Foundation for Democratic Advancement
| 2007 Lethbridge Election: Pilot Study Assessment |
Moreover, though the FDA’s ranking of the Alderman candidates was not a prediction of the actual election results, six out of the FDA’s top eight selections as the better representatives, were voted onto the Lethbridge City Council.
1. At least four more public forums on the priorities of Lethbridge should have taken place. Also, the forums should be around one month in advance of the actual election and formal ranking.
2. All candidates should be interviewed by the evaluators.
3. The questions for the candidates should be made as clear as possible, and the candidates should be informed that their answers will be used to evaluate them both now and in subsequent elections.
4. Evaluators should attend as many political functions as possible, without becoming immersed, thereby losing focus.
5. There should be at least one copy of the Full Evaluation and Ranking Document at the presentation of the ranking results.
6. Setting up a citizen panel and evaluation committee would advance the evaluation and ranking process.
7. Greater effort to bring on sponsors and supporters of the evaluation and ranking process would give the process more legitimacy and hopefully sounder results.
1. The evaluation and ranking could be more objective. The FDA agrees, and will work towards making the evaluation and ranking more objective.
The FDA will be using the following evaluation methodology in the next pilot study:
Focus on reason themselves in terms of the basic priorities of the constituency. (Basic priorities established through public forums.)
There are four sub-sections for the evaluation of candidates:
1. Backgrounds
The citizen evaluation committees quantify each sub-section to establish degree of separation between candidates, and rank to show order of candidates in each sub-section and overall.
* Each sub-section has the same evaluation weight.
* Categories in the policy sub-section are weighted differently based on importance. Also, in the character sub-section, incumbents' past performance are weighted four times demonstrated character.
** The percentage differences between candidates in each sub-section are combined to determine ranking and degree of separation overall between candidates.
Quantification of evaluation:
A. Background:
Time as resident 1-10 values
Maximum score of 50 for Background sub-section.
Soundness 1-15 values
Maximum score dependent on number of policies stemming from basic priorities.
Relevancy to basic priorities 1-10
Maximum score of 20 for Visions sub-section.
Demonstration of character 1-10
For incumbents:
Comparison of past record to past promises and pledges 1-10
* As mentioned, percentage score of incumbent part given four times the weight of demonstrated character part, and added to the percentage stemming from demonstrated character.
Maximum score of 10 for Character sub-section, and maximum score of 50 for Character sub-section, including incumbency evaluation.
Background:
Candidate A
Time as resident 8 out of 10
Education 5 out of 10
Professional experience 6 out of 10
Political experience 8 out of 10
Volunteer experience 9 out of 10
Total: 37 out of 50 (74%)
Time as resident 10 out of 10
Education 2 out of 10
Professional experience 9 out of 10
Political experience 8 out of 10
Volunteer experience 6 out of 10
Total: 35 out of 50 (70%)
Ranking for Background:
1. Candidate A
Candidate A
Downtown core revitalization:
Soundness: 8 out of 20
Security:
Soundness: 8 out of 10
Parking:
Soundness: 5 out of 10
Environment:
Soundness: 6 out of 10
Total: 48 out of 120 (40%)
Downtown core revitalization:
Soundness: 18 out of 20
Security:
Soundness: 8 out of 10
Parking:
Soundness: 5 out of 10
Environment:
Soundness: 10 out of 10
Total: 69 out of 120 (57.5%)
Ranking of Policies:
1. Candidate B
Candidate A
Relevancy to basic priorities 9-10
Idea: 9-10
Total: 18 out of 20 (90%)
Relevancy to basic priorities 7-10
Idea: 7-10
Total: 14 out of 20 (70%)
Ranking of Visions:
1. Candidate A
Candidate A
Demonstration of character 7 out of 10
Plus incumbency:
Comparison of past record to past promises and pledges 10 out of 20
Past record 10 out of 20
Total: 27 out of 50 (54%)
Demonstration of character 9 out 10
Total: 9 out of 10 (90%)
Candidate not an incumbent
Ranking of Character:
1. Candidate B
Overall percentage difference
Candidate A: 51.6%
Candidate B: 57.5%
Overall ranking:
1. Candidate B
3. 10 to 14 days is not enough time to fairly and justly evaluate candidates. The FDA disagrees with this position. There was ample time to evaluate the Alderman candidates. Did the FDA really get to know the character of the candidates? The FDA got a reasonable sense of the candidates’ character, and it will get a greater sense in evaluating the incumbents in the next civic election and based on what they campaigned on.
Based on public and media interest and candidate participation, the Pilot Study went well. 15 out of the 16 candidates participated in the study, by answering questions and supplying background information. The media, in particular The Lethbridge Herald, gave very good coverage of the study. And the two FDA’s events, a public forum and presentation, were reasonably attended by the public—though the turnout for the public forum could have been better.
Improving upon the Pilot Study:
Public Criticism of Evaluation and Ranking:
2. Policies
3. Visions
4. Character, including incumbents' past performance (comparison of past record to past pledges and promises)
Education 1-10 values
Professional experience 1-10 values
Political experience 1-10 values
Volunteer experience 1-10 values
B. Policies: evaluation based on policies stemming from the basic priorities of the constituency
Specificness 1-5 values
C. Visions: evaluation based partly on visions stemming from the basic priorities of the constituency
Idea 1-10
D. Character: based on the type of character needed to fulfill the basic priorities of the constituency
Past record (i.e. what did the incumbent do while in office) 1-10
Note, candidates with the same overall ranking will be compared in terms of their overall percentages, and if need be the policies, visions, character, and background rankings. The candidate with the higher percentages will be ranked higher.
Hypothetical example of the evaluation process:
Candidate B
2. Candidate B
Policies:
Specificness: 7 out of 20
Specificness: 6 out of 10
Specificness: 5 out of 10
Specificness: 3 out of 10
Candidate B
Specificness: 12 out of 20
Specificness: 4 out of 10
Specificness: 5 out of 10
Specificness: 7 out of 10
2. Candidate A
Visions:
Candidate B
2. Candidate B
Character
Candidate B
2. Candidate A
Total of percentages and rankings:
2. Candidate A
2. The FDA’s uses both qualitative and quantitative approaches, thereby confuses the two. This criticism ignores or overlooks that qualitative evaluation in the form of logical analysis is the main part of the evaluation, and that the quantification is a mere adding up sub-totals of rankings. The FDA supports the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods to evaluative candidates.