Using data to pick the next German government

Photo by Ansgar Scheffold on Unsplash

Dear Reader,

As a fan of Liverpool FC, I was reading an interview with the football club’s former top data analyst. Ian Graham has just brought out a book with the provocative title ‘How to win the Premier League’ in which he argues that clubs are better advised to use data when buying players rather than relying on the gut instinct of a coach.

After its American owners brought the Moneyball philosophy across the Atlantic, Liverpool have become one of the best clubs in the world thanks to the fact that they have an uncanny knack of buying brilliant players for relatively little money. Their secret? Analytics: before buying a player, they use computer models to measure his scoring, defensive ability, or positioning and can then compare him to the competition.

On television, former players still moan that “football is about more than just numbers.” But, in the unforgiving world of professional sport, minnows like Brentford who have put their trust in data are embarrassing behemoths like Manchester United who haven’t kept pace with the modern age.

Why do I mention this? In the current environment of German politics, in which dramatic historical parallels tend to overshadow sober policy debates, perhaps it is a good idea to learn from the only realm of life more important than politics.

For instance, can we use data to think about what the best government for Germany after Sunday’s election would be?

I’ll give it a shot. I’m going to define '“the best” not according to my own political preferences (which would be subjective) but according to what voters have just told us at the ballot box.

Thus, I’m defining “the best government” as one which 1) has a legislative agenda that most closely represents what people voted for and 2) is likely to be stable.

---

What data could we use to find this “best” government?

Here’s how I’m going to go about it:

1. In coalition negotiations, party manifestos form the basis of the parties’ negotiating positions. Individual politicians may make statements beyond their party's platform, but parties are elected based on their manifestos. Straying too far from these positions risks a loss of credibility.

2. The greater the overlap between coalition partners' manifestos, the better. A government consisting of parties with shared policy goals is more likely to pass legislation aligned with the electorate’s wishes.

3. The greater the overlap between coalition partners' manifestos, the higher the chance of a stable government. Parties with contradictory manifesto pledges cancel each other out and end up agreeing on the lowest common denominator. Parties with a lot of agreement can pass more comprehensive laws.

4. Fewer parties make for a more effective coalition. The more factions involved, the greater the friction between competing interests—too many cooks spoil the broth.

5. A larger majority is preferable. If two coalitions have similar policy alignment, the one with the bigger parliamentary majority is more stable and representative of voter preferences.

6. Not all manifesto pledges are equal. Some issues are core to a party’s identity and non-negotiable, while others can be compromised or abandoned during coalition talks. The ‘red lines’ are curve balls that could upset a seemingly stable alliance or prevent it from happening in the first place.

Apologies to anyone reading this newsletter from 2010 - the above may have felt like a statement of the obvious. But, in a day and age when it's fashionable to deliver lofty sermons on the meaning of democracy, I’m not sure whether these basic principles are as self-evident as they once were.

---

So, let’s try to put this to the test. We are looking for a coalition with the highest level of overlap between manifestos. If we have two possible winners, we will go for the one that involves fewer parties. If that still leaves us with a tie, the coalition with the most seats will be considered preferable.

A majority in the new Bundestag requires at least 316 seats. Here are all the potential coalitions:

1. CDU/CSU + AfD = 360 seats

2. CDU/CSU + SPD = 328 seats

3. CDU/CSU + Greens + Die Linke = 357 seats

4. AfD + SPD + Greens = 357 seats

5. AfD + SPD + Die Linke = 336 seats

Immediately, we can see that CDU/CSU + AfD stands out as having the largest majority while only consisting of two parties. But, does it offer the greatest overlap between manifestos? Let’s try to find out.

One way of doing so is using the Wahl-O-Mat, an online tool that helps Germans compare the parties'‘ positions across a range of topics. It includes 38 questions on subjects as varied as whether to bring in an autobahn speed limit, removing the debt brake from the constitution or raising the top level of tax. The Wahl-O-Mat compares the parties’ positions and tells you if they agree or not.

Across those 38 questions, a comparison of the five possible coalitions gives us the following results:

1. CDU/CSU + AfD - consensus on 23 questions and no consensus on 15.

2. CDU/CSU + SPD - consensus on 16 questions and no consensus on 22.

3. CDU/CSU + Greens + Die Linke - consensus on 7 questions and no or limited consensus on 31.

4. AfD + SPD + Greens - consensus on 2 questions and no or limited consensus on 36.

5. AfD + SPD + Die Linke - consensus on 0 questions and no or limited consensus on 38.

The Wahl-O-Mat provides a clear winner: a coalition between the CDU/CSU and the AfD.

---

Let’s try another approach.

I uploaded the manifestos of the CDU, the SPD and the AfD to ChatGTP and asked it to come up with a quantitative comparison of the CDU with the other two manifestos on the key issues of migration, economy, crime, energy and foreign affairs.

This was its methodology: 100% = Identical positions; 75% = Very similar positions; 50% = Some similarities, some differences; 25% = Only minor overlaps; 0% = Opposing positions.

ChatGPT’s conclusion: “The CDU and AfD share slightly more common ground than CDU and SPD, but the difference is not very large. The biggest divergence between CDU and AfD is in foreign policy.”

---

Lastly, while no German newspaper has attempted to conduct a data analysis of the party manifestos, there is a “newspaper in exile” that isn’t so scared of what it might find. The Neue Zürcher Zeitung (largely staffed by Germans) took 25 “central CDU campaign pledges” and compared them with those of the other parties.

The NZZ looked at five pledges in the categories migration, economy, energy, defence and welfare. It found complete consensus between the CDU and AfD in the categories migration, economy and welfare. On energy and defence there was more overlap between the CDU and SPD than between CDU and AfD.

Overall, the NZZ concluded that the AfD agrees with 75 percent of the CDU’s central pledges, while the SPD agrees with just 28 percent of them.

---

All these approaches give the same result: the CDU and AfD manifestos have the most in common. Add to that the biggest Bundestag majority and we would seem to have a clear winner.

What about Point 6 of my assumptions though (“Not all manifesto pledges are equal”)? Are there any red lines that could throw a spanner in the works?

There are potential red lines in both possible coalitions. As the larger party, the CDU are in the stronger position to force through their demands.

In talks with the SPD, the CDU’s clearest red line is its pledge to permanently close Germany’s borders to irregular migration; the SPD manifesto clearly rejects border closures, calling them “the absolute exception.” For the SPD to agree, they need a trade off. Plausible is that the CDU agree not to touch the Bügergeld dole system. That is a negative trade off: "If you back down on this, then we won’t do that.” For the SPD, a negative trade off is hard to sell to voters - it increases the likelihood that they will lose popularity in polling resulting in an unstable coalition.

The biggest red line between the CDU and the AfD is Ukraine. The CDU advocate stronger military support; the AfD want to end weapons supplies to Kyiv and ease sanctions on Moscow. The trade off for the AfD is the stricter migration policies they’ve been campaigning for for years. This is a positive trade off: "If you back down on this, then we will give you that.” For the AfD, a positive trade off gives them a prize to present to their voters - this is more likely to lead to a stable government.

Ultimately, only direct negotiations between the parties can establish whether their red lines are insurmountable or not.

There is a notable historical parallel here. The first time that the Greens entered government in 1998, they were able to achieve their founding mission of passing a law to end the use of nuclear energy. The price they paid was to give up on pacifism. Within a few months in government, they supported the Bundeswehr’s participation in NATO’s intervention in Kosovo. That decision caused deep acrimony inside the Green party, but it was a line they were prepared to cross to achieve more fundamental goals.

Will German policymakers use this approach as they go into negotiations to build the next government? Almost certainly not. Still, they would be well advised to reflect on the seemingly invincible football clubs that are now fighting against mediocrity and financial ruin because they put emotion and hubris ahead of sober analysis of reality.