PAChyderm Coalition Publishes 1st Weekly Legislator Evaluation for this Session

Here is the general information provided about the evaluation:

We have been working with Republican legislators to refine the bill weights. The have had private access to our proposed weights prior to our publication of them.

The number of bills being tracked is 173 plus 37 bills that have strike all amendments.

There are a lot of legislators with high scores including many representatives who have +100% ratings!

Although we are well into the session, there are still many floor votes as well as committee votes to come. The scores currently are still heavily influenced by bill sponsorships compared to floor and committee votes, but, as more votes are taken, they will have an increasing impact on the scores as the session continues.

We have tightened up the categorization we apply to the scores. Reagan Republican and RINO have stayed the same, the Bipartisan Republican score range has expanded, and the other categories have higher score values with narrower ranges.

Click here to see the complete evaluation.


  1. Mike Weaver says

    You have got to be kidding me. These ratings are garbage. The biggest RINOs in the legislature, Nancy McClain, Steve Court, Cecil Ash and Uber Rino Amanda Reeve are more Republican/Conservative than Steve Montenegro, David Gowan, Carl Seel and David Stevens?
    I don’t know how you guys rate members of the legislature, but there is no way you can convince me that there is any degree of accuracy with regard to ascertaining political philosophy.

    • Mike, there is no claim that this shows how anyone thinks or ascertains anyone’s political philosophy. It only shows how they are doing with sponsoring bills and voting on bills in the legislature. If you think the bills used in the evaluation are not rated correctly, then explain what should be different. Sometimes legislators vote differently than you might think they would based on the reputation they cultivate. Also, some legislators miss votes which usually hurts their scores. Others probably vote Republican to look good even though they don’t really want to.

      All this evaluation does is show how they actually vote and reflects bills they actually sponsor. Like any kind of evaluation or rating system, it’s not perfect, but it does provide useful insights. If you think the bills themselves are rated correctly, then the results can be a helpful reality check. If you think the bills are not rated correctly, the people doing the ratings usually like to get helpful feedback.

  2. Perhaps the authors of the study should have use some other methodologies, or even some actual tried and true measurements of conservative vs liberal, to support their conclusions. Anyone with a bit of statistical education can see the flaws from the get-go. Or anyone who has take a voting behavior class, studied polling, something like that. First off, forcing every bill into a scale of 1-10 is absurd. Some bills outweigh others by a great many orders of magnitude, and a one to 10 scale is very primitive. Oh, wait, the dead giveaway that rings in amateur hour is using a decimal point after the percentage to add an air of precision and authority. Another hint is that if a lot of people score 100% on your test, there is something wrong with your test. My initial conclusion is that the ratings from these jokers (copyrighted, no less) have gone from being completely useless to actually having some value. Yeah, they got the names spelled right, but check this out:

    SB1257, which would do a ton to help charter schools, is not on the list. The sponsor, Crandall, not only finished last on your list but did so with a 2.8%. Add that bill, weight it properly, and what happens. Oh, there’s more…let me see…he’s going to be challenged by Russell Pearce, the godfather of your little group, and we therefore can’t have anything positive to say about Crandall, ever. I smell a rat. So my final conclusion is that there is real value here, in the form of evidence, and it’s to prove this group of jokers is not just incompetent but are are apparently actually trying to deceive you.

  3. @ Wilson – Crandall has missed about as many floor votes as he’s made. It isn’t surprising that he has a low score, regardless of other factors.

    Anyway, the Pachy ratings look funky at first every year, then look much more like you might expect as more bills get voted as the session progresses. Certainly, there might be bills that get missed and/or mis-weighted, but they’re usually receptive to feedback.

  4. Harris Shirley says

    The ratings are misleading. They do not evaluate House or Senate Leadership on good bills that Committee Chair’s hold – Good legislation this session has sat on the desks of Committee Chair’s who enjoy record Pachy Ratings but haven’t done the lifting to deserve honorable mention –

    How about it Pachy, dig into the bills that the Chair’s have sat on because they lack the stones to let the legislation move forward. Your Pachy Ratings should ferret out the cowards in leadership as well as the heros.

Leave a Reply