I think an analysis of congressional motives and their alternatives points to the Obama health care bill being passed. If they vote for the bill many congressmen will be voted out of office. But these congressmen can be somewhat accepting of the job loss since they will just go into the lobbying industry and make a fortune from their connections. Also they will escape the congressional seat that is becoming a real hassle now that citizens want them to listen and vote according to the expressed needs of the citizens.
But what encouragement do congressmen have for voting against the bill? I’m beginning to think they don’t have much motivation toward a no vote. If my congressman votes against the bill that doesn’t mean that I will vote for him in 2010. Since he continues to refuse to read legislation, I will probably vote against him just in the interest of good government. So if a Blue Dog votes against his party’s president’s pet piece of legislation he has no kind of guarantee in the present fluid situation that he can count on reelection. But if he is voted out of office things could go badly for him if had voted against the bill. He’s a Democrat and most of his contacts that he could trade on for a big salary lobbying job are Democrats. But after he has voted against the bill many of these valuable contacts might not return his calls. And he’ll be consigned to just another job in normal people world: and that’s very depressing. So if this Blue Dog is worried about reelection it might be financially better for him if he votes in favor of the bill.
So an analysis of observed motivations of congressmen and a simple decision tree point to votes more in favor of the health care bill. I am convinced that voter input is only a minor motivator to members of congress since the financial incentives are not affected by voter satisfaction with a member.