|
'Citizen Choice' Software for Evaluating Candidate Platforms
Description and Features
This application will enable
users to evaluate party platforms. The sets of questions below will prompt
users to assess a party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
the welfare of individual persons, social groups, and the environment. If
the party espouses some cosmic religious or philosophical perspective, the user
may assess its views on this level as well.
The software has the same sections and subsections as our "General
Framework for Understanding and Evaluation." In each
section, we first provide a set of "Assumptions" taken directly from
the General Framework. Users are then presented with a set of questions
that asks them to rate the party's proposed policies for promoting the welfare
of the entities described in the Assumptions. For example, the Assumptions
in a particular section may describe the three types of social sectors -- the
state, the market, and civil society. The questions in that section will
ask the user to rate the party's policies for promoting constructive
relationships between these sectors.
Users will respond to each question using numerical ratings. Thus, they
may rate a party's policies for regulating relationships between social sectors
on a scale from one to four. Each box under the rating levels (1-4) will
contain a button that can be clicked in order to register the user’s response
for that particular question. Questions may be left blank
and will not be averaged into the score summaries.
Since all of our software is organized
according to the same framework, it will be convenient for the user to go to our
web site to consult the Party Profile (see Application 1) for a particular party
as they respond to the various sets of questions. They may, for example,
review the section on social sectors in the Party Profile as they respond to the
questions regarding social sectors in this application.
When the user is finished responding to the questions, a simple statistical program would calculate the average score or
rating for each major section of the framework and report these average scores
on a separate Decision Summary Page. Citizens could then review the
average score for each section as they make their final evaluation of
a party's platform. A copy of this Summary Page -- or a copy of the entire
evaluation -- could be printed or downloaded for future reference. Copies could
also be e-mailed to others if users wish to share their evaluations.
The software would contain a simple database that would enable users to compare
their average ratings of different political parties. On the basis
of these comparisons users may decide which party to support.
A database on the PEAC web site could enable to users to compare
their evaluations of a particular party with evaluations of the
same party conducted by other PEAC members. They could
compare their scores with the average scores of groups of members who share any
characteristic or affiliation that they report in their member profiles.
For example, they could compare their average ratings with average ratings
submitted by others of the same gender or political party. They may also
compare their scores with the average scores of all others who have used the
software on our site.
How the Questions Might Look
Part I: Evaluating a Party's Public Philosophy
The text from Part I of the "Method for Political Analysis" will be
presented here, followed by the following questions.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
Scope of
The party's public philosophy is comprehensive: it sets forth views on human
nature, society, and the environment. It also includes values and
principles for promoting personal development, social progress, and ecological
cycles of growth and renewal.
The party's public philosophy sets forth a clear set of views, values, and
principles regarding foreign relations.
The party's public philosophy draws insights from a variety of sources, which
may include political theory, ethics, the human sciences (such as psychology and
sociology), the natural sciences (such as ecology).
The party expresses its philosophy in terms that are understandable to all
persons, regardless of their religious or philosophical background.
The party describes key values and principles for responsible citizenship.
It advocates strategies for encouraging the participation of all citizens in
public life.
The party highlights key areas of competence and personal
qualities that public leaders should possess.
Part II: Evaluating the Interests
and
Influences that Shape a Party's Platform
The text from Part II of our
"Method for Political Analysis" will be provided here, followed by the
question box below.
How do you rate the influence of the following factors on the party's
platform? Factors should receive a high rating if they influence the
platform in ways that promote the common good. They should receive low
ratings if their influence does not promote the common good.
You may select 'no effect' If you believe that either 1) the factor has no
significant influence on the platform or 2) the influence of the factor has no significant
impact on the public interest.
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
No Effect
|
How
do you rate the influence of each of the following factors on the party's
platform?
|
|
the party's public philosophy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
scientific research |
|
|
|
|
|
|
analytical studies |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the media |
|
|
|
|
|
|
special interest groups |
|
|
|
|
|
|
public opinion |
|
|
|
|
|
|
cost-benefit analyses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
political risk |
|
|
|
|
|
|
outcome risk |
|
|
|
|
|
deal-making among different
party factions |
|
|
|
|
|
Part III: Evaluating the
Character and Leadership of a Party
agree-disagree box; use italicized statements
from info1party
FRAMEWORK
FOR
EVALUATING PARTY PLATFORMS
DOMESTIC FOCUS
Evaluating a Party Platform on the
Individual Level of Organization
The " Assumptions" from section I.A of the
"Framework for Understanding and Evaluating Candidates" will precede
the following sets of questions:
1. Evaluating the Fitness of a Candidate to Hold Public
Office
The " Assumptions" from section I.A of the
"Framework for Understanding and Evaluating Candidates" will precede
the following sets of questions:
1. Evaluating the Impact of a Party's Platform on Different
Dimensions of the Human Person
The "Assumptions" from section
I.A.2 would be
presented here. The "Question Box" below would follow.
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
No Effect
|
How
do you rate the likely impact of the party's platform on:
|
|
the physical development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the economic or vocational development of individuals |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the political development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the spiritual development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the moral development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the cultural development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
the artistic development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
diff section/table: The party's platform
reflects a clear understanding of the developmental nature of personal
liberty and fulfillment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the platform's effects on the
ability of citizens to exercise the following types of human rights?
agr/disagr The platform reflects a clear understanding of
relationships between human rights.
The party's platform focuses on both the rights that individual should
enjoy as well as responsibilities that should be expected of them.
The party's platform recognizes the roles that both personal initiative
and social support play in the process of human development. |
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party on the Social Level of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section II
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here.
1. Social Institutions
The "Assumptions" from section II.A
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| How do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting the
effective and ethical functioning of the following types of social
institutions (key principles: focus on the common good, commitment to
excellence, healthy relationships, transparency and accountability): |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
| Families |
|
|
|
|
|
Churches |
|
|
|
|
|
Civic organizations |
|
|
|
|
|
Schools: primary, secondary, vocational, higher ed |
|
|
|
|
|
Nongovernmental organizations that promote economic
justice, political justice, ecological stewardship, and human rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nonprofit charitable organizations that
serve the needs of especially vulnerable populations: the poor, at-risk
youth, the elderly, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy groups that represent the
interests of specific populations: the elderly, minority groups,
supporters of gun rights, consumers, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political parties |
|
|
|
|
|
Business firms |
|
|
|
|
|
Labor
unions |
|
|
|
|
|
Media
organizations (TV networks, radio stations; newspaper and
magazine publishers) |
|
|
|
|
|
How do you rate the
party’s proposals for
valuing diversity in government and in other institutions? |
|
|
|
|
a) Focus on Governments as Institutions
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
| The party's platform
helps to establish more democratic structures of government in your
nation. |
|
|
|
|
| The party's
platform helps your local and state governments to resist corruption and to respond to the needs and interests of
citizens |
|
|
|
|
| The party's platform
helps your national government to resist corruption and to respond to the needs and interests of
citizens. |
|
|
|
|
| The party's platform
promotes transparent processes of decision-making in government bodies. |
|
|
|
|
| The platform helps local and state governments
to enact and enforce legislation that is just
and environmentally sound. |
|
|
|
|
| The platform helps
your national government to enact and enforce legislation that is just
and environmentally sound. |
|
|
|
|
| The platform
enables your national government to efficiently maintain a military force that
is capable of defending the nation's interests and values. |
|
|
|
|
| The platform helps your government to strike a balance between spending on
military programs and on those programs that promote human development and
environmental protection. |
|
|
|
|
b) Special Focus on the Political Party as an Institution
The "Assumptions" from section II.A.1
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The "Question Box" below would follow.
In this section, users will rate the party according to the
degree to which they agree or disagree with the statement on the left.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The party's financial supporters do not influence
the party's policies in ways that are harmful to the welfare of
individuals, social groups, or the environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
The party encourages intelligent civil dialogue that is
free of emotionally charged rhetoric and personal attacks |
|
|
|
|
|
The party is able to cooperate with other parties when
necessary for the common good of society |
|
|
|
|
2. Evaluating the Party’s General Philosophy and Specific Policies for
Promoting Constructive Relationships within and between Different Social Sectors
The "Assumptions" from section II.B
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
How do you rate this
party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
constructive relationships |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
within the market sector |
|
|
|
|
|
within the state sector |
|
|
|
|
|
between organizations that make up civil society |
|
|
|
|
| How do you rate this party's
general philosophy and specific policies for promoting cooperative and
adversarial relationships between |
|
|
|
|
| the state and the market sector |
|
|
|
|
| the state and civil society |
|
|
|
|
| the market and civil society |
|
|
|
|
3. Evaluating the Party’s General Philosophy and Specific Policies for
Promoting Constructive Relationships within Various Socio-Cultural Collectivities
The "Assumptions" from section
II.C
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the ability of this party to ensure equal
opportunities for advancement
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
among persons of different races? |
|
|
|
|
|
among persons of different genders? |
|
|
|
|
|
among persons of different age groups? |
|
|
|
|
|
among persons of different religious traditions? |
|
|
|
|
|
among persons of different sexual preferences? |
|
|
|
|
|
among persons of different ethnic groups? |
|
|
|
|
|
among persons of different classes? |
|
|
|
|
4. Evaluating the Party's General Philosophy and Specific Policies for Promoting
Constructive Relationships between Different Levels of Social Organization
The "Assumptions" from section
II.D
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
How do you rate the party's general philosophy and
specific policies for promoting appropriate
relationships between different levels of social organization – i.e.
neighborhood, municipal, county, state, regional, national, and
international levels. How do you rate the party’s support of the
principle of subsidiarity, which states that all human endeavors
(economic ventures, public policies, etc.) should be pursued and
administered on a level that is as local as possible but as centralized as
necessary? |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party on the Ecological Level of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section III
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the party’s general philosophy
and specific proposals |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
for protecting and restoring species? |
|
|
|
|
|
for protecting the integrity of ecosystems? |
|
|
|
|
|
for protecting the integrity of the biosphere as a whole? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
In its overall philosophy and specific policy
proposals, this party is able to integrate the goals of economic
development and environmental stewardship. |
|
|
|
|
Sustainability
The platform seeks to minimize pollution of air, land, and water.
What effect will this p/p have on pollution of
air, land, and water? on ecosystems affected by it and the biosphere as a
whole? Does it promote the careful stewardship of limited
natural resources? On the basis of these answers, does this p/p promote sustainable or
unsustainable practices in such areas as waste management, manufacturing, transportation,
building construction, energy generation, and food production (fishing, animal
husbandry, and farming)? Does it help individuals to live more sustainable
lifestyles through their use of energy and transportation, their consumption of
food and household goods, and through the management of waste in their
household?
Does it protect endangered species and the habitats in which they live?
Does it preserve and promote biodiversity -- the survival of a broad range of species within
ecosystems affected by it?
What effect does it have on existing wilderness areas? Does it preserve
existing wilderness areas? Does it establish new ones?
Evaluating a Party on the Cosmic Level of Organization
A. Evaluating the Cosmic Views of Political
Parties
The "Assumptions" from section IV.A
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the Question Box below.
Since some parties maintain that cosmic
beliefs should not influence one's political views, you should only complete
this section if the party attempts to integrate cosmic beliefs into its platform.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
The cosmic beliefs of this party influence
its foreign policies in ways that are consistent with my nation's
Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
The party's beliefs
about the cosmos as a whole influence its policies in a way that
promotes the welfare of individuals, groups, and the environment |
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating Party
Platforms from the Perspective of
One's Own Cosmic
Views
The "Assumptions" from section IV.B
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Do you believe
that universal principles or laws govern human affairs, such as the
principles of yin-yang or the law of karma? Do you believe in some divine plan for the universe that
guides human history (such as the coming of the Kingdom of God)? Do
you believe in some system of divine justice that operates in human
affairs? If so, how do you rate this party's platform from the
perspective of your
cosmic views? If you believe in a divine plan, does the platform further or
hinder this divine plan? If you believe in a cosmic system of divine
justice, would you consider this platform to be 'just' according to this
system? If you espouse
universal laws or principles, are the platform's policies consistent with these laws and
principles? |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party's Understanding of the Impact of Policies on All Levels of
Organization
The "Assumptions" from section V
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The two
"Question Boxes" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This
party is able to understand the impact of its policies on all levels of
organization (individual, social, ecological, cosmic) |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party's Understanding of Relationships between Different Levels of Organization
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This party seems to understand relationships between the
different levels of organization. Its policy proposals seem to
promote the common good at all three levels of organization -- they
promote the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment.
They do not favor the interests of one level of organization – such as individuals --
in a way that damages the other levels in the long term. |
|
|
|
|
Assessing the Party’s Understanding of the Hierarchy of Values that Exists
among the Different Levels of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section VI of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This party has a clear understanding of the hierarchy of values
that exists among the different levels of organization. |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party's Approaches to Trade-Offs
between the Costs and Benefits of Policies
The "Assumptions" from section VII
of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the principles
and guidelines that the party proposes for dealing with trade-offs
regarding the effects of policies on |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
different individuals |
|
|
|
|
|
different social groups |
|
|
|
|
|
entities on different levels of organization |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party's Approach to Policy-Making
The "Assumptions" from section VII of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The "Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
|
This party's platform supports an 'experimental
approach' to policy-making (for all policies areas for which the
experimental approach is appropriate). |
|
|
|
|
EVALUATING A PARTY'S PLATFORM:
FOCUS ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
The "Assumptions" from Introduction
to the "Foreign Relations" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here.
Evaluating the Party's General
Philosophy and Specific Policies for Promoting Personal Development through
Foreign Relations
1. Evaluating the Party’s Understanding of Personal Development
The "Assumptions" from section
I.A of the "Foreign Relations" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions exploring the party’s
understanding of how its foreign policies impact the well-being of
individual persons in all nations affected by them
|
|
How would you rate the effectiveness of a
party’s general philosophy and specific foreign policies:
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
for promoting the physical development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
for promoting the economic or vocational development of individuals |
|
|
|
|
|
for promoting the political development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
for promoting the spiritual development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
for promoting the moral development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
for promoting the cultural development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
for promoting the artistic development of individuals? |
|
|
|
|
|
Please respond to the following statements according to your level of
agreement or disagreement with them.
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This party’s foreign policies recognize the developmental
nature of liberty and fulfillment |
|
|
|
|
|
This party’s foreign policies recognize the roles that both personal
initiative and social resources play in personal growth |
|
|
|
|
|
This party’s foreign policies honor a full range of human
rights and recognize relationships between rights in the process of
personal development |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party's Foreign Policies on the Social Level of
Organization
The "Assumptions" from section II of the
"Foreign Relations" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here.
1. Evaluating the Impact of a Party’s Foreign Policies on Social Institutions
The "Assumptions" from section
II.A
of the "Foreign Relations" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
1a. Evaluating the Impact of a Party's Foreign Policies on Institutions
within Nations That Are Affected by Them
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting the effective, ethical functioning of the following types of institutions
within those nations affected by the policies (key principles: focus on
the common good, commitment to excellence, healthy relationships,
transparency and accountability):
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Families |
|
|
|
|
|
Labor unions |
|
|
|
|
|
Business firms |
|
|
|
|
|
Schools: primary, secondary, vocational, higher ed |
|
|
|
|
|
Civic organizations |
|
|
|
|
|
Institutions that support the arts |
|
|
|
|
|
The media |
|
|
|
|
|
Political parties |
|
|
|
|
|
Churches |
|
|
|
|
|
Charitable organizations that serve needy or vulnerable
persons --
the poor, the sick, the elderly, victims of disasters, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
Advocacy groups that promote the interests of such
groups as consumers, the elderly, gun rights supporters, minority groups |
|
|
|
|
|
Nongovernmental organizations that promote economic
justice, political justice, ecological stewardship, and human rights |
|
|
|
|
1b. Special Institutional Focus on Governments
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly
Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
|
| The party's foreign policy platform strengthens democratic
structures of government in all nations affected by it, including those in your
nation. The platform enables governments to resist corruption and be more responsive to
citizens' needs and interests. |
|
|
|
|
| The foreign policy platform
promotes transparent processes of decision-making in government bodies. |
|
|
|
|
| The foreign policy
platform enhances the ability of governments to
enact and enforce legislation that is just and environmentally sound. |
|
|
|
|
| The foreign policy
platform helps national governments to efficiently maintain adequate military
capabilities. |
|
|
|
|
| The foreign policy
platform helps governments to strike a balance between spending on
military programs and on those programs that promote human development and
environmental protection. |
|
|
|
|
| The party's platform advocates fair
and prudent policies for assisting other nations. |
|
|
|
|
| The platform reflects a broader, more enlightened view of national security that
focuses on environmental protection and improving of the lives of citizens both
within and beyond the borders of your nation. |
|
|
|
|
1.b.1) Special Focus on National Governments: The Party’s Views
Regarding the Use of Military Force by a Nation or an International Coalition
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the party's views regarding the use of military
force? Do you strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with
the following statements:
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
| The party advocates only defensive actions -- actions that defend
the well-being of individuals, social groups, and the environment.
|
|
|
|
|
| The party advocates using violent means that are proportionate to the
goals to be achieved. In other words, the goals to be achieved justify the
destruction of human life, the environment, and physical structures that
is likely to accompany the military action.
|
|
|
|
|
| The party advocates the use of violence only when all nonviolent means
to resolve the conflict have been exhausted.
|
|
|
|
|
| The party advocates the
discussion of the root causes of violence. It claims that any
response to aggression must be a part of an explicit, long-term strategy for
addressing these causes of conflict, whether they be economic, racial,
cultural, religious, political, or some combination thereof.
|
|
|
|
|
1c. Evaluating the Impact of a Party’s Foreign Policies on
International Institutions
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting the
effective and ethical functioning of the following types of international
institutions (key principles: focus on the common good, commitment to
excellence, healthy relationships, transparency and accountability):
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
international governing organizations such as the United Nations
|
|
|
|
|
|
international alliances or blocs (such as NATO)
|
|
|
|
|
|
international religious bodies
|
|
|
|
|
|
international media organizations
|
|
|
|
|
|
international financial institutions such as the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank
|
|
|
|
|
|
other institutions that finance international
development programs
|
|
|
|
|
|
organizations that promote international trade (such as
the World Trade Organization)
|
|
|
|
|
|
international groups that serve needy or vulnerable
persons --
the poor, the sick, the elderly, victims of disasters, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
nongovernmental organizations that advocate economic
justice, political justice, environmental stewardship, and human rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
international labor unions
|
|
|
|
|
|
international organizations that coordinate cultural projects,
including sporting events
|
|
|
|
|
|
transnational corporations that produce and sell goods
and services in more than one nation
|
|
|
|
|
1d. Special
Focus on the Institutional Level: Evaluating Political Parties as Institutions
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The party's financial supporters do not influence
the party's foreign policies in ways that are harmful to the welfare of
individuals, social groups, or the environment. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, the party encourages intelligent civil dialogue that is
free of emotionally charged rhetoric and personal attacks. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign policy-making, the party is able to cooperate with other parties when
necessary for the common good of society. |
|
|
|
|
2. Evaluating the Impact of a Party’s Foreign Policies on Social
Sectors
The "Assumptions" from section II.B
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
constructive relationships within the market sector, particularly on international
trade between nations and regions? |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
constructive
relationships within the government sector -- within national governments
and international governing institutions |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
constructive
relationships within civil society -- among institutions that
focus on education, the arts, social justice, the environment, disaster
relief, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting cooperative and adversarial relationships between governing bodies and
markets on the local, national, and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate this
party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
cooperative and adversarial relationships between governing
bodies and civil society on the local, national, and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate this
party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting cooperative and adversarial relationships between markets and civil
society on the local, national, and international levels? |
|
|
|
|
3. Different
Levels of Social Organization
The "Assumptions" from section II.C
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
constructive
relationships between different levels of social organization? Does the party support the principle of
subsidiarity, which states that all human endeavors (economic ventures,
public policies, etc.) should be pursued and administered at a level that
is as local as possible but as centralized as necessary? |
|
|
|
|
4. Socio-Cultural Collectivities
The "Assumptions" from section
II.D
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate this
party's general philosophy and specific policies for promoting
opportunities for advancement among persons of different
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Economic classes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Racial groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ethnic groups
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age Groups |
|
|
|
|
|
Genders
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religious traditions
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sexual Orientations
|
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party’s Foreign Policies on the Ecological Level of
Organization
The "Assumptions" from section III
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
In the realm of foreign relations, how do you rate
this party's general philosophy and specific policies for protecting and
preserving specific species? |
|
|
|
|
|
specific ecosystems? |
|
|
|
|
|
the biosphere as a whole? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
In its approach to foreign relations, this party is able to integrate the goals of economic development and
environmental stewardship. |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party’s Foreign Policies on the Cosmic Level of
Organization
A. Evaluating the Cosmic Views of Political
Parties
The "Assumptions" from section IV.A
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
Since some parties maintain that cosmic
beliefs should not influence one's political views, you should only complete
this section if the party attempts to integrate cosmic beliefs into its foreign policy platform.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
| |
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The cosmic beliefs of this party influence
its foreign policies in ways that are consistent with my nation's
Constitution. |
|
|
|
|
|
The party's beliefs about the cosmos as a whole influence his or her
foreign policies in ways that promote the welfare of individuals,
groups, and the environment. |
|
|
|
|
B. Evaluating a
Party's Foreign Policy Platform from the Perspective of
One's Own Cosmic
Views
The "Assumptions" from section IV.B
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here, followed by the questions below.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
Do you believe
that universal principles or laws govern human affairs, such as the
principles of yin-yang or the law of karma? Do you believe in some divine plan for the universe that
guides human history (such as the coming of the Kingdom of God)? Do
you believe in some system of divine justice that operates in human
affairs? |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party’s Understanding of Relationships between the
Different Levels of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section V
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This party seems to understand the relationships between the
different levels of organization. Its foreign policy proposals seem
to promote the common good at all three levels of organization -- they
promote the well-being of individuals, social groups, and environment --
rather than favoring one level of organization – such as individuals --
in a way that damages the other levels in the long term. |
|
|
|
|
Assessing Whether or Not this Party’s Foreign Policies Respect the
Hierarchy of Values that Exists among the Different Levels of Organization
The "Assumptions" from section VI of the
"Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
This party’s foreign policies respect the hierarchy of values
that exists among the different levels of organization. |
|
|
|
|
Evaluating a Party's Approaches to Trade-Offs
between the Costs and Benefits of Foreign Policies
The "Assumptions" from section VII of the
"Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"
will be
provided here .
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
How do you rate the principles
and guidelines that the party proposes for dealing with trade-offs
regarding the effects of
foreign policies on |
Excellent
(4)
|
Good
(3)
|
Fair
(2)
|
Poor
(1)
|
|
different individuals |
|
|
|
|
|
different social groups |
|
|
|
|
|
entities on different levels of organization |
|
|
|
|
Approach to Foreign Policy-Making
The "Assumptions" from section VII
of the "Foreign Policy" section of the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation" will be
provided here. The
"Question Box" below would follow.
|
Questions
|
Response
|
|
|
Strongly Agree
(4)
|
Agree
(3)
|
Disagree
(2)
|
Strongly Disagree
(1)
|
|
The party’s foreign policy initiatives reflect an experimental
approach to making foreign policies (for those issues for which an
experimental approach is appropriate). |
|
|
|
|
The Decision Summary Page
The Decision Summary Page will provide
average scores of all responses on each of the four levels of organization --
the individual, social, ecological, and cosmic. Average scores for each
'section' of a level will be provided in normal type; the average score for the
entire level will be provided in bold type at the bottom of the table of scores
for that section (see section II below). The ratings for the questions
following the levels of organization -- those that deal with relationships
between the levels, the hierarchy of values among levels, and the experimental
approach to policymaking -- will all be provided in their own separate boxes on
this page. Average ratings from the "Foreign Relations" section
will be listed in separate boxes as well.Users may then determine the relative importance of
these scores
according to their political views and priorities. We offer our own
understanding of the hierarchy of values that exists between the different levels of
organization (see section VII in
the "General Framework for Understanding and Evaluation"). According to this hierarchy,
the average scores of sections that represent higher,
more inclusive levels
of organization should carry more weight in one's evaluation of a party's
platform. For example, we propose that the long-term ecological
effects of a party's platform are more important than its impact on social
groups, since all societies depend on the health of the environment for
their survival and prosperity. However, nothing on the
Summary Page will reflect this view. Users may decide for themselves how
much to weigh each score as they make their final evaluation of a party.
A format for the Summary Page is provided below:
I. Evaluation of a Party's General Philosophy and Specific Policies for
Promoting Personal Development
|
Average of scores related the party's philosophy and policies for individual
well-being and development
|
x.x
|
II. Evaluation of the Party on the Social Level of Development
A. Evaluation the Political Party as an
Institution
The questions related to the political party as
an institution are located in
the section on ‘Social Institutions.’ However, these questions do not
evaluate the party's platform regarding social institutions; they evaluate the
party as an institution. Therefore,
the average score for this section is listed separately from the
average scores related to the party’s understanding of society.
|
Average evaluation of the political party as an institution (includes
ratings of the party in both the domestic and foreign relations sections
of the framework)
|
x.x
|
B. Evaluation of the Party’s General Philosophy and Specific Policies for
Promoting Social Progress
|
Average evaluation of the party's general philosophy and specific policies
for promoting the effective functioning of social institutions
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the party's general philosophy and specific policies
for promoting constructive dynamics
within and between different social sectors
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the party's general philosophy and specific policies
for promoting constructive relationships
between different levels of social organization
|
x.x
|
|
Average evaluation of the party's general philosophy and specific policies
for ensuring equal opportunities for advancement among members of different socio-cultural
collectivities
|
x.x
|
|
Average of all responses evaluating the party's philosophy and proposals
for promoting progressive social dynamics
|
x.x
|
III. Evaluating a Party's General Philosophy
and Specific Policies Regarding the Environment
|
Average evaluation of the party's general philosophy and specific policies
regarding environmental issues
|
x.x
|
IV. Evaluating the Speaker on the Cosmic
Level of Organization
|
Evaluation of the ways in which the party's cosmic beliefs influence its
platform (if there is any discernable influence)
|
x.x
|
Evaluation of the party's platform from the perspective of one's own cosmic
views
|
x.x
|
Average evaluation of the platform on the cosmic level of
organization
|
x.x
|
|
V. Evaluation of the Party’s Understanding of Relationships between the
Different Levels of Organization (individual, social, ecological, cosmic)
|
x.x
|
|
VI. Evaluation of the Party’s Understanding of the Hierarchy of Values
that Exists among the Different Level of Organization
|
x.x
|
VII. Evaluation of the Party's General Philosophy and Specific Policies
Regarding Foreign Relations
|
Average evaluation of the party’s views on foreign relations
|
x.x
|
Average evaluation of the party’s views on just war and the management
of international conflict
|
x.x
|
Format for Comparisons of a User’s
Ratings of Competing Parties
The following table presents a possible format for presenting one's users
ratings of different political parties.
|
Section of
Framework
|
Avg. Score for Party X
|
Avg. Score for Party Y
|
Avg. Score for Party Z
|
|
the party's philosophy and policies
for promoting individual development |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party as an
institution |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party's philosophy and policies
regarding society and social development |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party's philosophy and policies
regarding environmental issues and ecological
stewardship |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the evaluation of the party's platform on
the cosmic level of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party’s understanding of
relationships between the different levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party’s understanding of the hierarchy of values that exists
among the different levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
The party’s support of an ‘experimental approach’ to
policy-making |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party's general philosophy and specific
policies regarding foreign relations |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
Format for Comparison of One User’s
Ratings
of a Specific Party to
Other
Users’ Ratings of the Same Party
The following table represents a possible format that would enable one user
to compare their rating of a party with average ratings of the
same party submitted by various groups of other users.
|
Section of Framework
|
Avg. Score
of User
|
Avg. Score
for User's Gender (or Race, etc.)
|
Avg. Score
of All Users
|
|
the party's philosophy and policies for
promoting individual development |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the political party as an
organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party's philosophy and policies
regarding society and social development |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party's philosophy and policies
regarding environmental issues and ecological
stewardship |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the ways in which the party's cosmic
beliefs affect its political views and policies |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party’s understanding of
relationships between the different levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party's understanding of the hierarchy of values that exists
among the different levels of organization |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party's approach to policy-making (adherence to experimental
approach) |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|
the party's perspectives on foreign
relations |
x.x
|
x.x
|
x.x
|
|