The trust page. If you only read one thing about us, read this.
Everything on this site comes from public sources: city council and committee minutes, official City of London and Government of Ontario pages, candidates' own campaign websites and social media, and news reporting. Each page shows the date it was researched, because a candidate's platform in July can look different by October.
We used AI research tools to do much of the digging, working under a fixed set of editorial rules (below). AI-gathered material is checked before publish. Some claims couldn't be verified against a primary source (some news sites block automated access, and ward boundaries still await a final check against the city's official map); where that happened, the page's own list of research gaps says so plainly. Where voting records are marked primary-sourced, they were pulled from the city's official eSCRIBE meeting minutes.
Where our research came up short, we say so. We'd rather show you a gap than fake a number, so ward pages carry their own list of research gaps instead of papering over them.
1. Every factual claim carries a source, and every page shows the date it was researched.
2. What a candidate says and what they have actually done are kept visually distinct — stated positions and voting records never blur together.
3. When a page mentions a controversy, it always includes the person's response.
4. "No platform found" is stated plainly when it's true. That's voter information, not a smear.
5. The specificity check uses one rubric for everyone: we count named programs, dollar figures, and measurable commitments; everything else is noted as aspirational.
6. City versus provincial or federal jurisdiction is flagged honestly on every issue. A candidate promising something council can't deliver is itself a fact worth knowing.
7. Plain language throughout — written for a smart neighbour, not a policy wonk.
8. Ward issues are ordered by how directly they land on residents' doorsteps: the most immediate, ward-specific concern first, big planning files after. The ordering uses the same sourced signals (resident surveys, what candidates report hearing at doors) cited on each page. Ordering is presentation, not endorsement.
The specificity check is a count, not a score. For every candidate, we apply the same rubric: named programs, dollar figures, and measurable commitments count as concrete; general themes and values statements are noted as aspirational. The result reads like "3 concrete proposals, 2 aspirational themes" — identical in form for every candidate.
It is not a ranking, a grade, or an endorsement. A candidate with fewer concrete proposals isn't a worse candidate — some voters prefer detailed plans, others prefer broad direction. The check just makes visible what's actually on the table.
Voters draw their own conclusions. The site never does.
For voting-record scorecards, the primary source is the City of London's official meeting minutes published on eSCRIBE, where recorded votes list each member's position by name. News reporting is used as a secondary source when minutes weren't directly obtainable, and each vote is marked as primary- or secondary-sourced.
Some cells in a vote grid are filled by arithmetic rather than an explicit roll call — when the minutes name everyone who voted one way and give the tally, the remaining positions can be worked out exactly. Those cells are marked with an asterisk and explained in a footnote. Where a position couldn't be confirmed at all, the cell says so instead of guessing.
Every vote in a scorecard links to its source, gets one neutral sentence of context, and shows the same treatment for every member. Position colours only — no good/bad scoring.
A small number of secondary sources are slated for replacement with primary equivalents before election day.
This is a stable reference, not a news site. It gets refreshed at defined moments:
August 24, 2026 — when the city certifies the official candidate list, the full roster is refreshed: new candidates researched and added, withdrawn candidates removed.
After Labour Day — platforms tend to firm up in September, so specificity checks and platform summaries get a refresh pass.
October — advance-poll locations and election-day logistics are confirmed against london.ca as the city publishes them.
Spotted an error? Email corrections@londondecides.ca. Corrections are reviewed against sources and applied to the page, and the page's research date is updated.
Candidates have the same path: any candidate can submit corrections or updates about their own entry through the same address, and verified updates are published. Fair is fair — if we got something about you wrong, we want to fix it.
This site is nonpartisan and endorses no one. It takes no funding from any candidate, campaign, or party, runs no ads, and is volunteer-run.
The strongest editorial stance it takes is the specificity check — the same even-handed count applied to every candidate. Nothing on this site is meant to help or hurt any campaign, and nothing on it should be read as an endorsement.
Tell us: corrections@londondecides.ca. Corrections are made promptly and noted. Candidates have the same path — send updates or corrections any time.
No donations, no ads, no memberships — this project doesn’t take money. Four things help more:
Group chats, Facebook groups, the neighbour who says their vote doesn't matter — that's how this spreads. There's no ad budget; you're it.
Spot an error, a dead link, or something unfair? corrections@londondecides.ca. Corrections are made promptly and noted.
The same questionnaire goes to every candidate. Answers get published word for word as they come in, and “no response” is public information too. Push yours to be on the record.
An issue your street cares about that isn't on your ward page? Say so. The best pages here were built from what residents actually raise.