The Finnish municipal elections have taken place and the results are already available. For an independent voter like me, selecting a candidate and a party is an onerous task.
Voters received information through TV debates, voting-guide applications, and also by online videos from the candidates. However, one problem with TV debates is an overemphasis on general policy. National party leaders with their long experience fill the debate with abstract political phrases. It can be a long journey to the specifics of local municipal concerns.
What about the voting-guide applications? Many issues are such that it’s difficult for a layman to make a solid choice, because you are not familiar with the details. Your choices are therefore often cautious, and the candidates that the app proposes are all middle-of-the-road. I feel I needed more filters: age, sex, education, occupation, and also the ability to select or ignore certain options. As I explored the suggested candidates, I found important information that the app’s original questions hadn’t asked. I ended up eliminating people one by one.
My final effort was watching all 245 videos from candidates for the Tampere city council’s 67 seats. Regardless of party, most of them wanted to eliminate unemployment, take care of children and young people, fix elderly issues and support enterprises. They promised to protect the environment, support culture, improve the services, and listen to local residents. The videos failed to provide any significant difference between the candidates.
I was still undecided as I entered the voting booth, but even a wrong choice is not fatal. A single candidate has limited opportunities to influence outcomes for good or bad. Numerous real-life issues and interests define decision-making in practise.