Voting records

Akaran_D · Post by **Akaran_D** » September 21, 2004, 11:26 am

Doing some research on Kerry in what spare time I have, and after reading through his website and a bunch of stuff Thess sent me (thanks!) I'm very curious to know about his voting record while he was in the senate.

Aside from google - ahem - can anyone point me towards an accurate, non-partisan, non-biased list of congressional and senetorial voting records?

Voronwë · Post by **Voronwë** » September 21, 2004, 11:32 am

i would think http://www.senate.gov would have a fair amount of archived information.

if not there, the national archives should have them. the problem with both i think is you are going to have to know specifically what to search for because there are bazillions of votes over 20 years, and most substantial bills are voted on several times (hence "i voted for it before i voted against it") as they are revised and have pork attached. (Bush threatened to veto the one Kerry voted for. Bush signed the one he voted against. So they both changed opinions on the bill as the bill changed, one of them just lies about it).

Nneena · Post by **Nneena** » September 21, 2004, 12:56 pm

Kerry

Post by **Sylvus** » September 21, 2004, 1:32 pm

You have to click one more link in on that site that Nneena posted.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 21, 2004, 2:02 pm

NneenaFS wrote:Kerry

Interesting site.

I picked subjects somewhat semi-randomly (based on some issues I use to decide my vote) that I wanted to see how Kerry voted. (I also used John McCain, one of my AZ senators, on the same issues to compare.)

Defense- Kerry missed 3 of 4 issues presented in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 4 votes. (Latest year presented.)

Employment/Affirmative Action- Kerry missed 1 of 1 votes in 2004. McCain missed 0 of 1. (Latest year presented.)

Environment- Kerry missed 1 of 2 votes in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 2. (Latest year presented.)

Energy Issues- Kerry missed 1 of 3 votes in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 3. (Latest year presented.)

Family and Children's Issue- Kerry missed 2 of 2 votes in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 2. (Latest year presented.)

Gun Issues- Kerry missed 0 of 1 votes in 2004. McCain missed 0 of 1. (Latest year presented.)

Military Issues (a resolution to condemn Abu Ghraib abuses)- Kerry missed 1 of 1 votes in 2004. McCain missed 1 of 1.

Senior and Social Security Issues- Kerry missed 1 of 1 votes in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 1. (Latest year presented.)

I was tempted to check more, but I think I get an idea of how it's gonna go. If I were an undecided voter about now this might really sway me against Kerry.

Thess · Post by **Thess** » September 21, 2004, 2:10 pm

Mak wrote:
NneenaFS wrote:Kerry
Interesting site.

I picked subjects somewhat semi-randomly (based on some issues I use to decide my vote) that I wanted to see how Kerry voted. (I also used John McCain, one of my AZ senators, on the same issues to compare.)

Defense- Kerry missed 3 of 4 issues presented in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 4 votes. (Latest year presented.)

Employment/Affirmative Action- Kerry missed 1 of 1 votes in 2004. McCain missed 0 of 1. (Latest year presented.)

Environment- Kerry missed 1 of 2 votes in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 2. (Latest year presented.)

Energy Issues- Kerry missed 1 of 3 votes in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 3. (Latest year presented.)

Family and Children's Issue- Kerry missed 2 of 2 votes in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 2. (Latest year presented.)

Gun Issues- Kerry missed 0 of 1 votes in 2004. McCain missed 0 of 1. (Latest year presented.)

Military Issues (a resolution to condemn Abu Ghraib abuses)- Kerry missed 1 of 1 votes in 2004. McCain missed 1 of 1.

Senior and Social Security Issues- Kerry missed 1 of 1 votes in 2003. McCain missed 0 of 1. (Latest year presented.)

I was tempted to check more, but I think I get an idea of how it's gonna go. If I were an undecided voter about now this might really sway me against Kerry.

Yeah Kerry was campaigning for president - unfortunately with todays technology senators still need to actually be in Washington D.C. to vote for something. He did however make it to *most* votes that were close.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 21, 2004, 2:29 pm

Thess wrote:Yeah Kerry was campaigning for president - unfortunately with todays technology senators still need to actually be in Washington D.C. to vote for something. He did however make it to *most* votes that were close.

I can sorta buy into that, although some of those votes were early in 2003, and he couldn't have been ~that~ busy. But I do have to say that he's still a Senator, and it would seem to me that he has an obligation to his state and his party to continue his "real job", which is representing them. I know I'll expect that of McCain if he runs in 2008.

Nneena · Post by **Nneena** » September 21, 2004, 2:47 pm

Vote-smart, has to be one of my favorites for researching candidates. The absence of the partisan rhetoric is what draws me to this site, it's just the hard facts. After reviewing information on this site and others, I am more confident that the vote I cast this year will be for someone who shares a majority of my views.

It was funny to see Dick Gephardt making it to an amazing 9% of the votes in 2003.

miir · Post by **miir** » September 21, 2004, 2:50 pm

Prior to this year, Kerry seems to have had a pretty good turnout/attendance for votes.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 21, 2004, 3:39 pm

I can sorta buy into that, although some of those votes were early in 2003, and he couldn't have been ~that~ busy. But I do have to say that he's still a Senator, and it would seem to me that he has an obligation to his state and his party to continue his "real job", which is representing them. I know I'll expect that of McCain if he runs in 2008.

If you expect any senator who is also a presidential candidate to make it to a lot of votes, you're clearly not thinking about it too hard. I guarantee you that McCain (if he runs) or any other senator who is nominated will have similar numbers.

Nneena · Post by **Nneena** » September 21, 2004, 4:02 pm

Sueven wrote:
I can sorta buy into that, although some of those votes were early in 2003, and he couldn't have been ~that~ busy. But I do have to say that he's still a Senator, and it would seem to me that he has an obligation to his state and his party to continue his "real job", which is representing them. I know I'll expect that of McCain if he runs in 2008.
If you expect any senator who is also a presidential candidate to make it to a lot of votes, you're clearly not thinking about it too hard. I guarantee you that McCain (if he runs) or any other senator who is nominated will have similar numbers.

I am of the opinion that if they can not fulfill the obligations of their current appointment, they should consider stepping down. That goes for a Democrat or a Republican who is seeking another office.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 21, 2004, 4:12 pm

Wow, this thread is chock full of excuses.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 21, 2004, 4:17 pm

You seem to be under the misimpression that the main job of Senators is to show up in a room and push a button. I see this sort of silliness everytime (R or D) a Senator or Congressman is up for vote. Its just stupid. If there was some indication that Kerry (or any other Senator or Congressman) was off on vacation a ton (or even running for election) rather than doing his job, then that is something worth noting. But a voting record show up is not it. Worse, if people are actually stupid enough to think that presence at votes is a good measure of a Senator's job performance, then that very easy task will become the measure by which people judge Senators. Then people showing up at a room on a particular date and time to press a button will be considered *good* and those that ignore votes at which their presence is not needed in favour of pursuing the various real jobs of Senators - meetings, information gathering/review, studying the details of issues, etc. That's the sort of thing I want my Senators spending their time doing. Then, of course, I want them present to vote when it is meaningful for them to do so. Showing me a bunch of missed votes doesn't mean anything.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 21, 2004, 4:37 pm

Agree with Aaeamdar.

I am of the opinion that if they can not fulfill the obligations of their current appointment, they should consider stepping down. That goes for a Democrat or a Republican who is seeking another office.

Well that's very nice. I would like it if politicians would just stop all that negative campaigning and try to win on their own merits. Unfortunately I live in a little place called reality where that doesn't happen.

Nneena · Post by **Nneena** » September 21, 2004, 5:37 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:You seem to be under the misimpression that the main job of Senators is to show up in a room and push a button. I see this sort of silliness everytime (R or D) a Senator or Congressman is up for vote. Its just stupid. If there was some indication that Kerry (or any other Senator or Congressman) was off on vacation a ton (or even running for election) rather than doing his job, then that is something worth noting. But a voting record show up is not it. Worse, if people are actually stupid enough to think that presence at votes is a good measure of a Senator's job performance, then that very easy task will become the measure by which people judge Senators. Then people showing up at a room on a particular date and time to press a button will be considered *good* and those that ignore votes at which their presence is not needed in favour of pursuing the various real jobs of Senators - meetings, information gathering/review, studying the details of issues, etc. That's the sort of thing I want my Senators spending their time doing. Then, of course, I want them present to vote when it is meaningful for them to do so. Showing me a bunch of missed votes doesn't mean anything.

Please, educate the people of this board. What would the job responsibilites of a Senator be.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 21, 2004, 5:50 pm

NneenaFS wrote:
Aaeamdar wrote:You seem to be under the misimpression that the main job of Senators is to show up in a room and push a button. I see this sort of silliness everytime (R or D) a Senator or Congressman is up for vote. Its just stupid. If there was some indication that Kerry (or any other Senator or Congressman) was off on vacation a ton (or even running for election) rather than doing his job, then that is something worth noting. But a voting record show up is not it. Worse, if people are actually stupid enough to think that presence at votes is a good measure of a Senator's job performance, then that very easy task will become the measure by which people judge Senators. Then people showing up at a room on a particular date and time to press a button will be considered *good* and those that ignore votes at which their presence is not needed in favour of pursuing the various real jobs of Senators - meetings, information gathering/review, studying the details of issues, etc. That's the sort of thing I want my Senators spending their time doing. Then, of course, I want them present to vote when it is meaningful for them to do so. Showing me a bunch of missed votes doesn't mean anything.
Please, educate the people of this board. What would the job responsibilites of a Senator be.

Errrrmmm he just did...

Nneena · Post by **Nneena** » September 21, 2004, 6:07 pm

Oops, yeah he did. I guess I was wanting a little more (making laws, treaties and voting) out of him than "meetings, information gathering/review, studying the details of issues". The above actually sounds like my job.

I will stick behind my naive view that: If you are seeking that high office, you owe it to voters in your state to step down, and get someone else to fill your spot. It’s just the right thing to do.

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 21, 2004, 6:24 pm

NneenaFS wrote:Oops, yeah he did. I guess I was wanting a little more (making laws, treaties and voting) out of him than "meetings, information gathering/review, studying the details of issues". The above actually sounds like my job.

I will stick behind my naive view that: If you are seeking that high office, you owe it to voters in your state to step down, and get someone else to fill your spot. It’s just the right thing to do.

Errrm the executive branch makes treaties not the congress...he mentioned voting as part of the job...and making laws entails all of the actions he mentioned.

And if stepping down while running for office is critical for a senator...Then surely the president should do likewise?...

Nneena · Post by **Nneena** » September 21, 2004, 6:56 pm

Arborealus wrote:
NneenaFS wrote:Oops, yeah he did. I guess I was wanting a little more (making laws, treaties and voting) out of him than "meetings, information gathering/review, studying the details of issues". The above actually sounds like my job.

I will stick behind my naive view that: If you are seeking that high office, you owe it to voters in your state to step down, and get someone else to fill your spot. It’s just the right thing to do.
Errrm the executive branch makes treaties not the congress...he mentioned voting as part of the job...and making laws entails all of the actions he mentioned.

And if stepping down while running for office is critical for a senator...Then surely the president should do likewise?...

Actually the senate approves treaties, you can actually get this information from an online encyclopedia or even the government web pages =)

Arborealus · Post by **Arborealus** » September 21, 2004, 7:09 pm

NneenaFS wrote:
Arborealus wrote:
NneenaFS wrote:Oops, yeah he did. I guess I was wanting a little more (making laws, treaties and voting) out of him than "meetings, information gathering/review, studying the details of issues". The above actually sounds like my job.

I will stick behind my naive view that: If you are seeking that high office, you owe it to voters in your state to step down, and get someone else to fill your spot. It’s just the right thing to do.
Errrm the executive branch makes treaties not the congress...he mentioned voting as part of the job...and making laws entails all of the actions he mentioned.

And if stepping down while running for office is critical for a senator...Then surely the president should do likewise?...
Actually the senate approves treaties, you can actually get this information from an online encyclopedia or even the government web pages =)

They approve treaties, the president and diplomats under his direction actually make them...you said "make treaties" not approve...so ya know use the right word next time...

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 22, 2004, 3:19 am

I find it laughably naieve of you to believe that it's necessary for the minority opposition senators to show up to all votes.

Do you *really* think the probable outcome of these votes (at least the ones people care about) hasn't been worked out before the vote is called?

Why the hell do you think filibustering was invented?

If you know a vote is to go along party lines and you're in the minority and/or there is bipartisan support for a bill, and you have anything better to do at all, why the hell would you turn up to "push the button"?

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 22, 2004, 8:21 am

Zaelath wrote:why the hell would you turn up to "push the button"?

Maybe because it's the job your constituents elected you to do?

Zaelath · Post by **Zaelath** » September 22, 2004, 9:10 am

Sorry, for a minute there I mistook dogmatic posturing for naivety. Mea culpa.

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 22, 2004, 10:07 am

Zaelath wrote:Sorry, for a minute there I mistook dogmatic posturing for naivety. Mea culpa.

Now that was clever- and funny, too. Cart, take notes.

I sincerely take back my moron comment.