Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Statistics, Politics and Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Wagschal, Uwe

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Validating and Improving Voting Advice Applications: Estimating Party Positions Using Candidate Surveys

Ioannis AndreadisORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6782-1530 / Heiko Giebler
  • WZB Berlin Social Science Center, Research Unit ‘Democracy and Democratization’, Berlin, Germany
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2019-03-09 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2018-0012


Locating political parties correctly regarding different policy issues is not just crucial for research on parties, party competition, and many similar fields but also for the electorate. For the latter, it has become more and more important as the relevance of voting advice applications (VAA) has increased and as their main usage is to compare citizens’ policy preferences to the offer of political parties. However, if party positions are not adequately assigned, citizens are provided with suboptimal information which decreases the citizens’ capacities to make rational electoral decision. VAA designers follow different approaches to determining party positions. In this paper, we look beyond most common sources like electoral manifestos and expert judgments by using surveys of electoral candidates to validate and improve VAAs. We argue that by using positions derived from candidate surveys we get the information by the source itself, but at the same time we overcome most of the disadvantages of the other methods. Using data for the 2014 European Parliament election both in Greece and Germany, we show that while positions taken from the VAAs and from the candidate surveys do match more often than not, we also find substantive differences and even opposing positions. Moreover, these occasional differences have already rather severe consequences looking at calculated overlaps between citizens and parties as well as representations of the political competition space and party system polarization. These differences seem to be more pronounced in Greece. We conclude that candidate surveys are indeed a valid additional source to validate and improve VAAs.


  • Andeweg, R. B. (2011) “Approaching Perfect Policy Congruence Measurement, Development, and Relevance for Political Representation,” In: (Rosema, M., B. Denters and K. Aarts, eds.) How Democracy Works: Political Representation and Policy Congruence in Modern Societies : Essays in Honour of Jacques Thomassen, Amsterdam: Pallas Publications, pp. 39–52.Google Scholar

  • Andreadis, I. (2013) Voting Advice Applications: A Successful Nexus Between Informatics and Political Science. In: Proceedings of the 6th Balkan Conference in Informatics, New York, NY, USA: ACM, pp. 251–258. https://doi.org/10.1145/2490257.2490263.

  • Andreadis, I. (2015) Estimating the Position of Political Parties: Comparison between an Expert Survey and a Candidate Survey. In: NECE conference. Thessaloniki.Google Scholar

  • Andreadis, I. (2016) The Greek Candidate Study 2015. Ann Arbor, MI. https://doi.org/10.3886/E62191V1.

  • Andreadis, I. and E. Kartsounidou (in press) “The Impact of Splitting a Long Online Questionnaire on Data Quality,” Survey Research Methods.Google Scholar

  • Andreadis, I. and Y. Stavrakakis (2017) “European Populist Parties in Government: How Well are Voters Represented? Evidence from Greece,” Swiss Political Science Review, 23(4): 485–508.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Andreadis, I. and M. Wall (2014) “The Impact of Voting Advice Applications on Vote Choice.” In: (Garzia, D and S. Marschall, eds.) Matching Voters with Parties and Candidates. Voting Advice Applications in Comparative Perspective. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 115–128.Google Scholar

  • Banducci, S., H. Giebler, and S. Kritzinger (2017) “Knowing More from Less: How the Information Environment Increases Knowledge of Party Positions,” British Journal of Political Science, 47(03):571–588.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Belchior, A. M., E. Tsatsanis, and C. P. Teixeira (2016) “Representation in Times of Crisis: Deputy–voter Congruence on Views of Representation in Portugal,” International Political Science Review, 37(2):277–293.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Budge, I. (2000) “Expert Judgements of Party Policy Positions: Uses and Limitations in Political Research,” European Journal of Political Research, 37(1):103–113.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Costello, R., J. Thomassen, and M. Rosema (2012) “European Parliament Elections and Political Representation: Policy Congruence between Voters and Parties,” West European Politics, 35(6):1226–1248.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Dolný, B. and P. Baboš (2015) “Voter–Representative Congruence in Europe: A Loss of Institutional Influence?” West European Politics, 38(6):1274–1304.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar

  • Freire, A., M. Lisi, I. Andreadis, and J. M. Leite Viegas (2014) “Political Representation in Bailed-out Southern Europe: Greece and Portugal Compared,” South European Society and Politics, 19(4):413–433.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Garzia, D. and S. Marschall (eds.) (2014) Matching Voters with Parties and Candidates: Voting Advice Applications in Comparative Perspective. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar

  • Gemenis, K. and C. van Ham (2014) “Comparing Methods for Estimating Parties’ Positions in Voting Advice Applications,” In: (Garzia, D and S. Marschall, eds.) Matching Voters with Parties and Candidates. Voting Advice Applications in Comparative Perspective. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar

  • Germann, M. and F. Mendez (2016) “Dynamic Scale Validation Reloaded,” Quality & Quantity, 50(3):981–1007.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Germann, M., F. Mendez, J. Wheatley and U. Serdült (2015) “Spatial Maps in Voting Advice Applications: The Case for Dynamic Scale Validation,” Acta Politica, 50(2):214–238.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Giebler, H. (2012) “Bringing Methodology (Back) in: Some Remarks on Contemporary Democracy Measurements,” European Political Science, 11(4):509–518.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hansen, M. E. and N. E. K. Rasmussen (2013) “Does Running for the Same Party Imply Similar Policy Preferences? Evidence from Voting Advice Applications,” Representation, 49(2):189–205.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huckfeldt, R., J. Levine, W. Morgan, and J. Sprague (1999) “Accessibility and the Political Utility of Partisan and Ideological Orientations,” American Journal of Political Science, 43:888–991.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Israel, J., S. Marschall and M. Schultze. (2017) “Cognitive Dissonance and the Effects of Voting Advice Applications on Voting Behaviour: Evidence from the European Elections 2014,” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 27(1):56–74.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Key, V. O. (1961) Public Opinion and American Democracy. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar

  • Ladner, A. (2016) “Do VAAs Encourage Issue Voting and Promissory Representation? Evidence From the Swiss Smartvote,” Policy & Internet, 8(4):412–430.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lau, R. and D. Redlawsk (2001) “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making,” American Journal of Political Science 45:951–971.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Leimgruber, P., D. Hangartner and L. Leemann (2010) “Comparing Candidates and Citizens in the Ideological Space,” Swiss Political Science Review, 16(3):499–531.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Mahéo, V. V.-A. (2016) “The Impact of Voting Advice Applications on Electoral Preferences: A Field Experiment in the 2014 Quebec Election,” Policy & Internet, 8(4):391–411.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • McDonald, M. D. and I. Budge (2005) Elections, Parties, Democracy : Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

  • Roßteutscher, S., R. Schmitt-Beck, H. Schoen, B. Weßels, C. Wolf, A. Wagner, H. Giebler and R. Melcher (2016) “European Parliament Election Study 2014, Candidate Survey (GLES)”. GESIS Data Archive, Cologne. ZA5717 Data file Version 2.0.0, doi:10.4232/1.12443.Google Scholar

  • Schmitt, H. (2005) “The European Parliament Elections of June 2004: Still Second-order?” West European Politics, 28(3):650–679.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Schmitt, H. and E. Teperoglou (2015) “The 2014 European Parliament Elections in Southern Europe: Second-Order or Critical Elections?” South European Society and Politics, 20(3):287–309.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Stavrakakis, Y., I. Andreadis and G. Katsambekis (2017) A New Populism Index at Work: Identifying Populist Candidates and Parties in the Contemporary Greek Context,” European Politics and Society, 18(4):446–464.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Steenbergen, M. R. and G. Marks (2007) “Evaluating Expert Judgments,” European Journal of Political Research, 46(3):347–366.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Teperoglou, E., A. Freire, I. Andreadis and J. M. Leite Viegas (2014) “Elites’ and Voters’ Attitudes towards Austerity Policies and their Consequences in Greece and Portugal,” South European Society and Politics, 19(4):457–476.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Trechsel, A. H. and P. Mair (2011) “When Parties (Also) Position Themselves: An Introduction to the EU Profiler,” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 8(1):1–20.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Tsatsanis, E., A. Freire and Y. Tsirbas (2014) “The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Ideological Space in Portugal and Greece: A Comparison of Elites and Voters,” South European Society and Politics, 19(4):519–540.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Volkens, A., J. Bara, I. Budge, M. D. McDonald and H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.). (2013) Mapping Policy Preferences From Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2019-03-09

Published in Print: 2018-12-19

Funding Source: European Cooperation in Science and Technology

Award identifier / Grant number: COST-STSM-ECOST-STSM-IS1304-030914-048949

European Cooperation in Science and Technology, Funder Id: 10.13039/501100000921, Grant Number: COST-STSM-ECOST-STSM-IS1304-030914-048949.

Citation Information: Statistics, Politics and Policy, Volume 9, Issue 2, Pages 135–160, ISSN (Online) 2151-7509, ISSN (Print) 2194-6299, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2018-0012.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in