These are not partisan positions. They are measurable, sourced, and applied equally regardless of party.
We use the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Lifetime Score, a 0 to 100 rating based on a member's complete voting history on environmental legislation.
The LCV has tracked Congressional votes on clean air, clean water, climate, and public lands since 1970. Their methodology is publicly available and covers every member of Congress without party distinction.
A score of 100 means every environmental vote cast was in favor of conservation. A score of 0 means every vote went against it.
We display the score. You decide what it means.
War costs lives and money. We track how members voted on key military authorization and war powers resolutions: moments when Congress had the opportunity to assert civilian oversight of military action.
We score members on the following votes:
Each pro-diplomacy vote = 1 point. Maximum score: 3/3
We do not score members on whether a war was right or wrong. We score whether they voted to maintain Congressional oversight of military action, a constitutional responsibility regardless of party.
Fiscal responsibility means funding government commitments, avoiding manufactured crises, and resisting pressure to blow up the deficit for political gain. We track key budget and appropriations votes where members had a clear choice between responsible governance and brinksmanship.
We score members on the following votes:
Score: X/4 fiscally responsible votes. Green = 3–4, Amber = 2, Red = 0–1
This metric applies to House members on budget and appropriations committees: Ways & Means, Budget, Appropriations, and Armed Services.
The most basic test of any lawmaker is whether they apply to themselves the same rules they impose on others. We track votes on legislation designed to make Congress more transparent and accountable, from stock trading restrictions to ethics enforcement.
We score members on the following votes:
Score: X/3 transparency votes. Green = 2–3, Amber = 1, Red = 0
This metric applies to members on Judiciary and Oversight committees: House Judiciary (HSJU), House Oversight & Government Reform (HSGO), and Senate Judiciary (SSJU). Senate members always show Transparency; it is a baseline expectation of Senate oversight responsibility.
Government exists to serve its citizens. We track votes on legislation that directly affects the health, economic security, and basic welfare of ordinary Americans.
We score members on the following votes:
Each pro-people vote = 1 point. Maximum score: 4/4
These votes are on public record. We apply the same criteria to every member regardless of party. A Republican who voted for infrastructure scores the same as a Democrat who did.
The most basic job requirement is being present. We track the percentage of all votes cast during the current term. Missing votes means constituents go unrepresented, regardless of the reason.
This covers the current term only, not a lifetime career. A member who has served for 30 years but missed 40% of votes this term scores the same as a first-term member who missed 40% of votes.
Attendance thresholds: 95%+ is Excellent, 85–94% is Good, 70–84% is Poor, under 70% is Failing.
This metric applies to every member of Congress regardless of chamber, committee, or party.
Rigid partisan voting is a symptom of a broken legislature. We track what percentage of a member's total tracked votes were cast against their own party: moments when they broke ranks to represent their constituents or their conscience rather than their caucus.
This is not about being moderate. It is about being independent enough to occasionally disagree.
This metric applies to House members only. Senate members show Transparency as their 5th metric, a role-based distinction reflecting the Senate's oversight and confirmation responsibilities.
Members with fewer than 2 tracked partisan votes show "No voting record."
For every incumbent's race, we also show declared challengers who have filed with the Federal Election Commission for the current election cycle. These candidates have no Congressional voting record yet — they haven't had the opportunity to vote on the issues we track.
Where we lack data, we say so. Categories marked "Research Opportunity" mean exactly that: we don't know yet, and neither do you unless you look into it. We encourage voters to research these candidates directly — campaign websites, public statements, and prior public service records (state legislature, city council, etc.) are good places to start.
We do not estimate, infer, or fabricate positions for any candidate. If we don't have a number, we tell you we don't have a number.
Too Damn Old exists because age alone is not enough. An 85-year-old who has spent decades fighting for clean water and affordable healthcare is not the same as an 85-year-old who has spent decades blocking both.
We believe the age crisis in American leadership is inseparable from a values crisis. Leaders who are disconnected from the realities of modern life tend to vote that way.
The Human Decency scores are not a partisan filter. They are a transparency tool. We show you the record. We name the sources. We invite you to disagree with our methodology, and we publish that methodology in full so you can.
If you believe we have scored a vote incorrectly or omitted an important vote, contact us: hello@toodamnold.com
We will review it and update the rubric if warranted.