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.

109th Congress (Jan 3, 2005 – Jan 3, 2007)
- House Democrats: 87.4%
- House Republicans: 88.9%

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?

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.

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.

That 104th also saw 6 Dems with sub-50% numbers.

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.

First, let me point out that the Votes Database is produced by washingtonpost.com, not by the Washington Times, which is a different newspaper.

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.

* 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.

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.

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.

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.

691 24-Jul H R 3074 On Agreeing to the Amendment F Mica of Florida Amendment

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