Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

politico.eu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 168 posts

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#81

Post by alkonaut »

WA wrote: post #54
phgn wrote: post #14

For me, the novelty of this tool has worn off. You have to select "answers" to all kinds of specific issues, even when you don't know any details or care about something. Like "we should stop burning coal" - obviously we should, as fast as possible. But stopping tomorrow won't work, neither will treating every part of the country the same way. Is this the most urgent measure we can do for climate? You just can't answ…

I don't know why you're downvoted, because you're right. If you check the detail answers from parties on Wahl-O-Mat, you can often see this: Party A: "We agree, but only if x" Party B: "We disagree, because we want Y, which is similar" And both actually want the same, but with a simple "yes/no" answer, this isn't accurately reflected. The questions are often dumbed down and you actually do need a lot of background in…

This is why creating these tools is difficult. This formulation shouldn't make it into the tool if you can have two parties agreeing but having opposite answers. The question should be reformulated to allow it.

We must also remember that while the tools obviously won't be the end of the story, they are still helpful. It might mean that I just have to read the party programs and watch interviews with a handful of parties instead of 10 of them.

It should be compared to other alternatives of the same effort (voting the same as your parents, going with a gut feeling, ...).

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#82

Post by fjh »

dmurray wrote: post #70
fjh wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. But as a voter who is in favour of a higher CO2 tax, why would you care about that distinction? If there's one party who thinks climate change doesn't exist and…

> If there's one party who thinks climate change doesn't exist and one who believes in climate change but is unwilling to do anything about it That's obviously not the distinction between the parties here. The second one intends (or at least has a policy to) do something about it, but just not by raising the existing CO2 tax. Maybe instead they intend to raise the top rate of income tax and increase subsidies for pub…

> That's obviously not the distinction between the parties here. The second one intends (or at least has a policy to) do something about it, but just not by raising the existing CO2 tax.

Do they, though? I don't know how familiar you are with the German political parties, but the concern about climate change is mostly empty marketing on all sides. We should stop running coal electricity plants, but somehow turning off all nuclear plants immediately is more important. We should stop subsidising driving to work, but that would be regressive etc. Most parties are making noises about climate change being bad, but they're all pretty unwilling to accept any trade-offs involved in doing something about it.

I'm saying if you want something effective do be done, look at what the parties are actually proposing to do, not how concerned they're expressing to be in their election flyers.

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#83

Post by lucumo »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #9

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 progr…

The Dutch Stemwijzer tends to have these stupid questions where they put a premise in the question. Something like "We need more red lights in the world, so all traffic lights should include red lights." Two parties can arrive at yes ("traffic lights should include red lights") and no ("we don't need more red lights in the world") as an answer and still have the same opinion ("not more red lights, but traffic lights need to have a red light").

This is a very common type of question in it and it fills me with immense frustration when using the tool.

The one redemption it has though, is that it allow parties to explain their reasoning when giving an answer. That makes a more detailed study of the issues easier.

So I generally still spent a while filling it in and studying the answers. (And then go vote the same way I always do... I find that I rarely care about the current political talking points and much more about the unexpected things that will come up in the coming years. For that you need someone that is trustworthy and has a similar ideology, not a party program.)

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#84

Post by m_mueller »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #9

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 progr…

we had exactly this issue with a direct democratic CO2 tax plan vote in Switzerland. most of the No's came from young voters that apparently thought it's not going far enough. IMO people who think like this are just as much a part of the problem like those who ignore the issue. When you get to vote for an improvement, even if it's not ideal, you should take it.

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#85

Post by Avalaxy »

yorwba wrote: post #31
phgn wrote: post #14

For me, the novelty of this tool has worn off. You have to select "answers" to all kinds of specific issues, even when you don't know any details or care about something. Like "we should stop burning coal" - obviously we should, as fast as possible. But stopping tomorrow won't work, neither will treating every part of the country the same way. Is this the most urgent measure we can do for climate? You just can't answ…

You can just skip questions you don't want to answer.

You can, but probably most people don't do this, as they see themselves as a subject-matter expert on every topic, based on their gut feeling.

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#86

Post by lelanthran »

square_usual wrote: post #49
woodpanel wrote: post #30

It's really odd: In the previous election, you couldn't see/hear one news report about the election without mentioning the Wahl-O-Mat. This election-time it was some internet meme that reminded me it existed. After usage of it, it becomes apparent as to why it gets zero coverage: Almost everyone I've asked (migrant/unemployed/self-employed/postal-worker/cooks/farmer/cab-driver/...) experienced a stark surprise. The p…

> Some of my migrant friends joked that I should label them a right-winger now. I don't see how that's odd. Many migrants come from more conservative (in the Western sense) cultures. They can align with the progressive parties because they're afraid of the conservative ones due to their anti-immigrant stances, but that doesn't mean they are progressive.

> I don't see how that's odd. Many migrants come from more conservative (in the Western sense) cultures. They can align with the progressive parties because they're afraid of the conservative ones due to their anti-immigrant stances, but that doesn't mean they are progressive.

Yeah, I used to point out that Islam as practiced by a significant number of Muslims is further to the right than Trump supporters.

You do get downvoted for pointing that out,though.

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#87

Post by fxtentacle »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #9

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 progr…

I'd say the election is still very emotional because people don't know if they can trust those statements.

Many young people were upset when upload filters were introduced after the politicians responsible had explicitly and publicly promised that there wouldn't be any.

Many old people were upset by the amount of corruption happening recently, from overpriced covid masks to 700 mio Eur in non-refundable deposit payments for a software project which was ultimately scrapped before it ever started.

And then there's the aspect that parties which have been in power for a long time and reduced support and subsidies for solar and wind energy are listed as caring about the climate.

That's because this table purely summarizes what parties have said they plan to do. But there is no reality check.

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#88

Post by patall »

WA wrote: post #54
phgn wrote: post #14

For me, the novelty of this tool has worn off. You have to select "answers" to all kinds of specific issues, even when you don't know any details or care about something. Like "we should stop burning coal" - obviously we should, as fast as possible. But stopping tomorrow won't work, neither will treating every part of the country the same way. Is this the most urgent measure we can do for climate? You just can't answ…

I don't know why you're downvoted, because you're right. If you check the detail answers from parties on Wahl-O-Mat, you can often see this: Party A: "We agree, but only if x" Party B: "We disagree, because we want Y, which is similar" And both actually want the same, but with a simple "yes/no" answer, this isn't accurately reflected. The questions are often dumbed down and you actually do need a lot of background in…

But for every question, you can choose 'I don't know'. There is a button for exactly that kind of situation at the bottom, only called 'Next thesis/question'. Then, when you finished, you can still read the answers and think about it.

Wahl-O-Mat isn't there to simply tell who you have to vote. It should make you think, maybe reevaluate your priorities and views but in the end, it's a list of questions where you can compare all parties answers. You just have to ignore the percentage match.

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#89

Post by aqsalose »

fxtentacle wrote: post #87
bakuninsbart wrote: post #9

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 progr…

I'd say the election is still very emotional because people don't know if they can trust those statements. Many young people were upset when upload filters were introduced after the politicians responsible had explicitly and publicly promised that there wouldn't be any. Many old people were upset by the amount of corruption happening recently, from overpriced covid masks to 700 mio Eur in non-refundable deposit payme…

>Many young people were upset when upload filters were introduced after the politicians responsible had explicitly and publicly promised that there wouldn't be any.

I beg your pardon, upload filters?

Re: Germany’s no-emotion voting guide surges despite campaign of personalities

#90

Post by ud_0 »

bakuninsbart wrote: post #9

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 progr…

Wahlomat was a great starting point for me as someone who is not up-to-date on current party agendas. However, its weakness is that it breaks down answers into yes/no options. For me there were lots of items that required more than that (for example: I was looking for parties who reject the premise of a given question - I would have loved a graphical indicator for those cases). But I have to say, drilling down to get that information was not only possible with the website but was easier than hunting for a given stance on a party's website.

The structural problem (or feature) in Germany is that voting for a party who is not expected to pass 5% in total votes is basically the same as not voting at all. For me as a holder of niche opinions, this is inconvenient. Of course, everybody knows this feature exists to prevent the recurrence of a Weimar Republic-style desaster.

I do wish we (Western-style democracies in general) would make more use of direct democratic measures. Barring that, I would absolutely love to give my mandate to several parties in different areas (for example, give my mandate to the Pirate Party on IP matters, but give it to someone else on social policy).

Post reply on HN