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

Re: [govtrack] Unrecorded Votes

Expand Messages
  • David Steinbrunner
    ... Ok, looking at other examples in my speardsheets I m seeing how vacancies and day of taking office appear to account for most of the issue but I m not done
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 6, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      On 1/5/11 9:58 AM, "Derek Willis" <dwillis@...> wrote:

      >Now I remember this situation - the Clerk's office did not publish Gary
      >Miller's votes in the initial portion of the 111th congress. He did vote,
      >but the Clerk's site does not reflect that. This is a very rare
      >occurrence - the only time I can remember it happening - so I would not
      >consider it typical. But it has not been fixed, either.

      Ok, looking at other examples in my speardsheets I'm seeing how vacancies
      and day of taking office appear to account for most of the issue but I'm
      not done making sure that is 100% case aside from the above.

      In the case of the Clerk's site not being correct, what is the proper way
      to get the ball rolling so it can be correct, or is this 2 year odd issue
      evidence that it doesn't? Should calling and/or emailing the clerk's
      office along with the office of the legislator in question be enough or is
      there a better route?

      Also, is there a plan to include vacancy info in the govtrack data set?

      Thanks,

      --
      David Steinbrunner
    • David Steinbrunner
      ... So the Clerk s site currently saying 0 vacancies is technically not correct it seems. In the subject of vacancy data, having a sworn in date or datetime
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        On 1/6/11 10:05 AM, "Derek Willis" <dwillis@...> wrote:

        >I've contacted the Clerk's office before about this issue but it's
        >still there, so take that for what it's worth. I should note that in
        >Gary Miller's case, as in Peter DeFazio of Oregon this term, the seat
        >is "vacant" because both men were not present on the first day of the
        >session to be sworn in, and thus were not sworn in at that time. So
        >the Clerk is technically correct, I suppose, even though DeFazio is
        >the duly elected member from Oregon's 4th District. But if they're not
        >sworn in, they can't vote, so I don't think this is truly an error.

        So the Clerk's site currently saying 0 vacancies is technically not
        correct it seems.

        In the subject of vacancy data, having a sworn in date or datetime would
        be helpful for this type of situation.

        Thanks again,

        --
        David Steinbrunner
      • Derek Willis
        Well, DeFazio was just sworn in, so now it s correct :-) On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:47 AM, David Steinbrunner
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 6, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Well, DeFazio was just sworn in, so now it's correct :-)

          On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 10:47 AM, David Steinbrunner
          <dsteinbrunner@...> wrote:
          > On 1/6/11 10:05 AM, "Derek Willis" <dwillis@...> wrote:
          >
          >>I've contacted the Clerk's office before about this issue but it's
          >>still there, so take that for what it's worth. I should note that in
          >>Gary Miller's case, as in Peter DeFazio of Oregon this term, the seat
          >>is "vacant" because both men were not present on the first day of the
          >>session to be sworn in, and thus were not sworn in at that time. So
          >>the Clerk is technically correct, I suppose, even though DeFazio is
          >>the duly elected member from Oregon's 4th District. But if they're not
          >>sworn in, they can't vote, so I don't think this is truly an error.
          >
          > So the Clerk's site currently saying 0 vacancies is technically not
          > correct it seems.
          >
          > In the subject of vacancy data, having a sworn in date or datetime would
          > be helpful for this type of situation.
          >
          > Thanks again,
          >
          > --
          > David Steinbrunner
          >
          >
          >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.