National Journal, just this past week, released their annual rankings, always eagerly anticipated among the political chattering classes because they are used to crown the "most liberal" and "most conservative" members of each chamber.
For 2010, it is hard to find qualms with the winner of the most conservative crown, which was bestowed on the head of Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe.
(Although, rest assured that Jim DeMint is probably demanding a recount, even as we speak).
The "most liberal" crown actually was divvied up among a quintet of Democrats: Sherrod Brown (OH), Roland Burris (IL), Ben Cardin (MD), Jack Reed (RI), and Sheldon Whitehouse (RI). No real shockers there, either.
However, the National Journal rankings have a quirk to them, and that quirk comes up when one considers the 55th most liberal Senator in the Senate:
This guy.
That's right...in the #55 slot comes Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin, just a smidgen more conservative than Arkansas Senators Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor, to say nothing of "Independent Democrat" Joe Lieberman.
You probably buy that about as quickly as you buy the notion that Dennis Kucinich is actually the 160th most liberal member of the House, or that California's Maxine Waters is scored as "less liberal" than two of her California House mates that are commonly viewed as moderates: Jane Harman and Loretta Sanchez.
What gives? National Journal's own Brian Friel offers the explanation:
When maverick liberals stand on principle and vote against others on the Left because they don't think a bill is liberal enough, or when maverick conservatives buck the Right because a bill includes too many compromises with moderates, the vote ratings system sees only the vote, not the reasons behind it.
There is another potential liability to the National Journal ratings that is not applicable this year, but pops up every four years or so.
You might recall that the ratings were flogged mercilessly by conservatives in both 2004 and 2008 when they showed John Kerry and Barack Obama as the most liberal members of the United States Senate in the years immediately before their presidential runs.
Many on the Left cried foul, but, given the proper context, they were almost certainly legit. After all, both gentlemen were in the midst of preparing for presidential runs, runs which inevitably begin with a march through the Democratic Primary cycle. Therefore, a smart Senator/Presidential aspirant is going to be very wary of casting apostate votes in Congress that can be exploited by primary rivals.
Again, a very easily explained quirk in a member's voting record, but a quirk that will not be picked up by a ratings system like the one employed by National Journal.
So, as we acknowledge the imperfections of the formula employed by the folks at National Journal, the question must be asked: is there a bug-free way to rate the partisan or ideological leanings of members of Congress?
Ratings such as those employed by Congressional Quarterly have a flaw in that it seems to take into account all roll call votes. This is going to tend to exaggerate things like partisan support. If a member breaks with his/her party on half of the critical votes, but sticks with the party on the rest of the more generic votes, their "party support" ratings will become surprisingly high. And that, in short, is how a conservative Democrat like Dan Boren of Oklahoma scores a 91% party unity rating from CQ in 2008. Nobody, not even Boren himself, would accuse the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma of being that loyal to the Democratic House majority.
Other ratings services try to delineate between generic votes and more highly charged voting opportunities. Progressive Punch, for example, grades members both on "all votes" and so-called "crucial votes". The difference can be critical: the aforementional Dan Boren scores a somewhat respectable 70.73 lifetime rating for all votes cast, but a much more equivocal 44.76 lifetime rating for "crucial votes."
Of course, these ratings are also going to be hamstrung by the same maverick vote quandary that confronts the National Journal ratings system. The votes subjectively selected by Progressive Punch are clearly different from NJ, however, which might explain why Dennis Kucinich ranks in top third of Democrats in the Progressive Punch ratings (slotting in at #71). Furthermore, a quick glance of the top 70 show few people that are, on the surface, obviously more conservative than Kucinich.
So, while it is entertaining political conversation to pore over ratings like the ones released by NJ or CQ, it is also helpful to understand their inherent flaws, and place them into the proper context.
That, or one of those two publications will have to come up with an entirely separate set of calculations for "principled/smugly self-righteous (depending on your perspective)" votes with the other party.
That might involve some pretty tricky math, though.