In May/June, the FDA will release reports on the Alberta major media election content, electoral finances on the 2010 Calgary mayoral election and 2012 Alberta provincial election, and electoral fairness audit of the U.S. federal electoral system.

In June, the FDA will conduct an electoral fairness audit on United Kingdom's parliamentary electoral system.

Other FDA electoral fairness audits in 2012 will focus on Israel, Malaysia, Germany, and the Philippines.

Shortly the FDA will launch a new advanced website with high resolution photos etc.

At some point, the FDA will begin a comparative study on Egypt and Tunisia to determine what progress the countries have made in terms of electoral fairness.

The FDA is in the process of creating an independent, qualified "Editorial Advisory Board." The roles of the Board would be to review FDA reports and provide feedback.

The Foundation for Democratic Advancement (FDA) is a non-partisan and independent democracy reform and advocacy organization. The FDA's reforms center on increasing the voice of the people from constituencies. The FDA members embrace the following principles: progress, innovation, objectivity, and transparency. The mission of the FDA is to advance democratic processes all over the world in terms of transparency and fairness, thereby bringing the voice of the people to the forefront of democratic discourse.

About Us

2012 FDA Canadian Provinces Electoral Finance Audit Report

2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Alberta

2012 Alberta election results under preferential voting and proportional representation (April 2012)

2012 Alberta election results and notable facts (April 2012)

Alberta last in voter turnout and fairness of electoral finance legislation (April 2012)

Video: FDA presentation of the AB parties' democracy reform platforms (April 2012)

Albertans' election dilemma (April 2012)

AB Parties: 2008 Democracy Reform Platforms Compared to 2012 Platforms (April 2012)

Alberta electoral system under microscope (April 2012)

Alberta Among 4 out of 10 Provinces to Receive "F" for Electoral Finance (April 2012)

Further Evidence of Albera Media Bias and Censorship in Alberta Election (April 2012)

2012 Alberta Parties' Democracy Reform Platforms (April 2012)

More evidence of media bias in Alberta election (April 2012)

Wildrose Resort to Inducing Voters? (April 2012)

Alberta media bias and big money interests (April 2012)

FDA Public Forum on Alberta Democracy Reform (on Tuesday, April 17) (April 2012)

Evidence of media bias early in Alberta election (March 2012)

2012 Alberta election set for April 23 (March 2012)

Evidence of Wildrose being canceled by the PC Party (March 2012)

Evidence of linkage between the PC Party and money interests (March 2012)

Evidence of money interests undermining municipal elections (March 2012)

2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Alberta (March 2012)

Executive Summary of the 2012 FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Alberta (March 2012)

Redford's proposed changes to Alberta election laws cosmetic (February 2012)

FDA Electoral Fairness Research:

Research and Findings on the Alberta Provincial Electoral System (pdf)

Research and Findings on the Democratic Republic of Congo (pdf)

Research and Findings on Jordan (pdf)

Research and Findings on Egypt (pdf)

Research and Findings on Afghanistan (pdf)

Research and Findings on Iraq (pdf)

Research and Findings on Bolivia (pdf)

Research and Findings on Norway (pdf)

Research and Findings on Saudi Arabia (pdf)

Research and Findings on New Zealand (pdf)

Research and Findings on Sweden (pdf)

Research and Findings on France (pdf)

Research and Findings on Azerbaijan (pdf)

Research and Findings on Iran (pdf)

Research and Findings on Yemen (pdf)

New Electoral Fairness Reports:

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on the Democratic Republic of Congo (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Jordan (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Egypt (under Hosni Mubarak) (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Afghanistan (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Spain (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Iraq (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Bolivia (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Cameroon (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Saudi Arabia (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on New Zealand (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Sweden (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Azerbaijan (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Iran (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on France (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Bahrain (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Libya (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Russia (pdf)

Electoral Fairness Reports:

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Syria (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Canada (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on the USA (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Lebanon (pdf)

FDA Electoral Fairness Report on Venezuela (pdf)

FDA 100 Percent Score for Electoral Fairness (pdf)

FDA Global Electoral Fairness Audit Results (current results)

Laws and regultions on the equality of political content of the media and broadcasters before, during, and after an election:

Laws and regulations on the equality of candidate and political party influence before, during, and after an election:

Laws and regulations on the equality of electoral (campaign) finance:

Laws and regulations on the equality of voter influence before, during, and after an election:

Overall Electoral Fairness Audit Scores:

Total of 29 countries to date

Canadians (at least 24.3% of the total voting population) focus on short-term despite mounting global crises

2011 FDA Canadian Federal Election Audit Results:

1. Liberal Party of Canada (61.54%) (C)
2. Canadian Action Party (61.2%) (C)
3. New Democratic Party (56.9%) (D+)
4. Marxist-Leninist Party of Canada (51.5%) (D)
5. Green Party of Canada (48.8%) (F)
6. Communist Party of Canada (47.54%) (F)
7. Bloc Quebecois (45.3%) (F)
8. Conservative Party of Canada (43.8%) (F)
9. Christian Heritage Party (40.42%) (F)
10. Progressive Canadian Party (36.7%) (F)
11. United Party of Canada (30.4%) (F)
12. Libertarian Party of Canada 18.2/130 (14%) (F)

Source: Elections Canada

Analysis:

The Conservative Party of Canada received a failing grade by the FDA of 43.8%, and yet with only 24.3% support of the Canadian public received a majority government.

The Conservative Party policy platform focused on the short-term with strong economy and taxation policies, but very weak environment, health, education, democracy reform, and arts and culture policies, and weak vision for Canada. Moreover, Harper has an average background (59% FDA score) for the role of leading the Canadian federal government.

The three top parties in the election results, Conservative Party, NDP, and Liberal Party, had a significant advantage over the other parties in terms of media access, campaign funds, and media coverage.

Considering the unequal media and broadcast coverage of the election, the similarity of the Liberal and Conservative policy approaches, and the NDP's strong case for being the parliamentary opposition over the Liberal Party, the election results are not surprising. The Conservative Party cancelled out the Liberal Party, and the NDP took on the role of opposition.

Conclusion:

As established in the FDA electoral fairness report for Canada, the Canadian federal electoral system is very unhealthy, stemming from severe favoritism of parties successful in previous elections and significant unequal political content by the Canadian mainstream media and broadcasters.

As mentioned, only 24.3% of Canadians supported the Conservative Party, and yet the party received a majority government. This situation is problematic, because 75.7% of Canadians do not support the Conservative Party. Further, the Canadian electoral system is significantly unfair, which likely means even more Canadians do not support the Conservative Party (in a more fair system).

Ironically, despite the seriousness of the democracy issue in Canada, the Conservative Party has one of the weakest policies for democracy reform, receiving a FDA policy score of 20%. So it is highly unlikely the Conservative Party will do anything to address electoral unfairness (barring the end of party subsidies).

Canadians will have to live with the Conservative Party and its short-term, status quo outlook, and possible repercussions be they environmental, social, and/or economical.

Executive Summary of the 2011 FDA Canadian Federal Election Audit (Pdf file)

2011 FDA Canadian Federal Election Audit Report (Pdf file)

FDA's Electoral Fairness Results for Canada:

1. Research and audit results for Canadian laws and regulations on the political content of media including newspapers, broadcasters, online media, before, during, and after elections.

2.3/10

2. Research and audit results for Canadian Laws and regulations on the equality of candidates and parties influence before, during and after elections.

1/10

3. Research and audit results for Canadian laws and regulations on electoral finance.

1/10

4. Research and audit results for laws and regulations on the equality of voter say before, during, and after an election.

6/10

Total score: 10.3/40

25.75%

Analysis:

Canada received an overall failing grade for electoral fairness of 25.75%. The score means that there is significantly more electoral unfairness in Canada than electoral fairness.

Canada's only passing grade of 60% is in equality of voter say. This score is an unacceptable level whereby there is prevalent inequality of voter say (despite more equality than inequality).

Canada's scores for electoral finance and equality of candidate and party influence are 10%. This score is bordering on fully unequal electoral finance and fully unequal candidate and party influence.

Canada's score of 23% for equality of political content of the media and broadcasters means that there is significantly more inequality of political content in the Canadian media than there is equality of political content.

Conclusion:

Canada's overall score of 25.75% for electoral fairness means that Canada's electoral system is significantly more unfair than fair.

In consideration of the research and findings, the source of the electoral unfairness is severe inequality in the media and severe favoring of candidates and parties which were successful in the previous election. The success in the previous election and control of the media are mutually reinforcing forces. It should be noted that in principal, a person who wins for example a marathon, is not given a significant head start in the next marathon simply because he won the previous. He starts at the same place as the other competitors. In Canada's electoral system, candidates and parties successful in the previous election are given inexplicably a very significant head start or advantage in the next election and throughout it.

In contrast to Egypt (under Mubarak) which received a 0% overall score for electoral fairness and Tunisia (under Ben Ali) which received a 10% overall score, Canada is from 15.75% to 25.75% better. Yet Canada is still significantly in the failing zone for electoral fairness. (A passing grade is 50%.) Moreover, in Egypt and Tunisia, the source of electoral unfairness stems from state control, whereas in Canada, the source of electoral unfairness stems from media dominance and favoring of dominant parties.

To put Canada's failing score into further perspective, Finland received an overall score of 40.75% for electoral fairness. This score means that the Finish electoral system is more unfair than fair, while Canada's electoral system, as mentioned, is significantly more unfair than fair.

The source of Canada's failing grade for electoral fairness stems likely from the fact that the majority of the Parliament determines the election rules, and the majority of Canada's parliamentarians have the support of Canada's mainstream media and broadcasters. Basically and inexplicably, the majority of Canada's federal politicians are making the rules of their own game. It is a self-perpetuating system favoring particular political parties who have the support of the mainstream media, in a never ending cycle of electoral unfairness.

Recommendations:

1. The majority of federal politicians cease to determine the federal election laws.

2. An independent, non-partisan citizen based committee made up of the diverse regions of Canada determine the federal election laws, and which must be consistent with the Canadian Constitution and Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

3. The Canadian mainstream media and broadcasters three months prior to an election period and during it, are required to present an equality of non-partisan political content of all registered political parties.

4. No registered political party is given an unequal advantage prior to and during an election. All registered political parties begin an election from the same starting place in terms of finances and media access, and throughout the campaign.

Update as of December 18, 2011:

5. Registered political parties should have public support of at least .5 percent member support from the voting population and have a national platform. The .5 percent threshold is a democratic means of limiting political access by unpopular political parties. The requirement of a national platform prevents interest and regional based political parties from having the same privileges as registered political parties. However, interest and regional based political parties would be allowed to be on electoral lists as long as they satisfy the .5 percent member support threshold. (Sources: ideas of FDA auditors; Venezuela, Organic Law of Electoral Processes, Chapter II, Article 9-10, .5 percent declared member support either national or regional; Norway, Political Parties Act, Chapter II, Article 3(2), party registration based partly on public support from 5000 person who are eligible to vote; France, Organic Law No. 2011-410, representation on electoral list requires support from 500 elected officials at any level of government, and new political parties need $10,000 in donations in a 12 month period to receive public funding; Bolivia, Bolivian Law of the Electoral System, Act No. 26, political groups must represent at least 2 percent of vote in last election to be registered in subsequent election; New Zealand, Electoral Law 1993, to be registered political parties need at least 500 members; Egypt under Mubarak, Law No. 40 of the year 1977 Concerning the Political Party System and Its Amendments, ban on political parties which are based on religious, class, sectarian, categorical, or geographical basis. Note, countries with minimal barriers to entry for political parties like New Zealand, Canada, and the United States have various barriers within their electoral systems which favor significantly established and large political parties.)

Electoral fairness Report for Canada (Pdf file)