Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Just the Votes, Ma'am

By David Morris, AlterNet. Posted August 4, 2005.


If Americans knew precisely how the two parties vote on ideological bills like CAFTA and gun control, they could reshape politics. Too bad the parties -- much less the media -- won't tell them.
Advertisement

I wrote Howard Dean a couple of months ago. I pointed out that too many Americans lack an understanding of the concrete differences between the political parties. They get their information from sound bites and party spin machines. I inquired whether the Democratic National Committee might begin posting information on its websites.

Dean never responded. He's a busy man. Then I saw him interviewed on the Daily Show. Three times an increasingly exasperated Jon Stewart asked Dean to identify specific policy differences between Democrats and Republicans. Dean demurred.

The day after the House of Representatives approved the energy bill the Congressional reporter of the New York Times wrote, "Despite objections that the energy plan was flawed ... the measure was approved on a bipartisan 275-to-156 vote."

Bipartisan? Sixty-two percent of House Democrats voted against the bill. Eighty-five percent of Republicans voted in favor.

On the local level, my hometown newspaper, the Minneapolis Star Tribune recently headlined a front page story, "Minnesota's GOP-led House opts to raise state's minimum wage." The reporter informed us the bill passed by an 84-50 margin. Any reader would reasonably infer that it too had bipartisan support. Wrong again. Democrats voted in favor, 66-0. Republicans voted against, 50-18.

A few days ago, after the heartbreakingly close defeat on the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), my friend Jonathan Tasini wrote a column asking us to "spank" the 15 House Democrats who voted for passage. We should. But his widely disseminated column was not tempered by any commentator pointing out that 93 percent of Democrats voted against CAFTA; 80 percent of Republicans voted in favor.

Our political parties don't want us to know how they vote on specific issues. And our media don't want to tell us how they vote.

This is bewildering and distressing, and something should be done about it. In a two party system, information about how each party voted should be in every wrap-up story. Yet only the Associated Press, to its credit, commonly includes roll call votes. And newspapers that carry AP stories rarely include that part of the feed.

The good news is that such information is readily available at the Thomas webpage. The House of Representatives facilitates the task by aggregating the party votes on every amendment and bill. The Senate makes it a wee bit harder by only listing the ayes and noes by individual Senator. But the Senator's party affiliation is noted and one can easily do the arithmetic.

At the state level the information requires a little more legwork, but it's still not rocket science or heavy lifting.

Given the need to know how our parties vote, as parties, and the relative ease of gaining that knowledge, might not the progressive media, perhaps in combination with state organizations, make this information available? We would all be enriched by such an initiative.

Because of the way Congressional bills (and sometimes state bills) are put together, examining the voting on a specific amendment may be far more enlightening than the vote on the final bill.

For example, in June the appropriations bill for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies was approved by the truly bipartisan vote of 408-18. But the voting on an amendment that would have initiated country of origin labeling for meat and other products was anything but bipartisan. The amendment failed with Republicans voting against 188-41 and Democrats voting in favor, 145-52.

A Transportation bill was overwhelmingly approved in late July. Again, the final vote was bipartisan, 417-9. But an amendment to allow toll lanes on federally funded highways was more revealing about the philosophical differences between the two parties. Republicans voted 134-92 in favor; Democrats voted 172-21 against.

In late July, a gun bill exempting gun sellers from lawsuits passed the Senate. An amendment requiring the installation of a child safety lock when a handgun is sold was passed by a wide margin, 70-30.

But 100 percent of the Senate's 44 Democrats voted in favor while 55 percent of Republicans voted against.

I think Americans would like to know that. Shouldn't we let them know?

Digg!

David Morris is co-founder and vice president of the Institute for Local Self Reliance in Minneapolis, Minnnesota and director of its New Rules project.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
votes
Posted by: Brandoc-D'Ha on Aug 4, 2005 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why would you want to rain on their self rightious parade with inconvenient facts.They just love quoting the gospel of Limbaugh & O'Rielly

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

EXCELLENT IDEA & EVOLVED APATHY
Posted by: cry0fan on Aug 4, 2005 5:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sir, that is an EXCELLENT idea.

I am going to go further and recommend that the Democrats spend their money NOT so much on advertising for individual political races, but instead they should immediately begin a political offensive based on advertising on tv, newpapers, and radio that would simply pick certain votes on certain bills (similar to what you have done here) and present that information clearly and succinctly in tv and radio commercials. I fail to see how the media outlets could excuse refusing to run such ads.

Such a tactic by the dems would go a long long way in shifting the nature of the political debate, such as it is, to one of a more substantive nature. Instead of focusing on cult of personality and horserace issues, it would focus on party ideological differences on bread and butter issues.

Of course, the American political status quo is there for a reason. Like an animal that has evolved to suit its environment, that has been molded by environmental forces, our current policies (such as the parties and media ignoring the real ideological differences) are there because they favor the elite. This is one big reason why we have voter apathy. Voter apathy is good for those who are on top. And those who are on top have the most power. And so our policies are evolved to suit them, and not us. And therefore voter apathy has been induced by ignoring ideological differences and focusing on cult of personality and horserace issues.

So, heh heh, try convincing the democratic elite to highlight these ideological party differences by using advertising to explain votes. Just try it...

And on another note, what a miserable selection of comments for this excellent article. What a pity....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: XCELLENT IDEA & EVOLVED APATHY Posted by: annadams95340
Manifesto?
Posted by: jobie1kno on Aug 4, 2005 6:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the UK and many other countries, each political party publishes a manifesto, outlining where the party stands on each issue, what they plan to do during the next political term, and how each activity would be funded. It is surprising that neither party in the US has documentation for release to the general public in advance of a general election, stating their intentions for the country. Why is this NOT considered necessary? Why are both parties hiding in the gray area of non-commitment, instead of stating their commitments to the American people? Shouldn't we all be able to shop before we buy our government?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Manifesto? Posted by: dracorix
» RE: Manifesto? Posted by: humansfirst
» RE: Manifesto? Posted by: IndyElliott
RE: They can look it up on the internet
Posted by: llaroche on Aug 4, 2005 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets face it. People are lazy. It would be more useful to have it right in their faces as TV ads or how about putting the results on MTV so as to educate our younger voters. Maybe George Soros wouldn't mind footing some of the bill for this. Not everyone has access to a computer or knows how to get info off of one. These ads would also need to be seen in rural areas where george and co. get most of their votes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Perhaps a std graphic would help
Posted by: john2two on Aug 4, 2005 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent essay. Throughout the 2004 campaign, I chafed at the inability to get across the differences between the alternatives. Even if the D's won't stand up and enunciate the differences, you're right that we need to try to get it out.

Got me thinking that maybe we just need to develop a good capsule way to communicate this. Even I, a political and numbers nerd, glaze over at lists of vote count numbers like the ones here. What if we developed and popularized a standardized pie chart graphic to show where the votes stack up? I've made a sample, to illustrate what I'm imagining.

Any takers?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Right On!
Posted by: bluedevil on Aug 4, 2005 7:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for putting into words what I've also been thinking. Even today's WaPo page 3 article by Jim VandeHei refers to the recent right wing steamrolled legislative victories as "bi-partisan". I guess this kind of journalism is another example of "newspeak". The part about Dean is really discouraging.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

easy details
Posted by: mwillse on Aug 4, 2005 9:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Congress.org provides an efficient weekly email that summarizes each vote. It's called megavote.

It includes a sentence summary of the legislation and how your reps and senators voted. It provides a link to a complete tally. No more, no less.

It's the most enlightening email that comes to me weekly.

Get it here: megavote

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Etyler
Posted by: etyler on Aug 4, 2005 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's a really great idea. I visited the Thomas webpage and find it too cumbersome. It's good that it's available, but to find out how a particular vote went down, the page isn't user-friendly. Granted, I'm at work and don't have time to putz around for 1/2 hour to find the info. I'm looking for, but I don't think most people would.

Many times I've wanted to know how my senator or representative voted, but couldn't find a concise venue for finding the information I so desperately wanted. I really think devising such a system is something that would help get many people more involved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

more telling.... why they don't want us to know
Posted by: diof09 on Aug 4, 2005 10:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Probably has to do with attracting lobbying money? My God, when are we going to get sick up and fed enough to throw the BIG MONEY out of politics. I have an idea, since the conservatives want constitutional "originalism" let's start by following their lead and stripping corporations' phony "personhood" status, re: Santa Clara County vs Union Pacific RR Supreme Court decision. I am quite sure the founding fathers made it clear with the Boston Tea Party what they thought of the king's chartered corporations!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I don't know about any of you but I'm sick of bipartisanship
Posted by: sausage on Aug 4, 2005 12:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet I heard so many, actually too many, Democrats say they want to see more "bipartisanship" in the US House and Senate. In fact just the other night, with Senator Joe Biden as guest, the before mentioned Jon Stewart said it would be nice to see more bipartisanship in the US Congress and, he continued, perhaps the nation needs to presidential ticket of John McCain and Joe Biden. I just about wanted to puke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No wonder no one cares
Posted by: opeluboy on Aug 4, 2005 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoop te doo! All Dems voted for a child-safety lock on handguns. The majority also voted for this war which has murdered thousands of children, will vote for the next and supported the sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi children. Thank you Mr Morris for proving what I already knew: these dems will get together for utterly useless, feel-good photo-ops and run like chicken shits when it matters.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No wonder no one cares Posted by: dmorris
vote or not ?
Posted by: john henry on Aug 4, 2005 5:56 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we the people have the vote an we have put these people in office an they appoint some of there buddys to high places for life to make sure they stay in power in or out of office so a change must be all the way to the root so it will end that circle of b.s. if you look at your county or city gorvment an look at your elected people in office now an before they came in office an have things changed or is it just out of sight for now you must go back a few years an check all the records you can get then you can see who is pulling there chian or chains

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pull...blamm
Posted by: Michiganman on Aug 4, 2005 9:30 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Good idea but won't work when corporate Amerika controls the vast majority of the news. And yes I agree why don't the Democrats advertise their differences from the republicraps? Answer; their corporate donors might hear them. Until we fix our broken system of corporate donations to elections the important differences between the parties will be whispers in the dark, winks in passing and nods in silence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The Thomas What?!"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 4, 2005 9:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Way too few people go to the Thomas Webpage, or even know what it is. The dirty little not-so-secret is that most people get their information from what's commonly available, which is the mainstream media, and that media is now a propaganda arm of the neoCON juggernaut. All the wishing that large numbers of people will gravitate to the alternative press will come to nothing – they won't. If this sorry situation doesn't change – if it is not rattled out of its smug complacency – we're done for; it's over.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

New Model Needed - Forget the Face Lift, Start Looking for a New Body
Posted by: Happy on Aug 4, 2005 10:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From an openthread on TruthOut.org;

Two 'Laws'
Quinn's First Law. It won't surprise you. It may even strike you as obvious. Here it is. 'No undesirable behavior has ever been eliminated by passing a law against it'.

The second is Buckminster Fuller's Law, which is this: You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.


by catntree on Thu Aug 4th, 2005 at 10:10:32 PM PDT

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]