|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
Our current and upcoming project
Project Summary:The FDA audits 10 countries for electoral fairness: Egypt (under Mubarak), Tunisia (under Ben Ali), Finland, Argentina, USA, Mexico, Venezuela, Cameroon, Denmark, and Canada. The FDA will produce a non-partisan, objective grades for these countries and rank them. In performing its electoral fairness audit, the FDA focuses on 4 key aspects of electoral fairness: 1. laws and regulations for political content of media and broadcasters before, during and after federal elections; 2. laws and regulations on the equality of political candidates and parties influence before, during, and after federal elections; 3. laws and regulations on campaign finance; and 4. laws and regulations on the equality of voter say before, during, and after federal elections. The process for the audit is based on research, analytical audit of the research results which includes the use of FDA scoring scales for electoral fairness, and review of the electoral fairness results by an independent editorial advisory board. The full electoral fairness report will be published in April 2011. For more information on the electoral fairness project please contact the FDA at Contact Us
> Survey for the citizens of Cameroon Project Summary:The FDA's role in giving the Cameroonian public a decisive say in their future, is to create conditions for Cameroonians to be more informed politically. The FDA proposes to do this through a national electoral audit of the Presidential candidates, involving public participation from all 10 regions of the country, and ensuring public access to the audit results. The project is premised on the FDA's cooperation with Cameroonian civil society and government, while simultaneously maintaining the independence and objectivity crucial to our organization and goals. Also, the national audit will involve the participation of many Cameroonian volunteers, numerous public information sessions, and many visits to rural areas of Cameroon. Moreover, two electoral audit teams and four research teams will be formed. The Cameroonian FDA survey, encompassing all regions of Cameroon, will be a critical feature of the project as it will reflect the voice of Cameroonians and be the hinge of the audit. The project will take six months to complete. > Read more
> Survey for the citizens of Argentina Project Summary:The FDA's role in giving the Argentina public a decisive say in their future, is to create conditions for Argentineans to be more informed politically. The FDA proposes to do this through a country wide electoral audit of the Presidential candidates, involving Argentina public participation from all 24 regions. A more informed Argentina public, in conjunction with a continued corrupt free voting system, would help ensure that the will of the Argentina people is heard. To merely ensure that the Argentina election is corrupt free falls short of establishing a fair election. The FDA's non-partisan, objective, inclusive approach will improve democratic fairness in Argentina. Viz., its audit will help cancel out any possible political influence and manipulation associated with elections, and create a more equal contest between the Presidential candidates. > Read more
Project Summary:Project outline to be posted soon.
Project Summary:The FDA's role in making American democracy fairer to the people as a whole is to conduct a national electoral audit which encompasses all fifty American states. Two non-partisan audit and research teams will be formed for each state. Each team within a state will act as a check against error and/or corruption of information with the other team. The audit itself will focus on at least five major political parties and their candidates. The Presidential candidates will receive an extensive audit, while all other candidates will receive a limited audit. The internet will be a major means for public communication, in addition to public meetings and seminars. Moreover, the FDA will work with the American civil sector and government, while not sacrifice its independence and objectivity. Further, a national survey will be a critical feature of the project, as it will reflect the voice of Americans and be the hinge of the audit. The project will take 1 year to complete. > Read more |
Recent audits2011 Canadian Federal Election Audit (pdf):1. Liberal Party of Canada (61.54%) (C) 2. Canadian Action Party (61.2%) (C) 3. New Democratic Party (56.9%) (D+) 4. Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada (51.5%) (D) 5. Green Party of Canada (48.8%) (F) 6. Communist Party of Canada (47.54%) (F) 7. Bloc Quebecois (45.3%) (F) 8. Conservative Party of Canada (43.8%) (F) 9. Christian Heritage Party (40.42%) (F) 10. Progressive Canadian Party (36.7%) (F) 11. United Party of Canada (30.4%) (F) 12. Libertarian Party of Canada 18.2/130 (14%) (F) * The FDA 2011 Canadian Federal Election Audit Report will be posted shortly. 2010 Calgary Mayoral Audit: 1. Jon Lord 57/100 57% (D+) 2. Barb Higgins 53.8/100 53.8% (D) 3. Naheed Nenshi 51.8/100 51.8% (D) 4. Richard McIver 43.8/90 48.6% (F) 5. Joe Connelly 42.7/90 47.4% (F) 6. Dan Knight 46.8/100 46.8% (F) 7. Barry Erskine 38/90 42.2% (F) 8. Bonnie Devine 29/100 29% (F) * The Calgary Mayoral Audit did not include an audit of the candidates' competencies and characteristics. 2010 Australia Vision Audit 1. Abbot 60% (C) 2. Gillard 50% (D) 2010 British Election Audit Ranking 1. Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat 67.8% (C+) 2. David Cameron, Conservative 65.8% (C+) 3. Gordon Brown, Labour 63.4% (C) *The British Election Audit did not include an audit of candidates' competences and characteristics. FDA Grade ScaleA+ Exceptional candidate and/or party (overall flawless and original policies and vision, impeccable incumbency record if applicable, exceptional competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 84.99% and less than 100.1%)A Outstanding candidate and/or party (overall very high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 79.99% and less than 85%) B+ Very good candidate and/or party (overall high standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 74.99% and less than 80%) B Acceptable candidate and/or party (meets overall satisfactory standard for policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 69.99% and less than 75%) C+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (few deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 64.99% and less than 70%) C Unacceptable candidate and/or party (several deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 59.99% and less than 65%) D+ Unacceptable candidate and/or party (a lot of deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 54.99% and less than 60%) D Unacceptable candidate and/or party (many deficiencies and/or major deficiencies in some of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade greater than 49.99% and less than 55%) F Unacceptable candidate and/or party (numerous major deficiencies in most if not all of the following: policies, vision, incumbency record (if applicable), competencies, characteristics, and background) (Grade less than 50%) |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
| Imprint — © 2011 Foundation for Democratic Advancement | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
