Non-partisan Rating
of Congressional Candidates’ Governmental Management Ability
Countless societies
have learned the hard way that the quality of government depends on
the quality of its selected leaders.
Unfortunately, there are clear signs that our current
political process is not providing the quality of leaders needed to
solve our national and international problems.
A number of rating
systems currently exist for members of Congress based on their
support of specific issue positions, or political party agendas.
Unfortunately, no non-partisan
evaluation system currently exists to objectively rate the
quality of a candidate’s solution-oriented decision making and
problem-solving potential. Newspapers
used to provide some independent analysis for voters,
but newspaper readership has
declined dramatically, and many remaining papers have discontinued
political evaluations or endorsements.
Citizens have learned
to expect, and use, rating guides for selecting things such as
entertainment, businesses,
professional services, and
specific products. Pew
Research found over 60% of people check online ratings at least once
a week? Over 40%
“always or almost always” check reviews before making decisions.
The percentages of use are
even higher with Millennial and Gen Z individuals who will probably
decide future elections. Citizens
should have objective, easy to understand, quality ratings available
for one of the most important decisions they make - electing a
Congress and President.
Members of Congress
are effectively managers, selected and paid by citizens, to provide
an efficient governmental infrastructure to solve the nation’s
common problems in a cost-efficient way.
At the Federal level, the
Congress is responsible for managing a service delivery organization
with a $5.8 Trillion budget and over 1.7 million civilian employees
in hundreds of agencies, plus the armed services.
For tax-payers to get the
best performance from these elected “managers”,
their actual management and
problem-solving capability and performance should be evaluated prior
to each election cycle, just like it would be in private sector
organizations. Recent
polls show that only about 20% of voters approve of Congress’s
overall performance so there is a clear need for something to
improve the process.
Unfortunately, the
highly partisan political process we use to select the members of
Congress, puts very little emphasis on basic management and
effective decision-making skills.
The process increasingly favors selection based on
personality, political partisanship, and “sound bite” issue
positions as opposed to evaluating their actual ability for problem
solving and consensus building.
To offset this, we
suggest that independent non-partisan organizations take a lead to
collectively develop an objective performance rating system for
Congressional office holders and candidates.
Having several organizations
with a similar interest in good government participate would add
credibility to the ratings, although it may
add more complexity to the
evaluation process. Potential
partner organizations which we are contacting include the League of
Woman Voters, The
Congressional Management Foundation, No-Labels, The Partnership for
Public Service, Ballotpedia.org, FixUSNow.org, The Congressional
Institute, The National Institute for Civil Discourse,
and other non-partisan
government affairs organizations.
There will,
unfortunately, be differences in the types of data
available for
incumbents versus new candidates for office.
Because of this, the process would need to be broad based and
flexible enough to also rate those initially seeking elected
positions with appropriate alternative criteria.
Specific evaluation issues,
which can’t be properly rated for a candidate, would also have to be
clearly identified.
Data for some criteria are available from public records and
existing research organizations, such as the National Archives and
Congress.gov. Other factors
may require a balanced subjective evaluation process.
Compiling some data for evaluations will probably also
require obtaining structured questionnaire input from candidates,
particularly non-incumbents.
Information on
their experience and their stated positions on some evaluation
criteria will need to be collected.
The process should start with candidates for Congress because
of the importance of their function.
However, once
established the process might also be used to evaluate Presidential
candidates and possibly key state office candidates.
Collection and
processing of candidate
data into an easily
understandable rating system, and broad distribution of the ratings
will require some staff
work and funding.
We are in the process of establishing an independent 501(c)3
non-profit to do the data collection and reporting.
Candidates could be rated
from 0 to 5 on each criterion
category, along with a total or average rating for comparison.
Supporting information should also be provided to explain
each rating decision. Co-sponsor
organizations may, at their option,
may also want to endorse their preferred candidates.
To be effective in
improving voter decision making, the ratings would need wide
distribution and visibility.
Distribution costs could be reduced by having partner
organizations distribute
them to their members, and add links for the ratings website on
their own websites.
An effective media public relations campaign about the new
process and the availability of the ratings on the website should
also expand potential
voter use.
Candidates should also be granted permission to advertise
their own ratings, as long as they include the full name and URL of
the ratings site so voters can view all
other candidate’s ratings.
POTENTIAL RATING CRITERIA
1. Educational Background:
Education experience or self-education
experience in areas that may
be useful to understanding governmental policy issues, or
organizational administration and governmental
processes.
2. Prior public sector or private sector organizational management
experience:
Previous management or leadership
positions in businesses, government, or other
organizations,
at the local, state, federal,
or international level.
3. Demonstrated record of
ethics, financial and issue transparency, and support of the
democratic process:
No known ethics
violations or public dishonesty.
Full and open
financial reporting of business or financial activity and
investments.
Demonstrated support
for the democratic process and voter rights protections.
Support of balanced
and logical geographic or “common interest” election districting
processes and equitable voter representation at the state level.
Support of campaign
financing limitations and transparency of third-party donation
groups.
Clear and transparent
positions on major issues.
4. Demonstrated problem solving interest and activity:
Level of
participation in governmental and non-governmental issue conferences
and education forums.
Number and quality of
their solution focused
publications or public presentations.
Active participation
in issue solution focused
governmental caucus groups.
Demonstrated openness
to input and alternative ideas from constituents and others.
5. Demonstrated record of bi-partisan solution focused activity:
Percentage of votes
they have made in conflict
with the majority of their party.
Number or percentage
of non-committee bills they have sponsored in the last Congress that
have at least 10% sponsorship from members of the other party.
Support of good
Congressional information systems and process modernization bills or
activity.
Support for
information systems and research programs at the agency level
to inform agency and
congressional decision making.
Demonstrated use of
objective research in committee discussions, public presentations,
and publications.
Professional
interpersonal behavior with
colleagues and the public.
6. Demonstrated work effort
and representation of constituent’s interests
Percentage of attendance for chamber
votes.
Percentage of committee meeting attendance and participation.
Number of bills developed and sponsored having at least 5
co-sponsors from each party
Number of open public input meetings held within their
district or state each year.
Other activity to seek constituent
input on issues.
Support of their
staff’s openness to constituent and public input and bipartisan
interaction with other member’s staffs.
7. Demonstrated concern for Governmental Fiscal Responsibility
Support of an analytical “cost -
benefit” approach for budgeting and appropriations in government
or in other prior organizations or businesses.
Support of balanced budgeting and the
need for expenditure off-setting revenue,
except when required for
necessary economic stimulus.
Demonstrated concern about the US
fiscal debt and maintaining the stability and credibility of the US
and international financial system.
CandidateRatings.org
4286 45th Street South
St Petersburg FL 33711
info@candidateratings.org
541-829-0033