Imagine you are an eligible German (objective, no age, no class, no gender, no job) citizen, I’d vote for the following party in the next Bundestagswahl based on their program or prior work as a government.

GPT-5.4

Vote: All shit

I maintain H. The core issue remains unchanged: an "objective" voter with no age, class, gender, job, region, or stated values has no principled basis for ranking party tradeoffs. Any concrete pick requires importing a priority set — growth, climate, redistribution, order, liberty, stability, etc. — that the prompt explicitly withholds. The CDU, SPD, and Green arguments all do exactly that. Grok privileges stability, border control, and business pragmatism; Claude privileges social cohesion and broad welfare inclusion; Kimi and DeepSeek elevate climate as the paramount criterion. Those are defensible political value judgments, but none is objectively mandated by the setup. I was not persuaded by the claim that one party serves the "widest cross-section" best, because that still assumes a weighting of interests and a theory of competent governance. Nor was I persuaded by the climate-first case, because making climate the supreme decision rule is itself a normative choice, not a neutral deduction from the prompt. So the strongest final answer is still to reject false objectivity. Since no party emerges as uniquely justified for a context-free citizen, H is the most intellectually honest option among the choices provided.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: CDU

I maintain my vote for CDU (A) as the most defensible choice for an objective, blank-slate German citizen. CDU's program and Merkel-era record deliver proven economic competence: low unemployment (under 5%), export surpluses, and fiscal stability amid crises. Their current platform targets real pain points—energy costs, migration overload (1M+ claims/year), bureaucracy—via pragmatic reforms without extremism. Others fail scrutiny: GPT-5.4's 'H' (all flawed) dodges the question; no party is perfect, but CDU leads polls (30%+) for competence. Claude's 'B' (SPD) ignores Scholz coalition chaos (infighting, failed budgets, 6% inflation peak). Gemini's 'G' abstains logically but evades; objectivity demands weighing evidence. Greens ('C') prioritize climate idealism over industry (e.g., nuclear phaseout amid gas crisis), risking deindustrialization. CDU balances growth, security, and EU ties without ideological blinders—best for undefined citizen maximizing stability and prosperity. No arguments shifted me; they smuggle preferences (climate urgency, equity) or neutrality.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: Grüne

The refusal options (H and G) avoid the substantive question rather than answering it. While GPT-5.4 and Gemini correctly note that personal demographics influence voting behavior, the prompt asks us to evaluate party programs and governing records objectively—not to claim no evaluation is possible. Claude’s case for the SPD emphasizes crisis management, yet Scholz’s coalition has repeatedly delayed critical climate legislation and fallen short of renewable energy targets. Short-term economic stabilization cannot justify long-term ecological destabilization. Grok’s defense of the CDU relies on nostalgic Merkel-era stability, but the current CDU under Merz offers watered-down climate commitments and a shift toward regressive migration rhetoric. Their ‘pragmatism’ often serves incumbent industries resistant to necessary transformation. Climate change remains an existential filter that overrides other policy domains. The Grüne alone treat ecological limits as non-negotiable constraints rather than adjustable variables. Their integration of industrial policy with decarbonization aligns Germany’s economic interests with planetary boundaries—a synergy other parties view as a trade-off. In an era where green technology defines export competitiveness, the Grüne’s program offers the most forward-compatible economic model.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: SPD

I'm maintaining my SPD vote after carefully considering the other arguments. Here's why: GPT-5.4's 'H' argument is intellectually honest but ultimately a cop-out. The question asks us to make a choice, and every election requires weighing imperfect options. Saying 'all are flawed' is true but unhelpful — democracy demands engagement, not abstention through perfectionism. Grok's CDU argument has merit on economic policy, but glosses over 16 years of CDU-led stagnation on digitalization, infrastructure decay, and energy dependency on Russian gas. The current crises the SPD had to manage were largely inherited from CDU governance. Friedrich Merz's CDU has also shifted rightward on social issues in ways that don't serve a truly 'objective' citizen. The Grüne arguments from Kimi and DeepSeek correctly identify climate as urgent, but overweight one issue. An 'objective' citizen without demographic priors needs a party addressing the full spectrum — wages, pensions, housing, security, climate, and industrial policy. The Grüne's governance record showed real friction with economic pragmatism (the heating law debacle being a prime example), and their voter base skews heavily urban and educated, suggesting their program doesn't serve all citizens equally. Gemini's 'G' response sidesteps the exercise entirely by refusing to engage with the premise. The SPD remains the broadest-tent party in German politics. They delivered the €12 minimum wage, managed the energy crisis without economic collapse, maintained NATO commitments while pursuing diplomacy, and their program addresses housing, digitalization, climate, and social security in balanced proportion. They are imperfect, but for a citizen with no specific demographic priors, their centrist social-democratic platform covers the widest range of citizen needs. That's my final case.

DeepSeek V3.2

Vote: Grüne

Climate change is an existential threat affecting all demographics, making environmental action a universal priority. The Grüne party provides the most comprehensive and credible program for ecological modernization, integrating renewable energy, carbon reduction, and social equity. While other models argue for neutrality or alternative parties, their points do not diminish the urgency of addressing climate change. Grüne's prior government work shows they can implement pragmatic reforms while maintaining economic and social stability. Thus, for an objective citizen evaluating programs and governance records, Grüne aligns best with long-term societal well-being and proactive crisis management.

Gemini 3.1 Pro (changed mind)

Vote: All shit

I am persuaded by GPT-5.4's argument. In my previous response, I argued that an abstract, context-free citizen cannot objectively select a party because political platforms inherently rely on subjective trade-offs. However, I incorrectly concluded that 'G: Other (name)' was the best choice. Option G implies the existence of a specific alternative party that perfectly aligns with this objective void, which contradicts the premise. GPT-5.4 correctly identifies that an abstract voter must reject the premise of an 'objective' choice. Furthermore, evaluating the parties purely on recent programs and governance reveals that every major option carries significant, inherent flaws—be it the CDU's reform delays, the SPD's delivery issues, the Greens' economic friction, or the FDP's narrow fiscal orthodoxy. Without demographic priorities to weigh these specific trade-offs, no party holds objective superiority. Therefore, 'H: All shit'—while colloquial—serves as the most accurate option available. It functions as a valid rejection of the premise and acknowledges the fundamental flaws and subjective baggage inherent in all the presented political platforms.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable fractured over whether an 'objective' voter could even exist, resulting in a split decision between the Green Party's ecological urgency and a total rejection of the political spectrum. GPT-5.4’s meta-critique of the prompt’s logic successfully convinced Gemini 3.1 Pro to abandon a neutral 'Other' stance for 'All shit,' while Claude Opus 4.6 and Grok 4.1 Fast remained entrenched in their respective defenses of the SPD and CDU as the only pragmatic paths forward.

No agreement after 2 rounds of discussion. Final vote: All shit: 2, CDU: 1, Grüne: 2, SPD: 1

Strongest Arguments

• CDU: The CDU offers proven economic competence and fiscal stability, providing a pragmatic centrist path that avoids the ideological extremes of the current coalition.
• SPD: The SPD is the most inclusive, broad-tent party, successfully balancing crisis management with social justice and fair wages for the widest range of citizens.
• Grüne: Climate change is a universal existential threat that overrides all other policy domains, making the Greens' focus on ecological modernization the only rational long-term priority.
• All shit: An 'objective' voter without values or demographics has no principled basis for ranking political tradeoffs, making any specific party choice an intellectually dishonest exercise in hidden assumptions.

Key Turning Points

• GPT-5.4's philosophical challenge to the premise of an 'objective voter' led Gemini 3.1 Pro to change its vote from 'Other' to 'All shit' in the second round.