# Political Alignment Case Study¶

Allen Downey

### Introduction¶

This is the third in a series of notebooks that make up a case study in exploratory data analysis.

In this notebook, we explore the relationship between political alignment and variables related to "outlook", like:

• happy: Taken all together, how would you say things are these days--would you say that you are very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?

• hapmar: Taking things all together, how would you describe your marriage? Would you say that your marriage is very happy, pretty happy, or not too happy?

• fear: Is there any area right around here--that is, within a mile--where you would be afraid to walk alone at night?

• trust: Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can't be too careful in dealing with people?

• helpful: Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or that they are mostly just looking out for themselves?

• fair: Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be fair?

As an example, I'll look at fair, and then as an exercise you can look at one of the others.

1. We'll use the Pandas function groupby to compare the average response between groups and plot the average as a function of time.

2. We'll use the Pandas function pivot table to compute the average response within each group as a function of time.

3. And we'll use resampling to see whether the features we see in the figures might be due to randomness, or whether they are likely to reflect actual changes in the works.

### Setup¶

If everything we need is installed, the following cell should run without error.

In [1]:
import pandas as pd
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
import seaborn as sns


The following cells define functions from previous notebooks we will use again.

In [2]:
def values(series):
"""Count the values and sort.

series: pd.Series

returns: series mapping from values to frequencies
"""
return series.value_counts().sort_index()

In [3]:
def decorate(**options):
"""Decorate the current axes.
Call decorate with keyword arguments like
decorate(title='Title',
xlabel='x',
ylabel='y')
The keyword arguments can be any of the axis properties
https://matplotlib.org/api/axes_api.html
"""
plt.gca().set(**options)
plt.tight_layout()

In [4]:
from statsmodels.nonparametric.smoothers_lowess import lowess

def make_lowess(series):
"""Use LOWESS to compute a smooth line.

series: pd.Series

returns: pd.Series
"""
y = series.values
x = series.index.values

smooth = lowess(y, x)
index, data = np.transpose(smooth)

return pd.Series(data, index=index)

In [5]:
def plot_series_lowess(series, color):
"""Plots a series of data points and a smooth line.

series: pd.Series
color: string or tuple
"""
series.plot(linewidth=0, marker='o', color=color, alpha=0.5)
smooth = make_lowess(series)
smooth.plot(label='_', color=color)

In [6]:
def plot_columns_lowess(table, columns, colors):
"""Plot the columns in a DataFrame.

table: DataFrame with a cross tabulation
columns: list of column names, in the desired order
colors: mapping from column names to colors
"""
for col in columns:
series = table[col]
plot_series_lowess(series, colors[col])


In the first notebook, we downloaded GSS data, loaded and cleaned it, resampled it to correct for stratified sampling, and then saved the data in an HDF5 file, which is much faster to load. In this and the following notebooks, we'll download the HDF5 file and load it.

In [7]:
# Load the data file

import os

datafile = 'gss_eda.3.hdf5'
if not os.path.exists(datafile):
!wget https://github.com/AllenDowney/PoliticalAlignmentCaseStudy/raw/master/gss_eda.3.hdf5


Now I'll load one of the resampled DataFrames.

In [8]:
gss = pd.read_hdf(datafile, 'gss0')
gss.shape

Out[8]:
(64814, 165)

## Are people fair?¶

Low let's explore relationships between political alignment (conversative, liberal) and "outlook", which means the way people perceive the world. Specifically, we'll look at their responses to questions about

1. Whether people generally try to be fair.

2. Whether people can generally be trusted.

3. Whether people generally try to be helpful.

Before we look at results, you might want to guess: do you think conservatives or liberals tend to give more positive responses to these questions? Let's see if the data are consistent with your expectations.

The first question we'll look at is:

Do you think most people would try to take advantage of you if they got a chance, or would they try to be fair?

The possible responses are:

1   Take advantage
2   Fair
3   Depends

As always, we start by looking at the distribution of responses, that is, how many people give each response:

In [9]:
values(gss['fair'])

Out[9]:
1.0    15435
2.0    22806
3.0     2755
Name: fair, dtype: int64

The plurality think people try to be fair (2), but a substantial minority think people would take advantage (1).

There are also a substantial number of NaNs, mostly respondents who were not asked this question.

In [10]:
gss['fair'].isna().sum()

Out[10]:
23818

To count the number of people who chose option 2, "people try to be fair", I'll use a dictionary to recode option 2 as 1 and the other options as 0.

In [11]:
recode_fair = {1:0, 2:1, 3:0}


As an alterate, we could include option 3, "depends", by mapping it to 1, or give it less weight by mapping it to an intermediate value like 0.5.

We can use replace to recode the values and store the result as a new column in the DataFrame.

In [12]:
gss['fair2'] = gss['fair'].replace(recode_fair)


And we'll use values to check whether it worked.

In [13]:
values(gss['fair2'])

Out[13]:
0.0    18190
1.0    22806
Name: fair2, dtype: int64

## Fairness over time¶

As we saw in the previous notebook, we can use groupby to group responses by year.

In [14]:
gss_by_year = gss.groupby('year')


From the result we can select fair2 and compute the mean.

In [15]:
fair_by_year = gss_by_year['fair2'].mean()


Here's the result, which shows the fraction of people who say people try to be fair, plotted over time. As in the previous notebook, we plot the data points themselves with circles and a local regression model as a line.

In [16]:
plot_series_lowess(fair_by_year, 'C1')

decorate(xlabel='Year',
ylabel='Fraction saying yes',
xlim=[1970, 2020],
title='Would most people try to be fair?')


Sadly, it looks like faith in humanity has been in decline, at least by this measure.

Let's see what this trend looks like if we group the respondents by political alignment.

## Political views on a 3-point scale¶

In the previous notebook, we looked at responses to polviews, which asks about political alignment. The valid responses are:

1   Extremely liberal
2   Liberal
3   Slightly liberal
4   Moderate
5   Slightly conservative
6   Conservative
7   Extremely conservative

To make it easier to visualize groups, I'm going to lump the 7-point scale into a 3-point scale.

In [17]:
recode_polviews = {1:'Liberal',
2:'Liberal',
3:'Liberal',
4:'Moderate',
5:'Conservative',
6:'Conservative',
7:'Conservative'}


I'll use replace, as we've seen before, and store the result as a new column in the DataFrame.

In [18]:
gss['polviews3'] = gss['polviews'].replace(recode_polviews)


With this scale, there are roughly the same number of people in each group.

In [19]:
values(gss['polviews3'])

Out[19]:
Conservative    19129
Liberal         14979
Moderate        21444
Name: polviews3, dtype: int64

## Fairness by group¶

Now let's see who thinks people are more fair, conservatives or liberals.

We'll group the respondents by polviews3.

In [20]:
by_polviews = gss.groupby('polviews3')


And compute the mean of fair2 in each group.

In [21]:
by_polviews['fair2'].mean()

Out[21]:
polviews3
Conservative    0.582789
Liberal         0.553916
Moderate        0.542407
Name: fair2, dtype: float32

It looks like conservatives are a little more optimistic, in this sense, than liberals and moderates.

But this result is averaged over the last 50 years. Let's see how things have changed over time.

## Fairness over time by group¶

So far, we have grouped by polviews3 and computed the mean of fair2 in each group.

Then we grouped by year and computed the mean of fair2 for each year.

Now I want to group by polviews3 and year, and compute the mean of fair2 in each group over time.

We could do the computation I just described "by hand" using the tools we already have, but it is so common and useful that it has a name: it is called a "pivot table", and Pandas provides a function that computes it.

The Pandas function pivot_table takes the following arguments:

• values, which is the name of the variable we want to summarize: fair2 in this example.

• index, which is the name of the variable that will provide the row labels: year in this example.

• columns, which is the name of the variable that will provide the column labels: polview3 in this example.

• aggfunc, which is the function used to "aggregate", or summarize, the values: mean in this example.

In [22]:
table = gss.pivot_table(values='fair2',
index='year',
columns='polviews3',
aggfunc='mean')


The result is a table that has years running down the rows and political alignment running across the columns.

Each entry in the table is the mean of fair2 for a given group in a given year.

In [23]:
table.head()

Out[23]:
polviews3 Conservative Liberal Moderate
year
1975 0.625616 0.617117 0.647280
1976 0.631696 0.571782 0.612100
1978 0.694915 0.659420 0.665455
1980 0.600000 0.554945 0.640264
1983 0.572438 0.585366 0.463492

Reading across the first row, we can see that in 1975, moderates were slightly more optimistic than the other groups.

Reading down the first column, we can see that the estimated mean of fair2 among conservatives varies from year to year. It is hard to tell looking at these numbers whether it is trending up or down; we can get a better view by plotting the results.

## Plotting the results¶

Before we plot the results, I'll make a dictionary that maps from each group to a color.

In [24]:
muted = sns.color_palette('muted', 5)
sns.palplot(muted)

In [25]:
colors = {'Conservative': muted[3],
'Moderate': muted[4],
'Liberal': muted[0]}


Now we can use plot_columns_lowess to see the results.

In [26]:
columns = ['Conservative', 'Liberal', 'Moderate']

In [27]:
plot_columns_lowess(table, columns, colors)

decorate(xlabel='Year',
ylabel='Fraction saying yes',
xlim=[1970, 2020],
title='Would most people try to be fair?')

plt.legend();


The fraction of respondents who think people try to be fair has dropped in all three groups, although it looks like liberals and moderates might have leveled off.

In 1975, liberals were the least optimistic group. In 2018, they might be the most optimistic.

But the responses are quite noisy, so we should not be too confident about these conclusions.

We can get a sense of how reliable they are by running the resampling process a few times and checking how much the results vary.

## Simulating possible datasets¶

The figures we have generated so far in this notebook are based on a single resampling of the GSS data. Some of the features we see in these figures might be due to random sampling rather than actual changes in the world.

By generating the same figures with different resampled datasets, we can get a sense of how much variation there is due to random sampling.

To make that easier, the following function contains the code from the previous analysis all in one place.

In [30]:
def plot_by_polviews(gss):
"""Plot mean response by polviews and year.

gss: DataFrame
"""
gss['polviews3'] = gss['polviews'].replace(recode_polviews)
gss['fair2'] = gss['fair'].replace(recode_fair)

table = gss.pivot_table(values='fair2',
index='year',
columns='polviews3',
aggfunc='mean')

plot_columns_lowess(table, columns, colors)

decorate(xlabel='Year',
ylabel='Fraction saying yes',
xlim=[1970, 2020],
title='Would most people try to be fair?')

plt.legend()


Now we can loop through the three resampled datasets in the HDF5 file and generate a figure for each one.

In [31]:
for key in ['gss0', 'gss1', 'gss2']:
df = pd.read_hdf('gss_eda.3.hdf5', key)

plt.figure()
plot_by_polviews(df)


Features that are the same in all three figures are more likely to reflect things actually happening in the world. Features that differ substantially between the figures are more likely to be artifacts of random sampling.

In this context, "artifact" has the sense of "something observed in a scientific investigation or experiment that is not naturally present but occurs as a result of the preparative or investigative procedure".

## Other variables¶

As an exercise, you can run the same analysis with one of the other variables related to outlook, listed in the introduction of this notebook.

For other variables, you will have to read the codebook to see the responses and how they are encoded, then think about which responses to report.

Here are the steps I suggest:

1) If you have not already saved this notebook, you might want to do that first. If you are running on Colab, select "Save a copy in Drive" from the File menu.

2) Now, before you modify this notebook, make another copy and give it an appropriate name.

3) Search and replace fair with the name of the variable you select (use "Edit->Find and replace").

4) Run the notebook from the beginning and see what other changes you have to make.

Write a few sentences to describe the relationship between political alignment and outlook.

In [ ]: