University of Virginia Library

Election '72

Using Phony Vote Figures

Since this column follows
the one favoring Senator Spong
by a couple of days, it is
sometimes tempting to use it as
a chance to respond to the
remarks that were made there.
Such an approach would
undoubtedly produce some
interesting political fireworks,
but probably not add much to
the level of political dialogue.
Nor would it serve to inform
anyone about the Scott
candidacy.

So generally, this
Wednesday article tries to
remain independent of what
appeared on Monday. Today,
must be an exception to that
rule, however, because the
most recent piece supporting
Senator Spong is so replete
with internal contradictions
and half-truths that some
answer must be made.

The half-truth was the claim
that Spong has voted with
Harry Byrd 78% of the time
and thereby–presumably–shown
himself to be
a bona-fide conservative
worthy of the support of all
loyal Virginians. The attempt
by the once supposedly
crusading Tidewater liberal to
pass himself off as a soul
brother of the distinguished
conservative from Winchester is
astounding in itself and may
give some indication of the
currently desperate state of the
Spong candidacy.

But what's worse is that it's
done by the use of phony
figures. Phony because they are
apparently based on total votes
cast. Now, a lot of the things
the U.S. Senate votes on are
not very important politically.
They undoubtedly vote to
establish National Pickle Week
and to commend the mothers
of America for their fine work.
Pickles and Motherhood are
two areas where Spong and
Byrd–as well as
Scott–probably do agree. And
by summing such unimportant
votes together it is possible to
claim that Spong's record is
only 22% different from
Byrd's.

It's the 22% of the votes
that do matter with which the
voters should be concerned.
And only the most naive are
going to accept the raw 78%
figure as proving Spong to be a
Virginia conservative.

Let's take one vote where
Spong split with Byrd, Scott
and the rest of the Virginia
Congressional delegation, and
see just who voted for what.
The "hospital and education"
bill that went to the President
this year was a typical piece of
election-year pork-barreling. It
appropriated millions of
dollars, provided no source of
money to cover the costs and
would have built many flashy,
unneeded hospitals together
with insuring continued federal
deficits and runaway
inflation.

The President rightly vetoes
it. He was fed up with the old
"Spend, Spend, Spend, Elect,
Elect, Elect" syndrome and