Lawmakers tilt further Left than the electorate in 41 of 50 states, and the trend is most pronounced in deep-red states.
Congressional lawmakers have voting records that place them to the Left of the electorate in most states, including Republicans in deep-red states, according to a new think tank analysis.
The Institute for Legislative Analysis found that lawmakers tilt further Left than the electorate in 41 of 50 states, and Republicans in deep-red states vote further to the left of their electorate at much higher rates than Republicans in other states, National Review has learned.
“While one may expect the most conservative lawmakers in Congress to represent the deepest red states, the data proves this is simply not the case,” said Ryan McGowan, CEO of the Institute for Legislative Analysis.
“A number of mismatches exist between Members of Congress and their constituencies across the nation. Of course, this ultimately impacts legislation – especially at a time like now when Republicans have a razor thin margin.”
The study also observed that swing state Democrats from Nevada, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota vote further to the Left of their electorates than Democrats from deep-blue states such as New York and California.
The ILA is releasing a comprehensive analysis comparing lawmakers’s ideological makeup to the Cook Political Report’s election data to show whether each lawmaker is more progressive or conservative than their state. It then grades a lawmaker on an “A” to “F” scale to measure whether the lawmaker’s ideological rating matches their district’s political composition.
If a Republican lawmaker’s limited government rating matches or exceeds that of their district, the ILA would give them an “A” for being at least as conservative as their constituents. For instance, Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson (R), has a 93.88 percent limited government rating, putting him 30 points above his state’s ideological score, meriting an A+ on the scale. On the flip side, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski (R), has a 37.11 percent limited government rating, putting her 45 points lower than her state’s alignment, resulting in an F grade.
Most Democratic lawmakers received an F because their limited government scores are lower than their district rating, consistent with liberal support for greater government involvement in the economy and other facets of life. Republican scores are much more balanced across the A+ to F spectrum.
The ideological score is based on every substantive vote cast in Congress last session, over 100,000 votes, and grades lawmakers based on their support for limited government. The limited government philosophy does not incorporate social issues such as abortion where limited government correlation varies. It also excluded duplicative votes and non-ideological votes like naming a post-office.
In addition, the ILA’s ideological score weighs the impact of a policy and it takes into account the reasons lawmakers opposed certain bills, such as conservatives opposing a bill for not going far enough in cutting spending and progressives opposing a bill for cutting spending too much.
“For decades scorecards have been helpful tools in evaluating lawmaker performance. However, grading only a handful of votes and evaluating all lawmakers the same – despite their unique districts – certainly limits their accuracy,” said Fred McGrath, President of the ILA.
“We are excited to now provide this new resource to drive greater levels of transparency and accountability in government.”
The study’s findings reflect some of the challenges Republicans face in uniting the party to pass the “big, beautiful” bill full of conservative priorities. Not only are lawmakers representing different political terrains, but some are more ideologically aligned with their districts than others. It similarly demonstrates how certain lawmakers have been able to build political brands and win elections despite taking positions out of step with the ideology of their district.