Normative Analysis (Module II)

Module navigation:
→ Current module: Normative Analysis (Module II)
→ Return to Structural Analysis (Module I)

NORMATIVE EVALUATION (SEPARATE ANALYTIC STAGE)

This section is intentionally distinct from the Structural Validity analysis above.

  • Structural Validity asks whether a design functions coherently as an eligibility rule.

  • Normative Adequacy asks whether a structurally coherent design advances a substantive theory of republican rotation.

The distinction is deliberate. A system may be structurally sound yet normatively weak, or normatively attractive yet structurally defective. Collapsing these questions produces analytic confusion and rhetorical overreach.

The material below therefore shifts registers explicitly:

  • from descriptive analysis → to evaluative theory

  • from neutral classification → to value-based judgment

  • from institutional mechanics → to constitutional ideals

This separation is designed to preserve credibility in professional contexts while still allowing serious normative inquiry to occur transparently rather than implicitly.

MODULE II — NORMATIVE ADEQUACY

THE WASHINGTON–MADISON DOCTRINE

(Normative, theoretical, explicitly value-based)

Purpose

To evaluate whether a structurally valid system meaningfully promotes republican rotation, discourages careerism, and aligns with the conception of officeholding as temporary civic trust rather than durable professional station.

This module assumes the design has already been evaluated for Structural Validity.

THE WASHINGTON–MADISON DOCTRINE (DEFINED)

As used here, the Washington–Madison Doctrine refers to a modern synthesis of founding-era principles associated with republican self-government, particularly the view that:

  • elective office is a temporary public trust,

  • durable accumulation of political power is a structural danger,

  • regular turnover is necessary to preserve civic humility, and

  • governance should remain intelligible to ordinary citizens rather than dominated by a permanent political class.

This doctrine is normative by design and is stated openly to invite serious engagement rather than rhetorical agreement.

CORE WASHINGTON–MADISON TESTS

  1. Entrenchment Risk Test
    Does the design permit tenures long enough to allow durable accumulation of institutional power, seniority, or dominance?

  2. Careerism Incentive Test
    Does the structure rationally support long-term career planning around officeholding rather than temporary civic service?

  3. Rotation Cadence Test
    Does the expected turnover meaningfully disrupt elite continuity across electoral cycles?

  4. Civic Intelligibility Test
    Is the system simple enough that ordinary citizens can readily understand eligibility boundaries and institutional turnover?

  5. Elite Disruption Test
    Does the design materially reduce the likelihood that the same political elite will dominate governing institutions over time?

NORMATIVE OUTCOME LANGUAGE

Because this module is evaluative rather than classificatory, findings use calibrated descriptive terms such as:

  • Normatively strong

  • Normatively weak

  • Moderate rotation

  • High entrenchment risk

  • Low disruption of elite continuity

No claim of neutrality is made here; transparency is preferred to pretense.

STRUCTURAL DEFECTS VS. DESIGN TRADEOFFS

The framework distinguishes clearly between:

  • Structural defects
    Failures that undermine equal application, aggregation, coherence, or administrability.

  • Design tradeoffs
    Structurally coherent choices that nonetheless weaken rotation strength, simplicity, or elite disruption.

This permits analytically precise conclusions such as:

“The system is structurally coherent but normatively weak under the Doctrine,” rather than collapsing all critique into a single undifferentiated judgment.

Normative Evaluation Test (Module II)

This separate prompt operationalizes the Normative Adequacy analysis under the Doctrine. It assumes the design has already been assessed for Structural Validity.

This prompt produces calibrated risk assessments for each criterion, brief explanations, and a concluding normative characterization.

Meta-Prompt: Washington–Madison Normative Evaluation

Copyable prompt (paste into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.)

Assume the following proposal is structurally coherent.

Avoid first- and second-person pronouns ("I," "we," "you," "your”).
Use formal analytical tone suitable for academic or professional publication.
Ratings should follow logically from the structural features of the design and the definitions provided above, not from rhetorical balance or moderation. A “High” rating is warranted where the structure would predictably prevent ordinary citizens from forming an accurate mental model of eligibility and turnover; “Moderate” should be reserved for designs whose complexity remains broadly intelligible without technical explanation. Evaluate it under the Doctrine, which holds that elective office is a temporary public trust and that durable accumulation of political power poses structural risk to republican self-government.

For each of the following, assess whether the design exhibits low, moderate, or high risk, with one sentence of explanation:

  • Entrenchment Risk (does the structure permit durable accumulation of power?)

  • Careerism Incentive Risk (does the structure rationally support long-term career planning in office?)

  • Rotation Cadence Weakness (does expected turnover meaningfully disrupt elite continuity?)

  • Civic Intelligibility Deficit (can ordinary citizens readily understand eligibility boundaries?)

  • Confidence ≠ Rotation Risk (is approval treated as a substitute for structural turnover?)

  • Office ≠ Leadership Risk (does durable influence persist outside formal office limits?)

  • Service ≠ Seniority Risk (is experience invoked to justify extended tenure?)

Conclude with a short characterization such as: “Normatively strong,” “Mixed,” or “Normatively weak under the Doctrine.”

[Paste the term-limit law, proposal, or description to evaluate here and press enter]

Optional Comparative Mode (side-by-side use)

This section provides a parallel optional wrapper for users who wish to compare normative outcomes side-by-side under the Doctrine. It mirrors the discipline of the structural comparative mode and preserves analytical neutrality.

Purpose

The purpose of this comparative mode is to allow readers to observe how different designs perform against the same normative criteria without converting the instrument into advocacy. Each proposal is evaluated independently under the doctrine; contrasts arise from the results, not from editorial framing.

Meta-Prompt: Comparative Normative Evaluation Wrapper

Copyable prompt (paste into ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc.)

Two proposals are provided below. Apply the Washington–Madison Normative Evaluation independently to each proposal using the same criteria. Do not evaluate one proposal relative to the other. Do not use comparative language such as "better" or "worse." Treat each proposal as a standalone evaluation under the doctrine.

Avoid first- and second-person pronouns ("I," "we," "you," "your”).
Use formal analytical tone suitable for academic or professional publication.

Ratings must follow logically from the structural features of each design and the definitions provided in the framework, not from rhetorical balance or moderation. A “High” rating is warranted where the structure would predictably prevent ordinary citizens from forming an accurate mental model of eligibility and turnover; “Moderate” should be reserved for designs whose complexity remains broadly intelligible without technical explanation.

Produce the output in three sections:

  1. Proposal A — Normative Evaluation and Characterization

  2. Proposal B — Normative Evaluation and Characterization

  3. Comparative Summary — A brief, neutral summary identifying where risk profiles and final characterizations differ, without evaluative language.

[Paste the term-limit law, proposal, or description A to evaluate here.]

[Paste the term-limit law, proposal, or description B to evaluate here. Then press enter.]

This optional wrapper completes the framework by supporting side-by-side normative illustration while preserving doctrinal discipline and institutional voice.

Return to analytical foundation:
→ Structural Analysis (Module I)