because voter opinion is actually having an effect.

Members of congress are reporting a deluge of calls, emails and faxes condemning the Trillion Dollar Giveaway (I refuse to call it a “bailout” because it isn’t; it’s a giveaway). The result was defeat in the House on Monday, and the direct effect of those voter contacts can be traced to a specific cohort of House members.

Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com helpfully pulled together the names of representatives who are in close races, people who are most acutely tuned to the will of the people. Relying on “lean” or “tossup” risk status assessments from Swing State Project, he cites a total of 38 vulnerable reps; 20 Republicans and 18 Democrats. Of those 38, 17 Republicans and 13 Democrats voted “Nay” while only 3 Republicans and 5 Democrats voted “Aye.” This 30 to 8 rejection compares to a near-even split, 197 Aye and 198 Nay, among members whose seats are considered “safe.”

As several have commented, this seems like a clear difference. But “seems like” can get you in trouble; let’s put it to a statistical test and see what we really have. The data here are binary, either/or; Voted “Aye” or “Nay”, the seat is at risk or it is not. The simplest way to analyze binary data of this sort is through the use of what is called a Contingency Table and probability analysis using a very simple but very powerful analytical tool called Chi-Square.

Essentially, the method compares the distribution of this data to an idealized "normal" distribution and calculates the odds that the distribution of interest could have occurred at random. That probability is expressed as a “p” value, and the smaller it is the less likely that things happened by chance. Most people, for most examinations, consider p less than 0.05 to be “significant”, that is, the chance of the event happening randomly is so small that it is considered all but impossible.

Here’s how the Contingency Table looks, and the analytical result:

This low p value means we can conclude, with a very high degree of confidence, that the chances of the distribution happening by random chance are one in a thousand. Putting pressure on politicians works, at least with those who are at risk of losing their office.

An even more definitive comparison can be made with a group of representatives who have little or nothing to fear from voters; those who are retiring from the House and not running for any other office. In this vote there were 26 who fit that description, most of them Republicans. In sharp contrast to those who needed the good will of voters, 23 of the retirees voted “Yea” while only 2 voted “Nay” and 1 abstained.

In comparison with the at-risk group the p value is less than 0.0001, or less than one in ten thousand chance of random occurrence. Those who were most likely to need immediate voter approval opposed a Trillion Dollar Giveaway; those who didn’t need to care what voters think decided to take taxpayer money and use it to make sure that very rich people stay very rich.

While some members of congress may be more susceptible to voter opinion than others, we can’t know exactly where those limits are. It is critically important to keep the pressure up on all of them. Contact your senators, your representative and those who represent districts near you, and the leadership of both parties; every voice counts, please add yours to the tally. You never know who will take the time to listen.

Take, for instance, my Senator Diane Feinstein; Please. She and I don’t agree on a great many things, but in this case she is spot on. (Full disclosure: I quite like DiFi as a person; she’s very kind, very caring and completely genuine. While we disagree on several political matters, I don’t dislike her.) Feinstein has been associated with pro-business positions, and yes FISA FISA FISA. I would have expected her to follow the Village line on this Giveaway and am pleasantly surprised to find that, at least for the moment, she is a great deal more, ah, fiery about it than any Progressive would dare to be.

Yesterday evening I got a very nicely phrased staff-generated email from Feinstein’s office, subject specific to the Giveaway, as a reply to my several emails and phone calls. The memo directed attention to speech Feinstein gave on the topic – empty floor, to be sure, but on the record – with some pretty tasty commentary:

Dear Mr. XXXXXXXXX:

Thank you for your letter expressing concern about Congress' consideration of a plan to meet our Nation's credit crisis with financial help from the Federal Government. This is a difficult situation for which there are no perfect solutions, and I would like to share my thoughts and concerns about this issue with you.

-snip-

Since this announcement, my offices have received thousands of comments from Californians like you concerned about how this action will affect them. Yet, I believe prudent action must be taken. The bill should include the following principles: a phase-in of funding; oversight, accountability and transparency; a mechanism allowing the Secretary of the Treasury to modify mortgages to prevent additional foreclosures; and a precise cap on executive compensation.

-snip-

Attached please find a statement I recently made on the floor of the Senate expressing my feelings on this issue. Please know that I will keep your thoughts in mind as this situation unfolds.

So let’s do that; here are excerpts from that speech:

Mr. President, to date I have received from Californians more than 50,000 calls and letters, the great bulk of them in opposition to any form of meeting this crisis with financial help from the Federal Government. I wanted to come to the floor to very simply state how I see this and some of the principles that I hope will be forthcoming in this draft.

-snip-

Congress is faced with a situation where we have to act and we have to do two things. We have to provide some reform in the system of regulation and oversight that is supposed to protect our economy. We also have to find a permanent and effective solution to keep liquidity and credit functioning so that markets can recover and make profit. The situation, I believe, is grave, and timely, prudent action is needed.

-snip-

Nobody likes the idea of spending massive sums of Government money to rescue major corporations from their bad financial decisions. But no one also should be fooled into thinking this problem only belongs to the banks and that it is a good idea to let them fail.

-snip-

The turbulence in our financial sector has already resulted in thousands of layoffs in the banking and finance sectors, and that number will skyrocket if there is a full collapse. The shock waves of failure will extend far beyond the banking and finance sectors. A shrinking pool of credit would affect the home loans, credit card limits, auto loans, and insurance policies of average Americans.

-snip-

Our Nation is facing the highest unemployment rate in 5 years, at 6.1 percent. Over 605,000 jobs have been lost nationwide this year. My own State of California, a state of 38 million people, has the third highest unemployment rate in the Nation at 7.7 percent. That is 1.4 million people out of work today. One and a half million people -- that is bigger than some States. We have 1.5 million people out of work, and one-half million have had their unemployment insurance expire and have nothing today.

-snip-

I would like to outline quickly those principles that I think are important. First is a phase-in. No one wants to put $700 billion immediately at the discretion of one person…funding should come in phases and Congress should have the opportunity to make its voice heard if the program isn't working or needs to be adjusted.

The second point: Oversight, accountability, and governance. The Treasury Secretary should not and must not have unbridled authority to determine winners and losers, essentially choosing which struggling financial institution will survive and which will not…We must assure that controls are in place to watch taxpayer dollars and make sure they are well-spent fixing the problem…and that they give the best opportunity for the American people to recover their investment and, yes, even eventually make a profit from that investment. That can be done and it has been done in the past.

I believe that frequent reporting to Congress is critical. Transparency, sunlight on this, is critical. So Congress should receive regular, timely briefings, perhaps weekly for the first quarter, on a program of this magnitude.

-snip-

Taxpayer money must be shielded at all costs from risk to the greatest extent possible….So a model…must be developed to ensure the taxpayers are not only the first paid back but have an opportunity to share in future profits through warrants and/or stocks.

As to executive compensation limits, simply put, Californians are frosted by the absence of controls on executive compensation. Virtually all of the 50,000 phone calls and letters mentioned this one way or another. There must be limits. I am told that the reason the Treasury Secretary does not want limits on executive compensation is because he believes that an executive then will not bring his company in to partake in any program that is set up. Here is my response to that: We can put that executive on his boat, take that boat out in the ocean, and set it on fire.

-snip-

Finally, as to tangible benefits for Main Street in the form of mortgage relief, there have been more than 500,000 foreclosures in my home State of California so far this year. In the second quarter of this year, foreclosures were up 300 percent over the second quarter of 2007. More than 800,000 are predicted before this year is over.

I have a city in California where one out of every 25 homes is in foreclosure. This is new housing in subdivisions. As you look at it, you will see garage doors kicked in. You will see houses vandalized. You will see the grass and grounds dry. You will see the street sprinkled with "For Sale" signs, and nobody buys because the market has become so depressed.

This crisis has roots in the subprime housing boom that went bust, and it would be unconscionable for us to simply bailout Wall Street while leaving these homeowners to fend for themselves.

Everything I have been told, and I have talked to people in this business, here is what they tell me: It is more cost-effective to renegotiate a subprime loan and keep a family in a house than it is to foreclose and run the risks of what happens to that home on a depressed market as credit is drying up, as vandals loot it, as landscaping dries up, as more homes in the area become foreclosed upon; the way to go is to renegotiate these mortgages with the exiting homeowner wherever possible…That is better than foreclosing and running the uncertainty of the sale of the asset in a very depressed housing market.

Tighter regulatory oversight, equity participation for taxpayer benefit, at-risk mortgage adjustment, and putting to the torch punishing uncooperative financial executives; not a bad plan, and from one of the Senate’s staunchest centrists.

A word of caution; Diane Feinstein is a bit of a flirt and she has led many of us down the garden path, more than once before. I am, however, hopeful that she will stand firm on these principles and that she can persuade others to stand with her. I have written to ask her to stay strong and to especially try to recruit her close friend and ally, Hillary Clinton, to join her. Please contact your representatives too.