Voting advice applications and party choice: evidence from ...

378 A. Ladner, J. Fivaz and J. Pianzola
the voting recommendations, age, and the respective interaction). Figure 1 illustrates the
predicted probabilities for swing-voting for those who were influenced by the smartvote
voting recommendations (black dots) versus those who were not influenced by it (blue
dots) for different age levels. The vertical confidence intervals indicate the relative
significance of the predicted point estimates.
Table 5
Logit predictions for party change
Independent variables
Influenced by voting recommendations
Age
Age*influenced by voting recommendations
Rather unsurprised by voting recommendations
Rather surprised by voting recommendations
Very surprised by voting recommendations
Multiple vote propensities
Party attachment
Ideology (centre vs. left/right)
Gender
Educational level
Income level
Vote change
0.60*
(0.31)
–0.01***
(0.00)
–0.006
(0.007)
0.12
(0.11)
0.18
(0.14)
0.69***
(0.28)
0.30***
(0.11)
–0.44***
(0.09)
0.36***
(0.09)
–0.11
(0.10)
0.00
(0.06)
–0.02
(0.03)
Constant
–0.39
(0.83)
Observations 2551
Log likelihood –1620
Log likelihood 0 –1705
AIC 3295
Correctly predicted cases 64%
Source: NCCR “Democracy”, IP16 “smart-voting 2.0” (http://www.nccr-democracy.
uzh.ch/research/module5/smart-voting/smart-voting).
Notes: Standard errors in parentheses; *** p