So basically these number show us the difference between the Republicans and Democrats voting against the line is so miniscule as to be insiginicant. I mean seriously MinX, while it does show steve is incorrect in his assumptions, it doesn't really make you look all that right either.

Sassenach wrote:Defection is just a term to describe voting against the party line. I've seen it used in all kinds of contexts, it doesn't have to have treasonous overtones.

I don't think I suggested that it did. The point I was trying to make is that it shouldn't matter what the party line is, it should matter what the interest of the district, or state or the American people are. There are no parties in our constitution, they don't matter, not one bit. What matters is that the people who we elect should represent our interests. A republican in TX is different than a republican in ME, and should be, and they should vote differently because they represent different people. That's not defection and to think if it as such is just nuts. It's simply doing your job well.

Archduke Russell John wrote:So basically these number show us the difference between the Republicans and Democrats voting against the line is so miniscule as to be insiginicant. I mean seriously MinX, while it does show steve is incorrect in his assumptions, it doesn't really make you look all that right either.

Quoting my original post, which started this stupid argument:

But insofar as your comments suggested that the Dems are less inclusive and tolerant than the GOP (which may not have been your intent, but the implication seems clear enough) I wished to offer these contrary or at least neutralizing observations.

Do I look a little more right to you now? (And 13 of 14 and then 6 of 9 aren't vanishingly small differences.)

Minister X wrote:CONCLUSION: In Congress, Democrats vote as a bloc less than the GOP, and have more members who are "mavericks" within the party.

Two observations:

1. Generally (not in all cases), the party in the minority will vote with more of a bloc mentality.
2. The analysis you posted doesn't differentiate between types of votes. In other words, there is a difference between voting on changing the name of a post office and voting on the healthcare bill. To further explain: I saw a news item recently that said McCain was the most conservative member of the Senate, based on voting on the conservative side of bills in the Senate. However, when they started getting into the individual votes, he dropped into the thirties, and Coburn and DeMint were the most conservative.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Minister X wrote:CONCLUSION: In Congress, Democrats vote as a bloc less than the GOP, and have more members who are "mavericks" within the party.

Two observations:

1. Generally (not in all cases), the party in the minority will vote with more of a bloc mentality.

Well then, why don't you ask Min X for historical data so you can compare it with the times when the majorities were the other way around? He did offer. Or are you worried about what he might find?

Still your assertion was about the very recent past, so now that your statement that Snowe and Collins are the most likely to rebel has been shown to be statistically unlikely, you move the goalposts.

2. The analysis you posted doesn't differentiate between types of votes. In other words, there is a difference between voting on changing the name of a post office and voting on the healthcare bill. To further explain: I saw a news item recently that said McCain was the most conservative member of the Senate, based on voting on the conservative side of bills in the Senate. However, when they started getting into the individual votes, he dropped into the thirties, and Coburn and DeMint were the most conservative.

This is true. I don't know about in the US, but we have sites over here that go into more detail about the nature of MP's 'revolt' voting.

Say, how about you do some research of your own and produce some evidence? I'm sure it's easy to find.

danivon wrote:Still your assertion was about the very recent past, so now that your statement that Snowe and Collins are the most likely to rebel has been shown to be statistically unlikely, you move the goalposts.

Not me. I don't think MX's stats are particularly illustrative. It is a few issues that

This is true. I don't know about in the US, but we have sites over here that go into more detail about the nature of MP's 'revolt' voting.

Say, how about you do some research of your own and produce some evidence? I'm sure it's easy to find.

Feel free.

Just a hunch here, if you did the breakdown of when in power or not, I think Steve would have a point. But the overall numbers would be pretty much the same with virtually no difference between party. And that would tell us pretty much ...nothing. So the assertion that Democrats are more tolerant is a foolish one, in fact even using the stats as they are, 1% difference in one group and 4% difference in the other, those are statistically pretty much the same damned thing, proving the assertion to be false.

GMTom wrote:Just a hunch here, if you did the breakdown of when in power or not, I think Steve would have a point. But the overall numbers would be pretty much the same with virtually no difference between party. And that would tell us pretty much ...nothing. So the assertion that Democrats are more tolerant is a foolish one, in fact even using the stats as they are, 1% difference in one group and 4% difference in the other, those are statistically pretty much the same damned thing, proving the assertion to be false.

Show me the Dem defections over the last two years. They would approach zilch. They even got the "pro-life" Democrats to support abortion in the healthcare bill.

The eight least faithful members of the House of Representatives:

Dan Boren - Dem - votes with party only 46% of the time.
Mike Ross - Dem - 52%
Jason Altmire - 54%
Jim Costa - 59%
Mike McIntyre - 60%
Tim Holden - 67%
Joe Donnelly - 69%

All Dems.

To see and then ignore this data betrays a really bad case of blinder-wearing. What's the big deal? Republicans are more faithful to the party - less capricious - less flaky - that should make you happy.

It's entirely natural to see a defection to your cause as something HUGE but a defection by an opponent to his cause as no big deal, especially if you've become emotionally invested in your cause. It's also natural to "condense" the scope of what lies far from you on the spectrum. What I mean by this is that to a radical left revolutionary, there seems to be little difference between a moderate Democrat and an extreme right Republican; and to a John Bircher everyone to the left of Orrin Hatch looks like a communist sympathizer. Thus, to a communist, Olympia Snowe can hardly be a "defector" from the GOP because she seems (to the left extremist) to be almost imperceptibly farther left than Mitch McConnell. But within the universe of communists... holy cow! Tiny - really tiny - differences seem huge, and defectors don't just get vilified - they get dead.

Thus, if someone from the left edge says that two groups to the right of him are roughly equal in the amount of turf they cover on the political spectrum, you can be pretty sure that the farthest right one is actually much broader than the one a bit closer to the leftist. Likewise, if someone on the far right says Party X and Party Y have roughly equal tent sizes, you'd be smart to bet that whichever is farther left actually has the larger tent.

I'm sure these assertions will engender strong objections, but I'm just describing normal everyday human psychology - nothing new or surprising. It's surprising to run across someone who's an exception to these rules.

Minister X wrote:The eight least faithful members of the House of Representatives:

Dan Boren - Dem - votes with party only 46% of the time.
Mike Ross - Dem - 52%
Jason Altmire - 54%
Jim Costa - 59%
Mike McIntyre - 60%
Tim Holden - 67%
Joe Donnelly - 69%

All Dems.

Who happen to have been in the majority; who happen to be in "purple" districts. They were given permission to "defect" on big-ticket votes where they were not crucial for passage.

There is another side to this, as I said. How about Ms. Snowe? Ms. Collins?

Big hits from the past: Lincoln Chaffee, Jumpin' Jim Jeffords?

To see and then ignore this data betrays a really bad case of blinder-wearing. What's the big deal? Republicans are more faithful to the party - less capricious - less flaky - that should make you happy.

I don't buy it. There are lies, really big lies, and statistics. I'm confident, given enough time and effort, that I can prove there are just as many unfaithful Republicans, if not more.

Likewise, if someone on the far right says Party X and Party Y have roughly equal tent sizes, you'd be smart to bet that whichever is farther left actually has the larger tent.

Well, that may be true and it may not be. From Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Lee to Bernie Sanders (nominally an independent and an avowed socialist) is not much of a jump. From Rand Paul or Jim DeMint to Susan Collins?

Look at it another way: which party is more likely to seriously primary incumbents?

Interesting poll from Gallup
http://www.gallup.com/poll/143396/party ... -2010.aspx

The number one reason why Democrats vote Democrat is party loyalty
while Republicans main reason for voting Republican is the parties agenda
That woulkd lead to a more informed base on the Republicans end and more reason to vote as you said, Dems seem to be able to get away with whatever they like. Republicans have a greater need to actually fulfill the wishes of their constituancy. It's not so much an issue of toeing the company line as MX points out but rather one of catering to their constiuancy in a more loyal manner.

Dan Boren - Dem - votes with party only 46% of the time.

A Democrat from Oklahoma who disagrees with former Speaker Pelosi? Again, a perfect illustration of what I have said (and George emphasized): to get elected/re-elected you cannot be wildly out of the mainstream in your own district/State.

Mike Ross - Dem - 52%

Democrat, Arkansas. Ask Blanche Lincoln about bowing to the party line.

Jason Altmire - 54%

A Blue Dog Democrat and a DINO.

Jim Costa - 59%

I think my parents live in this district. It is a place decimated by government (in terms of water and other issues). It is also, largely, a place of immigrants and gangs. A Democrat voting the Pelosi/Hoyer line would get crushed.

Mike McIntyre - 60%

North Carolina? Again, he has some flexibility, but expecting him to be a down the line liberal would be akin to expecting me to vote straight conservative and get re-elected in my district.

Tim Holden - 67%

Not that familiar with his district, but it looks to have a pretty fair slice of rural towns in it.

Joe Donnelly - 69%

And, Indiana.

I don't think it's so much that Democrats are less loyal. I believe it is that the leadership has gone so far left of where most Democrats are. If the point is just that the range of Democrat votes in Congress is wide-ranging, okay. If it is that the Democrats are a bigger, more inclusive party, I don't agree. It's not like they embrace these guys. They co-opt their votes when needed and let them twist in the wind on election day.

So, let me get this straight, Steve. The democrats are so intent on excluding the centrists that they let them run under their banner, caucus with them, let them vote against a load of bills and motions, provide them with party resources, and see them as a price worth paying in order to have a majority.

Yeah, that's some constriction...

Tom - that shows what Democrat voters think, which is not the same as the party itself. They vote through loyalty, but that doesn't mean that they demand full loyalty from their reps. After all, seems a fair number of them vote for congressmen who 'defect' from the party in votes...

danivon wrote:So, let me get this straight, Steve. The democrats are so intent on excluding the centrists that they let them run under their banner, caucus with them, let them vote against a load of bills and motions, provide them with party resources, and see them as a price worth paying in order to have a majority.

Yeah, that's some constriction...

Not quite right. What they did was all of what you wrote until "provide them with party resources."

They starved many of the Blue Dogs out.

And, when was the last time a majority got whipped like that . . . and kept their leadership intact? Why would they do that?

One word: ideology.

Ideology? Not always. Party survival in power is the other one. I don't see much 'ideology' in the Democrats, to be honest. They are like the Liberal Democrats over here - a bunch of disparate ideologies that coincide under a banner. Once they get power, it all comes under pressure and they crack. Loyalty keeps people in, and they compromise a lot. But that's not 'ideology', it's party politics.

A lot of the Blue Dogs are still there and panting. Some left of their own accord. But if the Democrats really were so ideologically socialist, how come they got the fudged compromise of the ARA out, but not something like Single Payer or, properly ideological, universal public provision? As powerful as the 'leadership' were, they could not force the Blue Dogs to accept such a move.