Following on my column about the need for televised leadership debates in the run-up to the 2015 general election, I've been further inundated with coverage of goings-on in the electoral landscapes of the UK and the US. Developments in America, in particular, are quite instructive.
Hillary Clinton launched her 2016 presidential bid last Sunday with a salvo of video, e-mail and social media announcements.
One would think a Washington insider with a glittering resume and White House provenance would have opted for a splashdown on CBS's 60 minutes or a confetti-filled rally.
Instead, the former Secretary of State made her bid official through a YouTube video message, buttressed by posts on Twitter and Facebook.
In the two-minute video, viewers see a number of people (of varying ethnicities and sexual orientation) discussing plans for the future.
Clinton surfaces near the end of the video with her message, "Everyday Americans need a champion. I want to be that champion."
Contrast that with the video produced for her 2008 gambit in which she featured prominently. Her message then was, "I'm in it to win." Her strategists have shifted attention to the American voter.
The announcement, designed to answer what critics deemed Clinton's sense of entitlement in 2008, doesn't hammer voters over the head with a "why you should vote for me" assault.
The more pointed messages will be rolled out at a series of small meetings. The Clinton campaign is pursuing a "listening tour;" roundtable discussions with students, educators and small business owners.
The former first lady is scheduled to travel to other primary states for intimate sessions in restaurants and other modest venues.
It's tempting to think that Hillary Clinton is one-at-a-timing the electorate. But with short video clips of Clinton speaking at these events posted on social media, the entire country is sitting in the diner, high school gymnasium or gas station right there with the candidate, pressing the flesh with ordinary Americans.
The value of social media in modern political campaigns is inescapable. A study published in 2013 in the United States titled 'The 2012 Social Media Election Survey' revealed 29 per cent of Americans said social media was moderately to extremely influential in their opinions. Sixty-nine per cent of them said the quality of information about candidates and the issues on social media was the same, or better than the traditional media.
In ongoing campaigning for the UK general election, social media sites are awash with hourly and daily reminders of what the political leaders stand for and their party's policies.
Each message, packaged as a video, blog or article is decidedly economical with time and words.
Examining the evolution of the political culture in other countries from a distance, ours' is fossilised by comparison.
Interminable television broadcasts of Castro-esque political meetings still dominate. The only people who benefit from that tripe are the television stations, event organisers and suppliers of conch shells. While it is a lovely social outing for the constituencies, the votes of the attendees are all but assured.
Undecided voters do not have the stomach for these marathon meetings which demand a three-hour commitment for a few kernels of useful information.
Today, the old format of three or four hoarse speakers "warming up" the crowd for the political leader's ascent to the stage just seems ridiculous. I find myself switching back and forth between live broadcasts and Storage Wars (because my cable is basic like that) as I simply don't have the time for all of this circuitous guff.
The first thing our campaign culture must do is understand the Internet. This understanding must go beyond posting pictures and press releases.
Online is where the parties are more likely to find T&T's largest gathering of the undecided voters, folks unlikely to submit to the torture of political meetings, televised or otherwise.
On the matter of listening to the public, our political parties do meet with interest groups. The intent of those meetings, however, is quite different to the Hillary Clinton example. A sit-down with the labour movement is more about political horse-trading than anything else.
Our parties must think beyond the conventions of our campaign culture, which runs on rusted rails laid down by Eric Williams in our post-independence, pre-apocalyptic epoch.
Leaders and candidates must engage with the public on a more meaningful level. Hone your messages, cut out the fluff and itemise your strategies for tackling this country's most pressing concerns. Pepper us with easily digestible capsules of how you propose to combat crime, stimulate economic growth and diversify the economy. Outline a succinct, but plausible approach to addressing housing, education and health.
Embrace the realities of a society which is increasingly consuming more of its information online.
This is not to suggest that the political meeting be shelved altogether. The world has, however, changed and it's time our politics keeps pace with an electorate that grows more discerning every day.
Televised political debates, social media campaigning and low-key but high value political events are all part of a worthwhile approach to accessing disillusioned voters.