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)."

Comments

Re:What is Kerry?

[SPBesui]

Apparently not:

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.

Interpreting non-voting

[jgardn]

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.

Re:Interpreting non-voting

[Luyseyal]

If he actually thinks there is something more important than the work in the senate, I'd like to know what that is.

As both the article and another poster wrote, it's called "running for President". You really should try taking off the pink elephant glasses once in awhile...

-l

interesting...

[St. Arbirix]

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.

Re:interesting...

[elmegil]

You'll also note that they were among the four who had the highest non vote percentages, which is why they ended up clustered toward the majority. This is a side effect of running for president, not due to actual choices they would have otherwise made. Which means, they don't (necessarily) agree more with the Republicans at all; I think you'd want to look at a non-election season like 2001 or 2002, or else a longer stretch of the data to make that kind of determination.

Re:Do I read this correctly?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Notice that the period surveyed is exactly the period he's been running for President. Before the campaign began, Kerry's attendance record was somewhat better than average, IIRC.

Also be very, very careful when reading the short descriptions of the bills and amendments voted on. The content often has very little to do with the name or the summary. "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism," anyone?

The true liberal

[Muda69]

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.

Re:The true liberal

[elmegil]

A liberal is considered tolerant of alternative views and free from bigotry

Mention that you're a Republican at the meeting of some traditionally painted "liberal" group like, say, The Sierra Club, and see how "free from bigotry" they really are. (here's a hint: not very free from it at all).

Re:The true liberal

[Canthros]

While that's all well and good, that's neither a strict historical definition of the word (see 5a) nor a particularly revealing definition of the word in current usage, where the meaning is more closely along the lines of progressive (3).

I would surely like for the word to be reclaimed from the illiberal clutches of modern Liberalism. But it doesn't look likely any time soon. Better to call yourself libertarian, if that's your point of view.

Re:The true liberal

[Wylfing]

My 11-year-old asked me the other day what the word "liberal" means...it really is the basis on which our country was founded

Although you are right that ideological tolerance is one of the founding princicples of the U.S., "liberal" is also a founding principle in a way that you do not address, namely "freedom from governance." The classic liberal prior to the 70s held the view that government is inherently bad and its reach should be limited wherever possible. Ever since Roe v Wade, however, the conservative and the liberal have polarized along a different axis -- both now view government as a way to enforce their beliefs, and their opposition is about which beliefs shall be enforced. As a poster below has noted, liberals today are sadly just as intolerant, shrill, and preachy as conservatives.

If you wish to be a true liberal, then refuse to take sides in a silly culture war about how government should be used to force people to "do the right thing." If you want to be a true liberal, advocate leaving people alone and getting the government out of it.

Re:The true liberal

[Bravo_Two_Zero]

Er, the Sierra Club gets trotted out a lot as a "liberal" organization. So does Peta. Neither have ever struck me as "liberal" in the sense that all which leans left is not all that is liberal. It's a special interest group that tries hard to attract those of a left-leaning persuasion. There are plenty of left-leaning authoritarians. That's antithetical to the real "liberal" mindset. Neither really compares to the ACLU, which I'd call a genuine "liberal" organization based on the organization's aspoused philosophy (they filed an amicus brief on behalf of Jerry Falwell).

On the flip, the Christian Coalition gets the same rap. They aren't a conservative organization. They are a religious special interest group who tries to attract right-leaning, like-minded Christians. But the core CC ideals are not "conservative" in the sense of Goldwater conservatism. They cover a much broader framework, though they may sometimes parallel them. On the other hand, the NRA is genuinely conservative in philosophy as well as sharply focused on a single issue.

Mention that you're a liberal in a CC meeting or at many of the "conservative" churches in may area, and you'll immediately be branded a heretic. No lie. Straight to hell. Spawn of Satan and all that lot. I've heard it, and I found it chilling, though I defend their right to say it. And, no, it isn't far afield of that politically correct nonsense that can be wielded to hold down other viewpoints.

But, mention that you're a conservative or a Republican to me, and (as long as you can maintain a reasoned and rational discourse) I'll call you the "loyal opposition" and buy you a beer. We have to go past the attempt to make the labels we hang on each other a "four letter word" sort of thing.

Cost Effective?

[4of12]

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.)

IP Score

[Free_Trial_Thinking]

My IP Score Idea:

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?

Re:The Real Kerry

[Khomar]

Umm, they did this over the period he was FREAKING RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

Not true. Check the site again.

Gallery of the US Senate in 2003

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?

Re:What is Kerry?

[pavon]

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.

Re:Article only looks at 2003

[fmaxwell]

He has an established liberal voting record that is only obscured in this study due to his absence during the election campaign.

Good. I want a liberal President. I don't know how anyone managed to equate "liberal" with "bad", but they need their heads examined. Liberals are why women and black people can vote, why there aren't separate bathrooms for "colored" people, why women can join the military, why sexual harassment in the workplace isn't legal, why handicapped people have access to public buildings, why the elderly poor can get Medicare, and why someone who loses their job can get unemployment. How the hell did we ever go from the liberal optimism of the '60s to the conservative fear mongering and negativity that we have today?