Two years ago, just before the municipal elections, our director wrote an article about the Stemwijzer and its strengths and limitations, viewed through the lens of social design. The inspiration for this article was, as usual, one of our lunch discussions, where we talked about how easy it is to get 'a match' with a party, even if you disagree with them on very big and important topics (in my case, I got ChristenUnie, even though I am a firm supporter of the right to abortion, euthanasia, etc.). How is that possible? And can we responsibly use these sorts of tools if we are not sure how they work?
Researchers from Utrecht University and Tilburg University released a report last year about their analysis of voting advice applications: "Voting aids are not only handy for voters; research also shows that they make a positive contribution to democracy. Citizens feel better informed after using a such an aid and are more likely to actually go vote."*
But while these tools clearly encourage more people to vote (a big achievement, in our opinion), an important question still remains: do Stemwijzer and Kieskompas influence who people vote for? And should everyone who uses these tools first become familiar with how they work? Researchers seem to think yes.
The Stemwijzer and Kieskompas are two of the most widely used tools in the Netherlands for helping with voting choices. Not every country has these sorts of tools, so already having them is a big benefit, especially for people who are not closely familiar with the political landscape of our country. But it is important to examine them critically and ask ourselves whether the need for simplicity comes at the cost of oversimplification, leading to unconscious steering (framing) or omitting of important issues.
Both tools use 30 statements, and the choices about which statements are included (made by the creators of the tools, based on the biggest topics at that time) can influence the outcome. That probably explains why my result was ChristenUnie—while I might agree with them on many of the topics that appeared in the statements that year, certain ones (important to me personally, but perhaps not on the main agenda in those elections) were not included. Based on research done by Utrecht University and Tilburg University, the statements between the two tools can differ quite a lot.
Another thing we noticed while filling out both Stemwijzer and Kieskompas is that the statements they make can be quite different in tone. Just look at these two statements, both dealing with the same topic:
Stemwijzer: The EU should prohibit the police from using automatic facial recognition.
Kieskompas: Cameras with facial recognition may be used to detect serious crimes.
The first one appears in the Stemwijzer, the second in the Kieskompas. While the Stemwijzer offers the option to read more about the topic (which can provide a deeper understanding), both statements seem quite different if you are not closely familiar with what they talk about. On first look, I would more easily click ‘yes’ on the statement made by the Kieskompas.
The extreme simplification also leads to having to formulate a whole series of yes/no answers on huge issues in just 5 minutes. Most people know nothing about these issues or have never thought about them before. In the book Against Elections, David van Reybrouck shows that this usually leads to more conservative choices. Saying no to something is simply easier to grasp than saying yes to something you know nothing about. So, does the design of the voting guide lead to more conservative voting?
The oversimplification has led to the development of new voting guides that allow for more nuance and highlight specific topics. Great. But that doesn’t necessarily make things easier. For example, while filling out the technology voting guide, our director Anna got completely entangled in the complexity of the choices. And this is a topic she is not unfamiliar with. But instead of two, there were suddenly five options that you had to weigh against each other, but which do not necessarily exclude each other. She stopped after three questions and will unfortunately never know who to vote for in order to achieve a more inclusive digital society.
The voting guides influence where you cast your vote through its design. How significant this influence is, is not easy to say. We now know that tools like the Stemwijzer increase the likelihood that someone will vote. But to what extent are people influenced by the outcome? Do people vote differently? That seems to us to be a relevant question. And as social designers, we naturally wonder: what does the ideal voting advice application look like?
*To read more about the Stemwijzer and Kieskompas and their strengths and weaknesses, follow this link.
