Are Democrats More Partisan Than Republicans?
Sorry for the Fox News Channel-esque headline, but I wanted to bring attention to some interesting data I came across.
I’m not aware of any polls indicating whether the average Democratic voter is any more or less partisan than the average Republican voter. However, recent data collected by the Washington Post would seem to suggest that among members of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrats are more partisan than Republicans.
After comparing the voting records of all 435 members of the U.S. House among the 110th Congress (including the two U.S. Representatives who have died since their term began in January of this year), the Washington Post determined that House Democrats (on average) vote with their party 92.7% of the time whereas House Republicans (on average) vote with their party 84.2% of the time.
Moreoever, when members of Congress are ranked according to how often they vote with their own party, the results become even more striking. House Democrats occupy 19 of the top 20 spots in terms of most partisan voting records while House Republicans occupy 18 of the top 20 least partisan voting records:
MOST PARTISAN
1-tie. Charles Norwood (R-GA) ……… 100% of 9 votes.
1-tie. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) …………… 100% of 81 votes.
3. Nita Lowey (D-NY) ………………….. 99.% of 700 votes.
4. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-CA) 99.4% of 169 votes.
5. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) …………… 99.1% of 695 votes.
6. Xavier Becerra (D-CA) ………………. 98.9% of 709 votes.
7. Diana DeGette (D-CO) ……………… 98.7% of 669 votes.
8-tie. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) ……….. 98.6% of 707 votes.
8-tie. Hilda Solis (D-CA) ……………… 98.6% of 721 votes.
8-tie. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) ………… 98.6% of 721 votes.
8-tie. Al Wynn (D-MD) ………………… 98.6% of 694 votes.
12-tie. Elijah Cummings (D-MD) …….. 98.5% of 710 votes.
12-tie. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) ………… 98.5% of 713 votes.
12-tie. Adam Schiff (D-CA) …………… 98.5% of 721 votes.
15. Timothy Bishop (D-NY) …………… 98.4% of 741 votes.
16-tie. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) …………. 98.3% of 715 votes.
16-tie. James Langevin (D-RI) ……….. 98.3% of 724 votes.
16-tie. Doris Matsui (D-CA) ………….. 98.3% of 719 votes.
16-tie. James McGovern (D-MA) ……. 98.3% of 714 votes.
16-tie. Richard Neal (D-MA) …………. 98.3% of 689 votes.
16-tie. David Price (D-NC) …………… 98.3% of 712 votes.
16-tie. John Sarbanes (D-MD) ………. 98.3% of 717 votes.
LEAST PARTISAN
1. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) …….. 68.4% of 673 votes.
2. Christopher Smith (R-NJ) ……. 74.9% of 718 votes.
3. Christopher Shays (R-CT) …… 75.0% of 673 votes.
4. Ron Paul (R-TX) ………………. 75.3% of 594 votes.
5. Tim Johnson (R-IL) …………… 76.3% of 671 votes.
6. Mike Ferguson (R-NJ) ……….. 76.7% of 690 votes.
7-tie. Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ) ….. 77.0% of 721 votes.
7-tie. Walter Jones (R-NC) …….. 77.0% of 700 votes.
9. Michael Castle (R-DE) ……….. 78.0% of 719 votes.
10. Mark Kirk (R-IL) …………….. 78.4% of 689 votes.
11. James Walsh (R-NY) ……….. 78.6% of 672 votes.
12. Steven LaTourette (R-OH) .. 78.7% of 714 votes.
13. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) …………. 78.8% of 706 votes.
14. Gene Taylor (D-MS) ………. 79.3% of 720 votes.
15-tie. Jim Ramstad (R-MN) …. 79.6% of 721 votes.
15-tie. John McHugh (R-NY) … 79.6% of 719 votes.
15-tie. Ray LaHood (R-IL) …… 79.6% of 642 votes.
18. Tim Murphy (R-PA) ……….. 80.1% of 713 votes.
19. John Barrow (D-GA) ………. 80.3% of 742 votes.
20-tie. David Reichert (R-WA) . 80.7% of 722 votes.
20-tie. Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) .. 80.7% of 706 votes.
Draw your own conclusions.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
28 Responses to “Are Democrats More Partisan Than Republicans?”
Uh huh.
{ironic}VERY impressive study based on empiric data of almost a year, leaving aside minor influence of the , erh, fluctuating respect for the presidency, and presented by that leading center of scientific independece, the WashTimes.{/ironic}
Now, where is the data of the last three congresses, just for comparison purposes?
|-(
I was actually about to post something similar in content to Gray’s post, but without the snark. Even though I’m a Republican and might be inclined to WANT to believe that this data supports the conclusion of partisanship being higher among the Dems, I do think that the voting patterns of one Congressional session aren’t nearly enough to establish that. Still though, it does take the wind out of the sails of those who claim that the entire GOP Congress has marched in lockstep with Bush for six years.
And, I wonder if a better case could be made that this data might support what a lot of conservatives have been saying for the last couple of years; the current administration’s policies have not been representative of true conservativism. There’s definitely been a divide between paleoconservatives and neocons as well as between paleocons and social conservatives, and some of the dissenting GOP might be the paleocons who were fighting the tide shift within the party.
I’d like to see stats for years with different majority and minority parties, as well as the ones for “With a President in the party in the White House” and “Without”.
My bets, without doing the research: the minority party will be more likely to vote party-line. The party not in the White House will be more likely to vote party-line.
Ummm, what the top three commenters said. Does anyone know what’s up with Norwood only voting 9 times? Is he ill or otherwise disposed?
He died of lung cancer on February 13, 2007. It didn’t seem fair listing him as tied for the most partisan member of the U.S. However, had I excluded him from the data, it would have opened the door to excluding others from the data who also cast only a small percentage of the total votes cast. Nancy Pelosi, for instance, only cast 81 votes—far fewer than her counterparts.
I suspect this as well. There is greater incentive, I think, for a party to rally against a president of the opposite party than there is for a party to walk in lockstep with a president from the same party.
We should keep in mind that these voting records only go back as far as January 3, 2007 when the 110th Congress officially began. I suspect the numbers would have been different when the Republicans held a majority in the U.S. House.
All I need to do is look at the vote numbers for any bill that challenges the president, whether it’s the original vote to go to war:
D: 29 – 21
R: 48 – 1
the vote to confirm Alberto Gonzales:
D: 6 – 36
R: 54 – 0
or the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill
D: 17 – 25
R: 54 – 0
or the Military Commissions Bill:
D: 12 – 33
R: 53 – 1
or the (final) Iraq Supplemental Bill
D: 37 – 10
R: 42 – 3
Republicans are in lock step with the President. Democrats are less partisan on the most important issues of the day.
This assumption also falls apart on simple examination of the Congressional record over duration of the Bush presidency.
CS – These three are consistent anti-war Republicans for a couple of years.
1. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) …….. 68.4% of 673 votes.
4. Ron Paul (R-TX) ………………. 75.3% of 594 votes.
7-tie. Walter Jones (R-NC) …….. 77.0% of 700 votes.
These three tried to have a real Iraq war debate in the last Congress, but their party shot them down.
Ron Paul votes as a Libertarian.
Flake is a fiscal conservative, he angered his own party in calling out earmarks.
Ramstad is conservative but votes for mental illness and substance abuse issues that are really compassionate.
Most in the “least partisan” group vote on niche issues regardless of their party or lobby groups.
There have been 700+ votes in this Congress? Jesus. Does any one know how many average votes there are per issue?
First, let me point out that the Votes Database is produced by washingtonpost.com, not by the Washington Times, which is a different newspaper. The site clearly reflects the identity of its owner.
Second, party voting scores for previous congresses are available on the site. For example, the 109th Congress scores for the House are at:
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/109/house/party-voters/
Simply change the congress number and/or chamber to see earlier sessions.
Third, being in the minority does not always translate into greater unity. In the House, for example, a number of Republicans this year are voting with their party colleagues less often because the minority party faces less pressure to stick together than does the majority party – which usually has to rely on its own votes to pass legislation. In the Senate, which is more narrowly divided, the parties tend to stick together more.
The votes database provides the party voting as a guide to member voting patterns, not necessarily as evidence of partisanship on the part of one party or another.
Derek Willis
washingtonpost.com
derek.willis@wpni.com
co-creator, Congress Votes Database
mikel – On HR 3074 there was 25 votes including the final vote. In the Senate they don’t even debate. 24 votes were for amendments to the original bill.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/ROLL_700.asp
715 24-Jul H R 3074 On Passage P
Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008
691 24-Jul H R 3074 On Agreeing to the Amendment F Mica of Florida Amendment
BTW Nick, you might want to correct it to Washington Post. Something tells me they wouldn’t be too happy about being mistaken for the Times, even though it is owned by “humanity’s Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent.”
“Third, being in the minority does not always translate into greater unity.”
I would imagine that the party in power would have greater unity simply because those that aren’t partisan have much more to lose re: committee assignments, etc. By contrast, when you’re in the minority you might try to buck the party in order to gain recognition and get more power when your party does regain majority status.
What’s my interpretation? My interpretation is that there are a number of Republicans who aren’t in districts that are “safe”.
Oh I just love to see the Democrats squirming when they are called to account.
True or not true. We can just make stuff up and throw it at them.
Because when they are in charge…….Its like Velcro. Fly Paper. Duct Tape.
IT STICKS.
Comical to see the left screaming foul when someone tries to use FACTS to reach a conclusion.
You know…..sorta like they have been doing with the war in Iraq and a 1000 other things for 7 years now.
Its funny watching them squirm and gasping at straws trying to justify, rectify, and square the facts with their assumptions.
“BTW Nick, you might want to correct it to Washington Post.”
Oops! Ok, the difference isn’t so huge anymore nowadays, but still….
Lots of camouflaged and not-so-hidden attacks on democrats in that paper lately. What’s Don Graham up to? He’s conservative, sure, but is he really secretely stomping for one of the republican candidates? Awful idea.
…in every discussion, there’s always somebody who’s talking utter nonsense…
Somebody – You may want to check out the link supplied from the WashingtonPost
Timesshowing the voting record of the previous Congress. The 109th Republicans were in the Top 20, they controlled the House. This time around the Democrats are in charge. This from the 108th Congress via WaPo:108th Congress / House / Members voting with their parties
Party Voting Totals
* 87.2%
Democratic
(208 members)
* 90.2%
Republican
(232 members)
* 87.6%
Independent
(1 member)
* 88.8%
All Members
(441 members)
Politicians support their own party, so what.
Whoops. My bad. Mistake corrected.
Also, thank for the info about finding out data on previous congresses.
109th Congress (Jan 3, 2005 – Jan 3, 2007)
- House Democrats: 87.4%
- House Republicans: 88.9%
108th Congress (Jan 3, 2003 – Jan 3, 2005)
- House Democrats: 87.4%
- House Republicans: 88.9%
107th Congress (Jan 3, 2003 – Jan 3, 2005)
- House Democrats: 87.4%
- House Republicans: 88.9%
109th Congress (Jan 3, 2007 – Jan 3, 2007)
- House Democrats: 87.4%
- House Republicans: 88.9%
109th Congress (Jan 3, 2007 – Jan 3, 2007)
- House Democrats: 87.4%
- House Republicans: 88.9%
A pattern emerges…the party that controls the House is consistently the more partisan on the two with regards to partisan voting regards.
Also, today’s House Democrats have nothing on the House Republicans of the 104th Congress (the congress than convened after the Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress following the 1994 midterm elections). House Republicans held all of the top 100 spots in terms of the most partisan voting records.
Please ignore my last comment, which I butchered completely. Corrected here:
109th Congress (Jan 3, 2005 – Jan 3, 2007)
- House Democrats: 87.4%
- House Republicans: 88.9%
108th Congress (Jan 3, 2003 – Jan 3, 2005)
- House Democrats: 87.4%
- House Republicans: 88.9%
107th Congress (Jan 3, 2001 – Jan 3, 2003)
- House Democrats: 87.2%
- House Republicans: 90.2%
106th Congress (Jan 3, 1999 – Jan 3, 2001)
- House Democrats: 84.6%
- House Republicans: 86.6%
105th Congress (Jan 3, 1997 – Jan 3, 1999)
- House Democrats: 82.6%
- House Republicans: 87.7%
104th Congress (Jan 3, 1995 – Jan 3, 1997)
- House Democrats: 79.6%
- House Republicans: 89.1%
103rd Congress (Jan 3, 1993 – Jan 3, 1995)
- House Democrats: 84.1%
- House Republicans: 84.0%
102nd Congress (Jan 3, 1991 – Jan 3, 1993)
- House Democrats: 82.2%
- House Republicans: 79.6%
A pattern emerges…the party that controls the House is consistently the more partisan on the two with regards to partisan voting regards.
Also, today’s House Democrats have nothing on the House Republicans of the 104th Congress (the congress than convened after the Republicans took control of both Houses of Congress following the 1994 midterm elections). House Republicans held all of the top 100 spots in terms of the most partisan voting records.
Dr. No has some catching up to do to keep his record as the least partisan R since he came back.
That 104th also saw 6 Dems with sub-50% numbers.
in every discussion, there’s always somebody who’s talking utter nonsense…
Oh so that’s the Democrats plan. Deny. Deflect. Pull a Rovian and attack the commenter as being deranged?
Ahh I see how it will work.
Let me reflect a moment upon what has transpired in this comment section.
Nick writes a post. Essentially calling into question the fact that the Democrats could Possibly be partisan “GASP! Oh say it aint so Joe.”
The commenters then began a debunking, deflection and finger pointing exercise attempting to rightfully blame the Republicans for being more partisan then the Democrats.
Exclaiming in righteous indignation.
“It cannot be true that the Democrats have skeletons in our closets. Why we know we are saints and its them Rascal Republicans who are to blame for everything.”
I just remarked in keeping with my consistent position that:
What goes around comes around. Get ready. For once the left/Dems are trully, fully in charge the shoe will be on the other foot and you/they will be defending everything as if it was the Alamo. Just like the Republicans have been doing since GWB went to war in Iraq.
The Dems seem to have their own Mr. No in Gene Taylor.
Well, this whole thing is common sense, though, isn’t it? I mean, whatever the majority party in power is, they’re going to be less inclined to compromise on their principles, since they’re the ones in power. You see it through ever Congress that there minority party has more people who are less partisan because people have an interest in actually getting things passed even when their party is not in power.
It’s called building political bridges and compromising. The other portion that causes people to defect from party is the case for some like Ron Paul, where what the fellow in thinks Republicanism or conservatism stands for is very different from the current party’s values, perceived values, or bottom line.
I don’t think what we’re seeing measured here is partisanship. What we’re seeing measured is people weighing their alliances to get their own bills passed via the majority, or retaining support in the majority, or trying to gain support from a majority by reaching out and seperating from a minority. There is a need to play into both party lines, but you have to see it from the perspective of the individual politician intending to acheive anything remotely.
Some fellows are compromising their values to be non-partisan. Some people are sticking to their values by being non-partisan. However, I’m uninclined to call people voting with their party strictly just a partisan muck-up. I think it has to do with it being that in most cases, particularly following things like November or the 1994 Republican Revolution, the party in power has the support of the people that brought them their in terms of their idealogies and whatnot, and since they’re voted into power, it is fair to wager that their views represent the views of the majority of Americans. So, I don’t know, but it seems like it would, for a majority party, regardless of which party it was, be serving its constituency to vote largely with itself on big issues, because it is usually big issues and themes that force landslides and massive victories, which means their constituency elected them for that purpose.
But, I don’t know. The natural reaction is to go ‘they’re scumbags, they’re all the same, and the vote with each other’, and I’m sure most adamant Democrats, were the tables turned, wouldn’t give Republicans the same benefit of the doubt as I’m leveling their party hear, but while I think that reaction is accurate, there’s more to it. Yes, a lot of them are partisan hacks. Some of them are people just trying to keep their jobs, though. Some of them, a small group, just want to get things done and are figuring on ways to do it. Some of them are just sticking to their guns and principles. Some of them are compromising those principles, for better or for worse.
Figure on it this way. A republican sees the fellows voting with Democrats on certain issues, and goes ‘oh, he’s selling out his principles.’ A Democrat/moderate sees the same Republican and goes ‘oh, he’s selling out his principles for the good of the nation, to get something done.’ Joe Leiberman votes a few times with Republicans, and Democrats, well, you know…
There’s hackishness to it, and I’m sure it explains a good amount, but I don’t think it’s everything. There’s personal interest, political interests, the interests of your constituency. I mean, there’s being blind and followin’ the horde, and then there’s seeing, and followign the horde because of what it musters.
Looking at the actual numbers it seems to me that the difference in partisanship, at least lately, is vanishingly small. To take the most recent example:
Wow, in this example Republicans are a WHOLE ONE PERCENT more partisan than Democrats! Scandalous! **rolls eyes**
More pertinent I think is the definition of “partisan”. Certainly many votes are divided on party lines, but I’m sure not all are. Those votes where Congress decides to raise their own salaries seem quite bipartisan to me, who decides which votes are “partisan”? To mention a more divisive issue, I would hesitate to call Stem Cell research a wholly partisan issue. Sure virtually all Democrats support it, but a large number of Republicans do as well. How about immigration? What were the party positions in the case where the Republican president had one view, one set of Republicans and Democrats agreed with them, and two other sets of Republicans and Democrats disagreed violently, but for different reasons. Can you really group a Republican who votes against the reform because it gives amnesty and a Democrat who votes against them because it’s too harsh on immigrants together just because they both vote against it?
Another thing that occurs to me is that the unity of the party (a term which obviously puts a more positive spin on it rather than considering the individual members’ partisan leanings) might reflect stronger leadership and/or a party which has a message which resonates more authentically with the voters in all states.
The two examples shown above of higher ‘partisan voting’ include Newt’s 104th Congress which came into power with the Contract with America and Nancy’s 110th which came into power on a platform of opposing GWB. In both cases, you see Congresses which fulfill the mandate of the voters and perceive themselves as representing a national agenda rather than one which is tailored more specifically to their home district. And, to their credit as leaders, both speakers in these cases did listen to what the voters actually said; in the current situation, for example, Pelosi may yet overstep but so far she seems to know that while there might be a clamor for certain legislation in some Dem districts, many of the newly elected Dems are from more centrist districts; she sets the agenda accordingly so that the members in those districts can still vote comfortably with the majority. I may not agree with Pelosi on much, but I can still admire her intelligence and political skills in doing so. From the perspective of leadership, you won’t accomplish much unless you can sense where the consensus lies and push for legislation on that basis.
I think Lynx makes excellent points, too, about issues on which both parties end up voting for self interests- sometimes for the same reason as in pay raises, ethics reform, etc, and sometimes for divergent reasons as on the immigration bill. The latter is why you need more info than just the vote tallies because the backstory of the reason for the votes is important to understanding the member’s true position.
I’d say the most likely reason for House majorities being more “partisan” is that the House majority leadership has an enormous amount of control over what is voted on. The leadership actively tries to bring legislation to the floor that unites their party and divides the other party, while burying legislation that does the opposite. The lesser degree of majority control in the Senate helps explain why there’s less of a correlation between majority status and partisanship there.