Our Methodology

A detailed explanation of how AlignUK analyzes political views and provides accurate, meaningful results.

Methodology Overview

AlignUK uses a multi-dimensional approach to political analysis, combining established political science frameworks with modern computational methods. Our methodology is designed to provide nuanced, accurate insights while maintaining neutrality and educational value.

We analyze political views across six key dimensions rather than relying on simple left-right categorization, recognizing that political ideology is complex and multi-faceted.

Six Dimensions of Political Analysis

Economic

Measures views on the role of government in the economy, from state-led intervention to market-led approaches.

Range: -100 (State-led) to +100 (Market-led)

Social

Assesses attitudes toward social change and traditional values, from progressive to traditional.

Range: -100 (Progressive) to +100 (Traditional)

Authority

Evaluates preference for individual freedom vs collective control, from libertarian to authoritarian.

Range: -100 (Libertarian) to +100 (Authoritarian)

Sovereignty

Measures views on national independence vs international cooperation, from nationalist to globalist.

Range: -100 (Globalist) to +100 (Nationalist)

Environment

Assesses priority between environmental protection and economic growth.

Range: -100 (Environmental) to +100 (Growth-focused)

Welfare

Evaluates approach to social support and public services, from universalist to conditionalist.

Range: -100 (Universalist) to +100 (Conditionalist)

Question Design & Validation

Research-Based Development

Our questions are developed based on established political science research, including work on political ideology measurement, policy preference analysis, and UK-specific political studies. Each question targets specific dimensions and is validated for clarity and neutrality.

Neutrality Standards

Questions are carefully crafted to avoid loaded language, partisan bias, and leading phrasing. We use balanced language that presents multiple perspectives fairly and avoids suggesting "correct" or "preferred" answers.

UK-Specific Context

All questions are tailored to UK political context, including relevant statistics, current policy debates, and British institutions. We include source citations and contextual information to help users understand the issues being discussed.

Scoring Algorithm

Likert Scale Mapping

User responses on a 1-7 scale are mapped to numerical values: 1 = -3, 2 = -2, 3 = -1, 4 = 0, 5 = +1, 6 = +2, 7 = +3

This creates a balanced scale where neutral responses (4) map to 0, and extreme responses map to ±3

Question Weighting

Questions are weighted based on their relevance to each dimension. Primary questions (targeting one dimension) have full weight, while secondary questions (targeting two dimensions) are weighted proportionally.

This ensures that each dimension receives appropriate representation in the final score

Normalization

Raw scores are normalized to a -100 to +100 scale using statistical normalization techniques. This ensures consistent interpretation across all dimensions and allows for meaningful comparisons.

The normalization accounts for the number of questions answered and their relative importance

Confidence Calculation

We calculate confidence levels based on data sufficiency per dimension. A minimum of 60% coverage is required before showing results, ensuring accuracy and meaningful insights.

Confidence scores range from 0-100% and indicate the reliability of each dimension's score

Party Matching Algorithm

Vector-Based Comparison

User results are converted to six-dimensional vectors and compared with party position vectors using cosine similarity. This measures the angle between vectors, providing a similarity score from -1 (opposite) to +1 (identical).

Softmax Normalization

Raw similarity scores are converted to percentage weights using softmax normalization with temperature control. This creates a probability-like distribution that sums to 100% across all parties.

Party Position Data

Party positions are estimated from recent manifestos, voting records, and policy statements. These are updated regularly to reflect current party positions and policy changes.

Data Quality & Validation

Response Validation

We validate responses for consistency and completeness. Users must answer a minimum number of questions per dimension to ensure reliable results.

Statistical Reliability

Our scoring system is tested for statistical reliability and validity. We use established psychometric principles to ensure accurate measurement of political views.

Continuous Improvement

We continuously monitor and improve our methodology based on user feedback, academic research, and changes in political discourse.

Transparency

We are transparent about our methodology and provide detailed explanations of how results are calculated and what they mean.

Methodological Limitations

Complexity of Political Views

Political ideology is inherently complex and cannot be fully captured by any single assessment. Our results provide one perspective among many possible interpretations.

Self-Reported Data

Results are based on self-reported responses, which may be influenced by social desirability bias, misunderstanding of questions, or changes in views over time.

Party Position Estimates

Party matching is based on estimated positions that may not reflect individual candidate views or recent policy changes. Always research candidates independently.

Educational Purpose

This tool is designed for educational and self-reflection purposes, not as voting advice or political endorsement. Use results as a starting point for further research and discussion.

Questions About Our Methodology?

If you have questions about our methodology, scoring system, or technical approach, please don't hesitate to contact us.

Last Updated: 30 August 2025