The Coming German Elections

Hello everyone,

And welcome to a very special episode, because today, we’ll talk about neither German vocabulary nor German grammar but we’ll talk about

German Politics

Hell to the yawn!!

Seriously, we have federal elections this month and to everyone’s surprise the election campaign season actually wasn’t boring at all.
I’m kind of hyped, and I really felt like it could be nice to share a bit about this, so I did a little poll last week here to ask if you’d be interested in a little special about what’s currently “on the menu” in Germany. Well,  the Ayes have it, by communist margins. Seriously, it was like 87% in favor or something.

So today, we’ll do a little special about the so called Wahl-O-Mat.
And don’t worry… I will give my opinion here and there, but by and large, I’ll keep things objective and not preach.
And also, I will not lose focus of language completely because we’ll not only analyse some political topics, but also the language they’re described with.

Sounds super boring, but is super interesting, so when you’re ready, let’s dive right in.

But before we get to the politics, let me quickly explain what the Wahl-O-Mat is.

What is the Wahl-O-Mat

Most people don’t have the time to read through the actual election programs of the various parties, and if they have the time in theory, they’re too lazy (like me, for example).
So we’d have to rely on what politicians say in talk shows and ads, which is never a good idea. I mean… it’s not like these programs are 100% reliable, but they can give you a good idea of what the party would do if they could rule alone, and much of the unpleasant stuff, they’ll never say out loud, or they’ll talk around it or deny it when confronted about it (like the front runner of the AfD does all the time for example).

I would say that many people decide on general inclination and vibes and sympathy anyway, BUT the Wahl-O-Mat is basically a website, that lets you check how well the various parties line up with your own stance on issues.

The team basically pick the most relevant topics, reads all the programms and creates a set of questions for you to answer with agree, disagree or neutral.
Then, you can also give extra weight to matters that are especially important to you, and then you click evaluate, and you’ll see in percentages how well a party’s program lines up with your answers.

And that’s not all – you can really drill down and check what their stance is on every single issue AND you can actually see the exact passage they have about this in their program.

It’s a really great tool to check if what you’re planning on voting actually matches up with what you’d like to see in policy and I’ll just say this… many AfD voters were very surprised to find that their answers align mostly with left wing parties. They then cried “manipulation” but the beauty of this is that it all comes straight out of the parties’ platforms so if your results are not the party you want to vote, maybe you don’t really know them.

The Wahl-O-Mat is done for almost all elections, including state level, and I think it’s a really awesome tool.

This one has 38 questions and unfortunately, it doesn’t exist in English, but if you’re advanced in German, you could just do it for fun and see what parties are most in line with your ideal policies.
Oh and you can switch the language to “easy German” at the bottom too.

If you want to check it out, you can find it here:

Wahl-O-Mat – Bundesttag 2025

What we’ll do today is, we’ll take a portion of the questionnaire  and go through it together.

Wahl-O-Mat with Commentary

I’ll take the first 12 questions.
I’d love to do all of them actually, but it’d be WAY too much for one article. If you like this format, I’m happy to do a part 2 though. Like I said… I’m pretty hyped up about this stuff at the moment.

So here’s what we’ll do:

1)

I’ll give you the original German question from the Wahl-O-Mat along with an English translation. If you’re a member, you can use the blur feature to blur out one of the options and try to translate yourself.

2)

In the section “What’s this about”, I’ll give you a little insight into what the background of a question is. I did look up some things here and there, but I’m largely speaking from what I personally know. So I am not an expert on any of this. I do mention my opinion here and there, but please just take it as such.

3)

This section is called “language used” and it might be interesting, even if you don’t care about politics in the slightest or would like to have it NOT be part of your German learning.
In this section, I am looking at the German sentence and pointing out something that I feel like might be interesting from a language learning pespective. A weird usage or phrasing or just something specific that you can take away and possibly apply. Not all of them are groundbreaking insights, but I think I found a few interesting things to point out, and I really hope you enjoy this segment.

So that’s what we’ll do and now let’s start right with the first question.

***

Question:

• Deutschland soll die Ukraine weiterhin militärisch unterstützen.
• Germany should continue supporting Ukraine militarily.

What’s this about:

Germany is sending weapons and other military equipment to Ukraine. Behind the United States, Germany is the second biggest contributor in terms of military support, but it has been criticized for dragging its feet by parts of Europe. So far, our chancellor and the government has held off on supplying long range missiles. The country is quite torn over this question, and particularly in the eastern regions, part of the population feels closer to Russia than to the “west” and views NATO and the US as imperalist.

Language used:

There are two things here to notice that you can find in pretty much all the questions. The first one is the use of soll, which I translate it as should. The questions are basically phrased in a way that has the vibe as if you, the responded, says “I want Germany to do this!”) (or not). Using sollte sounds a bit too careful and uncertain for this, but English should is the best match.

The other notable thing is weiterhin which I translated as the verbal phrase  “to continue to do”. You’ll see this in many of the questions, and it really is the best translation, and the options for weiterhin in dictionaries all don’t really match the vibe.

Question:

• Der Ausbau erneuerbarer Energien soll weiterhin vom Staat finanziell gefördert werden.
• The expansion of renewable energies should continue to be financially supported by the state.

What’s this about:

There are various programs to incentivize and subsidize renewable energies with the goal of increasing their share and the question is broadly about whether this should be continued. In 2023, the share of renewable for electricity was a bit over 50% and it has increased since then. The largest portion of that comes from wind, PV is a solid second.

One of the biggest bottlenecks (subjectivity alert!!) is the lack of will particularly in Bavaria to build out wind and to cooperate in building out transfer infrastructures to get wind energy from the coast to industry in Bavaria.
Germany is very densely populated, so wherever you want to build anything, be it a turbine or an overhead high voltage power line or an underground high voltage line. It’s always “someone’s backyard”.

Language used:

What might be interesting here is the verb to support. In the question before it was used for unterstützen, here it’s used for fördern. The difference is that fördern has a stronger vibe of actively furthering a process of growth in a certain direction.
And of course we also have soll and weiterhin again.

The Question:

• Das Bürgergeld soll denjenigen gestrichen werden, die wiederholt Stellenangebote ablehnen.
• The unemployment compensation should be halted/discontinued for those who repeatedly reject job offers.

What’s this about:

Bürgergeld is the latest iteration of unemployment compensation payments for unemployed people who can work in theory. Before that, until roughly 2 years ago, it was called Arbeitslosengeld 2 (ALG2) also colloquially known as Hartz 4. The reform was done with a LOT of loud talk, but the differences between the two are minor in the grand scheme of things because it’s the basic payment of our social net and there are tight legal constraints to what’s even possible in terms of reforms. Now, half the politicians are loudly whining again that the Bürgergeld system needs to be overhauled completely and all that happens is that it’ll get some minor changes and a new name.
The question here is about sanctioning people. The money is paid to people who can work, but who just don’t have a job (as opposed to disabled people for instance). These people do get offered jobs from the agency and when they decline, the payments can be partially or fully halted, if people continuously refuse to take on work offered. This has been the case ever since I can think, and in my opinion it’s a classic “It depends” question. So what job is it, where is it, what is the situation of the person being offered the job etc etc. And who is potentially interested in forcing people into low wage jobs.
I do know that some people take long term vacations on Bali while subletting their socially subsidized apartment in Berlin, but I don’t know if the scale of such fraud is big enough to merit draconian measures on everybody.
My experience is that having a bossy state like that does not contribute to people feeling confident and motivated to do something with their lives, but instead creates a feeling of resentful dependence.

Language used:

This is a nice example for the use of the “-jenigen-pronouns” – like derjenige, diejenige or like here denjenigen, which is a Dative plural.
Technically, a simple denen or für die would work too, but the pronouns with -jenige have a much stronger pointing character. In this example, we don’t have any prior context which it could point to, so it basically already promises an estabishes a relative sentence which then comes later. These structures of a pronoun with -jenige and a following relative sentence are a really common in written German, often also directly behind one another. For example: “derjenige, der blah blah blah”.
This also sounds much better than “der, der blah blah blah”.

The Question:

• Auf allen Autobahnen soll ein generelles Tempolimit gelten.
• There should be a general speed limit on all highways.

What’s this about: 

On German Autobahn, there are many stretches without speed limit. That means you can go 300 kph, if you want to.
And people do drive fast.
People demanding a speed limit argue:

• most countries have it  (true)
• it’s environmentally friendly (true, high speed burns crazy amounts of fuel)
• it increases safety (true, many people are mentally not mature enough to be driving 250)

People arguing against it say “Freie Fahrt für freie Bürger.” (“Free drive for free citizens.”). So it’s a “freedom” thing. And I guess to an extent an auto lobby thing because what good is a BMW that makes 200kph feel like butter, when you can never drive that fast.
I honestly don’t know where I stand on this.

Language used:

I think this is a nice example for flexible German word order shining. We have essentially three elements – the verb gelten, the location auf deutschen Autobahnen and the Tempolimit, which is the grammatical subject and which comes with some additional information.
The speed limit is the most interesting and defining element in this question, which in German usually comes late. Starting with the location makes for a nice setup, then comes the verb and the the “punchline”.
In English, we need to use to resort to a version of the generic “there is…” phrasing if we don’t want to start with the speed limit.

The Question:

• Asylsuchende, die über einen anderen EU-Staat eingereist sind, sollen an den deutschen Grenzen abgewiesen werden.
• Asylum seekers who entered (the EU) via another member state should be rejected/denied entry at German borders.

What’s this about:

Generally, the EU has the rule that a person seeking asylum has to do it in the country where they set foot into the EU. So if someone enters the EU in Italy, that’s where they should apply for asylum. Not all people do this and instead move on to the country they would like to live in and apply there.
The question is basically about extensive and long lasting checks of the German border to “catch” these people and deny them entry into Germany.
This is against one of the core ideas of the European Union, and it’s actually impractical if you really want to control ALL entries ALL the time. You need 10s of thousands of personell to do this, and wait times at border check points would be days. Including for trucks. Which is ridiculous if you take a look at the flow of goods in Europe.

The only viable option are spot checks, which are actually being done currently, were done during last year’s soccer bore fest and just got extended for another 6 months. European Union allows this for up to three years but tolerates Austria’s doing it since 2015.
I have seen people getting stopped by border police after leaving a plane from Sofia for example. So anyone who says that nothing is being done, is lying.

Language used:

Not much of note except maybe Asylsuchende, which literally translated means “the asylum seeking (ones)”. English uses the “-er” ending here, but German tends to use the participle 1 form (-end).

The Question:

• Bei Neuvermietungen sollen die Mietpreise weiterhin gesetzlich begrenzt werden.
• Rent prices should continue to be capped by law for new rental contracts.

What’s this about:

Germany has had a federal rent cap law in place that will expire this year if not extended. It roughly states that the rent of a new contract (even for an existing unit) cannot be more than 10% higher than the regional average for a comparable unit.
This only applies in areas with a stressed real estate market and the states also have some influence, but I think a federal law is necessary for some legal reasons.

Language used:

The only noteworthy thing (besides soll and weiterhin of course) is that the sentence again starts directly with some additional information while keeping the subject (Mietpreise) for “later” as it’s the most defining element for a passive structure.

The Question:

• An Bahnhöfen soll die Bundespolizei Software zur automatisierten Gesichtserkennung einsetzen dürfen.
• Federal Police should be allowed to use software for automated facial recognition at train stations.

What’s this about:

I think it’s pretty self-explanatory, and many of you are probably thinking “Are they not?”. But us Germans, while we like walking around naked, are rather big on privacy. You’ll find many houses on Google street view for instance that are blurred out for the reason that the owner(s) said “No!”.
Apparently, now there’s a push toward using automated facial recognition and AI based systems at train stations. Opponents find it to be a surveillance state, but most people’s movements are much more closely tracked by their phone (even with location off) and by where they swipe their credit cards. I think the gain of this outweighs the privacy concerns in this case, but that’s really just my opinion and it of course only applies under the assumption that I have a democratic government and rule of law.

Language used:

I can’t think of anything specific here, but of course you’re welcome to ask or share thoughts in the comments.

The Question:

• Energieintensive Unternehmen sollen vom Staat einen finanziellen Ausgleich für ihre Stromkosten erhalten.
• Energy intensive companies should receive a financial compensation for their electricity costs.

What’s this about:

The translation might be a bit misleading. I don’t think this is meant as a full reimbursment but just basically a subsidy. German energy costs are very high at the moment. Part of the reason is the fact that we’re weaning ourselves off of cheap natural gas (we’re still using it, but more expensive). Another part is the direct and indirect subsidies that are being paid for renewables and the last big factor (as far as I am aware) is that the price itself does not just depend on simple production cost.
It’s super duper complex though and anybody who claims to have easy insights probably knows just a little more than me – and I know next to nothing.

Language used:

Here, we have a nice example for when you’d use erhalten instead of bekommen or kriegen. They all mean to receive, but erhalten is the most high register and formal, so it’s perfect for a context like this.
While we’re at it, let’s also mention that erhalten does NOT cover the notion of “getting done”, that bekommen and kriegen have. It’s really only about receiving from someone.

The Question:

• Alle Beschäftigten sollen bereits nach 40 Beitragsjahren ohne Abschläge in Rente gehen können.
• All employees should be able to retire without deductions after 40 years of contributions.

What this is about:

Currently, there is an age at which you can retire with full benifits. It depends on when you were born, but for those who were born after 1964, this age currently sits at 67. You can retire earlier, but then you usually have to accept cuts to the retirement money you get.
The question is whether it should be independent of age and instead be based on how long you’ve held a full time job (or paid retirement payments) – specifically 40 years. So someone who starts working at 16 should be able to retire at 56.
Note that if you’re a construction worker and your body is so worn down at that age now, you might be able to fully retire due to that now, as well, with full payment, or an alternative sort of benifit. I’m not sure about that though.

Language used:

Here, we have a nice example for bereits as a more formal alternative for schon. There is zero difference in meaning and actually, schon would sound fine for me as well. It’s not “slang” or anything. Maybe a little tiny bit more like “Wow, already?! So early?!”, but maybe I’m imagining things.
I don’t think you’ll ever hear someone using bereits in normal everyday conversation, but in this type of writing it’s quite common.

The Question:

• Im einleitenden Satz des Grundgesetzes soll weiterhin die Formulierung „Verantwortung vor Gott“ stehen.
• The introductory sentence of the Basic Law should continue to say the phrase “responsibility before God.”

What’s this about: 

Germany doesn’t technically have a constitution, but we have a Grundgesetz, which has the same purpose as is pretty much treated as one.
It was created in 1949, and the full phrase is “responsibility before God and the people (on the planet)”.
Apparently, some parties want the God-part gone, though I’m not aware that this would be a big topic. Germany is a secular society though, for the most part, and eastern Germany is one of the least religious areas in the galaxy.
Interestingly, the Christian Democrat Parties (CDU and CSU), of which especially CSU is very BIG on how Christian they are, got into a bit of a tiff with the Church after pushing a vote with the right wing AfD. The church had some thoughts and some Christian Democrats felt like the Church doesn’t get the gospel or whatever.

Language used: 

We have of course soll and weiterhin, and we have another instance of German sentence structure giving the most important aspect late (here: the article) while starting with the location.
Besides that, this is a nice example for how German uses stehen for the idea of a text saying something – im Text steht XYZ

The Question:

• Deutschland soll weiterhin die Anwerbung von Fachkräften aus dem Ausland fördern.
• Germany should continue to promote the recruitment of skilled workers from abroad.

What’s this about:

Germany needs immigration and especially skilled and trained personel. Even some of most right wing counties have not so long ago asked why they can’t get more and how they need more, especially in hospital care work.
I don’t know which party would be against this, but apparently there is one. Overall, I think this is a broad consensus though.
And my feeling is that immigrating and getting a work permit is still quite cumbersome, even if you’re skilled. Maybe some of you have experience with that that you can share.

Language used:

Earlier, we had fördern as to support. Now I translated it as to promote because I feel like here, Germany as a country has a more proactive role in terms of law making and also making all kinds of bilateral agreements with other countries and building out infrastructure to make applying easy.

And last but not least.

The Question:

• Für die Stromerzeugung soll Deutschland wieder Kernenergie nutzen.
• Germany should use nuclear energy again for electricity generation.

What’s this about:

Germany, after being spooked by Fukushima in 2011, decided to expedite the phasing out of nuclear energy. The last power plants went offline in 2023.
Now, because energy prices are high and people like hating on renewables, there is a push to re-enter nuclear. Argument is that the tech is much better, much safer and that it’s much cheaper and that renewables are not stable enough.

I am against this, but besides all the facts and narratives, there is one simple reason why I think pretty much all the “fans” should just be quiet about this – and that’s the already mentioned “not in my backyard”.
The people sue against windmills, because it makes them sleep worse of the vibration or they sue against a high voltage power line because of the “radiation”, are often the same people arguing for nuclear. And if they have an issue with a windmill or a power line, they most certainly should have an issue with a nuclear power plant “in their backyard”. Germany is a densely populated country, and proponents of reentry talk about the new cool mini nuclear plants. Well, those have to stand somewhere. And I’d much rather have a windmill or a power line than a nuclear reactor near my house.

Language used: 

This is a nice example for when you’d actually use nutzen as a translation for to use. In daily life, the more common options are verwenden and benutzen. nutzen has a certain vibe of benifiting and it’s less direct and hands-on sounding than benutzen and even verwenden.

***

And I think that’s enough for one session!
Let me know in the comments if this was in any way interesting and if you’d like to have a part two. Or what I could also imagine is giving you a little overview over  the main parties that we have in Germany, or, if you REALLY like complex stuff, you might be interested in the actual election system. Because it’s not just one vote.
One thing I’ll say for the American readers among you… we only use paper ballots, and votes are pretty much counted after 8 hours. Just a little flex here :).

So yeah, let me know if you enjoyed this and if you have any suggestions. And I’d of course also love to read your thoughts on some of the policies here. I’m quite positive we can do that without devolving into shouting matches, but hey… talking politics is kind of a like hitting a dental nerve for many of us these days, so I understand if you’d rather not.

Anyway, let me know if you want a part 2 about the elections, check out the Wahl-O-Mat for the full 38 questions,  have a great week and I’ll see you next time.