The moment the minute display on a tram no longer works properly, it not only loses its raison d'etre.

It also begs the question of why it is there in the first place.

If you've missed the boat, it's too late anyway.

And waiting time is not shortened by the number of minutes displayed. 

The situation is similar when speaking times are measured in debates or duels.

You can already understand why they are there: To be able to somehow refer to the time as a neutral authority that controls who takes too much time and thus possibly takes up too much space for their own arguments.

But what if speaking times are measured incorrectly?

And thereby create a false impression that determines the further course of the talks?

A time clock against imbalance

It is particularly tricky when something like this happens in a trial, in which one candidate for chancellor meets two candidates for chancellor. On the one hand, because many people make very weighty voting decisions based on this question-and-answer game. On the other hand, because women were underrepresented in public law for a long time, for example in talk shows, and did not have enough say.

Such a time clock could actually be very helpful for measuring imbalances.

The clock that measured the speaking times at the second Triell on Sunday did not stop at all: Annalena Baerbock noted that Olaf Scholz's time was running on.

Moderator Maybrit Illner immediately sensed the danger of unfair treatment (“It doesn't work that way!”).

Then the clock swung in the wrong direction: Apparently it was Baerbock himself who - standing in the middle of the crossfire between Armin Laschet and Olaf Scholz - probably spoke the most.

On Baerbock's supposed 15:20 minutes, there were 12:54 minutes for Scholz and 12:17 minutes for Laschet.

Moderator Oliver Köhr could only refer to the clock: "We were told that the times are right again." 

No correction of the ARD

The suspicion that the times could have been incorrectly measured right up to the end remained. The media magazine Übermedien then measured it again. And the speaking times were actually wrong: At the end of the triell, Scholz had the longest speaking portion with 25:30 minutes, followed by Laschet with 24:14 minutes and Baerbock with 21:37 minutes - instead of Laschet (26:25 minutes), Scholz (24th minute) : 39 minutes), Baerbock (24:25 minutes). With an exaggerated final statement, Scholz had a total of 20 percent more speaking time than Baerbock. As reported by Übermedien, the ARD stated that the wrong measurements were caused by a "software error". There has not yet been a correction on the part of the broadcaster. 

A tram minute display is actually not intended for those waiting, but for those who ride the tram: in order to be able to coordinate better. In the same way, speaking time measurements are actually intended for those who moderate: To control themselves and to confidently cut off a candidate's word. But: shouldn't good moderators be able to do that too?