1 / 20

VoteMatch Europe 2004 - the making of -

VoteMatch Europe 2004 - the making of -. Jochum de Graaf, Project Manager Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek (Dutch Centre for Political Participation) June 2004. Set-up presentation. History of StemWijzer History of Wahl-O-Mat Significance of voting tests Explaining the method.

PamelaLan
Download Presentation

VoteMatch Europe 2004 - the making of -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. VoteMatch Europe 2004- the making of - Jochum de Graaf, Project Manager Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek (Dutch Centre for Political Participation) June 2004

  2. Set-up presentation • History of StemWijzer • History of Wahl-O-Mat • Significance of voting tests • Explaining the method

  3. StemWijzer History • 15 years; civic education • First publishing on paper; ‘psycho-test’ illustrated magazines • Digital publication, disketts; Sales in bookshops • First publishing internet 1998; 2000 Internetdomain; • ‘All’ elections in the Netherlands; Germany since 2002 , Switzerland 2003, Europe 2004

  4. StemWijzer Internet-results • Parliamentary elections 1998 : 6500 recommendations • Provincial-elections 1999; 10 versions: 30.000 recommendations • Municipal-elections 2002: 9 versions, over 100.00 recommendations • Parliamentary-Elections 2002: 2.035.284 recommendations, 11 weeks • Parliamentary-Elections 2003: 2.227.686 recommendations, 7 weeks

  5. Wahl-O-Mat-results • Start 26th August 2002 • Final results 22nd September 2002: 3.6 million visitors • Presentation in Harald Schmidt-Show SAT 1, RTL "aktuell" and ZDF "Reporter" • More than 7.000 emails (90% positive) • Numerous didactic and content efforts - especially in the field of education • Tremendous experience in Scoolbus-Tour • Presscoverage worldwide - all positive and stimulating

  6. Publicity StemWijzer/Wahl-O-Mat • Pressconference with candidates • Copies on (election-)sites media; ministery of interior and providers • Cooperation with media: Format in tv-programm, talkshow guests do the test, role in party leaders-debate • Didactic material; schoolbustour; use in campaigns, meetings and debates

  7. Essence of Election-Tests • Educational tool • No prediction of election-results • Online Surveys in the Netherlands and Germany: • 80 % a (very) trustfull instrument • 1/3 does get recommendation on the expected party • 50% extra does get recommendation in the “political family” • 4% does change their choice on behalf of the test

  8. Surveys 2003 (Universities Tilburg and Düsseldorf) • Recommendation just one of the reasons for site visit • Most important reason for site visit : get to know more about programmatical differences and indifferences political parties resp. test political preference • People like the ‘surprise-effect’; confirmation and/or reason to discuss

  9. Electoral significance of VoteMatch • Educational: to enlarge the knowledge on parties, their agreements and disagreements; help voters to make a choice in election time • Visitors do take list of recommendations less serious than parties • Election-tests are not a useless game: they will change the election campaign profoundly • Counteracts ‘drama-democracy’, ‘media-democracy

  10. The making of VoteMatch.net • Independant, non-partial redaction • Analysing party-programms • Selection statements (longlist ca. 45); balance of all election-themes and of all party-themes • Parties authorise their points of view • Answers parties and statistical test: final selection (25 - 30 Thesis) • Programm tested by panel • Concept fit to any parliamentary election

  11. Procedure • Building of a ‘national‘ team (project management, editing, publicity) • Consultance and support from experienced projectteam from IPP • Training ‘national‘ teams in two workshops: 1. How to make a VoteMatch 2. How to launch a VoteMatch

  12. Editing • Selection of themes: the 10 to 12 fields political parties do cope with in their electionprogramms • Comparing partythemes with results of general public opinion-research • Testing themes and thesis in a panel of young voters

  13. Selecting Thesis Selection Longlist of 40- 50 Thesis. Criteria: • Thesis are derived from partyprogramms • Thesis are relevant und characteristic for parties • Thesis do ballance all relevant electionthemes • Thesis are sharp, short, understandable, do emphasize to take side • Thesis are coming from all parties • Thesis do have a good spread ‚left-right‘, ‚negative- positive‘ • Thesis do ,discriminate‘, divide between parties

  14. VoteMatch Homepage

  15. Statement

  16. VoteMatch Extra Weighing

  17. Recommendation

  18. Comparison user - party

  19. VoteMatch scores on theses

  20. Presentation StemWijzer 2003 Start of the electioncampaign 2003, The Hague December 3rd, 2002. Politicians of all contesting parties test the StemWijzer and get their own recommendation what to vote.

More Related