CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 56Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceSocial Media and Politics

Party Polarization in Congress: A Network Science Approach

Open access
Waugh, Andrew Scott, Pei, Liuyi, Fowler, James H., Mucha, Peter J., Porter, Mason A.·2009·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.0907.3509arXiv 0907.3509
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We measure polarization in the United States Congress using the network science concept of modularity. Modularity provides a conceptually-clear measure of polarization that reveals both the number of relevant groups and the strength of inter-group divisions without making restrictive assumptions about the structure of the party system or the shape of legislator utilities. We show that party influence on Congressional blocs varies widely throughout history, and that existing measures underestimate polarization in periods with weak party structures. We demonstrate that modularity is a significant predictor of changes in majority party and that turnover is more prevalent at medium levels of modularity. We show that two variables related to modularity, called `divisiveness' and `solidarity,' are significant predictors of reelection success for individual House members. Our results suggest that modularity can serve as an early warning of changing group dynamics, which are reflected only later by changes in party labels.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.0907.3509

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Assortativity alone is insufficient to explain the overall level of polarization of a network.

    “Additionally, existing studies additionally indicate that assortativity alone is insufficient to explain the overall level of polarization of a network.”

    From DSP: A Statistically-Principled Structural Polarization Measure (2026) · cites this paper as [33]

    The Introduction (p. 2) and section 2 (p. 7) argue for measuring polarization with network modularity rather than relying on spatial-model measures. A search for “assortativity” found no passage addressing whether assortativity alone is insufficient, so our copy does not verify the specific claim. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 68

  1. Aldrich, John H. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  2. Aldrich, John H. & David W. Rohde. 2001. The Logic of Conditional Party Government. In Congress Reconsidered, 7th Edition , ed. Lawrence C. Dodd & Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Washington D.C.: CQ Press.
  3. Andseron, Lee F., Meredith W. Watts Jr. & Allen R. Wilcox. 1966. Legislative Roll-Call Analysis . Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  4. Baldassarri, Delia & Peter Bearman. 2007. 'Dynamics of Political Polarization.' American Sociological Review 72:784-811.
  5. Binder, Sarah A. 1999. 'The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947-96.' The American Political Science Review 93(3):519-533.
  6. Blondel, Vincent D., Jean-Loup Guillaume, Renaud Lambiotte & Etienne Lefebvre. 2008. 'Fast unfolding of communities in large networks.' Journal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment P10008.
  7. Brandes, Ulrik, Daniel Delling, Marco Gaertler, Robert Goerke, Martin Hoefer, Zoran Nikoloski & Dorothea Wagner. 2008. 'On modularity clustering.' IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 20(2):172-188.
  8. Canes-Wrone, Brandice, David W. Brady & John F. Cogan. 2002. 'Out of Step, out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting.' The American Political Science Review 96(1):127-140.
  9. Clausen, Aage. 1973. How Congressmen Decide . New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
  10. Clinton, Joshua, Simon Jackman & Douglas Rivers. 2004. 'The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.' The American Political Science Review 98(2):355-370.
  11. Coleman, John J. 1996. Party Decline in America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  12. Cox, Gary W. 1997. Making Votes Count . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  13. Cox, Gary W. & Keith T. Poole. 2002. 'On Measuring Partisanship in Roll-Call Voting: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1877-1999.' American Journal of Political Science 46(3):477-489.
  14. Cox, Gary W. & Mathew D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  15. Cox, Gary W. & Mathew D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Downs, Anthony. 1957 b . 'An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy.' The Journal of Political Economy 65(2):135-150.
  17. Duverger, Maurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State . New York, NY: Wiley.
  18. Fiorina, Morris P. & Samuel J. Abrams. 2008. 'Political Polarization in the American Public.' Annual Review of Political Science 11:563-588.
  19. Fortunato, Santo. 2010. 'Community detection in graphs.' Physics Reports 486(3-5):75-174.
  20. Fortunato, Santo & Marc Barth´ elemy. 2007. 'Resolution limit in community detection.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 104(1):36-41.
  21. Fowler, James H. 2006 a . 'Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks.' Political Analysis 14(4):456-487.
  22. Fowler, James H. 2006 b . 'Legislative Cosponsorship Networks in the US House and Senate.' Social Networks 28(4):454-465.
  23. Gelman, Andrew & Jennifer Hill. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Good, Benjamin H., Yves-Alexandre de Montjoye & Aaron Clauset. 2010. 'Performance of modularity maximization in practical contexts.' Phys. Rev. E 81(4):046106.
  25. Herrnson, Paul S. 2004. Congressional Elections: Campaigning at Home and in Washington . 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
  26. Historical Statistics of the United States: Millennium Edition Online . 2009. *http://hsus.cambridge.org
  27. Holbrook, Thomas M. & Scott D. McClurg. 2005. 'The Mobilization of Core Supporters: Campaigns, Turnout, and Electoral Composition in United States Presidential Elections.' American Journal of Political Science 49(4):689-703.
  28. Huckfeldt, Robert & John Sprague. 1987. 'Networks in Context: The Social Flow of Political Information.' The American Political Science Review 81(4):1197-1216.
  29. Jacobson, Gary C. 2005. 'Polarized Politics and the 2004 Congressional and Presidential Elections.' Political Science Quarterly 120(5):199-218.
  30. Jacobson, Gary C. 2006. A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People . New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
  31. Kaufman, Leonard & Peter J. Rousseeuw. 1990. Finding Groups in Data: An Introduction to Cluster Analysis . New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
  32. Kernell, Samuel, Gary C. Jacobson & Thad Kousser. 2009. The Logic of American Politics . 4th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
  33. Kernighan, Brian W. & Shen Lin. 1970. 'An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs.' The Bell System Technical Journal 49:291-307.
  34. Koger, Gregory, Seth Masket & Hans Noel. 2009. 'Partisan Webs: Information Exchange and Party Networks.' British Journal of Political Science 39:633-653.
  35. Krehbiel, Keith. 1991. Information and Legislative Organization . Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
  36. Layman, Geoffrey C., Thomas M. Carsey & Juliana Menasce Horowitz. 2006. 'Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.' Annual Review of Political Science 9:83-110.
  37. Lazer, David. 2011. 'Networks in Political Science: Back to the Future.' PS: Political Science & Politics 44(1):61-68.
  38. Loader, Clive. 1999. Local Regression and Likelihood . New York, NY: Springer.
  39. MacRae, Duncan. 1958. Dimensions of Congressional Voting . Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  40. Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  41. McCarty, Nolan M., Keith T. Poole & Howard Rosenthal. 2007. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  42. McClurg, Scott D. 2006. 'The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining Disagreement and Expertise Effects in Social Networks on Political Participation.' American Journal of Political Science 50(3):737-754.
  43. Merrill III, Samuell, Bernard Grofman & Thomas L. Brunell. 2008. 'Cycles in American National Electoral Politics, 1854-2006: Statistical Evidence and an Explanatory Model.' The American Political Science Review 102(1):1-17.
  44. Newman, Mark E. J. 2006 a . 'Finding Community Structure in Networks Using the Eigenvectors of Matrices.' Physical Review E 74:036104.
  45. Newman, Mark E. J. 2006 b . 'Modularity and Community Structure in Networks.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103:8577-8582.
  46. Newman, Mark E. J. & Michelle Girvan. 2004. 'Finding and Evaluating Community Structure in Networks.' Physical Review E 69:026113.
  47. Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  48. Park, J.K., Laurent El Ghaoui & Alexandre d'Aspremont. 2009. Sparse Network Analysis of Senate Voting. In Prepared for the Harvard Political Networks Conference .
  49. Pons, Pascal & Matthieu Latapy. 2005. Computing Communities in Large Networks Using Random Walks. In ISCIS . pp. 284-293.
  50. Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  51. Poole, Keith T. & Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting . Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  52. Popkin, Samuel L. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns . 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  53. Porter, Mason A., Jukka-Pekka Onnela & Peter J. Mucha. 2009. 'Communities in Networks.' Notices of the American Mathematical Society 56(9):1082-1097, 1164-1166.
  54. Porter, Mason A., Peter J. Mucha, Mark E. J. Newman & A.J. Friend. 2007. 'Community Structure in the United States House of Representatives.' Physica A 386(1):414-438.
  55. Porter, Mason A., Peter J. Mucha, Mark E. J. Newman & Casey M. Warmbrand. 2005. 'A network analysis of committees in the U.S. House of Representatives.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(20):7057-7062.
  56. Reichardt, Jorg & Stefan Bornholdt. 2006. 'Statistical methods of community detection.' Physical Review E 74(016110).
  57. Rice, Stuart A. 1927. 'The identification of blocs in small political bodies.' The American Political Science Review 21(3):619-627.
  58. Richardson, Thomas, Peter J. Mucha & Mason A. Porter. 2009. 'Spectral tripartitioning of networks.' Physical Review E 80(036111).
  59. Riker, William H. 1986. The Art of Political Manipulation . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  60. Rohde, David W. 1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  61. Shepsle, Kenneth A. & Barry R. Weingast. 1987. 'The Institutional Foundations of Committee Power.' The American Political Science Review 81(1):85-104.
  62. Shulock, Nancy. 1998. 'Legislatures: Rational Systems or Rational Myths?' Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: J-PART 8(3):299-324.
  63. Smith, Steven S. 2007. Party Influence in Congress . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  64. Truman, David B. 1959. The Congressional Party: A Case Study . New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
  65. Tsebelis, George. 2002. Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  66. Ward, Michael D., Katherine Stovel & Audrey Sacks. 2011. 'Network Analysis and Political Science.' Annual Review of Political Science 14:245-264.
  67. Wasserman, Stanley & Katherine Faust. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  68. Zhang, Yan, A.J. Friend, Amanda L. Traud, Mason A. Porter, James H. Fowler & Peter J. Mucha. 2008. 'Community Structure in Congressional Cosponsorship Networks.' Physica A 387(7):1705-1712.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Waugh, A. S., Pei, L., Fowler, J. H., Mucha, P. J., & Porter, M. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California San Diego (US)
  • California Institute of Technology (US)
  • Dartmouth College (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2009
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.0907.3509
arXiv
0907.3509
OpenAlex
W1744091570
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0645369)
  • James S. McDonnell Foundation (220020177)
  • California Institute of Technology
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
Keywords
partisan polarization, United States Congress, modularity, divisiveness, solidarity, network science, House members

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review