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& #39;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& #39;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& #39;s what they can measure. BUT: (1) there& #39;s a lot more data out there they could collate and measure; and (2) it& #39;s better to admit ignorance than create false impressions.
I am so pleased that the WaPo& #39;s Monkey Cage covers issues related to Congressional activity. But this inaccurate legislative effectiveness metric has made multiple appearances. It& #39;s not meaningful in the way it& #39;s being portrayed and has the result of misleading people.
You can follow @danielschuman.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: