Bayesian Analysis

Spatio-Temporal Modeling of Legislation and Votes

Eric Wang, Esther Salazar, David Dunson, and Lawrence Carin

Full-text: Open access

Abstract

A model is presented for analysis of multivariate binary data with spatio-temporal dependencies, and applied to congressional roll call data from the United States House of Representatives and Senate. The model considers each legislator’s constituency (location), the congressional session (time) of each vote, and the details (text) of each piece of legislation. The model can predict votes of new legislation from only text, while imposing smooth temporal evolution of legislator latent features, and correlation of legislators with adjacent constituencies. Additionally, the model estimates the number of latent dimensions required to represent the data. A Gibbs sampler is developed for posterior inference. The model is demonstrated as an exploratory tool of legislation and it performs well in quantitative comparisons to a traditional ideal-point model.

Article information

Source
Bayesian Anal., Volume 8, Number 1 (2013), 233-268.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 4 March 2013

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1362406659

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/13-BA810

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR3036261

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1329.62477

Keywords
Factor analysis Indian buffet process latent Dirichlet allocation political science topic modeling

Citation

Wang, Eric; Salazar, Esther; Dunson, David; Carin, Lawrence. Spatio-Temporal Modeling of Legislation and Votes. Bayesian Anal. 8 (2013), no. 1, 233--268. doi:10.1214/13-BA810. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ba/1362406659


Export citation

References

  • Ahmed, A. and Xing, E. P. (2010). “Staying Informed: Supervised and Semi-Supervised Multi-view Topical Analysis of Ideological Perspective.” In Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 1140–1150.
  • Blei, D. and Lafferty, J. (2006). “Dynamic Topic Models.” In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Machine Learning, 113–120.
  • Blei, D., Ng, A., and Jordan, M. (2003). “Latent Dirichlet Allocation.” Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3: 993–1022.
  • Carvalho, C. M., Massam, H., and West, M. (2007). “Simulation of hyper-inverse Wishart distributions in graphical models.” Biometrika, 94: 647–659.
  • Chib, S. and Greenberg, E. (1998). “Analysis of multivariate probit models.” Biometrika, 85(2): 347–361.
  • Clinton, J., Jackman, D., and Rivers, S. (2004a). “The most liberal senator? Analyzing and interpreting Congressional Roll Calls.” Political Science and Politics, 37(4): 805–811.
  • Clinton, J., Jackman, S., and Rivers, D. (2004b). “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Voting: A Unified Approach.” American Political Science Review, 98(2): 355–370.
  • Clinton, J. and Meirowitz, A. (2003). “Integrating voting theory and roll call analysis: A framework.” Political Analysis, 11: 381–396.
  • Dawid, A. and Lauritzen, S. (1993). “Hyper-Markov laws in the statistical analysis of decomposable graphical models.” The Annals of Statistics, 21(3): 1272–1317.
  • Deerwester, S., Dumais, S., Furnas, G., Landauer, T., and Harshman, R. (1990). “Indexing by Latent Semantic Analysis.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 41(6): 391–407.
  • Dunson, D. and Park, J. (2008). “Kernel stick-breaking processes.” Biometrika, 95(2): 307–323.
  • Ferguson, T. (1973). “A Bayesian analysis of some nonparametric problems.” The Annals of Statistics, 1(2): 209–230.
  • Gerrish, S. and Blei, D. (2011). “Predicting legislative roll calls from text.” In Proceedings of the 28th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning.
  • Griffiths, T. and Ghahramani, Z. (2005). “Infinite latent feature models and the Indian buffet process.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, 475–482. MIT Press.
  • Grimmer, J. (2010). “A Bayesian Hierarchical Topic Model for Political Texts: Measuring Expressed Agendas in Senate Press Releases.” Political Analysis, 18(1): 1–35.
  • Grimmer, J. and Stewart, B. (to appear in 2013). “Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts.” Political Analysis.
  • Hahn, P., Carvalho, C., and Scott, J. (2012). “A sparse factor-analytic probit model for Congressional voting patterns.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C (Applied Statistics), 61(4): 619–635.
  • Jackman, S. (2001). “Multidimensional analysis of roll call data via Bayesian simulation: Identification, estimation, inference, and model checking.” Political Analysis, 9(3): 227–241.
  • — (2009). Bayesian Analysis for the Social Sciences. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics. Wiley.
  • Paisley, J. and Carin, L. (2009). “Nonparametric factor analysis with beta process priors.” In Proceedings of the 26th Annual International Conference on Machine Learning, ICML ’09, 777–784.
  • Poole, K. and Rosenthal, H. (1985). “A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis.” American Journal of Political Science, 29(2): 357–384.
  • — (1997). Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Porteous, I., Newman, D., Ihler, A., Asuncion, A., Smyth, P., and Welling, M. (2008). “Fast Collapsed Gibbs Sampling for Latent Dirichlet Allocation.” In KDD’08: Proceedings of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, 569–577.
  • Pruteanu-Malinici, I., Ren, L., Paisley, J., Wang, E., and Carin, L. (2010). “Hierarchical Bayesian Modeling of Topics in Time-Stamped Documents.” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis Machine Intelligence, 32(6): 996–1011.
  • Quinn, K., Monroe, B., Colaresi, M., Crespin, M., and Radev, D. (2006). “An automated method of topic-coding legislative speech over time with application to the 105th- 108th U.S. senate.” In Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, 1–61.
  • Salakhutdinov, R. and Mnih, A. (2008). “Probabilistic Matrix Factorization.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 21, volume 20, 1257–1264. MIT Press.
  • Srebo, N., Rennie, J., and Jaakkola, T. (2005). “Maximum-Margin Matrix Factorization.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 18, 1329–1336. MIT Press.
  • Steyvers, M. and Griffiths, T. (2007). “Probabilistic topic models.” Handbook of latent semantic analysis, 427(7): 424–440.
  • Wallach, H. (2008). “Structured Topic Models for Language.” Ph.D. thesis, University of Cambridge.
  • Wang, E., Liu, D., Silva, J., Dunson, D., and Carin, L. (2010). “Joint Analysis of Time-Evolving Binary Matrices and Associated Documents.” In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 23, 2370–2378. MIT Press.