An evaluation committee made up of three members (non-Albertans) did the evaluation and ranking, and a fourth member (non-Albertan) did an independent critique of the work.

Executive Summary of the 2008 FDA Evaluation and Ranking of the Alberta political parties. > PDF only.

Full Evaluation of the 2008 FDA Evaluation and Ranking of the Alberta political parties. > PDF only.

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking and Election Results

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (pdf file) of the FDA Evaluation and Ranking of the Lethbridge Alderman candidates.> PDF only.

FULL EVALUATION AND RANKING DOCUMENT (pdf file).> PDF only.

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking and Actual Election Results> HTML only.

Synopsis: The FDA evaluation committee ranked the candidates as follows:

1. Aitchison (Liberal) (60.4%)

1. Abbott (Conservative) (60.4%)

2. Pendleton (NDP) (57.9%)

Mrs. Aitchison was ranked higher than Mr. Abbott, because the Liberals out scored the Conservatives in the policy section, 66.6% to 56.6%.

Due to the close ranking of the three candidates, the FDA concluded that other factors need to be looked at in terms of choosing one of the candidates.

The FDA determined that if the public is interested in strong leadership and vision, then they should choose Mr. Pendleton, who scored 80% for vision and 75% overall as a candidate. (Mr. Abbott scored 63.3% for vision and 71.6% overall as a candidate, and Mrs. Aitchison scored 36.6% for vision and 41.6% overall as a candidate.)

If the public is interested in political experience, then they should choose Mr. Abbott who scored 80% for background including political experience.

If the public is interested in the economy and environment, then they should choose Mrs. Aitchison and the Liberals who scored 73.3% compared to 58.3% for the Conservatives and 50% for the NDP.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the FDA evaluation of the Kootenay-Columbia riding.> PDF only.

FULL REPORT (pdf file) of the FDA evaluation of the Kootenay-Columbia riding.> PDF only.

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking/Grading and Election Results.> HTML only.

Synopsis: The FDA evaluation committee ranked/graded the candidates as follows:

1. Stetski 60.5/80 (75.6%)

2. York 46.75/80 (58.4%)

3. Manjak 46.5/80 (58.1%)

Stetski scored consistently 70% or better in all sections of the evaluation, whereas the other candidates scored consistently in the 60% range.

The key differences between Stetski and the other candidates, is his commitment to natural, cultural, and citizen values, and the comprehensiveness of his policies. The FDA concluded that the consistency of Stetski's scores reflected his stability and leadership potential.

Full Report of the FDA evaluation of the 2008 Cranbrook Mayoral election.> PDF only.

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking/Grading and Election Results> HTML only.

Synopsis: The FDA evaluation committee ranked/graded the candidates as follows:

1. Nader 64.5/80 (80.6%)

2. McCain 48.5/80 (60.6%)

3. Obama 44.5/80 (55.6%)

4. Barr 44/80 (55%)

5. Baldwin 28.5/80 (36.6%)

Despite polls like Zogby showing Nader only has support of 1%, Nader was ranked/graded 20% points ahead of the second place candidate. Nader achieved this result with a strong background, very strong vision for America, and strong policies in four areas for America. In contrast, Obama was weak in all sections of the evaluation, except for environmental policy.

Regarding Obama further, the FDA recommends that people look beyond the smile, speaking ability, new face, and party slogans, and at what the candidate actually offers. The FDA found little difference overall between the policies of Obama and McCain, and this �change� which Obama keeps referring to was found wanting. An Obama administration, based on our policy evaluation, will do very little to solve the problems of American society. In fact, we think an Obama or McCain administration will worsen the American problems. We can see this in the foreign policies of both Obama and McCain in which there is little restraint in the foreign intervention and an emphasis on increasing significantly the size and capability of the US military.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (pdf file) of the FDA evaluation of the 2008 US Presidential election.> PDF only.

FULL REPORT FULL REPORT (pdf file) of the FDA evaluation of the 2008 US Presidential election.> PDF only.

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking/Grading and Election Results

The Afghanistan presidential evaluation entailed evaluation of the candidates' backgrounds, visions for Afghanistan, incumbency record of Hamid Karzai, and the policies areas--Economic, Goverance, Social, Health, Education, Environment, and National Security.

Conclusion:

The very low failing grades for the three presidential candidates show that

1. Hamid Karzia, Dr. Abdullah, and Dr. Ghana are extremely unsatisfactory presidential candidates.
2. The three candidates are highly detrimental to the overall well-being of the Afghanistan people.

From the perspective of the US government, the three candidates are likely extremely satisfactory since they represent US interests in Afghanistan.

Overall, the fact that the US government is allowing a presidential election in a wartime situation, raises questions regarding the legitimacy of the election and the intention of the US nation building in Afghanistan.

If democracy was at the forefront, the presidential election would be postponed until peaceful conditions were established. However, it is clear to the FDA that the US government is using a semblance of democracy in Afghanistan as part of its war effort. Viz., democracy is being used as a means to cover US control of the Afghanistan government and ultimately the people of Afghanistan. The failure of this policy is that the US credibility as a promoter of democracy is undermined, and any US backed government and election is deemed illegitimate under the occupation and wartime situation.

An honest and democratic friendly policy would be to have a US backed interim government, until peace is established in Afghanistan. The US government and its allies are unwilling to do this, because they do not want a repeat of what the Soviet Union experienced in Afghanistan. The conclusion follows that the US and its allies should withdraw from Afghanistan, and let the people of Afghanistan decide their own future. Any threat of so-called terrorism can be handled by other means than occupation.

As a final note, the 20% voter turnout in this election, the rampant electoral corruption, and the failed run-off election supports the FDA's conclusion that the 2009 Afghan Presidential election is counter to the spirit of democracy--governance of, by, for the people. The Western political system as a whole faces a similar low voter turnout though not as drastic; so it may not be too surprising that the American government and its allies supports the Afghan electoral process and its results. The standard for democracy is low in the West.

FULL REPORT FULL REPORT of the FDA evaluation of the 2009 Afghan Presidential election.> PDF only.

The FDA evaluation was guided by establishing a basic priority for democratic countries and applying that priority to the various issues surrounding the Beijing Olympics and Chinese human rights issues. The evaluation encompassed discussion on relations between the Chinese government and Taiwan, Mongolia (i.e. Uighur Mulsims), Tibet, Burma, and Sudan, Chinese civil liberties, Chinese legal system, and Chinese legislation such as the One-Child policy and Capital punishment.

Synopsis: Based on the right to freedom expression, religion, culture, self-determination, and self-preservation, the FDA evaluation committee determined 70% to 40% that China is unworthy of hosting the 2008 Olympics. Moreover, the evaluation committee determined 64% to 36% that democratic countries had a right to interfere in China's internal affairs, and 92% to 8% that the Olympics is not devoid of politics. However, the evaluation committee determined 66% to 34% that athlete rights precede human rights in the context of the Olympic games.

In terms of action by democratic countries, the evaluation committee determined that a Chinese pardon of human rights prisoners and full participation in the Olympics (92%) would be the best action, followed by boycott of the opening ceremony (84%), and full partipation in the Olympics (76%). Participation (in the Olympics) was valued over non-participation, due to the benefits of intercultural understanding and dialogue.

The key question raised in conclusion and in consideration of the unworthiness of China to host the Olympics, is why China in the first instance won the IOC Olympic bid?

FULL EVALUATION AND RANKING DOCUMENT by the FDA evaluation committee.> PDF only.

VIDEO of committee working on the issue of whether or not China is unworthy to host the Olympics: unworthy to host? (Two other video parts on youtube as well.)

VIDEO of committee working on the issue of whether or not foreign countries have right to interfere in China's internal matters: right to interfere?

To do the evaluation, the FDA committee established the basic priority of the Taiwan people, and used that priority to evaluate choices of either applying for U.N. membership or not applying for U.N. membership.

Synopsis: Based on the preservation of the Taiwan identity/existence, the evaluation results favor 71.6% to 35% Taiwan becoming a formal independent State versus Taiwan becoming part of China. However, based solely on the risk to world peace, the evaluation results favor 65% to 20% Taiwan becoming part of China versus Taiwan becoming a formal independent State. This is the Taiwan dilemma. (Independence versus world peace.) The FDA concludes that Taiwan should press ahead with independence, because of its right to self-determination, and the onus should be on the world, not Taiwan, to deal with China's intimidation and isolationist policy towards Taiwan. For Taiwan to put off independence because world powers are unwilling to act decisively against China, even though they are capable of acting decisively, would be contrary to the very existence of being Taiwanese.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the FDA Evaluation of the Taiwan referendum on U.N. membership.> PDF only.

FULL EVALUATION AND RANKING DOCUMENT by the FDA evaluation committee.> PDF only.

Comparative Evaluation of the FDA Evaluation and Referendum Results.> HTML only.

VIDEOS of committee working on the issues of self-determination national security trade culture global security.

Julia Gillard (Australian Labor Party)

Together, Let's move Australia forward

A Positive Plan to Move Australia Forward

As I've travelled around Australia, I've constantly been reminded of one thing: day in and day out, our people work for their families, their communities and their country, and they do so very hard. Australians play by the rules, set their alarms early, get their kids off to school, and work hard to provide for their family. This election I've worked hard to lay out a positive plan for the future of Australia.

It's a plan to build a stronger economy, provide more jobs, provide better health, better education, invest in infrastructure, and ensure a fairer and more sustainable society for all. I believe Australians deserve better than the backward vision that has been presented by Mr Abbott. We're better than that, we are a confident, optimistic people, and together, let's show it this Saturday.

Only Julia Gillard has a positive plan to move our economy forward with business tax cuts, a National Broadband Network, and fully costed promises.

FDA Summary: build a strong economy together through business tax cuts, national broadband network, fully costed promises. Reactionary to Liberal party. No overall vision of what Australia represents now or in the future. No long-term vision.

Tony Abbot (Liberal Party of Australia)

Stand up for Australia. Stand up for real action.
End Labor's waste and restore cabinet government
The Hon Tony Abbott Leader of the Opposition
Labor has wasted too much taxpayers' money.
The Coalition won't repeat Labor's disastrous 'pink batts' program.
The Coalition will also stop the billions of dollars being wasted through the 'school halls' program, and cut spending on government advertising.
Bad processes produce bad decisions.

Unlike Labor where decisions are made without proper process or consultation, the Coalition will restore the decision-making processes of Cabinet to restore integrity to government decision-making.

FDA Summary: reduce government spending and restore decision-making process of Cabinet. No overall vision of what Australia represents now or in the future. Reactionary to the Labor party. No long-term vision.

Scores: Gillard 5/10, Abbot 6/10

Rational for scores:

Gillard envisions a more active government with some financial responsibility, while Abbot envisions a reduced government with better decision-making. Both visions are short-term, and lack an overall vision for Australians. Moreover, both visions are promoting a stronger Australian government, but through different means—careful government expansion versus government contraction.

Australia is not a country onto itself. And the world economy is struggling in its recovery from a worldwide recession. Therefore, it follows that Liberal conservative is likely better in the short-term for Australians.

Both Gillard and Abbot's visions were general to Australians and lacked a long-term, overall perspective. Therefore, their scores for vision are mediocre. Abbot received a higher score, because his vision with reduced government and better government decision-making is more reasonable considering the troubling global economy.

Overall Ranking:

Visions

1. Abbot 6/10 60%
2. Gillard 5/10 50%

The lower the grade, the less satisfactory the candidate is. The higher the grade, the more satisfactory the candidate is.

Analysis:

The Australian electoral audit was limited to vision, and therefore, the ranking of Abbot and Gillard is limited as well. However, the visions of the candidates, and their respective quality, should give a give reasonable idea as to what these candidates offer Australians, because vision represents what a candidate offers overall.

Conclusion:

Considering the low scores for visions for Gillard and Abbot, Australians should not expect much from these candidates.

Moreover, Australian democracy is dominated by a two party democracy made up of the Liberal Party of Australia and Australian Labor Party. Hence, the poor visions of Gillard and Abbot are amplified. (In the 2007 Australian General election for example , the Labor party won 43.38% of the vote, Liberal party 36.61%, and with the nearest other party, the National Party, 5.49%.)

Australians should strive to break the two-party hierarchy, thereby allow more parties, with differing perspectives, to have an opportunity to govern Australia.

In the context of the FDA audits for vision in the 2010 British General election and 2008 US presidential election, all the candidates had mediocre scores for visions, except for Nader who scored 100% and Brown who scored 70%.

However, Nader not being part of the US two-party hierarchy was sidelined in the US political process receiving only .5% of the US vote. Brown and his British Labor party lost the 2010 election, and his vision was offset by his poor incumbency record and the decline of the British economy. The British voters with little to choose from overall gave support to the short-term economic outlook of the British Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

Actual election results:

The 2010 Australia General Election resulted in a hung parliament, which means no party attained a majority of the seats in the Australian parliament. This result is consistent with the FDA audit, which shows the leading candidates, Gillard and Abbot, to be mediocre in terms of their visions for Australia. Moreover, a hung parliament will force the Australian Labor party and the Liberal Party of Australia to form coalitions with other parties and independents, thus allow greater representation of the Australian people and at the same time, weaken the Australian two-party hierarchical political system.

FULL EVALUATION AND RANKING DOCUMENT.> PDF only.

However, Pre-Resort recreationalists face a 19% overall negative impact from the Jumbo Resort on their quality of life in the Jumbo Creek Valley and surrounding drainages. The percentage of this negative impact will likely worsen due to unavoidable road and trail closures to help offset grizzly bear decline. The grizzly bear population in the Purcell Mountains is already in decline; so with the addition of the Jumbo Resort in the area, it is expected by the FDA that the decline will only worsen, which will mean significant road and trail closures to protect them. (These closures are clearly stated in the Resort's Master Plan.) It is anticipated that Pre-Resort recreationalists will eventually reach a 0% overall negative impact due to the Jumbo Resort. Viz., the road and trail closures, and domination of the Jumbo Creek Valley by the Jumbo Resort and its thousands of recreationalists will destroy the quality of life experience of the Pre-Resort recreationalists.

Similarly, the City of Invermere and surrounding areas face a 20% overall negative impact from the Jumbo Resort on their quality of life. This impact may worsen as Invermere due to increased Resort-related crime, congestion, and pollution, becomes a less attractive recreational destination.

It should be noted that the Jumbo Resort will increase ski competition in the Kootenays, in an already declining industry, which may in turn cause for example the Kimberley ski hill to close. Even though such a closure would have significant quality of life implications, it is not factored into this Survey because the marketplace allows for competition, and the quality of life reduction in the Kimberley area by ski recreationalists and labour would be offset by an increase in the Invermere/Windermere area.

As a final note, an issue this development process faces is the domination of the majority over the minority. The FDA thinks that the BC Liberal government is acting negligent, reckless, and shortsighted by allowing a Resort to take over an area at the expense of Pre-Resort users of the area and adjacent population centers, not to mention the significant harm the Jumbo Resort poses to the Jumbo Creek environment.

Moreover, it is shameful of the BC government bureaucrats, particularly from the BC Ministries of Environment and Tourism to sidestep the issues of this proposed Resort, by basically calling for road and trail closures, which gives priority to the Resort at the expense of all the other users. In a world of increasing environmental harm, the BC Liberal government despite its rhetorical claim of adherence to sustainability is only adding to the harm.

Executive Summary of the Jumbo Resort Quality of Life Assessment

Full Report of the Jumbo Resort Quality of Life Assessment

Synopsis: The 12-person FDA panel determined whether the proposed Baker Mountain Land Development adds or detracts to the quality of life of the Cranbrook area, and to what degree. Seven criteria of quality of life were assessed:

Clean, accessible drinking water
Clean air
Social cohesion of rural community
Quality of living in terms of overcrowding, pollution, and crime
Protection of environment and quality of visual impact
Access to outdoor recreation
Sustainable employment

Also, three population groups were assessed:
A. Citizens of Cranbrook and surrounding areas (less Gold Creek area) (18,267 plus 2,265 population: 20, 532 total population)
B. Citizens of Cranbrook's surrounding areas who live adjacent to Baker Mountain development (2,126 population)
C. Baker Mountain Land Development area; citizens and occupants of the all season resort (adjusted 3,750 permanent population)

The 12-person panel determined that the Baker Mountain Land Development detracts from the quality of life of the Cranbrook area, with an overall negative rating of 48.5% (or 4.9 out of 10). Moreover, the panel determined that the proposed development detracts significantly from the quality of life of Population A and B in vital areas such as quality of water and air. The FDA concluded based on the quality of life assessment that the proposed Baker Mountain Land Development should not precede.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY of the FDA Baker Mountain quality of life assessment.> PDF only.

FULL REPORT of the FDA Baker Mountain quality of life assessment.> PDF only.

VIDEO of the FDA panel assessing the quality of life impact of clean accessible water

VIDEO of the FDA panel assessing the quality of life impact of clean air 1

VIDEO of the FDA panel assessing the quality of life impact of clean air 2

VIDEO of the FDA panel assessing the quality of life impact of social cohesion

2008 Election Studies Results:

2008 US Presidential Election:

There is a clear, profound discrepancy in the US Presidential election results and the FDA's study results. Mr. Nader received the FDA's highest candidate grade ever, 80.6%, and yet he received only .52% of the US popular vote and zero Electoral College votes. In contrast, Mr. Obama was ranked third by the FDA with a grade of 55.6%, and yet he won the US election with 52.6% of the US popular vote and 364 Electoral College votes out of 526. Moreover, Mr. Obama received support from only 33.71% of the US electorate, while 66.29% of the US electorate did not support him.*

* This result is based on combining those Americans who voted, 64.1%, with those Americans who did not vote, 35.9%.

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking/Grading and Election Results

2008 Canadian Federal Election--Kootenay-Columbia Riding:

Mr. Abbott of the Conservative Party of Canada was ranked first along with Mrs. Aitchson of the Liberal Party of Canada, with FDA grades of 60.4%. Yet Mr. Abbott received a winning vote margin of 26.95% over second place, Mr. Pendleton, and Mr. Abbott received 59.59% of the popular vote. Mrs. Aitchson who finished third received only 7.7% of the popular vote, and Mr. Pendleton received 22.64% of the popular vote and a FDA grade of 57.7%.

Also, despite Mr. Abbott's majority win, he received only 36.07% support from the electorate, which is less than the number of the electorate who did not vote, 39.5%, and far less than the majority he received (59.59%).

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking/Grading and Election Results

2008 Alberta Provincial Election:

The PCAlberta party was ranked fourth by the FDA with a failing grade of 43.6%, and yet the party received 52.7% of the Alberta vote and 72 out of 83 legislative seats. Moreover, the two parties with passing FDA grades, Wildrose 63.5% and the Alberta Liberals 63.2%, received between them 33.2% of the Alberta vote and 9 legislative seats.

The Alberta election had a low voter turnout of 41%. As a result, the PCAlberta party received only 21.6% support from the electorate, which means 78.4% of the electorate did not support the party.

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking and Election Results

2008 Cranbrook Mayoral Election:

Mr. Manjak won the Cranbrook Mayoral race with 2254 votes, ahead of Mr. Stetski with 2050 votes and Mr. York with 119 votes. However, the FDA ranked Mr. Manjak third with a grade of 58.1%, which was .3% behind Mr. York's grade of 58.4% and 17.5% behind Mr. Stetski's grade of 75.6%. Also, with a voter turnout of 30%, Mr. Manjak received only 15.28% support from the electorate, which means 84.7% of the electorate did not support him. Further, Mr. York received only .8% support from the electorate, 94.8% less support than Mr. Manjak received.

Comparative Evaluation of Ranking/Grading and Election Results

2008 Land Development Study Result:

Baker Mountain:

The Baker Mountain Land Development received an overall negative quality of life grade of 48.5%. The area of Cranbrook and the adjacent surrounding areas to the development received negative grades, of 35.2% and 25.3%, in key areas such as water and air quality.

The BC government on grounds of outstanding multiple significant issues, rejected the Baker Mountain Land Development.

The FDA's quality of life results were consistent with the development's rejection.

FULL REPORT (pdf file) of the FDA Baker Mountain quality of life assessment.

2008 Social Issue Studies Results:

2008 Taiwan Referendum:

Based on Taiwan's identity/existence, the FDA scored 71.6% to 35% in favour of Taiwan independence over Taiwan absorption into China. However, only 35.8% of Taiwaneses participated in the referendum on Taiwan's application for United Nations membership under the name "Taiwan", and consequently the referendum was invalid because the minimum threshold of 50% was not reached. The invalidity of the referendum can be viewed as a missed opportunity to move Taiwan closer to independence.

Perhaps the survivability of Taiwan's identity/existence is not realistic, due to for example the strong natural economic ties between China and Taiwan, and the growing power of China politically and militarily.

Comparative Evaluation of the FDA Evaluation and Referendum Results

2008 Beijing Olympics:

Even though the FDA determined from a human rights standpoint that China is not worthy of hosting the Olympics, the FDA also determined that athlete rights should proceed human rights in terms of the Olympics. Also, the FDA determined that full participation in the Beijing Olympics was the third best action by Western countries. Questions are raised as to why for instance the American, Canadian, and Dutch governments adopted full participation policies instead of boycotting the opening ceremony, and why the IOC awarded China the Olympics.

FULL EVALUATION AND RANKING DOCUMENT (pdf file) by the FDA evaluation committee.

Analysis:

The FDA conducted electoral studies at the federal, provincial, and municipal levels of government.

The FDA's land development was limited to rural development, and the FDA's social studies focused on significant international issues.

Conclusion:

Based on the FDA's 2008 electoral studies, democracy in North America is flawed. These studies show problems stemming from low voter turnout and highly questionable decision-making by voters. The main repercussion is third and even fourth best candidates/parties representing the people. Consequently, the people, whether nationally or locally, are faced with weaker leadership and poorer policies.

The FDA's land development result and the ensuing BC government decision-making demonstrate an effective development process. However, quality of life assessments do not exist in the BC development process, and the BC government's decision-making may not always be objective.

Regarding the FDA's social study on the Beijing Olympics, the soundness of the decision-making of some western governments like the American, Canadian and Dutch, and the IOC are questionable.

The issue of Taiwan's identity/existence remains unresolved, while Taiwan has moved closer to being absorbed into China through the invalid 2008 referendum. Though it is not the FDA's place to tell a people, like the Taiwanese, that it is worth fighting for their identity/existence.

Overall, the FDA's 2008 studies show an imperfect world, in which there are areas, like western democracy, in need of more attention than others.