2 ms·

Another problem is, that currently most parties are claiming to care all about the climate and would immediately take steps to fight the climate change after th

by _ph_ 5y ago

Another problem is, that currently most parties are claiming to care all about the climate and would immediately take steps to fight the climate change after the election. Just if two of those parties have been in power for the last 8 years, you might want to weight their statement accordingly :)

Helmut10001 5y ago
Correct, there is a big difference to what is "said" and what is "done". There is no measurement in the Wahlomat that compares previous goals and success rates (e.g. for those parties who were in the coalition that ruled the last 20 years). Perhaps this can be best framed under the term "trustworthiness". But it also somehow applies to other parties: AfD has a pretty low trustworthiness because their goals and actions are often entirely contradictory - e.g. in their election program, they say they are for "transparency", but their party financing is the most intransparent of all.
michaelt 5y ago
Theoretically, a party could recognise something is needed during their first term, but feel they don't have a mandate from the voters until they've successfully been elected with it as one of their policies. For example, if I was elected saying the tax on beer should be lower, but having met with health experts I've changed my mind and think it should be higher. Of course, a cynic would say that's just an excuse for delaying, and a trick to play both sides...
- Uke 5y ago
  which shouldn't be a problem if you were transparent about meeting with said experts (name them) and explain your change of mind accordingly.
  - michaelt 5y ago
    You might applaud me for changing my opinion when I learned new facts. But your neighbour might see me as a liar, who promised one thing then did the opposite. And your other neighbour might see me as part of a ruling elite that hears a clear statement of will from the people, then ignores it and does the opposite.
- _ph_ 5y ago
  Yes, theoretically. Here, there is no indication that something like that has happened. The pressing needs of climate change are not exactly new. Just a couple of weeks ago, they refused to include a term to require solar on all new buildings into law. And while claiming to on the fight against the climate change, they did not commit on any clear course of action, like tighter deadlines for the shutdown of coal power plants or bans for new ICE cars.

by _ph_ 5y ago

Helmut10001 5y ago

Correct, there is a big difference to what is "said" and what is "done". There is no measurement in the Wahlomat that compares previous goals and success rates (e.g. for those parties who were in the coalition that ruled the last 20 years). Perhaps this can be best framed under the term "trustworthiness". But it also somehow applies to other parties: AfD has a pretty low trustworthiness because their goals and actions are often entirely contradictory - e.g. in their election program, they say they are for "transparency", but their party financing is the most intransparent of all.

michaelt 5y ago

Theoretically, a party could recognise something is needed during their first term, but feel they don't have a mandate from the voters until they've successfully been elected with it as one of their policies. For example, if I was elected saying the tax on beer should be lower, but having met with health experts I've changed my mind and think it should be higher. Of course, a cynic would say that's just an excuse for delaying, and a trick to play both sides...

Uke 5y ago
which shouldn't be a problem if you were transparent about meeting with said experts (name them) and explain your change of mind accordingly.
- michaelt 5y ago
  You might applaud me for changing my opinion when I learned new facts. But your neighbour might see me as a liar, who promised one thing then did the opposite. And your other neighbour might see me as part of a ruling elite that hears a clear statement of will from the people, then ignores it and does the opposite.
_ph_ 5y ago
Yes, theoretically. Here, there is no indication that something like that has happened. The pressing needs of climate change are not exactly new. Just a couple of weeks ago, they refused to include a term to require solar on all new buildings into law. And while claiming to on the fight against the climate change, they did not commit on any clear course of action, like tighter deadlines for the shutdown of coal power plants or bans for new ICE cars.