I hope not too many people base their voting decision on the amount of similarity they have in their answers with parties. The way questions are phrased do not always give parties a way to answer (Yes/No/Neutral) in the same way. As an example, 2 parties could both say No to a higher Co2-tax, but one of them does so because they claim climate change is a hoax, while the other one has a problem with it not being progressive enough, thus hitting poorer people harder than rich people.
Wahlomat is really great for 2 things though: First there are a lot of small parties, and while some of them probably deserve a seat at the table, it would be too much work to read all their programs. Wahlomat gives me the ability to presort some of the smaller parties, read their answers, and then maybe dig into their programs if I found that interesting.
The other thing is that Wahlomat is a great discussion starter. A few friends and I first did it all by ourselves, then went through our answers together. My opinion was shifted on a couple of these questions, shifting my overall position a bit, too.
Wahlomat is really great for 2 things though: First there are a lot of small parties, and while some of them probably deserve a seat at the table, it would be too much work to read all their programs. Wahlomat gives me the ability to presort some of the smaller parties, read their answers, and then maybe dig into their programs if I found that interesting.
The other thing is that Wahlomat is a great discussion starter. A few friends and I first did it all by ourselves, then went through our answers together. My opinion was shifted on a couple of these questions, shifting my overall position a bit, too.