State Legislator Scorecards

[r3volution 3.0]

AFAIK, no such thing exists. Would this be useful for the liberty movement? I think it would.

It would help us quickly asses potential candidates for state or federal office.

...right now, I'm sure there are some good people out there we could run in 2018, but we don't know who they are.

What would the criteria be for rating legislators?

1. How many times they've voted to increase/decrease spending.
2. How many times they've voted to increase/decrease taxes.
3. How many times they've voted to increase/decrease regulations.
4. How may times they've voted for/against civil liberties.

#3 and 4 could be tricky, as it's not always clear what a bill does in the regulatory/civil liberties realm without really digging into it. #1 and #2 would be much simpler and less time consuming in terms of research, so I'd suggest we begin with those. First we go through historical votes for every sitting legislator. Once that's done, we build on the database with each new vote. This is a huge amount of work (esp. the historical research) and cannot be done by one or two people, so I'd suggest we divide the workload among as many people as possible, e.g. 1 person per state (or more for larger states).

What do you think? Worthwhile? Is anyone interested in doing this?

 

[Matt Collins]

Here is a good place to start:


http://campaignforliberty.org/surveys-list/

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Here is a good place to start:


http://campaignforliberty.org/surveys-list/

I've seen this, and it's better than nothing, but they rely on surveys sent to politicians, which are rarely answered.

...looks like about 2% of state legislators respond.

Not to mention that the surveys themselves are rather vague.

We could do better.

 

[William Tell]

I've seen this, and it's better than nothing, but they rely on surveys sent to politicians, which are rarely answered.

...looks like about 2% of state legislators respond.

Not to mention that the surveys themselves are rather vague.

We could do better.

And that most of the answers of the ones who won turned out to be lies.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

And that most of the answers of the ones who won turned out to be lies.

I can't speak to that, but I suspect it may be a function of vague questions.

How about this:

I will not vote to increase spending.

{your signature here}

There's no weaseling out of that; spending either increases or it doesn't - arithmetic.

 

[invisible]

Such a thing DOES exist. Actually, we have two of them scoring the state legislators here in OK.
Both of them tend to be pretty consistently accurate as to who is, and who isn't.

The Conservative Index:
http://www.oklahomaconstitution.com/ns.php?index=1

The RINO Index:
http://algerhart.blogspot.com/2017/06/2017-senate-rino-index.html


ETA: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again."

 

[William Tell]

I can't speak to that, but I suspect it may be a function of vague questions.

Actually no. There were specific questions like will you vote for an Article V Convention where they answered one way and voted the opposite within a few months once they won.

How about this:

I will not vote to increase spending.

{your signature here}

There's no weaseling out of that; spending either increases or it doesn't - arithmetic.

You can do that. They will sign and then vote the other way.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Actually no. There were specific questions like will you vote for an Article V Convention where they answered one way and voted the opposite within a few months once they won.

You can do that. They will sign and then vote the other way.

I see.

That does sound quite useless.

Hence, I'd like to look at their voting record, not some surveys.

 

[William Tell]

Such a thing DOES exist. Actually, we have two of them scoring the state legislators here in OK.
Both of them tend to be pretty consistently accurate as to who is, and who isn't.

The Conservative Index:
http://www.oklahomaconstitution.com/ns.php?index=1

The RINO Index:
http://algerhart.blogspot.com/2017/06/2017-senate-rino-index.html


ETA: "You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to r3volution 3.0 again."

Yeah, we have several scorecards here that show how they vote too. Some of the people who score endorse candidates who do poorly on their scorecards. Generally someone who gets a 100 on a conservative scorecard in my state is relatively conservative. But a true liberty candidate will probably get more like in the mid 90s because some "conservative" policies are not limited government. But a lot of these groups show the actual votes so you can make up your own mind.

 

[William Tell]

I see.

That does sound quite useless.

Yeah, but not entirely. I mean generally speaking if someone answered well on the C4L thing they were the better choice in their race or at least worth looking into. I love the C4L surveys but Matt offered them as a solution to the wrong question.

Hence, I'd like to look at their voting record, not some surveys.

Yep, if they have a record look at it most of all. If they are a new candidate all you have is surveys and whatever you can dig up.

 

[invisible]

Yeah, we have several scorecards here that show how they vote too. Some of the people who score endorse candidates who do poorly on their scorecards. Generally someone who gets a 100 on a conservative scorecard in my state is relatively conservative. But a true liberty candidate will probably get more like in the mid 90s because some "conservative" policies are not limited government. But a lot of these groups show the actual votes so you can make up your own mind.

Absolutely! They do have to be taken with a grain of salt, for exactly that reason. Plus, it depends on what votes on what bills are used to measure. But generally speaking, these scorecards ARE useful and accurate. At least on the two here in OK, those scoring at the top are the cream of the crop, and those scoring at the bottom are bottom of the barrel. What's interesting to note is how well our Ron Paul supporters in the State Legislature score, and how poorly those who have defeated Ron Paul supporters running for office have scored. And no scorecard is honest unless they explain what votes were used for the scoring, and why.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Yeah, but not entirely. I mean generally speaking if someone answered well on the C4L thing they were the better choice in their race or at least worth looking into. I love the C4L surveys but Matt offered them as a solution to the wrong question.

Yep, if they have a record look at it most of all. If they are a new candidate all you have is surveys and whatever you can dig up.

I'm mostly interested in state officials as a pool of candidates for federal office.

Like it or not, that's where power is..

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Absolutely! They do have to be taken with a grain of salt, for exactly that reason. Plus, it depends on what votes on what bills are used to measure. But generally speaking, these scorecards ARE useful and accurate. At least on the two here in OK, those scoring at the top are the cream of the crop, and those scoring at the bottom are bottom of the barrel. What's interesting to note is how well our Ron Paul supporters in the State Legislature score, and how poorly those who have defeated Ron Paul supporters running for office have scored. And no scorecard is honest unless they explain what votes were used for the scoring, and why.

Mmm Hmm

 

[William Tell]

I'm mostly interested in state officials as a pool of candidates for federal office.

Like it or not, that's where power is..

Oh. Well oftentimes there's only a few good ones in a state if that. I find it's easy to look up their records once they announce, beats keeping track of 100 additional ones who will not run for higher office. Your idea is a good one if anyone has the time though.

 

[invisible]

I'm mostly interested in state officials as a pool of candidates for federal office.

Like it or not, that's where power is..

Whenever I'm up at the State Capitol, I always ask the good Legislators who are about to hit their term limits if they will please run for Congress in the next election. The exception is if they're in Bridenstine's district.

 

[invisible]

Oh. Well oftentimes there's only a few good ones in a state if that. I find it's easy to look up their records once they announce, beats keeping track of 100 additional ones who will not run for higher office. Your idea is a good one if anyone has the time though.

I find that keeping track of them is important. When going up to the Capitol and talking with the Legislators, you have to know who you will be likely to have an impact with, who you can work on, and who talking to is a waste of time.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

Oh. Well oftentimes there's only a few good ones in a state if that. I find it's easy to look up their records once they announce, beats keeping track of 100 additional ones who will not run for higher office. Your idea is a good one if anyone has the time though.

Therein lies the rub.

For all the money the liberty movement has generated over the years, somebody ought to have already done this.

 

[William Tell]

I find that keeping track of them is important. When going up to the Capitol and talking with the Legislators, you have to know who you will be likely to have an impact with, who you can work on, and who talking to is a waste of time.

I keep track of mine I'm just saying I don't have time for all 50 states like r3v wants. If I have questions about OK I'd ask you, if I had questions about NH I'd ask Keith etc.