How we source, verify, and correct data
1. What counts as a position
A candidate position is a recorded, attributable statement or action that indicates where a candidate or party stands on a specific policy topic. We recognise four evidence types, listed in descending order of weight.
- Manifesto commitment: A written pledge published in an official party or candidate manifesto. We link directly to the source document and record the page reference or section heading. A manifesto is the highest-weight evidence type because it represents an explicit, premeditated promise made to voters.
- Public statement: A quotation made in an official capacity — a press release, a speech at a public event, a statement to a news outlet, or a post on an official verified social media account. We link to the original source (or the archived version where the original has been removed) and record the date. We do not accept anonymous statements. We do not infer a position from a statement on a related but distinct topic.
- Interview or broadcast: A position stated in a recorded interview, debate, or broadcast programme, where the candidate is speaking in a personal capacity as a candidate or elected official. We link to the broadcast source, the timestamp where possible, and the outlet. We do not use off-the-record briefings.
- Candidate-submitted (Tier 2): Structured response to our survey, submitted directly by the candidate or their authorised representative. Tier 2 data is always labelled as such in the UI. We do not edit the substance of candidate-submitted positions, but we reserve the right to decline entries that are not responsive to the question asked, that contain personal attacks, or that link to sources that do not support the stated position.
What we do not accept as evidence
- Secondhand reports of what a candidate "is believed to think".
- Positions attributed to a candidate by an opposing party or campaign.
- Social media posts from unverified or unofficial accounts.
- Hearsay, anonymous tips, or unattributed press commentary.
How positions are labelled
Every data-level position entry carries:
| Field | Content |
|---|---|
| Evidence type | One of: manifesto / voting_record / public_statement / interview |
| Source URL | Direct link to primary source |
| Source date | Date of the primary source (not the date we recorded it) |
| Data tier | tier_1 (AI-scraped / editorial team) or tier_2 (candidate-submitted) |
| Last verified | Date the source link was last checked live |
2. Update cadence
- Campaign period (from dissolution of Parliament to election day, 30 May 2026): All position data is reviewed on a weekly cycle. New manifesto publications, significant parliamentary statements, and major debate positions are incorporated within 72 hours of the source being published.
- Outside campaign period (post-election and future elections): Data is reviewed on a monthly cycle, or within 7 days of a significant political event (a party leadership change, a major policy reversal, a parliamentary vote on a contested topic).
- Tier 2 candidate-submitted data: Published within 5 working days of receipt, following a completeness check (is the source URL live? does the URL support the stated position?). No editorial endorsement is made by publishing Tier 2 data.
- Source link health: All source URLs are checked on the weekly review cycle during campaign periods. Broken links are flagged in the audit log and replaced with archived versions (web.archive.org) where the original has disappeared. If no archived version exists, the position entry is marked as source unavailable and displayed with reduced confidence weight until a replacement source is found.
3. Neutrality standard
Every page, component, and data entry must pass the following test before publication:
Topic label convention
Policy topic labels are framed as desired outcomes, not contested phenomena. This ensures that a stance of for or against is unambiguously interpretable.
| Avoid | Use instead |
|---|---|
| Overdevelopment | Reducing overdevelopment |
| Immigration | Reducing irregular immigration or Expanding legal migration pathways (choose the specific claim) |
| Public spending | Increasing public investment in infrastructure |
What neutrality is not
Neutrality does not mean false balance. If a candidate has made a clear, evidenced commitment on a topic, we record it. If a candidate has made no public statement on a topic, we record that too. We do not manufacture equivalence between a documented position and an absence of one.
Neutrality also does not mean we suppress factual information because it reflects poorly on a candidate. Voting records are facts. Manifesto commitments are facts. Recording them accurately is the editorial obligation.
3a. Ideological tradition: how we classify it
Every party profile on Help My Vote includes a short Ideological tradition field — for example, "Social democracy · Centre-left" or "Ethno-nationalism · Far right". This field also appears as a subheading on the Find My Match quiz results screen.
Why we include it. The Find My Match quiz measures policy alignment on the topics a user selects. A user who chooses a narrow set of topics may score a high match with a party whose broader ideology sits well outside the mainstream — a result that is accurate on its own terms but incomplete without context. Displaying the ideological tradition on the results screen gives users that context without requiring them to click through to a full party profile.
How classifications are assigned
The ideological tradition field is assigned by the editorial team using the following hierarchy of evidence:
- The party's own self-description — from its published manifesto, official website, or stated basic principles. Where a party explicitly describes its own ideology, that description or a faithful summary of it is used.
- European political family affiliation — where a party's MEPs sit in a European Parliament political group, or where the party is a member of a European political party, that affiliation is cited.
- Content-based classification — where neither of the above yields an explicit label, the classification is drawn from the party's published programme and stated principles. Where this method is used, it is noted explicitly in the source field for that entry.
The same evidence hierarchy is applied to every party.
| Party | Ideological tradition | Source basis |
|---|---|---|
| Partit Laburista (PL) | Social democracy · Centre-left | Member of the Party of European Socialists (PES); MEPs sit in the S&D group — European Parliament published records |
| Partit Nazzjonalista (PN) | Christian democracy · Centre-right | pn.org.mt: "Member of the European People's Party (EPP)" |
| ADPD – The Green Party | Green politics · Progressive left | adpd.mt: "ADPD – Malta's Green Party"; "Member of the European Greens" |
| Momentum | Progressive · Centre-left | Content-based classification from the 2026 manifesto (For a Just & Beautiful Malta) and stated principles (partitmomentum.org): equality, environmental protection, workers' rights, gender equality, democratic participation |
| Aħwa Maltin | Maltese nationalism | Party's own framing: "L-ewwel u qabel kollox, il-Maltin" (First and foremost, the Maltese people); first pillar "Il-Maltin L-Ewwel" — ahwamaltin.com |
| Imperium Europa | Ethno-nationalism · Far right | Party manifesto: explicit advocacy for an ethnically defined European civilisation and repatriation of non-European residents; Norman Lowell convicted of incitement to racial hatred and promotion of racial discrimination, Maltese Court of Criminal Appeal, 2013 |
Corrections to ideological classifications
If you believe a classification is factually incorrect — that it misstates the party's own self-description or misrepresents its published programme — submit a correction to editorial@helpmyvote.org, including the party name, the specific label you dispute, and a primary source supporting an alternative. We will update when the primary source clearly supports a change; we will not update to match a party's preferred self-characterisation where it conflicts with their published programme.
4. Corrections workflow
How to contact us
Corrections requests, factual disputes, and broken-link reports should be sent to: admin@helpmyvote.org
Requests should include: the candidate or party name, the specific position or data point in question, the nature of the error, and (if applicable) a link to the correct primary source. We do not accept corrections submitted via social media.
What we will and will not change
We will correct genuine factual errors promptly and without qualification. We will update source links and add archived alternatives. We will add a candidate's position if new primary evidence is supplied.
We will not amend a quoted statement on the grounds that it was taken out of context unless the requester supplies the full context and it materially changes the meaning. We will not alter position labels to match a candidate's preferred self-description where that description conflicts with their recorded evidence.
Audit log
All corrections, amendments, and content removals are recorded in a non-public audit log maintained by the editorial team. Each log entry records: date of change, nature of change, who requested the change (if externally requested), the previous content, the new content, and the editorial decision rationale. The audit log is retained for a minimum of 24 months after the election date to which it relates.
Where a material correction has been made to a factual claim that was live on the site, we publish a brief correction notice on the relevant page noting the nature of the error and the date it was corrected.
5. Independence & funding
Help My Vote is editorially independent. No political party, candidate, or campaign has any influence over data, scoring, or editorial decisions.
Any sponsorship or funding relationships are disclosed on this page and do not affect content. Sponsors receive attribution only; they have no access to quiz data and no editorial rights.
Currently: no external funding. Operational costs are met by the owner.
6. Scope
This editorial policy applies to all content published at helpmyvote.org/mt/2026-general/ relating to the Malta General Election 2026. It will be updated if and when the platform expands to other jurisdictions.
Last updated: May 2026. Any material changes will be dated.