The rise of partisanship and super-cooperators in the U.S. House of Representatives

PLoS ONE

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2015, Pages

  Andris, Clio ^a   Lee, David ^b   Hamilton, Marcus J ^c,d   Martino, Mauro ^e   Gunning, Christian E ^f   Selden, John Armistead ^g  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c SANTA FE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^d ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e IBM T J WATSON RESEARCH CENTER   (United States)

^f NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^g Department of Entomology North Carolina State University ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONSENSUS DEVELOPMENT; COOPERATION; DECISION MAKING; ELECTION; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; IDEOLOGY; LAW; ORGANIZATION; PARTISANSHIP; POLITICAL PARTICIPATION; POLITICAL SYSTEM; POLITICS; PUBLIC OPINION; UNITED STATES;

COOPERATIVE BEHAVIOR; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; HUMANS; POLITICS; PUBLIC OPINION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84928242564     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0123507     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Snowe O. The effect of modern partisanship on legislative effectiveness in the 112th Congress. Harv J on Legis. 2013; 50: 21-40.
2. McCarty N, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2006.
3. Carson J, Crespin M, Finocchiaro C, Rohde D. Redistricting and party polarization in the U.S. House of Representatives. Am Polit Res. 2007; 35: 878-904.
4. Rosenstone SJ, Hansen JM. Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America. New York: Macmillan; 1993.
5. Theriault S. Party polarization in Congress. New York: Cambridge University; 2008.
6. Roberts J, Smith S. Procedural contexts, party strategy and conditional party voting in the U.S. House of Representatives 1971-2000. Am J Pol Sci. 2003; 47: 305-317.
7. Jenkins J. Examining the bonding effects of party: A comparative analysis of roll-call voting in the U.S. and Confederate Houses. Am J Pol Sci. 1999; 43: 1144-1165.
8. Theriault S. Party polarization in the US Congress: Member replacement and member adaptation. Party Pol. 2006; 12: 483-503.
9. Iyengar S, Hahn KS. Red media blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. J Commun. 2009; 59: 19-39.
10. Snyder J, Groseclose T. Estimating party influence in Congressional roll-call voting. Am J Pol Sci. 2000; 44: 193-211.
11. Cohen GL. Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003; 85: 808-822. PMID: 14599246
12. Nokken T. Dynamics of Congressional loyalty: party defection and roll call behavior 1947-1997. Legis Stud Quart. 2000; 25: 417-444.
13. Fleisher R, Bond J. The shrinking middle in the U.S. Congress. Brit J Pol Sci. 2004; 34: 429-451.
14. Lee FE. Geographic politics in the U.S. House of Representatives: Coalition building and distribution of benefits. Am J Pol Sci. 2003; 47: 714-728.
15. Carrubba C, Volden C. Coalitional politics and logrolling in legislative institutions. Am J Pol Sci. 2000; 44: 261-267.
16. Porter M, Muchab P, Newman M, Warmbrand C. A network analysis of committees in the U.S. House of Representatives. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA. 2005; 102: 7057-7062. PMID: 15897470
17. Fowler J. Connecting the Congress: a study of co-sponsorship networks. Pol Anal. 2006; 14: 456-487.
18. Zhang Y, Friend A, Traud A, Porter M, Fowler J, Mucha P. Community structure in Congressional cosponsorship networks. Physica A. 2008; 387: 1705-1712.
19. Cho W, Fowler J. Legislative success in a small world: Social network analysis and the dynamics of Congressional legislation. J Pol. 2010; 72: 124-135.
20. Porter M, Mucha P, Newman M, Friend A. Community structure in the United States House of Representatives. Physica A. 2007; 386: 414-438.
21. Waugh AS, Pei L, Fowler JH, Mucha P, Porter MA. Party polarization in Congress: A network science approach; 2011. Preprint. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.3509. Accessed July 15 2012.
22. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. The polarization of American politics. J Pol. 1984; 24: 1061-1079.
23. Cox G, Poole KT. On measuring partisanship in roll call voting: the U.S. House of Representatives 1877-1999. Am J Pol Sci. 2002; 46: 477-489.
24. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1997. See also: http://voteview.com/political-polarization.asp
25. Carroll R, Lewis JB, Lo J, Poole KT, Rosenthal H. Measuring bias and uncertainty in DW-NOMINATE ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Polit Anal. 2009; 17: 261-278.
26. Office of the Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives, Roll Call Votes; 2014. Accessed through Govtrak by Civic Impulse, LLC. Available: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes.
27. Clinton J, Jackman S, Rivers D. The statistical analysis of roll call data. Am Pol Sci Rev. 2004; 98: 355-370.
28. Cox G, McCubbins M. Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
29. Harbridge L, Malhotra N. Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in Congress: Evidence from survey experiments. Am J Pol Sci. 2011; 55: 494-510.
30. Ornstein N, Mann T, Malbin M, Rugg A. Vital Statistics on Congress. The Brookings Institution. July 2013. Available: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress-mannornstein. Accessed: 15 November 2013.
31. Viser, M. This Congress Going Down as Least Productive: Hyperpartisan Climate Gums Up Bulk of Laws. The Boston Globe. December 2013. Available: http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/12/04/congress-course-make-history-least-productive/kGAVEBskUeqCB0htOUG9GI/story.html. Accessed 10 December 2013.
32. Theriault S, Rohde D. The Gingrich Senators and party polarization in the U.S. Senate. J Pol. 2011; 73: 1011-1024.
33. Barnes J, Hut P. SA hierarchical O(N log N) force calculation algorithm. Nature. 1986; 324: 4.
34. Krackhardt D, Stern RN. Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Soc Psychol Q. 1988; 15: 123-140