This process of manifesto analysis was conducted by employing established methods of content analysis by social science practitioners. The coding system, coder training program, and intercoder reliability (ICR) error mitigation strategies have been devised and implemented by Aloke Thakore, Ph.D in Journalism & Mass Communication from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and trustee of the Informed Voter Project.

Parties are sorted alphabetically.

 Every promise statement, and the related preambles, of party manifestos was studied through a double-blind process of narrative analysis (text coding) by analysts. Analysts, working autonomously, performed the narrative analysis on ‘anonymized’ manifesto text files generated through a ‘sanitizing’ process by a separate team of analysts. In essence, the process produced material for coding wherein the identity of the party was entirely ‘masked’.

This analysis represents an assessment of the party’s manifesto based on the 6 following parameters and their relative weightage:

1. 1. Diagnostic Rigor (29%)
   2. Clarity of Scope of the Promise (19%)
   3. Clear timeline (10%)
   4. Clear budget outlay (5%)
   5. Clear implementation plan (24%)
   6. Clear commitment-oriented language (14%)

• Each promise from Anonymized Manifestos (i.e. all content that provides indicators as to the Party to which the Manifesto belongs to were masked by an independent panel of Analysts that were not involved in the Evaluation Process), was ‘coded’ using a rating scale of:
  1. Low
  2. Low-Medium
  3. Medium
  4. Medium-High
  5. High
  6. Not Applicable

• The promises were graded using only the above parameters; not on whether the Evaluation Panel felt the solutions being proposed were meritorious and beneficial to society i.e. their own political perspectives on the subject were not a factor in evaluation.

   

• Promises that were predicated by diagnostic rigor, defined a clear scope of beneficiaries or stakeholders, included a clear timeline, proposed budgetary expenditure to fulfill the promise, articulated a clear implementation plan and was framed using language demonstrating clear commitment and action (as opposed to merely being notional or conveying of intention) scored ‘higher’ than others.

   

• Promises where specific steps and solutions proposed related to areas of legislative responsibility defined under the Union & Concurrent List of the Constitution of India scored higher than others.

   

• Issues for which specific steps and solutions have been proposed are highlighted as ‘strengths’ (THUMB UP SIGN) of the manifesto where as areas for which no specific solutions have been presented are considered as ‘weakpoints’ (THUMBS DOWN SIGN) of the manifesto.

   

• Issues for which the plans proposed were neither specific nor generic are given a ‘Neutral’ assessment.

   

• Solutions and plans proposed have been categorized according to Ministries related to the issue.