📣 GSI v2.0 Is Live — Here's What's New

This latest update marks one of the most significant refinements to the model to date, introducing two new scoring metrics and a rebalance of weights across existing categories.

These changes were designed to better reflect real-world responsibility, conduct, and legislative output.

🔧 What’s New in GSI v2.0

🧭 Decorum Score

This new category evaluates an MP or MLA’s conduct in Parliament. It reflects whether a representative has been:

• Reprimanded or warned by the Speaker

• Asked to withdraw remarks

• Ejected from the House

• Forced to issue formal apologies

A perfect decorum record earns a full score. Repeated breaches result in scaled deductions. The goal? Encourage and reward respectful governance and diminish tolerance for performative incivility. This was a suggested metric to add to compensate for certain egregious behaviors that otherwise went unscored in previous revisions.

🏛 Institutional Seniority Score

Not all roles in government carry the same weight. This new stat captures the highest position of formal authority a politician has held. Whether it’s Prime Minister, Cabinet Minister, Opposition Leader, Committee Chair, or Parliamentary Secretary — the metric reflects the degree of public trust placed in a representative and their institutional experience.

This score helps differentiate long-serving backbenchers from those who’ve held high office and had greater influence over legislation, national strategy, or oversight.

🔄 Updated Weight Distribution

With the addition of these two new metrics, we’ve slightly rebalanced the model:

• Bills Sponsored and Passed now carry slightly more weight

• Voting Attendance and Debate Engagement are slightly reduced to offset this shift

• Decorum and Institutional Seniority have been added at 5% each

These changes help the model prioritize meaningful legislative action and leadership accountability, without overly inflating performative or passive traits.

🧠 Why These Changes Matter

Metrics like attendance, education, and debate are useful — but on their own, they don’t capture the full picture. A representative who is always present but routinely disruptive, or one who’s held senior cabinet roles but scored poorly on other benchmarks, presents a challenge to one-dimensional scoring.

By adding Decorum and Institutional Seniority, GSI v2.0 helps correct for these “externalities” — qualities that aren’t easily visible in traditional stats but significantly affect governance quality.

📝 What’s Next?

A full breakdown of the new methodology will be published on our site shortly. For now, you’ll see these changes reflected across updated New profiles on GSIReport.com and previous ones will be updated in short order.

As always, we remain committed to transparency, fairness, and the belief that public data should empower public judgment.

—Let us know what you think of the changes — and who you'd like to see scored next.