How the Parties Voted
Day 2,900, 00:15
•
Published in USA 
•
by
•
by Israel Stevens
How They Voted
A look at party line voting in Congress
In my last article, I took a look at how I predict Congress will vote on the upcoming Work Tax vote. It was meant to decide whether the addition of BSP and loss of AMP would change the likely outcome of the vote. I determined that the WT would likely remain where it is, although just barely.
But what really got people’s panties in a wad, was my assertion that SFP and BSP would vote as a bloc, while USWP and Feds would not.
So I did some research.
Quite a bit actually. Way more than I should be doing at 230am.
A quick note before I get to the actual numbers.
-I am doing this at 2am. There are likely mistakes. I apologize.
-I took 1 month of Congressional votes. October, for Feds/USWP/WTP/SFP/AMP. And September for only BSP. Reason being that BSP was not in Congress last month.
-This is a small sample size. It took me about 2 hours just to do what I did. So I probably won’t do anymore.
Anyways, here are the numbers:
My article was focused solely on the Work Tax vote.
The last time there was an attempt made to change the Work Tax, was on September 18th. The proposal was to lower it from 15%-12%. It failed by a vote of 16-19-2 (Yays-Nays-Abstain)
Party Breakdown:
Feds: 1-6-1 75% voted the same
USWP: 1-5-0 83.3% voted the same
WTP: 1-1-1 33% voted the same
AMP: 0-5-0 100% voted the same
SFP: 3-0-0 100% voted the same
BSP: 10-0-0 100% voted the same
As you can see, both BSP and SFP voted as a bloc in support of lowering the work tax. There was not a single dissenting vote.
The other most recent attempt to lower the work tax, was on September 2nd. The proposal was to lower it from 15%-10%. It failed by a vote of 16-25-1
Party Breakdown
Feds: 2-11-1 78.5 voted the same
USWP: 0-4-0 100% voted the same
WTP: 1-4-1 66% voted the same
AMP: 0-7-0 100% voted the same
SFP: 3-0-0 100% voted the same
BSP: 11-0-0 100% voted the same
Again, SFP and BSP voted as a bloc, while the Feds and WTP did not.
Verdict: The trend is that SFP and BSP vote together in support of lowering the work tax. This should not be a surprise to anyone.
Notes: Small sample size for SFP. However, they had nearly as many votes as WTP and USWP both times, despite those parties having much larger caucuses at the time.
Very surprised about AMP going 100% on both votes. I thought for sure there would at least be an abstention.
But when we look at the numbers for every vote over the past month (and 2 months ago for BSP), we can see another trend emerge.
Feds, USWP, WTP, AMP, SFP - Congressional Month of October
Click for a larger view
BSP - Congressional Month of September
Click for a larger view
I took every vote over the Congressional month and tallied where each party voted. I did not include 6th parties. The average percent is what it sounds like, an average of the percent listed in the party column. I had also calculated out a weighted percent, but the differences were barely a percentage point, so I trashed it.
When we look at a full month of voting, we see that party voting is different.
Feds - 78.8% vote together
USWP - 90.2%
WTP - 85.3%
AMP - 79%
SFP - 79.6%
BSP - 78.6%
4 of the Top 6 parties are all clustered around 79% voting along party lines. The other two show higher levels of party voting, with USWP voting together over 90% of the time.
The idea that SFP or BSP or any party allows more freedom for their Congressmen is not supported by the numbers. The AMP and Federalists vote along party lines at the same rate as the SFP and BSP.
Other Thoughts
Surprised at how infrequently BSP shows up to vote. Unless it’s Work Tax related, they barely show up.
Not at all surprised, but impressed with the turnout that SFP manages.
Not surprised that USWP votes together the most. Surprised it is over 90% though.
Surprised WTP is as high as it is.
SFP had the most absenations from things, and by a wide margin. It is interesting, although I’m not sure what conclusions you could draw from it.
Final Notes
Again, this is a very small sample size. I get it.
This is not scientific, nor perfect in any way. Circumstances change, Congressmen change, mechanics change. Everything changes. How they voted in October doesn’t guarantee anything. It’s just trends.
Some of the vote names are vague because they are from Private Congress.
There is likely an argument to be made about discounting certain votes. Some votes are just always done along party lines (SoH), or are simply slam dunks (declaring NE).
I’m totes not a statistician.
(pls be gentle kemal)
Facebook
Twitter
Discord
Comments
Actually, I think this data shows more truth than you give it credit for. Sure the sample size is small, but what really changes from Congress to Congress. The same ideas, the same things happen. Budgets/MPP's/blah blah...
This was really well written, thank you for this.
You think it's only BSP who shows up for tight votes and forgets the rest. Same trend seems to be in every other party depending how crucial the thing is. Also using one month statistics isn't accurate enough, terms activity varies: some times there isn't much to vote. You forgot September SoH elections. Also Septembers budget vote was a joke. I don't know about October's things. Thanks for the effort though.
Anyways it seems that you're aiming against BSP in some level but don't be a butthurt, there is always next month.
I personally did not notice any bias against BSP while reading. But I suppose if your party is built on being the opposition, you need to see a target on your back for moral.
Morale* XD
Out of 11 non-WT votes I tallied, there were 7 times where BSP had 3 or less voters. No other party has anywhere near that low of a turnout.
It's not intended to be a bias. Numbers are numbers.
I cannot speak for the rest, but if there is a vote I'd vote in the direction that isn't winning of, I hold my vote seeing as it wouldn't contribute to the side I am supporting.
For example the current vote to give Gnilraps money in public congress.
1 blacksheep voted no.
3 voted yes.
I'd vote no but I see no point as the amount of nos overall is very small. My vote would be worthless.
If everybody did that, the first vote would dictate the results. You vote first, you win.
And with your vote the difference betwen no and yes would be of one, that's pretty small.
Israel: you could say almost the same thing about WTP in the last term. Sadly the terms aren't comparable.
Nauto
No, with the logic that the vote is already 25 - 0, and everything thinks it's ok to pass, like MPP, your vote make no difference. It doesn't matter if 10 thinks similarly or opposite. But I always vote and would recommend everybody else to do so.
That is a fair point, Resoula. There is something to be said for discounting some of the votes where a party had minimal turnout.
It is 25-0? I thought it was 3-1. But still, if you don't vote you're being complacent. If you are in congress you need to speak up, even if it dosen't change things.
FIST
Good info well done! Thanks!
This proves that between 79% and 90% of all congressmen are elitist scum.
I would add what percentage of the congressmen actually showed up to vote. Sometimes people just do not vote if they don't want to vote according to party line.
Good job.
Thank you. That good job means a lot.
I know that there was room to refine it, particularly with regards to over all voter turnout. It's not entirely fair to claim that USWP or BSP vote together 100% of the time, when only 1 person voted.
However, that was really more work than I was willing to put in. Maybe I'll refine it this weekend.
"The idea that SFP or BSP or any party allows more freedom for their Congressmen is not supported by the numbers. "
Ask any of our congressmen. We have never once told anyone how to vote. It isn't rocket science to just ask someone. I can assure you SFP grants full autonomy just as we do. Just because you have a lot of persons in one place that agree with each other, does not mean they are being forced to agree. Political parties wouldn't exist at all if that was the case.
AMP has always had a similar policy. There have been probably less than 3 times in the past 2 years where Party leadership even suggested a vote. And even in those cases, it was more-so a suggestion *To* vote and not in any particular direction.
I enjoyed your analysis. It was well researched and thought out.
I enjoyed your analysis. It was well researched and thought out.
All parties have the appearance of a party line, because nobody votes against funding.
There are a few things that skew the results, but I commend your effort. Personally, I'd lower the tax.
very interesting read. Moar!!!! please.
Next time stay up until 3:30...
Interesting. . . . Some sweet statistical analysis.
+1
Always a great read . I always look forward to your articles even when I don't agree .KEEP up the great work THANKS