Detecting Disruption: Identifying Structural Changes in the Verkhovna Rada

  • Thomas MagelinskiEmail author
  • Jialin Hou
  • Tymofiy Mylovanov
  • Kathleen M. Carley
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11549)


We identify time periods of disruption in the voting patterns of the Ukrainian parliament for the last three convocations. We compare two methods: ideal point estimation (PolSci) and faction detection (CS). Both methods identify the revolution in Ukraine in 2014. The faction detection method also detects structural changes prior to the revolution (election of the president whose tenure was ended early by the revolution), while the ideal points method performs stronger after 2014, identifying a disruption around voting on constitutional changes to implement Minsk II agreements between separatists and Ukraine. The ideal point method is better at detecting position changes of the members of parliament, while the faction method is better at detecting changes in relationships between different MPs. The results suggest that after 2014, the Ukrainian parliament has become more consolidated, but the distribution of its political positions continues to evolve in response to changes in geo-political conditions.


Change point analysis Ideal points Faction detection Verkhovna Rada Dynamic network analysis Ukraine 


  1. 1.
    Verkhovna rada of ukraine, February 2018 .
  2. 2.
    Aynaud, T., Fleury, E., Guillaume, J.L., Wang, Q.: Communities in evolving networks: definitions, detection, and analysis techniques. In: Mukherjee, A., Choudhury, M., Peruani, F., Ganguly, N., Mitra, B. (eds.) Dynamics On and Of Complex Networks, Modeling and Simulation in Science, Engineering and Technology. Birkhäuser, vol. 2, pp. 159–200. Springer, New York (2013). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bailey, M.A.: Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, congress, and presidency. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 51(3), 433–448 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blondel, V.D., Guillaume, J.L., Lambiotte, R., Lefebvre, E.: Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J. Stat. Mech.: Theor. Exp. 2008(10), P10008 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Caughey, D., Warshaw, C.: Dynamic estimation of latent opinion using a hierarchical group-level irt model. Polit. Anal. 23(2), 197–211 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clinton, J., Jackman, S., Rivers, D.: The statistical analysis of roll call data. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 98(2), 355–370 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Comaniciu, D., Meer, P.: Mean shift: a robust approach toward feature space analysis. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 24(5), 603–619 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Friedkin, N.E.: A structural Theory of Social Influence, vol. 13. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Friedkin, N.E., Johnsen, E.: Social influence networks and opinion chance. Adv. Group Process. 16, 1–29 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gower, J.C.: A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27(4), 857–871 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jackman, S.: Multidimensional analysis of roll call data via Bayesian simulation: identification, estimation, inference, and model checking. Polit. Anal. 9(3), 227–241 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    MacRae Jr., D.: Dimensions of Congressional Voting: A Statistical Study of the House of Representatives in the Eighty-First Congress. University of California Press, California (1958)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Magelinski, T., Cruickshank, I., Carley, K.M.: Comparison of faction detection methods in application to ukrainian parliamentary data (2018)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin, A.D., Quinn, K.M.: Dynamic ideal point estimation via markov chain monte carlo for the us supreme court, 1953–1999. Polit. Anal. 10(2), 134–153 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mucha, P.J., Richardson, T., Macon, K., Porter, M.A., Onnela, J.P.: Community structure in time-dependent, multiscale, and multiplex networks. Science 328(5980), 876–878 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Newman, M.E.: Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. Phys. Rev. E 69(6), 066133 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Poole, K.T., Rosenthal, H.: A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 29(2), 357–384 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rossetti, G., Cazabet, R.: Community discovery in dynamic networks: a survey. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 51(2), 35 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun, J., Faloutsos, C., Faloutsos, C., Papadimitriou, S., Yu, P.S.: Graphscope: parameter-free mining of large time-evolving graphs. In: Proceedings of the 13th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, pp. 687–696. ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tausanovitch, C., Warshaw, C.: Measuring constituent policy preferences in congress, state legislatures, and cities. J. Polit. 75(2), 330–342 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CASOS, Institute for Software ResearchCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations