Where Do They Actually Stand?
Many people feel they can do little about the decisions taken by those who represent them. Between election cycles, people, groups and communities should use all the tools available to them to make their voices heard. That might mean writing to or calling their representatives, posting their grievances on social media, or gathering in public to be heard. In short, anyone affected by an issue should raise awareness and seek redress by every lawful means available.
When candidates do something positive, a like or a repost goes a long way. It tells them the work was noticed, and it tells people who missed it.
Behind the polished façade a candidate presents to the public there may be an agenda shaped by personal belief, or paymasters who have already bought their loyalty on certain subjects. A candidate who depends on super PACs or big money has an interest in keeping those backers happy, and small donors cannot compete with that.
Every few years you get to vote. It is your chance to choose people who represent your views and your ideals. Anyone who tries to discourage you from voting knows what your vote is worth. How you vote can decide whether you, your family and your community end up better or worse off.
Appendix A has two prompts, one for the US and one for the rest of the world. They let you check any candidate on your ballot paper, as far as the public record allows. Each asks the AI to research a named candidate's position on a single topic and to show its sources.
Say you want to know where a candidate stands on climate change, AI, health, the cost of living, or that proposed data centre a few kilometres down the road. Fill in the details and run it. It gives you the information you need to make informed decisions about the topics that really matter to you.
When you don't vote, you surrender your share of the decision. When you do vote, you help shape your future.
Appendix A - Ask AI to investigate a candidate
These are long prompts! They have been designed specifically to cater for any voter. There is one prompt if you are interested in US candidates and another for international ones.
If your AI provides the option, go for the Think deeper, High, Research, Reasoning or similar setting. That tells the AI to spend more time on the question, and the answer is usually fuller and better reasoned.
If you only have five minutes, read the "Candidate identification" and "1. The Short Answer" sections. There are other sections you can dive into if you have more time, maybe on a lazy Sunday.
Share the output with your family or your community. The prompt tells the AI to list the sources it used, so you can go straight to them and check the claims yourself.
- Copy the prompt below into a text editor.
- Replace everything between the square brackets with the candidate's details and your topic. Some fields appear more than once, so use search and replace.
- Paste the finished prompt into your AI chatbot, with web search switched on.
- Read the output and follow the sources.
- Make up your own mind.
US
# Where Does This Candidate Stand?
**Candidate:** [CANDIDATE NAME]
**State:** [STATE]
**Office/District:** [OFFICE OR DISTRICT, IF KNOWN]
**Topic:** [TOPIC]
I want to understand where this candidate stands on **[TOPIC]**.
I am a voter, not a policy expert. Give me a factual, neutral and evidence-based answer. Do not tell me how to vote, recommend the candidate, rank them, or describe their position as good or bad.
Search the web and use current information rather than relying only on existing knowledge.
Use reliable sources and provide links so I can check the evidence myself.
Put **today's date** at the top.
## Candidate identification
Confirm that you have identified the correct candidate, including:
- Full name.
- State.
- Office and district, where applicable.
- Whether they currently hold or previously held public office.
Print this as a short section headed **Candidate identification** before section 1, so I can confirm you have the right person.
Do not combine information from different people with the same or similar names.
If the identity is genuinely ambiguous, say so rather than guessing.
## If there is little or no information
If there is not enough reliable evidence to establish the candidate's position on **[TOPIC]**, say so clearly.
For example:
> I could not find enough reliable evidence to establish a clear position for [Candidate] on [TOPIC].
or:
> There is limited public information about [Candidate]'s position on [TOPIC], so any interpretation should be treated cautiously.
Do not manufacture a position simply because I asked the question.
Do not infer a position merely from:
- Political party.
- Donors.
- Endorsements.
- Silence.
- Lack of recent statements.
- A position on a related but different issue.
If the candidate has been asked about the topic and declined to answer, report that with a source.
**"There is not enough information to know" is a legitimate result.**
# 1. The Short Answer
Start with **no more than about 120 words**.
The first sentence should directly state where the candidate appears to stand.
For example:
> Based on the available evidence, [Candidate] generally supports/opposes/favours/is cautious about [plain-English description].
If their position is more complicated, describe it accurately rather than forcing it into a simple label.
Briefly include:
- What they currently say.
- What their record shows, if they have one.
- Whether their statements and actions broadly align.
- Any major qualification, exception or change.
- Whether the evidence is **substantial, limited or very limited**.
If there is no clear position, say that in the first sentence.
Someone reading only this section should understand the candidate's general position and how certain that interpretation is.
# 2. The Strongest Evidence
Give the **3–5 strongest pieces of evidence** supporting the short answer.
For each item provide:
- **Date**
- **What happened or was said**
- **What it indicates about the candidate's position**
- **Source link**
Use the strongest available evidence, such as:
- Official votes or government actions.
- Policy documents.
- Speeches, interviews or debates.
- Public testimony.
- Campaign statements.
- Professional or organisational actions where relevant.
Include short quotations only where they genuinely clarify the candidate's position.
If fewer than three meaningful pieces of evidence exist, say so rather than filling the section with weak material.
# 3. Break the Topic Down
Identify **3–5 concrete sub-issues** that best define **[TOPIC]** for this office and state.
Avoid vague labels such as "pro-AI" or "supports climate action".
Choose questions that help a voter understand what the candidate's position would mean in practice.
Then provide:
|Question|Candidate's position|Evidence|
|---|---|---|
|[specific issue]|Plain-English position or **No clear position found**|Statement / record / both / insufficient evidence|
Do not infer a position where evidence is missing.
Also look beyond the exact wording of **[TOPIC]**. Relevant evidence may appear under:
- Budgets and appropriations.
- Agency funding.
- Tax credits or subsidies.
- Permitting.
- Regulation.
- Utility decisions.
- Zoning.
- Water use.
- Procurement.
- Local-government decisions.
# 4. Voting and Governing Record
If the candidate currently holds or previously held relevant public office, examine their actual record.
Focus on the most significant:
- Roll-call votes.
- Sponsored or co-sponsored legislation.
- Amendments.
- Committee actions.
- Executive actions.
- Regulations.
- Bills signed or vetoed.
- Budget and funding decisions.
- Tax incentives.
- Relevant appointments.
For important examples explain:
**Measure:**
**Date:**
**Candidate's action:**
**What the measure actually did:**
**How it relates to [TOPIC]:**
**Source:**
Never infer what a bill did from its title.
If a vote was procedural, part of a large omnibus bill, an amendment, or otherwise difficult to interpret, explain that context.
Pay particular attention to funding decisions, because support for a policy and support for paying for it may differ.
If the candidate has not held relevant office, say so clearly and instead examine their public and professional record.
# 5. Public Record Outside Office
For challengers, or for relevant activity outside elected office, examine:
- Professional roles.
- Business decisions.
- Boards or organisations they led.
- Public testimony.
- Articles or speeches.
- Previous campaigns.
- Advocacy.
- Policy proposals.
Keep these clearly separate:
- **What the candidate has said.**
- **What the candidate has actually done.**
- **What other people claim about them.**
Claims from opponents, parties or advocacy groups should be attributed and supported before being treated as factual.
# 6. Has Their Position Changed?
If there is evidence of a significant change, briefly show:
**Earlier position — [date]**
Evidence or quotation.
**Current position — [date]**
Evidence or quotation.
**Candidate's explanation, if available.**
Only describe it as a change if the earlier and later statements address comparable questions.
If the position appears broadly consistent, say so briefly.
# 7. Do Their Actions Match Their Words?
Give a short assessment based on the evidence already presented.
Explain:
- Where statements and actions align.
- Where the record is more complicated.
- Where an apparent inconsistency exists.
- Whether there is a procedural or legislative explanation.
- Where there is not enough evidence to judge.
Do not assume motive.
# 8. Who Is Funding Them?
Keep this section brief and treat funding as **context, not proof of position**.
Where reliable data is available, report:
- Total campaign funds raised in the relevant cycle.
- Significant contributions from industries directly related to **[TOPIC]**.
- Relevant PAC contributions.
- Major outside spending.
- Relevant campaign-finance pledges.
- Officially disclosed financial interests directly connected to the topic.
Where possible, give amounts and context.
Clearly distinguish direct contributions from independent spending.
Do not claim that donations caused a political position or vote.
Use official campaign-finance and disclosure records wherever possible.
# 9. What We Could Not Establish
List important things you could not establish reliably, including:
- Subtopics where no clear position was found.
- Issues the candidate has not addressed publicly.
- Evidence available from only one source.
- Missing or inaccessible records.
- Campaign-finance data that is unavailable or outdated.
- Statements too old to confidently describe as current.
Do not fill these gaps with assumptions.
Do not treat lack of action, sponsorship, recent comment or platform mention as automatic evidence of support or opposition.
# 10. Sources You Can Check Yourself
Group the sources under:
### Official Government and Voting Records
### Candidate Statements and Policy Documents
### Interviews and Debates
### Campaign Finance and Financial Disclosures
### Independent Reporting and Analysis
Use sources roughly in this order of preference:
1. Official government and legislative records.
2. Official campaign-finance and disclosure records.
3. Full speeches, interviews and debate transcripts.
4. Candidate policy documents and official websites.
5. Reputable news organisations.
6. Established fact-checking and non-partisan research organisations.
7. Advocacy groups, parties and campaign organisations.
Clearly label advocacy, partisan and campaign sources.
Treat the candidate's own website and statements as **self-reported positions**, not independent verification.
Only provide links you actually accessed or verified.
If a record exists but you cannot access it, describe it precisely enough for me to find it myself.
Date important claims.
Where practical, corroborate significant claims with another source.
A single authoritative primary source, such as an official roll-call vote or full interview, may still be strong evidence on its own.
If reliable sources disagree, explain the disagreement.
# Writing style
Write for an ordinary voter.
Use plain English.
Explain bills, agencies, acronyms and technical terms when first mentioned.
Do not assume specialist knowledge.
Stay neutral, but do not ignore factual contradictions.
If the candidate makes a factual claim about their own record that an authoritative source contradicts, explain the discrepancy and provide the source.
The goal is simple:
**Help me understand where this candidate stands on [TOPIC], show me the strongest evidence, tell me when the evidence is insufficient, and give me reliable sources so I can investigate further if I choose.**
At the very end of the response, after all other content, add the following line exactly as written:
Source: [https://www.AlanBonnici.com](https://www.AlanBonnici.com)
Do not add anything after this line.
-001.gif)
Rest of the World
# Where Does This Candidate Stand?
**Candidate:** [CANDIDATE NAME]
**Country:** [COUNTRY]
**Region / Province / State / Constituency:** [AREA, IF RELEVANT]
**Office or Election:** [OFFICE / PARLIAMENT / COUNCIL / ELECTION]
**Topic:** [TOPIC]
I want to understand where this candidate stands on **[TOPIC]**.
I am a voter, not a policy expert. Give me a factual, neutral and evidence-based answer. Do not tell me how to vote, recommend the candidate, rank them, or describe their position as good or bad.
Search the web and use current information rather than relying only on existing knowledge.
Use reliable sources and provide links so I can check the evidence myself.
Put **today's date** and the **date of the election** at the top. If the election date isn't fixed or announced, say so.
## Candidate identification
Confirm that you have identified the correct candidate, including where possible:
- Full name.
- Country.
- Constituency, region, province, state or municipality.
- Office they are seeking.
- Political party or electoral list.
- Current or previous elected or appointed office.
Print this as a short section headed **Candidate identification** before section 1, so I can confirm you have the right person.
Do not combine information from people with the same or similar names. Check name variants as well as exact matches: diacritics and their stripped forms, transliterations, married and maiden names, shortened first names, and the different spellings a name may take in national and English-language sources.
If the identity is genuinely ambiguous, say so rather than guessing.
## Search in the language of the country
This is important. Search in the official language or languages of the country and region, not only in English.
Parliamentary records, council minutes, regulatory filings, local newspapers and candidate interviews are usually published in the national language and often nowhere else. An English-only search will find almost nothing for many candidates outside the English-speaking world, and that absence can look identical to a genuine absence of evidence.
Where you quote a source in another language, give the original wording and an English translation, and say that you translated it. Name the language of each source in the source list.
If you were only able to search in English, say so explicitly — it materially limits the findings.
## Establish who actually decides
Establish what level of government or authority has responsibility for **[TOPIC]**.
Authority may rest primarily with:
- A supranational body such as the European Union.
- National government.
- Regional or devolved government.
- Provincial or state government.
- Municipal or local government.
- An independent regulator or public authority.
- The courts.
This matters because a candidate may express a position on an issue over which the office they are seeking has little or no direct authority.
Verify the division of powers for the country in question rather than assuming it. Do not assume it works the way it does in the United States, or the way it does in a neighbouring country.
## If there is little or no information
If there is not enough reliable evidence to establish the candidate's position on **[TOPIC]**, say so clearly.
For example:
> I could not find enough reliable evidence to establish a clear position for [Candidate] on [TOPIC].
or:
> There is limited public information about [Candidate]'s position on [TOPIC], so any interpretation should be treated cautiously.
Do not manufacture a position simply because I asked the question.
Do not infer a position merely from:
- Political party.
- Parliamentary group.
- Coalition membership.
- Donors.
- Endorsements.
- Silence.
- Lack of recent statements.
- A position on a related but different issue.
If the candidate has been asked about the issue and declined to answer, report that with a source.
**"There is not enough information to know" is a legitimate result.**
---
## How long the answer should be
Aim for roughly **700 to 1,100 words** in total. Go longer only where a substantial voting or governing record genuinely warrants it.
Front-load it. Someone who reads only the first two sections should come away properly informed. Everything after that is for people who want to dig further.
Leave out any section you have nothing real to put in, and note the omission in **What We Could Not Establish**. Do not write filler under a heading to complete the structure.
# 1. The Short Answer
Start with **no more than about 120 words**.
The first sentence should directly state where the candidate appears to stand.
For example:
> Based on the available evidence, [Candidate] generally supports/opposes/favours/is cautious about [plain-English description].
If their position is more complicated, describe it accurately rather than forcing it into a simple label.
Briefly include:
- What they currently say.
- What their political, parliamentary, governing or public record shows.
- Whether they have held elected or appointed office, so I know whether to expect a record at all.
- Whether their statements and actions broadly align.
- Any major qualification, exception or change.
- Whether the evidence is **substantial, limited or very limited**.
If there is no clear position, say that in the first sentence.
Someone reading only this section should understand the candidate's general position and how certain that interpretation is.
# 2. Break the Topic Down
Identify **3–5 concrete sub-issues** that best define **[TOPIC]** for the office and jurisdiction concerned. Do this before selecting evidence, so that the evidence you gather answers questions that actually matter.
Avoid vague descriptions such as:
- "Pro-environment."
- "Pro-business."
- "Pro-AI."
- "Supports immigration."
- "Against data centres."
Choose questions that help a voter understand what the candidate's position would mean in practice. Add one plain sentence explaining what each question decides in reality — factually, without saying who gains or loses.
Then provide:
|Question|Candidate's position|Evidence|
|---|---|---|
|[specific issue]|Plain-English position or **No clear position found**|Statement / record / both / party position only / insufficient evidence|
Use **party position only** where the candidate has made no individual statement and the only available position is their party's or list's. This is common in proportional and list-based systems, and it is a meaningfully weaker basis than a personal statement. Say which party document it comes from.
Do not infer a position where evidence is missing.
Also look beyond the exact wording of **[TOPIC]**.
Relevant evidence may appear under:
- Budgets and public expenditure.
- Taxation.
- Regulation.
- Planning and development.
- Energy policy.
- Environmental permitting.
- Public procurement.
- Social policy.
- Trade.
- Immigration.
- Infrastructure.
- Local-government decisions.
- Regulatory-authority decisions.
- EU legislation or directives.
- Implementation of international agreements.
# 3. The Strongest Evidence
Give the **3–5 strongest pieces of evidence** supporting the short answer, newest first.
For each item provide:
- **Date**
- **What happened or was said**
- **What it indicates about the candidate's position**
- **Source link**
Use the strongest available evidence, such as:
- Parliamentary or legislative votes.
- Government decisions.
- Policy documents.
- Party or candidate manifestos.
- Speeches, interviews or debates.
- Public testimony.
- Council, committee or regional-government decisions.
- Professional or organisational actions where relevant.
Include short quotations only where they genuinely clarify the candidate's position.
Mark any item you found in only one place, unless that place is an authoritative primary record.
If fewer than three meaningful pieces of evidence exist, say so rather than filling the section with weak material.
# 4. Parliamentary, Legislative and Governing Record
If the candidate currently holds or previously held relevant public office, examine their actual record.
Depending on the country or political system, look for:
- Parliamentary votes.
- Legislative votes.
- Motions and resolutions.
- Bills introduced or sponsored.
- Amendments.
- Committee votes and reports.
- Government decisions.
- Ministerial decisions.
- Regulations.
- Budgets.
- Public spending.
- Tax measures.
- Local or regional council votes.
- Executive orders or equivalent instruments.
- Relevant appointments.
- Regulatory decisions.
For important examples explain:
**Measure or decision:**
**Date:**
**Candidate's action:**
**What the measure actually did:**
**How it relates to [TOPIC]:**
**Source:**
Never infer what legislation did from its title alone.
If a vote was procedural, part of a large package, an amendment, a confidence vote, a budget vote, or otherwise difficult to interpret, explain that context.
Pay particular attention to **money decisions** — budget lines, funding levels, tax measures, subsidies and abatements — because that is usually where a stated position either becomes real or quietly doesn't. Supporting a policy and voting to pay for it are different positions, and a programme can be agreed and then left unfunded. Note where a budget vote was also a confidence vote, since that limits what it tells you about the individual.
In parliamentary systems, also distinguish between:
- A candidate's personal position.
- Their party's official position.
- A vote imposed by party discipline or a parliamentary whip.
- A government confidence vote.
- A free vote where members were permitted to vote independently.
Do not automatically treat every party-line vote as proof of an individual's personal view.
Where possible, look for additional statements or actions that clarify the candidate's own position: committee remarks, explanations of vote, abstentions, rebellions against the whip, minority opinions, or a refusal to sign a party document.
Also note, where verifiable and genuinely relevant: significant votes they were absent for, major topic-specific measures they did not sponsor or support, or the topic being absent from their platform entirely. Report these as facts, not as evidence of a position.
# 5. Which Level of Government Actually Decides
Explain plainly, in two or three sentences, where authority over **[TOPIC]** actually sits relative to the office the candidate is seeking. Then examine the record at the relevant level where one exists.
Depending on the country, check:
**European Union member states.** Whether the topic is governed by EU law, policy or institutions, and if so examine: European Parliament votes; Commission proposals; EU regulations and directives; Council of the European Union positions; national implementation of EU legislation; positions the national government took during EU negotiations. For Members of the European Parliament, examine their European Parliament voting record. For national candidates, distinguish what they can decide nationally from what is set at EU level.
**Federal or highly decentralised systems** such as Canada, Australia, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium and Spain. Establish which level holds the relevant power — it is frequently not the national one. Energy generation, natural resources, land use, planning approvals, water and health may be held substantially at provincial, state, regional or Land level. Verify this for the specific country and topic.
**Devolved systems** such as the United Kingdom. Planning, environment and significant parts of energy consenting are devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, so a candidate for the national parliament may have limited authority over a matter decided by a devolved administration.
**Municipal and local government.** Planning permission and zoning, local charges and rates, water and waste connections, and local development consent.
**Independent regulators and authorities.** Energy and utility regulators, competition authorities, data protection authorities, planning inspectorates and courts often hold decisive power that no candidate directly controls. Name the body.
Do not imply that a candidate can unilaterally change a policy decided at another level.
Equally, do not leave the reader thinking the position is therefore meaningless. Say what influence the office genuinely does have — voting on national legislation that implements or funds the policy, shaping the party's position, negotiating in the Council or intergovernmental bodies, making appointments to regulators, allocating funding, or public advocacy.
# 6. Public Record Outside Office
For challengers, first-time candidates, or relevant activity outside elected office, examine:
- Professional roles.
- Business decisions.
- Trade unions or professional organisations.
- Civil-society organisations.
- Boards or associations they led.
- Public testimony.
- Articles, books or speeches.
- Previous campaigns.
- Advocacy.
- Policy proposals.
- Academic or professional work.
Keep these clearly separate:
- **What the candidate has said.**
- **What the candidate has actually done.**
- **What other people claim about them.**
Claims from opponents, political parties, campaign groups, lobby groups or advocacy organisations should be attributed and supported before being treated as factual.
# 7. Has Their Position Changed?
If there is evidence of a significant change, briefly show:
**Earlier position — [date]**
Evidence or quotation.
**Current position — [date]**
Evidence or quotation.
**Candidate's explanation, if available.**
Only describe it as a change if the earlier and later statements address comparable questions.
If the position appears broadly consistent, say so briefly.
Do not speculate about why a position changed.
# 8. Do Their Actions Match Their Words?
Give a short assessment based on the evidence already presented.
Explain:
- Where statements and actions align.
- Where the record is more complicated.
- Where an apparent inconsistency exists.
- Whether party discipline, coalition agreements, procedural votes or government responsibility affect the interpretation.
- Where there is not enough evidence to judge.
Do not assume motive.
# 9. Political and Campaign Funding
Only include this section where meaningful, reliable and legally available information exists.
Political-finance disclosure varies significantly between countries. In many, the party rather than the individual candidate is the unit that raises and reports money, and individual-level data may simply not exist.
Where appropriate, examine:
- Declared campaign donations.
- Party donations linked to the candidate.
- Candidate expenditure.
- Public campaign financing.
- Significant organisational or sectoral donors.
- Relevant financial interests declared by the candidate.
- Official registers of interests.
Give amounts, dates and the reporting period, and where possible the share of the total raised. A sum means nothing without scale: a donation of €5,000 against €4 million raised is a different fact from €5,000 against €30,000.
Treat funding as **context, not proof of a political position**.
Do not claim that a donation caused a vote or political position. Money often follows a position the politician already held, and politicians on a relevant committee or portfolio attract that sector's money regardless of where they stand.
Clearly distinguish:
- Money given directly to the candidate.
- Money given to their political party.
- Third-party or independent campaigning, which the candidate does not control.
- Public funding.
Use official electoral or financial-disclosure authorities wherever possible — the national electoral commission or equivalent, parliamentary and ministerial registers of interests, provincial or regional electoral authorities, national transparency or anti-corruption authorities, lobbying registers, and declarations of financial interests held by the parliament concerned. Find the correct body for the country rather than assuming one exists or that it publishes at candidate level.
Do not assume that campaign-finance rules work the same way in every country.
Absence of disclosed money is not evidence of absence of money: thresholds, reporting lags and exemptions differ widely, and undisclosed spending does not appear. Say what the filings you found actually cover, and if you could not find finance data, say so rather than implying there was none.
# 10. What We Could Not Establish
List important things you could not establish reliably, including:
- Subtopics where no clear position was found.
- Issues the candidate has not addressed publicly.
- Evidence available from only one source.
- Missing or inaccessible voting records.
- Positions that can only be inferred from party policy rather than the candidate personally.
- Funding or financial-interest information that is unavailable.
- Statements too old to confidently describe as current.
- Sources you could not read, could not access, or could only find in a language you did not search.
Flag it explicitly if the most recent evidence you found on **[TOPIC]** is more than about eighteen months old. On fast-moving subjects, note that there is no recent evidence without inferring what that silence means.
Do not fill these gaps with assumptions.
Do not treat lack of action, sponsorship, comment or manifesto coverage as automatic evidence of support or opposition.
# 11. Sources You Can Check Yourself
Group the sources under:
### Official Parliamentary, Legislative and Government Records
### Candidate and Party Policy Documents
### Interviews, Debates and Public Statements
### Electoral Finance and Financial Disclosures
### Independent Reporting and Analysis
Use sources roughly in this order of preference:
1. Official parliamentary, legislative, government and regulatory records.
2. Official electoral and financial-disclosure records.
3. Full speeches, interviews and debate transcripts.
4. Candidate manifestos and policy documents.
5. Party manifestos and official party documents.
6. Reputable news organisations.
7. Established fact-checking and non-partisan research organisations.
8. Advocacy groups, political parties and campaign organisations.
Treat candidate and party material as **self-reported positions**, not independent verification.
Clearly label advocacy, partisan and campaign sources. Where you use a scorecard or rating from a campaigning organisation, give the rating and name the organisation and its position — never the rating alone.
Only provide links you actually accessed or verified.
If a record exists but you cannot access it, describe it precisely enough for me to find it myself.
For example:
- Bill or motion number.
- Parliamentary session.
- Date of vote.
- Committee name.
- Council meeting date.
- EU legislative file number.
- Government docket or regulatory case number.
- Article headline and publication.
- Electoral-finance reporting period.
Note the language of each source where it is not English.
Date important claims. Never present an older position as the candidate's current one.
Where practical, corroborate significant claims with another source.
A single authoritative primary record, such as an official parliamentary vote or full interview, may still be strong evidence on its own.
If reliable sources disagree, explain the disagreement.
# Writing Style
Write for an ordinary voter.
Use plain English.
Explain, in half a sentence, the first time you mention any of these:
- Legislation.
- Government bodies.
- EU institutions.
- Regulators.
- Acronyms.
- Technical terminology.
Do not assume specialist knowledge.
Do not assume that political systems operate like the United States.
Take account of the political structure of the country being researched, including where relevant:
- Parliamentary government.
- Coalition government.
- Party discipline.
- Proportional representation.
- Federalism.
- Devolved government.
- Regional autonomy.
- EU membership.
- Local-government powers.
Stay neutral, but do not ignore factual contradictions.
If the candidate makes a factual claim about their own record that an authoritative source contradicts, explain the discrepancy and provide the source.
The goal is simple:
**Help me understand where this candidate stands on [TOPIC], show me the strongest evidence, explain what powers the office actually has over the issue, tell me when the evidence is insufficient, and give me reliable sources so I can investigate further if I choose.**
At the very end of the response, after all other content, add the following line exactly as written:
Source: [https://www.AlanBonnici.com](https://www.AlanBonnici.com)
Do not add anything after this line.
-002.gif)
Follow This, That and (Maybe), the Other:
Comments
Post a Comment