Page 32 - CodeWatcher Spring 2017 Issue

Code Trends

The Power of the

Paper Lobby

Do voting guides affect vote totals?

BY MIKE COLLIGNON
I F YOU’VE EVER BEEN INVOLVED with code devel- code hearings, we wanted to see if there was any discernible

Because voting guides have become so commonplace at
opment at the national level, you’ve come across at
increase in the number of votes cast on the most commonly
least one voting guide. For those outside that small
highlighted code change proposals.
universe of people, you might be wondering: What
are voting guides? Who publishes them? Do they
To do this, we looked at the voting guides for the four
have any effect on voting?
A voting guide is a document that attempts to
voting totals for code change proposals where three or more
organizations advocated for or against the same proposal.
persuade governmental voting members. In essence, it’s a previously mentioned groups. We then looked at the ICC
form of paper lobbying. The guide conveys an organization’s There were eight such proposals. Finally, we compared the
stance on a particular code change proposal, or in some vote totals for the eight common proposals to the median
cases, a large number of proposals. vote total of 292. The results are in the table below:
Guides can vary in length, from one page to a small book.
They are usually color-coded, with red indicating a desire to Proposal RE58 RE100 RE134 RE135 RE156 RE166 RE173 RE179
oppose a particular measure. Yellow can indicate neutrality, Vote 449 369 489 378 425 388 423 444
Total
and green typically represents approval or support. Such Distance
colors, or simple Yes/No declarations, can be accompanied from +157 +77 +197 +86 +133 +96 +131 152
by a short rationale. Median
The ICC does not allow these publications to be distributed We also compared the vote totals for the eight common
at voters’ seats, but they do allow these materials to be placed proposals to the mean vote total of 308 (307.9765, to be exact).
on tables in the back of the large room where voting takes The results are in the following table:
place. Voting members are free to take any and all voting Proposal RE58 RE100 RE134 RE135 RE156 RE166 RE173 RE179
guides of their choosing.
Special interest groups, including the Natural Resources Vote 449 369 489 378 425 388 423 444
Total
Defense Council, National Association of Home Builders, Distance
American Wood Council/American Plywood Association and from +141 +77 +181 +70 +117 +80 +115 +136
the Energy Efficient Codes Coalition, published voting guides Mean
for the 2018 Group B public comment hearings in October Finally, of the 85 IECC-R code change proposals, all
2016. This round of code hearings included the IECC-R, eight proposals examined above fall in the top 15 highest
which will be examined in greater detail below. vote totals. RE134, RE58, and RE179 were the three IECC-R
The creation of voting guides is a substantial undertaking, proposals with the most votes cast.
with organizations dedicating a significant amount of time to The evidence above shows that voting guides have a clear
the effort. Some allocate hours and even days of staff time, while effect on vote totals. CW
others assemble a committee of volunteers to pore over the code
change proposals that most directly affect their constituencies. Mike Collignon is the executive director of the Green Builder Coalition.

Author’s Note: We want to be clear that the above analysis does not attempt to determine the effect of voting guides on voting outcomes. That would
require more extensive research, including the surveying of governmental voting members and individual ballot analysis. The ICC protects its members’
privacy, as it should, so that research is not possible without a sizable number of governmental voting members willfully or publicly sharing their ballots.

32 CodeWatcher / Spring 2017 www.codewatcher.us