In the 1930s, the voice of then-President Franklin Roosevelt boomed over radios across the country during his renowned “fireside chats.”

Thirty years later, broadcasts featuring President John Kennedy appeared on the televisions of citizens nationwide and became a familiar household face.

Now in 2012, President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney have taken to the Internet.

Politicians’ use of technology to reach a mass audience is nothing new. And according to professors and scholars, the addition of an online network to campaigning has enabled candidates to reach a larger quantity of people, including potential voters who might not have participated in the political process otherwise. In the past few election cycles, it has also provided voters more resources through which to inform themselves, although experts and common users alike caution that both candidates and voters must be wary of the information floating around in cyberspace.

The 2008 presidential campaign, often referred to as the “Internet Election,” was the first time that a presidential candidate actively used the World Wide Web to both mobilize and engage potential voters.

Political science professor Shannon Scotece indicated that this mobilization became the difference between winning and losing for Barack Obama during his 2008 campaign for the White House.

“Obama and the Democrats used Facebook, Twitter and MySpace and were better at it than John McCain,” she said. “Because Obama was able to use Facebook well, he was able to reach out to the younger population that was already using it.”

Somewhere down the line, the use of radio and television — along with newspapers — fell into the category of “traditional sources,” according to Scotece.

This categorization resulted from the emergence of the Internet, and with this emergence came a dramatic increase in the involvement of young people from their participation levels only two decades before.

“Young people didn’t vote a lot in the ’90s,” Scotece said. “It was this huge crisis.”

According to civicyouth.org, voter turnout among 18- to 29-year-old voters was reported at 51.1 percent in the 2008 presidential election. This statistic stands as a notable increase from the 40 percent of young voters that came out for the 1996 election.

One of the greatest attractions of online politics for young people is that it’s a place they already go.

“[Politicians] are using a language that young people use to communicate with each other every day,” Scotece added.

Sophomore Cristina Restrepo, a clinical dietetics and nutrition major, uses social media sites like Twitter to follow all the major news stations and political parties.

“It’s interesting because I follow both extremes. I follow CNN and Fox News, but I also follow NBC,” she said. “It’s interesting to see which stories they post on a social network.”

Restrepo acknowledges that these news stations have the potential to clarify a lot of quotes from the debates on their Twitter accounts.

“For example, if Romney says something during a debate, CNN has a tendency to post [his quote] and counteract it with an article based on their research,” Restrepo said.

Pitt political science professor Kristen Allen is amazed by the role social media has played in this election, and she said the virtual world provides quicker access to information.

”The Internet has picked up on the best aspects of print and visual communication,” Allen said. “And it gives people immediate access at any time.”

Graduate teaching assistant Eric Loepp agrees.

“Back in the day, you had to wait until a journalist wrote an article and got it printed up, especially if it occurred somewhere else,” Loepp said.

And this aspect of immediate access is what drives the younger population — students included — to the Internet for political information.

Sophomore George Totolos, prospectively majoring in computer science, commented on the speed with which he can find information online.

“It’s a hell of a lot more efficient than the pony express,” he said.

Restrepo is fond of the convenience of a single social media network that holds a variety of viewpoints, such as Twitter.

“It’s nice to get the constant updates in one location rather than checking all the individual websites,” she said.

Prior to the Internet, voters were limited to the perspectives of local or national newspapers and television networks that projected political information.

“With the Internet explosion, suddenly [voters] had all these sources of information,” Scotece said.

She said these sources include blogs, online newspapers, political websites and social media. She added that the Internet is enhancing the democratic process.

“Everyone has the potential to be informed and just participate in discourse,” Scotece added. “It’s easier for them to see a range of perspectives.”

Restrepo now feels that she can actively form her own political identity.

“Before it was everything I would see in the newspapers or that my family would tell me,” she said. “Now I have the ability to reach out on my own.”

She noted the importance of keeping her Twitter feed impartial.

“I try to follow as many different varieties [of views] as possible so I don’t have a strong bias toward one candidate during the election,” Restrepo said.

Angela Defrank, a sophomore accounting major and soon-to-be first-time voter, has used social media sites and online sources to learn about candidates and develop her political identity. She follows NBC news, CNN and, more recently, Romney on Twitter.

“Social media has given everyone an open voice and is more easily accessible,” Defrank said.

The Internet has allowed Defrank as a new voter to test where she stands on certain policies.

“I’ve taken a couple online quizzes to see who I would register the best with,” she added. “That type of information helped me see which views I had that corresponded with the candidates.”

Despite the benefits that the Internet has provided, it is not flawless. Loepp has referred to it as a mixed blessing because of the abundance of potentially unhelpful information that viewers must sort through.

“[The internet] is a double-edged sword for young voters,” Loepp noted. “There’s tons and tons of information online. The flip side is that it’s not all good information.”

Freshman Jacklyn Puopolo uses the Internet but knows that she must be cautious in sorting through the information she finds.

“Social media makes it easy to hear other peoples’ opinions on issues, see different sides to arguments and keep up with the candidates,” she said in an email. “But I ultimately make my decision based on my own research.”

Sophomore Robbie Decker follows both Obama and Romney on Twitter but hasn’t found the constant online buzz to be helpful.

“But both of them are just so ridiculous. I try to stay away from TV and Twitter and all of that stuff,” he said.

With both its dark and light sides, the Internet as a source of voter mobilization is unlikely to recede from the political sphere. In the coming years, it will continue to be a major priority for presidential candidates who want any hope of winning an election. And Scotece predicts that the Internet will become an even larger force behind campaigning as time goes on.

“Campaigns are going to be a lot more integrated and implement the balance of [technology and grassroots],” she said.