Is it just me, or does the 2008 election seem to have an unusually high number of battle ground states?

It seems that the once (somewhat) clear-cut geographical lines of Republican and Democrat areas are not nearly so well-defined as they once were. And just like four years ago, and eight years ago, we are finding ourselves in the midst of what appears to be a rather close race. Not only is it close overall, but each individual state appears to be close. Some are moreso than others, but what has happened to the days of 20 point leads?

Now, I'll admit right off the bat: I'm a youngster. This election is only the second presidential election that I've been old enough to vote in. But based on what I remember of past elections in my lifetime (and I followed them closely, even when I couldn't affect them), it seems that something is changing about the way we Americans are approaching this whole process.

What's changing? Why are red and blue increasingly changing into shades of purple? What happened to landslides, and why do we find ourselves suddenly dealing with so many surprises in the world of national election politics?

To me, the answer seems obvious: the internet.

Anyone can see that the ol' World Wide Web is bigger than it's ever been. It's been a part of the last two elections as well and it's role in society has been increasing all the time. Today, most people use it and, with the advent of portable technology, many people are as well connected to the 'net as they are to their own bodies.

With this explosion has come many things: e-commerce, entertainment, a multitude of new everyday conveniences. But perhaps the greatest children of the internet age have been far simpler: the twin hungers for information and communication.

We have become insatiable consumers of information. The electronic word is our generation's addiction, and the thirst increases daily. And communication? Social networking sites are currently so popular that their hit numbers have first type of site in web history to edge out visits to porn sites. Meanwhile, the desire for communication has sent blogs skyrocketing while more and more standard news sites are including "comments" sections below articles, allowing readers to converse with one another about what they've just read.

So of course, who among us internet users has not spent at least a little time arguing politics on the internet?

We used to get our news from the papers and the TV - usually, the same ones. Meanwhile, the conversations we used to have about politics were a lot simpler. They happened in homes, work, hangout spots with friends, but they all had one thing in common: they took place between people who knew each other, and that fact has a major effect on what is said.

After all, who wants to argue politics with friends? Who wants to get into heated discussion with family members and ruin dinner? Who wants to risk their jobs by becoming unpopular around the office for their opinions?

But with the internet, we are anonymous. We are strangers to each other. And we are everywhere.

It seems such a simple thing, nowadays, to sit down for a few minutes in your home and have a heated political debate with someone 1,000 miles that you've never met, but historically, this is a thing unheard of. Our social groups are no longer defined by location, and any of us can now talk to, be influenced by, and learn from anyone, anywhere!

A massive change of this sort cannot fail to have a major effect on politics. My guess is, the change is only beginning...