This year's presidential election is showing how everything we do is evolving to incorporate the internet. In all fairness, the internet has been around for a few presidential elections already, but over the years the audience has expanded, along with our bandwidth. Candidates from the major parties all have Web sites and a presence on several social networking sites... and I'd bet there are presidential candidates we've never heard of who are essentially running their campaigns online. (A quick Google search confirms this.)

The election is everywhere - on news sites (of course) like CNN and MSNBC, social networking sites like MySpace and Facebook, and snippets of video from the campaign trails on YouTube. Both major parties' candidates have blogs on their Web sites, e-mail lists, and other technology features. John McCain's Web site allows you to select an edition (Supporter, Undecided, or UnRegistered Voter) and links to a Spanish version; Barack Obama's site lists an assortment of social networking sites you can find his campaign on. In case you missed them, you can even download the debates from several news sites.

I have no doubt the results will similarly be spread across the Web. For the 2000 election, when I was still using a dial-up connection, I recall the TV running in the background throughout the evening as the results poured in from across the country. I doubt my TV will be on this November 4th; if it is, it won't be showing news. Why would I watch a single TV station when I can pull up, and refresh frequently, election results on multiple Web sites?

A quick Google search (yes, I'm fond of them) for "presidential election results 2008" returns 7,830,000 results. The featured result is for Google's own election page, with several primary news sites right behind. Some are more relevant than others, but there's certainly a wide selection to choose from.

This is, undeniably, a Web 2.0 election.

-- Frances