Scoring Criteria
Every entry in a dossier is judged against one of the infraction categories below. Each category carries a base score that reflects how seriously that kind of conduct threatens democratic government.
Framework and further reading
Our infraction categories align with the seven tactics of aspiring authoritarians documented in The Authoritarian Playbook, published by Protect Democracy: politicizing independent institutions, spreading disinformation, aggrandizing executive power, quashing dissent, scapegoating vulnerable communities, corrupting elections, and stoking violence. As that report notes, democracy more often erodes gradually — through “salami tactics” that chip away at constraints one at a time — than through a sudden seizure of power.
Read The Authoritarian Playbook at protectdemocracy.orgInfraction Categories
| Infraction | What it covers | Base Score |
|---|---|---|
| Inciting Violence | Rhetoric or actions that encourage or incite violence | 25 |
| Abuse of Power | Using official position for personal gain or to harm opponents | 20 |
| Discrimination | Discriminatory policies, statements, or actions based on race, religion, gender, etc. | 18 |
| Voter Suppression | Actions or statements aimed at restricting voting rights or access | 15 |
| Attacks on Press | Hostile actions or rhetoric against free press and journalists | 12 |
| Authoritarian Statement | Statements promoting authoritarian policies or undermining democratic institutions | 10 |
| Misinformation | Deliberately spreading false or misleading information | 7 |
How an Entry Is Scored
- Submission. Evidence is submitted with a source and assigned to the category that best describes the conduct. Submissions are not public.
- Review. A reviewer checks the source, the facts and the category. Entries that cannot be verified are discarded.
- Impact Points. An approved entry starts at its category's base score. The reviewer may raise or lower it to reflect the severity of the specific incident, as described on this page.
- Fascist Factor. A person's Fascist Factor is the sum of the Impact Points of all of their verified entries.
Reading the Fascist Factor
| 0–25 | No or limited documented concerns |
| 26–60 | Several documented concerns, or a few serious ones |
| Over 60 | A sustained, documented pattern of concerning conduct |
A score of zero means no verified evidence has been recorded yet. It is not an endorsement.
Adjusting for Severity
The base score is a starting point, not a fixed price. Two incidents in the same category can differ greatly in their consequences, so reviewers may set an entry's Impact Points above or below the base score. Adjustments weigh the following factors.
- Official action. An executive order, policy, prosecution or use of government resources weighs more than a remark.
- Scale of harm. The conduct affected many people, caused lasting damage, or targeted a vulnerable group.
- Abuse of office. Government power was used against critics, journalists, political opponents, courts or voters.
- Intent. The person knew a claim was false or had been warned that the action was unlawful, and went ahead anyway.
- Official findings. A court, inspector general or similar body found the conduct unlawful or unconstitutional.
- Defiance or repetition. The conduct continued after a court order, correction or public warning, or is part of a repeated pattern.
- Reach. A statement was made to a large audience or from an official platform.
- Retraction or apology. The person promptly corrected, deleted or apologized for the statement.
- Limited effect. The action was blocked before it took effect, or its impact was small or short-lived.
- Words only. An isolated remark with no official action behind it.
- Context. The conduct predates the person's current office, or occurred in a private or informal setting.
- Unsettled facts. Key facts are disputed, or a court has upheld the action or allowed it to proceed.
- Shared responsibility. The person played a minor role in a decision made by others.