In the United States isidewith.com site features a quiz used over 37 million times and Societly organization created a similar test relaunched by the Washington Post: The purpose is to figure out who to vote for in the next election.

Let's do it short: democracy will be handled by bots?
For now these tests, even when they are designed seriously, do not enjoy particularly reliable: there are always variables ignored by the algorithm or real malfunctions of the selection of the questions asked.
The biggest limitation of these tests is that they work schematically-More precisely, they use a probabilistic calculation of too little complexity to an preponderate answers X compared to Y answers we will recommended the most obvious choice for who is considered a subject X .
If the algorithms are able to make us laugh when automatically generate the lyrics of The Dogs, unfortunately still can not really suggest what to do in life.
Things are changing, of course, but for now, until it comes to considering elements that suggest the program ourselves, asking simply to put them back together in a sense logically correct, then the bot is able to satisfy us.
On the contrary it does not go so well when it comes to receiving answers to complex problems.
For example, who should I vote?
Today I thought that if I were a Roman, Milan or Turin would not know where to turn.
Deciding who to vote for on the ballot is complex.
Rays or Giachetti?
Parisi or Hall?
Fassino or hanger?
The options, in all three cases, are only two-but the variables are endless.
One of the two candidates, after the second ballot will decide the viability, economic, civil, security, evictions and so on.
What more importance?
How do I figure out what is the best option?
The more ideological vote, almost uncritically what is given to candidate campaigns in the party that we feel more akin to us, deserves to be questioned?
Deciding is not a walk.
We have to evaluate the current party, the previous government of the territory, alliances-and still the issue of clean lists, age of the candidates, shares rose and a huge number of factors that go on the reliability of the candidates to the viability of programs .
In this confusion about the vote plus two equally legitimate options: not to vote and cancel the card.
In short, the plurality of options alongside all the relativism of the case and a general difficulty nell'informarsi about it makes deciding who to vote for extremely complex.
Giuseppe Jump, Stefano Parisi, Virginia Rays and Roberto Giachetti.
via SkyNews
It would, I thought, a good aptitude test that is what tips the choice consistent with my political ideas.
Technology in the service of democracy?
Better: technology against the ideology, considering that the doubt created by the complexity of the choices is often solved with a mere choice of ideological affiliation.
The tests, net of sympathy for parties or coalitions, would evaluate the congruence between the ideas of the voting and those present in the programs of the candidates.
Imagine a quiz that first of all, after a first series of questions, to understand the degree of political and historical preparation of the voter and advice as a result of the readings, or, in an even more useful, please alert the possible voting on his inadequate preparation.
For example, signed with such a quiz it would probably reprimanded knowledge of the recent history of the capital.
Not only a guide to informed vote, but anything close to an artificial intelligence that helps us focus on facts and to prefer the reasonableness slogans.
A bot that can escort in complex decisions providing a decision-support model.
The problem, in this case, it is understood, so if you program a bot whose job it is to avoid the verbal quibbling?
Perhaps another bot?
Abroad, as in the US, there are already quite popular quizzes and tests-is the case, already mentioned, of isidewith.com.
Probably soon in Italy algorithms typically take hold and allow you to test independently as possible political choice with questions like: What do you think about abortion?
Do you feel represented by the current government?
Or: how, from one to five, you define pro-European?
Until questions on the liberalization of drugs and international treaties.
Obviously, in the end, would still citizens the ultimate decision of who to entrust the vote.
It materializes the dream of advocates of e-democracy?
If these quizzes are becoming more accurate and used one wonders what will be their future impact in the event become common practice.
As for isidewith.com, test data can be accessed freely and to observe the numbers seem to be technical tests of the referendum computerization.
It materializes the dream of advocates of e-democracy?
The technique would seem to make it happen, it's up to government agencies relating to these jobs.
The percentages of Yes and No on the issue of the legalization of marijuana.
You can see the percentages for income, ethnicity, origin and political alignment.
Image from sidewith.com.
But the question is, if anything, even wider than the possibility of being supported by early aptitude quizzes in decisions such as voting.
The progress of research in fields such as artificial intelligence is creating all the conditions because there is being envisaged a world in which human beings have a concrete support from the technology in the most complex decisions: the business choices that since the eighties were tested algorithms like PROMCALC & GAIA, one of the first good results in complex decision support, then evolved into PROMETHEE until ELECTRE-TRI: an algorithm that gets to establish a real empathy with the behavior of decision-taking consider inconsistency and indecision.
In short, the self-owned cars are likely to be just the tip of the iceberg of human-technological support activity Maybe we should start thinking about a technology so pervasive that guide us even in personal decisions, like those policies.
And if the pros are immediately to mind, from cost savings to the possibility of participation in political decisions, the cons might be just as important.
As demonstrated by the recent referendum last April 17, that "the drills", many believe that the popular decision in certain cases can not be expressed directly, especially on difficult to understand technical issues.
In the horizon where the technique will make plausible a complete computerization of democratic practices is questionable whether the technical ability to support complex decisions will bring water to the mills of the already increasing populism.
At the same time, a mirror image doubt whether the bots will perhaps be helpful in solving the friction between representative and direct democracy demands.
They would appear "undecidable problems", but only for now.

From Vice