This is the third look at
how congresspeople were rated (Follow this link to look up your own congresspeople.) by the
League of Conservation Voters, the nation's premier environmental group focused on electoral politics. The previous diaries were the
List of Environmental Heroes = all congresspeople whose LCV rating was 89% or higher, and the
Most Improved Environmentalists = those whose 2003 ratings were at least 16% since the 2001-2 session, and were at least 50.
This time I looked at regions to try to determine whether an environmental ethic had reached critical mass within the populace. I decided that rather than look at the entire delegation, it was most accurate to look at Democrats only.
The reason to focus only on Democrats that, with a handful of exceptions, Most Republicans put on blinders and march lock-step behind the national leadership. Thus, with a few exceptions, they are normally dismal wherever they are from. The Republican average is 14%, and the best thing we can do is get them out of Congress.
Democrats, on the other hand, are free to vote their conscience (or, if you prefer, the consience of their constituents) the environment, as the leadership neither rewards nor punishes good or bad environmental votes in a systematic way. Thus, how Democrats vote on the environment should provide a good picture on how pervasive environmentalism is in a given region.
To generate an average, I averaged the scores of Democrats elected to congress by the state, both senators and representatives (and all congresspeople were treated equally). I also corrected for the stupidity factor in LCV's ratings system, where they count a non-vote as a vote against the environment, which particularly toasted the ratings of those running for president (For example, John Edwards Voted pro-environment on 7 of 9 votes cast, or 78%, which is exactly equal to his 1999-2002 average. However, because he missed 10 votes while campaigning, his official score is only 7/19 or 37%. I corrected the score to 7/9 or 78% when generating the state averages.)
The average score of all Democrats is roughly 80%, or a low B. The Republican average is 14%, a Miserable Failure, and lower than that of any states Democratic delegation.
A = 90-100%
B = 80-89%
C = 70-79%
D = 60-69%
F = 45-59%
FF = 30-44%
FFF = 15-29%
Miserable Failure = 0-14%
0 = This state elected no Democrats.
I somewhat arbitrarily subdivided the country into 8 regions, in order to spot trends. Nitpickers will no doubt argue whether I put each state in the correct region, whether I should've created a 9th region for Appalaicha (PA, WV, KY, TN), or whatever. It's not an exact science, but grouping into regions did highlight some interesting trends.
New England
CT, ME, MA, NH, RI, VT
A, A, A, 0, A, A
Mid-Atlantic
DE, MD, NJ, NY, PA
B, A, A, A, C
Great Lakes
IL, IN, MI, MN, OH, WI
A, B, B, C, A, A
West
AK, CA, HI, OR, WA
0, A, B, A, A
Southwest
AZ, CO, NV, NM, UT
A, A, A, B, D
------------
Atlantic South
FL, GA NC, SC, VA
B, D, C, B, B
-------------
The Heartland and Rockies
ID, IA, KS, MO, MT, NE, ND, SD, WY
0, C, A, C, FFF, F, F, D, 0
Non-Atlantic South
AL, AR, KY, LA, MS, OK, TN, TX, WV
FF, F, FF, FFF, F, F, C, F, D
Conclusions:
Of the 8 regions, 5 had average scores of B or higher. While nobody should be surprised that the two Northeast Regions or the West Coast made the cut, I personally was surprised just how well both the Southwest, which usually goes "red" in presidential contests, and the Great Lakes region, which is associated with heavy industry, performed.
This suggests than a decent environmental ethic has permeated a large part of the population in the above regions, and Bush's dismal record could be productively pointed out there. Furthermore, errant Democrats and even some Republicans may be successfully pressured to get with the program and vote more pro-environment.
The other surprise is that the "Atlantic South" is, while not stellar, at least generally respectable on the environment (Georgia is less good, but then Georgia has a much smaller coastline.), in sharp contrast to the rest of the South. This never would've occurred to me, and any southerners are welcome to enlighten us. One can hope that these states will continue to make progress, and will join other regions in an even stronger environmental voting record.
Two large regions, The Heartland/Rockies, and the Non-Atlantic South, are quite dismal overall, though of course there are individual congrespeople who are exceptions (For example, Lloyd Dogett of TX has a perfect 100.). While there are no doubt environmentalists living in these regions, at the moment they appear to be outnumbered, or have not found their political voice.