MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417301037 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.12535

Framework of Voting Prediction of Parliament Members

2025· preprint· en· W4417301037 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zahi Mizrahi, Shai Berkovitz, Nimrod Talmon, Michael Fire

Bibliographic record

VenueArXiv.org · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicBenford’s Law and Fraud Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVotingParliamentLegislatorStraight-ticket votingLegislationLegislatureRanked voting systemLeverage (statistics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Keeping track of how lawmakers vote is essential for government transparency. While many parliamentary voting records are available online, they are often difficult to interpret, making it challenging to understand legislative behavior across parliaments and predict voting outcomes. Accurate prediction of votes has several potential benefits, from simplifying parliamentary work by filtering out bills with a low chance of passing to refining proposed legislation to increase its likelihood of approval. In this study, we leverage advanced machine learning and data analysis techniques to develop a comprehensive framework for predicting parliamentary voting outcomes across multiple legislatures. We introduce the Voting Prediction Framework (VPF) - a data-driven framework designed to forecast parliamentary voting outcomes at the individual legislator level and for entire bills. VPF consists of three key components: (1) Data Collection - gathering parliamentary voting records from multiple countries using APIs, web crawlers, and structured databases; (2) Parsing and Feature Integration - processing and enriching the data with meaningful features, such as legislator seniority, and content-based characteristics of a given bill; and (3) Prediction Models - using machine learning to forecast how each parliament member will vote and whether a bill is likely to pass. The framework will be open source, enabling anyone to use or modify the framework. To evaluate VPF, we analyzed over 5 million voting records from five countries - Canada, Israel, Tunisia, the United Kingdom and the USA. Our results show that VPF achieves up to 85% precision in predicting individual votes and up to 84% accuracy in predicting overall bill outcomes. These findings highlight VPF's potential as a valuable tool for political analysis, policy research, and enhancing public access to legislative decision-making.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.620
Threshold uncertainty score0.939

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArXiv.orgSame topicBenford’s Law and Fraud DetectionFrench-language works237,207