Slashdot Mirror
Data Mining the US Senate Votes
AJ writes "We used some old and new data mining techniques to see what was happening in the US Senate in 2003. Among other things, we identified the 'social' network of similarities between senators, how influential is each senator and each state, and a 3D VRML view of the Senate. You will be able to check whether Senator Kerry was a centrist or a liberal, and who is acting more cohesively, the Democrats or the Republicans. We provide our data and the source of all our analysis software (Orange and MPCA, both under GPL)."
5 comments and slashdotted...
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Well, that link didn't last long. Does anyone have some juicy sample results from before it tanked?
This has to be the coolest thing I've ever seen. Someone else said it's /.ed, but its a Coral Cache link, and it loaded fine for me. Maybe your local cache is down.
Being able to see the data in a usable form rather than looking at bland figures and listening to spin on tv about how "Rob Republicans hates old people and wants to kill your children" and "Dennis Democrat want's to eat babies" and then back it up with some nonsequitur vote is a lot better.
mmmm, pretty colors.
Hey, it takes hard work to show up at the bottom of the list of most effective Senators.
5 out of 8 "not voting" for Kerry while all the others voted for every measure? And those include education, agriculture, and strengthening local government.
Also a no vote for strengthening Social Security but a yes vote for preventing drilling in the arctic refuge.
Is this meant to be biased or is this really his voting record? If it is accurate, I guarantee who I'm not voting for.
nos laetus epulor qui would domito nos
However, one should interpret "Not Voting" as letting the majority vote for you. Since the majority is Republican, the fact that Kerry often did not vote means that he is effectively the most central of all Democrats, based on all the votes cast in 2003. Anyone with a brain knows this isn't true.
http://www.ailab.si.nyud.net:8090/aleks/politics/m etric_scaling.htm
Scroll to the bottom:
The issue of John Kerry:
National Journal claimed that Kerry is an extreme liberal. This was disputed by many, including Kerry himself. Poole claims that Kerry is liberal but not extreme [link, link], Clinton, Jackman & Rivers say that it's hard to say due to his absenteeism but also that Kerry is not extreme [PDF link].
However, one should interpret "Not Voting" as letting the majority vote for you. Since the majority is Republican, the fact that Kerry often did not vote means that he is effectively the most central of all Democrats, based on all the votes cast in 2003.
Yea I caught that but I thought they had to be joking. Kerry missed votes for two reasons:
1) Too Busy Snowboarding / Wind surfingbr 2) Did not want to be painted liberal in the presidental election, and wanted not to appear too far to the right in the democratic primaries..
This presentation looks a little weird.
Did you include NV as opposing vote, same vote, or just drop it completely. If dropped completely, it looks like you've got some weighting to balance out shading for senators with high % on NV.
Do not look into LASER with remaining eye!
But trying to make sense of what they mean before I've had my first cup of coffee is making my head hurt...
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Why should I even bother to comment on this story? It's so small I won't get any karma for it.
I wonder if these models could be extended back to show how the senate has changed from session-to-session, and also to show how influential a Senator has been over their entire career?
Good stuff. I hope this stuff is more widespread for 2006.
With reasonable men I will reason; with humane men I will plead; but to tyrants I will give no quarter. -- William Lloyd
As opposed to vacationing in Crawford? I think the shrub spent more time in this sort of activity than the Kerry-bot.
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
Makes me glad I am not voting for either..
President of the United States is one of those jobs where you can never really be on vacation. The job follows you wherever you go.
If Yassir Arafat calls and wants to make peace, his call does not go to voice meal; He get's the President.
There are five ways to interpret a non-vote.
(0) He hasn't made up their mind or doesn't have a strong feeling on the issue and allows others to decide for him. This is the meaning of a non-vote by definition, and the reason why non-votes are allowed.
(1) He would've voted with the party, but doesn't want to say so.
This assumption is valid because the non-vote could be interpreted as missing data. You can assume that he would do what he normally does, it's just that that event wasn't measured. This is the most valid assumption when he is out windboarding or snowsurfing.
(2) He would've voted with the majority but doesn't want to say so.
By not voting, he is actually helping the majority. To get a majority, you need 50% (rounded down) + 1 votes among all who voted. When you don't vote, you decrease the number of votes needed for a majority. If he voted in the negative, he would've increased the number needed for a majority.
(3) Would've voted with the minority but doesn't want to say so.
In this case, he knows he is going to lose, so he doesn't want to come out looking like he is one of the losers.
(4) He wanted to vote one way or the other but other priorities prevented him from doing so.
Now, let's assume four possible motives for the above:
(A) John Kerry wanted to vote, but doesn't vote because he supports a controversial issue but doesn't want to look like he supports it. This would lead to the conclusion (2) above.
(B) John Kerry doesn't have an opinion on the issue at hands, and allows others to make the decision for him. This may be true for some issues, but I am sure that as a senator, he was contacted by several people for every vote, and if he didn't care about the issue, he would at least know who did. As a senator who represents his state, he had an obligation to make a decision for his state. By not voting, he threw away half of his state's power.
(C) John Kerry really wanted to vote, but other priorities took him elsewhere. I'm sorry, but I don't buy this one. If he actually thinks there is something more important than the work in the senate, I'd like to know what that is. I'll give a pass for a senator missing a few votes due to illness or they're travelling for some important cause, but too miss so many votes in this way is not acceptable.
(D) John Kerry can't make up his mind, so he doesn't vote. Is it possible that John Kerry has a hard time making up his mind? Is he really wishy-washy and indecisive? I believe he is. Others would say he is not. All you have to do is look at his record and see how inconsisten it is.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Kerry's voting record goes back much farther than 2003. He has an established liberal voting record that is only obscured in this study due to his absence during the election campaign.
They have a similarity matrix that pairs Senators and measures how close their votes were to other Senators. It's arranged in order of the clustered blocks in the Senate and if you look at Kerry's data on the vertical you'll notice that he, Edwards, and Lieberman are the Democrats who most agreed with Republicans on matters. This is interesting because two are running for President and Vice President while many thought the third would be Kerry's running mate.
Furthermore, there is a decent sized band of midwestern Republicans who are faintly in agreement with the Democrats. It's the midwest that's usually depicted as a big red blob of Bush voters.
Also worth noting is the middle pack of Democrats and Republicans who nearly never agreed with any Democrats.
It looks as though Kerry got on better with both parties of the house than anyone else, despite all the reports we hear of him being the most liberal voter. Very interesting.
Direct away from face when opening.
and who is acting more cohesively, the Democrats or the Republicans
In other words, you'll be able to check which party most consistently follows the party-line and the party leadership, and which is more open to a broad variety of ideas.
Haven't looked much at the results, yet; I just wanted to point out that the word "cohesive" in that paragraph really stood out in my mind as an attempt to impose a value on the data that perhaps we shouldn't hold to.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Missing data is a pain for social network analis. Non of the models that are used can really deal with it. And most models need the data to be in binary form there is no good models that uses reals so you can not really see gradulaity.
If want to see some good social network software and you can do the networks yourself. Just look at ucnet or ora
Ora is making better work of missing data
My 11-year-old asked me the other day what the word "liberal" means. I explained that many people have tried to give "liberal" a negative connotation, but it really is the basis on which our country was founded -- freedom for all. Remember that "liberal" and "liberty" share the same roots. A liberal leaves room for people to have a different opinion and doesn't label that opinion wrong -- it's just different.
) .
I told her that "liberal" is not a dirty word and suggested that she look it up in the dictionary, which she did. It explained that liberals don't allow authoritarian, orthodox, traditional beliefs to dictate/restrict the rights of others. A liberal is considered tolerant of alternative views and free from bigotry (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=liberal
Some people have been very effective at convincing everyone that "liberal" is a bad word based on a few extreme liberals, and they have used it for political advantage. Considering the history of our country, people who aren't "liberal" should give us cause for concern. If you care about freedom for all, be proud to call yourself a "liberal." Many of my friends are Republican, but I would call them "liberal" because they are open and tolerant. Being a liberal doesn't mean that you have to be an extreme, left-wing Democrat. It means you have to be broad-minded, and that, frankly, is something all of us should strive to be. I plan to vote for "liberal" candidates, regardless of party affiliation, because they will protect our freedom.
That's nonsensical. If he didn't vote because he wasn't present, how can you assume that means he would've voted according the majority opinion? It's not like he abstained, he just wasn't there.
The National Journal article is up on their website, for what it's worth, as is a second article, apparently to clarify the first. Haven't read either one yet, too busy. A brief glance at the second suggests that his lifetime Senate voting record is a bit more flattering than the last couple year's. He still shows up as pretty liberal, but not quite so much. Moderate, he ain't.
Canthros
Umm, they did this over the period he was FREAKING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. That tends to take up a lot of your time. So there's a good reason he missed a lot of votes.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
It is not assumed that he would have voted for the majority, but rather he effectively voted for the majority. By not voting, he made no effort to contradict the majority, therefore he made it easier for them to win.
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
So, suppose you happened to be a lobbyist and wanted to get the most bang for your buck in terms of legislation?
Who's your man and who should you avoid?
(And conversely, if you're paying with votes instead of dollars.)
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Hopefully, he'll make it a permanent one.
A simple thing that an organization like EFF or Downhill battle could do is to look over these voting records and create a simple "IP score" or "Electronic Freedom score" from the voting records.
That way people could look up the issues they care about most and see how the candidates 'score' against each other.
Scores are easy ways to summarize large amounts of information and would allow everyone to see how congress people are doing on important issues. Obviously almost no one is going to pour over years of voting records, but with voting scores created from the records, it would be easy for anyone to quickly access how their representatives are doing on issues.
I see this article/project as a first step in that direction. I think adoption of this concept by large political organizations could popularize it quickly and give it more legitimacy. Wouldn't it be nice if every senator had to worry about his IP score falling?
Not true. Check the site again.
This is data collected from last year not this year. Granted, he may have been gearing up for this, but has he been campaigning full time for two full years?
I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!
Yeah, it would have been nice if they did previous years as well, since (according to CSPAN) Kerry missed less than 2% of the all votes during the his time in the senate, prior to the begining of his campain, casting over 6000 votes in his senate career.
The data is for 2003 - not 2004.
You're claiming he stopped attending the senate in 2003 while campaigning for the Democrat primary?
All it takes is a Flash animation of these visualizations, with some snappy music, and the Internet can destroy months of spin. For example, Kerry is obviously not the "most liberal Senator" (he's #7), and the most popular Republicans are the most "conservative". Their demonstration of the relative lack of influence of the "majority Democrat bloc" compared to the "minority Republican bloc" also gets across how control of the rules and committees gives Republicans control of the Senate, despite their bare majority, and therefore responsibility for its actions (with their party leader controlling the White House). Wonks are geeks! Someone get this stuff over to the anime department!
--
make install -not war
Given his record, I would question whether he really deserves another term as Senator.
He doesn't, but that's true for most Senators.
Personally, I find it sad that the Democrats could not come up with a better candidate to run against Bush
You're telling me... with this loser in the White House, the race should be no contest at this point. The Democrats think if they keep compromising on every issue and stay as close to the imaginary "center" as possible they will get more votes. They are clearly wrong.
many voters want anyone but Bush. Well, we might just get that wish. Are we really sure that we want it?
Yes. It's not Bush himself that is the problem, it's the people he surrounds himself with. Feith, Wolfowitz, and all the rest of those Straussian ideologues need to go. They are very dangerous people.
That's hardly the same thing, though, and makes comparisons with the NJ rankings kind of meaningless.
Canthros
Can you add in the senator's net worth, and then note when his vote went against his normal 'views', and possibly an increase in net worth?
No I didnt spell check this post...
Well, they did make their analysis software available. Assuming data for previous years is readily available in the same format, it shouldn't be too hard for anyone with the inclination to do it.
I may twist orthodoxy to partly justify a tyrant. But I can easily make up a German philosophy to justify him entirely.
If you're especially interested in Kerry's history, K. Poole has done a more detailed analysis:
Is John Kerry A Liberal? John Kerry's Senate Voting Record
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
I should have sig'd this post "bush is evil" and I would not have got modded troll..
Zell Miller is a Democrat in name only.
don't know how to tell you this, but the scantiness of Fmaxwell's abstract knowledge directs his sentiments more to the world of totalitarianism. In the text that follows, when I quote from Fmaxwell, I will use the word "excrement" in place of another word which is now apparently permitted in general circulation publications, and which I have edited out. For the moment, I will concentrate on the fact that his contrivances are based on a technique I'm sure you've heard of. It's called "lying". Sadly, in once sense, he is correct. If we let Fmaxwell censor by caricature and preempt discussion by stereotype, then I will undeniably be forced to kiss my freedom goodbye.
It would be nice to say that contemptuous ruffianism doesn't exist anymore, but we all know that it does. If he can't be reasoned out of his prejudices, he must be laughed out of them. If he can't be argued out of his selfishness, he must be shamed out of it. While Fmaxwell has a right, as do we all, to believe whatever he wants about feudalism, any rational argument must acknowledge this. His lawless, sordid ventures, naturally, do not.
There are some simple truths in this world. First, it is ridiculous that I have to be faced with creeps whose narrow-minded perversions are treated with apathy. Second, I don't trust disaffected antagonists. And finally, his secret passion is to do the devil's work. For shame! We are nearing a synthesis of defeatism and negativism into an inhumane ethnocentrism that will con us into believing that two wrongs make a right. To top that off, whenever I confront Fmaxwell about his slovenly recommendations, he either tells me that I don't understand him or feeds me some meaningless mumbo-jumbo about chauvinism. In view of that, it is not surprising that he maintains a "Big Brother" dossier of information about everyone he distrusts, to use as a potential career-ruining weapon. Is your name listed in that dossier? To rephrase that question, why can't he value a diversity of approaches without needing to rank them as better and worse? To answer that question, we need first to consider Fmaxwell's thought process, which generally takes the following form: (1) 75 million years ago, a galactic tyrant named Xenu solved the overpopulation problem of his 76-planet federation by transporting the excess people to Earth, chaining them to volcanoes, and dropping H-bombs on them, so (2) he is a model citizen. Therefore, (3) the few of us who complain regularly about his rantings are simply spoiling the party and thus, (4) if he kicks us in the teeth, we'll then lick his toes and beg for another kick. As you can see, Fmaxwell's reasoning makes no sense, which leads me to believe that it is not uncommon for him to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole irrational affair as some great benefit to humanity. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of course, if Fmaxwell had learned anything from history, he'd know that he sometimes uses the word "homeotransplantation" when describing his practices. Beware! This is a buzzword designed for emotional response. I wish that some of his cronies would ask themselves, "Why am I helping him siphon off scarce international capital intended for underdeveloped countries?"
If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. I undoubtedly claim that several of Fmaxwell's secret police, who asked to remain nameless, informed me of Fmaxwell's secret plans to destroy our sense of safety in the places we ordinarily imagine we can flee to. My views, of course, are not the issue here. The issue is that if he can overawe and befuddle a sufficient number of prominent individuals, then it will become virtually impossible for anyone to encourage opportunity, responsibility, and community. We can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we honestly have to eschew semi-intelligible, stolid tribalism. As long as the beer keeps flowing
People with HIV and AIDS are infected with a disease. Unless you can 100% ensure me they wont spread disease, they should be banned from wherever the saliva blood feces and urine could murder innocent people. They are a disease, they are silent murderers. AIDS people need to be sequestered biologically from normal people. You are a fucking terrorist, bio-terrorist trying to infect innocents with HIV while you secretly develop the cure!
Actually, the dmeocrats of yesterday were the ones against civil rights. look at your senator, Byrd. lok at Gore's father. Dont even act like "liberals" are for civil rights.
All the civils rights was done by the GOP, and the most diverse cabinets are always GOP. The GOP wants excellent people, we dont care about race like you "liberals" do. All you people do is tokenize to look good, yo do nothing for excellence.
Civil rights was invented by the GOP, Abraham Lincoln was GOP. You are Totalitarian communists.
What the hell is wrong with you? fmaxwell's posts made sense and you come up with this computer-generated tripe? Go back to your elementary school.
People with HIV and AIDS are infected with a disease.
So are people with cancer, MS, Parkinson's, hepatitus, etc.
Unless you can 100% ensure me they wont spread disease, they should be banned from wherever the saliva blood feces and urine could murder innocent people.
I don't know what restaurants you eat at, but saliva, human blood, urine, and feces are not part of the foods I order.
AIDS people need to be sequestered biologically from normal people.
You sound like Adolf Hitler who decided that homosexuals weren't "normal people" and that they should be in concentration camps. You are just another Nazi homophobe who thinks that you have a right to decide who is "normal" and who should be locked away from "normal people." Isaac Asimov died of AIDS, but you'd have probably liked to see him in a concentration camp because not only did he have AIDS, but he was a Jew. NAZI! YOU ARE A GOD-DAMNED NEO-NAZI!
The first Democratic presidential candidates debate was held in South Carolina last summer (I believe it was July). Several of the candidates visited the USC law school in August and September, and I was at the opening of Edwards' campaign headquarters here in September.
That's all to say that the campaigning really began during the last 4-5 months of 2003. But that's still a good chunk of the year and doesn't count for any prep time leading into the campaigning.
(Off-topic, I can't believe only a year ago not a single vote had been cast in the primaries and things were so different, more hopeful.)
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
Cancer doesnt spread through blood, neither do the others. You and your AIDS friends bite people, spit on things and have sweat and dirty underwear that spreads the disease.
People sneeze. People often dont wash hands when returning from the restroom. Studies have shown food preparation hygeine is not very good. People wipe noses and they bleed when cutting themselves with a knife. You and your AIDS friends cannot be trusted not to not infect people.
You are a disease spreading human species killer. You would risk your family, your contry, and all healthy people to make a poltical point. Seqestering contagious diseased people isnt about politics, its about survival.
Have fun living with Hepatitis and AIDS you disgusting, dirty disease ridden man.
You and your AIDS friends bite people, spit on things and have sweat and dirty underwear that spreads the disease.
I have no communicable disease, AIDS, HIV, or otherwise.
As to your beliefs about AIDS being spread through spit, sweat, and "dirty underwear", your ignorance is laughable. What a moron.
Seqestering contagious diseased people isnt about politics, its about survival.
Hitler said, "The Jews are a Cancer on the breast of Germany." And that's why he "sequestered" them in concentration camps -- he claimed that it was for the survival of Germany. You and he have a lot in common.