Have you considered adding references to relevant sections of the party programs on the detailed thesis view?
For example, it might be interesting to see on [1] that the SPD claims to be in favour of the bill they just voted against. This is just one example, but I think an easy way to compare a vote with future claims of the parties would be interesting.
Adding references to relevant sections of the party programs is an interesting idea (especially with your example) to display the discrepancies that sometimes arise between votes and programs.
But that would be a lot of work on top and one would probably have to add a bunch of links for every single vote and claim in the program.
We will focus on what DeinWal does.
Thanks for being here! deinwahl.de generally looks interesting. Some questions for you:
- Is it useful to soberly look at an analysis of a few chosen questions and topics instead of looking at the fuller picture, like for example scandals the parties are involved in? How would a tool look like that includes both?
- The implicit stances of the parties do not seem to really come out. The questions seem to not be designed for that purpose. Is this a limitation of the questions asked, a limitation of the format or are there other limiting factors?
> Is it useful to soberly look at an analysis of a few chosen questions and topics instead of looking at the fuller picture, like for example scandals the parties are involved in? How would a tool look like that includes both?
DeinWal is only one tool and it explicitly excludes stuff like scandals and looks and promises. You don't have to vote according to the result of DeinWal, but you can use it as an additional signal.
> The implicit stances of the parties do not seem to really come out. The questions seem to not be designed for that purpose. Is this a limitation of the questions asked, a limitation of the format or are there other limiting factors?
I disagree. I think the results really reflect the stances of the parties. People on social media who post their results seem to agree with their results no matter whether they are right or left.
But yes, we are limited to the actual votes of the Bundestag and that means that we can not have a question about e.g. education.
Wouldn't have thought though I had the most in common with AfD and Green Party.
Which is no problem, because I roll the dice for my vote since about 30 years.
And neither of them did get my vote.
In political and some other questions I am a supporter of a moderate Rhinehart process.
When the voter is presented with these vote/policy questions, are they ranked in any way, for example, is a climate question 'more valuable' than the autobahn speed.
How is the order of the yes/no/neutral questions decided, for example from serious to less serious? Who decides?
The user of the quiz can skip a question, answer it normally or "like" it with a heart-symbol. Then it is counted twice.
The DeinWal-Team (Martin, Sophie and I) decided the selection, wording and ordering of the questions. We tried to be as neutral and fair as possible. We tried to use only votes where the outcome does not contradict some party values (e.g. because a party thinks a vote "does not go far enough").
Your description is spot on, although we tried to exclude votes where something did not "go far enough" for some parties.
AMA.