With much respect to our learned academic experts,
"legislative effectiveness scores" based on the status & importance of bills introduced by members is misleading and likely meaningless. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/17/members-congress-are-specializing-less-often-that-makes-them-less-effective/

Academics who measure legislative effectiveness in this way are inadvertently misleading the general public, people who work to improve Congress, and the academic world. I've written about this before. https://medium.com/@danielschuman/washington-post-s-money-cage-just-published-a-crap-article-measuring-legislative-effectiveness-b46913462fc1

Just some other things that need be considered:
- the # of bills and amendments that were the Member’s idea but did not have his or her name included
- How many ideas showed up in the base text of the bill?
- The output of cmtes and subcs

- the bills and amdts the Member blocked — directly or indirectly.
- the bargains the Member struck
- the coalitions the Member assembled
- whether the Member moved the Overton window by taking a "further out" position

And this ignores the roles of members oversight entirely, including how oversight can change policy.

Every time I see people say they are measuring "legislative effectiveness" I know that what I'm going to see is something else entirely.

These metrics are pernicious because they ignore how Congress actually works (from the people who know better), mislead people as to whether it's working effectively, and are used for political sound-bites in campaigns.

I am sympathetic to the counter-argument that the academics are measuring these things because that's what they can measure. BUT: (1) there's a lot more data out there they could collate and measure; and (2) it's better to admit ignorance than create false impressions.

I am so pleased that the WaPo's Monkey Cage covers issues related to Congressional activity. But this inaccurate legislative effectiveness metric has made multiple appearances. It's not meaningful in the way it's being portrayed and has the result of misleading people.