Explaining the (non-) Use of Voting Advice Applications.

Author:

Walder Maxime12ORCID,Fivaz Jan3ORCID,Schwarz Daniel3ORCID,Giger Nathalie1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Université de Genève, Geneve, Switzerland

2. Universität Basel, Basel Switzerland

3. Universität Bern, Bern, Switzerland

Abstract

Voting requires lots of information. In most democracies, elections leave voters with dozens, if not thousands, of voting possibilities. Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) have primarily been recognized as a guide for voters through their electoral decision-making. However, the use of such digital tools is still limited. In this paper, we analyze how voters’ characteristics affect the use of VAAs and what makes individuals not use the application. We present the results of a panel survey where we randomly invited part of the survey respondents to use a VAA during an electoral campaign in the canton of Bern, Switzerland. Our results show that while significant differences exist between respondents in and out of the experimental setting, political knowledge, and interest are consistent drivers of VAA use. Additionally, we show that more than half of non-VAA users indicate that they do not need assistance from a VAA as a reason for not using the tool and that factors influencing this reason are similar to factors that affect the use of VAAs. In doing so, we add to the literature on the use and biases of VAAs and the general understanding of why people use or don’t use digital tools.

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)

Reference30 articles.

1. How do the Characteristics of Voting Advice Application Users Change Over Time? Evidence from the German Election Studies

2. Christine Benesch, Rino Heim, Mark Schelker, and Lukas Schmid. 2023. Do Voting Advice Applications Change Political Behavior?The Journal of Politics 85, 2 (2023), 684–700.

3. Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion about Initiatives

4. An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy

5. Jan Fivaz, Nathalie Giger, Maxime Walder, and Daniel Schwarz. 2023. Digitalisierung und politische Meinungsbildung. Ergebnisse aus Befragungsstudien im Rahmen der kantonalen Wahlen in Zürich 2019 und Bern 2022. Technical Report. University of Bern / University of Geneva, Bern/Geneva.

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Introduction to the Special Issue on Smart Government Development and Applications;Digital Government: Research and Practice;2024-09-13

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3