Web-based questionnaires and the like have wasted many a happy hour.

Send me a questionnaire and I’ll either complete it there and then or return to it late at night if I’m not on deadline. I’m particularly fond of those that claim to tell one something about one’s self/views/life/personality. Before the web got all clever and interactive I used to enjoy those things in newspapers and trashy magazines. You know the kind of thing; Answers mostly ‘a’ – your ideal job is an airline pilot, mostly ‘b’ – cardio vascular surgeon, mostly ‘c’ – personal shopper. I liked these things because they are largely harmless and difficult for even the semi-literate to take seriously whether it is Heat magazine or one of the so-called qualities. On the web I’m as interested in how the software does the math or what kind of questions might be asked – OK, most of my friends know that I’m a number crunching nerd – some don’t seem to mind!

It was one of those so-called ‘qualities’ that first brought Vote Match to my notice. Although the name suggests that Vote Match could be a dating agency for politicos who need to get out more, it is not. At the general election the Telegraph on line presented a Vote Match questionnaire that claimed it would, based on your answers to its questions, indicate how you should vote.

According to its own claims: “Over 1.2 million people completed our last general election version. The Independent’s John Rentoul described Vote Match as a “digital democracy breakthrough”.The Good Web Guide commented that “The beauty of this site is its simplicity.” Ekklesia: “Vote Match… is helping to change the electoral landscape in Britain”. They have to blow their own trumpet, of course, but this is surely taking themselves too seriously.

My own outcome at the General Election illustrates exactly why Vote Match is best not taken seriously. Vote match works by questioning a person’s views on a spread of policy issues and weights the replies according to the ‘issues’ that the respondent rates as most and least important. I was advised by a margin of a mere couple of per-cent that I should vote Labour with the Liberal Democrats a close second and the Conservatives not far behind in a fairly even split (I was less than 50% sympathetic to any party’s programme). This is hardly surprising – I’m socially libertarian, economically free market (but with a left critique of the workings of markets), believe that major systemic reform to our democracy is long overdue and long since got bored with parroting party soundbites.

Of course I wouldn’t have dreamt of voting Liberal Democrat because I regard them as deeply untrustworthy, fundamentally dishonest on policy (as they never believed they would have to implement it – and just look how much they were prepared to ditch) and, frankly, a bunch of oddballs and misfits. You would cringe if your daughter brought one home.

Vote Match, though great fun, doesn’t understand that people don’t really vote on policy and they don’t vote according to what they tell pollsters are the ‘most important’ issues either. People vote according to how they feel about the parties, their competence, their leaders, the state of the country, the performance of the government, the ‘vision’ thing and, ultimately, fitness to govern.

So until someone devises a web based tool that can weigh emotional judgements alongside policy we’ll just have to make up our own minds. The electorate at the last election, wisely in my opinion, perceived Labour as tired, the Prime Minister as unfit for the office, the Conservative narrative unconvincing but their leader personable and the Liberal Democrats both unlikely to succeed and weak under scrutiny. Result, no result. What happened afterwards is of course a different matter.

Now ‘Vote Match’ has turned its hand to the Labour leadership contest. The replies to questions on the same basic premise are set against replies from four of the five contenders (Andy Burnham didn’t get his act together – shame, I think he would have done OK on this format).

By their reckoning of my replies I am 56% in accord with the views of both Miliband D and Miliband E. I’m still trying to discern the tie breaking factor that makes them suggest I should vote Ed. I’ve read all the literature of the candidates carefully, I’ve read the detail of the answers given in this survey carefully, I’ve listened to them speak. Over the piece, I struggle to find much difference between these brothers over policy – they agree on half the questions in Vote Match’s survey and in only a third of the questions are their differences much more than nuance. From my limited experience of siblings I’d say that far from a family schism that represents a near miraculous level of harmony!

So what is the tie break? Once again it is about how you feel about the candidates. I’m reassured that my feelings about Ed Balls – that he was too much of a ‘guilty man’ in the debacle that was Gordon Brown’s dreadful leadership, is backed by differences on policy despite his ability to catch a headline and trash a Tory (but then he is batting on a flat track against Michael Gove bowling long hops). But between the Milibands it comes down to competence, experience and which of the two come across best.

Here there is a clear winner. DM comes over best. He speaks much better – it still matters. He has better experience in government having held more serious posts with harder briefs. He has more experience in Parliament. On the small amount of hard evidence we have he would seem the most attractive option to Labour supporters and voters.* When parties reject the option more attractive to the electorate it rarely goes down well. He looks the most electable of the bunch and, though they both look a bit dorky, David looks less so – in fact if he stopped slouching and did something about the hair he could yet improve. Young men in bad suit might claim this doesn’t matter, but sorry boys, it does.

While DM is not the finished article, he’s the most electable of the bunch. Unless one takes the approach that the next election is already lost, voting for the candidate most suited to winning an election is the way I have to go – with reservations and a belief that much of what the other candidates have said should be heeded. The conduct of the campaign encourages me that it might be.

Vote Match is a tool of Unlock Democracy – the former Charter 88 lot. Not surprising them that it lacks intellectual rigour. But it and its ilk are here to stay – so lots more fun for the likes of me.

* As well as YouGov’s Poll for the Sunday Times (15 July 2010), Bassetlaw CLP held a ‘primary’ - this approach is in my view the way ahead for Labour in selections and a range of internal elections. Interestingly, the local MP, John Mann had nominated Ed Miliband. Details here.