The Democratic Malice Methodology
Citizen Analyst publishes accountability profiles of public officials. Some of those profiles carry a Democratic Malice Assessment (DMA): a structured judgment about whether an official’s documented actions subverted the mechanisms of democracy itself — elections, courts, oversight, the separation of powers — rather than pursued a policy goal through them. This page sets out the method in full: what is measured, how a score is reached, how a designation follows from the scores, and what a designation does and does not claim. Corrections notices on our profiles point here.
What the assessment measures
The unit of analysis is a documented action by a named person. A vote, a signed order, a firing, a directive to subordinates, a refusal to comply with a court order: each is an action. Speech is not. Rhetoric, political positions and associations are never scored, however harsh, because the assessment exists to separate the subversion of democratic process from disagreement inside it.
The assessment runs only inside accountability profiles, and only after two earlier checks. The subject must first pass our inclusion gate, which requires a documented, non-speech basis for profiling a person at all. The profile’s evidence must then be verified and tiered. Only then is any action considered for a score.
The first question: ideology or malice
Every action goes through one gate before it can be scored. The question is whether a person holding the same goal could have reached it through legitimate democratic means.
- Ideology is a policy goal pursued through legislation, lawful executive authority, Senate confirmation, notice-and-comment rulemaking, appropriations or persuasion. It is never scored, however harmful the policy. Holding office and executing lawful orders is ideology.
- Malice is the subversion of the process itself to reach a goal that could not survive democratic scrutiny, or the destruction of the mechanisms that would hold the actor accountable.
- Borderline actions are tested against five factors: whether the actor bypassed normal process, whether the action fell disproportionately on opponents or particular groups, whether nonpartisan experts warned of the harm, whether the action is part of a documented pattern, and whether the actor also undermined the mechanisms that could review it. Three of the five make it malice.
Each scored action on a profile states which factors were met and describes the legitimate version of the same goal, so a reader can see where the line was drawn.
How an action is scored
An action classified as malice receives a Democratic Malice Score (DMS) from 1 to 5. The score measures the strength of the evidence of intent, not the size of the harm.
| DMS | Label | What the evidence must show |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Reckless Disregard | Foreseeable harm, inferred from the outcome alone |
| 2 | Willful Negligence | Nonpartisan experts warned of the harm and the actor proceeded |
| 3 | Knowing Participation | Communications, testimony or contemporaneous statements show the actor knew |
| 4 | Active Direction | Orders, memos or testimony establish the actor as the decision-maker |
| 5 | Systemic Malice | A sustained, multi-front campaign, with direction documented across several actions |
An outcome alone never establishes intent above DMS 1.
How a designation is reached
A profile’s overall designation is not a separate judgment. It is computed from the scores the profile prints, by fixed rules, and our publishing system recomputes it before anything goes live. A profile whose stated designation does not match its own scores cannot be published. Only actions scored DMS 1 or higher count. The rules are checked in order, and the first one that holds decides:
| Order | Designation | Threshold |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sustained Campaign of Democratic Destruction | Five or more actions at DMS 3 or higher, or two or more actions at DMS 5 |
| 2 | Pattern of Democratic Malice | Three or more actions at DMS 2 or higher, or one action at DMS 4 or higher |
| 3 | No designation | Every other combination |
Some consequences follow directly. A single action at DMS 4 or 5 is a Pattern. Two actions at DMS 2 or 3 are not a pattern and carry no designation. Actions at DMS 1 never count toward either threshold. Four actions at DMS 3 are a Pattern; a fifth makes it Sustained.
A profile with no designation still carries the assessment section, stating that no designation applies and why. The absence of a finding is shown, not left to silence.
The evidence standard
Every score rests on cited evidence, sorted into three tiers:
- Documented: court records, official proceedings, signed documents, sworn testimony. Eligible for any score.
- Credibly Reported: reporting by established outlets. Eligible for DMS 1 or 2 only.
- Alleged: noted where relevant, never scored.
A score of 3 or higher therefore requires a primary record. Private individuals who meet the inclusion gate are held to a further limit: no score above DMS 4 without a criminal conviction. Our editors apply these tiers when they score. Our publishing checks recompute designations; they do not yet verify the tier behind each score, which remains a matter of editorial review.
What a designation is, and what it is not
A designation is an evaluative conclusion reached by applying published criteria to documented public conduct. The factual predicates (that on a given date an official signed a given order) are cited to sources and must be true. The conclusion drawn from them (that the signing shows knowing participation) is analysis, offered openly with its reasoning.
A designation is not:
- a finding of criminal guilt or civil liability;
- a judgment on the official’s politics; conservative, populist or nationalist positions pursued through constitutional process are ideology;
- a verdict on speech;
- guilt by association; presence at an event or membership in an organisation is not an action;
- a combined score. The Democratic Malice Assessment is one of six instruments, each with its own unit of analysis: a person’s actions here; a spokesperson’s statements in the Spokesperson Misinformation Assessment; public speech in the Dangerous Rhetoric Assessment; a single bill or order in the Legislative Impact Assessment; a market in the Policy Winner-Loser Map; a federal institution in the Agency Damage Assessment. They are never added together. The full list is in Scoring & Inclusion Systems — Complete Inventory.
The legal disclaimer every assessment carries
Every assessment section on a profile ends with the same disclaimer, whether or not anything was scored:
The Democratic Malice Assessment is an analytical framework applying defined criteria to documented public conduct. Designations are evaluative conclusions, not statements of criminal guilt. No DMS score constitutes a finding of criminal liability. The factual predicates are cited to primary sources; the evaluative conclusions are protected expression. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan and its progeny apply to this assessment of a public figure’s public conduct.
The disclaimer reflects how the method is built. Subjects are public officials or public figures; each factual predicate is cited separately from the conclusion; the criteria are published here so that any designation can be checked and contested. Our wider legal posture is set out in Legal Framework and First Amendment Protections.
Updates and corrections
Assessments change when the evidence does, in either direction. A score is never raised without a new evidence citation. When a published score changes enough to change a designation, we treat it as a correction: the profile carries a dated notice, and the change appears in our public corrections log. Every correction is decided by an editor; no automated change reaches a reader on its own.
Anyone who believes a score or designation rests on an error of fact, or misapplies the criteria above, can request a review. The process, the address and our response commitment are on the Corrections & Transparency Policy page. Requests that identify the specific scored action and the source in question are the quickest to resolve.
Further reading
- The working version of this method, as our editors apply it: the Malice Evaluator skill.
- Every scoring and inclusion system Citizen Analyst uses, side by side: Scoring & Inclusion Systems — Complete Inventory.
- The companion method for statements by government spokespeople: The Spokesperson Misinformation Methodology.
Expanded with AI research and drafting assistance from the primary sources cited; editorial review pending.