---
>HR1501 | 97 | 189 |
>---
>HR10 | 116 | 12 |
>---
>HR1714 | 215 | 144 |
>---
>total | 756 | 676 |
>---
>votes | 1523| 1430|
>---
>
> Again, it is entirely possible that my information is incorrect. I
> do recommend that you do the research yourself, as relying too much on
> these numbers means relying on numbers collected by a media source and in
> turn sorted and re-calculated by some punk-ass on the cypherpunks mailing list.
>
> To the best of my knowledge, however, this looks right. What alarms
> me is that though there is a slight difference in the overall score
> between Republicans and Democrats, neither party has a very strong
> leaning one way or the other, which illustrates the frustrations that a
> two-party system creates for those of us who would like to see a strong
> stance (either way) on the issue of government regulation of technology.
> I anxiously await any speculation that might take place on this list
> regarding how Libertarian representatives might have voted had they been
> in there, but the fact is that we live in a two-party system for the time
> being, and if we feel strongly about these issues, we need to accept that
> our representation may not be hearing us. Is it because we aren't
> speaking loudly enough on these issues?
>
>ok,
>Rush Carskadden
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Declan McCullagh [<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2000 11:15 AM
>To: Cypherpunks Mailing List
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Wired News tech scorecard for U.S. House of Representatives
>
>At Wired News, we've compiled a list of the technology voting records of
>each member of the U.S. House of Representatives.
>
>That meant picking seven tech bills and grading all 435 legislators -- at
>least the ones who showed up those days -- on their floor votes. If they
>chose to take a hands-off approach, they got a "1", while regulatory votes
>got a "0." (If you disagree with us, flip the scale around.)
>
>Here's the list sorted by last name (scoll down to find your legislator):
>
><http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39637,00.html
>
>
>Sorted by score, with the two California reps with 100 percent at the top:
>
><http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/print/0,1294,39636,00.html
>
>
>
>And a summary of the results, with some methodology:
>
><http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.html>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39625,00.html
>
>
>
>Some interesting results: Purported privacy advocates like Democrat Ed
>Markey didn't score well, getting a 33% of 100%, in part because of his
>opposition to financial privacy legislation. Republican Bob Goodlatte,
>Internet caucus co-chair, got just 43% because of his support for speech
>and gambling restrictions.
>
>-Declan
>
>
>The floor votes scored:
>
>HR2031: A vote to restrict online sales of alcohol. (No is 1)
>HR3615: A vote to create a new federal agency to spend $1.25 billion on
>rural TV service. (No is 1)
>HR3709: A vote to extend a temporary federal ban on Internet taxes. (Yes
>is 1)
>HR3125: A vote to prohibit Internet gambling. (No is 1)
>HR1501: A vote on an amendment to restrict the sale of violent material
>such as videogames to anyone under the age of 18. (No is 1)
>HR10: A vote on an amendment to protect financial privacy by restricting
>government monitoring of bank accounts. (Yes is 1)
>HR1714: A vote to allow the use of electronic signatures. (Yes is 1)
