Anyone can replicate “my” ratings. There’s nothing particularly clever or difficult about it: I merely take the ratings fron 6 ideological vote scorers found in Barone’s Almanac (first having converted the scores from liberal groups to “conservative scores” by subtracting the liberal score from 100 (e.g., a 24 ADA score becomes a 76 conservative score), add up the 6 conservative scores, and then divide by 600 (the maximum number of points possible).
In the 2014 Almanac, we get ratings from 8 groups for each of 2011 and 2012 and ratings from 2 groups for 2011 ONLY. I only look at the scores from the liberal ADA, AFSCME (labor) and LCV (environmental) and the conservative ACU, CFG (economic) and FRC (social). All but AFSCME have scores for both 2011 and 2012, which I average. (Another way would be to add the ratings for each year and add the AFSCME rating twice and then divide by 1,200.) Let me go through the math for a couple of congressmen to show you how it’s done:
John Shimkus (R-IL):
According to Barone’s Almanac, Shimkus received 2012 and 2011 ratings of 75% and 68%, respectively, from the ACU (which are averaged as 71.5%), 67% and 56% from the CFG (average 61.5%),and 83% and 90% from the FRC (86.5% average). The combined scores from the three conservative groups were 71.5 + 61.5 + 86.5 = 219.5.
Also according to the Almanac, Shimkus got 2012 and 2011 ratings of 0% and 5%, respectively, from ADA (average score of 2.5%) and of 9% and 11%, respectively, from LCV (average score if 10%); his 2011 AFSCME rating was 0%. His liberal scores thus were 2.5%, 10% and 0%, which are converted to conservative scores of 97.5%, 90% and 100%. The combined “conservative scores” from liberal groups were 97.5 + 90 + 100 = 287.5.
To find the total conservative percentage, we add 219.5 plus 287.5 to get 507. 507 divided by 600 (the maximum number of total points) gives us 84.5%. So, using an amalgamation of those six ideological vote raters, Shimkus’s voting record on important ideological votes was 84.5% conservative uring the 112th Congress (2011-2012).
Jim Matheson (D-UT):
Matheson voted far less liberal in election- year 2012 than in 2011, but averaging the two years gives us a truer score. Matheson’s ratings for 2012 and 2011, respectively from liberal groups were 20% and 50% from ADA (35% average) and 17% and 37% from LCV (27% average); his 2011 rating from AFSCME was 43%. Converting these to conservative scores yields 65, 73 and 57, which add up to 195.
Conservative groups rated Matheson’s votes during 2012 and 2011, respectively, as 56% and 42% from the ACU (59% average), 68% and 35% from CFG (51.5% average), and 83% and 30% from FRC (56.5% average; the pro-abortion Matheson started voting pro-life when he saw the new congressional district lines). The sum of ratings from conservative groups was 59 + 51.5 + 56.5 = 167.
Adding up Matheson’s conservative scores from all six groups, we get 195 + 167 = 362, which divided by 600 yields a 60.3:% conservative vote percentage; by comparison, NC’s Mike McIntyre, a genuine moderate-to-conservative Democrat, had a total conservative vote rating of 65.17%. BTW, had we only looked at 2011 scores, Matheson’s conservative rating would have been a measly 46.17%, and McIntyre’s a 56.86%.
Justin Amash (Paultard-MI):
Amash supporters always brag about his 100% scores from the Club for Growth, but his other vote ratings prove that he’s nowhere as conservative as they think (and, I would add, his foreign-policy views are downright dangerous).
Amash’s ratings during 2012 and 2011, respectively from liberal groups were 65% and 20% from ADA (42.5% average—higher than Democrat Matheson!) and 23% and 9% from LCV (16% average); his 2011 rating from AFSCME was 14%. Converting these to conservative scores yields 57.5, 84 and 86, which add up to 227.5.
Conservative groups rated Amash’s scores during 2012 and 2011, respectively, as 84% and 92% from the ACU (88% average), 100% and 100% from CFG (100% average) and 66% and 70% from FRC (68%). His combined score from conservative groups was 256.
Amash’s aggregate conservative scores were 227.5 + 256 = 483.5, which divided by 600 yields a conservative vote percentage of 80.58%. Barely a B minus for the supposed A+ student. And if we looked only at 2012 (and assume that he would get the same 14% from AFSCME), his conservative percentage is a pitiful 74.67%.
Others:
I’m not going to show all my work for these others, but here are a few more total conservative percentages, these for some very conservative folks and for some liberal moonbats:
Jim Jordan (R-OH): 95.00%
Steve Scalise (R-LA): 94.56%
Scott Garrett (R-NJ): 94.67%
David Schweikert (R-AZ): 94.00%
Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): 3.92%
Xavier Becerra (D-CA): 5.42%
John Lewis (D-GA): 4.92%
Jan Schakowsky (D-IL): 4.75%
Fail. Too bad that Paulbot Amash fan from last week was banned, I would like to hear his 'scuses.
Frankly, and I’m no expert, but the math and effort required to do what no one else is doing but you at least to my limited knowledge might be worth the effort to either form your own site to distribute, or partner with FR to have an ongoing by year rating that appears far more accurate than the individual efforts of partisan raters.
What better way to educate the public taking into account both sides of the political spectrum in the process. I like it, as one more way to hold real elected officials feet to the fire, especially those truly concerned about their constituents.
So, I’m going to try it on my own Congresswoman.
ADA, AFSCME, LCV Liberal Groups.
ACU, CFG, FRC Conservative Groups.
Convert liberal to conservative add all six scores and divide by 600.
Unfamiliar with Barone’s Almanac but it might behoove me to become familiar. You only used it to choose the six vote scorers if I understand your method.
So am I missing anything important, and what would factoring in more raters, especially conservative, do to the ratings, other than increase the score for conservatives. I’m looking at Heritage Action, and Club for Growth specifically.