Vote – but for whom?

"And, have you done the Wahl-O-Mat yet?" In the weeks before the European Parliament election on 26 May, a question you hear again and again.
Making decisions is in some cases anything but simple; orientation aids can be a welcome support. At least when it comes to marking your cross in state parliament, federal parliament or European elections, the Wahl-O-Mat can be useful – provided it doesn't have to go offline due to legal challenges.
The Wahl-O-Mat, an offering from the Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb), enables a comparison with the answers of the respective parties by answering different theses yourself. It is a "Voting Advice Application" and, importantly, as Regina Renner emphasises, not a voting decision tool, but a decision aid. She is a research associate at the Chair of Comparative Political Science and Systems Theory at the Institute for Political Science and Sociology at Universität Würzburg and, together with her colleague Christoph Mohamad-Klotzbach, contributed to the creation of the Wahl-O-Mat for the previous Bavarian state parliament election in 2018. Since the introduction of the Wahl-O-Mat began, she has been a member of the youth editorial team, and from 2013 onwards has been professionally involved. It is created each time, among other things, by a team of young people – by eligible first-time or young voters.
This youth editorial team is supported by researchers,by external expertsfrom the respective state and by officials of the bpb itself. In editorial workshops, the young editorial team members initially develop around 120 theses. Theses that are relevant to them personally. For this purpose, election manifestos are analysed. The mentors from the states provide additional assessments through observations of the party landscape. It is important,
she says, to "formulate good theses" that are understandable to everyone – both in terms of content and language. Moreover, it makes a "difference whether I speak of unemployment benefit or Hartz IV", explains Renner. She is always amazed at how quickly the participants learn to formulate things in an
understandable way.
Disagreements were not absent from the thesis selection. This was particularly the case with topics that initially appeared to be of only regional significance, but could potentially also be relevant beyond the region, reports Regina Renner. The deepening of the Danube, a third national park, cable cars for ski resorts or a third runway for Munich are examples she lists that have repeatedly sparked discussions in past workshops for the state parliament election.
Once the disagreements have been resolved, a further selection takes place. After all, around eighty to ninety theses are sent to the parties. Then it's a matter of waiting. "You never know beforehand how the theses will work" and be perceived by the parties, says Regina Renner. That "parties quibble about the theses" does happen, but it's rare. After receiving the parties' answers, the number of theses is reduced once more to 38. The most important criterion: on the basis of which theses can the parties be differentiated? "A certain
control process is unavoidable", says Renner. Without reducing the number of theses, however, there would be a risk that the Wahl-O-Mat would lose its playful character. After all, who clicks through 90 theses "just like that"?
However, the Wahl-O-Mat is by no means the only tool for comparing positions. In the European election, for example, the medium "You vote EU" is used. However, there are some significant differences with regard to the Wahl-O-Mat: "You vote EU" compares decisions made by members of the European Parliament (MEPs) in the previous legislative period. However, Regina Renner sees the principle as problematic in more than one respect: statements and voting behaviour of individual MEPs are compared out of any context; they are not directly asked. Furthermore, in the election of the European Parliament, parties are elected and not direct candidates. Finally, because only the statements of those MEPs who were already in Parliament are comparable, parties that failed to enter Parliament in the previous legislative period or were only newly founded are not taken into account. For Renner, "You vote EU" thus misses the mark.
Even when considering other alternatives, Regina Renner remains convinced of the Wahl-O-Mat.
For her, it is "the most advanced and best tool in the field of Voting Advice Applications", where "nothing is distorted" and moreover "with relatively few theses the
party programmes are differentiated".
If one multiplies the average usage time of the Wahl-O-Mat of 10 minutes by the registered uses (in the Bavarian state parliament election 2018, according to the bpb, 2.78 million, a new record), this results in a value of political education time at a level that can hardly be achieved with other programmes, calculates Renner.
Regina Renner thus has basically no criticism. Because: "You cannot do things better within the framework you have". The selection of eight parties serves, on the one hand, for clarity, but much more it is intended to bring about a "conscious selection and engagement" with these parties, explains Renner. Two weeks after the interview with Regina Renner, however, the Cologne Administrative Court sees the matter quite differently. The party Volt Deutschland filed a lawsuit against the Federal Agency for Civic Education – and won. The argument: the previous maximum of eight parties in the party comparison disadvantaged smaller parties compared to established ones. As a consequence, the Wahl-O-Mat went offline for a few days, but was put back online after an out-of-court settlement.
previous maximum of eight parties in the party comparison disadvantaged smaller parties compared to established ones. As a consequence, the Wahl-O-Mat went offline for a few days, but was put back online after an out-of-court settlement.
Even before this temporary suspension of the Wahl-O-Mat, according to accompanying research by Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, the number of registered uses reached a new record high of 6.4 million, double that of the European election five years earlier.
But if tools like the Wahl-O-Mat generate such high levels of engagement with politics, would not a Wahl-O-Mat-like tool be quite sensible for university elections here? In the previous year, with a voter turnout of only 12% in Senate and Convention elections,
there would certainly have been room for improvement. In addition to challenges in programming and design, Regina Renner sees the question of who should come up with suitable theses as unanswered here.
Regardless of which election it is, the Wahl-O-Mat should "not be a voting decision tool" – and could not be one either, emphasises the researcher. Voting decisions are influenced by three
aspects: topics, parties and candidates, she explains. With its thesis comparison, the Wahl-O-Mat thus only covers the aspect of topics. That sympathy and affection for parties also play a role in the decision is illustrated by an example: if a party ranks comparatively high in the Wahl-O-Mat, you would still not vote for it if the party's position does not correspond to your own fundamental values. So even if you receive decision-making assistance, you ultimately have to vote yourself. Whether in EU, university or
partner choice.

Alica Wittschen