McJoan's front page article, Reid-Feingold Defeated, lists 19 Democratic Senators who voted against the amendment. The comments thread reflects my own surprise: among those voting against it were Jon Tester (MT), Jim Webb (VA), and Claire McKaskill (MO), three freshman Senators who defeated incumbents in 2006, in no small part because of their opposition to the Iraq war.
The disappointment expressed in the thread was no surprise. What was interesting to me, though was the amount of guessing and speculation. For instance:
"I have no idea what Webb, Tester, and McCaskill are thinking." (Odysseus)
"I guess that I will just have to wait and see if there is a response." (Jeffersonian Democrat)
"However I want an explination as to why. [...] Go into details - Tell us WHY!" (illusionmajik)
Why do we have to wonder? Why, in 2007, do we not have immediate access to a Senator's reasons for voting on every single bill -- through their official Senate website?
It's appropriate that our discussions on dKos should include guesses about the political maneuvering behind our representatives' votes (see this discussion of how the vote could affect Democratic presidential candidates for an example). Obviously, they're not going to be completely open about the chess game; it would make them appear too cynical if they spoke in those terms. But they have their public explanations, and they have a place to express them.
A Senator's votes are rarely cast on impulse, but are based on positions crafted well in advance of roll call, with the consultation of staffers who focus on a small subset of issues. Considering the size of a Senator's staff, and what we know about the collaborative nature of modern websites, I see no reason that every time a bill goes to the floor, the staffer assigned to that bill shouldn't be posting the Senator's vote, and a brief explanation of the reasons for it, to the office website. If those reasons are related to an exising, published position paper, they can just post a link to that position.
Posting clear position statements would obviously take time, but some of that time would be offset by the calls and letters asking for details about that position. How many times have you written to your senator with a specific question about a bill, only to receive a general response related only to that bill's main issue? (I'm a Baucus constituent, so I get that all the time.) I'm not objecting to the "form letter" approach at all; in many cases, the same question is asked frequently, so a prepared answer suffices. But when that's the case, why wait for us to ask? Why handle our individual letters reactively, when you can supply the explanation proactively?
If your reasons for casting each vote are spelled out clearly and publicly, not only do you reduce the confusion and speculation, you enable your supporters to become informed advocates. Instead of saying "I wonder what Jon Tester was thinking?" I should be saying "Jon Tester's website explains what he was thinking, and here's what he said." (See Geekesque's comment for an illustration of a clear-headed response from an informed constituent.)
Unfortunately, Congresspeople too often use their websites only as a public relations tool; they post their successes, but ignore the difficult questions. They make statements of support for matters of interest to their constituents, but fail to display the specifics of how their voting record reflects that support. They publish press releases, but not their detailed voting record.
Of course I can view the detailed record at the Library of Congress website. But as any politician knows, the record does not speak for itself. You have to stand beside your record and tell your constituents what it means -- or your adversaries will do it for you. Your official website gives you the opportunity to get there first.