Ítem
Acceso Abierto

Teoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congreso

Mostrar el registro sencillo de la publicación
dc.contributor.advisorBasset, Yann
dc.creatorRoldan Hernandez, Camila Alejandra
dc.creator.degreePolitólogo – Profesional en Ciencia Política y Gobierno
dc.date.accessioned2018-06-08T16:50:46Z
dc.date.available2018-06-08T16:50:46Z
dc.date.created2018-05-31
dc.date.issued2018
dc.descriptionEsta investigación explora cómo los atributos personales de los miembros del Congreso influyeron el comportamiento de votación legislativo en la Ley de Defensa del Matrimonio en 1996 (DOMA). El autor usó el método estadístico Chi-cuadrado (χ2), y el coeficiente Phi (φ) para probar la relación entre los atributos personales y el comportamiento legislativo en DOMA. Para esto se hizo uso de los puntajes de los miembros del 104 Congreso de los Estados Unidos registrados en la tabla DW-NOMINATIVE de Poole y Rosenthal. Los resultados indican que a pesar de tener una correlación moderada o débil los atributos personales importan, dado que factores tales como su partido político, su ideología, y su género son estadísticamente significantes para los legisladores a la hora de votar en función de políticas relacionadas con la conservación del matrimonio tradicional.spa
dc.description.abstractThis research explores the extent to which personal attributes influenced the voting behavior of the members of Congress on the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 (DOMA). The author tested the relationship between legislators’ personal attributes and the way legislators voted on the law by using the Poole and Rosenthal’s DW-NOMINATIVE scores for the 104 Congress of the United States on the statistical method of Chi-squared (χ2), and the Phi (φ) coefficient of correlation. The results suggested that even though the strength of the correlation is moderate or weak, the personal attributes matter; since factors such as political party, ideology, and gender are statistically significant for legislators when they have to vote for or against politics that defend and preserve the traditional marriage.eng
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.48713/10336_18057
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/18057
dc.language.isospa
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosariospa
dc.publisher.departmentFacultad de Ciencia Política y Gobiernospa
dc.publisher.programCiencia Política y Gobiernospa
dc.rightsAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombiaspa
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto Completo)spa
dc.rights.licenciaEL AUTOR, manifiesta que la obra objeto de la presente autorización es original y la realizó sin violar o usurpar derechos de autor de terceros, por lo tanto la obra es de exclusiva autoría y tiene la titularidad sobre la misma. PARGRAFO: En caso de presentarse cualquier reclamación o acción por parte de un tercero en cuanto a los derechos de autor sobre la obra en cuestión, EL AUTOR, asumirá toda la responsabilidad, y saldrá en defensa de los derechos aquí autorizados; para todos los efectos la universidad actúa como un tercero de buena fe. EL AUTOR, autoriza a LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO, para que en los términos establecidos en la Ley 23 de 1982, Ley 44 de 1993, Decisión andina 351 de 1993, Decreto 460 de 1995 y demás normas generales sobre la materia, utilice y use la obra objeto de la presente autorización. -------------------------------------- POLITICA DE TRATAMIENTO DE DATOS PERSONALES. Declaro que autorizo previa y de forma informada el tratamiento de mis datos personales por parte de LA UNIVERSIDAD DEL ROSARIO para fines académicos y en aplicación de convenios con terceros o servicios conexos con actividades propias de la academia, con estricto cumplimiento de los principios de ley. Para el correcto ejercicio de mi derecho de habeas data cuento con la cuenta de correo habeasdata@urosario.edu.co, donde previa identificación podré solicitar la consulta, corrección y supresión de mis datos.spa
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/co/
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAyers, E. L., Gould, L. L., Oshinsky, D. M., & Soderlund, J. R. (2000). American Passages: A History of the United States. Orlando, FL: Harcourt, Inc.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCeaser, J. W., & Busch, A. E. (1997). Loosing to Win: The 1996 Elections and American Politics. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGuillon, S. M., & Matson, C. D. (2006). The American Experiment: A history of the United States. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNorton, M. B., Katzman, D. M., & Blight, D. W. (2007). A People and a Nation: A History of the United States. New York: Houghtin Mifflin.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationPresidential Elections 1789-2000. (2002). Washington D.C.: Congressional Quaterly
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJames Q. Wilson & John J. DiIulio, J. (1998). American Government. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. (20-60)
dc.source.bibliographicCitationAnsolabehere, S., Jr., A. M., & III, a. C. (2001). The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting. Legislative Studies Quaterly, Vol. 26 Issue 4, p533-572. 40p. 57 Diagrams, 9 C.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBender, B. (July 1991). The Influence of Ideology on Congressional Voting. Economic Inquiry, Vol. 29, Issue 3, p. 416.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBergan, D., & Cole, a. R. (2015). Call Your Legislator: A Field Experimental Study of the Impact of a Constituency Mobilization Campaign on Legislative Voting. Poltical Behavior, Vol. 37 Issue 1, p27-42. 16p. 6 Charts, 1 Graph.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationClark, J. H., & Williams, a. L. (2014). Parties, Term Limits, and Representation in the U.S. States. American Politics Research, Vol. 42 Issue 1, p171-193.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFrederick, B. (2010). Gender and Patterns of Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate. Congress & The Presidency, Vol. 37 Issue 2, p103-124.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFrederick, B. (2011). Gender Turnover and Roll Call Voting in the U.S. Senate. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, Vol. 32 Issue 3, p193-210.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGriffin, J. D. (2008). Measuring Legislator Ideology. Social Science Quarterly; , V. 89, iss. 2, pp. 337-50.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHalcoussis, D., & Lowenerg, a. A. (2015). All In: An Empirical Analysis of Legislative Voting on Internet Gambling Restrictions in the United States. Contemporary Economic Policy, v. 33, iss. 1, pp. 17-28.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHogan, R. E. (2008). Sex and the Statehouse: The Effects of Gender on Legislative Roll-Call Voting. Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 89 Issue 4, p955-968. 14p. 2 Charts.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationIaryczower, M., & Katz, G. (March 2016). What does it take for Congress to enact Good Policies? An Analysis of Roll Call voting in the US. Congress. Economics and Politics, v. 28; iss. 1, pp. 79-104.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJenkins, J. A. (1999). Examining the bonding effects of party: A comparative analysis of roll-call voting in the U.S. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 43 Issue 4, p1144. 22p. 3 Charts, 2 Graphs.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJenkins, S. (2008). Gendered Choices? Examining the Differences Roll Call Voting for Female and Male Legislators. Conference Papers -- Western Political Science Association, 26-27.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJenkins, S. (2008). Party Influence on Roll Call Voting: A View from the U.S. States. State Politics & Policy Quaterly, Vol.8.Issue 3, p 239-262.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationJenkins, S. (Social Science Quarterly). How Gender Influences Roll Call Voting. 2012: Vol. 93 Issue 2, p415-433. 19p. 1 Diagram, 2 Charts.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationLevitt, S. D. (1996). How Do Senators Vote? Disentangling the Role of Voter Preferences, Party Affiliation, and Senator Ideology . American Economic Review, Vol. 86 Issue 3, p425-441. 17p. 6 Charts.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationRocca, M. S., Sanchez, a. G., & Uscinski, a. J. (2008). Personal Attributes and Latino Voting Behavior in Congress. Social Science Quarterly, V. 89, iss. 2, pp. 392-405.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationSchnakenberg, K. E. (2017). Informational Lobbying and Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 61 Issue 1, p129-145. 17p. 2 Charts.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationC-SPAN. (1996, 07 12). Retrieved 01 11, 2018, from https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4395751/house-debate-doma
dc.source.bibliographicCitationabcNEWS. (2012, 12 06). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/congress-evolves-doma-sex-marriage/story?id=17888075
dc.source.bibliographicCitationThinkProgress. (2013, 03 06). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from https://thinkprogress.org/21-senators-who-voted-for-doma-in-1996-but-later-opposed-it-d178316e0af/
dc.source.bibliographicCitationabcNews. (2015, 03 15). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/high-profile-politicians-changed-positions-gay-marriage/story?id=18740293
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGallup. (2016, May 19). Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://news.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspx
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCambridge Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 8, 2017, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ideology
dc.source.bibliographicCitation.Congress.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 10, 2017, from http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCornell Law School. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2018, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/strict_scrutiny
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDemocrats.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 12, 2017, from https://www.democrats.org/party-platform#our-values
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGOP.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 12, 2017, from https://www.gop.com/
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGordon, S. B., & Gillham, C. (2004). Party Pressure and Legislative Voting on the Contract with America. Conference Papers -Midwest Politcal Science Association, 1-19.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGovernment Publishing Office. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2017, from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt664/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdf
dc.source.bibliographicCitationGovtrack. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 17, 2017, from https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/104/hr3396/summary
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHawaii.gov. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 07, 2018, from https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol12_Ch0501-0588/HRS0572/HRS_0572-0001.htm
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMerriam-Webster. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 02, 2018, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMonroe, A. D. (2000). Essentials of Political Research. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationNational Archives. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 08, 2018, from https://www.archives.gov/espanol/constitucion.html
dc.source.bibliographicCitationOut History. (n.d.). Retrieved April 18, 2018, from http://outhistory.org/exhibits/show/out-and-elected/1996/jim-kolbe
dc.source.bibliographicCitationReligious Tolerance. (n.d.). Retrieved April 21, 2018, from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_poll5e.htm
dc.source.bibliographicCitationThe American Conservative Union. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 13, 2017, from http://acuratings.conservative.org/acu-federal-legislative-ratings/?year1=1996&chamber=11&state1=0&sortable=1
dc.source.bibliographicCitationThe New Yorker. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 09, 2018, from https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-bill-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act
dc.source.bibliographicCitationUnited States Senate. (n.d.). Retrieved 11 10, 2017, from https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280
dc.source.bibliographicCitationVoteview.com. (n.d.). Retrieved 01 04, 2018, from https://voteview.com/congress/senate
dc.source.bibliographicCitationWilson, W. (n.d.). IzQuotes.com. Retrieved 11 9, 2017, from https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=wFbnJb%2Fd&id=F30D4B20FEB6C186C0AACAE27475852A0B529070&thid=OIP.wFbnJb_depDMBhB4IQuUVwEsCN&mediaurl=http%3A%2F%2Fizquotes.com%2Fquotes-pictures%2Fquote-congress-in-session-is-congress-on-public-exhibit
dc.source.instnameinstname:Universidad del Rosariospa
dc.source.reponamereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocURspa
dc.subjectTeoría Actitudinalspa
dc.subjectComportamiento del Voto Legislativospa
dc.subjectDOMAspa
dc.subjectChi-cuadradospa
dc.subjectCoeficiente Phispa
dc.subject.ddcSistemas de gobierno & estados
dc.subject.keywordAttitudinal Theoryeng
dc.subject.keywordCongressional Voting Behavioreng
dc.subject.keywordDOMAeng
dc.subject.keywordChi-squaredeng
dc.subject.keywordPhi Coefficienteng
dc.subject.lembEstados Unidos::Congreso::Votospa
dc.subject.lembActitud (Psicología)spa
dc.subject.lembMatrimonio::Legislaciónspa
dc.titleTeoría actitudinal y la Ley defensa del matrimonio de 1996 : un análisis empírico del comportamiento de votación del Congresospa
dc.title.alternativeEstudio de caso : Ley de defensa del matrimonio de 1996eng
dc.typebachelorThesiseng
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.type.spaTrabajo de gradospa
Archivos
Bloque original
Mostrando1 - 1 de 1
Miniatura
Nombre:
RoldanHernandez-CamilaAlejandra-2018-1.pdf
Tamaño:
756.16 KB
Formato:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Descripción:
Artículo principal
Descargar
Colecciones
Pregrado en Ciencia Política y Gobierno