Politics is complex. Making a choice between all those parties (fifty of them are registered at the time of writing) is a difficult job. Because what exactly do all those parties say? And do they do what they say? In the Netherlands you have been able to use various online voting tools for years. But how exactly do these work? We spoke with the people behind Kieskompas and Stemwijzer to discover what lies behind the questionnaires.
The first version of the StemWijzer was not online, but was released on diskette in 1989. For those who did not have a computer at the time, there was even a paper version, where you could determine, thanks to a questionnaire, which political party was closest to your preference. StemWijzer has therefore been a household name in Dutch politics for decades and when there are elections, millions of Dutch people use this tool. Especially since the service has been available online (1998, www.stemwijzer.nl) its popularity only increased. But how exactly does this work?
Selection
Matthijs van Tuijl is project leader at StemWijzer. The heart of the site is of course the list of statements. Van Tuijl: “The purpose of the statements is to determine the difference between the parties. Party programs are often close together. To be able to make a good choice as a citizen, it is important to know where the differences lie. In the first instance, we formulate a hundred statements that we send to all parties, and of which they can say whether they agree or disagree with a statement. “
Of those first hundred propositions, a third ultimately remains. That number differs per election, but in a House of Representatives election it is an average of thirty. “Experience and research has shown that thirty statements are enough to help people make their choice, without taking too long to complete.”
The team takes months to draw up the statements. Van Tuijl: “We will start by looking through all the election programs. In addition, we have three citizen panels that we will discuss with. The purpose of this research and these discussions is to determine what the most important themes are in the upcoming elections. In doing so, we look at what the parties themselves consider important, but of course also at what is most relevant according to the citizens. ” So it is not the case that the statements come directly from the election manifestos. The statements are formulated in such a way that it ‘forces’ the parties to make their own clear choice about a particular issue. StemWijzer then checks whether the answers of the parties correspond with their election program and public statements. If not, a conversation will follow to arrive at an answer that represents the party’s positions as honestly as possible.
Steffie helps with Kieskompas
Politics is even more difficult for people with intellectual disabilities. That is why Kieskompas is developing a voting aid for this target group, in which each statement is clearly explained. Steffie gives a neutral explanation for each statement. That is an extra challenge for the makers. Because you often explain something with examples. How do you do that without coloring the position? The Electoral Compass with Steffie is available for the first time for the parliamentary elections in 2021.
Method of formulating
Formulating the propositions is still quite a challenge. That is why a team of scientists (linguists and political scientists) is studying the propositions in order to formulate them as well as possible.
Van Tuijl: “The way you ask a question can have a certain color. For example, a question can be left or right oriented. That in itself is not bad, if there is a balance between the questions. You want a balance in the list with as many ‘right’ oriented questions as questions from a ‘left’ perspective. ”
In addition, there are certain psychological factors associated with a questionnaire, and StemWijzer must also take these into account. “All kinds of research has shown that people tend to agree rather than disagree with a list of statements. That is why we also have to find a balance in this, by formulating questions in such a way that this is no longer a factor. After all, the goal is to help people discover which party they have the most affinity with.
It is also sometimes a puzzle from a linguistic point of view. Van Tuijl: “We once talked about ‘pleasure yacht’. Some people thought of a boat, while others thought it was about recreational hunting. ”
After completing the list, the user gets the score. It is calculated very directly. Van Tuijl: “For every agreement between the person completing the agreement and a party, that party receives one point. At the end you will see how many similarities your opinion has with the various parties. People sometimes ask how it is possible that you can agree with two parties, for example 60%. Because then you would end up with more than 100%? But it does not work like that. For example, you can agree 60% with party A and 60% with party B, but then with different parts of those parties. That is why it is good not only to look at the score, but also at the statements themselves. After all, as a voter you decide for yourself which aspects are most important to you. “
Kieskompas.nl
It is StemWijzer’s major ‘competitor’ Dial Compass. This was founded in 2006 by political scientist André Krouwel of the Free University, because he was critical of the StemWijzer. He developed his own voting aid in collaboration with the newspaper Trouw. According to Jeroen van Lindert, project manager of Kieskompas, the voting aid actually owes its success a bit to the current Prime Minister. Mark Rutte (then still party chairman of the VVD, ed.) Filled in the StemWijzer at the launch event and appeared to have the most affinity with D66. According to this test, the VVD was not even close to his preference. ” Kieskompas was already under development at that time, and this result immediately ensured that this alternative voting aid immediately stood out. Van Lindert also immediately admits that StemWijzer has improved considerably in the meantime, but Kieskompas’s approach is still fundamentally better, according to him.
“With us you don’t get a ‘ranking’ of how much your opinion resembles the statements of the parties, but you get to see what your position is in the political landscape.” Kieskompas visualises that landscape by placing the filler in a graph with two axes: left-right and progressive-conservative. According to the makers of Kieskompas, that is a much fairer way to show how close your ideas are to those of different parties. The left-right axis is about economics. So about money. Are you in favor of low taxes or a strong social safety net? The other axis is about your cultural preference. Are you progressive (for the legalization of soft drugs) or conservative (traditional Christian values are important)? Parties (and citizens) are often in different places in those axes. And even within those axes you can have different opinions. It is possible that you are quite left-wing and yet conservative. And vice-versa. Even within an axis you may think conservatively about certain things and progressive about other things.
Voice tracker
Of course, politicians promise all kinds of things, but what do they deliver? A very interesting online tool is the Stemmentracker from ProDemos (the same organization behind the StemWijzer). Vote tracker keeps track of how political parties voted on specific bills. It is not a question of whether those proposals have been adopted, because even if one party is in favor of something, a majority can still be against it. In any case, the Voting Tracker is a good representation of the intentions of the parties: did they vote just as they promised in their program or did they do something different in practice?
Nuance
Van Lindert: “If you fill in Kieskompas, you don’t have to answer a statement in black and white with ‘agree’ or ‘disagree’. You choose from a scale of five points, so from ‘completely disagree’ to ‘completely agree’. According to van Lindert, research shows that this five-point scale works best. There is enough room for nuance while it is still clear what the points exactly mean. It is of no use to anyone if you can choose between 72% agree and 74% agree. But the difference between ‘agree’ and ‘completely agree’ is clear to everyone. ”
Just like StemWijzer, Kieskompas checks the answers of the parties. “We send our statements to the parties, and ask them to answer them on the five-point scale in the same way as the user has to do later. But we also ask them to cite the source: can you demonstrate that the answer is consistent with your election program and your own statements? ”
Help
Incidentally, according to both Van Lindert and Van Tuijl, it is not the intention for users to be blind to the results of their respective questionnaires. Van Tuijl: “We are a tool for people to discover which party is closest to them.” In addition to four-election programs, there is also an emotional component. Preference for certain people also plays a role. Van Lindert: “And that’s fine too! You choose a representative of the people. If you trust a certain politician, even if the party positions don’t quite suit you, that can also be an important factor in voting for that person. ”
According to both, Kieskompas and StemWijzer should therefore be seen primarily as a resource, but not the only resource. The person who ultimately makes the decision in the voting booth is you.
.