The unique strength of smartvote over other voting advice applications is that it is candidate-based. We do not code "party positions", but rather get in touch with candidates either directly or through the party they stand for, and ask them to complete a candidate profile. Candidates can then distinguish themselves either through their responses to the questions asked (their position on a four- or five-point scale), or through the comments they provide to explain their responses.

This allows us to also provide information about lesser-known parties and candidates - coding party positions would mean only including parties for which policy positions are already known on a wide variety of issues. In addition, a candidate-based system is more useful for voters in the ACT context given the highly preferential electoral system in use for the election to the Legislative Assembly, which makes information about individual candidates even more valuable.

But what happens with candidates from parties that have policy platforms on questions? To put it more clearly, what happens when a candidate is from a party that requires their candidates to support a particular position on a policy? These are questions that mainly apply to the three parties already represented in the ACT Legislative Assembly.

Since launching smartvote on Monday, there has been some discussion about whether candidates were given enough freedom from their parties to answer questions on an individual basis. On social media, this discussion was about whether or not it was "disrespectful" to us as researchers that parties would encourage near uniformity in their answers. At its most dramatic, we had the situation of an ACT Labor candidate going to the press about their concerns they were being censored.

At the outset, we want to be really clear about the facts on this issue. When we look at all the candidates currently on the platform, we see that all the major parties allowed at least some level of variation of positions and written comments between their candidates on issues. The leeway they gave to their candidates surely varies across those parties when it comes to both positions and comments. Provided that those differences apply to candidates of a party in the same electorate, voters can thus still find information that distinguishes between them despite their high degree of overlap.

In order for the system to deploy all of its benefits for users and researchers, it is of course preferable that each candidate answers each question according to their own preference. But we also need to take into consideration the reality of being a major political party in the context of a potentially close election. Campaign managers have an unenviable job of trying to minimise risks and negative publicity while co-ordinating a large number of candidates. We are extremely grateful to them for being involved with the project and making it a success. They have helped in ensuring that a large number of candidates would be on the platform for the public launch on 28 September. After all, it is an enormous benefit to us that we did not have to co-ordinate those 65 candidates of the three main parties, chasing them for responses, pictures and personal statements.

We therefore do not think it "disrespectful" that parties co-ordinated responses. This is a process that exists in other countries using smartvote, such as Switzerland and Luxembourg. The parties in these countries already have a wide experience in organising for their candidates to be present on candidate-based voting advice applications. This is not the case in the ACT, where this system is being used for the first time this year. As relationships with parties, candidates, media organisations, electoral commissions, and the wider community grow, we will develop shared understandings of the trade-offs and opportunities that smartvote presents in the Australian contexts.

But we need to be transparent and open about how we conduct smartvote. For the experience of the voter, especially in this peculiar year where early voting is likely to break all previous records, it would be preferable if all or most of the candidates were present at the time of the public release of the online tool. But the campaign is a very busy period for parties and candidates, and the identity of about one-third of all candidates was only revealed last week, leaving us with limited time to contact them and them limited time to fill in their profile.

In the same way, changing some answers after they have been published creates a number of obvious issues. We do not want situations where a voter is matched highly with Charles Foster Kane on Monday, but very lowly on Friday, because his answers have been changed in the course of the week. However, there will be and there have been errors that we need to correct for accuracy.

READ MORE:

For instance, we were asked to change some answers or to modify written comments for a few candidates when the latter saw they had made an obvious error. Some parties have also requested some minor changes for their candidates, including the Canberra Liberals, who requested to moderate their answers about two budget questions. We have accepted those changes as they were either honest mistakes or were limited in scope and did not alter the direction of the answer (only its intensity). Those requests also came within the first two days of the public release of the tool, a period that we consider appropriate for candidates and parties to realise their mistake.

Finally, the way we react to the issue of candidates from major parties having strong objections to party policy also follows best practice from research teams providing this tool in other countries. Since we consider that this is potentially useful information for voters, but that it also probably belongs in internal discussions prior to publishing responses on smartvote, we allowed for the change of position of the candidate on the platform after the exchange took place between the candidate and his party.

For all those reasons, we invite ACT residents to visit the smartvote tool several times before they vote, as the database of candidates grows and the rare few errors are corrected. We were very pleased to launch the tool with over 50 percent of candidates already present on the platform. Two days after the release, this rate had jumped to more than two-thirds. This provides ACT voters with the richest amount of information, systematically available for most candidates standing for the election, ever made available to them.

We hope this answers a number of questions smartvote users may have had about these first few days of running the ACT election tool. In a nutshell, we acknowledge the respectful interactions we have developed with candidates, parties, and the ACT community. After all, the project's goal is for voters to engage with politics and learn about candidates' positions on a wide range of policy issues. A bridge between voters and candidates is sorely needed in times of declining trust in politics and politicians.