How PoliVion Scores Candidates
PoliVion scores candidates on transparency, governance fit, and independence from concentrated donor influence — not ideology, charisma, polling position, or party preference. Every candidate is evaluated using the same formula and evidence standards. Score colors reflect ranking tier, not party affiliation.
Base Score = Issue Alignment×0.25 + Donor Independence×0.25 + Data Completeness×0.15 + Position Clarity×0.10 + Budget Feasibility×0.10 + Governance Competence×0.15
Integrity Penalty = Fraud Conflict + Pay-to-Play Risk + Regulatory Overlap + Post-Enforcement Donations + Foreign Influence
Final Score = Adjusted Base Score − Integrity Penalty (then hard caps applied)
Score-based color system:
■ 80%+ Purple
■ 70–79% Green
■ 60–69% Teal
■ 50–59% Amber
■ <50% Red
■ ≤10% RISK
— No party branding applied
Issue Alignment ×0.25
How well the candidate addresses the most important current problems facing their constituency — drawn from objective indicators: budget reports, infrastructure needs, healthcare access data, housing affordability, and labor indicators. Not built from campaign rhetoric alone. Sources: Tier 1 state/federal data + Tier 2 journalism/debate + Tier 3 issue pages.
Donor Independence ×0.25
Structural independence from concentrated donor influence. Evaluated using: small-donor share, PAC/super PAC dependence, industry clustering, and foreign-interest-adjacent concerns. Note: if an Integrity Penalty is triggered, a DI floor adjustment is applied before scoring — a candidate with severe integrity conflicts cannot appear structurally clean on donor independence. Sources: FEC filings only.
Data Completeness ×0.15
How much usable public information exists to evaluate the candidate fairly. Missing data is not treated as neutral — low-information candidates cannot score highly by invisibility. Sources: All tiers.
Position Clarity ×0.10
How clearly the candidate states actual positions. Rewards specificity of policy mechanism, implementation detail, and measurable commitments. More text does not equal a better score. Sources: Tier 2 debate/interview + Tier 3 issue pages.
Budget Feasibility ×0.10
Whether major proposals appear financially realistic given stated funding sources, cost estimates, and whether tradeoffs are acknowledged. Sources: CBO projections, Tax Policy Center, state fiscal data + Tier 2 analysis.
Governance Competence ×0.15
Evidence of ability to govern effectively — combining jurisdiction fit (whether the office has authority to execute the candidate's proposals), execution capacity (institutional experience, legislative effectiveness, track record), and policy coherence (internal consistency of the platform). Sources: Tier 1 legislative/voting records + Tier 2 reporting.
Integrity Penalty Layer
Applied after base scoring. Each category is evaluated independently. Penalties reduce the final score directly and cannot be offset by strong base scores. Severe patterns trigger hard caps on the maximum allowable final score.
Fraud ConflictDonations from entities tied to documented fraud, settlement, or enforcement action — especially where governance actions appear favorable to the donor. Scale: 0–40.
Pay-to-Play RiskDonor support materially linked to access, favorable treatment, or political exchange patterns. Scale: 0–30.
Regulatory OverlapDonors who materially benefit from the candidate's direct policy power, oversight role, contracts, or administrative decisions. Scale: 0–30.
Post-Enforcement DonationsDonations that continued or increased after investigation, settlement, enforcement action, or known misconduct. Scale: 0–30.
Foreign InfluenceSupport from foreign-controlled, foreign-government-linked, or foreign-agent entities — including donors, firms, or lobbying vehicles acting on behalf of foreign interests. Scale: 0–40.
Hard caps: Fraud ≥30 + Regulatory Overlap ≥20 → max 54 · Foreign ≥30 → max 54 · Total IP ≥50 → max 49 · Total IP ≥65 → max 39. Scores ≤10 display as RISK.
Recommendation Gating
★ RecommendedFinal Score ≥ 70 and total Integrity Penalty < 25. Eligible for Top Match endorsement.
RankedScore 55–69 or Integrity Penalty 25–44. Shown in rankings without endorsement language.
⛔ Display OnlyTotal Integrity Penalty ≥ 45. Ranked for transparency — no endorsement issued for the race.
Evidence Tiers
Tier 1 — Highest TrustFEC filings · voting records · sponsored legislation · government financial disclosures · official state/federal records.
Tier 2 — Strong SecondaryReputable journalism · debate transcripts · civic org questionnaires · watchdog reporting.
Tier 3 — Self-ReportedCampaign websites · issue pages · speeches. Count toward Data Completeness and Position Clarity — cannot alone determine Donor Independence, Governance Competence, or Budget Feasibility.
Policy Visibility
Fully DocumentedDC ≥ 0.80 — Score confirmed by comprehensive multi-source evidence
Partially DocumentedDC 0.60–0.79 — Directionally accurate; some source gaps remain
Limited RecordDC < 0.60 — Insufficient public data; score may shift as record grows
Anti-gaming rules: More text ≠ better score — only concrete mechanism, implementation detail, or measurable commitment improves clarity. Campaign claims about donor independence are cross-checked against FEC data. Multiple aligned PACs are treated as a network. Low-information candidates do not benefit from invisibility. Integrity penalties are distinct from normal donor concentration — they apply only when documented fraud, foreign-interest, or governance-conflict patterns exist.