styles = htl.html`
<style>
.one-congress {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
justify-content: center;
}
.year-display {
font-size: 1.5em;
font-weight: bold;
}
.policy-spaces {
display: flex;
flex-direction: column;
align-items: center;
border-width: 4px;
border-color: black;
border-style: solid;
border-radius: 20px;
}
.policy-spaces > .facet-title {
font-weight: bold;
}
.member-district {
font-size: 0.75em;
}
.bin-pct {
font-size: 8px;
}
</style>
`COU 6: Has Polarization in the House in Increased?
Here again is the interactive chart showing the ideal points of members of the U.S. House in each Congress since the 92nd Congress as modeled via Poole’s and Rosenthal’s NOMINATE method:
Explore the chart to assess the extent to which the model depicts increases in the severity of (1) policy polarization and (2) partisan divergence in the U.S. House since 1971, then state and defend ONE of the following positions.
- Position A
- Between 1971 and 2022, both policy polarization and partisan divergence, as depicted by the NOMINATE model, have gotten more severe in the U.S. House.
- Position B
- Between 1971 and 2022, policy polarization in the U.S. House, as depicted by the NOMINATE model, has gotten more severe, but partisan divergence has not.
- Position C
- Between 1971 and 2022, partisan divergence in the U.S. House, as depicted by the NOMINATE model, has gotten more severe, but policy polarization has not.
- Position D
- Between 1971 and 2022, neither policy polarization nor partisan divergence in the U.S. House, as depicted by the NOMINATE model, has gotten more severe.
Include screenshots of the interactive chart in what you write as evidence for your position. For instance, you could include three screenshots of the chart showing the distribution in 1971, 1997 and 2021 to demonstrate your claims about what has or has not changed during the period since 1971.
As you choose your position and construct your argument, keep in mind that this COU is meant specifically to assess your ability to recognize the spatial model’s depiction of the severity of policy polarization and partisan divergence. So make sure what you write and demonstrate using the screenshots you include reflects a correct understanding of how the spatial model depicts those two distinct phenomena.
Rubric
You can earn up to 1 point on the basis of the argument and evidence (i.e. screenshots) you present in defense of your position on policy polarization, and up to 1 point on the basis of the argument and evidence you present in defense of your position on partisan divergence.
To get the full point on either, your argument must demonstrate a completely correct understanding of how the spatial model depicts the relevant concept (i.e. policy polarization or partisan divergence). This correct understanding must be evident both in how you define the concept in general and how you apply it in interpreting observed changes in the distributions of ideal points evident in the chart.
If your argument on either concept shows a correct understanding of the concept in general, but does not apply that concept to the observed changes in a way that is fully convincing, you earn half a point for your argument regarding that concept.
If your argument fails to show a correct understanding of the concept in general or fails to apply that concept to the evidence in the chart or applies the concept in a way that is incorrect, you get 0 points for your argument regarding that concept.