Erstens tut es mir leid, wenn dies das falsche U -Boot ist, habe ich mein Bestes versucht, einen zu finden, der am meisten passt. Ich brauche nur eine Perspektive.
Es gibt so viele Tools, um zu überprüfen, welche Partei Sie wählen sollten. Ich habe 6 verschiedene Websites verwendet. Nun zum "seltsam" Teil: Um sicher zu sein, welches ist "der eine" Ich habe es mit Excel mit meinem eigenen Bewertungssystem analysiert (je mehr Vergleiche der Wert desto höher). Natürlich werde ich ihre Programme zuerst lesen, um sicherzugehen, welche ich wählen werde. Aber das ist mir wichtig zu wissen, dass ich alles getan habe, um eine Party zu wählen, die ich am meisten vertraue.
Der Grund, warum ich dies poste, ist, dass ich so viele Menschen gehört habe, die nicht bereit sind, die Programme, selbst die kurzen Versionen, zu lesen, um tatsächlich zu wissen, wofür sie stimmen. Sie stimmen nur auf der Grundlage dessen ab, was sie hören / hören wollen. Das ist oft nur ein winziger Teil.
Eine weitere Diskussion war, dass einige argumentieren, dass diese Tools manipuliert werden, weil ihre Ergebnisse nicht das sind, was sie erwartet haben. Vielleicht, weil ihre Partei der Wahl nicht das ist, was sie denken, ist es?
Wenn sie abstimmen und wissen, wofür sie stimmen, ist es ihre Wahl. Aber nichts zu wissen und aus Frustration zu stimmen ist falsch … Ich meine, sie müssen nicht die gleichen Anstrengungen in die Wahl wie ich machen, aber ist es falsch, zu erwarten, dass sie zumindest das ganze Bild bekommen?
https://i.redd.it/25jxiirekoie1.jpeg
Von bored_Kampfzwerg
11 Kommentare
I can appreciate a good spreadsheet. Well done OP.
i don’t understand your table.
i think the tools are often over simplified. There are questions with too short answers without really adressing the underlying issues and solutions. So to many questions i agree with most answers on that simple level but often stongly disagree with the more detailed solutions which often are not displayed in those tools. I only know the more detailed proposition of the parties based on their programs and their public appearences, mostly in political talk shows.
Going by the result of most tools i should vote for a party i really dont agree with most points outside of the questions asked within those tools. So i think, it is not very far fetched, that some people feel like the tools influence the recommended vote by designing the questions in a certain way. I am not saying that this is done on purpose in any form!
adressing your last point: I totally agree with you. People really should take the time and look into things. Sadly i know a lot of people just ignoring politics for 4 years, click through Wahl-o-mat one time before the election and vote based on that single result.
Thing is, you can absolutely not vote for any parties program at all. The problem i see is, that many parties will campaign about a stronger, richer, more secure and free germany, but thats just talking. Its populism. Its what the people want to hear.
What you should vote for is which party seems to be the most ethical, authentic, rational, credible etc. THATS all that counts. I mean sure, if „some party“ has „firing up new coal plants and reverting nature protection measures“ in their agenda, that SHOULD turn you off if you care about coming generations. But DO NOT vote for some party just because they promise you anything. Because half the parties just want to get to power and do not even care about the means to get (and stay) there all too much.
Edit: And thats why from my POV sites like the „Wahlomat“ are a terrible idea! They play right in the hands of the worst populists who just say whatever people want to hear to get voted. There is no easy way around doing some work and get your own impression of which party can be trusted. Its your citizens duty to actually know the parties you vote for.
I don’t really understand what your question is? You want perspective on what exactly?
You never should just rely on tools like the Wahl-O-Mat. The best example is the Piraten Party. If you have a high score with them but are not interested in data protection (Datenschutz) then you are missing their core point. But they are helpfull to give you some.odeas what migt be a good fit.
There are videos with some politicians who try to get 100% with their own party and most of them get really high scores (95+) so i think it is safe to say, that the questions represent the partys fully (not mentioning the insane big research team behind all of that and that the answers are from the partys directly).
Also you habe two votes in Germany. So the person you vote for with your „erst Stimme“ also matters, not just his party. There is always the opinion of the party and the opinion of the politician.
I think it’s „wrong“ to expect people to properly inform themselves about the parties they may or may not vote for. Not everyone has the time for it and those that do don’t always have the mental capacity for it, or they’re simply too ignorant. You may hold them accountable for that but expectations usually come with a bit more self-evidence, like it’s normal for people to inform themselves, which it unfortunately is not. So I think it’d be more right to „hope“ rather than „expect“ people inform themselves, helps with the inevitable feelings of disappointment later on lol. Nice spreadsheet btw, would actually like to see the uncensored version but I understand why you’ve censored it.
There’s no right method, and I am sure yours is fine, but one thing to bear in mind is that party programmes are a form of propaganda. They are not legally binding – increasingly not even morally so! And once coalition negotiations take place, almost anything can happen, even to the most prominent electoral pledges.
That’s not to say one shouldn’t read the programmes, but it is also perfectly reasonable to just consider the personalities and likely coalitions and to go more on the „feeling“ you get from exposure to these people and parties regarding how they are likely to govern.
Yes, it is wrong.
The good part about a democracy and free and secret elections is, that every one can choose themselves, how they handle their decisions.
You seem to expect everyone to be like you. Just respect that other people do it the way they like.
And the tools you mentioned: don’t depend on them for decision making 😂
They are nice to play around, but that’s all.
> so many people not willing to read the programs, even the short versions, to actually KNOW what they are voting for. They are just voting based on what they hear / want to hear
In part, this is because humans generally prefer to have their preconceived ideas confirmed, not challenged. If you’re a conservative and you think Party A is Stalinist, you’re not going to listen to anyone from Party A explaining why they’re not, because you’ll assume they’re lying.
But on the other hand, it actually is true that politicians lie. If you were to read the AfD’s manifesto, you won’t find anything there that is literally fascist or Nazi. If you knew nothing else, you’d conclude that the AfD is all for freedom, democracy, and all that good stuff, and is simply concerned that previous governments have done nothing to stop dangerous criminals abusing the asylum system. You have to take a deep dive into the party itself and how its various factions are battling it out between them, with radical factions gaining more influence. You have to look at people like Björn Höcke and decide whether what he says and does both publicly and privately, and what connections he has to which groups of activists, to figure out what the party would actually likely do once in office. It’s far easier to just listen to the news outlets and other sources you personally trust.
> is it wrong to expect them to at least get the whole picture?
Different people see the world in different ways. We all have our prejudices and our biases, and that includes you and me. Based on what information I have been able to gather seen through the lens of my upbringing and my life experiences in general, I think the AfD is a bunch of right-wing populists who know a lot less than they think they know and are simply leveraging people’s emotions, primarily frustration. To somebody else, with a different upbringing, different life experiences, and who get their information from different sources, the AfD is literally the NSDAP reborn. A third person might see the AfD as nothing more than what the CDU used to be before Merkel dragged it to the left.
Which of us three has the whole picture? I think it’s me… but then, the other two think it’s them. Who has the 100% objective overview of this? Who is qualified to serve as the ultimate arbiter of truth? That would be God, but unfortunately if he does exist, he’s notorious for not giving clear answers, except in the minds of various self-appointed prophets who all disagree on what he says and have frequently been wrong or caught lying so can’t be trusted.
Thats why u need to go with the „Alternative“
Post is on point. When I talk to my coworkers about politics, none of them actually knows more than 2 or 3 things about what their preferred party has on its agenda – mostly afd. But they only refer to immigrants and Ukraine war, that’s seemingly all they care about.
Uninformed people influence our future.
But well, that’s democracy, it’s up to us (as a society) to find a solution