Four million Dutch people fill in a digital voting guide at every election. They believe the instrument helps them choose. It does something else. It hides what they are choosing.

When you have answered thirty statements on StemWijzer, you are shown which party "best suits you". What you are not shown is what that party has done over the past years to your assets, your pension, your energy bill or your safety. Not a word about the exit levy that pursues your substantial interest to the grave. Not a word about the actual-return tax that plucks your savings every year. Not a word about the pension cuts heading your way once the productive base has evaporated.

You get a recommendation. Not a package insert.

That has to change. This piece explains why, and what must come in its place.

What the StemWijzer actually does

Begin with what StemWijzer is, without polemic. The instrument has been run since 1998 by ProDemos, a foundation that presents itself as independent and neutral. For each election, an editorial board selects thirty statements from hundreds of possible ones. The political parties are asked to fill in "agree", "disagree" or "no opinion" for each statement, with a brief justification. The user answers the same thirty statements. An algorithm matches their answers to those of the parties and presents a recommendation.

Sounds reasonable. Four million Dutch people think so. Four million Dutch people are mistaken, and the mistake lies in four places.

First fault — the statements choose the frame

Whoever formulates the statements determines what the debate is about. What does not appear in the thirty does not exist as a political issue for the average user.

Look in StemWijzer 2023 or 2025 for statements about the exit levy on your substantial interest. About the conservation assessment that remains in place indefinitely. About the Wegzugsteuer equivalent that Brussels wants to introduce for the entire Union. About the CARF directive that has automatically shared all your accounts with 76 jurisdictions since January 2026. Not a word. The European plunder architecture that affects hundreds of thousands of entrepreneurs every year and millions of employees indirectly does not appear in the instrument that thirteen million Dutch people use to determine their vote.

In its place: statements about symbolic topics that have featured in the talk shows. Whether men should have longer parental leave. Whether the healthcare premium should go up. Whether schools may start later. None of it unimportant, but none of it fundamental. The subjects that truly affect you — why the factory in Roermond closed, why your son moved to Texas, why your pension will be twenty per cent less — are not in it.

Second fault — the statements are morally framed

A typical StemWijzer statement: "The wealthiest five per cent must pay more tax to keep healthcare affordable."

That sounds neutral. It is not. The statement presupposes four things, all four of them debatable: that healthcare in its current form must remain affordable, that extra taxation is the solution for that, that the wealthiest five per cent pays too low a share, and that "the rich" is a fixed, identifiable group. A statement that conceals these four assumptions forces every party to take a position within the frame — not outside it.

Try a statement like: "The welfare state as we know it is structurally unaffordable; we must choose between producing more or distributing less." That statement never appears in StemWijzer. It is considered "too ideological". But the earlier one — about the wealthiest five per cent — apparently is not. The frame itself has become invisible, and what is invisible is never questioned.

Third fault — the parties position themselves

ProDemos asks each party to fill in "agree" or "disagree" for each statement, with a brief justification. The parties know that StemWijzer has thirteen million users. So they formulate their answer to appeal to their broader electorate — not to honestly describe their position.

A party that will in reality introduce a box 3 increase can simply answer "disagree" in StemWijzer to a statement about wealth taxation, because the statement is narrow enough to allow that escape. Political marketing rather than political reality. The user reads "disagree" and thinks their assets are safe. Three years later they are paying €5,400 extra per year.

Fourth fault — the outcome creates an illusion of rationality

When StemWijzer says at the end "you best suit party X", the user thinks this is the objective result of a neutral algorithm. It is not. It is the result of thirty pre-selected statements, thirty pre-formulated framings, and thirty pre-given party answers — all three manipulated by parties with an interest in the outcome.

The user feels enlightened. They think: now I know who to vote for. In reality they have let their vote be determined by three parties with a stake in the outcome: the editorial team of ProDemos (which chose the frame), the political parties (which formulated their position as favourably as possible), and — most fundamentally — the entire European welfare-state establishment, which is not challenged in any StemWijzer.

How the StemWijzer reinforces the plunder

Here is the deeper point, which appears in no media analysis. StemWijzer is not merely imperfect. It reinforces the plunder I have described in the six parts of "De Grote Plundering" ("The Great Plunder"), in three ways.

One — it normalises the existing frame

By bringing up the same thirty subjects every year — healthcare, education, climate, migration, income inequality — the political debate is implicitly confined to those subjects. Everything that falls outside the selection falls outside the vote-choice process.

That is how the productivity crisis, the industrial exodus, the fiscal encirclement and the pension crisis appear in no recent StemWijzer. Thirteen million Dutch people vote on the basis of an agenda that conceals the real crisis. And the parties are gradually trained to think only within that agenda, because everything outside it is no longer electorally visible.

Two — it enforces moral framing

Almost every StemWijzer statement is morally formulated, not factually. "Should the rich pay more?" Moral. "Should the minimum wage go up?" Moral. "Should healthcare become more accessible?" Moral. Each frame presupposes a right answer and a wrong answer. A party that votes "against" places itself morally in the wrong.

As a result all parties gradually shift towards the moral "good" — which in practice amounts to more plunder. The CDA voter of 2017 votes in 2027 for a much further left-shifted CDA. Not because the CDA has consciously changed, but because every year at StemWijzer and in talk shows it is asked to take moral positions it cannot refuse without being branded antisocial. The frame pulls every party to the left.

Three — it conceals the consequences

StemWijzer never shows what its recommendation means. When the instrument tells four million Dutch people "vote GroenLinks-PvdA" or "vote D66", it never shows what that vote means after four years for the exit levy, the pension age, the electricity bill, the productive exodus. The link between vote and consequence is severed. The user gets a recommendation without consequence.

In that respect StemWijzer does what advertising does: it sells the product without showing the package insert. A pharmaceutical advertisement that says nothing about side effects is not permitted in the Netherlands. A political recommendation that says nothing about the consequences for the voter is permitted. More than that — it is recommended by the government, financed by the Ministry of the Interior, and taught in every classroom as a democratic tool.

What must come in its place

StemWijzer starts from identity: which party suits who you are? It asks for your opinions, projects them onto the political landscape, and says: you best suit party X.

What must replace it starts from consequence: what outcome do you get when you vote? Not an opinion projection, but a consequence projection. Not your identity is mirrored, but the concrete outcome of your vote in the real world four years from now.

That is not an improvement of StemWijzer. That is a fundamentally different instrument. The difference is as great as between a horoscope and a weather forecast. The first validates who you think you are. The second helps you decide what you do.

I call this instrument de Gevolgenkaart (the Consequence Map). It rests on three principles that are each the opposite of what StemWijzer does.

Principle one — fact over morality

De Gevolgenkaart asks no moral questions. It does not ask whether you think the rich should pay more. It asks who you are considering voting for, and then shows you what the party of your choice has actually done over the past three years on your most important subjects. With date. With source. With citation.

No recommendation. No value judgement. Only reality. The user decides for themselves whether they find that reality acceptable.

Principle two — consequence over identity

De Gevolgenkaart does not ask who you are. It asks what you get. For each party you are considering voting for, it shows three kinds of consequences — for your assets, for your pension, for your safety, for your tax bill, for your children.

Not abstract. Concrete. "A vote for X in 2027 means for you, with your income and your situation, these three changes over the coming four years." No ideology. An invoice.

Principle three — transparency over algorithm magic

De Gevolgenkaart has no hidden algorithm. It does no "matching". It shows what parties have voted, with the voting statement attached. It shows what parties promise, with the page reference attached. It shows what the consequences are, with the calculation attached.

Every user can verify every conclusion themselves. Every source is listed. Every calculation can be redone. When de Gevolgenkaart says "this costs you €5,400 per year", below it is shown how that amount is built up, which law forms the basis, and which assumption has been used for your situation. No trust in the author. Trust in the facts.

What it actually looks like

Enough theory. A concrete example. Suppose — you are considering voting for GroenLinks-PvdA at the next Lower House election. You are 58 years old, married, a homeowner, with €280,000 in savings and €145,000 in your supplementary pension. You have a small private company (BV) with €120,000 in business capital that you want to transfer to your son in seven years.

What would de Gevolgenkaart show you?

EXAMPLE — CONSEQUENCE MAP FOR A VOTE ON GROENLINKS-PVDA, THEME: ASSETS

WHAT GROENLINKS-PVDA HAS DONE (2023–2026)

• On 12 February 2026 GroenLinks-PvdA voted in the Lower House for the Wet werkelijk rendement box 3 (Actual Return Box 3 Act), which takes effect in 2028. Source: Parliamentary Records Lower House 2026-Z02134.
• On 4 June 2026 parliamentary leader Jesse Klaver made a plea for "a fair tax on high profits and large assets". Source: NOS, Lower House debate 4 June 2026.
• In the 2023 election manifesto, chapter 7, paragraph 3, it states: wealth tax of 2% per year on assets above €1 million net, including equity in the primary residence.

WHAT GROENLINKS-PVDA PROMISES FOR 2027–2031

• Continuation of the actual-return box 3 system, with tightened rates above €500,000.
• Introduction of a progressive substantial-interest tax (from 26.9% to 33% on gains above €250,000).
• Restriction of the business succession relief scheme (BOR) from 75% to 50% exemption.

WHAT THAT MEANS FOR YOU — 58 YEARS OLD, HOMEOWNER, BV

• On your savings (€280,000): annual box 3 tax rises from approximately €1,700 to an estimated €4,200 per year.
• On your own home (equity €420,000 above purchase price): included in box 3 under the GL-PvdA proposal, estimated additional annual burden €2,500.
• On your BV (€120,000 in business capital): upon transfer to your son in 7 years — business succession relief restricted to 50%. Estimated one-off additional tax €18,000.
• On your supplementary pension (€145,000): no direct consequences, as pension falls outside box 3.

TOTAL FOR YOU OVER FOUR YEARS (2027–2031)

Annually: approximately €5,000 extra tax on your assets.

One-off at business succession: estimated €18,000 extra.

Four-year total: approximately €38,000 extra tax over four years.

No polemic. No moral condemnation. No recommendation whether or not to vote for GroenLinks-PvdA. Only facts, with sources, translated into your situation.

You decide for yourself. Perhaps you consider €38,000 over four years a fair contribution towards a more equitable Netherlands. Then you vote GroenLinks-PvdA with your head held high. Perhaps you find it unacceptable. Then you vote differently. In either case you have one thing the StemWijzer user did not have: you know what you are voting for.

That is de Gevolgenkaart. No more and no less.

What it takes to build this

This is not an instrument that can be built in a week. It requires three things that are all still missing.

One — an editorial team that processes the facts

For each party, for each theme, someone must go through the parliamentary votes, the election manifestos, the party documents and extract the facts. With source and date. That is journalistic work of an order that no volunteer can sustain. It requires three to four serious editors who each manage a political dossier — fiscal policy, energy, pensions, security — and maintain it over the years.

Two — a computational infrastructure that translates the consequences

De Gevolgenkaart shows consequences for different types of Dutch people. For a retiree of 70 with a state pension and €40,000 in savings. For an owner-manager of 55 with a BV and a home. For a thirty-something with a rental home, median income, two children. For each proposed change, a calculation model must be able to show what the effect is for each type of reader.

That requires a tax specialist working with the editorial team, and a developer who builds the models into a browser tool so the user can enter their own situation. Not complicated, but precise.

Three — a legal shell that provides protection

When de Gevolgenkaart becomes successful — and it will become successful, because it fills an obvious gap — political parties will attack it. Not openly, because it rests on facts. But through indirect routes: complaints to the Advertising Code Committee, questions to the regulators, lobbying efforts to have legislation adjusted.

For that, a legal shell is needed — a media-law attorney on retainer, a well-documented protocol for how every conclusion is substantiated, and a foundation structure that spreads liability. Not complicated, but necessary.

An invitation to those who see this

Het Open Vizier has been publishing in four languages since 2024. An independent newspaper, carried by one author, with a growing readership that seeks the counter-narrative absent from the established media.

De Gevolgenkaart is the next step. Not a follow-up to the six-part "De Grote Plundering" series, but the practical execution of it. Because what was described in the six parts — a Europe driving out its productive class with the consent of the majority of voters — can only change if voters start seeing what their vote actually produces.

To you, entrepreneur, inventor, asset holder, who reads this text and shares the diagnosis: this is work I cannot carry alone. It requires three to five hundred thousand euros per year for a professional team of five people — three editors, a tax specialist, a developer — for the three years needed to make de Gevolgenkaart into an instrument that can do its work during the Lower House elections of 2029 or 2030.

Not a lobbying fund. Not a party contribution. Not advertising for your business. An independent publication, an instrument that shows the Dutch voter what they get for their vote, and nothing more.

What you get back:

WHAT THE CONTRIBUTING ENTREPRENEUR DOES GET

• A Dutch voice that for the first time shows the ordinary voter what their vote actually does.
• Public recognition as a founder of the instrument, if desired.
• No influence over the editorial content. The independence is the value.
• A network of co-founders who share the same insight.
• The knowledge that you are building something that may protect your children.

WHAT THE CONTRIBUTING ENTREPRENEUR DOES NOT GET

• No advertising, no preferential treatment, no editorial influence.
• No tax advantage — this is not a deductible donation, this is an investment in public space.
• No guarantee that the instrument succeeds. This is an attempt, not a certainty.

Those who are interested write a letter — not a form, a real letter — to the correspondence address on openvizier.org. Tell me who you are, what your business does, why this touches you. I reply to everyone who writes. We then meet in Malta, Milan, Zürich or wherever suits, and from those meetings the network is built that makes this project possible.

Not all entrepreneurs are welcome. But everyone who shares the diagnosis and accepts the building assignment is.

Conclusion

The StemWijzer is not a conspiracy. There is no malevolent editor who plots every evening at ProDemos to mislead the Dutch voter. There is a well-intentioned foundation doing its work within the frame it has inherited, and unwittingly allowing itself to be used to perpetuate that frame.

What I have described in this manifesto is not an attack on ProDemos. It is an attack on the illusion that a single instrument, made by a single outfit, with thirty pre-determined statements, can cover the complete needs of four million Dutch voters. It cannot. It never could.

What must come is something more honest. Not a recommendation, but a package insert. Not a matching algorithm, but a consequence map. Not "you suit X", but "if you vote for X, you get this".

Four million Dutch people deserve this. Not as a luxury. As their democratic right.

We are going to build it. Today it begins.

• • •

— Jacobus van Merksteijn

Malta, June 2026

Coming soon on stemgevolgen.nl, gevolgenkaart.nl and politiekebijsluiter.nl