alt Hacker NewsIt gives unfair advantage to incumbent parties by shaping the political agenda and manipulating public opinion. When you look at the housing crisis in big cities and what Wahl-O-Mat displays as the options on the table based on political programs, it is very easy to think that the selection of options is exhaustive. Public is effectively pushed into discussing only those options, none of which is a good solution. Yet solutions exist, the only problem: political center is dead and they do not fit into populist right or populist green/left platforms. At least half of the items on Wahl-O-Mat is feel-good populism scoring points for one or another party, not least because scoring points, not real change is for most of them the primary objective. And the tool simply reflects that, because German political system is designed to stabilize status quo, not to challenge it.
Edit: the word „Bias“ may not exist in Google search, but this topic is certainly discussed in German language space and it is easy to find:
https://www.zeit.de/kultur/2025-02/peter-mueller-bundesverfa...
Replies
That's not true. I just now went through the Wahl-o-Mat for Baden-Württemberg (because there are elections there this Sunday, March 8). From the 38 questions, there are two that directly address the housing crisis:
> Die Mietpreisbremse in baden-württembergischen Städten und Gemeinden soll abgeschafft werden
> Länger leerstehende Mietwohnungen sollen ihren Eigentümerinnen und Eigentümer konsequent entzogen und vermietet werden.
Why do you think those options are not good options to address the housing crisis? Are there other levers? Of course, but Mietpreisbremse (freezing rents) and Leerstand (empty houses) are certainly key levers. And the point of the Wahl-o-Mat is to give you an indication over overlap, not to list and let you decide on single political initiatives.
I did do a German search as well. And bias in that case would be something like "parteiisch" "bevor-/nachteilen". In 2019 a court did say it gives an advantage to incumbents because you had to limit your results to 8 parties. They've changed that since. The article you've linked is talking about its usefulness in general and not that it gives unfair advantages to anyone.
Honestly, I'm not a big fan of the thing myself and I agree that most of your proposals would improve the tool. But calling it a tool that compares political parties biased makes it sound deceptive. And I don't believe that it's deceptive. It's just ineffective.
The fact that it gives an "unfair advantage to incumbents" also isn't really a bias of the tool. It really just is the most obvious fair way to structure it. Large parties are large because a large amount of people vote for them. So they obviously have more visibility.
But I also agree that the majority rule of an ageing population in Germany is problematic. With most incumbents seemingly agreeing to not talk about the future.