Present, and Accounted For

Rep. Weir's post makes two factual claims: perfect attendance, and voting with the majority 77 percent of the time. Both are offered as evidence that he is doing the work and that the parties mostly agree. We pulled the complete public roll-call record for the 2025–2026 term, all 650 recorded House votes, and checked. The claims are essentially true. What they measure is the question.

Showing up is the job¶

The attendance claim is verified, and to his credit. It is also not rare.

Across the entire two-year term, all 650 recorded floor votes, Rep. Weir was never absent. The record confirms it, and it deserves to be said plainly: that is diligence, and it is real.

It is also shared.

Thirty-seven members served the entire term without missing a single recorded vote, including Speaker Matt Ritter and Rep. Tim Ackert, whose district borders ours. Eight more missed exactly one: Rep. Case's entire attendance shortfall over two years, for instance, is a single roll call that passed 140 to 0. All told, forty-five members, nearly a third of the House, missed at most one vote, and the median member missed just nine of 650.

And the gap between perfect and nearly perfect never had a chance to matter. The closest roll call of the entire term was decided by six votes. Not one of the 650 was close enough for any single member's absence to change the outcome. Perfect attendance is what much of the House delivers as a matter of course. It is the baseline of the job, not a distinction, and no one sends a mailer about the other thirty-six.

Most votes are unanimous¶

The 77 percent is built almost entirely out of votes with nothing at stake.

To understand what "voting with the majority 77 percent of the time" measures, you have to know what most House votes look like. They are not close.

This session, 196 of the 269 recorded votes were lopsided, with nine in ten members or more on the same side. Nearly half the term's votes were literally unanimous. Everyone votes with the majority on those, because there is no disagreement to be had, and Rep. Weir did too, 98 percent of the time.

That is where the 77 percent comes from. Agreement on the votes where everyone agrees is not a record of common ground. It is a pulse. The typical member of this House, counting every vote the same way Rep. Weir's post does, lands near 98 percent. Which makes 77 a number that invites a different question: not how high it is, but why it is so low.

Even the consensus votes carry a signal, though. Across the term's 435 lopsided roll calls, the median member of the House landed on the tiny-minority side of one. Once, in two years. Rep. Weir landed there twenty-three times, the eighth most of any of the chamber's 151 members. These are the votes where he was the lone no, or one of a handful, against nearly everyone. Even where his post's arithmetic is strongest, the record is telling the same story: the statistics describe the chamber far better than they describe him.

The votes that divide the House¶

On the votes where the chamber actually split, the picture inverts.

Set aside the lopsided votes and look only at the ones where the House genuinely divided, the 73 roll calls this session where the losing side held at least ten percent of the chamber. These are the votes where a member's choice tells you something.

Some of this is simply what it means to be in the minority party: when the House splits along party lines, Republicans lose, and every Republican's number is pulled down. That is fair, and it is exactly why the caucus comparison matters. The typical House Republican still ended up with the majority on about one divided vote in five, because a meaningful share of contested bills pass with Republican support. Rep. Weir ended up there roughly one time in eight. On the votes that separate the members from one another, he separates further than most of his own party.

Where 77 percent actually ranks¶

Almost no one who served in the House this term voted with the majority less often.

Three seats changed hands during the term, so 154 people in all cast House votes across its 650 roll calls. His post's 77 percent covers this session; measured the same way on this session's 269 recorded roll calls, the figure is 74.7 percent, and over the full two-year term it is 67.7 percent, since the 2025 long session carried far more of the contested legislation. On the full term, Rep. Weir voted with the majority 67.7 percent of the time, placing him 8th from the bottom of all 154. The chamber median was 97.8 percent. His own caucus's median was 72.6 percent, and within the Republican caucus he ranks 8th from the bottom as well.

The seven members below him are Reps. Dauphinais, Mastrofrancesco, Fishbein, Piscopo, Pavalock-D'Amato, Reddington-Hughes, and Veach. Readers who follow the General Assembly will recognize the company: it is, by common description, the most conservative bloc in the House. The number Rep. Weir offers as evidence of broad agreement is, read against his colleagues, one of the strongest markers of the opposite.

A second yardstick says the same thing¶

A standard political-science measure, built independently of this one, puts him in the same place.

None of the above depends on anyone's opinion of any particular vote. But neither does the other standard way of reading a legislative record. W-NOMINATE, the spatial method political scientists use to place legislators on a left-right scale from their votes alone, was applied to this same roll-call record in a separate analysis on this site.

By that measure Rep. Weir sits inside the most conservative seven percent of the chamber, more conservative than his own caucus leader, while representing a district that leans Democratic by roughly nine points in statewide and federal voting. Two independent methods, one counting majorities and one mapping ideology, place him in the same corner of the House. That is not a coincidence. It is the same record, read twice.

Voting is choosing¶

A rationale is interesting. The vote is the decision.

A fair response to all of this, and one his supporters make sincerely, is that every no vote has a reason: an objectionable amendment, a flawed provision, a cost buried in an otherwise good bill. That is true, and it is true for every member of the House. Nearly every bill is a package, and every member weighs the parts they dislike against the parts they support before voting on the whole.

That weighing is not a technicality that explains a vote away. It is the vote. When a representative concludes that his objection to one provision outweighs everything else a bill does, he has told us exactly how he ranks the district's competing interests, and the vote binds everyone affected by every provision, not just the one he objected to. The roll call is the public record of those choices, published precisely so that constituents do not need a private phone call to know where their representative stands.

Rep. Weir shows up for every one of those choices. The record of what he chooses is the part the post leaves out.

About the numbers. "Voting with the majority" here means casting the same vote as the prevailing side of the roll call, counted over the votes a member actually cast. Rankings count all 154 people who served at any point in the term; the seven members below Rep. Weir all served the full term, and every partial-term member ranks above him, so the count does not depend on how mid-term arrivals and departures are treated. "Divided" votes are those where the losing side held at least ten percent of votes cast; the conclusions are unchanged at a five- or twenty-percent threshold. Rep. Weir's post counts 316 votes this session where the public roll-call matrix used here records 269; his figure may count items beyond the recorded floor roll calls. Nothing turns on the difference: his perfect attendance holds across every vote in the record, and we quote his 77 percent figure as he gave it. On the matrix's 269 votes, the comparable figure is 74.7 percent; ranked on this session alone he places 16th from the bottom of 151, so the neighborhood of his ranking does not depend on the window. Vote margins are counted from the same matrix; the closest roll call of the term was decided by six votes, so no single member's absence could have changed any outcome. The consensus-vote comparison counts, for each member, the lopsided roll calls on which that member voted opposite the ninety-percent-or-more side, over the votes they cast.