We have recently witnessed a considerable interest in the estimation of party preferences from vote advice applications (VAAs). Such attempts have been met with some skepticism. One major potential concern is the effect of the item selection on the resulting spaces in scaling analyses. The items are said to introduce an implicit weighting, such that the estimated spaces may or may not be indicative of party competition. We assess the severity of this issue by employing explicit weighting schemes based on external sources. Three such sources for calibrating VAAs are proposed and subsequently tested using data from the 2017 German Wahl-O-Mat. We show that the position estimates are remarkably stable. Moreover, the item count in ordinary VAAs is sufficiently large to ensure robust position estimates.
BaileyMA (2007) Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, congress, and presidency. American Journal of Political Science51(3): 433–448.
2.
BaileyMChangKH (2001) Comparing presidents, senators, and justices: interinstitutional preference estimation. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization17(2): 477–506.
3.
BaumgartnerFRGreen-PedersenCJonesBD (2006) Comparative studies of policy agendas. Journal of European Public Policy13(7): 959–974.
4.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBDWilkersonJ (2011) Comparative studies of policy dynamics. Comparative Political Studies44(8): 847–872.
5.
BenoitKLaverM (2007) Estimating party policy positions: comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies26(1): 90–107.
6.
BinderSA (1999) The dynamics of legislative gridlock, 1947-96. American Political Science Review93(3): 519–533.
7.
BinderSA (2003) Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8.
BorgIGroenenPJF (2005) Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications. New York: Springer.
BornschierS (2010) The new cultural divide and the two-dimensional political space in Western Europe. West European Politics33(3): 419–444.
11.
BrandenburgH (2002) Who follows whom? The impact of parties on media agenda formation in the 1997 British general election campaign. International Journal of Press/Politics7(3): 34–54.
12.
BudgeIKlingemannHDVolkensA, et al. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945-1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13.
ClintonJJackmanSRiversD (2004) The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review98(2): 355–370.
14.
DaltonRJFlanaganSCBeckPA (eds) (1984) Electoral Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies: Realignment or Dealignment?Princeton: Princeton University Press.
15.
DolezalMEnnser-JedenastikLMüllerWC, et al. (2014) How parties compete for votes: a test of saliency theory. European Journal of Political Research53(1): 57–76.
16.
DumontPKiesR (2012) Smartvote.lu: usage and impact of the first VAA in Luxembourg. International Journal of Electronic Governance5(3–4): 388–410.
17.
FivazJNadigG (2010) Impact of voting advice applications (VAAs) on voter turnout and their potential use for civic education. Policy and Internet2(4): 162–195.
18.
FranzmannSKaiserA (2006) Locating political parties in policy space: a reanalysis of party manifesto data. Party Politics12(2): 163–188.
19.
GemenisK (2013) Estimating parties’ policy positions through voting advice applications: some methodological considerations. Acta Politica48(3): 268–295.
20.
GermannMMendezFWheatleyJ, et al. (2015) Spatial maps in voting advice applications: the case for dynamic scale validation. Acta Politica50(2): 214–238.
21.
GowerJC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics27(4): 857–871.
22.
HoogheLMarksGWilsonCJ (2002) Does left/right structure party positions on European integration?Comparative Political Studies35(8): 965–989.
23.
HopmannDNElmelund-PræstekærCAlbækE, et al. (2012) Party media agenda-setting: How parties influence election news coverage. Party Politics18(2): 173–191.
24.
HuberJInglehartR (1995) Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics1(1): 73–111.
25.
JacobyWGArmstrongDA II (2014) Bootstrap confidence regions for multidimensional scaling solutions. American Journal of Political Science58(1): 264–278.
26.
KriesiHGrandeEDolezalM, et al. (2012) Political Conflict in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
KriesiHGrandeELachatR, et al. (2006) Globalization and the transformation of the national political space: six European countries compared. European Journal of Political Research45(6): 921–956.
28.
KriesiHZürichUGrandeE, et al. (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29.
LadnerAFivazJPianzolaJ (2012) Voting advice applications and party choice: evidence from smartvote users in Switzerland. International Journal of Electronic Governance5(3–4): 367–387.
30.
LaverM (ed) (2001). Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. London: Routledge.
31.
LouwerseTRosemaM (2014) The design effects of voting advice applications: Comparing methods of calculating matches. Acta Politica49(3): 286–312.
32.
MarksGHoogheLNelsonM, et al. (2006) Party competition and European integration in the east and west: different structure, same causality. Comparative Political Studies39(2): 155–175.
33.
MarschallSSchultzeM (2012) Voting advice applications and their effect on voter turnout: the case of the German Wahl-O-Mat. International Journal of Electronic Governance5(3–4): 349–366.
34.
MartinADQuinnKM (2002) Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. supreme court, 1953-1999. Political Analysis10(2): 134–153.
35.
NachtweyO (2013) Market social democracy: the transformation of the SPD up to 2007. German Politics22(3): 235–252.
PappiFUSeherNM (2009) Party election programmes, signalling policies and salience of specific policy domains: the German parties from 1990 to 2005. German Politics18(3): 403–425.
38.
PooleKTRosenthalH (1985) A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science29(2): 357–384.
39.
PooleKTRosenthalH (1997) Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
SemetkoHABlumlerJGGurevitchM, et al. (1991) The Formation of Campaign Agendas: A Comparative Analysis of Party and Media Roles in Recent American and British Elections. New York: Routledge.
42.
ShikanoSNyhuisD (2016) Party preferences in multilevel polities. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Working Group on Decision Theory, Cologne.
43.
ShorBBerryCMcCartyN (2010) A bridge to somewhere: mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly35(3): 414–448.
44.
SlapinJBProkschSO (2008) A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science52(3): 705–722.
45.
TalonenJSulkavaM (2011) Analyzing parliamentary elections based on voting advice application data. In: JoãoGBradleyEHollménJ (eds) Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis X. IDA 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol7014. Berlin: Springer, pp. 340–351.
46.
TreierS (2011) Comparing ideal points across institutions and time. American Politics Research39(5): 804–831.
47.
van der BrugWvan SpanjeJ (2009) Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’ cultural dimension. European Journal of Political Research48(3): 309–334.
48.
VassilK (2012) The Impact of Voting Advice Applications on Political Behavior. Florence: European University Institute.
49.
VolkensA (2001) Manifesto research since 1979: From reliability to validity. In: MichaelL (ed), Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. London: Routledge, pp. 33–49.
50.
VorländerH (2013) Die Freie Demokratische Partei (FDP). In: OskarN (ed), Handbuch Parteienforschung. Wiesbaden: Springer VS, pp. 497–507.
51.
WagnerMRuusuvirtaO (2012) Matching voters to parties: voting advice applications and models of party choice. Acta Politica47(4): 400–422.
52.
WagschalUKönigP (2014) Alle gleich? Analyse der programmatischen parteiunterschiede bei Bundestagswahlen auf Basis der Wahl-O-Mats [In German]. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen45(4): 865–884.
53.
WalgraveSNuytemansMPepermansK (2009) Voting aid applications and the effect of statement selection. West European Politics32(6): 1161–1180.
54.
WalgraveSVan AelstP (2006) The contingency of the mass media’s political agenda setting power: toward a preliminary theory. Journal of Communication56(1): 88–109.
55.
WallMKrouwelAThomasV (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. Party Politics20(3): 416–428.
56.
WarwickPV (2002) Toward a common dimensionality in West European policy spaces. Party Politics8(1): 101–122.
57.
WheatleyJ (2012) Using VAAs to explore the dimensionality of the policy space: experiments from Brazil, Peru, Scotland and Cyprus. International Journal of Electronic Governance5(3/4): 318–348.
58.
WheatleyJCarmanCMendezF, et al. (2014) The dimensionality of the Scottish political space: Results from an experiment on the 2011 Holyrood elections. Party Politics20(6): 864–878.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
