VOTING ADVICE APPLICATIONS AND THEIR POTENTIAL INFLUENCE AND EFFECTS

VOTING ADVICE APPLICATIONS AND THEIR POTENTIAL INFLUENCE AND EFFECTS 1

INTRODUCTION Mike Mullane, Head of EUROVISION Media Online It is one of the core responsibilities of Public Service Media to provide citizens with the facts they need to make informed decisions when they cast their votes. For this reason, an increasing number of broadcasters are integrating Voting Advice Applications (VAA) into their coverage of elections. VAAs are interactive tools that help voters find a candidate or party that stands closest to their ideas and preference. They are still relatively new and sometimes arouse controversy. This new EUROVISION Media Online report looks at the challenges and benefits of VAA and makes some recommendations about how they should be developed going forward. The research was carried out by Kamila Varadzinová from Czech Radio as part of the second Polis/Eurovision Media Online Fellowship. Charlie Beckett, Director, Polis, LSE Voting Advice Applications are digital devices that try to help citizens think about how they might decide to vote in an election. They might be websites, apps or any other online format that you could access via a desktop, laptop, tablet or mobile connected device. They are a niche digital product but they also represent a bigger question for journalism in the Internet age: how can media organisations use the new technology to help the citizen cope with information overload to make better choices for themselves and for society? VAAs are difficult to get right. There are the technical aspects but there are also editorial problems about balance, accuracy and fairness. Even if they work, will they make a difference? This report will not answer all those questions. But as more people try to use VAAs we hope that this research will give some pointers towards best practice and innovation and help facilitate a debate about their use. 2

VOTING ADVICE APPLICATIONS by Kamila Varadzinová The proliferation of Voting Advice Applications is a phenomenon that has come about in response to the digital environment and as a way to encourage citizen participation in the political process. Given their increasing prominence, questions have been raised regarding their potential influence on voters. I will investigate key questions regarding their purpose, impact and design as part of my research to determine how best to design the Czech Radio VAA to be introduced in the autumn in time for the 2014 Czech elections. Voting Advice Applications tend to be questionnaires that ask a series of questions or present statements on issues that users then have to decide if they agree or disagree with. The result is the user is matched up to a particular political party, or group of parties whose ideas they are mostly aligned with. I will investigate the following questions. Do VAAs influence the opinions of potential voters? Are users satisfied with them? What other effects may they have? These questions have been studied by academics in reference to VAAs across Europe and several conclusions have been made. WHAT ARE VAAs AND WHO USES THEM? VAAs are online tools that help voters to find easily and quickly which candidate or party provides the best match, on the basis of the degree of agreement with a series of issue statements. As a result they show comparison of voters preferences on major issues with the political parties positions on the same issues. VAAs are spread massively across the Europe. At least one such tool is used in all but two countries of the EU27 (Garzia and Marshall 2012). In Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, Finland and Belgium the incorporation of VAAs into the electoral process is almost self-evident and in several instances citizens are offered competing tools during the same election campaign (Bright et al 2014). An increasing numbers of citizens have made use of them, especially in multi-party systems (Rosema et al 2014).In the 3

most recent national elections in countries like Switzerland, Finland, and The Netherlands between 30 and 40 per cent of the voters consulted a VAA before they cast their vote (Rosema et al 2014). In spite of the great success of VAAs, relatively little is yet known about how reliable the results are and how strongly they influence voters decisions. Early studies of users showed that the typical VAA user is young, male, urban-based, relatively affluent, interested in politics and to the left of the political spectrum (Wall et al 2009). DO USERS CHANGE THEIR VOTES AFTER USING VAAs? The most pressing question has always been whether VAAs have any influence on people s political decisions or attitudes and if so, to what extent? The majority of studies so far have used survey data among VAA users to report the influence of the tool on voting behaviour (Pianzola 2014). Depending on the country, one-third to two-thirds of surveyed users report that the tool had influenced their vote choice (Marschall, 2005; Mykkänen and Moring, 2006). A smaller but still substantial amount of voters even changed their party choice after consulting the tool (Marschall, 2005; Mykkänen and Moring, 2006; Walgrave et al., 2008). However, data gathered through observational studies faces challenges. Firstly, respondents self-select themselves into becoming VAA users out of the total population of voters (self-selection into treatment). They then self-select themselves into becoming a participant in the survey (self-selection into the sample). Vassil (2012) argues that the chances are that those enthusiastic about the opportunities offered by such tools and with a general openness towards new information are first of all prone to use the tool and might also have a higher tendency to answer the survey. Pianzola (2014), in particular, argues that the results may be distorted and doubts the impact of VAAs on voter decision-making. The distortion of research findings emerges from the fact that research is done mostly on users who sign in actively as participants, 4

and who are probably more enthusiastic about the opportunities offered by such tools and their answers are therefore much more positive (Pianzola 2014). To correct this distortion Pianzola (2014) used corrective methods in the study and handled selection bias in the research of using the VAA smartvote in 2007 Swiss federal elections. The results indicate that smartvote use does indeed have an effect on users vote choice. Since the Swiss VAA smartvote has always indicated a rather strong impact on voters compared to other countries, we can be quite confident that effects on vote choice do in fact exist in Switzerland. However, since the effects found in other countries tend to be rather small and are embedded in different electoral contexts, the question will be whether they can also be maintained after controlling for the inherent selection bias. The impact that VAAs can have also varies across the type of VAA and the country where it is used. The 2005 Wahl-O-Mat users survey showed that during the 2005 German federal elections 6% of users said that they will change their vote choice as a result of VAA use. In the 2006 Dutch elections, this effect was estimated to be approximately ten per cent. This could be accounted for by users who are unsure of their preferences, or perhaps are first-time voters (Pianzola 2014). DO POTENTIAL VOTERS LIKE VAAs? Most users feel satisfied after using a VAA and feel that they are an easy and entertaining way to obtain more information and knowledge about parties positions. For example, the 2010 Vote Match user survey found that 75.3% of users were more aware of the policy differences between the parties after using the quiz (Vote Match 2010). Sources of user dissatisfaction include the case of cognitive dissonance when users receive information or recommendations that run contrary to their previously held beliefs, such as alignment with a party they feel they would never vote for. Users also may be dissatisfied if they feel that the applications are too simple or that statements are poorly chosen, whereby their opinion on an issue is more nuanced than the question allows. For example, a user could agree to fees for health care but only with a 5

condition that they do not apply to children and seniors (ihned.cz. 2013). There also may be disagreement with whole idea behind VAAs (for example, that they provide recommendations based on the preelectoral positions of parties on different issues that are only promises while the reality after the election may be completely different (ihned.cz. 2013). However, it is evident that advice VAAs provide serves to motivate users into looking for further information about party policies (57% of users sought out more information about politics after taking the 2010 Vote Match). Further results show an influence on participation in the election: 1 in 20 people surveyed (4.5%) said that they voted as a direct consequence of using the quiz (Vote Match 2010). OTHER EFFECTS VAAs MAY HAVE Some of the tools also look to involve users in other ways than simply recommending political parties. For example, the VAA Euandi tries to involve a social aspect where users may share their result advice through social networks to create discussions between people with similar political preferences. The use of VAAs by potential voters may have a variety of effects on voter behaviour: whether people chose to vote, who they vote for and they also may encourage citizens to participate in political discussions. How VAAs are designed thus is incredibly important. This will be the next topic I will discuss. DESIGNING A VAA The selection of questions for VAAs is crucial for establishing their reliability and usefulness and is one of the more contentious aspects of the design process. Critics of the applications have often argued that depending on the number and type of questions a potential voter answers, the quality and type of advice can be manipulated. They have also questioned whether specific parties may be advantaged or disadvantaged with the inclusion or exclusion of specific statements. Evidence indicates that these concerns may be validated, that some parties may have an advantage given the selection of certain issues to be included. However, this does not mean that VAAs are an unworthy endeavour, rather, it shows the importance of the selection process for building reliable VAAs. 6

During the typical selection process, academics, journalists and members of the public collaborate together and try to select a broad spectrum of statements that cover the most important policy areas. The following are the main problems that are encountered during the selection process and recommendations I have compiled via research and discussion with experts. PROBLEM 1: Questions must distinguish between parties A study by Wagner and Ruusuvirta (2012) showed that in general terms, VAAs reflect party positions well, but that accuracy depends on the number of questions asked. The selection of questions within a given topic is often not broad enough to detect differences of opinions between parties. In many instances, VAAs fail to distinguish differences in party positions on particular issues. One example was the 2008 Austrian Politikkabine, where on the issue of immigration, all parties apart from the FPÖ were shown to have identical policy positions. The only VAA that really managed to separate parties on immigration policy was the VAA Swiss smartvote which asked 11 questions on the topic. Apparently, in large party systems, more questions are needed to effectively distinguish parties from each other. RECOMMENDATION The main recommendation for designers of VAAs is that it is useful to have more questions when it comes to the key policy areas in order to get a nuanced picture of both how potential voters and parties view different aspects of an issue and to best match voters with the party that is most similar. Of course VAAs are limited regarding how many questions can actually be included, but some VAA providers (like Czech Volebni kalkulacka) do offer both short and long versions. 7

PROBLEM 2: The selection and balance of questions Statement selection, which is the issues chosen to be presented as part of the application, has an impact on the advice given to users. The statements chosen can benefit particular parties, as shown by research by Lefevere and Walgrave (2014) They conclude that because VAAs tend to be structured on a leftright model of voting, parties with extreme left-right positions are advantaged when selection includes more left-right statements (2). They also show that parties for which particular issues are salient are disadvantaged when more statements on these issues are included (Lefevere and Walgrave 2014, 2). Moreover, they found that including more statements increases a VAA s accuracy as more statements on the left right dimension makes VAAs better able to connect voters with parties in a meaningful way. RECOMMENDATION A recommendation for this problem could be a pre-test on voters before launching the VAA. In the case that some statements advantage or disadvantage some parties, VAA builders can exclude them. Studies show that choosing statements is a balancing act without clear guidelines. The challenge for VAA builders is therefore to find a combination of broad and current topics that articulate policy positions and do not advantage one party over another. Users of VAAs must be made aware of the fallibility of these applications; they do not provide a perfect match between parties and users, rather just a comparison of certain issues and certain times. DO VOTING ADVICE APPLICATIONS HAVE A FUTURE? Do voting advice applications have a future? Are they simply a current trend that potential voters will grow out of or will they increase in importance as technology and elections become more intertwined? Critics of VAAs argue that issues surrounding the reliability and transparency of these tools make them potentially harmful as they may give either invalid advice or manipulate voters into voting a 8

particular way. Additionally, while some surveys made of VAA users indicate that they are found to be useful, it is difficult to say to what extent users would follow the advice or would change their vote based on their VAA result. One may even argue that VAAs could lead to a populist approach to voting as they simplify complex political issues to yes or no answers in some cases. These reasons could indicate why some media groups have still chosen to stay away from creating their own versions of a VAA as doubts remain as to how you can create a transparent, unbiased and useful tool. However, the future of VAAs may not be so grim as they provide many benefits and open new avenues for voters and parties to get engaged in the process. While issues remain with the design of VAAs, competition between developers and increasing input from political scientists and members of the public on developing standards of design principles and selecting questions will likely improve their quality. VAAs generate a huge amount of research data that can be used to see how people vote across different areas compared to political party platforms. Bright et al (2014) find that in five Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia) every single user would be better represented by a party outside her country of residence. VAAs could be, in the future, a tool for European election across the countries. An important aspect of VAAs is how they may encourage potential voters to engage in debate and vote in elections. The 2010 VoteMatch survey indicated that 1 in 20 people surveyed (4.5%) said that they voted as a direct consequence of using the quiz (Vote Match 2010). Voting advice applications are relatively simple and easy to use and provide an avenue for voters to engage with the political process as well as each other. To some extent, VAA users share their results through social networks and some VAAs, such as Euandi, experiment with this aspect of VAAs by creating discussions between VAA users with the same political preferences via Facebook. The connections VAAs can make between voters and with other technology is a huge area for further development and innovation and we can expect to see them increase in usage and diversity across the EU. 9

REFERENCES: Bright, Jonathan, Diego Garzia, Joseph Lacey and Alexander H. Tretschel. 2014. Trans-nationalising Europe s Voting Space, EUDO Working Paper RSCAS 2014/02. Garzia, Diego. 2010. "The Effects of VAAs on Users Voting Behaviour: An Overview", in Cedroni, L. & Garzia, D. (eds.): Voting Advice Applications in Europe: The state of the art. Napoli: ScriptaWeb, 2010. Garzia, Diego and Stefan Marshall. 2012. Voting Advice Applications Under Review The State of the Research. International Journal of Electronic Governance 5(3/4), pp. 203-222. ihned.cz. 2013. VAA Volebni Kalkulacka. Retrieved from https://cscz.facebook.com/ihned.cz/posts/10151895152052604. Pianzola, Joele. 2014. Selection biases in Voting Advice Application research. Electoral Studies. Rosema, Martin, Joel Anderson and Stefaan Walgrave. 2014. The design, purpose, and effects of voting advice applications, Martin Rosema, Joel Anderson, Stefaan Walgrave. Electoral studies. Vote Match. 2010. User Survey. http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/campaigns/achievements/entry/vot e-match-goes-from-strength-to-strength. Wall, Matthew, Sudulich, Maria Laura, Costello, Rory and Leon, Enrique. 2009. Picking your party online an investigation of Ireland's first online voting advice application. Information Polity, 14 (3). pp. 203-218. ISSN 1570-1255 Lefevere, Jonas and Stefaan Walgrave. 2014. A perfect match? The impact of statement selection on voting advice applications ability to match voters and parties, Electoral Studies. Wagner, Markus and Outi Ruusuvirta. 2012. Matching voters to parties: Voting advice applications and models of party choice, Acta Politica, 47(4): 400-422. Bright, Jonathan, Diego Garzia, Joseph Lacey and Alexander H. Tretschel. 2014. Trans-nationalising Europe s Voting Space, EUDO Working Paper RSCAS 2014/02. Vote Match. 2010. User Survey. http://unlockdemocracy.org.uk/campaigns/achievements/entry/vot e-match-goes-from-strength-to-strength. 10