Methodology
How we assess parties and candidates.
Transparent criteria beat mysterious rankings. Preference fit, benefit evidence, and principle fit are separate questions—and unknown is never zero.
Proposed institutional framework and research dossiers. Not an adopted platform, endorsement slate, or complete national numeric scorecard.
Three questions (not interchangeable)
- Does the candidate’s documented position align with US Populists’ stated principles and proposed policies?
- Does it match what a suitable survey actually asked Americans?
- Does reliable research support the promised public benefit?
Evidence hierarchy
| Tier | Evidence | Establishes | Cannot establish alone |
|---|---|---|---|
| A | Certified ballot, election order, court ruling | Legal ballot status or governing rule | A policy position |
| B | Roll call, enacted text, signed budget, veto, administrative action | Official conduct | Motive, endorsement of every provision, or causal success |
| C | Candidate-authored plan, recorded answer, full speech or debate | Declared position in context | Implementation or outcome |
| D | Named independent reporting with attributable statements | Reported facts and corroboration leads | A substitute for an available primary record |
| E | Party platform, endorsements, organizational ratings | Institutional context | The individual’s position |
| F | Search snippet, directory summary, slogan, unattributed assertion | A research lead | A publication-ready factual judgment |
Alignment labels
- Strong alignment
- Partial alignment
- Mixed alignment
- Material conflict
- Insufficient evidence
- Outside office authority
Proposed scoring (only if later authorized)
Issue scale runs from −2 to +2. Missing evidence is null—not zero. Proposed principle weights:
- Individual rights: 25%
- Honest finance: 20%
- Essential-service performance: 15%
- Affordability and competitive opportunity: 15%
- Accountability and dispersed power: 15%
- Peace and lawful security: 10%
Publication gate: withhold an overall score until at least 70% of predeclared eligible weight has sufficient evidence and high-priority rights and finance questions are reviewed. No national leaderboard is authorized from unfinished coverage.
What we refuse
We do not tailor persuasion by inferred voter-file identity, ethnicity, or religion. We do not substitute party platforms for missing individual positions. Topic updates deliver the same public research available to everyone.