/
Cosponsorship Data Cosponsorship Data

Cosponsorship Data - PowerPoint Presentation

calandra-battersby
calandra-battersby . @calandra-battersby
Follow
366 views
Uploaded On 2016-05-22

Cosponsorship Data - PPT Presentation

280000 bills proposed in the US House and Senate from 1973 to 2004 93rd108th Congresses recorded in Thomas over 21 million cosponsorship signatures partitioned by chamber and Congress to create 32 separate cosponsorship networks ID: 330298

senate house 108th cosponsorship house senate cosponsorship 108th legislators number legislator modularity connectedness matrix votes ties legislative books polarization

Share:

Link:

Embed:

Download Presentation from below link

Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Cosponsorship Data" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.


Presentation Transcript

Slide1

Cosponsorship Data

280,000

bills

proposed in the U.S. House and Senate from 1973 to 2004 (93rd-108th Congresses) recorded in Thomas

over 2.1 million cosponsorship signatures

partitioned by chamber and Congress to create 32 separate cosponsorship networks

http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/cosponsorship.htm

Slide2

Cosponsorship in the HouseSlide3

Cosponsorship in the SenateSlide4

Mutual Cosponsorship RelationsSlide5

Connectedness: An Alternative Measure

Traditional measures of centrality generate plausible names

None takes advantage of information about the

strength

of social relationships

Total number of cosponsors on each bill

Legislators recruit first those legislators to whom they are most closely connected.

More cosponsors = lower probability of direct connection

Bills with fewer total cosponsors more reliable

Strength of the connection between

i and j = 1/cijTotal number of bills sponsored by j and cosponsored by iMore bills in common = stronger relationshipWeighted cosponsorship distance Slide6

Weighted cosponsorship distanceSlide7

Legislative connectedness

Suppose

direct

distance from legislator

j

to legislator

i

is simple inverse of the cosponsorship weight

Then use Dijkstra’s algorithm (Cormen et al. 2001)

Starting with legislator

j, identify from a list of all other legislators the closest legislator iReplace each of the distances with Remove legislator i from the list and repeat until there are no more legislators on the list. Connectedness is the inverse of the average of these distances from all other legislators to legislator j.Slide8

Results for the HouseSlide9

Results for the SenateSlide10

Quality of Strongest Weighted Relationships

Institutional Ties

House committee chairs and ranking members

Senate majority and minority leaders

Regional Ties

From the same state

In the House they are often from contiguous districts

Issue Ties

Rep. Jim DeMint and Sue Myrick -- Republican Study Committee

Sen. George Mitchell and Jim Sasser -- Federal Housing Reform

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson and Sam Brownback -- marriage penalty relief and bankruptcy reformPersonal TiesSenator John McCain chaired Senator Phil Gramm’s 1996 Presidential campaignMcCain has told the media that they have been friends since 1982 when they served together in the House (McGrory 1995)Slide11

108th House Top 20Slide12

108th Senate Top 20Slide13

External Validity: Legislative Influence

Widely used measure of legislative influence is number of successful floor amendments

Hall 1992; Sinclair 1989; Smith 1989; Weingast 1991

1 SD increase in connectedness increases successful floor amendments

53% in House

65% in SenateSlide14

External Validity: Roll Call Votes

Model roll call votes as in Poole and Rosenthal, adding connectedness score of sponsor

1 SD increase in connectedness of sponsor increases votes for bill by

5.2 in House

8.2 in Senate

2 SD increase would change 16% of House votes and 20% of Senate votesSlide15

Landmark Legislation:

An Alternative to MayhewSlide16
Slide17

Modularity

(Newman and Girvan 2004)

Define modularity to be

Q = (number of edges within groups) – (expected number within groups).

Actual Number of Edges between

i

and j is

Expected Number of Edges between

i

and j isSlide18

Modularity Matrix

So Q is a sum of

over pairs (i, j) that are in the same group

Or we can write in matrix form as

Where B is a new characteristic matrix, the

modularity marix

,

(s

i

, s

j) Slide19

Modularity Matrix

Algorithm

Calculate the leading eigenvector of the modularity matrix

Divide the vertices according to the signs of the elements

Note that there is no need to forbid the solution with all the vertices in a single group.Slide20

ExampleSlide21

Example Applications

Books on politics

The vertices represent 105 recent books sold from Amazon.com

Divide the books according to their political alignment

Liberal / Conservative / Centrist Slide22

ExampleSlide23

Polarization in the 108th SenateSlide24

108th House by PartySlide25

108th House by IdeologySlide26

108th House by StateSlide27

108th House by CommitteeSlide28

Polarization Over Time in the HouseSlide29

Polarization Over Time in the SenateSlide30

Black Legislators in the 103rd HouseSlide31

Black Legislators in the 104th HouseSlide32

Black Legislators in the 108th HouseSlide33

Poor Districts in the 108th House