> That doesn't mean that only 220 people would have been been willing to support the bill; just that the winning party didn't need to waste any resources whipping another ten votes in excess of what was needed to secure a victory.
If they had votes to spare, they'd make the bill worse and lose those votes. Contentious bills have close vote totals because they do as much damage as possible while still passing.
Contentious bills have close vote totals because they do as much damage as possible while still passing.
I think it often works the other way in practice. To secure votes on contentious bills they have to slip in riders (ie pork) to secure specific votes. Therefore the fact that it is contentious means that they have to make it worse.
This would only be the case if policy were linear, which it isn't.
ACA is a good example of this. I forget what the exact count when it passed in the House in March 2010 was, but Pelosi had several "backup" votes to spare. Kucinich, for example, voted against the bill in protest, but if they had known that the bill had less support, she could have counted on his vote towards passage.
Whipping votes takes resources - you don't want to use up any more favors than you have to, because that means one less favor you can call on for the next bill. It's better to call in exactly as many favors as you need to guarantee passage, and then let the rest slide so you can maintain leverage against them next time.
If they had votes to spare, they'd make the bill worse and lose those votes. Contentious bills have close vote totals because they do as much damage as possible while still passing.