The simulation puts two electorates against each other on one topic and checks, statement by statement, what lands with the other camp and what does not. It draws on voice-based interviews with around 1,200 people from all major electorates.
People on low incomes feel every price rise first.
Adopted: matches statements from the other campThe statements come from several surveys among around 1,200 people from all major electorates, as of August 2026. They were collected in voice-based interviews, not in focus groups with social pressure.
Every statement sits coded in the system: which concern it expresses, how typical it is for the group, and in what tone it was spoken.
You pick two electorates and a topic that moves both. Then you put the two groups into a debate.
One stage for each side. A thousand tiny dots standing for the positions of the respondents.
In turn, in the diction of each group and close to what was said in the interviews.
When a point from one camp catches on with the other, a group breaks away from the accepting side and stays in the middle. The common ground grows visibly with every concession.
Then the system shows why, with a reason that comes out of the interviews rather than an invented category.
And it is not "one side won", but three answers you can keep working with:
Close to how the respondents put it, not translated into marketing language.
With the reasoning of what it would take for them to do so.
As bars, because nobody reads numbers in a row.
And all of it for both sides in parallel, because debates are read across, not end to end.
The system does not judge whether an argument sounds convincing. It checks which statements from the interviews come closest to the point being made, and marks the hits. Every adoption traces back to a concrete recording.
While one side speaks, interjections from the listening group appear at the edge. Short sentences of the kind you know from everyday life. Every debate pulls them fresh from the interviews.
In some constellations there is no convergence. The simulation shows exactly that and explains why. A result of zero is not an error here, it is the finding.
Data protection: participant statements are not shown verbatim. What appears in the simulation is a linguistically smoothed version that keeps the substance and the tone but allows no conclusions about individual people.
The module is for everyone who wants to understand why people vote the way they vote. And above all: under what conditions they would change their mind.