Purpose: Define Representation requirements with candidate metrics, source families, comparator context, public value, legal guardrails, targets, and review cautions.
Phase Boundary: Requirements review and metrics source-method review only. Metrics scoring, report-card use, legislative mapping, issue grades, member grades, rollups, leaderboards, letters, calls, and action tools remain disabled until later approval.
Red text = bad current value, bad trend, missing critical data, or unfavorable gap. Green text = favorable value or improving trend. Amber text = context-dependent, incomplete, or source-method review needed. Neutral/gray text = descriptive value that is not inherently good or bad.
| Requirement | Metric / Measurement | Top Countries / Sources | Value to the American People | Gap / Target / Timeframe |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requirement ID: DEM-FUN-006 Category: Representation / District Fairness and Competitiveness Lead agency/component: States, courts, Census Bureau, election administrators Requirement: The system shall define and report indicators of fair representation, including district fairness, competitiveness, proportionality, voter influence, and barriers to representation. Distinctness test: One fair-representation outcome; separate from voter access and candidate access. Status: Reviewer-ready after source-method review |
Metric: Fair representation and district competitiveness index Unit: Index / percent / count Period: Latest congressional election and redistricting cycle Current value: Candidate / source-method review required before scoring. Current trend: Candidate / source-method review required before scoring. Trend basis: Prior comparable period or release-to-release trend to be selected during source-method review. Data source: Election returns, Census apportionment data, districting records, MIT Election Lab and approved methodology sources Automation feasibility: Medium. Election/district data is available; fairness formulas require transparent review. |
Comparable practice / metric: Seat-vote proportionality, competitiveness, and representation indicators Comparable value: To be selected during comparator review. Comparable trend: To be selected during comparator review. Source link: International IDEA source link; MIT Election Lab source link Reviewer caution: Comparable democracy indicators provide context and potential targets, but they are not one-to-one measures of U.S. constitutional, federal, election, or congressional performance. |
Public value: Helps ensure citizens choose representatives rather than representatives choosing their voters. Legal / civil-liberty guardrail: Representation metrics must be transparent and nonpartisan; race, geography, and legal requirements must be handled carefully. |
Target: Improve competitiveness and representation alignment without violating equal protection or voting-rights protections Gap: Pending approved baseline Timeframe: V1 source-method review before public scoring Target note: Target is proposed for reviewer use and should be confirmed against the approved Democracy metrics catalog. |
| Requirement ID: DEM-FUN-007 Category: Representation / Candidate and Ballot Access Lead agency/component: States, election officials, courts Requirement: The system shall identify whether ballot access rules, candidate access rules, and election procedures support fair competition while protecting election integrity. Distinctness test: One candidate/ballot-access outcome; separate from voter access. Status: Reviewer-ready after source-method review |
Metric: Contested-race and ballot-access barrier rate Unit: Percent / count Period: Most recent federal election cycle Current value: Candidate / source-method review required before scoring. Current trend: Candidate / source-method review required before scoring. Trend basis: Prior comparable period or release-to-release trend to be selected during source-method review. Data source: State candidate filing data, ballot-access law reviews, official candidate lists, court records Automation feasibility: Medium-low. Candidate lists are available; law/policy barrier coding requires human review. |
Comparable practice / metric: Contested election and ballot access practices Comparable value: To be selected during comparator review. Comparable trend: To be selected during comparator review. Source link: International IDEA source link Reviewer caution: Comparable democracy indicators provide context and potential targets, but they are not one-to-one measures of U.S. constitutional, federal, election, or congressional performance. |
Public value: Gives voters meaningful choices and reduces the risk of closed political markets. Legal / civil-liberty guardrail: Candidate access must be balanced with lawful eligibility, anti-fraud rules, and administrative feasibility. |
Target: Reduce uncontested races and unreasonable ballot barriers while preserving lawful qualification rules Gap: Pending approved baseline Timeframe: V1 source-method review before public scoring Target note: Target is proposed for reviewer use and should be confirmed against the approved Democracy metrics catalog. |
| Requirement ID: DEM-FUN-008 Category: Representation / Voting Power and Community Representation Lead agency/component: States, Census Bureau, courts, civil-rights enforcement bodies Requirement: The system shall include indicators that help evaluate whether communities are represented fairly without diluting voting power or excluding eligible citizens from meaningful participation. Distinctness test: One voting-power and community-representation outcome. Status: Reviewer-ready after source-method review |
Metric: Voting power dilution and representation-risk indicator set Unit: Index / count / legal status Period: Latest redistricting and federal election cycle Current value: Candidate / source-method review required before scoring. Current trend: Candidate / source-method review required before scoring. Trend basis: Prior comparable period or release-to-release trend to be selected during source-method review. Data source: Census data, official district maps, court findings, DOJ voting-rights information, approved method registry Automation feasibility: Low-medium. Some data is public; legal findings and demographic interpretation require expert review. |
Comparable practice / metric: Voting power and equal representation indicators Comparable value: To be selected during comparator review. Comparable trend: To be selected during comparator review. Source link: Brennan Center source link; International IDEA source link Reviewer caution: Comparable democracy indicators provide context and potential targets, but they are not one-to-one measures of U.S. constitutional, federal, election, or congressional performance. |
Public value: Protects communities from being made politically invisible. Legal / civil-liberty guardrail: Must avoid stereotyping voters; legal findings, demographic data, and districting methods must be used carefully. |
Target: No unresolved high-confidence voting-power dilution finding in accepted public metrics Gap: Pending approved baseline Timeframe: V1 source-method review before public scoring Target note: Target is proposed for reviewer use and should be confirmed against the approved Democracy metrics catalog. |
Review representation metrics for method risk, especially district fairness, competitiveness, voting-power dilution, and candidate access.