Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

What makes a and what makes an

Expand Messages
  • Eric Mill
    Hi all, In the XML for bills, I ve gathered that actions are for passage votes, both voice and roll call, and don t include procedural votes. This is
    Message 1 of 3 , Apr 9, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi all,

      In the XML for bills, I've gathered that <vote> actions are for
      passage votes, both voice and roll call, and don't include procedural
      votes. This is obviously an important distinction, but it seems to be
      missing an important type of vote, which is agreeing to the amendments
      by another chamber.

      For example, the big historic health care vote in the House, on the
      Senate health care bill, rings in only as an <action> that says "On
      motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by
      recorded vote: 219 - 212 (Roll no. 165)."

      http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/111/bills/h3590.xml

      Shouldn't this be considered a passage vote? Is there any way to
      distinguish this vote in THOMAS from other actions upon a bill?

      -- Eric
    • Josh Tauberer
      Okay, I ve updated the parsing of votes as follows: vote2 votes --- that s when the House votes on a Senate bill or vice versa, for the first time --- now
      Message 2 of 3 , Apr 11, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Okay, I've updated the parsing of votes as follows:

        "vote2" votes --- that's when the House votes on a Senate bill or vice
        versa, for the first time --- now check the status for "with an
        amendment" or similar. If that's found, then the bill isn't going on to
        the president but instead goes back to the other chamber or conference
        committee. So the new state goes from PASSED:BILL to new codes
        PASS_BACK:SENATE/PASS_BACK:HOUSE instead.

        If it goes back to the originating chamber for yet another vote, or if
        it goes back and forth, these are now parsed as <vote> nodes with type
        attribute "pingpong". When one of these votes passes, the new state
        becomes PASSED:BILL.

        Votes on conference reports are now put in a <vote> node instead of
        <vote-aux>, but the type attribute remains "conference".

        I'm doing a re-parse of all bills now.

        - Josh Tauberer
        - CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us

        http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com

        "Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
        House as props."

        On 04/09/2010 01:48 PM, Eric Mill wrote:
        > Hi all,
        >
        > In the XML for bills, I've gathered that<vote> actions are for
        > passage votes, both voice and roll call, and don't include procedural
        > votes. This is obviously an important distinction, but it seems to be
        > missing an important type of vote, which is agreeing to the amendments
        > by another chamber.
        >
        > For example, the big historic health care vote in the House, on the
        > Senate health care bill, rings in only as an<action> that says "On
        > motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by
        > recorded vote: 219 - 212 (Roll no. 165)."
        >
        > http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/111/bills/h3590.xml
        >
        > Shouldn't this be considered a passage vote? Is there any way to
        > distinguish this vote in THOMAS from other actions upon a bill?
        >
        > -- Eric
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >
      • Eric Mill
        This is more than great, and amazingly responsive - thank you, Josh. This also fixes the issue where bills that passed both chamber, but were destined for
        Message 3 of 3 , Apr 12, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          This is more than great, and amazingly responsive - thank you, Josh.

          This also fixes the issue where bills that passed both chamber, but
          were destined for conference and not the president, were marked as
          "PASSED:BILL", which was a bit confusing.

          Awesome!

          -- Eric

          On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Josh Tauberer <tauberer@...> wrote:
          > Okay, I've updated the parsing of votes as follows:
          >
          > "vote2" votes --- that's when the House votes on a Senate bill or vice
          > versa, for the first time --- now check the status for "with an amendment"
          > or similar. If that's found, then the bill isn't going on to the president
          > but instead goes back to the other chamber or conference committee. So the
          > new state goes from PASSED:BILL to new codes
          > PASS_BACK:SENATE/PASS_BACK:HOUSE instead.
          >
          > If it goes back to the originating chamber for yet another vote, or if it
          > goes back and forth, these are now parsed as <vote> nodes with type
          > attribute "pingpong". When one of these votes passes, the new state becomes
          > PASSED:BILL.
          >
          > Votes on conference reports are now put in a <vote> node instead of
          > <vote-aux>, but the type attribute remains "conference".
          >
          > I'm doing a re-parse of all bills now.
          >
          > - Josh Tauberer
          > - CivicImpulse / GovTrack.us
          >
          > http://razor.occams.info | www.govtrack.us | civicimpulse.com
          >
          > "Members of both sides are reminded not to use guests of the
          > House as props."
          >
          > On 04/09/2010 01:48 PM, Eric Mill wrote:
          >>
          >> Hi all,
          >>
          >> In the XML for bills, I've gathered that<vote>  actions are for
          >> passage votes, both voice and roll call, and don't include procedural
          >> votes.  This is obviously an important distinction, but it seems to be
          >> missing an important type of vote, which is agreeing to the amendments
          >> by another chamber.
          >>
          >> For example, the big historic health care vote in the House, on the
          >> Senate health care bill, rings in only as an<action>  that says "On
          >> motion that the House agree to the Senate amendments Agreed to by
          >> recorded vote: 219 - 212 (Roll no. 165)."
          >>
          >> http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/111/bills/h3590.xml
          >>
          >> Shouldn't this be considered a passage vote? Is there any way to
          >> distinguish this vote in THOMAS from other actions upon a bill?
          >>
          >> -- Eric
          >>
          >>
          >> ------------------------------------
          >>
          >> Yahoo! Groups Links
          >>
          >>
          >>
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.