Party Loyalty
Posted by
KTK
The Washington Post published a chart of House members ranked by percentage of time the voted with their party. It shows a remarkable level of cohesion: overall, members voted with their party’s position almost 90% of the time on average. What’s really interesting is the party divide - just the opposite of what you might think. Democrats as a group vote much more consistently with their party (93% of the time) than Republicans (84%). With one anomalous exception (the most partisan member ever was a Republican with a 100% party-line voting record - but he died in office after casting fewer than 10 votes), it’s Democrats all the way down for almost the first 200 names. And there are only 2 members of the House with party-loyalty records of less than 75%. Interestingly, both are Republicans, one of them (Christopher Smith) known for his far-right views. (The fourth name from the bottom - at 75.3% party loyalty - is Ron Paul, currently kind of running for the Republican Presidential nomination.)
These figures are somewhat distorted, however. For one thing, they appear to be lifetime voting records - many of the members’ statistics are cumulative for over 700 votes - but things have changed dramatically over the years. In particular, the majority position has changed hands repeatedly in the Clinton and Bush administrations, and that affects voting records. More importantly, the percentages are artificially inflated by counting all votes, most of which are not partisan. Both parties vote together on non-controversial issues, so it means less to say that certain members “voted with their own party” in those cases; given the large number of lopsided votes, even the most partisan members will likely have voted with the other party (when its position is the same as their own) in a large percentage of cases also.
For that reason, these are not really “party line” voting records. They may be “party loyal” records, but being loyal to one’s own party does not always require opposing the other one. What would be more interesting would be to see percentages of votes with the home party in cases in which the party leaderships were opposed on the issues. I suspect that would send the party-loyalty percentages down somewhat, since it is only in those cases that it’s worth bothering to buck your own party if you feel like it. It would also be interesting to see percentages of party-loyal votes when one’s own party held a majority (party loyalty when it can be used to force an issue), and percentages of party-loyal votes when the number of party defectors on either side was larger than the difference in votes yea or nay (party loyalty when the chips were really down). Nonetheless, there really are some interesting patterns here.
What this appears to suggest is that the Democrats are not as bad as they seem in maintaining loyalty, but they are very bad at doing so on the high-profile votes that really count. And, given that most people only notice or care about a handful of votes in a given legislative session, this deepens the public perception that the Democrats can’t get anything done. Think of all the lock-step votes the Republicans took when they held a bare majority of a few votes, but were still able to force bills through; they controlled the Senate with just a single vote, but the Democrats can’t do anything important no matter how many votes they have. Although the Democrats are more consistent voting with their leadership overall, the Republicans seem vastly more consistent in doing it when it counts - on squeaker bills and high-profile issues. I’d like to see figures on that, but I suspect that’s what’s going on.
There’s something else going on as well. Here are the photos of the first 40 (because it makes a nice square picture) most party-loyal Democrats and Republicans, minus a few whose pictures weren’t included by the Post. See if you notice anything about the two groups (aside from the rather questionable color tones in a lot of the photos).
The 40 most party-loyal Democrats:
The 40 most party-loyal Republicans:
Is there . . . any kind of difference you happen to notice? It’s all very well to talk about “voting as a bloc”, but what kind of bloc is it that represents each of the two parties?
Continuing in the same vein (I’ve used this photo before, but it never stops being relevant), here’s a photo of the signing ceremony for the dilation & extraction abortion ban with no exception for women’s health. These are the people the Republicans gave the power to make unilateral decisions about all women’s lives and freedom. Notice anything?
It really matters whom we entrust with power. It matters how much they think alike, how limited their imaginations and experience are, how welcoming or unwelcoming they are of people unlike themselves. There’s a reason we’re in this mess, and a big part of that reason is in the bottom two photos above.
To be more precise, it only allows the act in order to protect the woman’s life. Given that “health of the woman” laws had been exploited to the point where a claim of mental distress negated them in the first place, the difference is fairly significant.
Yes, because they don’t agree with your position 93% of the time.
This is a joke post, right?
Are you going to argue that Lisa Murkowski and Elizabeth Dole are male plants, somehow forced against their genderous ways to vote antiabortion, since we know moral philosophy can’t allow a woman to consider the destruction of something that might be human a reason to justify an invasion of medical privacy, and women can’t make decisions past the demands of their own body?
That the amazing *nine* female Senators — in a party with well more than half of all its voters being female, which prides itself on integration even at the cost of effectiveness — is highly representative of the 51% of the populace that is female.
Comment 7/31/2007
Personally I suspect that we’d find that the minority party is generally more cohesive than the majority party.
Comment 7/31/2007
The fact that some women might agree with anti-abortion policy is a moot point.
The fact that prolife policy treats women like they are incapable of making good decisions when given the right to choose is just plain out sexual discrimination, which is apparent in what’s being shown in the policy making pictures here.
It’s not a joke, it’s about rights and who decides who has them.
Personally, I think da menz just wanna be spreadin’ their seed.
Comment 7/31/2007
Stormy:
It partly depends on intra-party dynamics in both groups.
Assuming both parties can enforce cohesion, the minority party has less use for it, since they’re going to lose every vote anyway. In that case, they can allow their members more leeway to vote their consciences or cover themselves as a sop to back-home constituencies, since it won’t affect the outcome.
If the majority party can’t enforce cohesion, however, then the minority party has a great need for it, since they become the de facto majority as long as they can count on the votes of all their members plus enough of the opposition to tip the balance; to the extent that the minority also lacks cohesion, they are squandering the gift the majority defectors are giving them. Realizing and acting on this has worked very well for the Republicans, courtesy of the Democrats.
Comment 7/31/2007
[Updated: I think I get your point now; you weren’t trying to say that the Republicans are okay here, you were trying to say that the Democrats aren’t perfect either. Which they’re not, but which still doesn’t make them near as bad as the Republicans on this issue. In any case, my original response is below, unedited, with my original misunderstanding of the point you were trying to make. Thus, the first two paragraphs are utter crap. The last sentence, however, still has some merit.]
That the amazing *nine* female Senators — in a party with well more than half of all its voters being female, which prides itself on integration even at the cost of effectiveness — is highly representative of the 51% of the populace that is female.
Setting aside the fact that I’m not entirely sure that’s a sentence, I’m also not sure that what I think you’re getting at is actually true. For starters, in 2004 the female vote went for pro-choice Kerry over pro-life Bush by a 51-48 margin. In 2006, the margin was more dramatic, with Democrats enjoying a 55-43 margin over Republicans among female voters. In 2000, women voters preferred Gore over Bush by a similar 54-43 margin. Since in two of those three cases, the Democrats lost, that female advantage to the Democrats must have been more than offset by the male voters favoring the Republican. So on what basis do you claim that “well more than half” of Republican voters being female?
Also, the fact that better than two thirds of Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade seems to belie your claim that the GOP’s voting record on the abortion issue is somehow representative of the electorate at large.
But in the end, I suspect that abortion (in particular “partial-birth” abortion) is one of those issues like the Estate Tax, where the more people learn about it, the less likely they are to support banning it.
Comment 7/31/2007
My view is more that it’s much easier to get agreement on a negative policy (what not to do) than a positive policy (what to do). Since the minority party tends to spend more time resisting the majority party’s efforts rather than persuing efforts of its own, it’s likely easier for the minority party to get its members to agree.
If Senator John supports policy A and Senator Joe supports policy B, it’s hard to craft a bill both will vote for, but easy to get them to both vote against a bill for policy C.
Comment 7/31/2007
Stormy:
That seems like the kind of thing that could be tested. Is party loyalty stronger on “no” votes than it is on “yes” votes? That should be easy enough for some stats geek to go figure out.
Comment 7/31/2007
TG, I’m not sure disagreement is characterized by ‘no’ votes. A lot of things could devolve to maintaining status quo, which would often use ‘yes’ votes.
Comment 8/1/2007
Dan M:
OK, then make it a bit more complicated and count the “no” votes on new proposals, and the “yes” votes on renewals.
Comment 8/1/2007
The stats part of it is trivial. It’s the data collection part that would be rather onerous, and I don’t really have the time for it.
Comment 8/1/2007
HURTS OF CONDOMS
WHICH USED AS
CONTRACEPTIVE
TO PREVENT PRAGNANCY IN
WOMEN
_______________________
When the man using
CONDOMS
As contraceptive the woman
Become mad and crazy… this duo to the semen of
Man is remaining
In the CONDOMS
And it was not ejaculated and dropping in
Vagina of women there is not sweet taste for
Sex meeting
Like that you are drinking tea or coffee with out
Sugar the coffee or tea is not sweet it is bitter
Semen
Of man is like Sugar it make the coitus and
Sex meeting sweet to woman
The sex meeting
Sweet
With out
CONDOMS
When man is not Using
CONDOMS
In sex meeting with woman the
Semen of man will Ejaculated and dropping and
Falling in vagina of Woman then the semen is
Absorbed by vagina wall and inter the blood
Circulation and reached the brain
Then the women mind become in a convenience
Mood and good feeling she is not be a
Madden Or Crazy woman
______________________
ADVICE FOR YOU
_______________________
To good enjoy and pleasure in your sexual live
And good ERECTION of your CLITORIS i give
You this ADVICE…….
STOP
Practice reading and writing…
Because practice reading and writing
Loosening and lowering
The SEXUAL ability and power of you.
GO TO LIVE IN
Villages and forestry far from cities and towns
Practice READING and WRITING make you unusual
Woman or SADOMITE (SODOMY) women….
__________________________________
SO WE HAVE NEW METHOD FOR
CONTRACEPTION
—————————————–
BARLEY AS CONTRACEPTIVE AND
SEX TONIC FOR MEN AND WOMEN
___________________________
BREAKFAST
* Barley loaf - bread
* Margarine
* Jam
* Tea or coffee
________________________
LUNCH
* Barley loaf - bread
* Grill ham
* Salad
(Cucumber, celery, Pepper, lettuce)
* Pickly - mayonnaise
* Pepsi cola
______________________________
DINNER
* Barley loaf - bread
* Fried egg in vegetable oil
(With out shaking the yolk)
* Prawns
* Oyster
* Shrimp
* Salad
(Cucumber, celery, pepper, lettuce)
—————————————–
IT IS FORBIDDEN TO EAT THE
Following FOOD cause it increase
Fertility in WOMEN and MEN
* RICE
* HONEY
* FRUITS………..
(DATE - GRAPE - FIG - APPLE -
APRICOT - BANANA - PEACH …….etc)
* OVINE MEAT (SHEEP)
* BOVINE MEAT (COW)
* FISH
—————————————
The statistical indication of
Successfulness of this method is finding
Out in population of
CHINA
Cause they depend on RICE since old
Or ancient times……
_____________
Comment 10/27/2007
Lexapro….
Lexapro. Lexapro medicine….
Trackback 11/11/2007