The reps in Florida who voted against should refuse any fema money for their residence. Journalist should be tracking this.
Neither WI nor Maine is North of MN. I hate this map format.
Colorado has 8 congressional districts so 10 total votes. What is that, like, 3 no votes? It’s hard to tell.
Anyway let me guess – Boebert, Lamborn, Buck?
EDIT – it was 2 out of the 10 – Boebert and Buck’s replacement, Lopez. That red slice doesn’t look like 2/10 to me.
Would be interesting to see this disaggregated by party.
Great format and info! However, this data would be even more beautiful if it were colorblind friendly
Everyone sees these bills on face value when there are many hidden things in them for others that have nothing to do with the original bill.
What else was in the bill? In many cases, they aren’t voting against the item in question.
I almost impressed by Florida men who voted for NO for money for Florida men. That is some pro move.
Even more by voters in the state who picked, and will vote for them in the future.
Democrats care about other people. Republicans don’t care about each other. It’s that simple.
Was there anything else in this Bill besides FEMA expansion? Typically bills have many things lumped in there and the only way to disapprove one thing is to reject all of it. Congress does this all the time.
The bill should be written in such a way that a no vote means no money goes to that district.
What was the name/number of the bill?
I say let them get what they want, states who vote no get no fema help and don’t have to pay, enjoy the next hurricane
If only that were the only item in the bill…
Just a quick suggestion for clarity. Instead of “Republicans cast all no votes” which could mislead people into thinking “all Republicans cast no votes.” I would say “all no votes were cast by Republicans.” Thus, clarifying what you mean.
17 comments
Created in Illustrator. Full explanation on original blog post: [https://cognitivefeedbackloop.com/congress-members-oppose-fema-aid-as-hurricanes-barrel-toward-them-0cb9b881312f](https://cognitivefeedbackloop.com/congress-members-oppose-fema-aid-as-hurricanes-barrel-toward-them-0cb9b881312f)
Some information compiled by Newsweek: [https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-voted-against-fema-funding-1963980](https://www.newsweek.com/republicans-voted-against-fema-funding-1963980)
Blue money going to Red states.
The reps in Florida who voted against should refuse any fema money for their residence. Journalist should be tracking this.
Neither WI nor Maine is North of MN. I hate this map format.
Colorado has 8 congressional districts so 10 total votes. What is that, like, 3 no votes? It’s hard to tell.
Anyway let me guess – Boebert, Lamborn, Buck?
EDIT – it was 2 out of the 10 – Boebert and Buck’s replacement, Lopez. That red slice doesn’t look like 2/10 to me.
Would be interesting to see this disaggregated by party.
Great format and info! However, this data would be even more beautiful if it were colorblind friendly
Everyone sees these bills on face value when there are many hidden things in them for others that have nothing to do with the original bill.
What else was in the bill? In many cases, they aren’t voting against the item in question.
I almost impressed by Florida men who voted for NO for money for Florida men. That is some pro move.
Even more by voters in the state who picked, and will vote for them in the future.
Democrats care about other people. Republicans don’t care about each other. It’s that simple.
Was there anything else in this Bill besides FEMA expansion? Typically bills have many things lumped in there and the only way to disapprove one thing is to reject all of it. Congress does this all the time.
The bill should be written in such a way that a no vote means no money goes to that district.
What was the name/number of the bill?
I say let them get what they want, states who vote no get no fema help and don’t have to pay, enjoy the next hurricane
If only that were the only item in the bill…
Just a quick suggestion for clarity. Instead of “Republicans cast all no votes” which could mislead people into thinking “all Republicans cast no votes.” I would say “all no votes were cast by Republicans.” Thus, clarifying what you mean.