With 1,500 indignant calls and e-mails six weeks before Election Day, there was no mystery left for U.S. Rep. Tim Murphy when it came to how to vote on the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 -- the one his constituents called simply The Bailout.

"I've never heard someone get to Congress saying, 'Elect me and I'll make sure we have more mortgage-backed securities to base our economy on,' " the South Hills congressman said yesterday. Moments earlier, Mr. Murphy and 227 other House members -- most of them rank-and-file -- turned back the Bush administration's plea for $700 billion to rescue the credit market.

For Mr. Murphy, a conservative Republican from Upper St. Clair, the breach with his president was far from lonely. To the north, Erie Republican Phil English also cast a "no" vote, as did mid-state Republican Bill Shuster.

Locally, Democrat Jason Altmire, locked in a potentially tight rematch with Republican Melissa Hart, voted against the package.

"This past week I talked to and heard from hundreds of my constituents who are overwhelmingly opposed to the bailout plan. They wonder why Washington is so quick to act to help those on Wall Street, yet nothing is done to help them," Mr. Altmire said before dashing for a plane back to the district.

Democrat Mike Doyle of Forest Hills voted "yes," as did Rep. John P. Murtha, D-Johnstown, one of the delegation's silverbacks and a key player in the House leadership. Neither man is thought to be in a difficult contest.

In fact, of the 205 members who voted "yes," only one, Rep. Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican, faces a notably difficult election challenge.

"The bill is so unpopular -- it's people voting their districts," said Bob Holste, a Pennsylvania political consultant now based in Washington, where he worked Capitol Hill for two decades. "When you're sitting in your office getting 700, 800, 900 calls against this bill, it's not being astro-turfed. It's real people."

Real people, each one holding a real vote in the Nov. 4 vote, when every member of the House is up for re-election, apparently did not like the proposed bailout.

"It's probably in the vicinity of 10-to-1 running opposed to this," Mr. Shuster said two hours after he cast a vote he said left him with a queasy stomach.

"I'm sure it's one of the two or three biggest votes I've ever taken in Congress. It was a very difficult decision because it was so complicated," he said.

The complications of the bill, with its astronomical price tag, underwriting shaky financial instruments so intricate their own sellers didn't fully understand them, appeared also to doom it in the eyes of many from the Pennsylvania delegation.

Rep. Paul Kanjorski, a Democrat from Pennsylvania's northeast and chairman of the subcommittee on capital markets, sent out a two-page memorandum to members called "Explaining the Economic Rescue Plan to Your Constituents."

Blaming the national news media for focusing on "the political gamesmanship" in the negotiations, Mr. Kanjorski said members were "all inundated with furious phone calls and e-mails from constituents who do not want to 'bail out Wall Street fat cats.' "

Mr. Kanjorski urged members to stress the bill's calls for oversight, limits on compensation for executives of firms that would benefit. Without the bailout, he wrote, "paychecks could be held up, jobs could be lost and even the simple withdrawal of money from ATMs could come to a halt."

That sort of language did not readily move members.

"I'm not saying this isn't something we need to take care of," said Mr. Shuster, the Bedford Republican. "But they told us that a week ago and the sky still hasn't fallen."

Mr. Murtha, the delegation leader who supported the bill, scheduled a news conference for today but issued a brief statement explaining his vote.

"This is not a perfect bill, but failure to act will have global economic ramifications and freeze our credit markets here at home," Mr. Murtha said. "This will prevent Americans from obtaining loans for new homes, new cars, higher education, startup businesses or meeting their payrolls."

Yet for members like Mr. Murphy, the idea of federal investment in securities already deemed unmarketable made little sense without a series of market reforms written into the text, including punishment for Wall Street executives who gambled recklessly and protection for individual investors.

"It's shoring up the system of paper investments. We have not had an opportunity to vote on some of the fundamental things that affect our economy, such as energy," Mr. Murphy said.

With changes in the text, Mr. Murphy said he could see himself supporting the bill, as could Mr. Shuster, who wants changes that he said currently underwrite European firms who invested in the market without passing any of the cost on to their countries.

"I want to see more money from Wall Street. I want to see more money coming in from the private sector," Mr. Shuster said.

The Altmire and Murphy votes against the bill -- a study in bipartisan rejection of the party leaders who crafted the bailout -- was met with a similar bipartisan tone from their election opponents.

Ms. Hart, the Republican unseated by Mr. Altmire two years ago, said she also opposed the bill.

"They just keep throwing taxpayers' money at this thing," she said. "We've seen a number of these large entities be purchased by other large organizations. Rushing in to spend $700 billion of the taxpayers' money is the wrong decision."

Steve O'Donnell, a Democrat who wants to oust Mr. Murphy from the 18th Congressional District, held a similar view.

"I think I probably would have voted against it unless I was absolutely convinced that this was the best deal that could be gotten," Mr. O'Donnell said, "and I don't think this was the best deal that could be gotten."