For the past three decades, National Journal has rated members of Congress based on selected roll-call votes from the previous year to see how they compared with each other on an ideological scale. Unlike interest groups that rate lawmakers, National Journal does not attempt to say how members should have voted. Our goal is to describe how they voted in comparison with one another.
The ratings system was devised in 1981 under the direction of Bill Schneider, a political analyst and longtime contributor to National Journal.
For the 2013 ratings, National Journal examined all of the roll-call votes in the first session of the 113th Congress — 641 in the House and 291 in the Senate — and identified the ones that show ideological distinctions between members. Many votes did not make the cut — those that involve noncontroversial issues or that fall along regional lines, for instance. In the end, 117 votes in the Senate and 111 votes in the House were selected and were categorized as economic, foreign, or social.
As in other years recently, economic issues dominated the House’s attention; there were fewer votes on social issues (such as abortion rights or gun control) and foreign issues (such as war funding and foreign aid). The Senate voted on more social issues than the House because of its consideration of immigration and gun-control measures.
Lists were downloaded from the House and Senate websites showing how all the members voted on the selected votes. The votes in each issue area were then subjected to a principal-components analysis, a statistical procedure designed to determine the degree to which each vote resembled other votes in the same category (the same members tending to vote together).
The analysis also revealed which yea votes correlated with which nay votes within each issue area (members voting yea on certain issues tended to vote nay on others). The yea and nay positions on each roll call were then identified as conservative or liberal.
Each roll-call vote was assigned a weight from 1 (lowest) to 3 (highest), based on the degree to which it correlated with other votes in the same issue area. A higher weight means that a vote was more strongly correlated with other votes and was, therefore, a better test of economic, social, or foreign policy ideology. The votes in each issue area were combined in an index (liberal or conservative votes as a percentage of total votes cast, with each vote weighted 1, 2, or 3).
Absences and abstentions were not counted; instead, the percentage base was adjusted to compensate for missed roll calls. A member who missed more than half of the votes in any issue category was scored as “missing” in that category (shown as an asterisk [*] in the vote-rating tables).
Members were then ranked from the most liberal to the most conservative in each issue area. These rankings were used to assign liberal and conservative percentile ratings to all members of Congress.
The liberal percentile score means that the member voted more liberal than that percentage of his or her colleagues in that issue area in 2013. The conservative figure means that the member voted more conservative than that percentage of his or her colleagues.
For example, a House member in the 30th percentile of liberals and the 60th percentile of conservatives on economic issues voted more liberal than 30 percent of the House and more conservative than 60 percent of the House on those issues, and was tied with the remaining 10 percent. The scores do not mean that the member voted liberal 30 percent of the time and voted conservative 60 percent of the time.
Percentile scores can range from a minimum of 0 to a maximum of 100. Some members, however, voted either consistently liberal or consistently conservative on every roll call. As a result, there are ties at both the liberal and the conservative ends of each scale. For that reason, the maximum percentiles are usually less than 100. This was most apparent in the social and foreign categories in the Senate last year. Many members had the same scores because they voted alike. In the economic category, there were fewer ties.
Members also receive a composite liberal score and a composite conservative score determined by their issue-based scores. Members who missed more than half of the votes in any of the three issue categories do not receive composite scores (shown as an asterisk [*] in the vote-rating tables).
To determine a member’s composite liberal score, for example, first add the liberal scores in all three issue areas. Next, in each issue area, calculate 100 minus the member’s conservative score and add the three results together. The two figures are then combined and divided by 6 (the number of individual scores).
Critics have sometimes accused National Journal of rigging the vote ratings so that certain members of Congress are ranked as the most liberal or most conservative. The criticism is unfounded. When we select the votes, we have no idea how an individual member of Congress will be ranked.
Keep in mind that no single measure of voting behavior is likely to be perfect. For instance, consider the hypothetical example of a vote in the House on cutting domestic spending. Let’s say the bill passed with overwhelming support from House Republicans and overwhelming opposition from House Democrats. A vote for the bill would be counted as conservative and a vote against the bill would be counted as liberal. But let’s say a handful of House Republican conservatives voted against the bill on the grounds that the budget cuts didn’t go far enough. In so doing, they voted against most conservatives and with most liberals. Their votes would be counted as liberal because they voted with liberals. It’s beyond the capacity of a vote-ratings system to determine why a member voted the way he or she did on any particular piece of legislation. For that reason, some high-profile votes that have conservatives voting against a measure because it isn’t conservative enough and liberals voting against the same measure because it isn’t liberal enough are often omitted from the vote ratings.
National Journal‘s annual vote ratings, like any other vote ratings, should be viewed as a tool in assessing a member of Congress but not the only tool. Other vote ratings should also be taken into consideration, as should attributes beyond the capability of a rating system to assess, such as leadership and effectiveness.
What We're Following See More »
No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."
Speaking at the funeral of former Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres, President Obama "compared Peres to 'other giants of the 20th century' such as Nelson Mandela and Queen Elizabeth who 'find no need to posture or traffic in what's popular in the moment.'" Among the 6,000 mourners at the service was Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Obama called Abbas's presence a sign of the "unfinished business of peace" in the region.
Three million—a number that lays "bare the significant gap between Donald Trump’s bare-bones operation and the field program that Clinton and her hundreds of aides have been building for some 17 months."
In a somewhat shocking move, the Chicago Tribune has endorsed Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson for president, saying a vote for him is one that voters "can be proud of." The editorial barely touches on Donald Trump, who the paper has time and again called "unfit to be president," before offering a variety of reasons for why it can't endorse Hillary Clinton. Johnson has been in the news this week for being unable to name a single world leader who he admires, after earlier this month being unable to identify "Aleppo," a major Syrian city in the middle of the country's ongoing war.
"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."