Do voters follow the recommendations of voter advice application websites? A study of the effects of kieskompas.nl on its users’ vote choices in the 2010 Dutch legislative elections
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2014
Do voters follow the recommendations of voter advice application websites? A study of the effects of kieskompas.nl on its users’ vote choices in the 2010 Dutch legislative elections
In this article we investigate the electoral effects of a prominent Dutch Voter Advice Application site (www.kieskompas.nl). Our research design combines factual data on the recommendations received by users from the site’s log files with users’ responses to pre-advice and post-election survey items. We find that the effects of online recommendations on vote choice depend on the congruence of the recommended party with the users’ pre-existing preferences. When the site recommended a party that was being seriously contemplated by the user, the user was demonstrably more likely to go on to vote for the recommended party. We find that this effect was not visible among voters who indicated that they were only seriously considering one party for their vote choice when they visited the site.
AartsKvan der KolkH (2007) The parliamentary election in the Netherlands, 22 November 2006. Electoral Studies26: 797–837.
2.
AndewegRBIrwinG (2002) Governance and Politics of the Netherlands – Second Edition. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
3.
AnsolabehereSRoddenJSnyderJM (2008) The strength of issues: Using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. American Political Science Review102(2): 215–232.
4.
BartelsLM (1993) Messages received: The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review87(2): 267–285.
5.
BartelsLM (1996) Uninformed votes: Information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science40(1): 194–230.
6.
BerelsonBRLazarfieldPFMcFeeWN (1954) Voting. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
7.
BradyHEJohnstonRSidesR (2006) The study of political campaigns. In: BradyHEJohnstonR (eds) Capturing Campaign Effects. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, pp. 1–28.
8.
CampbellAConversePMillerWStokesD (1960) The American Voter. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9.
CarlsonTStrandbergK (2005) The 2004 European parliament election on the web: Finnish actor strategies and voter responses. Information Polity10(3): 189–204. ress, pp. 206–261.
10.
DaltonRJ (2000) The decline of party identifications. In: DaltonRJWattenbergMP (eds) Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–37.
11.
DaltonRJMcAllisterIWattenbergMP (2000) The consequences of partisan dealignment. In: DaltonRJWattenbergMP (eds) Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 19–37.
12.
Eijk van derCvan der BrugWKrohMFranklinM (2006) Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: On the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities. Electoral Studies25(3): 424–447.
13.
FarrellDSchmitt-BeckR (2008) Non-Party Actors in Electoral Politics. The Role of Interest Groups and Independent Citizens in Contemporary Election Campaigns. Baden Baden: Nomos.
14.
FivazJJeitzingerB (2005) E-democracy beyond E-voting. In: CunninghamPCunninghamM (eds) Innovation and the Knowledge Economy. Issues, Applications, Case Studies. Amsterdam: IOS Press, pp. 590–597.
15.
FivazJSchwartzD (2007) Nailing the pudding to the wall – EDemocracy as catalyst for transparency and accountability. Presented at the International Conference on Direct Democracy in Latin America, Buenos Aires.
16.
HoogheMTeepeW (2007) Party profiles on the web: An analysis of the logfiles of non-partisan interactive political internet sites in the 2003 and 2004 election campaigns in Belgium. New Media & Society9(6): 965–985.
17.
IrwinGAHolsteyn vanJJM (2008) Scientific progress, educated guesses or speculation? On some old predictions with respect to electoral behaviour in the Netherlands. Acta Politica43: 180–202.
18.
IyengarSSimonAF (2000) New perspectives and evidence on political communication and campaign effects. Annual Review of Psychology51(1): 149–169.
19.
JohnstonRAndreBBradyHECreteJ (1992) Letting the People Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election. Kingston: McGill-Queen's Press.
20.
KrouwelA (forthcoming) Party Transformations in Advanced European Democratic States. New York: SUNY Press.
21.
KrouwelAFiersS (2008) From text to position. Text-extraction and authorisation of party positions along dimensions of political competition. Presented at Voting Advice Applications between Charlatanism and Political Science, Antwerp.
22.
KrouwelAWallM (forthcoming) From text to political positions. Constructing visualisations of political systems from text. In: KaalBMaksEvan ElfrinkhofA (eds) In preparation. From Text to Political Positions: Converging Approaches to Estimating Party Positions.
23.
LadnerAFivazJJoelleP (2010) Impact of voting advice applications on voters’ decision-making. Presented at Internet Politics Policy 2010: An Impact Assessment. Oxford Internet Institute (OII) University of Oxford.
24.
LauRRRedlawskDP (2001) Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science45(4): 951–971.
25.
LupiaA (1994) Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review88(1): 63–76.
26.
LupiaAMcCubbinsMD (1998) The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
MarschallS (2005) Idee und Wirkung des Wahl-O-Mat. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte51/52: 41–46.
28.
MarschallSSchmidtCK (2010) The impact of voting indicators: The case of the German Wahl-O-Mat. In: CederoniLGarziaD (eds) Voting Advice Applications in Europe. The State of the Art(E-Book), pp. 61–68.
29.
McGuireWJ (1986) The myth of mass media impact: Savagings and salvagings. Public Communication and Behavior1: 173–257.
30.
RuusuvirtaORosemaM (2009) Do online vote selectors influence electoral participation and the direction of the vote?Presented at the European Consortium for Political Research (ECPR) General Conference Potsdam.
31.
ScheufeleDATewksburyD (2007) Framing agenda setting and priming: The evolution of three media effects models. Journal of Communication57(1): 9–20.
32.
TrechselAMairP (2009) When parties (also) position themselves: An introduction to the EU Profiler. Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies Working Paper: EUI RSCAS; 2009/65; EUDO – European Union Democracy Observatory.
33.
van der BrugWPellikaanH (2003) Preface. Acta Politica38: 1–4.
34.
VavreckL (2001) The reasoning voter meets the strategic candidate. American Politics Research29(5): 507–529.
35.
WalgraveSNuytemansMPepermansK (2009) Voting aid applications and the effect of statement selection. West European Politics32(6): 1161–1180.
36.
WalgraveSvan AelstPNuytemansM (2008) ‘Do the vote test': The electoral effects of a popular vote advice application at the 2004 Belgian elections. Acta Politica43(1): 50–70.
37.
WallMSudulichMLCostelloRLeonE (2009) Picking your party online – An investigation of Ireland's first online voting advice application. Information Polity14(3): 203–218.
38.
ZallerJ (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
