Rating Methodology
This independent analysis evaluates Airdrie City Council candidates based on publicly available information, including campaign materials, social media, news articles, and official city records. The goal is to provide voters with a comprehensive, unbiased assessment of each candidate's qualifications, experience, and approach to key issues.
Evaluation Criteria
Candidates are rated on a scale of 1-5 across five key dimensions:
- Leadership & Experience (1-5): Assesses demonstrated leadership roles, relevant professional experience, and track record in community or municipal affairs. Higher scores indicate extensive experience in decision-making, team management, and public service.
- Community Engagement (1-5): Evaluates involvement in local community activities, volunteer work, and grassroots organizing. This includes participation in neighborhood associations, civic groups, and community development initiatives.
- Fiscal Responsibility (1-5): Reviews understanding of municipal budgeting, financial planning, and economic development. Candidates are scored based on their proposals for sustainable growth, tax policies, and responsible resource allocation.
- Transparency & Accountability (1-5): Measures commitment to open government, clear communication, and ethical practices. This includes public disclosure of positions, accessibility to constituents, and accountability mechanisms.
- Vision & Innovation (1-5): Assesses forward-thinking approaches to urban challenges, creative problem-solving, and innovative solutions for Airdrie's future development.
Scoring Process
Each candidate receives individual scores for the five criteria based on:
- Review of campaign platforms and policy positions
- Analysis of professional background and achievements
- Assessment of community involvement and leadership roles
- Evaluation of communication style and public engagement
- Consideration of innovative approaches to local governance
Overall Score Calculation
The final score is calculated by averaging the five individual ratings and converting to a percentage (out of 100%). This provides a standardized comparison across all candidates.
Data Sources
Ratings are based on information from:
- Candidate websites and social media profiles
- Official campaign materials and press releases
- News articles and public statements
- Professional LinkedIn profiles and biographies
- Public records and city council meeting transcripts
Limitations & Disclaimers
This analysis is based on publicly available information as of the evaluation date. Some candidates may have limited online presence or recent changes in their positions that are not reflected here. The ratings represent one perspective and should be considered alongside personal research and candidate interviews.
The methodology aims for objectivity but acknowledges that political analysis inherently involves some subjective interpretation. Voters are encouraged to attend candidate forums, review official materials, and engage directly with candidates.
Important Warnings: Due to potential missing or incomplete information, ratings may be skewed or inaccurate. Candidates with less visible online presence might be undervalued, while those with more comprehensive public profiles could appear disproportionately strong. There is a risk of errors in interpretation or data collection that could affect the final scores. Always verify information through multiple sources and consider these ratings as one tool among many in your decision-making process.