Below I present examples and template documents, and the theory behind them.
The first document I present is the candidate platform spreadsheet. This is the key document for a candidate to complete, as it represents a standardized approach to the delivery of platforms (vs. random essays or blog posts) and therefore reduces the amount of time required for ordinary citizens to evaluate a candidate on their plans (remember, the ordinary citizen has nearly zero time, and not that much political sophistication). That is, if the candidates provide these, all the ordinary citizen has to do is to fill out the “User Valuation” and similar columns that relate to their grade, instead of also hunting through websites and candidate questionnaires. You can see from the size of the provided template, which includes international through local issues, that this is no trivial problem, even if the scope only is local:
VotersGuideTotalProcessSelectionV6-LeifPowersFilledOut
VotersGuideTotalProcessSelectionV6-Template-WithExamples
Candidates who don’t fill these out, only can expect to be graded in an inconsistent way on the issues, and stereotyped for lack of time and means systematically to evaluate their impact in government.
The second set of documents is the candidate full-spectrum evaluation, which includes not only the summary of issues, but also the candidate’s fundamental character evaluation. (see theory explanation below)
Template:
CandidateEvaluation-Template2022V1
Filled out examples/example of how you grade:
CandidateBreakdown-HowardCountyCongDistrict7-LeifPowers-V4
and for suggestive purposes, here are a couple of candidate platform spreadsheets that I sketched in to support the above grading when I felt like the issue stances of either candidate could determine the result of the overall evaluation:
VotersGuideTotalProcessSelectionV1-GaryJohnson-LeifPowersNotes
VotersGuideTotalProcessSelectionV2-JillStein-LeifPowersNotes
The overall process is as follows:
- Following the above templates with theory explanation as below, rate each candidate.
- When two or more candidates evaluate as roughly equal, typically you will vote against incumbents if the state of the union is unsatisfactory, or else incorporate other mostly irrelevant factors (like alternating demographics in power).
- If no candidate is tolerable (but violence is not indicated for whatever reason), you vote against the incumbent.
—
Theory explanation:
Recall fundamentals, then:
In the case of elected officials, we prioritize:
No sabotage > assessment accuracy > focus > initiative and awareness > communication effectiveness > effects on other team members > types of tasks > assigned-task performance
This is because they can do massive damage to the people, because their chief responsibility is to evaluate policies, they have to be aware of changing circumstances (but we can prompt them), they have to work with their peers in office and explain themselves to their constituents (but we can compensate for those failings if they are doing their job), and we have people to do the actual work.
Whereas with a typical line worker, we prioritize:
No sabotage > assigned-task performance > types of tasks > focus > communication effectiveness > effects on other team members > initiative and awareness > assessment accuracy
or even de-emphasize no sabotage, when you can easily measure and verify the work output. (Example: hiring ex-convicts)
There are a few common cases:
– The official changes positions and hedges, or votes out of accordance with rhetoric and issue platform. In this case, the official trivially demonstrates poor assessment accuracy. If this behavior is repeated and the official reports falsely and without meaningful explanation on the conduct, the official now engages in subversion and is trivially unqualified for office – so that any candidate that can show a consistent non-subversive pattern of behavior is clearly a better choice.
– If the official engages in reckless actions such as prolonged deficit spending or foolish conduct of war, the official is now engaging in sabotage.
– If the official stonewalls and refuses to provide information, the official is subverting, and any replacement who is likely to avoid this behavior is preferable.