Why and when do legislators vote together on policy? Do legislators decide to vote similarly mainly because of social influence or similarity? I contribute to the literature by offering a social network theory of voting. It is argued that close social ties help to establish reputations and to aid the flow of information among peer legislators, leading to increased influence and increased rates of co-voting among them. I examine the relative effects of information exchange networks and social exchange networks on rates of co-voting, controlling for similarities among legislators. The data include legislative votes from 2010 to 2014 in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies. The results suggest that social influence stemming from social relationships exert substantial effects on rates of congressional co-voting.
AldrichJohn. 1995. Why Parties? The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. 1st ed. American Politics and Political Economy Series. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2.
AndewegRudy B.ThomassenJacques J. A.2005. “Modes of Political Representation: Toward a New Typology.”Legislative Studies Quarterly30 (4): 507–28.
3.
AxelrodRobert M.2006. The Evolution of Cooperation, 12–24. New York: Basic Books.
4.
BellemareMarc F.MasakiTakaakiPepinskyThomas B.2015. “Lagged Explanatory Variables and the Estimation of Causal Effects.”https://doi.org/10.1086/690946.
5.
BogueAllan G.MarlaireMark Paul. 1975. “Of Mess and Men: The Boardinghouse and Congressional Voting, 1821-1842.”American Journal of Political Science19:207–30.
6.
CaldeiraGregory A.PattersonSamuel C.1987. “Political Friendship in the Legislature.”The Journal of Politics49 (4): 953–75.
7.
CareyJohn M.ShugartMatthew Soberg. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: a Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.”Electoral Studies14 (4): 417–39.
8.
CareyJohn M.SiavelisPeter. 2006. “Election Insurance and Coalition Survival: Formal and Informal Institutions in Chile.” In Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America, edited by HelmkeGretchenLevitskySteven, 160–78. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
9.
CarpenterDaniel P.EsterlingKevin M.LazerDavid M. J.2004. “Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics?”The Journal of Politics66 (1): 224–46.
10.
DeGregorioChristine. 1988. “Professionals in the U.S. Congress: An Analysis of Working Styles.”Legislative Studies Quarterly13:459–76.
11.
DeGregorioChristine. 1995. “Staff Utilization in the U.S. Congress: Committee Chairs and Senior Aides.”Polity28:261–75.
12.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
13.
DuvergerMaurice. 1954. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State. London: Methuen.
14.
EriksonRobert S.PintoPablo M.RaderKelly T.2014. “Dyadic Analysis in International Relations: A Cautionary Tale.”Political Analysis22 (4): 457–63.
15.
FigueiredoArgelina CheibubLimongiFernando. 2000. “Presidential Power, Legislative Organization, and Party Behavior in Brazil.”Comparative Politics32:151–70.
16.
FowlerJames H.2006. “Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks.”Political Analysis14 (4): 456–87.
17.
GranovetterMark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.”American Journal of Sociology78 (6): 1360–80.
18.
GranovetterMark. 1985. “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness.”American Journal of Sociology91 (3): 481–510.
19.
HeaneyMichael T.2014. “Multiplex Networks and Interest Group Influence Reputation: An Exponential Random Graph Model.”Social Networks36:66–81.
20.
KirklandJustin H.2011. “The Relational Determinants of Legislative Outcomes: Strong and Weak Ties between Legislators.”The Journal of Politics73 (3): 887–98.
21.
KitscheltHerbertHawkinsKirk A.LunaJuan PabloRosasGuillermoZechmeisterElizabeth J.2010. Latin American Party Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
KogerGregoryMasketSethNoelHans. 2010. “Cooperative Party Factions in American Politics.”American Politics Research38 (1): 33–53.
23.
KrackhardtDavid. 1992. “The Strength of Strong Ties: The Importance of Philos in Organizations.” In Networks and Organizations: Structure, Form, and Action, edited by NoriaN.EcclesRobert G., 216–39. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
24.
MainwaringScottScullyTimothy R.1995. Introduction: Party Systems in Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
25.
MasketSeth E.2008. “Where You Sit Is Where You Stand: The Impact of Seating Proximity on Legislative Cue-Taking.”Quarterly Journal of Political Science3 (3): 301–11.
26.
MatthewsDonald R.1959. “The Folkways of the United States Senate: Conformity to Group Norms and Legislative Effectiveness.”American Political Science Review53 (4): 1064–89.
27.
OstromElinor. 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
PaulsScott D.LeibonGregRockmoreDaniel. 2015. “The Social Identity Voting Model: Ideology and Community Structures.”Research & Politics2 (2): 1–11.
29.
PutnamRobert. 1992. Making Democracy Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
30.
RingeNils. 2010. Who Decides, and How?Oxford: Oxford University Press.
31.
RingeNilsVictorJennifer NicollGrossJustin H.2013. “Keeping Your Friends Close and Your Enemies Closer? Information Networks in Legislative Politics.”British Journal of Political Science43 (3): 601–28.
32.
RogowskiJon C.SinclairBetsy. 2012. “Estimating the Causal Effects of Social Interaction with Endogenous Networks.”Political Analysis20:316–28.
33.
RouttGarland C.1938. “Interpersonal Relationships and the Legislative Process.”The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science195 (1): 129–36.
34.
SamuelsDavid J.2000. “The Gubernatorial Coattails Effect: Federalism and Congressional Elections in Brazil.”The Journal of Politics62 (1): 240–53.
35.
SamuelsDavid J.2008. “Political Ambition, Candidate Recruitment, and Legislative Politics in Brazil.” In Pathways to Power: Politcal Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America, edited by SiavelisPeterMorgensternScott, 76–91. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
36.
ShaliziCosma RohillaThomasAndrew C.2011. “Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies.”Sociological Methods & Research40 (2): 211–39.
37.
ZuccoCesarJr.LauderdaleBenjamin E.2011. “Distinguishing between Influences on Brazilian Legislative Behavior.”Legislative Studies Quarterly36 (3): 363–96.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
