Feature Request: Show comparison of own results with each party, show parties' text answers

[LimaKilo]

Please add the features of Wahl-o-Mat, where you can click on a party in the results and see what their and your positions were, and make it possible to view the respective text answers.

I think the status quo where you only see the parties ranked by agreement with your choices is not very helpful to make a decision and results in the same problem that the Wahl-o-mat is critizised for, that people might choose a party just based on what the ranking says.

[oyooyo]

The proposal of showing a comparison between one's own answers and a selected party's answers sounds very reasonable.

I'm still somewhat undecided about how to include the textual reasonings of the party decisions though. I already considered including the textual answers, but realized that the amount of data that would need to be transferred would be about 50 times more than currently. Since I believe that only a few people will actually read the textual answers, I don't want to force all that additional data on people; I'd prefer some optional solution where only those need to download the textual answers who are actually interested in them.

Btw, I don't quite understand how the proposed changes should actually solve the

problem that the Wahl-o-mat is critizised for, that people might choose a party just based on what the ranking says

Because as I understand, the proposed changes would only add features that Wahl-o-mat already has, at least in a limited way. So how could that solve a problem that Wahl-o-mat is criticized for?

[LimaKilo]

Does the amount of data for the text reasonings even matter, considering that it is only plain text? But sure, a download on demand would also work.

The proposed changes would not solve the criticisms that apply to the Wahlomat, but I think the status quo of Wahlhelfer is in this regard even worse, because it only shows a ranking of agreements with no direct possibility of investigating further (except experimenting with the theses, which is not straightforward).

Another idea I just thought about: Maybe there could be another optional approach, where you get one question at a time and the answer texts of all (or a custom selection of) parties, and you tick the answers you like?

[oyooyo]

Does the amount of data for the text reasonings even matter, considering that it is only plain text? But sure, a download on demand would also work.

Well, the textual reasonings are about 500-600kB in size. That's not a lot these days I guess, but still I'd somehow prefer an on-demand approach.

The proposed changes would not solve the criticisms that apply to the Wahlomat, but I think the status quo of Wahlhelfer is in this regard even worse

I agree. It is one feature that wahl-o-mat has that is still missing in Wahl-Helfer.

Another idea I just thought about: Maybe there could be another optional approach, where you get one question at a time and the answer texts of all (or a custom selection of) parties, and you tick the answers you like?

I really like the idea, at first thought I guess that would actually lead to much better results than the simple approach of agreeing/disagreeing with a number of theses. On the other hand, I assume only very very few users would actually use such a mode, because it would require people to read some 500-600kB of plain text... But for those who are willing to do spend so much time, it might be a nice alternative.

[oyooyo]

In order to get some kind of comparison, I just converted Goethes "Faust" into a plain-text file. It has about 180-190kB (189kB with several thousands of newlines). So reading all party reasonings and selecting those that one likes would require users to read about 2-3 times the amount of Goethes Faust. As much as I like the idea, it seems unrealistic to me that anyone would actually read so much text just to make a Wahl-o-mat-like test... :-(