Voter Advice Applications (VAA’s) have grown in popularity over recent election cycles, with users matched to a party on the basis of their agreement or disagreement with certain statements or policies. Here, Thomas Fossen and Bert Van Der Brink argue that though VAA’s present themselves as objective sources of political information, they in fact reflect the presuppositions of their developers, and their users should be aware of this when using them

Fossen, Thomas

Van Der Brink, Bert

LSE Research Online

By Democratic Audit UK 2016-3-14When using Voter Advice Applications, citizens should beaware that they reflect the political assumptions of theirdevelopersdemocraticaudit.com /2016/03/14/when-using-voter-advice-applications-citizens-should-be-aware-that-they-reflect-the-political-assumptions-of-their-developers/Voter Advice Applications (VAA’s) have grown in popularity over recent election cycles, with users matched to aparty on the basis of their agreement or disagreement with certain statements or policies. Here, Thomas Fossenand Bert Van Der Brink argue that though VAA’s present themselves as objective sources of political information,they in fact reflect the presuppositions of their developers, and their users should be aware of this when using them.Credit: Mobilus in Mobili, CC BY 2.0Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) are online tools designed to help citizens decide how to vote, such as ElectionCompass in the UK, Wahl-o-Mat in Germany, and EU Profiler for the European parliamentary elections. The use ofsuch applications is proliferating around the world, and there is an increasing variety on offer. Most readers will befamiliar with the typical format: the VAA offers the user a set of statements, soliciting their opinion on a range ofissues, in order to match their responses with those of parties or candidates in an election. At first sight, this‘matching model’ seems to generate a win–win situation: political experts involved in VAA design leverage the votingcompetence of users by giving them easy access to the standpoints at stake in an election, thereby improving thequality of the electoral process. Can VAAs deliver on this promise?A lot depends on how exactly they are interpreted. One common way of thinking about VAAs is as a mirror ofpolitical reality. The application offers the user, as it were, a look in the mirror, in which she sees a crystal clearreflection of herself as situated within the political landscape. The mirror helps the user to separate fact from fictionin the chaotic electoral circus, and places her in ‘her’ spot in the landscape. The basic thought behind this picture isthat the tool enhances the user’s competence to vote by matching her subjective preferences with objectiveinformation about what is on offer in the election. On this interpretation, the force of the outcome of the application,1/3for a user, derives solely from her own preferences. Provided it is methodologically sound, the tool itself remainsentirely neutral: it merely provides information, like a clear and undistorted mirror. A clear proponent of this view isthe UK VAA Who Shall I Vote For, which claims to help you ” find out which party you should vote for” by providing“No spin. No bias. Just facts.”We argue that this picture of the VAA as a mirror is deeply misleading. Even a well-developed, methodologicallysound VAA does not simply reflect what is at stake in the election by neutrally passing along information. Rather, itstructures political information in a way that is informed by the developers’ presuppositions. To see this, considerthat in order to do their work, VAAs must reduce the complex reality of electoral politics to manageable proportionsand present this to the user in an accessible way. They present the user with a picture, a representation, of theelectoral landscape. But any way of doing so for the purposes of voting advice involves choices as to what theelection is ultimately about. What are the relevant aspects of the election that a VAA should capture? Any answer tothat question involves a specific and contestable conception of the meaning of the act of voting and the legitimacy ofthe electoral process.Consider for example the choice by many VAAs to focus on a set of concrete policy statements. In doing so theyexpect citizens to have fairly clear and stable policy preferences, while lacking detailed knowledge of the policyprogrammes of parties or candidates; voters are seen as vats of policy preferences to be tapped. In light of thispicture, what is ultimately at stake in the election is the transformation of preferences into policy outcomes.What justifies this focus on policy issues in the first place? The claim that the election is essentially about concretepolicy issues is a normative claim, one that fits well with one strand within democratic theory, the social choiceapproach, in which the electoral process is basically a method of aggregating given preferences. Yet this approachis contested. Deliberative democrats, for example, typically hold that the democratic process is primarily abouttransforming preferences, rather than just aggregating them. In their view, individual preferences are a suitableguide to policy- and lawmaking only if they are rational or well considered. Thus VAAs rely implicitly on a specificand contestable theory of democracy that cuts the power of democratic deliberation from its representation of whatpolitics is about.  (This point is developed in greater detail in another recent paper from our research project,together with Joel Anderson: “What’s the Point of Voting Advice Applications? Competing Perspectives onDemocracy and Citizenship.” Moreover, which issues are supposed to be representative of what is at stake in an election? In making a selection,the developers at least implicitly take a stance on what the salient issues are. This was vividly brought out by a VAAcalled ‘stemijzer’ (‘voting crowbar’) developed by an anarchist collective to counter StemWijzer, the dominantmainstream VAA in the Dutch national elections of 2006. It tried to put issues on the agenda that were not addressedin mainstream VAAs, such as NATO membership and free public transport. Developers inevitably take stances onthis point, if only by choosing not to include issues taken to be at the margins.  None of this invalidates VAAs per se. But these choices remain hidden if we interpret the tool as a mirror that offersthe user a reflection of herself situated within the political landscape. It hides the fact that developers have an activerole in shaping the landscape. Thus we propose a different way of interpreting VAAs. VAAs are not mirrors ofelectoral politics, but dioramas, like, for instance, a three-dimensional historical miniature or a shoebox theatre. AVAA does not offer a reflection but a constructed representation of one aspect of what is at stake in an election. Thecrucial contrast with a mirror is that everything in a diorama is staged according to the presenter’s narrative orartistic vision, whereas a mirror simply reflects a structure that is already found in the world. The implication is thatVAAs do, implicitly, take a political stance: they adopt and propagate a specific and contestable view of what anelection is about.Some VAA developers recognize this. For example, the makers of the Belgian VAA ‘Do the Vote Test’ explicitly statethat “The ‘advice’ to vote for a certain party [is best] interpreted as a party profile […] based on a certain (important)aspect of a voter’s world.” VAA developers have an active hand in staging electoral dioramas, not just in polishing2/3mirrors. The choices involved should be made explicit, and not, as in some VAAs, veiled behind claims to neutralityand scientific objectivity. If users cannot see the contestable picture of politics presented in the VAA as a contestablerepresentation of politics, then they are out of tune, in this sense, with politics. And that, of course, cannot beunderstood as a gain in citizen competence.  —This post is based on our article “Electoral Dioramas: On the Problem of Representation in Voting AdviceApplications” published in Representation 51 (3): 341–58 (2015). It represents the views of the authors and notthose of Democratic Audit UK. Please read our comments policy before posting.—Thomas Fossen is a Researcher at the University of Leiden.Bert van den Brink is Professor of Social and Political Philosophy at Utrecht University3/3

When using voter advice applications, citizens should be aware that they reflect the political assumptions of their developers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online