Code of Ethics
Platform
Methodology
Constituent Engagement
Evidence Review Process
Definitions And Acronyms
Proposal Template
Evidence Template
Party Roadmap

Code of Ethics

To be a member of the Reasonable Party you must agree to and abide by these Central Tenants:

1. Every position we take and action we propose is based on achieving the Ultimate Goal of Universal Prosperity.
2. We are honest with ourselves and others.
3. We are willing to change our positions when presented with a sufficient amount of reasonable, logical, and honest evidence contrary to what we currently believe.
4. We are open and respectful to those with opposing viewpoints and we will always try to understand the positions of others even if we don’t agree.

Donations and the influence of money:

1. Donations or any other benefits conveyed to members of the party, candidates, elected representatives, or the party itself may not confer any advantage to the donor.
2. Candidates and elected representatives may not accept donations from any entity except individual donations from private individuals. This includes not accepting donations from: Corporations, Unions, PACs, Business Organizations, Special Interest Groups, etc.
3. All private donations received, and the names of the donors, must be published. We do not accept anonymous donations.
4. The party will accept donations from private individuals and from any other entity as allowed under the current law. While the Reasonable Party would prefer not to accept donations from any entity other than private individuals, in the current environment these funds are necessary in order to compete with the other major parties who are well funded. All donations received, and the names of the donors, will be published. We do not accept anonymous donations.
5. The Reasonable Party may choose to distribute funds to certain candidates or representatives based on political strategies to advance the party as determined by leadership within the party.

The Reasonable Party Ethics Committee (EC):

1. Violations of the code of ethics can be reported by any source within or outside of the party.
2. Violations are to be reported on the Reasonable Party Code of Ethics Violations Page.
3. Violations will be investigated and adjudicated by the EC.
4. Depending on the nature of the violation, the EC may choose to warn the offender, suspend their membership, or perhaps expel them from the party if their violation has warranted such a response or if they have prior history of violations.

Platform

What is a Political Party Platform?

Definition Paraphrased from Wikipedia:

A political party platform is a list of the values and actions which are supported by a political party, in order to appeal to the general public, for the ultimate purpose of garnering the general public’s support and votes about complicated topics or issues.

The Republicans and Democrats have Platforms that are many pages long and change every four years and are based on a set of broad positions. The Reasonable Party’s Platform is a to Achieve The Ultimate Goal of Universal Prosperity.

This platform may seem a bit Utopian to some, and they would be right. Humanity has for it’s entire existence been in a state of conflict which has brought untold misery and suffering to billions of people. We acknowledge that it is difficult to realistically believe that we can put an end to suffering and maximize well being and prosperity for everyone, but if you think about it you must ask yourself the question: Why can’t we? What’s actually stopping us from reaching the Ultimate Goal? We believe that the only thing stopping us from achieving this goal is ourselves and some evolutionary baggage we have yet to shed. To achieve this Goal, we just need to decide to pursue it and develop the best ways to get there.

So, what are the best ways to get there? How to we achieve this Ultimate Goal? This is where the ideological debate begins within the Reasonable Party.

As you can imagine, these debates will be fierce, much like they are today. However, the RP has a Methodology that forces people to be REASONABLE in their arguments, and to use fact based evidence to support their ideas. These ideas, which can originate from anyone in the party, can ultimately become Planks in our Party Platform.

What is a Political Party Plank?

Definition Paraphrased from Wikipedia:

“Plank” is the term given to the components of the political platform – the opinions and viewpoints about individual topics, as held by a party, person, or organization.

Anyone or any group within the party can develop an idea on how to achieve the Ultimate Goal by using the Reasonable Party Methodology. If the idea gains sufficient support within the party, it may become a Plank in our Platform.

We may all have different ideas on how to best achieve the Ultimate Goal, but the one thing that binds members of the RP is our reliance on REASON to get us there.

Methodology

Introduction:
The Reasonable Party Platform is: To Move Society Toward The Ultimate Goal Of Universal Prosperity. In order to achieve this objective, we use the Reasonable Party Methodology to develop the Planks that make up our Platform. This methodology enables well reasoned ideas which are grounded in reason, facts, and truth, to be developed and perhaps ultimately advanced through the political process. The Planks that make up our platform start out as ideas, which then evolve into a specific proposal for political action. This is called a Reasonable Party Proposal (RPP).

What is a Reasonable Party Proposal (RPP)?
A RPP is a document which urges elected officials to take a particular action that moves us closer to achieving the Ultimate Goal of our Platform. This proposal may advocate the passing of a new law, a change to or repeal of an existing law, a President or Governor issuing an executive order, etc. RPPs can start out as a simple idea from a single party member, can end up as the law of the land. In order to create a RPP, one must follow the Reasonable Party Proposal Development Process (PDP).

What is the Reasonable Party Proposal Development Process (PDP)?
The PDP is based on the concept of a Marketplace of Ideas.

Definition From Wikipedia:

The “marketplace of ideas” is a rationale for freedom of expression based on an analogy to the economic concept of a free market. The “marketplace of ideas” holds that the truth will emerge from the competition of ideas in free, transparent public discourse. The “marketplace of ideas” concludes that ideas and ideologies will be culled according to their superiority or inferiority and widespread acceptance among the population.

The problem today is that the marketplace of ideas in the political arena is highly dysfunctional and polluted with misinformation. This makes it difficult for people to hear the best from all sides of an argument and objectively evaluate the issues and ideas being proposed to solve them. For this marketplace to function effectively, participants must have clear and honest information in order to make their decisions and decide what to support or oppose.

The Reasonable Party seeks to provide this clarity and honesty by creating a marketplace of ideas within our own party. This marketplace has rules that compel participants to behave in a honest and reasonable manner. This allows for increased honesty and transparency, which leads to better, more reasonable ideas that move us toward the Ultimate Goal.

How does a RPP get started?

1. A group party members begin discussing an issue that they are passionate about or something they would like to see changed from a political perspective. They form a Group on the Reasonable Party Website. Each Group will be given an online forum, and other various tools for the members to discuss and collaborate on their ideas.
2. When an idea has evolved into a specific political action, members form another group called a Proposal Development Group (PDG). The PDG is setup on the RP Website just like the standard group, but it’s primary purpose is the development and advancement of a specific RPP. The reason that a PDG is different from a Standard Group is because many different proposals may come from a standard group, and therefore each group may have many PDGs that come from it.
3. The first step in creating a PDG is to elect a Leadership Committee (LC). This will be done with an online election on the RP Website that only members of that PDG may participate in. Each LC must at a minimum consist of officers to fulfill the following Roles:
   • President – Leader of the PDG. Responsible for directing all activities in the development of the RPP. Also plays a large part in the advancement of a RPP should it be promoted to the Advancement Phase.
   • Lead Moderator – Person who is charge of moderating forums, discussions, and meetings within the group to ensure compliance with the Reasonable Party Code of Ethics. If ethics or rules violations are reported to the Ethics Committee (EC), the EC will investigate and expect the lead moderator to resolve the issue within the PDG if necessary.
   • Evidence Manager – Person who is in charge of building, maintaining, and managing the RPPs Evidence Inventory (EI). Evidence gathered by the PDG or from other sources is sent to this person (or their staff) and they decide if the evidence should be added to the EI. This person is also in charge of ranking the evidence and displaying it in a way that best supports the arguments within their Proposal.
   • Elected Representative Sponsor(s) (optional but encouraged) – This is the elected representative(s) who will ultimately sponsor the RPP in the political process outside the party assuming the RPP is promoted to the Proposal Advancement Phase.
   • Each officer in a LC may choose to have a staff of people to assist them as necessary.
4. Additional elections may be held if an officer resigns or if two thirds of the PDG calls for a new election on a particular officer (rules to be elaborated on later).
5. Once the LC is elected, they must declare the PDG’s intention to create an RPP to the Reasonable Party Proposal Committee (RPPC). This is a simple declaration that gives a very brief and high level summary of what the proposal will be about. The RPPC will evaluate the declaration, and as long as it appears the proposal adheres to the RP Code of Ethics, The RPPC will grant the PDG permission to create the proposal.
6. Once permission is granted, a dedicated RPP Web Page is created and editing access is granted to the members of the PDG LC. The PDG LC may choose to grant editing access to others within the PDG as they see fit.
7. Each RPP will get it’s own dynamic web page on the RP Website. Initially, the RPP will only be visible to members of the PDG, but at a certain point of development (TBD) it will become public.
8. Every RPP Web Page will have a consistent format based on the Reasonable Party Proposal Template. This template helps to ensure all necessary RPP information is captured and to make it easier for those outside the group to understand it by seeing a consistent structure among different RPPs.

Developing a RPP:

1. Once the RPP site is up, the PDG can get to work on building it. This is called the Proposal Development Phase (PDP). The PDG works to build their proposal by documenting sound arguments supported by factual evidence. This is a collaboration between members of the the PDG and hopefully also elected representatives who would ultimately sponsor the proposal in the Advancement Phase. The arguments and the evidence that supports them work to explain the defined problem within society and also support the solution(s) being promoted in the RPP. All RPPs must have the primary objective of moving us closer to the Ultimate Goal.
2. All items that are gathered to support arguments within the Proposal are referred to as Supporting Evidence (SE). SE can consist of: Commonly Known Facts or Knowledge, Results from Legitimate Studies, Expert Opinions, or any other informational source that is factual or logical in nature. Think of it like pieces of evidence that are used to support a case being made in a court of law.
3. All submitted evidence must be structured to follow the RP Evidence Template. This consistent structure allows for easier review of the evidence submitted.
4. All of this evidence is compiled and stored in the Proposal’s Evidence Inventory (EI). The EI is an online, logically organized, and easily searchable repository for all evidence associated with a RPP. Having all of the evidence stored in one place makes it easier for those evaluating the RPP to objectively evaluate it and the evidence.
5. The PDG continues to develop and update the RPP based on input from PDG members and evidence gathered. This is an iterative process that will contain numerous meetings, discussions, and arguments within the group, many of which can happen on the RP Website forums which can foster broad collaboration between members of the PDG. Throughout this process there will be many proposed updates to the RPP and the EI. The updates that ultimately make it to the RPP are governed by the PDG President.
6. After a set amount of time (which is to be determined), the RPP will become visible to the public. Once this happens, other party members who are not necessarily in the PDG may review it and choose to either ‘Support’ or ‘Oppose’ it. Number of Supporters – Number of Opposers = ‘Support Score’ (SS)
7. PDGs with similar goals or proposals may choose to merge to become a larger PDG. When PDGs merge, it is up to the LCs from the merging groups to combine their arguments and Evidence Inventory’s into one cohesive proposal. The LCs also need to merge, so there may need to be some online elections to be held in order to determine this.

Opposing a RPP.

1. If there is a group of people who wants to make a case against a RPP, they may form a Proposal Opposition Group (POG). This group is run much like a PDG, except instead of making arguments and gathering evidence to promote the RPP, they make the case against it.
2. The POG has an LC, just like the PDG.
3. The Evidence used to oppose a proposal is called ‘Opposing Evidence’ (OE).
4. Arguments and Evidence from the opposition are actually put into a section of the RPP itself so that anyone can read the Proposal and see the best case being made from those promoting and also the best case from those opposing the RPP. This process is modeled after the adversarial legal system where you have two opposing sides doing their best arguing for and against something.
5. All evidence gathered by the POG is also entered into the RPP’s Evidence Inventory so that people evaluating the proposal can easily see in one place all evidence both for and against a proposal.
6. POGs can merge just like PDGs can.

Objectively Evaluating the Evidence Inventory:

1. Once the PDG LC believes that the RPP is ready and it has a high enough ‘Support Score’, the LC submits the RPP to the Evidence Review Process (ERP).
2. The Evidence Review Process is the most important part of the Reasonable Party Methodology. At the heart of being reasonable is being factual and truthful, and it is this process that evaluates those facets of a RPP.
3. The Support Score necessary for a Proposal to enter the ERP is to be determined, however, it is important that the Proposal has a high enough support score due to the fact that the Evidence Review Process will cost the party time, money, and other resources.
4. During the ERP, each piece of evidence stored in the Evidence Inventory is evaluated and assigned a score. This is done for both Supporting and Opposing Evidence. After each piece of evidence is evaluated, the collection of evidence for each side is given an overall score. For the supporters, this is called the Supporting Evidence Score (SES). For the Opposers, it is called the Opposing Evidence Score (OES). This allows those evaluating a proposal to easily see which side has better evidence (a least as determined by the ERP) to support it’s argument.
5. The ERP is an ongoing process. Once it starts, it continues as new evidence is added from either supporters or opposers.
6. Once a proposal has been through the ERP, if it has a sufficient Supporting Evidence Score (TBD), it is eligible to be promoted to the Advancement Phase. RPPs that do not have a high enough SES cannot move to this phase until they do as the RP will not stand behind any proposal which is not backed by a sufficient amount of honest evidence.

Advancing the RPP:

1. The Advancement Phase is the process by witch RPPs are advanced through the necessary governmental and political processes which are external to the RP.
2. To Advance a RPP through the traditional political process, it needs to have a sponsor who is already an elected representative. The RPP Sponsor is in charge of advancing the proposal through the necessary governmental processes. They can also be assisted by co-sponsors. These sponsors are in charge of negotiating with other parties as necessary just as they would with a ‘traditional’ bill that originated outside of the RP.
3. The Advancement Strategy depends on the type of proposal, the jurisdiction, and the ultimate objective of the RPP. For Example:
   • If the ultimate objective of the Proposal is the passing of United States federal law, then the bill sponsor will work to turn the RPP into an official Federal Bill and move it through the Federal legislative process.
   • If the ultimate objective of the Proposal is the passing of a Minnesota state law, then the bill sponsor will work to turn the RPP into an official State Bill and advance the law through the Minnesota state legislative process.
   • If the ultimate objective of the Proposal is for the President to issue an executive order, then the bill sponsor will work to influence and negotiate with the President to get the order issued.
4. The Reasonable Party will use the power of collaboration and social media to aggressively push for the advancement of RPPs in whichever governmental / political process they are in.
5. Using social media, email, phone calls, and any other means necessary, we will form a ‘Citizen’s Lobby’ to apply pressure to those either against or neutral to the passing of our Proposals. More details regarding this can be found under Constituent Engagement, however, below are some highlights:
   • We will highlight and provide contact information for all elected representatives who have influence on the passing of the proposal and also provide a dashboard indicating who is for, against, or neutral in regards to it.
   • We will make it very easy for citizens to know where their elected representatives stand so that we can all apply pressure in the necessary areas. For example, say that a party member is a citizen of Minnesota, and that a senator of Minnesota is the head of a committee that is considering a federal RPP. All of the RP Members who live in Minnesota will receive a proactive notification saying that pressure needs to be applied to their representative. The notification will provide all contact information for that representative to make it as easy as possible for RP members to know exactly where and with who they need to contact and apply political pressure.
6. If during the Advancement Process, material changes to the proposal are needed due to compromises or other factors in the legislative process, the proposal sponsor must go back to the PDG and the LC and discuss what if any modifications are acceptable. If needed, the LC may hold forums or a vote on the changes being proposed. This is an iterative process that may occur many times throughout the Advancement Phase.
7. If the changes being asked are not reasonable, will violate the RP Code of Ethics, or will otherwise weaken the proposal to a point that is not acceptable, the PDG or LC may choose to withdraw or cancel the RPP.
8. If the changes are within reason and it would still be a good Proposal from the perspective of the PDG and LC, then it is updated and the Proposal Sponsor continues Proposal Advancement.
9. If we are successful in Advancing the Proposal, it means we have achieved the ultimate objective for that RPP. For example the Bill becomes a law, the Executive Order is issued, etc.
10. Over time we re-examine the laws we have passed and orders we have issued to determine if they are having the intended effects or if there are any negative unintended consequences that need to be remedied. If there are issues or changes to be made, then another RPP can be developed to do so.

Constituent Engagement

• The Reasonable Party strives to increase collaboration between constituents and their elected representatives. This applies to elected representatives who are members of the RP and also those who are not.
• Each party member will be given a list of all elected representatives that represent them at all levels (local, city, county, state, federal, etc.). This includes elected representatives that are both members and non-members of the Reasonable Party. This list will be available in their member profile on the RP Website and also in the mobile application.
• Federal
  • President
  • House
  • Senate
• State
  • Governor
  • State House
  • State Senate
  • Judges
• Local
  • Legislative
  • Judicial
  • Mayor
  • City Counsel
  • County Commissioners
• We will try to track every touch point our members have with elected reps or their staff. Much like a CRM system in business.
• Every time any of these elected representatives has a planned vote on something, there will be a proactive notification sent to their constituents informing them of the upcoming vote. These notifications will be sent via email, text message, Tweet, mobile app notification, or whatever notification preferences the member has setup. The information sent to the constituent will include:
  • A high level and easy to understand summary of what is being voted on along with all sides of the argument. This makes it easier for constituents to understand what their elected representatives are considering.
  • A link to the actual text of the bill or proposal the representative is voting on (if available).
  • All publicly available contact information for the elected representative one click away so the constituent can very easily send their representative a message.
  • A message from the elected representative explaining their stance on the issue and the vote at hand (mandatory for RP representatives, optional for non-RP representatives).
  • An opportunity for the constituent to cast an up or down vote reflecting how they would prefer their representative to vote.
• The results of these constituent votes and comments from constituents will not be binding on RP representatives, however, it will give the representatives a very clear picture on how his / her constituents feel about a particular issue.
• Along with encouraging traditional style town hall meetings with constituents, The Reasonable Party will provide a platform for elected representatives to hold “Online Town Halls’ which should further increase the potential for dialog between elected representatives and their constituents. These Online Town Halls may be done on the RP Website using a special platform designed for town halls, or perhaps Skype, Google Hangouts, etc.

Evidence Review Process

Primary Purpose:

To conduct an unbiased assessment of the evidence submitted both promoting or opposing a RPP. Following this process each piece of evidence will receive an ‘Evidence Score’ which will roll up into an overall Score for all of the evidence supporting the Proposal and all of the evidence opposing it.

Process:

1. Proposal achieves high enough Support Score to be eligible for the ERP.
2. Proposal is submitted by the PDG to the ERP.
3. During the ERP, each piece of evidence is evaluated using several methods and ultimately assigned a score. We need to develop some sort of algorithm that gives higher scores to evidence that is more factual and a lower score to evidence that is less factual. We should research the methodology used by other fact checking organizations such as factcheck.org. Possible inputs to algorithm (each can be weighted differently):
   • Have a panel of independent experts (either inside or outside the party) review each piece of evidence. Use a modified version of the Delphi Method. Assign score.
   • Have random people not in the PDG throughout the party review and conduct independent fact checks. Could we apply some kind of Gameification for participants? For example assign merit badges for those who review a lot of evidence? Assign Score.
   • Have a fact checking department within the party review and conduct independent fact checks. Assign Score.
   • Have people within the PDG force rank their evidence based on what they think is most factual. Assign Score.
4. Once all of the evidence both promoting and opposing the proposal has been reviewed and assigned a score, an overall Evidence Score is provided by somehow combining the individual scores, one for supporting evidence, one for the opposing evidence. This will quantify who’s position is supported by the most / best factual evidence.
5. This information is then published on the RPP so it can be used as party members review and choose to either support or oppose the Proposal.
6. If an RPP has Evidence Score below a certain threshold (TBD), it will be labeled as Unreasonable. The PDG will have a certain amount of time to produce evidence to improve their score, but if they don’t then the RPP is subject to cancellation.

Definitions and Acronyms

• Ethics Committee (EC): Committee of party leaders whose job it is to manage and maintain adherence to the RP Code of Ethics. This committee is in charge of reviewing and adjudicating ethics violation reports.
• Evidence Inventory (EI): Inventory of all items used to support or oppose the arguments made within a proposal.
• Evidence Review Process (ERP): Process used to objectively evaluate and score evidence submitted to support or oppose a Proposal.
• Evidence Score: Quantifies the quality and truthfulness of evidence submitted to support a RPP.
• Evidence Template: Template on which all Evidence Submitted to the Evidence Inventory is based.
• Leadership Committee (LC): Committee of leaders for a PDG or a POG. Must consist of a President, Lead Moderator, and Evidence Manager. A Sponsor is Optional.
• Opposing Evidence (OE): Evidence used by a POG to oppose a proposal.
• Opposing Evidence Score (OES): Overall score for all evidence submitted to oppose a proposal.
• Proposal Advancement Process (PAP): Process by which RPPs are advanced through the political process outside of the RP.
• Proposal Development Group (PDG): Group working to build a Reasonable Party Proposal (RPP). These groups are usually formed by people from the same or similar IDGs.
• Proposal Development Process (PDP): Process by which RPPs are Developed within the RP.
• Proposal Opposition Group (POG): Group similar to a PDG, except they are against a specific Proposal.
• Reasonable Party (RP): Political party based on the development and advancement of reasonable Proposals to achieve the Primary Objective.
• Reasonable Party Methodology (RPM): The processes by which members of the RP develop and advance ideas and proposals to achieve the Primary Objective.
• Reasonable Party Platform: To Move Society Toward The Ultimate Goal Of Maximum Sustainable Universal Well-Being.
• Reasonable Party Proposal (RPP): A document which urges elected officials to take a specific action to move us toward the Ultimate Goal.
• Reasonable Party Proposal Committee (RPPC): Committee of party leaders whose job it is to evaluate requests to form PDGs.
• Reasonable Party Proposal Template (RPPT): Template on which all RPPs are based.
• Standard Group: Group of party members who are interested in solving a particular problem or set of related problems.
• Support Score: Quantifies how many people within the party support a Proposal. The formula is: Number of Proponents – Number of Opponents = Support Score.
• Supporting Evidence (SE): Evidence used by a PDG to support a proposal.
• Supporting Evidence Score (SES): Overall score for all evidence submitted to support a proposal.
• Support Score (SS): Number of people who Support a RPP – Number of people who Oppose a RPP.
• Ultimate Goal: To Move Society Toward a State of Maximum Sustainable Universal Well-Being.

Proposal Template

Proposal Number: <Number assigned by the Party>

Title: <Title of Proposal>

Jurisdiction: <Federal, State, County, or Local Jurisdiction>

Ultimate Objective:
<State the primary objective of the Proposal. Examples: Passing a bill through a legislature that will do ‘x’, having the president create an executive order that will do ‘x’, having the country enter into treaty ‘x’, anything else that the proposal creators want the elected representatives to do.>

Elected Representative Sponsor:
<Name of elected representative who will sponsor the proposal should it move to the proposal advancement phase.>

Elected Representative Co-Sponsors:
<Names of elected representatives who will co-sponsor the proposal should it move to the proposal advancement phase.>

Summary of Problem:
<High level summary of the problem or issue that the proposal is supposed to fix or improve. Character limit?>

Summary of Solution:
<High level summary of the solution or solutions to the problem or issue. Character Limit?>

Detailed Explanation of Problem:
<Detailed and structured explanation of the problem or issue that the proposal is supposed to fix or improve. This is where the problem is defined in detail. Links to Evidence located in the Evidence Inventory>

Detailed Explanation of Solution:
<Detailed and structured explanation of the solution or solutions to the problem or issue. This is where the case for the proposal is made. Links to Evidence located in the Evidence inventory.>

Relevance to Achieving the Ultimate Goal:
<Explain why this proposal will lead us closer to the Ultimate Goal>

Definition of Success:
<How will we know if the solution is working as intended? How will we measure this?>

Opposition:
<Area where those who are against the proposal can make their case.>

Summary of opposition:
<High level summary of why the opposition is against the proposal.>

Detail of opposition:
<Detailed and structured explanation of why the opposition is against the proposal. Links to evidence located in the Evidence Inventory.>

Mitigation Arguments:
<Area where those who support the proposal may address opponent’s concerns by either rejecting, accepting, or mitigating the opponents arguments. Links to evidence located in the Evidence Inventory.>

Evidence Inventory:
<The archive where all evidence cited in the proposal is stored (both from those promoting and those opposing the proposal). Evidence can be articles, studies, expert opinions, general factual knowledge, etc. Each piece will have an evidence number and will be evaluated in the Evidence Review Process should the Proposal advance to that stage.>

Evidence Template

Evidence Number: <Unique number assigned to this piece of evidence by the PDG Evidence Inventory Manager>

Evidence Title: <Name Given to piece of evidence by the PDG Evidence Inventory Manager>

Evidence Type: <Title of Evidence. Examples: Verified Study, Expert Opinion, Commonly Known Fact>

Evidence Source(s): <Where did the evidence come from? Website, personal interview, book, magazine, etc. If available online provide a link here as well.>

Evidence Summary:
<High level Summary of the Evidence>

Evidence Detail:
<Detailed description of the Evidence>

Evidence:
<Actual Evidence. Examples could be copy of a paper describing the results of a study, could be the transcript or audio of an interview with a subject matter expert, etc>

————————————————————————————–

Evidence Review Results and Scores:
<Once this piece of evidence has been put through the Evidence Review Process, it’s various scores are put here>

Independent Expert Score: <1 – 10>
Random Party Member Score: <1 – 10>
RP Fact Checking Department Score: <1 – 10>
PDG Forced Rank Score: <1 – 10>

Overall Evidence Score: <1 – 10>

Party Roadmap

Phase 1: Pilot

• Initial pilot notification to select individuals
• Feedback is gathered about the party concepts and website design
• Brainstorming sessions
• Form leadership comiteee
• Updates are made to the website and party concepts based on feedback
• Updates are made to social media sites based on feedback
• Need professional guidance on how to incorporate as a party.
  • Need to figure out how we can legally charge for membership.
  • Begin gathering funds from membership?
  • Begin gathering donations?
• Need to determine what items are critical to include for the soft launch.

Phase 2 – Soft Launch:

• Primary goal is to increase membership and begin example group activities.
• Find possible candidates willing to run for office.
• Fix critical bugs / enhancements to platform

Phase 3 – General Rollout

• Create Marketing Campaigns
• Social Sharing
• Email Blasts
• Get RP Members Elected
• Increase Membership
• General Party Operations