‘Power Rankings’ as infotainment

May 17, 2006

At first blush, it might seem like a worthwhile project. [tag]Knowlegis[/tag], a software research firm, released a list this week of congressional “[tag]power rankings[/tag],” which ranked every member of [tag]Congress[/tag], in both chambers, allegedly based on their influence and effectiveness as lawmakers.

Unfortunately, the list is almost entirely useless. It’s not political analysis; it’s a commercial posing as infotainment.

To be sure, news outlets across the country are eating these rankings up. Knowlegis CEO Brad Fitch is touting the rankings as a tool that can help voters. “Basically, all the public has to gauge, as to whether their member is doing well, is their own press releases or their campaign ads. We thought it would be helpful to give them an additional scorecard.”

But that’s not what these rankings are. In fact, it’s not even close.

Unlike ratings that are produced every year from political groups on both sides of the aisle (U.S. Chamber of Congress, League of Conservation Voters, AFSCME, etc.), Knowlegis won’t release the details on exactly how the company produced its data — it says it doesn’t want a rival to steal their equation. Apparently, it’s a secret combination involving factors such as sponsored legislation, media appearances, committee chairmanships, and fundraising.

The results unfairly favor [tag]Republicans[/tag]. Heavily.

According to Knowlegis, nine of the top 10 senators are Republicans, while in the House, eight of the top 10 are GOP lawmakers. Why do Republicans do so well? Because the rankings reward committee chairmanships — and [tag]Democrats[/tag] can’t chair a committee unless they take back the [tag]majority[/tag].

Similarly, the rankings [tag]reward[/tag] lawmakers who appear on TV. But with Republicans in the majority, network producers overwhelmingly favor GOP lawmakers to appear on-air. Does this mean these members of Congress are more [tag]effective[/tag] and [tag]influential[/tag]? Not at all.

For that matter, Knowlegis [tag]penalize[/tag]s [tag]lawmakers[/tag] whose bills don’t pass. But for the last several years, the Republican majority won’t allow legislation sponsored by Dems to even reach the floor for a vote, better yet pass, and the same GOP system restricts Dems from adding amendments to legislation. In other words, Dems can’t boost their “power ranking” — because Republicans won’t let them.

Knowlegis is a for-profit company. They sell political software and wanted a gimmick to help get the company’s name in the papers. It worked; reporters are falling for this stunt in a big way. One paper even ran an editorial blasting its state’s congressional delegation for not having the clout voters need.

This is ridiculous. The Knowlegis rankings are being treated as if they were the result of objective, scientific research that quantifies a lawmaker’s effectiveness. Instead, it’s a publicity stunt that plays into the Dems-are-weak/Republicans-are-powerful meme and rewards the majority for being in the majority.

The public shouldn’t be fooled.

Any way to find out what political contributions Mr. Fitch has made the last few election cycles?

  • “The public shouldn’t be fooled.” – CB

    Do you think it would be possible for the Republicanites to rule if the Public wasn’t fooled? 😉

    However, that said, the majority party is more effective. In this case, more effective at trashing our constitution, government agencies (FEMA, FDA), environment and reputation around the world. But still, more effective.

    I’ll try not to believe this Knowlegis crap, however 😉

  • Well, without the proprietary baclend evaluative schema, you don’t know for sure that it’s NOT “the result of objective, scientific research.”

    And shouldn’t we, as part of the reality-based community, concede that Democratic congresspersons are in fact relatively powerless?

    Which is not to diminish your overall point …

  • I sort of see your point, but I think you may be overstating your case about the illegitimacy of these criteria. What reasonable definition of lawmaker effectiveness would exclude things like actually getting bills passed? Of course, it’s easier to be an effective lawmaker when one’s party is in the majority, but that strikes me as a consequence of party politics that can’t just be ignored because it favors the side we don’t like. At the moment, most of the lawmakers who are most effective at achieving their goals are Republicans. We can and should point out, of course, that this statistic doesn’t mean that Republicans are in any way inherently [I]better[/I] legislators than Democrats, but only that they currently enjoy the home field advantage that comes with being in the majority. Still, it doesn’t strike me as unfair or unreasonable to take that advantage into account when assigning rankings of effectiveness.

  • A quick Google search on Brad Fitch produced this (no mention of who he worked for in Congress – hmmmm….what are the odds it was for all GOP members; with a little more Google it can easily b figured out). This is the one and same Fitch as cited in CB’s post:

    After working as a radio and television reporter in the mid-1980’s, Fitch began working on Capitol Hill in 1988. During his 13 years on Capitol Hill, he served in a variety of positions for four Members of Congress including: press secretary and legislative director for a House member, campaign manager for a House member, communications director for a House committee, communications director for a U.S. Senator, and chief of staff for a freshman House member.

  • I would say that these rankings would be a good lagging indicator. That is, it would tell who has been “effective” over the past year. It would not necessarily indicate who is going to be “effective” on a go-forward basis.

    For example, when the Dems take over Congress in ’06, there will be considerable lag between these rankings and the actual power being weilded on the floor…

  • Carpetbagger is right. This phony survey is a marketing tool for a company that is soliciting business on K Street. The problem is that the MSM is acting like its some legitimate, objective evaluation and trashing D’s in newspapers across the country!

  • Looking over the Senator list, I can’t say that I completely disagree with the rankings. The “R”s are in power so their agenda is being passed. The media is controlled by right-wing, pro-businees corporations, so they give R’s more face time. Rs do (or did — polls are slowing them down a bit), in fact, have the power.

    It may be an accurate metric, but as Gridlock suggests, it’s not a predictor of future performance.

    And Jared is spot on. The audience for this list is not the voter but K-Street.

  • A partisan marketing tool without doubt, but would anyone really want to take credit for what has been going on for the last few years? The Deficit? The Iraq war? Indicted lawmakers and staff? Cutting federal aid to disaster victims and low income students? You bet they are powerful and look what they have done with their power.

  • I thought it’d be something cool- like legislator’s super powers. “Hillary Clinton- Strength 4/10, Stolidity 11/10, Special Power: Aisle Spanning”, “Chuck Schumer- Dexterity 6/10, Charisma 4.5/10, Special Power: Sound Bites”, “Orin Hatch- Special Power: Leaking Classified Information” That kind of thing. What a let down.

  • I just don’t understand the point of this post, or most of the comments here. Of course members of the majority party are going to be, almost by definition, more effective legislators than minority party members. Calling this a “phony” or “unscientific” “marketing ploy” just seems like sour grapes. And as I said above, I can’t understand how one could reasonably define “effectiveness” to exclude things like successfully sponsoring bills. The appropriate response to this project, as I see it, is not to complain about is being “unfair” (I’ve yet to see any valid basis for asserting that it is), but that it simply reflects the institutional advantage that Republicans currently enjoy.

  • James Dillon: I think your last line gets a large way to the point. “Institutional advantage” tells you nothing about the effectiveness of an individual legislator, or more accurately, the desirable legislative skills of an individual legislator. Yet it is being promoted and, more unfortunately, used as if it provided that type of information.

    That said, I think if you make a little mental adjustment for the institutional component, it likely isn’t that far off. The Ds at the top of the Senate list, for example, are who I would expect to see there. The R’s at the bottom of the Senate list are who I would expect to see there. Maybe if it were broken out into separate lists by party to avoid the “party control lifts all ships” aspect, it would be more accurate?

  • Beth,

    Google hjas revealed Fitch’s book “Media relations handbook” includes a foreword by Mike McCurry. As I recall, Mike McCurry was Clinton’s Press Secretary.

    Further research indicates “Fitch, who formerly worked for Kohl and Baldwin” (Senator Herb Kohl and Rep.Tammy Baldwin both Dems from WI) http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4196/is_20030831/ai_n10899000/pg_2

    I doubt that this is necessarily partisan. Usually prominent members of the parties refrain from writing forewords in books written by partisan hacks of the other party.

    Either way I would be shocked if the results were not skewed haevily towards Republikans. They have the Majority of both houses and have had that for over a decade. It would be nice to see if blocking a bill or threatening a filibuster inproved rankings. It just seems skewed toward the majority that is all.

    On the other hand if COngress has a 22% approval from the people maybe now is a good time to pointout who the powerful people are who got us into this mess! Maybe it is partisan but not to make Republikans look good, to make them look bad!

  • I just don’t understand the point of this post, or most of the comments here. Of course members of the majority party are going to be, almost by definition, more effective legislators than minority party members.

    James raises a fair point, so let me flesh this out a little more.

    Obviously, those with more power will score better when compiling “power rankings.” But Knowlegis is suggesting more with this gimmick. The company could have put out a press releasing saying, “Research shows congressional majority has power on Hill,” which would have been painfully obvious to anyone. The project wouldn’t have a point, and wouldn’t have made the papers.

    Instead, this gimmick offers a value judgment. Knowlegis’ Brad Fitch has told reporters that voters should use these rankings as a guide to see if their representatives are influential in Congress. The implication is hardly subtle: if the lawmaker has a poor ranking, the lawmaker isn’t doing a good job.

    Of course, that’s not even remotely true. In a clinical sense, if a Democrat’s bill doesn’t pass, he or she may not be “effective.” In a political sense, that same Democrat can push a great bill that has real merit, helps change a broader debate, inspires political observers, and represents the interests of his or her constituents, even if Tom DeLay didn’t let that bill come to the floor.

    It’s “unfair” because it’s a fixed game. The rankings purport to show who’s “good” at their jobs, but is skewed from the start. Logically, if Dems take back Congress, the 2007 rankings will be reversed, and that will be equally as useless.

  • Actually this could work in the Dems favor if you look at it from a contrarian point of view. People might just look at the list and say, “If these Republicans are so powerful and effective, how come the country is so screwed up??”

    Whether or not the rankings are intentionally partisan, it’s going to spotlight the undeniable fact that power in Washington is firmly in the clenched fists of the Republicans and it’s equally undeniable that the hideous mess the country finds itself in is their responsibility.

    They will deny it, of course, but then the Dems can point to this list and say forthrightly, “Hey, it says right here that you guys are in charge so don’t try to blame us for this sh*t.”

    Oh, and UeberBill, I’m going to give Al Gore a +2 Damage Bonus for demolishing right wing arguments that global warning doesn’t exist, and a -5 Charisma Penalty to Hillary for sucking up to right wing sugar daddies way too much.

  • So I looked up my State’s Reps:
    House:
    Rep. Sabo (D-MN-5)
    Rep. Oberstar (D-MN-8)
    Rep. Kline (R-MN-2)
    Rep. Kennedy (R-MN-6)
    Rep. Ramstad (R-MN-3) – This guy is my Rep.
    Rep. Gutknecht (R-MN-1)
    Rep. Peterson (D-MN-7)
    Rep. McCollum (D-MN-4)

    Numbers 3 and 4 on this list Kline and Kennedy have barely been in congress long enough to unpack. Kline was elected in 2002 and Kennedy in 2000. Kennedy is a Tom Delay Republikan type (and a fellow alum from my alma mater). Kline is a Marine who used to carry the launch codes for Reagan or Bush 41.

    By contrast Ramstad (though Republican he is more moderate) and Peterson have been in Congress since 1990. This ranking is all about how much the Congressional leadership likes you. That is is.

    A look at the map of average state power rankings also seems to show that Blue state Members have less power than Red state Members. The more money you can suck from you state and deposit into the GOP warchest the more power you have.

    This is actually pretty useful as an illustration of the result of corrupt parties flooded with money and how it impacts government.

  • This reminds me of the endless efforts to “rank” baseball players for their contribution to their team’s “winngingness”. Now, in baseball, winning is, in one sense, the goal — ignoring owners’ return on investment, host city’s benefit (boost for local hotels, restaurants, etc.), local charities’ well-being, little boys’ or girls’ (or “grownups”) pleasure or bragging rights, etc.

    So take just winning. What is an individual player’s contribution to winning? There have been literally thousands of schemes proposed using weighted linear models (no-doubt an unrealistic assumption to begin with) to combine such factors as batting average, on-base-percentage, slugging (multiple basses), stealing, walking, etc. And those are just the offensive statistics employed. A major set of factors is the combination of statistics describing the pitching staff, one’s own and the opponent’s. Many of these factors should probably be standardized for the ballparks in which they are produced (some are home run friendly, e.g.). Then there are factors like home-away, success overall in one’s division, point in the season (beginning, middle, end), weather, age of the player, and on and on and on ad nauseam.

    It’s a hopeless task, even with a century of unimaginably detailed numerical variables to use for an infinitely variable set of weighted linear and non-linear models.

    Yet managers and coaches, in the majors and down through their farm systems, “sense” the “worth” of each player all the time. Experienced hunches beat all the statistical analyses every time.

    Then there’s the “improbable”. How likely is it that some one will have to set-up for, and then be able to deliver, “the shot heard round the world”? How unlikely is that a team will overcome an eighth inning five-run deficit? How improbableis the climb-the-wall, make-the-game-ending-catch in the crucial game of the world series? These are all memorable instances where calculations — even if they flawlessly met the criteria for scientific measurement and predictability — don’t matter.

    I think politics is a lot like that. Anyone proposing a for-profit system of ranking baseball players is running a scam. How much more-so with anyone hiring out to rank politicians in terms of “effectiveness”? The whole thing’s preposterous, a fantasy, an illusion — which may be why it appeals to Republicans.

  • Sorry, unpersuaded. Shorter Carpetbagger: they claim to be ranking power when all they are ranking is majority status, committee chairmanships and, oh yes, face time on the networks.

    But numbers one and two /are/ power. What’s so distasteful is not thast the rankings are wrong but the extent to which they are right (face time on TV is probably more an indirect index than a direct expression of power, so a kind of double counting).

    Colleges and Univs have an annual ritual howling season whenever the new US News rankings hit the stands. But a large part of the complaint is not that they’re wrong but the degree to which they are right.

  • come on carpetbagger:

    do some investigative reporting.

    check out who owns the company.

    check out who funds or invests in it.

    who are the principles.

    what other work has it done.

    does it have a connection to the rep natl comm.

  • fitch

    +

    mike mccurry

    +

    major internet/cable companies

    +

    software to sell (to media companies?)

    =

    net neutrality debate

    (anybody for “orchestrated public relations blitz”?

  • As the CEO of Knowlegis, I thought it would be helpful (and a little fun) if I weighed in at this point.

    For those of you seeking nefarious motives or political bias in these ratings, you won’t find them. As people above have pointed out, Republicans score higher in the rankings because they’re in charge! Of course they’re more effective at getting their proposals passed – they own the keys to the kingdom. If the Dem’s take over in 2006 you’ll see a shift in the Power Rankings.

    For those looking for my political leanings – well, you found a bit of my resume. But I’ve tried to stay strictly non-partisan in the last 5 years. I worked for the Congressional Management Foundation (www.cmfweb.org), and I helped both GOP and Dem offices improve their operations.

    For those of you thinking these rankings don’t paint a complete picture of a Member of Congress – you’re right on. I worked for four Members and consulted for another 50. Members of Congress care about getting bills passed (which Power Rankings score), but they also get their kicks out of helping small businesses or getting someone’s Social Security benefits restored. Power Rankings are one way to measure a Member’s work – a way that no one has measured before.

  • “As the CEO of Knowlegis” – Brad Fitch

    Wow! Is this the first time in TCR history that the subject of a topic has posted a reply?

    Thanks for the info, Mr. Fitch.

  • Delightful, Brad Fitch came clean. But “Power Rankings” are like looking at the box scores for last year’s baseball season; it is history once the season ends. Some baseball fans even look to “spring training” to gauge the prospects of the new season, but it is notoriously unreliable for predicting how well a team will do.

  • I am in total agreement with Ed and slip kid on this. Just look at the 2005 baseball season for instance. Yankees and Red Sox were loaded up in the AL (as always) and the Cardinals were the odds on fave in the NL. And you ended up with White Sox (last WS 1959, last WS win 1917) and the Astros (first WS ever).

    BTW, GOooooo White Sox!!!!

    Na na na na. Na na na na. Hey! Hey! Good-bye!!!!

  • Brad –

    I appreciate the fortitude of your stopping by and joining the discussion. I think you’ll note that the product got mixed reviews above: many people noted exactly the point you made in your post – that it is legit to say that Rs have more “power” even though that is a function of institutional rules more than individual skills. I also appreciate that you acknowledge there is much more to a legislator’s skills than are measured by the Power Rankings; indeed, your post seems to agree with more of the folks here than disagree with them.

    So I guess what is left that troubles me is that, while you personally know better, you allow – and likely even market – the product to be used in a way you know is misleading (i.e. the way some newspapers have used it to attack their own Democratic Senators and Representatives). Maybe I’m being a squishy headed liberal on this – we are a capitalist economy, and fooling some of the people some of the time is a time-tested business model. Still, I’m cusrious what response you have to this concern repeatedly expressed in this thread.

  • thanks brad fitch.

    that was very useful to hear.

    your product has “shortcomings” which reflect the way the congress operates.

    that makes sense.

    i suppose the point is that if your product is misused, then folks who are offended at the misuses need to make their case in opposition to the misuse.

    personally, i think this matter of ranking things, like colleges, for example, or cities to live in, or retire to, is part of the folly of numerology to which the media in our society is prone –

    the notion that if you can put a number on something, that number conveys knowledge and meaning worth knowing – a kind of numeric veracity.

    public opinion polls are the most egregious example of this faith.

  • Fine! Use it for what it is. The most “powerful” representatives got us to where we are today. This report shows more than ever that we need a change in Congress.

  • With regards to the “product is being misused” suggestion, in politics all research or data has the potential of being misused. If we were concerned about data or research being misused, Congress.org wouldn’t put the votes of Members of Congress online for fear that it could be misused. (And votes are constantly misused in campaign commercials.) Power Rankings merely ascribes a number to a characteristic of power (like commitee membership), and adds up those characteristics into a Power Score. That’s why people on the most powerful committees and pass significant legislation get the best scores.

    And there are some Dem’s that shine in the Power Rankings. Sen. Dianne Feinstein is like the Cal Ripkin of the Senate in 2005. Check out her page on Power Rankings — she ranks 2nd among Dem’s and 11th overall. She had great Position Points (on Appropriations and Judiciary), strong Influence Points (got on TV alot with the Supreme Court nominations) and strong Legislation Points.

    Having said all that, Knowlegis wants to improve the Power Rankings. Are there characteristics of power that are measurable that you think we should include in Power Rankings?

  • The above is one of tons of news articles, and web-blogs Knowlegis has spawned by affecting the homeostasis of the US CONGRESS, POLTICS, and DEMOCRACY – the accuracy of democracy must be displayed digitally, in order for a democracy to be a reality, otherwise – we are ill-informed, which goes to warrant unethical immoralities…Bush Administration Fallacies! Knowlegis and Capitol Advantage are the best jobs on the planet – and to work here is not only an opportunity but a major part of my life, and who I am as a person”. Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life.”
    – Confucius
    PS: The Congressional Revolution Spawned by the Digital Revolution – A book should be written about this.

  • brad fitch –

    thanks again.

    i suppose using the phrase “product is mused” might appear critical, but my thought when i wrote it, was along the lines of the “market place of ideas”.

    all ideas/facts/rules/theories are amenable to misuse.

    american right-wing christianity comes to mind as a misuse of christianity, for example.

    newspaper routinely misuse daily events to “explain” the stock market’s diurnal gyrations.

    if power rankings are “misused” – absolutely or in the eye of a partisan – then the appropriate response is to make a counter argument. that was my intent.

    i doubt you and i disagree about this.

    on reflecting on my comment #26 above, i realized, however, that i might have let the nose of this camel under the tent :

    “why bother with research, thinking, writing, publishing when one’s efforts may be misused.”

    that’s a foolish reduction i would not want my argument to even appear to support.

    so, with respect to your company’s product,

    it absorbs information and it aggregates that information,, and it creates new (summary) information.

    there can’t be anything inherently wrong with that.

    furthermore, it might do the democratic party a lot of good to have to take a look at the picture that “power ratings” paint of its effectiveness in the congressional arena.

    • Comments are closed.