That's where the famous high European pensions come from. In France now the average pension is higher than the average salary.
Also feel free to peruse election programs yourself. Most parties put out short versions.
You also don't need to run for office to have an effect on party lines. I'm a member of a party. There are congresses on a regional (Bundesland) and national level. In my party the process is voting for proposals before the national congress due to the huge amount of proposals, but usually every proposal on regional level is discussed and voted on. It does not take much time to prepare a proposal, but it shapes the discourse.
That’s exactly my point. If a problem exists or a solution to a problem is possible about which no party is willing to talk about, it will not show it. The choice of topics is based on party opinions, not on voter surveys. This is called bias.
> Also feel free to peruse election programs yourself.
I read the full programs. This is the main reason why I think German political system is in the state of crisis.
> I'm a member of a party.
You surely know some examples when a party member shaped the discourse and set the course of institutional reforms. How long did it take for that person to achieve such results?
It's not a bias. I think you're misunderstanding the meaning of the word. We vote for parties and the wahl-o-mat compares the opinion of these parties. It would be biased if it would give an unfair advantage or disadvantage to one or some parties. The parties' opinions not being a good representation of the important challenges we face is not a bias of the wahl-o-mat. You can question its usefulness but calling it biased is calling it dishonest.
And honestly? That sucks. You can question its usefulness but please don't call an initiative that aims to give the populace a better political overview biased for no reason. You're not helping shape political discourse for the better here. I just checked: There weren't any no google results for "wahl-o-mat bias" yet. Now there are.
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...
> 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.
What exactly is not true?
> Are there other levers? Of course, but Mietpreisbremse (freezing rents) and Leerstand (empty houses) are certainly key levers.
They are not the key levers, which everyone with basic knowledge of economics should understand immediately.
Regardless of whether certain segment is operated by market, by regulation or by combination of two, it is always about supply matching the demand. If you have more demand than supply, either prices will increase or you enter the state of deficit, where non-market mechanisms will decide who will get home and who will not. In either case prolonged state of reduced supply leads to crisis. Neither of those levers does solve problem of supply reliably. There’s simply not enough empty homes on the market to consider efficient management of them a solution. Rent controls also do not help here, because they actually reduce supply, by creating black market of subleases and reducing mobility (people stick to their regulated contracts).
The solution to the problem requires multiple reforms at once, which will fix short term and long term supply:
1. Dramatically deregulating supply side and reducing NIMBY influence. Project approvals should not take 7 years as in Berlin Friedrichshain and should not be blocked by survival of some rare toads like in Berlin Pankow.
2. Streamlining microdistrict planning, where one project includes construction of thousands of homes along with the necessary infrastructure. May include rapid construction tech (Plattenbau 2.0). It is not enough to build one building here and there, we need to build a lot more.
3. Shifting from majority rental to majority ownership model in which mobility is supported by market, low commissions (remove notaries, reduce taxes) and fast registration of property rights. It must be possible to sell and buy in 2-3 weeks maximum. The large landlords should be re-privatized: first, state takes over, then rentals are converted to subsidized lease deals with tenants with transferrable rights, in which tenants will effectively own their homes, while continuing to pay the current, never increasing amounts.
4. Progressive tax on property ownership kicking in from 0% on 3-5 apartments to significant percentage of rent value on 50+ apartments. The for-profit landlord business model must become unattractive, while not putting too much pressure on small landlords which are more market-friendly.
This kind of reform is neither left, nor right. It’s anti-capitalist, because it prevents concentration of capital and negative redistribution, but it is also pro-market, because it hands over the ownership to millions of people which can then freely sell and buy for their own use.
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.
Let’s say there are parties A, B and C. A and B offer something populist solutions Sa and Sb to very important problem X, C does not promise anything on it, but offers solution for less important problem Y (single issue party). If voter thinks that Sa and Sb are the only choices, they may choose A or B, because it feels right. If voter was informed that neither Sa, nor Sb solve the problem, but some other solution Sx not supported by any party would do it, party C could become a reasonable choice - at least you get something done this way. This would be impartial judgement. Wahl-O-Mat inhibits this scenario, so yes, it is biased, it is deceptive.
However bad Germany is in this regard, I suspect the US is far worse. There is no cohort in the US who remembers living in "East US" to temper the excesses of the people who've only known ease and comfort (though of course those people will tell you they worked hard to <insert career/prosperity path that no longer exists).
East Germany introduced the Transsexuellengesetz in 1980, which allowed people to change their first name or gender, as long as they provided, among other things, two psychiatric evaluations to ensure the condition was permanent, and not some decision driven by some temporary influence or fashion, but a full diagnosis of transsexualismus.
Or is this just lazy bigotslop?
Their prosperity has been artificially inflated and not earned for the last years, as the government adjusted their pensions according to inflation, not according to actual economic growth/fall of the nation. It's a cheat code that shouldn't be used if you wish for economic reality but it's used to buy votes.
>They just want to keep the system running until retirement.
To be fair, this is a similar issue with Boomers versus Gen-X in the US and most of the west.
The is always something you can do. Sometimes it's hard or uncomfortable but you can still have an impact on the things you care about if you're willing to do enough.
They try to hold on to everything until retirement and don't care about anything else. In ten years Germany is like, what? 60 percent over 60?
Everyone knows it won't work, but try to hold on to it as long as possible.
There is no long-term strategic thinking anymore, only feel-good policies and short-term cash burning for their respective clientele.
As a young person it infuriates me but there is nothing we can do.