zeit.de
German Election Manifestos Ranked by Readability: CDU/CSU Highest, AfD Lowest
A University of Hohenheim study reveals that German parties' 2025 election manifestos are hard to understand, with CDU/CSU scoring highest (10.5/20) and AfD lowest (5.1/20) in readability, according to software analysis of sentence length, jargon, and compound words.
- How do the readability scores of different parties compare, and what factors contributed to the variations?
- The readability scores reveal significant variation among parties, potentially excluding many voters. While programs were shorter than in 2021 (avg. 25,544 words), issues persist with foreign words, complex sentence structures, and populist language.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of poorly written political manifestos on voter engagement and democratic participation?
- This study highlights a concerning trend of poor communication from political parties. The use of jargon, complex sentence structures, and populist language could disenfranchise voters and hinder informed political participation, further eroding public trust. Future research should examine the impact of this poor communication on voter turnout and political engagement.
- What are the key findings of the University of Hohenheim's analysis of the readability of German political parties' 2025 election manifestos?
- A study by the University of Hohenheim found that German political parties' 2025 election manifestos are difficult to understand, with CDU/CSU scoring highest (10.5/20) in readability and AfD the lowest (5.1/20). The analysis used software to measure sentence length, jargon, and compound words.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the difficulty in understanding the party platforms, potentially leading readers to focus on this aspect rather than the actual policy proposals. The headline and introduction highlight the low readability scores, framing the issue as a problem of communication rather than a potential reflection of complex policy issues or intentional obfuscation. The selection of examples of jargon also subtly casts them in a negative light.
Language Bias
The language used in the article is largely neutral and objective, presenting the findings of the study. However, the use of terms like "schwer verständlich" (difficult to understand) and descriptions of the vocabulary as containing "Anglizismen" (Anglicisms) and "Schachtelsätze" (complex sentences) might carry a slightly negative connotation, though the overall tone is descriptive rather than judgmental.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses primarily on the readability of party platforms, neglecting other potential biases such as the omission of certain policy positions or perspectives that might be considered crucial by some segments of the population. Further analysis would be needed to assess for bias by omission in the content of the platforms themselves.
False Dichotomy
The analysis presents a clear ranking of party platforms based on readability, but does not delve into whether certain levels of readability inherently exclude or advantage particular groups of voters. A false dichotomy might be presented if high readability is implicitly equated with accessibility for all.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the poor readability of German political party manifestos, hindering citizens