The new web design is very confusing when it comes to counting votes for the DREAM Act.
I think the old design is better. Or, at least, the Advocacy page needs some editing.
It's difficult to figure out how many "Yea"s, "Nay"s, "Unclear"s and "On the Fence"s are in the Senate or the House. I had to count "Yea"s in the Senate, for example. If I remember correctly, the old design showed how many votes there were for each category. Or, it showed at least how many possible "yea"s and "nay"s there are in the Senate.
And, shouldn't we be counting votes for an immigration reform bill?
I know this site is for the DREAM Act and people who will vote for the DREAM Act are likely to vote for an immigration reform as well. However, some people voted for the DREAM Act but didn't vote for the previous immigration bills while some voted against the DREAM Act but for the previous immigration bills. And, everyone knows that the DREAM Act has no chance as a stand-alone at least in 2010.
Although we should wait for an immigration bill to be introduced in the Senate, I think there should be a separate page for counting votes for an immigration reform bill. For example, Lindsey Graham would be a definite "yea" for his and Senator Schumer's immigration bill although he voted against the DREAM Act in 2007.
It was a conscious decision in order to signify that both chambers are equally important to research. Legislation does not have to start in the senate and it often doesn't (health care anyone? or the awful HR. 4437? etc.) Generally people find it more manageable to focus on the senate since its just 100 members and one person can grasp that much in their mind. In effect, however, no work would be done on the House. That would be a huge mistake in my book.
Having said that, I do want to add a live co-sponsor count in separate chambers on the today page at http://dreamact.info/today so we don't have to search on LOC every other day.
Per your suggestion (and those of others) I will also add either a separate page or visual ques to break-down the research done by members into separate chambers, but it won't be center stage as I explained above.
Re: CIR count:
Our focus has always been and always will be DREAM Act as a practical path to CIR. In my opinion the DREAM Act has a better chance in 2010 than CIR. I don't buy it for a minute that the majority would act on major immigration reform on the verge of midterm elections. Of course they say they will, they say a lot of things. DREAM Act on the other hand is a "down payment" on comprehensive reform and is starting to get backing as such from CIR groups (see MALDEF) -- that might make sense on the verge of a midterm election. The DREAM Act hit the senate floor in 2007 as a stand alone and it had a very good chance; that much hasn't changed.
I'm all for being optimistic, but it's just not smart to change our thinking for convenience or comfort. In Fall 2008 it was accepted as truth that, and I'm paraphrasing many news outlets, "our best chance for immigration reform is in 2009, 2010 is unlikely due to midterm elections". If anything, the weak vote on health care made CIR even less likely. Introduction of CIR ASAP is irrelevant, since they could have put space-shooting-laser-monkeys in there and no one would care since there is simply no time for the bill to go anywhere. Aside from these two events I see nothing that should change how we felt about prospects of CIR in 2010 back in 2008 -- not likely.
Which brings me back to DREAM. The majority failed to deliver on their Fall 2009 promise. DREAM Act means progress in 2010. DREAM Act is our focus and will stay our focus.