Previous research has noted the transformation of the American parties since the 1970s, as exhibited in their increased ideological polarization and transformation on social issues like civil rights, abortion, and the environment. We contribute to the literature on party change by theoretically stressing the decentralized and individualistic nature of American parties, while using a measure of party change that is based on legislative behavior beyond roll call voting. Our paper uses social network analysis to analyze the parties from the 93rd to 110th Congresses, utilizing bill cosponsorship to define connections between members. Our analysis illustrates how the core of the party, that is, who are most central in the cosponsorship network, has changed over time. We find evidence that party centrality influenced retirement decisions, thereby reinforcing and contributing to party change.
AdamsG. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41(3), 718–737.
2.
AldrichJ. H. (2011). Why parties? A second look. University of Chicago Press.
3.
AldrichJ. H.RohdeD. W. (2000). The republican revolution and the house appropriations committee. Journal of Politics, 62(1), 1–33.
4.
BawnK.CohenM.KarolD.MaskeetS.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2012). A theory of political parties: Groups, policy demands and nominations in American politics. Perspectives on Politics, 10(3), 571–597.
5.
BernhardW.SulkinT. (2013). Commitment and consequences: Reneging on cosponsorship pledges in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 38(4), 61–87.
6.
BoatrightR. G. (2013). Getting primaried: The changing politics of congressional primary challenges. University of Michigan Press.
7.
Box-SteffensmeierJ. M.JonesB. S. (2004). Event history modeling: A guide for social scientists. Cambridge University Press.
8.
CampbellJ. E. (1982). Cosponsoring legislation in the U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 7(3), 415–422.
9.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton University Press.
10.
CarrM. A.GammG.PhillipsJ. H. (2016, September1–4). Origins of the culture war: Social issues in state party platforms, 1960-2014 [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
11.
CarsonJ. L.MonroeN. W.RobinsonG. (2011). Unpacking agenda control in congress: Individual roll rates and the republican revolution. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 17–30.
12.
ChoW. K. T.FowlerJ. H. (2010). Legislative success in a small world: Social network analysis and dynamics of congressional legislation. Journal of Politics, 72(1), 124–135.
13.
ClausetA.NewmanM.MooreC. (2004). Finding community structure in very large networks. Physical Review E, 70, 066111.
14.
CohenM.KarolD.NoelH.ZallerJ. (2008). The party decides: Presidential nominations before and after reform. University of Chicago Press.
15.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (1993). Legislative leviathan: Party government in the house. University of California Press.
16.
CoxG. W.McCubbinsM. D. (2005). Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge University Press.
17.
CranmerS. J.LeifeldP.McClurgS. D.RolfeM. (2016). Navigating the range of statistical tools for inferential network analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 237–251.
18.
EvansS. F.SwainJ. W. (2012). The impact of reform on retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives, 1945-2010 [Paper presentation]. 2012 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, United States.
19.
FeinsteinB. D.SchicklerE. (2008). Platforms and partners: The civil rights realignment reconsidered. Studies in American Political Development, 22(1), 1–31.
20.
FennoR. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Little Brown.
21.
FowlerJ. H. (2006a). Connecting the congress: A study of cosponsorship networks. Political Analysis, 14(4), 456–487.
22.
FowlerJ. H. (2006b). Legislative cosponsorship networks in the U.S. House and Senate. Social Networks, 28(4), 454–465.
23.
GrossmannM.HopkinsD. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats. Oxford University Press.
24.
GrynaviskiJ. D. (2010). Partisan bonds: Political reputations and legislative accountability. Cambridge University Press.
25.
HackerJ. S.PiersonP. (2005). Off center: The Republican revolution and the erosion of American Democracy. Yale University Press.
26.
HägeF. M.RingeN. (2019). Rapporteur-shadow rapporteur networks in the European Parliament: The strength of small numbers. European Journal of Political Research, 58(1), 209–235.
27.
HarbridgeL. (2015). Is bipartisanship dead? Policy agreement and agenda-setting in the House of Representatives. Cambridge University Press.
28.
HibbingJ. R. (1982). Voluntary retirement from the U.S. House of Representatives: Who quits?American Journal of Political Science, 26(3), 467–484.
29.
HiranoS.SnyderJ. M.Jr. (2019). Primary elections in the United States. Cambridge University Press.
30.
JacobsonG. C. (1978). The effects of campaign spending in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 72(2), 469–491.
31.
KarolD. (2009). Party position change in American politics: Coalition management. Cambridge University Press.
32.
KerbyM.BlidookK. (2011). It’s not you, it’s me: Determinants of voluntary legislative turnover in Canada. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 36(4), 621–643.
33.
KesslerD.KrehbielK. (1996). Dynamics of cosponsorship. American Political Science Review, 90(3), 555–566.
34.
KiewietD. R.ZengL. (1993). An analysis of congressional career decisions, 1947-1986. American Political Science Review, 87(4), 928–941.
35.
KirklandJ. H. (2011). The relational determinants of legislative outcomes: Strong and weak ties between legislators. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 887–898.
36.
KogerG. (2003). Position taking and cosponsorship in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 28(2), 225–246.
37.
KogerG.MasketS.NoelH. (2009). Partisan webs: Information exchange and party networks. British Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 633–653.
38.
KogerG.MasketS.NoelH. (2010). Cooperative party factions in American politics. American Politics Research, 38(1), 33–53.
39.
KolaczykE. D.CsárdiG. (2014). Statistical analysis of network data with R. Springer.
40.
KrehbielK. (1995). Cosponsors and wafflers from A to Z. American Journal of Political Science, 39(4), 906–923.
41.
LawrenceJ. A. (2018). The class of ‘74: Congress after watergate and the roots of partisanship. Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
LaymanG. C.CarseyT. M. (2002). Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 46(4), 786–802.
43.
LeeD. J.BradyM. C. (2020). Coordination and party change in the U.S. American Politics Research, 48(6), 807–821.
44.
MannT. E.OrnsteinN. J. (2012). It’s even worse than it looks: How the American constitutional system collided with the new politics of extremism. Basic Books.
45.
MayhewD. (1974). Congress: The electoral connection (2nd ed.). Yale University Press.
46.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2008). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
47.
NoelH. (2012). The coalition of merchants: The ideological roots of the civil rights realignment. Journal of Politics, 74(1), 156–173.
48.
NoelH. (2013). Political ideologies and political parties in America. Cambridge University Press.
49.
NyhanB.MontgomeryJ. M. (2015). Connecting the candidates: Consultant networks and the diffusion of campaign strategy in American congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2), 292–308.
50.
RohdeD. W. (1979). Risk-bearing and progressive ambition: The case of members of the United States House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 1–26.
51.
RohdeD. W. (1991). Parties and leaders in the postreform house. University of Chicago Press.
52.
RohdeD. W. (2013). Reflections on the practice of theorizing: Conditional party government in the twenty-first century. Journal of Politics, 75(4), 849–864.
53.
SchlozmanD. (2015). When movements anchor parties: Electoral alignments in American history. Princeton University Press.
54.
ScottJ. (2012). Social network analysis (3rd ed.). Sage.
55.
ShipanC. R.LowryW. R. (2001). Environmental policy and party divergence in Congress. Political Research Quarterly, 54(2), 245–263.
56.
SnidermanP. M.StiglitzE. H. (2012). The reputational premium: A theory of party identification and policy reasoning. Princeton University Press.
57.
SnyderJ. M.TingM. M. (2002). An informational rationale for political parties. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 90–110.
58.
SulkinT. (2011). The legislative legacy of congressional campaigns. Cambridge University Press.
59.
SwersM. L. (2005). Connecting descriptive and substantive representation: An analysis of sex differences in cosponsorship activity. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30(3), 407–433.
60.
TheriaultS. M. (1998). Moving up or moving out: Career ceilings and congressional retirement. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(3), 419–433.
61.
TheriaultS. M. (2006). Party polarization in congress. Cambridge University Press.
62.
TheriaultS. M.RohdeD. W. (2011). The Gingrich senators and party polarization in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Politics, 73(4), 1011–1024.
63.
ThomsenD. M. (2014). Ideological moderates won’t run: How party fit matters for partisan polarization in Congress. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 786–797.
64.
ThomsenD. M. (2017). Opting out of congress: Partisan polarization and the decline of moderate candidates. Cambridge University Press.
65.
VictorJ. N.RingeN. (2009). The social utility of informal institutions: Caucuses as networks in the 110th U.S. House of Representatives. American Politics Research, 37(5), 742–766.
66.
WaughA. S.PeiL.FowlerJ. H.MuchaP. J.PorterM. A. (2012). Party polarization in Congress: A network science approach. Unpublished, ver. 2012.
67.
ZhangY.FriendA.TraudA. L.PorterM. A.FowlerJ. H.MuchaP. J. (2008). Community structure in congressional cosponsorship networks. Physica A, 387, 1705–1712.
