House Democrats More Likely To Cross Aisle on Party-Line Votes

Congressional Quarterly ^ | 9/3/02 | Derek Willis

[Gothmog]

Although House Republican moderates get plenty of attention for bucking their party leaders, it is House Democrats who are leading the way this year in crossing party lines on close votes.

A Congressional Quarterly analysis of votes cast before the August recess found nine Democrats among the 10 House members who have most often sided with the opposition on votes that pitted a majority of one party against a majority of the other.

Leading the way was Ralph M. Hall, D-Texas. The 11-term lawmaker has voted against a majority of his own caucus 61 percent of the time. Close behind is Kentucky Democrat Ken Lucas, target of a significant Republican challenge this fall. Should it hold up through the end of the session, Lucas´ 59 percent opposition score on party unity votes would be his highest since he was first elected in 1998.

The only Republican in the top 10 is Constance A. Morella, Md., a moderate facing stiff Democratic opposition in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. Her 46 percent party opposition rate this year is consistent with her previous scores.

With a single exception - Michigan Democrat James A. Barcia, who is retiring - the 10 Democrats who have voted against their party most often come from the Blue Dog Coalition of moderates and conservatives.

The numbers show that the Republican Conference has been able to keep most of its members in line when needed. Of the 223 House Republicans, only 14 have voted with a majority of their party less than 80 percent of the time. In contrast, 29 of the 210 Democrats have scored below the 80 percent mark.

Even so, the average party unity score for House Republicans is 92 percent, only two points higher than the average Democrat´s score. Two Democrats, Californians Xavier Becerra and Hilda Solis, have 100 percent party unity scores going, while no Republican has achieved a perfect mark.

[Gothmog]

You would never know so many Democrats are voting against their party leadership. At least the major media never reports it, ha ha ha. I found this strange:

"With a single exception - Michigan Democrat James A. Barcia, who is retiring - the 10 Democrats who have voted against their party most often come from the Blue Dog Coalition of moderates and conservatives."

What, is Barcia finally free to vote his mind rather than the socialist line? Or maybe he is just not voting because of an illness. Or he simply feels free to shirk work.

[Norman Conquest]

Of course they are. It makes sense for a member of the minority to cross the line to vote on the winning side of an issue. But why should a member of the majority risk the wrath of (admittedly wimpy) leadership to add one meaningless vote on the losing side?

Back when the D's had control of the House, R's were far more likely to break party ranks.

[Gothmog]

I'd have to see numbers that back that up. I would bet more conservative Dems crossed lines to vote for Reagan/GOP bills before 1994, after which those Dems became conservative GOPers.

In fact I would bet it was easier to vote cross party lines (for both parties) before 1994 regardless of which party had the majority. My theory would be that with a wider disparity members could more freely cross without hurting the overall outcome.

But, the real point I posted the article was that the media pre-August break seemed to be fixated more on Bush's 'troubled' relations with those nasty House GOP conservatives, when in reality the House GOP kept it's act together on important party-line votes.

Let me put it another way -- when was the last time you saw an article in the major news media describing Gephardt's problems with keeping Dems in line? And touting Hastert, Armey and DeLay with doing a fine job keeping the GOP in line? A WPost article describing Tom DeLay as a brilliant tactician, outmanuevering Bonior, et. al?