際際滷shows by User: FDAdvancement / http://www.slideshare.net/images/logo.gif 際際滷shows by User: FDAdvancement / Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:36:16 GMT 際際滷Share feed for 際際滷shows by User: FDAdvancement 2014 FDA Process Review of Alberta Municipal Levies: Implication for Alberta Taxpayers and Connection to Alberta Democracy /slideshow/2014-fda-process-review-of-alberta-municipal-levies-32370800/32370800 2014fdaprocessreviewofalbertamunicipallevies-140316123616-phpapp01
Executive Summary The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) asserts that municipalities like any other government department and agency, corporation, and non-profit/charity organization are expected to operate efficiently and effectively in order to provide adequate services at reasonable cost. In this report, the FDA is not promoting and will never promote the idea that municipalities have the right to impose their own levies in order to create more revenue. The reader knows that extra revenue and abundance of cash and resources may lead to complacency, inefficiency, waste, and corruption. However, the FDA supports and advocates that municipalities have the right, when needed and warranted, to supplement their revenue in order to provide services and develop and maintain safe and reliable communities. In its research, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement uncovers the bias of section 648 of the Alberta Municipal Government Act (MGA, 2000) and the sections inconsistent application throughout Alberta. As it stands, section 648 only allows Alberta municipalities to charge hard infrastructure levies (such as charges for sewer or water infrastructure) on new off-site developments as opposed to municipalities having the discretionary capacity to charge for both hard and soft levies which includes police and fire services, parks, and community infrastructure. Currently, several Alberta cities (most notably the City of Calgary) bypass this restriction on levies by signing private negotiated agreements (standard development agreements) with development community stakeholders. These agreements allow the City of Calgary, for instance, to charge also for soft infrastructure levies because the development industry agreed to them, and therefore it cannot sue on grounds of violation of the MGA. All other Alberta municipalities are restricted to charging only hard infrastructure levies unless they too can negotiate private agreements with developers and/or developer associations. Moreover, the Government of Alberta ignores the bypass of section 648 by Alberta municipalities. In the FDAs view, section 648 is a process shortcoming by allowing developers to either avoid soft infrastructure levies or negotiate low levies from a strong negotiating position. In either scenario, Alberta municipal taxpayers likely pay more for the capital costs of new off-site developments, while developers, which are the principle profit beneficiaries of new developments, pay less. This issue resolves around who pays for soft infrastructure which is critical to new off-site infrastructure and the ability of municipalities to maintain safe and viable communities (MGA, Part 1, Section 3). An off-site levy is one financing source to both pay for growth-related infrastructure and pass on infrastructure costs to those individuals and organizations who are the primary beneficiaries of the growth, and thereby ensure growth pays for growth....]]>
Executive Summary The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) asserts that municipalities like any other government department and agency, corporation, and non-profit/charity organization are expected to operate efficiently and effectively in order to provide adequate services at reasonable cost. In this report, the FDA is not promoting and will never promote the idea that municipalities have the right to impose their own levies in order to create more revenue. The reader knows that extra revenue and abundance of cash and resources may lead to complacency, inefficiency, waste, and corruption. However, the FDA supports and advocates that municipalities have the right, when needed and warranted, to supplement their revenue in order to provide services and develop and maintain safe and reliable communities. In its research, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement uncovers the bias of section 648 of the Alberta Municipal Government Act (MGA, 2000) and the sections inconsistent application throughout Alberta. As it stands, section 648 only allows Alberta municipalities to charge hard infrastructure levies (such as charges for sewer or water infrastructure) on new off-site developments as opposed to municipalities having the discretionary capacity to charge for both hard and soft levies which includes police and fire services, parks, and community infrastructure. Currently, several Alberta cities (most notably the City of Calgary) bypass this restriction on levies by signing private negotiated agreements (standard development agreements) with development community stakeholders. These agreements allow the City of Calgary, for instance, to charge also for soft infrastructure levies because the development industry agreed to them, and therefore it cannot sue on grounds of violation of the MGA. All other Alberta municipalities are restricted to charging only hard infrastructure levies unless they too can negotiate private agreements with developers and/or developer associations. Moreover, the Government of Alberta ignores the bypass of section 648 by Alberta municipalities. In the FDAs view, section 648 is a process shortcoming by allowing developers to either avoid soft infrastructure levies or negotiate low levies from a strong negotiating position. In either scenario, Alberta municipal taxpayers likely pay more for the capital costs of new off-site developments, while developers, which are the principle profit beneficiaries of new developments, pay less. This issue resolves around who pays for soft infrastructure which is critical to new off-site infrastructure and the ability of municipalities to maintain safe and viable communities (MGA, Part 1, Section 3). An off-site levy is one financing source to both pay for growth-related infrastructure and pass on infrastructure costs to those individuals and organizations who are the primary beneficiaries of the growth, and thereby ensure growth pays for growth....]]> Sun, 16 Mar 2014 12:36:16 GMT /slideshow/2014-fda-process-review-of-alberta-municipal-levies-32370800/32370800 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) 2014 FDA Process Review of Alberta Municipal Levies: Implication for Alberta Taxpayers and Connection to Alberta Democracy FDAdvancement Executive Summary The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) asserts that municipalities like any other government department and agency, corporation, and non-profit/charity organization are expected to operate efficiently and effectively in order to provide adequate services at reasonable cost. In this report, the FDA is not promoting and will never promote the idea that municipalities have the right to impose their own levies in order to create more revenue. The reader knows that extra revenue and abundance of cash and resources may lead to complacency, inefficiency, waste, and corruption. However, the FDA supports and advocates that municipalities have the right, when needed and warranted, to supplement their revenue in order to provide services and develop and maintain safe and reliable communities. In its research, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement uncovers the bias of section 648 of the Alberta Municipal Government Act (MGA, 2000) and the sections inconsistent application throughout Alberta. As it stands, section 648 only allows Alberta municipalities to charge hard infrastructure levies (such as charges for sewer or water infrastructure) on new off-site developments as opposed to municipalities having the discretionary capacity to charge for both hard and soft levies which includes police and fire services, parks, and community infrastructure. Currently, several Alberta cities (most notably the City of Calgary) bypass this restriction on levies by signing private negotiated agreements (standard development agreements) with development community stakeholders. These agreements allow the City of Calgary, for instance, to charge also for soft infrastructure levies because the development industry agreed to them, and therefore it cannot sue on grounds of violation of the MGA. All other Alberta municipalities are restricted to charging only hard infrastructure levies unless they too can negotiate private agreements with developers and/or developer associations. Moreover, the Government of Alberta ignores the bypass of section 648 by Alberta municipalities. In the FDAs view, section 648 is a process shortcoming by allowing developers to either avoid soft infrastructure levies or negotiate low levies from a strong negotiating position. In either scenario, Alberta municipal taxpayers likely pay more for the capital costs of new off-site developments, while developers, which are the principle profit beneficiaries of new developments, pay less. This issue resolves around who pays for soft infrastructure which is critical to new off-site infrastructure and the ability of municipalities to maintain safe and viable communities (MGA, Part 1, Section 3). An off-site levy is one financing source to both pay for growth-related infrastructure and pass on infrastructure costs to those individuals and organizations who are the primary beneficiaries of the growth, and thereby ensure growth pays for growth.... <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2014fdaprocessreviewofalbertamunicipallevies-140316123616-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> Executive Summary The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) asserts that municipalities like any other government department and agency, corporation, and non-profit/charity organization are expected to operate efficiently and effectively in order to provide adequate services at reasonable cost. In this report, the FDA is not promoting and will never promote the idea that municipalities have the right to impose their own levies in order to create more revenue. The reader knows that extra revenue and abundance of cash and resources may lead to complacency, inefficiency, waste, and corruption. However, the FDA supports and advocates that municipalities have the right, when needed and warranted, to supplement their revenue in order to provide services and develop and maintain safe and reliable communities. In its research, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement uncovers the bias of section 648 of the Alberta Municipal Government Act (MGA, 2000) and the sections inconsistent application throughout Alberta. As it stands, section 648 only allows Alberta municipalities to charge hard infrastructure levies (such as charges for sewer or water infrastructure) on new off-site developments as opposed to municipalities having the discretionary capacity to charge for both hard and soft levies which includes police and fire services, parks, and community infrastructure. Currently, several Alberta cities (most notably the City of Calgary) bypass this restriction on levies by signing private negotiated agreements (standard development agreements) with development community stakeholders. These agreements allow the City of Calgary, for instance, to charge also for soft infrastructure levies because the development industry agreed to them, and therefore it cannot sue on grounds of violation of the MGA. All other Alberta municipalities are restricted to charging only hard infrastructure levies unless they too can negotiate private agreements with developers and/or developer associations. Moreover, the Government of Alberta ignores the bypass of section 648 by Alberta municipalities. In the FDAs view, section 648 is a process shortcoming by allowing developers to either avoid soft infrastructure levies or negotiate low levies from a strong negotiating position. In either scenario, Alberta municipal taxpayers likely pay more for the capital costs of new off-site developments, while developers, which are the principle profit beneficiaries of new developments, pay less. This issue resolves around who pays for soft infrastructure which is critical to new off-site infrastructure and the ability of municipalities to maintain safe and viable communities (MGA, Part 1, Section 3). An off-site levy is one financing source to both pay for growth-related infrastructure and pass on infrastructure costs to those individuals and organizations who are the primary beneficiaries of the growth, and thereby ensure growth pays for growth....
2014 FDA Process Review of Alberta Municipal Levies: Implication for Alberta Taxpayers and Connection to Alberta Democracy from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 3269 9 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2014fdaprocessreviewofalbertamunicipallevies-140316123616-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 FDA's Brian Bradley Case Study and Process Review of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board /slideshow/fdas-brian-bradley-case-study-and-process-review-of-the-veterans-review-and-appeal-board/28072147 fdaprocessreviewoftheveteransaffairandappealboard-131109125753-phpapp01
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Building off Veterans Ombudsman reports and other reports which support systematic change to the federal government process involving injured and/or disabled veterans, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) examines closely the federal government veteran processes. Through that examination, the FDA uncovers serve deficiencies which compromise the federal governments service to injured and/or disabled veterans and ultimately its obligation to Canadians in the Canadian Forces and Royal Mounted Police who put their lives at risk to protect this country. In particular, the FDA documents a system of patronage appointments, mismanagement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), and a veterans review and appeal process defined significantly by unreasonable interpretation and application of relevant Acts of Parliament. Using its expertise in democracy and government, the FDA believes that these deficiencies stem from a failure of Canadian democracy and shortcomings in the Canadian federal electoral system. The FDA uncovers evidence that elected officials including the Prime Minister are putting their self-interests above the interests of injured and/or disabled veterans and Canadians as a whole. The Brian Bradley case study, an ongoing egregious seventeen-year legal struggle in which Brian battles for just care for his spinal cord injury, shows that the deficiencies with the VRAB and failings of the federal government have gone on far too long. The FDA recommends a number of reforms, including the elimination of the VRAB and delegation of its responsibilities and duties to the Federal Court, implementation of a non-partisan federal government appointment system, and correction of biases and unfairness in the federal electoral system to help ensure that representatives who represent the broad public good are elected. "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost." - Aristotle For more information on veteran Brian Bradley and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) please go to the FDA url: http://democracychange.org/2013/10/fdas-brian-bradley-case-study-and-process-review-of-the-veterans-review-and-appeal-board/]]>
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Building off Veterans Ombudsman reports and other reports which support systematic change to the federal government process involving injured and/or disabled veterans, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) examines closely the federal government veteran processes. Through that examination, the FDA uncovers serve deficiencies which compromise the federal governments service to injured and/or disabled veterans and ultimately its obligation to Canadians in the Canadian Forces and Royal Mounted Police who put their lives at risk to protect this country. In particular, the FDA documents a system of patronage appointments, mismanagement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), and a veterans review and appeal process defined significantly by unreasonable interpretation and application of relevant Acts of Parliament. Using its expertise in democracy and government, the FDA believes that these deficiencies stem from a failure of Canadian democracy and shortcomings in the Canadian federal electoral system. The FDA uncovers evidence that elected officials including the Prime Minister are putting their self-interests above the interests of injured and/or disabled veterans and Canadians as a whole. The Brian Bradley case study, an ongoing egregious seventeen-year legal struggle in which Brian battles for just care for his spinal cord injury, shows that the deficiencies with the VRAB and failings of the federal government have gone on far too long. The FDA recommends a number of reforms, including the elimination of the VRAB and delegation of its responsibilities and duties to the Federal Court, implementation of a non-partisan federal government appointment system, and correction of biases and unfairness in the federal electoral system to help ensure that representatives who represent the broad public good are elected. "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost." - Aristotle For more information on veteran Brian Bradley and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) please go to the FDA url: http://democracychange.org/2013/10/fdas-brian-bradley-case-study-and-process-review-of-the-veterans-review-and-appeal-board/]]> Sat, 09 Nov 2013 12:57:53 GMT /slideshow/fdas-brian-bradley-case-study-and-process-review-of-the-veterans-review-and-appeal-board/28072147 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) FDA's Brian Bradley Case Study and Process Review of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board FDAdvancement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Building off Veterans Ombudsman reports and other reports which support systematic change to the federal government process involving injured and/or disabled veterans, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) examines closely the federal government veteran processes. Through that examination, the FDA uncovers serve deficiencies which compromise the federal governments service to injured and/or disabled veterans and ultimately its obligation to Canadians in the Canadian Forces and Royal Mounted Police who put their lives at risk to protect this country. In particular, the FDA documents a system of patronage appointments, mismanagement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), and a veterans review and appeal process defined significantly by unreasonable interpretation and application of relevant Acts of Parliament. Using its expertise in democracy and government, the FDA believes that these deficiencies stem from a failure of Canadian democracy and shortcomings in the Canadian federal electoral system. The FDA uncovers evidence that elected officials including the Prime Minister are putting their self-interests above the interests of injured and/or disabled veterans and Canadians as a whole. The Brian Bradley case study, an ongoing egregious seventeen-year legal struggle in which Brian battles for just care for his spinal cord injury, shows that the deficiencies with the VRAB and failings of the federal government have gone on far too long. The FDA recommends a number of reforms, including the elimination of the VRAB and delegation of its responsibilities and duties to the Federal Court, implementation of a non-partisan federal government appointment system, and correction of biases and unfairness in the federal electoral system to help ensure that representatives who represent the broad public good are elected. "If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost." - Aristotle For more information on veteran Brian Bradley and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) please go to the FDA url: http://democracychange.org/2013/10/fdas-brian-bradley-case-study-and-process-review-of-the-veterans-review-and-appeal-board/ <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fdaprocessreviewoftheveteransaffairandappealboard-131109125753-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Building off Veterans Ombudsman reports and other reports which support systematic change to the federal government process involving injured and/or disabled veterans, the Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) examines closely the federal government veteran processes. Through that examination, the FDA uncovers serve deficiencies which compromise the federal governments service to injured and/or disabled veterans and ultimately its obligation to Canadians in the Canadian Forces and Royal Mounted Police who put their lives at risk to protect this country. In particular, the FDA documents a system of patronage appointments, mismanagement of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB), and a veterans review and appeal process defined significantly by unreasonable interpretation and application of relevant Acts of Parliament. Using its expertise in democracy and government, the FDA believes that these deficiencies stem from a failure of Canadian democracy and shortcomings in the Canadian federal electoral system. The FDA uncovers evidence that elected officials including the Prime Minister are putting their self-interests above the interests of injured and/or disabled veterans and Canadians as a whole. The Brian Bradley case study, an ongoing egregious seventeen-year legal struggle in which Brian battles for just care for his spinal cord injury, shows that the deficiencies with the VRAB and failings of the federal government have gone on far too long. The FDA recommends a number of reforms, including the elimination of the VRAB and delegation of its responsibilities and duties to the Federal Court, implementation of a non-partisan federal government appointment system, and correction of biases and unfairness in the federal electoral system to help ensure that representatives who represent the broad public good are elected. &quot;If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost.&quot; - Aristotle For more information on veteran Brian Bradley and the Veterans Review and Appeal Board (VRAB) please go to the FDA url: http://democracychange.org/2013/10/fdas-brian-bradley-case-study-and-process-review-of-the-veterans-review-and-appeal-board/
FDA's Brian Bradley Case Study and Process Review of the Veterans Review and Appeal Board from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 6947 11 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fdaprocessreviewoftheveteransaffairandappealboard-131109125753-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 FDA Electoral Finance Study of the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election /slideshow/2013-fda-calgary-mayoral-finance-audit-final/27177587 2013fdacalgarymayoralfinanceaudit-final-131014125452-phpapp01
Executive Summary This FDA electoral finance study focuses on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election. The main purpose of the research is to tabulate the amount of contributions for all candidates. As the research progressed, further inquiry was made into the reporting system used by the City of Calgary, within provincial legislation. (2013 election finance data not publicly disclosed until after Election Day on October 21, 2013; only voluntary and incomplete financial data is available now.) Our results indicate that the top three candidates accounted for two-thirds of total campaign financing or 67 percent. The FDA also observed a wide variation between candidates with respect to the proportion of financing originating from different types of contributors. This includes distinctions based on contribution amount (under $100 versus over $100), and contribution source (individuals versus business versus unions). For example, 95.9 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. Also, 51.1 percent of total contributions to mayoral candidates were from corporations. The FDA concludes that electoral finance process in the 2010 City of Calgary mayoral election had a number of shortcomings, which in turn likely impacted the electoral fairness of the election, and the correlation between the voice of Calgarians and the election results. The FDA acknowledges that the root issue stems from Albertas Local Authorities Election Act, which the Alberta Provincial Government has jurisdiction over. However, the FDA believes that the City of Calgary still has the ability to improve the electoral finance process. For example, for modest costs, the City Calgary can upgrade and standardize the way campaign finances are reported to the City by candidates, and subsequently reported by the City to the general public. Key Findings from Report The FDA auditors identified that three mayoral candidates had 67% of the electoral finances of all mayoral candidates (ten mayoral candidates in total). The FDA auditors identified that contributions by corporations accounted for 51.1% of the total contributions to mayoral candidates, without considering any individuals who may have contributed for corporations. The FDA auditors identified 99 incidents of individuals and corporations contributing to more than one candidate and totaling $595,333. (Note, we are not making an ethical judgment, and there are no municipal laws against contributing to more than one candidate. Our goals are to gauge the frequency and financial scope of this phenomenon.) The FDA auditors identified that 95.9% of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1% of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. ]]>
Executive Summary This FDA electoral finance study focuses on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election. The main purpose of the research is to tabulate the amount of contributions for all candidates. As the research progressed, further inquiry was made into the reporting system used by the City of Calgary, within provincial legislation. (2013 election finance data not publicly disclosed until after Election Day on October 21, 2013; only voluntary and incomplete financial data is available now.) Our results indicate that the top three candidates accounted for two-thirds of total campaign financing or 67 percent. The FDA also observed a wide variation between candidates with respect to the proportion of financing originating from different types of contributors. This includes distinctions based on contribution amount (under $100 versus over $100), and contribution source (individuals versus business versus unions). For example, 95.9 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. Also, 51.1 percent of total contributions to mayoral candidates were from corporations. The FDA concludes that electoral finance process in the 2010 City of Calgary mayoral election had a number of shortcomings, which in turn likely impacted the electoral fairness of the election, and the correlation between the voice of Calgarians and the election results. The FDA acknowledges that the root issue stems from Albertas Local Authorities Election Act, which the Alberta Provincial Government has jurisdiction over. However, the FDA believes that the City of Calgary still has the ability to improve the electoral finance process. For example, for modest costs, the City Calgary can upgrade and standardize the way campaign finances are reported to the City by candidates, and subsequently reported by the City to the general public. Key Findings from Report The FDA auditors identified that three mayoral candidates had 67% of the electoral finances of all mayoral candidates (ten mayoral candidates in total). The FDA auditors identified that contributions by corporations accounted for 51.1% of the total contributions to mayoral candidates, without considering any individuals who may have contributed for corporations. The FDA auditors identified 99 incidents of individuals and corporations contributing to more than one candidate and totaling $595,333. (Note, we are not making an ethical judgment, and there are no municipal laws against contributing to more than one candidate. Our goals are to gauge the frequency and financial scope of this phenomenon.) The FDA auditors identified that 95.9% of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1% of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. ]]> Mon, 14 Oct 2013 12:54:52 GMT /slideshow/2013-fda-calgary-mayoral-finance-audit-final/27177587 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) FDA Electoral Finance Study of the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election FDAdvancement Executive Summary This FDA electoral finance study focuses on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election. The main purpose of the research is to tabulate the amount of contributions for all candidates. As the research progressed, further inquiry was made into the reporting system used by the City of Calgary, within provincial legislation. (2013 election finance data not publicly disclosed until after Election Day on October 21, 2013; only voluntary and incomplete financial data is available now.) Our results indicate that the top three candidates accounted for two-thirds of total campaign financing or 67 percent. The FDA also observed a wide variation between candidates with respect to the proportion of financing originating from different types of contributors. This includes distinctions based on contribution amount (under $100 versus over $100), and contribution source (individuals versus business versus unions). For example, 95.9 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. Also, 51.1 percent of total contributions to mayoral candidates were from corporations. The FDA concludes that electoral finance process in the 2010 City of Calgary mayoral election had a number of shortcomings, which in turn likely impacted the electoral fairness of the election, and the correlation between the voice of Calgarians and the election results. The FDA acknowledges that the root issue stems from Albertas Local Authorities Election Act, which the Alberta Provincial Government has jurisdiction over. However, the FDA believes that the City of Calgary still has the ability to improve the electoral finance process. For example, for modest costs, the City Calgary can upgrade and standardize the way campaign finances are reported to the City by candidates, and subsequently reported by the City to the general public. Key Findings from Report The FDA auditors identified that three mayoral candidates had 67% of the electoral finances of all mayoral candidates (ten mayoral candidates in total). The FDA auditors identified that contributions by corporations accounted for 51.1% of the total contributions to mayoral candidates, without considering any individuals who may have contributed for corporations. The FDA auditors identified 99 incidents of individuals and corporations contributing to more than one candidate and totaling $595,333. (Note, we are not making an ethical judgment, and there are no municipal laws against contributing to more than one candidate. Our goals are to gauge the frequency and financial scope of this phenomenon.) The FDA auditors identified that 95.9% of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1% of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2013fdacalgarymayoralfinanceaudit-final-131014125452-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> Executive Summary This FDA electoral finance study focuses on the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election. The main purpose of the research is to tabulate the amount of contributions for all candidates. As the research progressed, further inquiry was made into the reporting system used by the City of Calgary, within provincial legislation. (2013 election finance data not publicly disclosed until after Election Day on October 21, 2013; only voluntary and incomplete financial data is available now.) Our results indicate that the top three candidates accounted for two-thirds of total campaign financing or 67 percent. The FDA also observed a wide variation between candidates with respect to the proportion of financing originating from different types of contributors. This includes distinctions based on contribution amount (under $100 versus over $100), and contribution source (individuals versus business versus unions). For example, 95.9 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1 percent of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100. Also, 51.1 percent of total contributions to mayoral candidates were from corporations. The FDA concludes that electoral finance process in the 2010 City of Calgary mayoral election had a number of shortcomings, which in turn likely impacted the electoral fairness of the election, and the correlation between the voice of Calgarians and the election results. The FDA acknowledges that the root issue stems from Albertas Local Authorities Election Act, which the Alberta Provincial Government has jurisdiction over. However, the FDA believes that the City of Calgary still has the ability to improve the electoral finance process. For example, for modest costs, the City Calgary can upgrade and standardize the way campaign finances are reported to the City by candidates, and subsequently reported by the City to the general public. Key Findings from Report The FDA auditors identified that three mayoral candidates had 67% of the electoral finances of all mayoral candidates (ten mayoral candidates in total). The FDA auditors identified that contributions by corporations accounted for 51.1% of the total contributions to mayoral candidates, without considering any individuals who may have contributed for corporations. The FDA auditors identified 99 incidents of individuals and corporations contributing to more than one candidate and totaling $595,333. (Note, we are not making an ethical judgment, and there are no municipal laws against contributing to more than one candidate. Our goals are to gauge the frequency and financial scope of this phenomenon.) The FDA auditors identified that 95.9% of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were over $100, while 4.1% of gross contributions to all mayoral candidates were under $100.
FDA Electoral Finance Study of the 2010 Calgary Mayoral Election from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1648 8 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2013fdacalgarymayoralfinanceaudit-final-131014125452-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 2013--Revised 2012 FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report /slideshow/2013revised-fda-canadian-provinces-electoral-finance-report/26708701 2012canprovinceselectoralfinanceranking-130930145905-phpapp01
Executive Summary The FDA audit entailed a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada's 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Qu辿bec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces' legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Qu辿bec's legislation. This measurement means that Qu辿bec's legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Qu辿bec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada's provinces model their legislation after Qu辿bec's.]]>
Executive Summary The FDA audit entailed a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada's 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Qu辿bec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces' legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Qu辿bec's legislation. This measurement means that Qu辿bec's legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Qu辿bec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada's provinces model their legislation after Qu辿bec's.]]> Mon, 30 Sep 2013 14:59:04 GMT /slideshow/2013revised-fda-canadian-provinces-electoral-finance-report/26708701 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) 2013--Revised 2012 FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report FDAdvancement Executive Summary The FDA audit entailed a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada's 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Qu辿bec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces' legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Qu辿bec's legislation. This measurement means that Qu辿bec's legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Qu辿bec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada's provinces model their legislation after Qu辿bec's. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012canprovinceselectoralfinanceranking-130930145905-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> Executive Summary The FDA audit entailed a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada&#39;s 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Qu辿bec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces&#39; legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Qu辿bec&#39;s legislation. This measurement means that Qu辿bec&#39;s legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Qu辿bec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada&#39;s provinces model their legislation after Qu辿bec&#39;s.
2013--Revised 2012 FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 986 13 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012canprovinceselectoralfinanceranking-130930145905-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Canada--2013 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report /FDAdvancement/2013-can-fed-audit 2013canfedaudit-130524165945-phpapp02
On May 30, 2013, the FDA will host a webinar on the 2013 Canada Electoral Fairness Report. To register for the webinar, go to this url: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5418267208238649088 Executive Summary of the 2013 Canada Electoral Report The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) concludes that the Canadian federal electoral system is mediocre as determined by the overall unsatisfactory passing audit score of 64.49 percent (out of 100 percent). FDA auditors measured 1) Failing score for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (47.35 percent). 2) Unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (58.93 percent). 3) Satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (73.52 percent). 4) Very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (78.15 percent). In its analysis, the FDA factored in 32 independent variables, matrix examination, and financial analysis to inform calculations and conclusions. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that Canadian federal election outcomes are not truly reflective of the voice of Canadians from electoral constituencies. Although there is sound legislation relating to voters and electoral finance, various provisions concerning candidates, parties, and media function to favour certain large and established parties over new and small parties and even other large and established parties. The FDA identified several elements in the Canadian electoral system that, when combined, undermine significantly electoral competition and thereby election outcomes. The FDA believes that the degree of electoral competition is an indication of the health of a democracy, and competition whether in the marketplace or elections produces the better societal outcome. Therefore, the FDA recommends a number of reforms to the Canadian electoral system that would eliminate biased electoral legislation and uncompetitive electoral processes. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDAs mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society. Overall, the FDA works 1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed; 2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)]]>
On May 30, 2013, the FDA will host a webinar on the 2013 Canada Electoral Fairness Report. To register for the webinar, go to this url: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5418267208238649088 Executive Summary of the 2013 Canada Electoral Report The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) concludes that the Canadian federal electoral system is mediocre as determined by the overall unsatisfactory passing audit score of 64.49 percent (out of 100 percent). FDA auditors measured 1) Failing score for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (47.35 percent). 2) Unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (58.93 percent). 3) Satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (73.52 percent). 4) Very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (78.15 percent). In its analysis, the FDA factored in 32 independent variables, matrix examination, and financial analysis to inform calculations and conclusions. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that Canadian federal election outcomes are not truly reflective of the voice of Canadians from electoral constituencies. Although there is sound legislation relating to voters and electoral finance, various provisions concerning candidates, parties, and media function to favour certain large and established parties over new and small parties and even other large and established parties. The FDA identified several elements in the Canadian electoral system that, when combined, undermine significantly electoral competition and thereby election outcomes. The FDA believes that the degree of electoral competition is an indication of the health of a democracy, and competition whether in the marketplace or elections produces the better societal outcome. Therefore, the FDA recommends a number of reforms to the Canadian electoral system that would eliminate biased electoral legislation and uncompetitive electoral processes. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDAs mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society. Overall, the FDA works 1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed; 2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 16:59:45 GMT /FDAdvancement/2013-can-fed-audit FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Canada--2013 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report FDAdvancement On May 30, 2013, the FDA will host a webinar on the 2013 Canada Electoral Fairness Report. To register for the webinar, go to this url: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5418267208238649088 Executive Summary of the 2013 Canada Electoral Report The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) concludes that the Canadian federal electoral system is mediocre as determined by the overall unsatisfactory passing audit score of 64.49 percent (out of 100 percent). FDA auditors measured 1) Failing score for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (47.35 percent). 2) Unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (58.93 percent). 3) Satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (73.52 percent). 4) Very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (78.15 percent). In its analysis, the FDA factored in 32 independent variables, matrix examination, and financial analysis to inform calculations and conclusions. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that Canadian federal election outcomes are not truly reflective of the voice of Canadians from electoral constituencies. Although there is sound legislation relating to voters and electoral finance, various provisions concerning candidates, parties, and media function to favour certain large and established parties over new and small parties and even other large and established parties. The FDA identified several elements in the Canadian electoral system that, when combined, undermine significantly electoral competition and thereby election outcomes. The FDA believes that the degree of electoral competition is an indication of the health of a democracy, and competition whether in the marketplace or elections produces the better societal outcome. Therefore, the FDA recommends a number of reforms to the Canadian electoral system that would eliminate biased electoral legislation and uncompetitive electoral processes. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDAs mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society. Overall, the FDA works 1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed; 2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2013canfedaudit-130524165945-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> On May 30, 2013, the FDA will host a webinar on the 2013 Canada Electoral Fairness Report. To register for the webinar, go to this url: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/5418267208238649088 Executive Summary of the 2013 Canada Electoral Report The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) concludes that the Canadian federal electoral system is mediocre as determined by the overall unsatisfactory passing audit score of 64.49 percent (out of 100 percent). FDA auditors measured 1) Failing score for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (47.35 percent). 2) Unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (58.93 percent). 3) Satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (73.52 percent). 4) Very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (78.15 percent). In its analysis, the FDA factored in 32 independent variables, matrix examination, and financial analysis to inform calculations and conclusions. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that Canadian federal election outcomes are not truly reflective of the voice of Canadians from electoral constituencies. Although there is sound legislation relating to voters and electoral finance, various provisions concerning candidates, parties, and media function to favour certain large and established parties over new and small parties and even other large and established parties. The FDA identified several elements in the Canadian electoral system that, when combined, undermine significantly electoral competition and thereby election outcomes. The FDA believes that the degree of electoral competition is an indication of the health of a democracy, and competition whether in the marketplace or elections produces the better societal outcome. Therefore, the FDA recommends a number of reforms to the Canadian electoral system that would eliminate biased electoral legislation and uncompetitive electoral processes. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle About the Foundation for Democratic Advancement The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDAs mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society. Overall, the FDA works 1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed; 2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org)
Canada--2013 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 4239 7 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2013canfedaudit-130524165945-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 2013 FDA Process Review of the Bingham Crossing Development Application /slideshow/2012-rocky-view/18378956 2012rockyview-130407230138-phpapp02
Executive Summary The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) measured severe deficiencies in the Alberta municipal processes with regard to the Bingham Crossing development application. The FDA measured both individual and cumulative impacts of the Alberta municipal processes on the democratic welfare of Rocky View County residents and users of the area. Although the individual effects were in some cases insignificant, the accumulation of these impacts raises questions about the consistency of the Alberta municipal processes with a free and democratic society. The FDA determined that overall; the municipal processes give a greater voice to special interests over the voice of the citizenry. In addition, the FDA identified municipal processes that unreasonably limit the democratic rights of citizens and do not include adequate offsetting mechanisms; and are therefore in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The FDA concludes that the Bingham Crossing development application requires an inspection by the Alberta Municipal Affairs Minister and a provincial government-initiated referendum to determine whether this controversial development application should pass or fail. The purposes of the referendum are to compensate for the deficiencies in the Alberta municipal processes and accurately measure the voice of the Rocky View electorate concerning the Bingham Crossing development. In addition, the FDA recommends amendments of the Alberta Municipal Government Act and Local Authorities Election Act. The measurements and findings of this report have implications for all Albertan municipalities. Finally, the reports overall purpose is to ensure that Albertans become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of Alberta government processes, and can then make decisions that are more informed. This report is in no way an evaluation of the merits and deficiencies of the proposed Bingham Crossing development. The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle]]>
Executive Summary The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) measured severe deficiencies in the Alberta municipal processes with regard to the Bingham Crossing development application. The FDA measured both individual and cumulative impacts of the Alberta municipal processes on the democratic welfare of Rocky View County residents and users of the area. Although the individual effects were in some cases insignificant, the accumulation of these impacts raises questions about the consistency of the Alberta municipal processes with a free and democratic society. The FDA determined that overall; the municipal processes give a greater voice to special interests over the voice of the citizenry. In addition, the FDA identified municipal processes that unreasonably limit the democratic rights of citizens and do not include adequate offsetting mechanisms; and are therefore in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The FDA concludes that the Bingham Crossing development application requires an inspection by the Alberta Municipal Affairs Minister and a provincial government-initiated referendum to determine whether this controversial development application should pass or fail. The purposes of the referendum are to compensate for the deficiencies in the Alberta municipal processes and accurately measure the voice of the Rocky View electorate concerning the Bingham Crossing development. In addition, the FDA recommends amendments of the Alberta Municipal Government Act and Local Authorities Election Act. The measurements and findings of this report have implications for all Albertan municipalities. Finally, the reports overall purpose is to ensure that Albertans become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of Alberta government processes, and can then make decisions that are more informed. This report is in no way an evaluation of the merits and deficiencies of the proposed Bingham Crossing development. The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle]]> Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:01:38 GMT /slideshow/2012-rocky-view/18378956 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) 2013 FDA Process Review of the Bingham Crossing Development Application FDAdvancement Executive Summary The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) measured severe deficiencies in the Alberta municipal processes with regard to the Bingham Crossing development application. The FDA measured both individual and cumulative impacts of the Alberta municipal processes on the democratic welfare of Rocky View County residents and users of the area. Although the individual effects were in some cases insignificant, the accumulation of these impacts raises questions about the consistency of the Alberta municipal processes with a free and democratic society. The FDA determined that overall; the municipal processes give a greater voice to special interests over the voice of the citizenry. In addition, the FDA identified municipal processes that unreasonably limit the democratic rights of citizens and do not include adequate offsetting mechanisms; and are therefore in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The FDA concludes that the Bingham Crossing development application requires an inspection by the Alberta Municipal Affairs Minister and a provincial government-initiated referendum to determine whether this controversial development application should pass or fail. The purposes of the referendum are to compensate for the deficiencies in the Alberta municipal processes and accurately measure the voice of the Rocky View electorate concerning the Bingham Crossing development. In addition, the FDA recommends amendments of the Alberta Municipal Government Act and Local Authorities Election Act. The measurements and findings of this report have implications for all Albertan municipalities. Finally, the reports overall purpose is to ensure that Albertans become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of Alberta government processes, and can then make decisions that are more informed. This report is in no way an evaluation of the merits and deficiencies of the proposed Bingham Crossing development. The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012rockyview-130407230138-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> Executive Summary The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) measured severe deficiencies in the Alberta municipal processes with regard to the Bingham Crossing development application. The FDA measured both individual and cumulative impacts of the Alberta municipal processes on the democratic welfare of Rocky View County residents and users of the area. Although the individual effects were in some cases insignificant, the accumulation of these impacts raises questions about the consistency of the Alberta municipal processes with a free and democratic society. The FDA determined that overall; the municipal processes give a greater voice to special interests over the voice of the citizenry. In addition, the FDA identified municipal processes that unreasonably limit the democratic rights of citizens and do not include adequate offsetting mechanisms; and are therefore in conflict with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The FDA concludes that the Bingham Crossing development application requires an inspection by the Alberta Municipal Affairs Minister and a provincial government-initiated referendum to determine whether this controversial development application should pass or fail. The purposes of the referendum are to compensate for the deficiencies in the Alberta municipal processes and accurately measure the voice of the Rocky View electorate concerning the Bingham Crossing development. In addition, the FDA recommends amendments of the Alberta Municipal Government Act and Local Authorities Election Act. The measurements and findings of this report have implications for all Albertan municipalities. Finally, the reports overall purpose is to ensure that Albertans become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of Alberta government processes, and can then make decisions that are more informed. This report is in no way an evaluation of the merits and deficiencies of the proposed Bingham Crossing development. The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle
2013 FDA Process Review of the Bingham Crossing Development Application from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 3328 10 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012rockyview-130407230138-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 United States--2012 FDA Presidential Election Media Study /slideshow/united-states2012-fda-presidential-election-media-study/15662456 2012fdausmediastudyslideshare-121216165214-phpapp02
2012 FDA media study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. This 76-page study covers the U.S. national press, radio, and television sectors (including online content), and utilizes 7,924 data points. A full report can be purchased at www.democracychange.org ]]>
2012 FDA media study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. This 76-page study covers the U.S. national press, radio, and television sectors (including online content), and utilizes 7,924 data points. A full report can be purchased at www.democracychange.org ]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 16:52:14 GMT /slideshow/united-states2012-fda-presidential-election-media-study/15662456 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) United States--2012 FDA Presidential Election Media Study FDAdvancement 2012 FDA media study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. This 76-page study covers the U.S. national press, radio, and television sectors (including online content), and utilizes 7,924 data points. A full report can be purchased at www.democracychange.org <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012fdausmediastudyslideshare-121216165214-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> 2012 FDA media study of the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election. This 76-page study covers the U.S. national press, radio, and television sectors (including online content), and utilizes 7,924 data points. A full report can be purchased at www.democracychange.org
United States--2012 FDA Presidential Election Media Study from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 2280 9 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012fdausmediastudyslideshare-121216165214-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013) /slideshow/united-statesfda-global-electoral-fairness-report/14726171 2012fdaglobalelectoralfairnessauditoftheusa-121014202752-phpapp01
U.S. Electoral Fairness Report revised as of April 11, 2013 Executive Summary The American federal electoral system borders a failed state as determined by the overall unsatisfactory audit score of 54.5 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured 1) two failing scores for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (48.25 percent) and media election content (42.5 percent); 2) one unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (57 percent); 3) one satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (70.25 percent). The FDA auditors factored in 52 independent variables and used matrices and financial spreadsheets in its calculations and determinations. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that the American federal election outcomes may not reflect the voice of Americans from electoral districts. The significant legislated unfair competition between American candidates and parties coupled with electoral finance legislation favoring wealthy money interests and media legislation favoring large corporate media and imbalanced election coverage creates a system tilted heavily to special and minority interests, rather than the American people. The FDA believes that reforms are necessary in electoral finance and election coverage in order to help realign the American federal electoral process with Americans as a whole. The FDA recommends, for examples, expenditure limits on congressional candidates and privately funded presidential candidates, caps on independent third-party expenditure, caps on media ownership concentration, and a voluntary media code of conduct during the 60 day campaign period which supports impartial and balanced campaign coverage of all registered candidates and parties. The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle ]]>
U.S. Electoral Fairness Report revised as of April 11, 2013 Executive Summary The American federal electoral system borders a failed state as determined by the overall unsatisfactory audit score of 54.5 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured 1) two failing scores for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (48.25 percent) and media election content (42.5 percent); 2) one unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (57 percent); 3) one satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (70.25 percent). The FDA auditors factored in 52 independent variables and used matrices and financial spreadsheets in its calculations and determinations. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that the American federal election outcomes may not reflect the voice of Americans from electoral districts. The significant legislated unfair competition between American candidates and parties coupled with electoral finance legislation favoring wealthy money interests and media legislation favoring large corporate media and imbalanced election coverage creates a system tilted heavily to special and minority interests, rather than the American people. The FDA believes that reforms are necessary in electoral finance and election coverage in order to help realign the American federal electoral process with Americans as a whole. The FDA recommends, for examples, expenditure limits on congressional candidates and privately funded presidential candidates, caps on independent third-party expenditure, caps on media ownership concentration, and a voluntary media code of conduct during the 60 day campaign period which supports impartial and balanced campaign coverage of all registered candidates and parties. The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle ]]> Sun, 14 Oct 2012 20:27:50 GMT /slideshow/united-statesfda-global-electoral-fairness-report/14726171 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013) FDAdvancement U.S. Electoral Fairness Report revised as of April 11, 2013 Executive Summary The American federal electoral system borders a failed state as determined by the overall unsatisfactory audit score of 54.5 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured 1) two failing scores for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (48.25 percent) and media election content (42.5 percent); 2) one unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (57 percent); 3) one satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (70.25 percent). The FDA auditors factored in 52 independent variables and used matrices and financial spreadsheets in its calculations and determinations. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that the American federal election outcomes may not reflect the voice of Americans from electoral districts. The significant legislated unfair competition between American candidates and parties coupled with electoral finance legislation favoring wealthy money interests and media legislation favoring large corporate media and imbalanced election coverage creates a system tilted heavily to special and minority interests, rather than the American people. The FDA believes that reforms are necessary in electoral finance and election coverage in order to help realign the American federal electoral process with Americans as a whole. The FDA recommends, for examples, expenditure limits on congressional candidates and privately funded presidential candidates, caps on independent third-party expenditure, caps on media ownership concentration, and a voluntary media code of conduct during the 60 day campaign period which supports impartial and balanced campaign coverage of all registered candidates and parties. The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012fdaglobalelectoralfairnessauditoftheusa-121014202752-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> U.S. Electoral Fairness Report revised as of April 11, 2013 Executive Summary The American federal electoral system borders a failed state as determined by the overall unsatisfactory audit score of 54.5 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured 1) two failing scores for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (48.25 percent) and media election content (42.5 percent); 2) one unsatisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (57 percent); 3) one satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to voters (70.25 percent). The FDA auditors factored in 52 independent variables and used matrices and financial spreadsheets in its calculations and determinations. Based on its measurements, the FDA believes that the American federal election outcomes may not reflect the voice of Americans from electoral districts. The significant legislated unfair competition between American candidates and parties coupled with electoral finance legislation favoring wealthy money interests and media legislation favoring large corporate media and imbalanced election coverage creates a system tilted heavily to special and minority interests, rather than the American people. The FDA believes that reforms are necessary in electoral finance and election coverage in order to help realign the American federal electoral process with Americans as a whole. The FDA recommends, for examples, expenditure limits on congressional candidates and privately funded presidential candidates, caps on independent third-party expenditure, caps on media ownership concentration, and a voluntary media code of conduct during the 60 day campaign period which supports impartial and balanced campaign coverage of all registered candidates and parties. The FDA recommends that the public get involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. If liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in government to the utmost. - Aristotle
United States--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 11, 2013) from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 2382 9 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012fdaglobalelectoralfairnessauditoftheusa-121014202752-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Venezuela--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 15, 2013) /slideshow/2012-fda-global-electoral-fairness-audit-of-the-venezuelan-presidential-electoral-system/14546772 2012fdaglobalelectoralfairnessauditofthevenezuelanpresidentialelectoralsystem-121001172902-phpapp01
Revised as of April 15, 2013 (Revision #1) Executive Summary The Venezuelan federal electoral system is very satisfactory as determined by the overall audit score of 78.83 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured 1) one unsatisfactory passing score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (52.5 percent); 2) one very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (77.9%); 3) two exceptional scores for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (100 percent) and voters (84.9 percent). The FDA audit focused on 52 variables, and it utilized matrices, financial analysis, and scoring scales. The most notable areas of the system are Venezuelas commitment to complete and balanced election coverage, thereby supporting a fair playing field for candidates and parties, and a commitment to peoples right to vote and the act of voting through various innovative and progressive measures. However, electoral finances of candidates and parties are only transparent to the state, and there are no direct caps on campaign contributions and no direct limits on expenditures. The lack of public financial transparency creates the potential for pro-government parties to pursue corrupt financial practices and leave anti-government parties subject to unjust assessments of their finances including targeting their contributors. The lack of caps and limits on electoral finances may create an unfair playing field in the realms of billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, because these media are not covered by the complete and balanced coverage requirement. The FDA has no evidence of electoral financial wrongdoing, as does no one else, because only the Venezuelan State through the National Electoral Council is privy to party finances. The FDA recommends reforms that will bring about public electoral finance transparency, caps on campaign contributions and limits on campaign expenditures. If implemented these reforms would make the Venezuelan electoral system a model for the rest of the world. As it stands, these limitations have the potential to allow for corrupt financial practices and create unfair playing fields for candidates and parties. Overall the FDA recommends that the public get continuously and actively involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. ]]>
Revised as of April 15, 2013 (Revision #1) Executive Summary The Venezuelan federal electoral system is very satisfactory as determined by the overall audit score of 78.83 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured 1) one unsatisfactory passing score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (52.5 percent); 2) one very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (77.9%); 3) two exceptional scores for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (100 percent) and voters (84.9 percent). The FDA audit focused on 52 variables, and it utilized matrices, financial analysis, and scoring scales. The most notable areas of the system are Venezuelas commitment to complete and balanced election coverage, thereby supporting a fair playing field for candidates and parties, and a commitment to peoples right to vote and the act of voting through various innovative and progressive measures. However, electoral finances of candidates and parties are only transparent to the state, and there are no direct caps on campaign contributions and no direct limits on expenditures. The lack of public financial transparency creates the potential for pro-government parties to pursue corrupt financial practices and leave anti-government parties subject to unjust assessments of their finances including targeting their contributors. The lack of caps and limits on electoral finances may create an unfair playing field in the realms of billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, because these media are not covered by the complete and balanced coverage requirement. The FDA has no evidence of electoral financial wrongdoing, as does no one else, because only the Venezuelan State through the National Electoral Council is privy to party finances. The FDA recommends reforms that will bring about public electoral finance transparency, caps on campaign contributions and limits on campaign expenditures. If implemented these reforms would make the Venezuelan electoral system a model for the rest of the world. As it stands, these limitations have the potential to allow for corrupt financial practices and create unfair playing fields for candidates and parties. Overall the FDA recommends that the public get continuously and actively involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. ]]> Mon, 01 Oct 2012 17:29:01 GMT /slideshow/2012-fda-global-electoral-fairness-audit-of-the-venezuelan-presidential-electoral-system/14546772 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Venezuela--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 15, 2013) FDAdvancement Revised as of April 15, 2013 (Revision #1) Executive Summary The Venezuelan federal electoral system is very satisfactory as determined by the overall audit score of 78.83 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured 1) one unsatisfactory passing score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (52.5 percent); 2) one very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (77.9%); 3) two exceptional scores for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (100 percent) and voters (84.9 percent). The FDA audit focused on 52 variables, and it utilized matrices, financial analysis, and scoring scales. The most notable areas of the system are Venezuelas commitment to complete and balanced election coverage, thereby supporting a fair playing field for candidates and parties, and a commitment to peoples right to vote and the act of voting through various innovative and progressive measures. However, electoral finances of candidates and parties are only transparent to the state, and there are no direct caps on campaign contributions and no direct limits on expenditures. The lack of public financial transparency creates the potential for pro-government parties to pursue corrupt financial practices and leave anti-government parties subject to unjust assessments of their finances including targeting their contributors. The lack of caps and limits on electoral finances may create an unfair playing field in the realms of billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, because these media are not covered by the complete and balanced coverage requirement. The FDA has no evidence of electoral financial wrongdoing, as does no one else, because only the Venezuelan State through the National Electoral Council is privy to party finances. The FDA recommends reforms that will bring about public electoral finance transparency, caps on campaign contributions and limits on campaign expenditures. If implemented these reforms would make the Venezuelan electoral system a model for the rest of the world. As it stands, these limitations have the potential to allow for corrupt financial practices and create unfair playing fields for candidates and parties. Overall the FDA recommends that the public get continuously and actively involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012fdaglobalelectoralfairnessauditofthevenezuelanpresidentialelectoralsystem-121001172902-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> Revised as of April 15, 2013 (Revision #1) Executive Summary The Venezuelan federal electoral system is very satisfactory as determined by the overall audit score of 78.83 percent (out of 100 percent). The FDA auditors measured 1) one unsatisfactory passing score for legislation pertaining to electoral finance (52.5 percent); 2) one very satisfactory score for legislation pertaining to candidates and parties (77.9%); 3) two exceptional scores for legislation pertaining to media election coverage (100 percent) and voters (84.9 percent). The FDA audit focused on 52 variables, and it utilized matrices, financial analysis, and scoring scales. The most notable areas of the system are Venezuelas commitment to complete and balanced election coverage, thereby supporting a fair playing field for candidates and parties, and a commitment to peoples right to vote and the act of voting through various innovative and progressive measures. However, electoral finances of candidates and parties are only transparent to the state, and there are no direct caps on campaign contributions and no direct limits on expenditures. The lack of public financial transparency creates the potential for pro-government parties to pursue corrupt financial practices and leave anti-government parties subject to unjust assessments of their finances including targeting their contributors. The lack of caps and limits on electoral finances may create an unfair playing field in the realms of billboards, flyers, posters, and campaign events, because these media are not covered by the complete and balanced coverage requirement. The FDA has no evidence of electoral financial wrongdoing, as does no one else, because only the Venezuelan State through the National Electoral Council is privy to party finances. The FDA recommends reforms that will bring about public electoral finance transparency, caps on campaign contributions and limits on campaign expenditures. If implemented these reforms would make the Venezuelan electoral system a model for the rest of the world. As it stands, these limitations have the potential to allow for corrupt financial practices and create unfair playing fields for candidates and parties. Overall the FDA recommends that the public get continuously and actively involved with the government legislative process and implementation if they want to protect and advance their democratic voice, and create a society of their choosing.
Venezuela--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report (Revised April 15, 2013) from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1673 5 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012fdaglobalelectoralfairnessauditofthevenezuelanpresidentialelectoralsystem-121001172902-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 FDA Media Study of the 2012 Alberta Provincial Election (Revised as of April 21, 2013) /slideshow/2012-fda-media-study-of-the-2012-alberta-provincial-election/13027480 2012fdamediastudyoftheabelection-120522071825-phpapp02
FDA Media Study revised as of April 21, 2013. Revision number 1. The FDA media study focuses on the last two weeks of the 2012 Alberta provincial election regarding the newspaper, radio, and television media sectors. The FDA collected data from two major media corporations in each sector and presents the relevant findings in the following report. It found that the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance Party had 65.2% of total media exposure and the seven other registered parties had 34.8% of total media exposure. Five of these seven parties had 4.1% of the total exposure. These results are similar to the actual election results in terms of percentage of coverage and percentage of popular vote received, and identical in terms of media and election result rankings of parties. The Alberta Legislature does not regulate provincial media in terms of election coverage. Therefore, the FDA recommends reform in media practices that should include some form of regulation such as a code of media conduct during elections and/or required election coverage for parties based on, for instance, the number of candidates each party endorses in an election. The high degree of media concentration in the Alberta press and television sectors may be a contributing factor to the inequitable coverage of the various parties.]]>
FDA Media Study revised as of April 21, 2013. Revision number 1. The FDA media study focuses on the last two weeks of the 2012 Alberta provincial election regarding the newspaper, radio, and television media sectors. The FDA collected data from two major media corporations in each sector and presents the relevant findings in the following report. It found that the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance Party had 65.2% of total media exposure and the seven other registered parties had 34.8% of total media exposure. Five of these seven parties had 4.1% of the total exposure. These results are similar to the actual election results in terms of percentage of coverage and percentage of popular vote received, and identical in terms of media and election result rankings of parties. The Alberta Legislature does not regulate provincial media in terms of election coverage. Therefore, the FDA recommends reform in media practices that should include some form of regulation such as a code of media conduct during elections and/or required election coverage for parties based on, for instance, the number of candidates each party endorses in an election. The high degree of media concentration in the Alberta press and television sectors may be a contributing factor to the inequitable coverage of the various parties.]]> Tue, 22 May 2012 07:18:24 GMT /slideshow/2012-fda-media-study-of-the-2012-alberta-provincial-election/13027480 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) FDA Media Study of the 2012 Alberta Provincial Election (Revised as of April 21, 2013) FDAdvancement FDA Media Study revised as of April 21, 2013. Revision number 1. The FDA media study focuses on the last two weeks of the 2012 Alberta provincial election regarding the newspaper, radio, and television media sectors. The FDA collected data from two major media corporations in each sector and presents the relevant findings in the following report. It found that the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance Party had 65.2% of total media exposure and the seven other registered parties had 34.8% of total media exposure. Five of these seven parties had 4.1% of the total exposure. These results are similar to the actual election results in terms of percentage of coverage and percentage of popular vote received, and identical in terms of media and election result rankings of parties. The Alberta Legislature does not regulate provincial media in terms of election coverage. Therefore, the FDA recommends reform in media practices that should include some form of regulation such as a code of media conduct during elections and/or required election coverage for parties based on, for instance, the number of candidates each party endorses in an election. The high degree of media concentration in the Alberta press and television sectors may be a contributing factor to the inequitable coverage of the various parties. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012fdamediastudyoftheabelection-120522071825-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> FDA Media Study revised as of April 21, 2013. Revision number 1. The FDA media study focuses on the last two weeks of the 2012 Alberta provincial election regarding the newspaper, radio, and television media sectors. The FDA collected data from two major media corporations in each sector and presents the relevant findings in the following report. It found that the PC Party and Wildrose Alliance Party had 65.2% of total media exposure and the seven other registered parties had 34.8% of total media exposure. Five of these seven parties had 4.1% of the total exposure. These results are similar to the actual election results in terms of percentage of coverage and percentage of popular vote received, and identical in terms of media and election result rankings of parties. The Alberta Legislature does not regulate provincial media in terms of election coverage. Therefore, the FDA recommends reform in media practices that should include some form of regulation such as a code of media conduct during elections and/or required election coverage for parties based on, for instance, the number of candidates each party endorses in an election. The high degree of media concentration in the Alberta press and television sectors may be a contributing factor to the inequitable coverage of the various parties.
FDA Media Study of the 2012 Alberta Provincial Election (Revised as of April 21, 2013) from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1263 9 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012fdamediastudyoftheabelection-120522071825-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 FDA Public Forum on Alberta Democracy Reform /slideshow/fda-public-forum-on-alberta-democracy-reform/12622678 fdapublicforum-120420134005-phpapp01
The FDA power point presentation from the April 17th, 2012 FDA Public Forum on Alberta Democracy Reform. The forum took place in Calgary, Alberta. The audio of the power point can listened to on the FDA itunes page: http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/fda-world-democracy-discussion/id4521492 ]]>
The FDA power point presentation from the April 17th, 2012 FDA Public Forum on Alberta Democracy Reform. The forum took place in Calgary, Alberta. The audio of the power point can listened to on the FDA itunes page: http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/fda-world-democracy-discussion/id4521492 ]]> Fri, 20 Apr 2012 13:40:03 GMT /slideshow/fda-public-forum-on-alberta-democracy-reform/12622678 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) FDA Public Forum on Alberta Democracy Reform FDAdvancement The FDA power point presentation from the April 17th, 2012 FDA Public Forum on Alberta Democracy Reform. The forum took place in Calgary, Alberta. The audio of the power point can listened to on the FDA itunes page: http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/fda-world-democracy-discussion/id4521492 <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fdapublicforum-120420134005-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> The FDA power point presentation from the April 17th, 2012 FDA Public Forum on Alberta Democracy Reform. The forum took place in Calgary, Alberta. The audio of the power point can listened to on the FDA itunes page: http://itunes.apple.com/ca/podcast/fda-world-democracy-discussion/id4521492
FDA Public Forum on Alberta Democracy Reform from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 994 5 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fdapublicforum-120420134005-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds presentation White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Canadian Provinces-- 2012 FDA Electoral Finance Audit Report /slideshow/canadian-provincesfda-electoral-finance-audit-report/12491920 2012canprovinceselectoralfinanceranking-120410154045-phpapp01
The FDA audit entails a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada's 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Qu辿bec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces' legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Qu辿bec's legislation. This measurement means that Qu辿bec's legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Qu辿bec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada's provinces model their legislation after Qu辿bec's. ]]>
The FDA audit entails a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada's 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Qu辿bec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces' legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Qu辿bec's legislation. This measurement means that Qu辿bec's legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Qu辿bec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada's provinces model their legislation after Qu辿bec's. ]]> Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:40:43 GMT /slideshow/canadian-provincesfda-electoral-finance-audit-report/12491920 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Canadian Provinces-- 2012 FDA Electoral Finance Audit Report FDAdvancement The FDA audit entails a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada's 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Qu辿bec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces' legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Qu辿bec's legislation. This measurement means that Qu辿bec's legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Qu辿bec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada's provinces model their legislation after Qu辿bec's. <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012canprovinceselectoralfinanceranking-120410154045-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> The FDA audit entails a comprehensive audit of the electoral finance legislation of Canada&#39;s 10 provinces. The audit is restricted to capturing systematic corruption. The FDA measured exceptional legislation in Qu辿bec and Manitoba, very good in Nova Scotia, acceptable in New Brunswick, unacceptable (passing) in Ontario and Newfoundland and Labrador, and unacceptable (failing) in Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan. The FDA believes that the legislation from Alberta, British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan is systematically corrupt by favouring minority/special interests over the interests of the people. The FDA identified major deficiencies in many areas of these provinces&#39; legislation including the addition of corporations and trade unions in electoral contributions, high caps on contributions, no expenditure limits, public subsidies which favor large, established parties, no regulation of third party expenditure, and/or low fines on corporations and trade unions for electoral wrongdoing. In contrast, FDA auditors measured zero deficiency in Qu辿bec&#39;s legislation. This measurement means that Qu辿bec&#39;s legislation is working completely in the interests of the people of Qu辿bec. The FDA recommends that the rest of Canada&#39;s provinces model their legislation after Qu辿bec&#39;s.
Canadian Provinces-- 2012 FDA Electoral Finance Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 2097 15 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012canprovinceselectoralfinanceranking-120410154045-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Alberta-- Executive Summary of the 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report /FDAdvancement/alberta-executive-summary-of-the-2012-fda-electoral-fairness-audit-report executivesummary2012albertareport-120228182735-phpapp01
The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta's legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.)]]>
The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta's legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.)]]> Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:27:34 GMT /FDAdvancement/alberta-executive-summary-of-the-2012-fda-electoral-fairness-audit-report FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Alberta-- Executive Summary of the 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report FDAdvancement The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta's legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/executivesummary2012albertareport-120228182735-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta&#39;s legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.)
Alberta-- Executive Summary of the 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1475 7 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/executivesummary2012albertareport-120228182735-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Alberta--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report /slideshow/2012-alberta-electoral-fairness-report/11790487 2012albertaelectoralfairnessreport-120228175624-phpapp02
The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta's legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.)]]>
The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta's legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.)]]> Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:56:22 GMT /slideshow/2012-alberta-electoral-fairness-report/11790487 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Alberta--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report FDAdvancement The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta's legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012albertaelectoralfairnessreport-120228175624-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> The 2012 FDA electoral fairness audit of Alberta&#39;s legislative level of government uses new matrices in the audit process as outlined to the Research Methodology section of the report. These matrices are more comprehensive of electoral systems than previous FDA audits, and therefore, the use of the new matrices may result in higher electoral fairness scores. FDA auditors measured Alberta with a 54% overall electoral fairness score. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum and reasonably attainable score.)
Alberta--2012 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1577 7 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2012albertaelectoralfairnessreport-120228175624-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Democratic Republic of Congo--2011 FDA Global Electoral Audit Report /slideshow/drc2011/10475192 2011electoralfairnessauditofdrc-111205195856-phpapp01
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of the Congolese presidential and parliamentary electoral system. FDA auditors gave the DRC an overall electoral score of 3.75%. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum score attainable.)]]>
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of the Congolese presidential and parliamentary electoral system. FDA auditors gave the DRC an overall electoral score of 3.75%. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum score attainable.)]]> Mon, 05 Dec 2011 19:58:55 GMT /slideshow/drc2011/10475192 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Democratic Republic of Congo--2011 FDA Global Electoral Audit Report FDAdvancement 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of the Congolese presidential and parliamentary electoral system. FDA auditors gave the DRC an overall electoral score of 3.75%. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum score attainable.) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofdrc-111205195856-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of the Congolese presidential and parliamentary electoral system. FDA auditors gave the DRC an overall electoral score of 3.75%. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum score attainable.)
Democratic Republic of Congo--2011 FDA Global Electoral Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1555 8 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofdrc-111205195856-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Jordan--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report /FDAdvancement/2011-electoral-fairness-audit-of-jordan 2011electoralfairnessauditofjordan-111118194059-phpapp01
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Jordan's parliamentary electoral system. FDA auditors gave Jordan an overall electoral score of 0%. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum score attainable.)]]>
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Jordan's parliamentary electoral system. FDA auditors gave Jordan an overall electoral score of 0%. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum score attainable.)]]> Fri, 18 Nov 2011 19:40:57 GMT /FDAdvancement/2011-electoral-fairness-audit-of-jordan FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Jordan--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report FDAdvancement 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Jordan's parliamentary electoral system. FDA auditors gave Jordan an overall electoral score of 0%. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum score attainable.) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofjordan-111118194059-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Jordan&#39;s parliamentary electoral system. FDA auditors gave Jordan an overall electoral score of 0%. (0% is the lowest score attainable; 50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum score attainable.)
Jordan--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1274 8 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofjordan-111118194059-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Egypt--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report /slideshow/2011-electoral-fairness-audit-of-egypt/9863552 2011electoralfairnessauditofegypt-111024171853-phpapp01
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Egypt's Islamic Republic electoral system (under Hosni Mubarak). FDA auditors gave Egypt an overall electoral score of 23.75%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)]]>
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Egypt's Islamic Republic electoral system (under Hosni Mubarak). FDA auditors gave Egypt an overall electoral score of 23.75%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)]]> Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:18:50 GMT /slideshow/2011-electoral-fairness-audit-of-egypt/9863552 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Egypt--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report FDAdvancement 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Egypt's Islamic Republic electoral system (under Hosni Mubarak). FDA auditors gave Egypt an overall electoral score of 23.75%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofegypt-111024171853-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Egypt&#39;s Islamic Republic electoral system (under Hosni Mubarak). FDA auditors gave Egypt an overall electoral score of 23.75%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)
Egypt--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 969 7 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofegypt-111024171853-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Afghanistan--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report /slideshow/2011-electoral-fairness-audit-of-afghanistan/9650794 2011electoralfairnessauditofafghanistan-111011184214-phpapp02
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Afghan's Islamic Republic electoral system FDA auditors gave Afghanistan an overall electoral score of 23.75%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)]]>
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Afghan's Islamic Republic electoral system FDA auditors gave Afghanistan an overall electoral score of 23.75%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)]]> Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:42:14 GMT /slideshow/2011-electoral-fairness-audit-of-afghanistan/9650794 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Afghanistan--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report FDAdvancement 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Afghan's Islamic Republic electoral system FDA auditors gave Afghanistan an overall electoral score of 23.75%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofafghanistan-111011184214-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Afghan&#39;s Islamic Republic electoral system FDA auditors gave Afghanistan an overall electoral score of 23.75%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)
Afghanistan--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1318 5 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofafghanistan-111011184214-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Spain--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report /FDAdvancement/spainfda-global-electoral-fairness-audit-report 2011electoralfairnessauditofspain-110926165023-phpapp02
2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of Spain's federal electoral system FDA auditors gave Spain an overall electoral fairness score of 42.25%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)]]>
2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of Spain's federal electoral system FDA auditors gave Spain an overall electoral fairness score of 42.25%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)]]> Mon, 26 Sep 2011 16:50:20 GMT /FDAdvancement/spainfda-global-electoral-fairness-audit-report FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Spain--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report FDAdvancement 2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of Spain's federal electoral system FDA auditors gave Spain an overall electoral fairness score of 42.25%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofspain-110926165023-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> 2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit of Spain&#39;s federal electoral system FDA auditors gave Spain an overall electoral fairness score of 42.25%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)
Spain--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1216 15 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofspain-110926165023-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 Iraq--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report /slideshow/iraq2011-fda-electoral-fairness-audit-report/9199157 2011electoralfairnessauditofiraq-110909200131-phpapp02
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Iraq's federal electoral system FDA auditors gave Iraq an overall electoral score of 35.25%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)]]>
2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Iraq's federal electoral system FDA auditors gave Iraq an overall electoral score of 35.25%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)]]> Fri, 09 Sep 2011 20:01:30 GMT /slideshow/iraq2011-fda-electoral-fairness-audit-report/9199157 FDAdvancement@slideshare.net(FDAdvancement) Iraq--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report FDAdvancement 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Iraq's federal electoral system FDA auditors gave Iraq an overall electoral score of 35.25%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.) <img style="border:1px solid #C3E6D8;float:right;" alt="" src="https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofiraq-110909200131-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&amp;height=120&amp;fit=bounds" /><br> 2011 FDA Electoral Fairness Audit of Iraq&#39;s federal electoral system FDA auditors gave Iraq an overall electoral score of 35.25%. (50% is the minimum passing grade; 100% is the maximum grade.)
Iraq--2011 FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Report from Foundation for Democratic Advancement
]]> 1060 6 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2011electoralfairnessauditofiraq-110909200131-phpapp02-thumbnail.jpg?width=120&height=120&fit=bounds document White http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/post http://activitystrea.ms/schema/1.0/posted 0 https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/profile-photo-FDAdvancement-48x48.jpg?cb=1523101583 The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is an international independent, non-partisan democracy organization. The FDAs mission is to measure, study, and communicate the impact of government processes on a free and democratic society. Overall, the FDA works 1. to ensure that people become more knowledgeable about the outcomes of government processes and can then make decisions that are more informed; 2. to get people involved in monitoring government processes at all levels of government and in providing sound, practical, and effective suggestions. (For more information on the FDA visit: www.democracychange.org) democracychange.org https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2014fdaprocessreviewofalbertamunicipallevies-140316123616-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/2014-fda-process-review-of-alberta-municipal-levies-32370800/32370800 2014 FDA Process Revie... https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/fdaprocessreviewoftheveteransaffairandappealboard-131109125753-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/fdas-brian-bradley-case-study-and-process-review-of-the-veterans-review-and-appeal-board/28072147 FDA&#39;s Brian Bradley Ca... https://cdn.slidesharecdn.com/ss_thumbnails/2013fdacalgarymayoralfinanceaudit-final-131014125452-phpapp01-thumbnail.jpg?width=320&height=320&fit=bounds slideshow/2013-fda-calgary-mayoral-finance-audit-final/27177587 FDA Electoral Finance ...