Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Possibility of national agenda initiatives
Possibility of regional agenda initiatives
Possibility of e-voting for national elections
Possibility of e-voting for subnational elections
Public participation in the budget process
Occurrence of citizen-initiative this year
Occurrence of obligatory referendum this year
Occurrence of obligatory plebiscites this year

0: Only at the local level.;
1: Only at regional levels.;
2: Only at the national levels.
0: No. The EMB is controlled by the incumbent government, the military, or other de facto ruling body.;
1: Somewhat. The EMB has some autonomy on some issues but on critical issues that influence the outcome of elections, the EMB is partial to the de facto ruling body.;
2: Ambiguous. The EMB has some autonomy but is also partial, and it is unclear to what extent this influences the outcome of the election.;
3: Almost. The EMB has autonomy and acts impartially almost all the time. It may be influenced by the de facto ruling body in some minor ways that do not influence the outcome of elections.;
4: Yes. The EMB is autonomous and impartially applies elections laws and administrative rules.
0: Little or no justification in terms of the common good is usually offered.;
1: Specific business, geographic, group, party, or constituency interests are for the most part offered as justifications.;
2: Justifications are for the most part a mix of specific interests and the common good and it is impossible to say which justification is more common than the other.;
3: Justifications are based on a mixture of references to constituency/party/group interests and on appeals to the common good.;
4: Justifications are for the most part almost always based on explicit statements of the common good for society, understood either as the greatest good for the greatest number or as helping the least advantaged in a society.
0: No.;
1: Yes. But there are no sanctions or sanctions are not enforced.;
2: Yes. Sanctions exist and are enforced, but they impose minimal costs upon the offending voter.;
3: Yes. Sanctions exist, they are enforced, and they impose considerable costs uponthe offending voter.
0: No, it is not required.;
1: Depends on the content of constitutional change (for some it is required, for others however it is not).;
2: Yes, any constitutional must be approved directly by the citizenry.
0: Counterarguments are not allowed or if articulated, punished.;
1: Counterarguments are allowed at least from some parties, but almost always are ignored.;
2: Elites tend to acknowledge counterarguments but then explicitly degrade them by
making a negative statement about them or the individuals and groups that propose them.;
3: Elites tend to acknowledge counterarguments without making explicit negative or positive statements about them.;
4: Elites almost always acknowledge counterarguments and explicitly value them, even if they ultimately reject them for the most part.;
5: Elites almost always acknowledge counterarguments and explicitly value them, and frequently also even accept them and change their position.
0: No. There is a high degree of insulation of the government from CSO input. The government may sometimes enlist or mobilize CSOs after policies are adopted to sell them to the public at large. But it does not often consult with them in formulating policies.;
1: To some degree. CSOs are but one set of voices that policymakers sometimes take into account.; 
2: Yes. Important CSOs are recognized as stakeholders in important policy areas and given voice on such issues. This can be accomplished through formal corporatist arrangements or through less formal arrangements.
0: Most associations are state-sponsored, and although a large number of people may be active in them, their participation is not purely voluntary.;
1: Voluntary CSOs exist but few people are active in them.;
2: There are many diverse CSOs, but popular involvement is minimal.;
3: There are many diverse CSOs and it is considered normal for people to be at least occasionally active in at least one of them.
0: Public deliberation is never, or almost never allowed.;
1: Some limited public deliberations are allowed but the public below the elite levels is almost always either unaware of major policy debates or unable to take part in them.;
2: Public deliberation is not repressed but nevertheless infrequent and non-elite actors are typically controlled and/or constrained by the elites.;
3: Public deliberation is actively encouraged and some autonomous non-elite groups participate, but it is confined to a small slice of specialized groups that tends to be the same across issue-areas.;
4: Public deliberation is actively encouraged and a relatively broad segment of nonelite groups often participate and vary with different issue-areas.;
5: Large numbers of non-elite groups as well as ordinary people tend to discuss major policies among themselves, in the media, in associations or neighborhoods, or in the streets. Grass-roots deliberation is common and unconstrained.
0: Not allowed.;
1: Allowed but non-binding (or with an intervening institutional veto).;
2: Allowed and binding.
0: Only at the national level.;
1: Only at subnational levels.;
2: At both national and subnational levels.
0: No consultation. The leader or a very small group (e.g. military council) makes authoritative decisions on their own.;
1: Very little and narrow. Consultation with only a narrow circle of loyal party/ruling elites.;
2: Consultation includes the former plus a larger group that is loyal to the government, such as the ruling party�s or parties� local executives and/or women, youth and other branches.;
3: Consultation includes the former plus leaders of other parties.;
4: Consultation includes the former plus a select range of society/labor/business representatives.;
5: Consultation engages elites from essentially all parts of the political spectrum and all politically relevant sectors of society and business.
0: No justification. Elites almost always only dictate that something should or should not be done, but no reasoning about justification is given. For example, �We must cut spending.�;
1: Inferior justification. Elites tend to give reasons why someone should or should not be for doing or not doing something, but the reasons tend to be illogical or false, although they may appeal to many voters. For example, �We must cut spending. The state is inefficient.� [The inference is incomplete because addressing inefficiencies would not necessarily reduce spending and it might undermine essential services.];
2: Qualified justification. Elites tend to offer a single simple reason justifying why the proposed policies contribute to or detract from an outcome. For example, �We must cut spending because taxpayers cannot afford to pay for current programs.�;
3: Sophisticated justification. Elites tend to offer more than one or more complex, nuanced and complete justification. For example, �We must cut spending because taxpayers cannot afford to pay for current government programs. Raising taxes would hurt economic growth, and deficit spending would lead to inflation.�
0: No.;
1: Yes. But there are no sanctions or sanctions are not enforced.;
2: Yes. Sanctions exist and are enforced, but they impose minimal costs upon the offending voter.;
3: Yes. Sanctions exist, they are enforced, and they impose considerable costs up