Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Legal Commentary Blogs -> Balkinization

Legal Commentary

: Balkinization

Representatives in Safe Seats, Not Vulnerable Ones, Killed the Bailout Bill

By Jack M. Balkin

One of the instant myths being created about Congress' defeat of the bailout bill is that members facing close contests this fall were forced to cast a "tough vote" and, in order to protect their electoral prospects, voted against the bill. But this is misleading and it assigns short-term, self-interested electoral calculations for the depth of the resistance. Only 30 negative votes came from members in vulnerable seats. True, this means 79% of those in vulnerable seats voted against. But there were 198 votes against from those in safe seats, which is right around 50% of those in safe seats, and while those in vulnerable seats might be thought to have provided the marginal difference, those votes would be irrelevant if there were not such widespread opposition. Put another way, if those 30 no votes from vulnerable seats were split the same way as the votes from safe seats, there would still have been 213 votes against the bill. It's important not to lose sight of how few House seats are actually vulnerable and how few House elections are competitive.

I take the data here from http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/09/swing-district-congressmen-doomed.html, and I think Professor David Canon for pointing me in this direction.

Full post as published by Balkinization on September 30, 2008 (boomark / email).