We are happy to announce the major update of the MEP Ranking Activity Score.
We have successfully improved the algorithm, which now considers all publicly available performance parameters of the Members of the European Parliament in a more thorough and accurate way. The method builds upon the research conducted earlier this year.
The algorithm takes into account four activity categories: Reports, Statements, Roles and Attendance.
I. Reports reflect the MEP’s work on the legislative and non-legislative reports.
Scoring depends upon the amount of time and efforts required for the accomplishment of different reports. Depending on how challenging is the drafting procedure the algorithm differentiates nine types of reports. It also distinguishes four types of draftsmen: rapporteur, shadow rapporteur, opinion rapporteur and opinion shadow rapporteur.
The score considers the amount of tabled amendments and the number of amended reports. Inputs are divided into ranges. Stepping up a range brings 1 point.
Ranges of Amended Reports: (0-66) - 1 point; (67-133) - 2 points; (134-200) - 3 points.
Ranges of Tabled amendments (in pages): (0-86) 1 point; (87-172) - 2 points; (173-259) - 3 points.
For example: If an MEP amends 50 reports (this is 1 point) with 180 pages of amendments (3 points) the total is 4 score units.
Sometimes a single word can be more significant than hundreds of amendments. However, at the moment the computerized method considers only the quantitative side of amendments. Semantic analysis may compliment the method in the future releases.
When the number of contributions to a report is greater than 1000 amendments, the algorithm allocates 1 extra point to the Rapporteur and Shadow Rapporteurs. There are currently 42 reports rich on amendments.
*!NOTE: The ranges change along the increasing amount of activities. (The latest update: November 6, 2017).
II. Statements are about the MEPs’ discourse:
Speeches in plenary, explanations of votes and questions to the EU institutions are all accounted in this category. The score even reflects the MEPs’ Twitter activity.
Points in this category are no longer unlimited. Inputs are divided into ranges. Stepping up each range brings 1 point. Scoring starts when inputs are above average. The maximum is capped by applying the Tukey method (Q3+1.5*IQR).
Speeches: (250-314) – 1 point; (315-374) – 2 points; (375-439) – 3 points; (440- …) – 4 points.
Explanations of vote: (140-170) – 1 point; (171-208) – 2 points; (209-247) – 3 points; (248-…) – 4 points.
Questions for oral answers: (7-13) – 1 point; (14-26) – 2 points; (27- …) – 3 points.
Questions for written answers: The weight in this category is 0,1 point per question. The limit matches the cap enforced by the Rules of Procedures in January 2017 (20 questions/3 months).
Twitter : (6467-8880) – 1 point; (8881-11293) – 2 points; (11294-13706) – 3 points; (13707 - …) – 4 points.
*(!) NOTE: The ranges change along the increasing amount of activities. (The latest update: November 6, 2017).
III. Roles reflect the positions that the MEPs occupy:
The following positions are considered: President and Vice Presidents, Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs, Committee Coordinators, Chairs and Vice Chairs of Political Groups. It’s possible to view the ranking without the points for that category by selecting “Skip Role” button.
The score of the President of the European Parliament factors several additional activities besides the regular legislative work, such as: chairing the Plenary sittings and the meetings of the Bureau & the Conference of Presidents.
The score of the Presidents of Political Groups reflects the regular legislative activity and additionally considers the group-related activities factoring the size of the group.
The score of Coordinators factors the number of coordinators’ meetings, the size and the legislative load of a committee as well as the size of the coordinator’s political group. The score consists of an index (30 score units) and +/- 10 points depending on the committee and the group sizes. The index is derived from 710/24=29,58 (November 2017) where 710 is the total number of meetings and 24 is the number of active committees. The algorithm distinguishes three types of committees based on the classification reported in 2014 White paper “100 steps forward” (by Klaus Welle, The Secretary-General).
IV. Attendance of the MEPs in plenary sessions is highly important.
In case of a poor attendance, the final score can be reduced up to 50%.