If Obama's present votes were a strategy, how many other Dems did so as well?

[rinsd]

Wyldwolf did a thing on Obama voting "present" on some bills while in the IL legislature vs yes or no.

WW's thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3786619

It has been brought up that Planned Parenthood coordinated strategy with Obama and a present vote was part of that plan to stymie GOPers.

courtesy of DU Member BeyondGeography:

"Anyway, the "present" strategy was designed to frustrate Republicans, a goal I'm sure you support. Here's what the head of Illinois Planned Parenthood had to say about it from the same article:

==..."The Republicans were in control of the Illinois Senate at the time. They loved to hold votes on 'partial birth' and 'born alive'. They put these bills out all the time . . . because they wanted to pigeonhole Democrats."

Speaking to ABC News as Obama was preparing to join Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., and the wife of Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., in addressing Planned Parenthood’s national conference in Washington, D.C., Sutherland said Obama approached her in the late 1990s and worked with her and others in crafting the strategy of voting "present." She remembers meeting with Obama outside of the Illinois Senate chambers on the Democratic side of the aisle. She and Obama finished their conversation in his office.

"He came to me and said: 'My members are being attacked. We need to figure out a way to protect members and to protect women,'" said Sutherland in recounting her conversation with Obama. "A 'present' vote was hard to pigeonhole which is exactly what Obama wanted."

"What it did," she continued, "was give cover to moderate Democrats who wanted to vote with us but were afraid to do so" because of how their votes would be used against them electorally. "A 'present' vote would protect them. Your senator voted 'present.' Most of the electorate is not going to know what that means."==

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3788918

So how many IL Democrats followed this strategy of voting present on these politically precarious bills?

[MADem]

1. Absent an ardently held personal belief, EVERY vote that every politician makes is politically

motivated, and its impact is analyzed in the context of career viability, responsiveness to one's own demographic, and the influence of lobbying forces or other influencers.

Sometimes, even ABSENCES are strategic. "Gee, I missed my flight back to DC, DARN!!!" Translation: Phew, I didn't wanna touch that with a ten foot pole.

[Nailzberg]

2. It would be pretty time consuming to pull up hard data.

The way the General Assembly website is set up, you have to pull up each bill and check the votes. And there are about 6000 bills per session. Most of them haven't hit their third reading (where they are actually voted on) and die at the end of the session. So sifting through the records sucks.

There's usually two situations where a present vote is used. First, as you pointed out, is when a bill contains incendiary wording designed to come back at election time.

The second is a kind of protest vote. Sometimes members will vote present when they aren't necessarily against something but they still want to make a point. For instance, a zoning law that seeking to limit where porn shops could be located in relation to schools, playgrounds, residential areas, etc. Your typical "Think of the children" bill. Five members voted present after explaining on the floor they did not feel home rule should be preempted for this zoning matter.

It's not like there are massive present votes, but it's not so uncommon that it draws gasps from the gallery. The upper house has 59 members, and it's not uncommon for 5-8 present votes on a controversial bill. It's also fairly common to have a bill with one present voter, who usually takes the floor during debate and explains their objects to the both sides. And for that you gotta go to another page to find the floor transcripts.