Transparent scoring system for European Parliament member activities based on open data, weighted by their importance in performing the European Parliament mandate
The weighting of individual indicators largely draws from the weights established by MEP Ranking, which was previously widely cited and recognized but is no longer operational, as well as from practical work experience in the European Parliament.
Reports and Opinions are the most important, as MEPs have the greatest impact on how legislation will look at the end - the highest possible gains. This forms the foundation of our Legislative Production category, where MEPs can directly shape European Union law through their role as rapporteurs and opinion drafters.
Activity Indicators Scoring reflects the day-to-day parliamentary work that demonstrates MEP engagement and accountability. These quantifiable activities show how actively MEPs participate in the democratic process through questions, speeches, and legislative amendments.
Institutional Roles recognize that some MEPs carry additional responsibilities beyond regular legislative work. Leadership positions require extra time and effort, and the scoring system acknowledges this through carefully calibrated multipliers based on the Power × Scarcity principle.
Attendance Penalty ensures that the fundamental duty of parliamentary participation is reflected in scores. Democratic representation requires physical presence and participation in votes, making attendance a baseline requirement for effective MEP performance.
The methodology is transparent. All data processing and calculation methods are documented and verifiable, ensuring accountability and enabling independent verification of results.
We strive to identify potential errors and correct them after verification.
MEP evaluation is based on four distinct categories of parliamentary activity. Each category measures different aspects of MEP performance to provide a better assessment.
Philosophy: Legislative Production represents the core function of any parliamentarian - creating, shaping, and improving laws. In the European Parliament, this happens primarily through the report system, where MEPs serve as rapporteurs (lead authors) or shadow rapporteurs (opposition perspectives) for legislative files. Reports and Opinions are the most important, as MEPs have the greatest impact on how legislation will look at the end - the highest possible gains.
Rapporteurs draft the Parliament's position on proposed legislation, conduct negotiations with other institutions, and guide the legislative file through the parliamentary process. Shadow rapporteurs provide alternative viewpoints and ensure political balance. Opinion rapporteurs contribute specialized committee expertise to legislation outside their committee's primary competence.
Amendments represent the detailed work of legislative improvement, where MEPs propose specific textual changes to make laws more effective, clearer, or better aligned with European values. This granular legislative work directly influences the final shape of EU law.
Measurement: This category combines reports, opinions, and amendments into a single score reflecting the MEP's contribution to EU lawmaking.
| Report Role | Points | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Rapporteur | 4.0 | Lead author of report |
| Shadow Rapporteur | 1.0 | Opposition/alternative perspective |
| Opinion Rapporteur | 1.0 | Committee opinion on report |
| Opinion Shadow | 0.5 | Shadow for committee opinion |
Amendments are legislative proposals to modify existing draft legislation during the committee stage. This is where MEPs can directly influence the final shape of EU laws by proposing specific changes, additions, or deletions to legislative texts.
Activity indicators (such as Amendments, Written Questions, Oral Questions, Explanations of Vote, Plenary Speeches, and Motions) are evaluated using an outlier-based scoring system with logarithmic scaling (0-4 points). This statistical approach ensures fair comparison within each parliamentary term while automatically adapting to data distribution.
Where normalized = (value - min) / (max - min) using clean data after outlier removal
Philosophy: Parliamentary democracy requires robust oversight of executive power. MEPs exercise democratic control through various questioning mechanisms that hold the European Commission, Council, and other EU institutions accountable to citizens. This category measures the watchdog function of parliament.
Written questions allow MEPs to seek detailed information on EU policies, spending, and decision-making processes. They create a permanent record of institutional accountability and often reveal important information about EU operations that might otherwise remain opaque.
Oral questions during plenary sessions provide real-time scrutiny of EU executives, forcing public responses to important issues and concerns raised by elected representatives.
Explanations of vote demonstrate transparency in the democratic process, showing citizens why their representatives voted in specific ways on important legislation. This builds democratic accountability between MEPs and their constituents.
Measurement: All indicators use outlier-based scoring for fair cross-term comparison, recognizing that oversight intensity varies across different parliamentary terms.
Written questions submitted by MEPs to EU institutions for official written responses. These allow MEPs to seek detailed information and hold institutions accountable through documented exchanges.
Formal questions for oral answer with debate, addressed to EU institutions. These can be tabled by committees, political groups, or groups of MEPs to bring important issues to parliamentary debate.
Written or oral statements explaining voting positions on specific measures
Philosophy: Democracy requires active debate and public discourse. This category measures how actively MEPs participate in parliamentary discussions and contribute to the European political conversation. Speaking in plenary sessions demonstrates engagement with EU-wide issues and helps shape public understanding of European policies.
Plenary speeches allow MEPs to articulate positions, challenge proposals, and represent their constituents' views in the broader European debate. These contributions to parliamentary discourse help form public opinion and influence the direction of European integration.
Motions for resolutions enable MEPs to raise important issues that might not otherwise receive parliamentary attention. These initiatives demonstrate proactive engagement with emerging challenges and help set the European political agenda.
Measurement: All indicators use outlier-based scoring for consistent evaluation across different parliamentary terms and political contexts.
Speeches delivered during plenary sessions of the European Parliament
Proposals for Parliament resolutions on various topics and issues
Philosophy: Democratic institutions require leadership and specialized expertise. MEPs who accept institutional roles take on additional responsibilities that extend beyond regular legislative duties. These positions involve chairing meetings, coordinating between political groups, managing parliamentary business, and representing the Parliament in external relations. The scoring system recognizes this additional workload while maintaining proportionality.
Institutional roles are applied as percentage multipliers using the Power × Scarcity heuristic, which balances the authority level of a position against how few MEPs can hold it.
bonus ≈ relative authority / share of MEPs in role
The rarer and more powerful the office, the bigger the premium. Roles that can alter legislation (President, Committee Chair) are weighted highest. Administrative roles (Quaestor) or diplomatic roles (delegations) receive discounts.
| Position | Bonus Multiplier | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| EP President | +100% | Highest authority, unique position (1/720 MEPs)* |
| EP Vice-President | +60% | High authority, very rare (~14/720 MEPs)* |
| Committee Chair | +60% | High legislative power, rare (~20/720 MEPs)* |
| Quaestor | +35% | Administrative role, limited legislative impact |
| Committee Vice-Chair | +30% | Moderate authority in committees |
| Delegation Chair | +20% | Diplomatic role, lower legislative impact |
| Delegation Vice-Chair | +10% | Minor diplomatic responsibilities |
Democratic representation fundamentally requires presence. Citizens elect MEPs to represent their interests in the European Parliament, which means physically attending sessions and participating in votes. While the quality of participation matters, quantity of attendance serves as a baseline indicator of democratic commitment.
Attendance penalties reflect the principle that consistent absence undermines the democratic mandate. MEPs who regularly miss plenary sessions cannot effectively represent their constituents' interests, regardless of their other activities. The penalty system is designed with reasonable thresholds that account for legitimate absences while penalizing systematic non-participation.
Parliamentary attendance is measured through participation in plenary votes. Attendance rates below certain thresholds result in score penalties applied to the final score after all other calculations.
| Attendance Level | Score Penalty | Description |
|---|---|---|
| 75% and above | No penalty | Good attendance - no score reduction |
| Lower than 75% | Score × 0.75 | 25% score reduction |
| Lower than 55% | Score × 0.5 | 50% score reduction |
Only EP Chair and Vice Chair are exempt from attendance penalties as they usually do not participate in votes when presiding over plenary sessions.
The weighting of individual indicators is largely subjective; therefore, the interface includes the ability to adjust the weighting of individual indicator groups according to your preferences. This allows users to create personalized rankings based on what they consider most important in MEP performance.
All data is sourced from ParlTrack.eu, which provides officially sourced European Parliament data including votes, amendments, reports, speeches, and MEP activities across parliamentary terms.
Reports & Opinions
Speeches
Amendments
Vote Records
8th Term: 2014-2019
9th Term: 2019-2024
10th Term: 2024-current
Last update: July 23rd 2025
Each final score calculation can be verified in the MEP's profile or by clicking on their score in the table on the homepage
The final score calculation follows a sequential process involving category scoring, role multipliers, and attendance considerations.
This is a beta version of our scoring methodology. Parameters and calculations may be adjusted based on ongoing analysis, feedback, and methodological improvements. We welcome constructive feedback to help refine the system.
This evaluation represents only a quantitative view of MEP activity and cannot replace comprehensive assessment of work quality. Higher scores do not automatically mean better politicians.
The MEP Score and all related materials are provided for general information only. No warranties are given and no liability is accepted for any loss arising from the use or interpretation of the data, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law.
The website, methodology, and scores are not official statistics, professional advice, or recommendations. Do not rely on them as the sole basis for decisions.
The dataset is derived mainly from ParlTrack.eu and processed further. Despite extensive manual checks, the data may contain errors, omissions, or delays. Please report issues to mepscore@gmail.com.
The service is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis without any express or implied warranties (including accuracy, completeness, or fitness for a particular purpose).
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, the author and operator are not liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, consequential, or other losses arising from use of, reliance on, or misinterpretation of the data or methodology.
The methodology is in beta and may be updated or corrected at any time without prior notice.
References to third-party resources do not constitute endorsement. Their availability and accuracy are outside our control.
If you notice any inaccuracies or have suggestions for improvement, please contact us at mepscore@gmail.com