what voters expect from government. While they may want government regulations to stay away from the Web, they may be open to rules like net neutrality.

That may sound like an abstraction, but once key voters think it is essential and the source of opportunity in America, it is not a far jump to say we need government to help make sure the Web is accessible to all. Indeed, a new poll we collaborated on with Anzalone Liszt Grove found 58 percent of Americans now believe the government should help low-income people get access to the Web, and nearly two-thirds think expanding access should be a priority for the next president.

It is almost certain that voters’ interest will go beyond making sure everyone can have access to the Web, and expand to include support for other areas of policy. In last year’s exit polling, 83 percent of voters said they support job-training programs and investments in order to equip more Americans with the technical skills that Internet businesses need—and almost 60 percent strongly support it.

No one can predict the specific consequences of this. But an array of public policy issues with implications for cybercitizens may well achieve greater visibility. For instance, how can those who make a living digitally or in a sharing economy be protected with a new safety net, one that offers livable wages and access to new jobs. Lifeline, a program that helps low-income Americans access the Web seems likely to gain traction, and job training programs may continue to gain resonance.

In the end, it seems likely an endorsement of policies to help bridge the digital divide, even if it costs money, will be a political winner. And debates over programs like Lifeline may just be a down payment on larger arguments over how much subsidy is required to make sure everyone has access to the Web.

Time is on the side of the cybercitizen. The economy is becoming more digital, people are spending more time on the Web, and doing more things on it. It is only becoming more essential. And voters who don’t use the Web are slowly aging out of the electorate. The future belongs to the digital voter.