Wednesday, February 29th, 2012 and is filed under Blog
Earlier this week, I detailed the ridiculous faults inherent in the National Journal legislative scorecard. Today, the Club for Growth published their annual congressional ratings for 2011. You can view the House scores here and the Senate scores here.
People have emailed me wanting to know why the Club for Growth’s scorecard is slightly different from Heritage Action’s rolling scorecard. Here is the divergence between the scorecards for the top ten scorers in both the House and Senate:
Take a look at Heritage Action’s top scores here.
Now view the Club for Growth’s top scores.
Club House Scores
|FL||14||R||Mack, IV, Connie||14||98%||90%|
Both scorecards provide a comprehensive view of a members’ conservative record (or lack there of). They are both superior to some of the traditional scorecards, such as the one put out every year by the American Conservative Union. From what I can see, here are the primary differences between the scorecards:
Overall, both scorecards are good measures of congressional voting records, but Heritage Action’s is more comprehensive (especially in the Senate) and slightly tougher.
Paid for by Madison Project. Not authorized by any candidate or committee.
© 2016 Madison Project. All rights reserved.
Site by A3K Advertising, Inc.