Tracking the reuse of text in bills

[Daniel Schuman]

One of my colleagues at Sunlight sent along an article discussing approaches to seeing when the text of legislation is reused. http://faculty.washington.edu/jwilker/MWPSA%202013%20-%20WilkersonStrampDashiel.pdf

"Our approach leverages a law writing convention that bills be divided into sections and that 

each section contain no more than one idea. Each section is assumed to represent a policy idea. 

In this paper we traced the progress of ideas by matching bill sections in introduced bills to 

sections in (other) enacted bills"

Here are some of the interesting points:

* CRS's related bills is unreliable (for the 111th congress when compared to a text comparison solution)

* While the vast majority of successful bills are sponsored by members of the majority, a text based analysis for the 111th congress found that minority language (policy preferences) makes it into these bills. Specifically, in the 111th, while 5% of successful bills are sponsored by a member of the minority party, 28% of policy ideas originate in bills sponsored by the minority party.

Daniel

Daniel Schuman
Director | Advisory Committee on Transparency
Policy Counsel | The Sunlight Foundation
o: 202-742-1520 x 273 | c: 202-713-5795 | @danielschuman

[Josh Tauberer]

That's a really fascinating result. Thanks for passing it along.

John Wilkerson, the lead author on that paper, recently published a book:

    Congress and the Politics of Problem Solving
    http://www.amazon.com/Congress-Politics-Problem-Solving-ebook/dp/B00B9DFAI4

which I've been working through. It's an interesting combination of statistical analysis and also rationale explanations for Congressional behavior. I recommend it if anyone is interested in either aspect of that.

- Josh Tauberer (@JoshData)

http://razor.occams.info

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Open House Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openhouseproje...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to openhous...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/openhouseproject?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Daniel Schuman]

Thanks, Josh. If you want to be sad (and very amused), see this MIT Tech review article on the power of technology to power congressional decisionmaking. It was written in 1968. http://www.technologyreview.com/yearsago/513756/can-it-cure-congress/ The third paragraph breaks my heart.

(I'll grab a copy of the book you recommend)

Can IT Cure Congress?

In 1968, an instructor of political science had reason to hope that computers would make government wiser.

Computer-based analysis as it is refined over the remaining decades of this century will make possible an advance in human intellectual capacity comparable to the invention of language, Arabic numerals, and calculus. With his new ability to understand the dynamics of complex organizations and social processes, the congressman of tomorrow will explore a range of problems previously beyond the grasp of his predecessors.

Studies by RAND Corporation experts suggest that by the early 1970s computers will be small, powerful, plentiful, and inexpensive. Computing power will be available to anyone who needs it, or wants it, or can use it either by means of a personal console connected to some large central facility, or by a small personal machine … By the mid-1980s, the computer will begin to realize its potential as a research tool through modeling and experimentation, as an integral part of the educational system, and in areas such as medicine and biological sciences …

One can readily foresee a congressman sitting at a console in his office poring over computer print-outs into the late evening hours or over the weekend and cutting through the paper arguments and justifications of executive programs with penetrating lines of questions. The possibility of abuse also exists, but the weight of past congressional experience suggests that most congressmen will use such new investigative power wisely. In situations that invite adversary argument, alternative positions and points of view will be more thoroughly developed and cogently presented.

The analytical concepts and techniques associated with the new information technology—systems analysis, program budgeting—are not particularly new. What is new is the capacity of automatic data processing to make ‘operational’ the concept of an organization as a total system. The revolution in information technology represents an almost immeasurable potential increase in man’s knowledge—especially in his understanding of and ability to control his environment. The intelligent use of that knowledge and the power it confers is an awesome responsibility. In a political democracy it involves the democratic consideration of emerging technological possibility and consequence. The multiple perspectives of the American system, the numerous points of access for developing, testing, and advancing ideas may ultimately prove to be among the greatest assets of American democracy in the future."

Read more: http://www.technologyreview.com/yearsago/513756/can-it-cure-congress/#ixzz2Usd5sfHw 

From MIT Technology Review 

Follow us: @techreview on Twitter | technologyreview on Facebook

Daniel

Daniel Schuman
Director | Advisory Committee on Transparency
Policy Counsel | The Sunlight Foundation
o: 202-742-1520 x 273 | c: 202-713-5795 | @danielschuman