# Valid visualisation of partisanship in US Congress? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 4, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525 "2013-12-04T23:13:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/1 "2013-12-04T23:13:45Z")
It’s real preddy - as visualisations often are - and a lot would agree with the conclusion, but does it stand up to scrutiny: > **[United States of Amoeba](https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2013/12/04/united-states-of-amoeba?fsrc=scn%2Ffb%2Fwl%2Fbl%2FUnitedstatesofAmoeba)** > > Voting relationships among Senators Is that a valid representation of the the past 24 years? ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [December 4, 2013, 11:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/2 "2013-12-04T23:27:45Z")
Since Lucioni uses publicly available voting data, and pretty clearly explains his methodology, why wouldn’t it be valid? What do you mean by “valid,” anyway? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/3 "2013-12-05T00:08:49Z")
OP’s linked-to graph has one big advantage over [a graph that I linked to recently](http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494). The latter graph depicts dissimilarity between parties’ voting _and might arise if, for example, there was left-vs-right polarization all along which was masked in party-based graphs because the “left” was split between the parties and so was the “right.”_ Lucioni’s method demonstrates that _that is not the case_; that voting now shows stark bipolarization where once there was shifting issue-based voting. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/4 "2013-12-05T00:39:16Z")
More elections than Great Debates, really. ---
**Author:** ![BrokenBriton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@BrokenBriton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrokenBriton)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/5 "2013-12-05T12:21:59Z")
I give up. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/6 "2013-12-05T16:08:31Z")
There is reason for skepticism. network plots like that have a large number of tuning parameters and depending on how those are set can give very different visualizations. I usually view such plots with a cup or two of salt. This says nothing about the correctness of his conclusions. I think its clear that congress has become more polarized in the last few years, but there are clearer ways to demonstrate that. They just don’t look as fancy, and so don’t generate the coolness factor that the network graphs do. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/7 "2013-12-05T17:29:30Z")
The video says “The placement of the points is determined by an algorithm”, but doesn’t say anything at all about what that algorithm is. That’s the essential point we need to know, here, to say how valid it is. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/8 "2013-12-05T18:19:59Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > The video says “The placement of the points is determined by an algorithm”, but doesn’t say anything at all about what that algorithm is. That’s the essential point we need to know, here, to say how valid it is. 😕 Did you [click again](http://renzolucioni.com/articles/senate-voting-relationships/)? The only oddiity I noticed was > [@](#): > > For the sake of clarity, I filtered out edges with weight less than 100; these lighter edges generally indicate agreement on procedural votes. If earlier sessions had more “procedural votes” that might invalidate the comparisons. And, even without that fudge the portion of partisan votes will vary due to procedural or political changes. But even if study of the data reveals that procedures have become more partisan, that would confirm the over-all point. For me, the chart just confirms what readers of objective blogs and magazines already knew. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [December 5, 2013, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/9 "2013-12-05T23:08:03Z")
> [@](#): > > Did you click again? No, I assumed that the link in the OP was to the thing we were supposed to be commenting on. I didn’t even see the nested link to the actual content. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [December 6, 2013, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/valid-visualisation-of-partisanship-in-us-congress/675525/10 "2013-12-06T00:44:42Z")
> [@](#): > > No, I assumed that the link in the OP was to the thing we were supposed to be commenting on. I see this again and again here at SDMB. We don’t care about ideas, but need to rate each others’ exposition and debating skills. Maybe I don’t fit in here.