The candidate scorecard looks objective until you ask who chose the weights

A civic organization in my area released a candidate scorecard with neat rows, colored circles, and a final score out of one hundred. It is spreading quickly because it appears to turn a complicated local race into something measurable.

I almost shared it before noticing that the methodology page explains the questions but not their weights. One candidate agreed with the organization on most issues and received a modest score. Another agreed on fewer issues and scored higher. The likely explanation is that some questions count more, but the scorecard does not say which ones or why. It also gives zero points when a candidate did not respond, which treats silence as disagreement.

The underlying questionnaire is useful. I learned positions I had not seen on campaign pages. The problem is the authority created by the final number. A score is not merely a summary when hidden choices determine the result. Someone selected the topics, phrased the questions, assigned importance, interpreted partial answers, and decided how nonresponse should count. Those choices may be defensible. They should not disappear behind arithmetic.

I wrote to the organization asking for the scoring rubric, completed candidate responses, date sent, response deadline, and policy for corrections. I also asked whether any board member had a campaign role or other conflict that the organization discloses. I am not assuming wrongdoing; I want enough information to understand what the number represents.

Until then, I plan to use the questionnaire as a source of candidate statements and ignore the total score. A friend says that is unfair because every voter guide simplifies and this group at least shows its questions.

What should a credible candidate scorecard disclose? Is publishing the full weighting formula essential, or can a trusted organization reasonably ask readers to accept its priorities?