跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail
← 研踪 PaperTrail

arXiv:2611.12313 · v1

Hidden Distances: How Likert-Scale Spacing Shapes Algorithmic Voting Advice

首次提交 2026-11-09 20:36
版本更新 2026-11-09 20:36
雷达观测 2026-11-10 15:22
arXiv ↗PDF ↗

摘要

Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) are algorithmic recommenders that match voters with political candidates on policy preferences. They are widely adopted across many multi-party democracies; in Denmark, 62\% of eligible voters used a VAA ahead of the 2022 general election, and 45\% of VAA users reported following its advice. VAAs typically ask voters and candidates to respond to policy statements on a Likert scale, from ``strongly disagree'' to ``strongly agree'', and recommend candidates whose responses are closest to the voter's. Computing these distances requires assigning numbers to response options, a design choice without an empirical basis, since it is unknown how people perceive the distances between options. Here we show that this seemingly technical choice substantially changes whom voters are matched with. We parameterize the distance between ``(dis)agree'' and ``strongly (dis)agree'' relative to the distance between ``neutral'' and ``(dis)agree'' as αα, and quantify how it changes recommendations for a popular Danish VAA. We find that moving from equidistant options to doubling this distance can change 37.7%37.7\% of top candidate matches and 21.9%21.9\% of top party matches, although no answers change. Low αα-values favor candidates with strong positions, with some parties receiving up to 19.6% 19.6\% more recommendations, while high αα-values favor moderates. Similarly, female candidates receive fewer recommendations at low αα and more at high αα-values. Our findings demonstrate that undisclosed quantification choices in algorithmic recommenders can carry considerable electoral consequences, and they call for transparency and sensitivity analysis in VAA design. As Likert-based matching also underpins dating platforms and roommate allocation systems, these implications extend well beyond elections.

作者备注:18 pages, 6 figures

AI 论文解读

基于摘要 · 非全文审阅

此版本尚未生成 AI 解读。解读由后台任务生成并按论文版本保存,登录后共享已有结果。

版本差异

目前只收录了一个版本。收录下一版后,可以对照标题、作者、分类和摘要。

观测到的版本

相邻记录可能跳过中间版本;首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。

v1 · 2026-11-09 20:36 · 最新观测版本

Hidden Distances: How Likert-Scale Spacing Shapes Algorithmic Voting Advice

Voting Advice Applications (VAAs) are algorithmic recommenders that match voters with political candidates on policy preferences. They are widely adopted across many multi-party democracies; in Denmark, 62\% of eligible voters used a VAA ahead of the 2022 general election, and 45\% of VAA users reported following its advice. VAAs typically ask voters and candidates to respond to policy statements on a Likert scale, from ``strongly disagree'' to ``strongly agree'', and recommend candidates whose responses are closest to the voter's. Computing these distances requires assigning numbers to response options, a design choice without an empirical basis, since it is unknown how people perceive the distances between options. Here we show that this seemingly technical choice substantially changes whom voters are matched with. We parameterize the distance between ``(dis)agree'' and ``strongly (dis)agree'' relative to the distance between ``neutral'' and ``(dis)agree'' as αα, and quantify how it changes recommendations for a popular Danish VAA. We find that moving from equidistant options to doubling this distance can change 37.7%37.7\% of top candidate matches and 21.9%21.9\% of top party matches, although no answers change. Low αα-values favor candidates with strong positions, with some parties receiving up to 19.6% 19.6\% more recommendations, while high αα-values favor moderates. Similarly, female candidates receive fewer recommendations at low αα and more at high αα-values. Our findings demonstrate that undisclosed quantification choices in algorithmic recommenders can carry considerable electoral consequences, and they call for transparency and sensitivity analysis in VAA design. As Likert-based matching also underpins dating platforms and roommate allocation systems, these implications extend well beyond elections.

查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗