Fifteen years after its first appearance, Choose4Cyprus has now become a fixture in Cyprus elections, with the tool developed by the DigiPols research lab of the School of Communication and Media at the Cyprus University of Technology attracting thousands of users from its first hours of operation.
According to associate professor Vicky Triga, “Choose4Cyprus seeks to fill an important gap in this year’s public pre‑election debate by attempting to bring back to the forefront the essence of political contestation – the actual positions and programmes of the parties.” As she noted, the campaign focused more on issues of image, experience, scandals and corruption, rather than on concrete policy proposals that would allow citizens to compare options and decide based on substance.
The strong public interest in such voting aid tools is reflected in their response, as within the first 48 hours of operation and without significant promotion, participation reached 7,000 users. It is recalled that in the 2023 presidential elections all records were broken, with the tool managing to reach nearly 5% of the electorate, that is, more than 25,000 users.
In this context, the Choose4Cyprus platform aims to function as a tool for political information and self‑assessment for voters. Based on the concept of “rational voting”, the tool allows citizens to respond to 24 questions covering key areas of political competition, from the economy and social policy to everyday issues and institutions. At the end of the process, users can see which party is closest to their views.
According to Triga, party positions were not recorded arbitrarily but emerged through systematic research and documented public positions.
The creator of the platform clarified that Choose4Cyprus is not a “voting guide” and does not attempt to tell citizens what to choose at the ballot box. As she stressed, voting behaviour is influenced by many factors, including ideology, family background, strategic choices or even protest voting. She also did not rule out the possibility that some users may find they do not meaningfully align with any party, noting that this is not unrelated to the current political climate and positioning of the public. At the same time, she explained that this outcome may also be due to the questions posed as well as the absence of positions from many parties. In cases where party positions were not identified, the algorithm “penalises” the party by increasing distance and thus reducing alignment.
