About ElectioneeriNG

Facts about candidates and offices are spread across official notices, party statements, news reports and social media, published at different times and in different formats. Anyone trying to answer a simple question, such as who is standing in their constituency, has to reconcile all of it themselves.

This service does that reconciliation in public, keeps the sources attached to the claims, and shows plainly where the evidence runs out.

ElectioneeriNG does not endorse, rank, recommend or predict. It does not declare winners, and it does not tell anyone how to vote. Those are not editorial preferences, they are constraints built into the product: there is no ranking mechanism to invoke and no overall candidate score to publish.

Where information is missing, the page says so in the same words everywhere rather than leaving a blank that a reader might fill in with an assumption. Missing evidence is never treated as a mark against a candidate, and it is never quietly counted in their favour either.

Every published claim about a person traces to a source that a reader can go and check. Candidacy, party affiliation and officeholding are kept as three separate questions, because they genuinely are: holding an office today does not mean standing for it again, and being reported as an aspirant does not make someone a party’s candidate.

Records carry the exact stage they have reached, from a reported aspirant through to a confirmed official candidate, and they are never promoted to a stronger claim than the evidence supports.

Read the full methodology.

If something here is wrong, out of date or missing, you can tell us. Submissions are reviewed by a person before anything public changes, and the review keeps a record of what was changed and why. Nothing you send is published automatically.

Contributions are most useful when they come with a source: a published notice, a report, an official list. A correction with a citation can be acted on; one without usually cannot.