Papers › Parapolitics and Roll-Call Voting in Colombia: A Bayesian Euclidean and Spherical...
Parapolitics and Roll-Call Voting in Colombia: A Bayesian Euclidean and Spherical Spatial Analysis
Juan Sosa, Carolina Luque, Juan Valero
The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.
This study presents a Bayesian spatial voting analysis of the Colombian Senate during the 2006-2010 legislative period, leveraging a newly constructed roll-call dataset comprising 147 senators and 136 plenary votes. We estimate legislators' ideal points under two alternative geometric frameworks: A traditional Euclidean model and a circular model that embeds preferences on the unit circle. Both models are implemented using Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods, with the circular specification capturing geodesic distances and von Mises-distributed latent traits. The results reveal a latent structure in voting behavior best characterized not by a conventional left-right ideological continuum but by an opposition-non-opposition alignment. Using Bayesian logistic regression, we further investigate the association between senators' ideal points and their involvement in the para-politics scandal. Findings indicate a significant and robust relationship between political alignment and para-politics implication, suggesting that extralegal influence was systematically related to senators' legislative behavior during this period.
Code
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections