Presidential Candidates Failing at Prior Commitments
September 7th, 2008 at 8:03 pm (Politics)
I remember being surprised to learn that U.S. senators maintain their positions even when their time is heavily consumed by other activities, like campaigning for president. I had naively assumed that any senator in this position would resign, since their heavy travel schedules and appearances at town halls and debates would surely prevent them from continuing to provide good representation for their constituents. Yet in the current campaign, at least, no resignations have occurred. Well, how much senatorial activity have Clinton, McCain, and Obama been able to muster over the past year? Wonder no more! govtrack.us tracks congressional activity, including each senator’s vote (or missed vote) on each issue that is raised. And here’s what we find:
| Senator | Votes missed in 2007 (of 442) | Votes missed in 2008 (Q1-Q3) (of 196) |
| Clinton | 103 (23%) | 103 (53%) |
| McCain | 247 (56%) | 160 (82%) |
| Obama | 166 (38%) | 124 (63%) |
In each case, it seems that the senator was absent a significant amount of the time, presumably due to campaign activities. On a typical grading scale, the successful vote rates would give each one an F in 2008. And there’s more to being a senator than just appearing for a vote; there’s discussing issues with other senators, debating and discussing, interacting with the voters you represent, and so on. I’m curious as to whether the citizens of New York, Arizona, and Illinois find this at all dissatisfying. These senators aren’t anomalies, nor even the worst offenders; for example, John Kerry’s missed vote rate averaged 72% in 2003-2004, spiking to 100% in Q3 of 2004. In what other occupation can you consistently fail to perform your duties, over the course of a year or two, be absent up to 100% of the time, and still retain the job? Still get paid?
I would expect that the senators would in good faith attempt to be present for the votes that matter most to their electorate, but if it comes down to a choice between canceling a public appearance or missing a particular vote, which one wins? Do candidates for office, who have other existing obligations such as representing those who previously elected them, schedule their campaign activities around those prior obligations? Were the presidential candidate debates timed so as not to conflict with congressional roll calls? I’m guessing that this was not a consideration. Further, the problem is aggravated by our continually lengthening campaign period prior to an election.
Our earliest representatives frequently spent six months to a year away from their families, suffocating in humid Philadelphia to forge a national identity and independence. Family emergencies sometimes could not even call them away from their positions as delegates. John Adams, where are you now?
Wendy Garvin said,
September 8, 2008 at 1:46 am
Let’s turn it around for a moment, though… Would you vote for some stranger, not having any clue about their position, just based on the fact that they’d stuck it out in the Senate and voted their votes? I probably wouldn’t, up against someone who was actively campaigning, debating and making themselves known to me.
The only way to get the senate job any attention would be to make it a required part of the campaign, and build campaign rules around it. Then there’d be a significant advantage to any non-public-office candidate, who could spend all those mandatory senate days out on the road.
To me, this speaks of the need of campaign reform, which both McCain and Obama were outspoken supporters of. In my opinion, candidates shouldn’t be allowed to even hint at running in the primaries until a month before their party’s convention, and the conventions should be held 1 month before the general election. This would so dramatically cut the need for enormous sums of money to be spent, as well as ensure the country is run as needed for most months of the year.
However, as far as putting their money where their mouths are, neither McCain nor Obama are running the kind of campaigns they challenged others to run back in their senate days. To me, that’s the bigger crime.
wkiri said,
September 8, 2008 at 9:11 am
I definitely agree about shortening the campaign season! I think everyone wins. (Do we really need two years to figure out which candidate we support?)
Tailoring the campaign schedule around senatorial job responsibilities would definitely skew things and, as you say, give an advantage to a non-public-office candidate. I think I’m more in favor of candidates not trying to do two jobs at once. Once they declare for office, it would make the most sense for them to step aside in favor of someone who can ably represent the citizens of their state; then they can devote their attentions solely to campaigning, just like any other candidate.
Eric Engle said,
September 8, 2008 at 11:07 am
While this is all good, unfortunately the office of senator has a serious issue that refutes even thinking like this: It is not a job, it is an appointment based on popularity.
While popularity may follow accomplishment, the latter does not guarantee the former. More to the point, smiling nicely and spending money in the right places has a higher success rate at building popularity for your new job than does performing for your old one.
So, I welcome the notion that politicians (esp. representatives and senators) may be immediately discarded if they become ineffective. It’s hard to say what impact such a change in the election process could have, but I bet it would shorten the campaign season a _lot_ :-]
jim said,
September 24, 2008 at 11:53 am
(Great way to waste an hour!)
It would be interesting to if there was a way to examine the quality of legislation missed and factor that in votes missed. While reading various biographies, I was surprised how often a representative/senator might sponsor 100 bills, have 90 fail in committee, and net only one passing. However, just skimming down the list of recent ones, there are a lot of extremely ceremonial/unimportant proposals (e.g,. HR 1481 or S. Res. 490 ) that don’t merit spending time on. (Maybe they have a procedure for voting “whatever?”)
Totally unrelated, our governor election is probably going to be close (again). The candidate who narrowly missed out last time has labeled himself as “GOP party” for obvious brand name reasons, for which the opposing side is suing, claiming it’s “false advertising.” I’d like to say I can’t wait until the election’s over, but given how early this one started, that might be tantamount to saying “let’s get started with 2012!”
Sigh.
Thanks for the link to the cool, time wasting resource!
jim said,
September 24, 2008 at 12:33 pm
(They’re watching your blog!)
Shortly after I posted my comment, this article came across the newswire. :)