"Scorecards don’t measure how effectively a legislator drafts and carries bills or negotiates with fellow lawmakers in both chambers. They don’t reveal who works the hardest or who operates behind the scenes to advance good legislation and block bad bills." I totally agree with that statement. Saying that, I would be happier with the process if they scored the bills after the voting process. That way we wouldn't have legislator's chasing the score for their score. (I'm not saying that is common.) Thanks for addressing this topic.
The problems with rating bills after the vote is 1) it would deprive lawmakers of a data point that could inform their decision, and even more importantly 2) it would open IFF up to accusations of weighting ratings in favor of certain legislators.
I believe the way they do it now is as objective as possible.
"Scorecards don’t measure how effectively a legislator drafts and carries bills or negotiates with fellow lawmakers in both chambers. They don’t reveal who works the hardest or who operates behind the scenes to advance good legislation and block bad bills." I totally agree with that statement. Saying that, I would be happier with the process if they scored the bills after the voting process. That way we wouldn't have legislator's chasing the score for their score. (I'm not saying that is common.) Thanks for addressing this topic.
The problems with rating bills after the vote is 1) it would deprive lawmakers of a data point that could inform their decision, and even more importantly 2) it would open IFF up to accusations of weighting ratings in favor of certain legislators.
I believe the way they do it now is as objective as possible.