V V o o t t e e r r m m i i g g r r a a t t i i o o n n L L i i n n k k e e Linke S S o o u u r r c c e e : : I I n n f f r r a a t t e e s s t t d d i i m m a a p p E E x x i i t t P P o o l l l l . . +700,000 +560,000 +440,000 +310,000 +290,000 +100,000 +70,000 –110,000 –350,000 F F i i g g . . 1 1 7 7 ‌ Greens SPD First Voters/ Deceased Other Non-voters FDP CDU/CSU AfD BSW the BSW electorate formerly voted for the FDP(260,000) and the CDU(220,000). Smaller gains were made from the Greens(150,000), first-time voters/deceased(80,000) and the AfD(60,000). Die Linke almost doubled its vote in terms of second votes com V p o ar t e e d r w m ith ig 20 r 2 a 1 t , i o o b n tai L ni i n n g k m e ore than 4,355,000. Ac­cording to the migration model, it yielded 350,000 votes to its splinter party the BSW. It lost another 110,000 votes to the AfD. However, this was more than compensated with gains among former voters of other parties. The largest gains were recorded from the Greens(700,000), followed by the SPD(560,000), first-time voters/deceased(440,000), other parties(310,000) and non-voters(290,000). There were small in-flows from the FDP(100,000) and the CDU/ CSU(70,000). Who mobilised former non-voters? The changes in the group of non-voters are particularly diffi­cult to assess because only voters are surveyed in post-elec­tion polls. But because voter turnout has risen sharply, we can have at least a rough idea of those who stayed away from the election in 2021 but voted in 2025. In the 2025 federal election, the number of votes increased by over 3.2 million. By far the strongest mobilisation in this camp was +700,000 Greens achieved by the AfD(1,810,000). By comparison, the CDU managed to attract half as many votes from among +560,000 SPD non-voters(900,000). The BSW was able to attract 400,000 vote + s 4 f 4 ro 0 m ,00 f 0 ormer non-voters. They Fi w rs e t re Vo fo te ll r o s/ wed by Die Linke(290,000), the SPD(250,000) D , e o c t e h a e s r e p d arties(160,000) and the + G 31 re 0 e ,0 n 0 s 0 (110,000). Accordin O g th to er the migration mod­el, the FDP was the only party to lose votes to non-voters. Linke The FDP lost more than 3 million second votes and man­+290,000 Non-voters aged only just under 2,150,000 second votes. According to the migration model, it is the only party to lose votes to all Impact of + a 10 n 0 e ,0 w 00 electoral l F a D w P : second votes and orphan constituencies parties and voter groups. The biggest beneficiary of this haemorrhage was the CDU with 1,350,000 votes, followed +70,000 CDU/CSU The electoral law reform passed by the previous govern­by the AfD with 890,000 votes. Two-thirds of the – l 1 o 1 s 0 t ,0 vo 00 tes went to the right-wing party spectrum. In third place is the ment sets the number of Bundesta A g fD MPs at 630. Overhang and compensation mandates, which in the past caused the BSW with an estimated 260,000 votes from former FD – P 350.000 number of members to rise to over B 7 SW 00, no longer exist. voters. By contrast, the other outflows to first-time voters/ The second vote alone decides what proportion of seats a the S d ou e rc c e e : I a n s fr e at d es , t t d h im e ap G E r x e it e P n o s ll. , other parties, the SPD and Die Linke appear quite small, lying between an extrapolated party receives in the Bundestag. This means that the direct mandates a party wins must be covered by a sufficient 140,000 and 100,000 votes. The FDP was the only party number of second votes. If this is not the case, the winning unable to benefit from the higher voter turnout and also candiates of a constituency with the worst results on the lost ground to non-voters. Bundesland-level do not enter the Bundestag. This princi­ple of‘second-vote coverage’ was confirmed as constitu­tional by the Federal Constitutional Court in July 2024. Analysis of the Bundestag elections 2025 19