NOMINATE (scaling method)

Last updated
NOMINATE
House 111 X plot.jpg
W-NOMINATE coordinates of members of the 111th House of Representatives.
Developers
Keith T. Poole, University of Georgia
Howard Rosenthal, New York University

NOMINATE (an acronym for Nominal Three-Step Estimation) is a multidimensional scaling application developed by US political scientists Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal in the early 1980s to analyze preferential and choice data, such as legislative roll-call voting behavior. [1] [2] In its most well-known application, members of the US Congress are placed on a two-dimensional map, with politicians who are ideologically similar (i.e. who often vote the same) being close together. One of these two dimensions corresponds to the familiar left–right political spectrum (liberal–conservative in the United States).

Contents

As computing capabilities grew, Poole and Rosenthal developed multiple iterations of their NOMINATE procedure: the original D-NOMINATE method, W-NOMINATE, and most recently DW-NOMINATE (for dynamic, weighted NOMINATE). In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE. [3] In 2016, the society awarded Poole its Career Achievement Award, stating that "the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores." [4]

Procedure

The main procedure is an application of multidimensional scaling techniques to political choice data. Though there are important technical differences between these types of NOMINATE scaling procedures; [5] all operate under the same fundamental assumptions. First, that alternative choices can be projected on a basic, low-dimensional (often two-dimensional) Euclidean space. Second, within that space, individuals have utility functions which are bell-shaped (normally distributed), and maximized at their ideal point. Because individuals also have symmetric, single-peaked utility functions which center on their ideal point, ideal points represent individuals' most preferred outcomes. That is, individuals most desire outcomes closest their ideal point, and will choose/vote probabilistically for the closest outcome.

Ideal points can be recovered from observing choices, with individuals exhibiting similar preferences placed more closely than those behaving dissimilarly. It is helpful to compare this procedure to producing maps based on driving distances between cities. For example, Los Angeles is about 1,800 miles from St. Louis; St. Louis is about 1,200 miles from Miami; and Miami is about 2,700 miles from Los Angeles. From this (dis)similarities data, any map of these three cities should place Miami far from Los Angeles, with St. Louis somewhere in between (though a bit closer to Miami than Los Angeles). Just as cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco would be clustered on a map, NOMINATE places ideologically similar legislators (e.g., liberal Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Al Franken (D-Minn.)) closer to each other, and farther from dissimilar legislators (e.g., conservative Senator Tom Coburn (R-Okla.)) based on the degree of agreement between their roll call voting records. At the heart of the NOMINATE procedures (and other multidimensional scaling methods, such as Poole's Optimal Classification method [6] ) are algorithms they utilize to arrange individuals and choices in low dimensional (usually two-dimensional) space. Thus, NOMINATE scores provide "maps" of legislatures. [7]

Keith T. Poole (left) and Howard Rosenthal (right), 1984. Me and howard 1984 4.gif
Keith T. Poole (left) and Howard Rosenthal (right), 1984.

Using NOMINATE procedures to study congressional roll call voting behavior from the First Congress to the present-day, Poole and Rosenthal published Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting [8] in 1997 and the revised edition Ideology and Congress [9] in 2007.

In 2009, Poole and Rosenthal were named the first recipients of the Society for Political Methodology's Best Statistical Software Award for their development of NOMINATE, a recognition conferred to "individual(s) for developing statistical software that makes a significant research contribution". [3] In 2016, Keith T. Poole was awarded the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award. The citation for this award reads, in part, "One can say perfectly correctly, and without any hyperbole: the modern study of the U.S. Congress would be simply unthinkable without NOMINATE legislative roll call voting scores. NOMINATE has produced data that entire bodies of our discipline—and many in the press—have relied on to understand the U.S. Congress." [4]

Dimensions

Poole and Rosenthal demonstrate that—despite the many complexities of congressional representation and politics—roll call voting in both the House and the Senate can be organized and explained by no more than two dimensions throughout the sweep of American history. The first dimension (horizontal or x-axis) is the familiar left-right (or liberal-conservative) spectrum on economic matters. The second dimension (vertical or y-axis) picks up attitudes on cross-cutting, salient issues of the day (which include or have included slavery, bimetallism, civil rights, regional, and social/lifestyle issues). Rosenthal and Poole have initially argued that the first dimension refers to socio-economic matters and the second dimension to race-relations. [10] However, the often confusing and residual nature of the second dimension has led to the second dimension being largely ignored by other researchers. [11]

For the most part, congressional voting is uni-dimensional, with most of the variation in voting patterns explained by placement along the liberal-conservative first dimension. While the first dimension of the DW-NOMINATE score is able to predict results at 83% accuracy, the addition of the second dimension only increases accuracy to 85%. [10] Furthermore, the second dimension only provided a significant increase in accuracy for Congresses 1-99. As late as the 1990s, the second dimension was able to measure partisan splits in abortion and gun rights issues. However, a 2017 analysis found that since 1987, the votes of the US Congress had best fit a one-dimensional model, suggesting increasing party polarization after 1987. [12]

Interpretation of nominate scores

For illustrative purposes, consider the following plots which use W-NOMINATE scores to scale members of Congress and uses the probabilistic voting model (in which legislators farther from the "cutting line" between "yea" and "nay" outcomes become more likely to vote in the predicted manner) to illustrate some major Congressional votes in the 1990s. Some of these votes, like the House's vote on President Clinton's welfare reform package (the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996) are best modeled through the use of the first (economic liberal-conservative) dimension. On the welfare reform vote, nearly all Republicans joined the moderate-conservative bloc of House Democrats in voting for the bill, while opposition was virtually confined to the most liberal Democrats in the House. The errors (those representatives on the "wrong" side of the cutting line which separates predicted "yeas" and predicted "nays") are generally close to the cutting line, which is what we would expect. A legislator directly on the cutting line is indifferent between voting "yea" and "nay" on the measure. All members are shown on the left panel of the plot, while only errors are shown on the right panel:

NOMINATE 2.jpg

Economic ideology also dominates the Senate vote on the Balanced Budget Amendment of 1995:

NOMINATE 3.jpg

On other votes, however, a second dimension (which has recently[ when? ] come to represent attitudes on cultural and lifestyle issues) is important. For example, roll call votes on gun control routinely split party coalitions, with socially conservative "blue dog" Democrats joining most Republicans in opposing additional regulation and socially liberal Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting gun control. The addition of the second dimension accounts for these inter-party differences, and the cutting line is more horizontal than vertical (meaning the cleavage is found on the second dimension rather than the first dimension on these votes) This pattern was evident in the 1991 House vote to require waiting periods on handguns:

NOMINATE 4.jpg

Political ideology

DW-NOMINATE scores have been used widely to describe the political ideology of political actors, political parties and political institutions. [13] For instance, a score in the first dimension that is close to either pole means that such score is located at one of the extremes in the liberal-conservative scale. So, a score closer to 1 is described as conservative whereas a score closer to −1 can be described as liberal. Finally, a score at zero or close to zero is described as moderate. [14] [15]

Political polarization

Political polarization in the United States House of Representatives. NOMINATE polarization.jpg
Political polarization in the United States House of Representatives.

Poole and Rosenthal (beginning with their 1984 article "The Polarization of American Politics" [16] ) have also used NOMINATE data to show that, since the 1970s, party delegations in Congress have become ideologically homogeneous and distant from one another (a phenomenon known as "polarization"). Using DW-NOMINATE scores (which permit direct comparisons between members of different Congresses across time), political scientists have demonstrated the expansion of ideological divides in Congress, which has spurred intense partisanship between Republicans and Democrats in recent[ when? ] decades. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] Contemporary political polarization has had important political consequences on American public policy, as Poole and Rosenthal (with fellow political scientist Nolan McCarty) show in their 2006 book Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. [24]

Applications

NOMINATE has been used to test, refine, and/or develop wide-ranging theories and models of the United States Congress. [25] [26] In Ideology and Congress (pp. 270–271), Poole and Rosenthal agree that their findings are consistent with the "party cartel" model that Cox and McCubbins present in their 1993 book Legislative Leviathan. [27] Keith Krehbiel utilizes NOMINATE scores to determine the ideological rank order of both chambers of Congress in developing his "pivotal politics" theory, [28] as do Gary Cox and Matthew McCubbins in their tests of whether parties in Congress meet the conditions of responsible party government (RPG). [29]

NOMINATE scores have been used by popular media outlets like The New York Times and The Washington Post as a measure of the political ideology of political institutions and elected officials or candidates. Political blogger Nate Silver and his team at FiveThirtyEight have repeatedly used DW-NOMINATE scores to gauge the ideological location of major political figures and institutions. [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]

NOMINATE procedures and related roll call scaling techniques have also been applied to a number of other legislative bodies besides the United States Congress. These include the United Nations General Assembly, [35] the European Parliament [36] National Assemblies in Latin America, [37] and the French Fourth Republic. [38] Poole and Rosenthal note in Chapter 11 of Ideology and Congress (2007) that most of these analyses find that roll call voting is organized by only few dimensions (usually two): "These findings suggest that the need to form parliamentary majorities limits dimensionality." [39]

See also

Further reading

Related Research Articles

A political spectrum is a system to characterize and classify different political positions in relation to one another. These positions sit upon one or more geometric axes that represent independent political dimensions. The expressions political compass and political map are used to refer to the political spectrum as well, especially to popular two-dimensional models of it.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Politics of the United States</span>

In the United States, politics functions within a framework of a constitutional federal republic. The three distinct branches share powers: the U.S. Congress which forms the legislative branch, a bicameral legislative body comprising the House of Representatives and the Senate; the executive branch, which is headed by the president of the United States, who serves as the country's head of state and government; and the judicial branch, composed of the Supreme Court and lower federal courts, and which exercises judicial power.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">British Columbia Social Credit Party</span> Political party in British Columbia, Canada

The British Columbia Social Credit Party, whose members are known as Socreds, was the governing provincial political party of British Columbia, Canada, for all but three years between the 1952 provincial election and the 1991 election. For four decades, the party dominated the British Columbian political scene, with the only break occurring between the 1972 and 1975 elections when the British Columbia New Democratic Party governed.

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties, with emphasis placed upon issues of social equality and social hierarchy. In addition to positions on the left and on the right, there are centrist and moderate positions, which are not strongly aligned with either end of the spectrum. It originated during the French Revolution based on the seating in the French National Assembly.

A political realignment, often called a critical election, critical realignment, or realigning election, in the academic fields of political science and political history, is a set of sharp changes in party ideology, issues, party leaders, regional and demographic bases of power of political parties, and the structure or rules of the political system, such as voter eligibility or financing. The changes result in a new political power structure that lasts for decades, replacing an older dominant coalition. Scholars frequently invoke the concept in American elections and occasionally those of other countries. American examples include the 1896 United States presidential election, when the issues of the American Civil War political system were replaced with those of the Populist and Progressive Era, and the 1932 United States presidential election, when the Populist and Progressive Eras were replaced by the New Deal-era issues of New Deal liberalism and modern conservatism. Realigning elections typically separate party systems—with 1828, for example, separating the First Party System and the Second Party System in the US. It is generally accepted that the United States has had five distinct party systems, each featuring two major parties attracting a consistent political coalition and following a consistent party ideology, separated by four realignments.

Political polarization is the divergence of political attitudes away from the center, towards ideological extremes. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization.

Bipartisanship, sometimes referred to as nonpartisanship, is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system, in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise. In multi-partisan electoral systems or in situations where multiple parties work together, it is called multipartisanship. Partisanship is the antonym, where an individual or political party adheres only to its interests without compromise.

In American politics, a conservative Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party with more conservative views than most Democrats. Traditionally, conservative Democrats have been elected to office from the Southern states, rural areas, and the Midwest. In 2019, the Pew Research Center found that 14% of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters identify as conservative or very conservative, 38% identify as moderate, and 47% identify as liberal or very liberal.

A party-line vote in a deliberative assembly is a vote in which a substantial majority of members of a political party vote the same way.

The authoritarian personality is a personality type characterized by a disposition to treat authority figures with unquestioning obedience and respect. Conceptually, the term authoritarian personality originated from the writings of Erich Fromm, and usually is applied to people who exhibit a strict and oppressive personality towards their subordinates. Regardless of whether authoritarianism is more of a personality, attitude, ideology or disposition, scholars find it has significant influence on public opinion and political behavior.

The conservative coalition, founded in 1937, was an unofficial alliance of members of the United States Congress which brought together the conservative wings of the Republican and Democratic parties to oppose President Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal. In addition to Roosevelt, the conservative coalition dominated Congress for four presidencies, blocking legislation proposed by Roosevelt and his successors. By 1937, the conservatives were the largest faction in the Republican Party which had opposed the New Deal in some form since 1933. Despite Roosevelt being a Democrat himself, his party did not universally support the New Deal agenda in Congress. Democrats who opposed Roosevelt's policies tended to hold conservative views, and allied with conservative Republicans. These Democrats were mostly located in the South. According to James T. Patterson: "By and large the congressional conservatives agreed in opposing the spread of federal power and bureaucracy, in denouncing deficit spending, in criticizing industrial labor unions, and in excoriating most welfare programs. They sought to 'conserve' an America which they believed to have existed before 1933."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Factions in the Democratic Party (United States)</span> List of political factions within the U.S. Democratic Party

The Democratic Party of the United States is a party composed of various factions. The liberal faction supports modern liberalism that began with the New Deal in the 1930s and continued with both the New Frontier and Great Society in the 1960s. The moderate faction supports Third Way politics that includes center-left social policies and centrist fiscal policies. The progressive faction supports progressivism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political ideologies in the United States</span> Ideologies and ideological demographics in the United States

American political ideologies conventionally align with the left–right political spectrum, with most Americans identifying as conservative, liberal, or moderate. Contemporary American conservatism includes social conservatism and fiscal conservatism. The former ideology developed as a response to communism and the civil rights movement, while the latter developed as a response to the New Deal. Contemporary American liberalism includes social liberalism and progressivism, developing during the Progressive Era and the Great Depression. Besides conservatism and liberalism, the United States has a notable libertarian movement, developing during the mid-20th century as a revival of classical liberalism. Historical political movements in the United States have been shaped by ideologies as varied as republicanism, populism, separatism, fascism, socialism, monarchism, and nationalism.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States House of Representatives</span> Lower house of the US Congress

The United States House of Representatives is the lower chamber of the United States Congress, with the Senate being the upper chamber. Together, they comprise the national bicameral legislature of the United States. The House is charged with the passage of federal legislation, known as bills; those that are also passed by the Senate are sent to the president for signature or veto. The House's exclusive powers include initiating all revenue bills, impeaching federal officers, and electing the president if no candidate receives a majority of votes in the Electoral College.

Low information voters, also known as misinformation voters, are people who may vote yet are generally poorly informed about issues. The phrase is mainly used in the United States and has become popular since the mid-1990s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ideological leanings of United States Supreme Court justices</span>

The Supreme Court of the United States is the country's highest federal court. The Court has ultimate—and largely discretionary—appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and state court cases involving issues of U.S. federal law, plus original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.

Nolan Matthew McCarty is an American political scientist specializing in U.S. politics, democratic political institutions, and political methodology. He has made notable contributions to the study of partisan polarization, the politics of economic inequality, theories of policy-making, and the statistical analysis of legislative voting.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Howard Rosenthal (political scientist)</span> American political scientist (1939–2022)

Howard Lewis Rosenthal was an American political scientist who was professor of politics at New York University. He also taught at Carnegie-Mellon University and Princeton University, where he was the Roger Williams Straus professor of social sciences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Keith T. Poole</span> American political scientist

Keith T. Poole is an American political scientist and the Philip H. Alston Jr. Distinguished Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Georgia. He has compiled and maintained datasets related to the United States Congress for forty years, and he has made them available on his website, Voteview, since 1995. Poole originally developed Voteview as a DOS program with Howard Rosenthal at Carnegie-Mellon University from 1989 to 1992. He also worked with Rosenthal on the development of the NOMINATE multidimensional scaling method to assess the voting behavior of members of Congress along a given dimension. He was inducted into the American Academy of Arts & Sciences in 2006. In 2016, he received the Society for Political Methodology's Career Achievement Award, and in 2018, the journal Public Choice published a special issue in his honor.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Political polarization in the United States</span> Divisions among people with different political ideologies in the United States

Political polarization is a prominent component of politics in the United States. Scholars distinguish between ideological polarization and affective polarization, both of which are apparent in the United States. In the last few decades, the U.S. has experienced a greater surge in ideological polarization and affective polarization than comparable democracies.

References

  1. ↑ Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (1983). "A Spatial Model for Legislative Roll Call Analysis" (PDF). GSIA Working Paper No. 5–83–84.
  2. ↑ Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (1985). "A Spatial Model For Legislative Roll Call Analysis" (PDF). American Journal of Political Science. 29 (2): 357–384. doi:10.2307/2111172. JSTOR   2111172.
  3. 1 2 "Awards". The Society for Political Methodology. Archived from the original on 20 June 2010.
  4. 1 2 "The 2016 Political Methodology Career Achievement Award: Keith T. Poole". The Society for Political Methodology.
  5. ↑ Description of NOMINATE Data.
  6. ↑ Poole, Keith T. (2005). Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. Cambridge University Press. pp. 46–. ISBN   9780521851947 . Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  7. ↑ Ellenberg, Jordan (26 December 2001). "Mapping Congress' growing polarization". Slate . Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  8. ↑ Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (1997). Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
  9. ↑ Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (2007). Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
  10. 1 2 Everson, Phil; et al. (2009). "NOMINATE and American Political History: A Primer". Vote View Working Paper.
  11. ↑ Bateman, D (2016). "Studies in American Political Development 2016". Studies in American Political Development. 30 (2): 147–171. doi:10.1017/S0898588X16000080. S2CID   31552378 . Retrieved 1 February 2021.
  12. ↑ Keith, Poole (12 January 2017). "The Collapse of the Voting Structure - Possible Big Trouble Ahead". Voteview Blog.
  13. ↑ McCarty, Nolan (2011). "Measuring Legislative Preferences". In Schickler, Eric; Lee, Frances (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. ↑ Fleisher, Richard; Bond, John R. (2004). "The Shrinking Middle in the US Congress". British Journal of Political Science. 34 (3): 429–451. doi:10.1017/s0007123404000122. JSTOR   4092328. S2CID   153856544.
  15. ↑ Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (1997). Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Appendix.
  16. ↑ Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (1984). "The Polarization of American Politics" (PDF). Journal of Politics. 46 (4): 1061–79. doi:10.2307/2131242. JSTOR   2131242. S2CID   19531769.
  17. ↑ Theriault, Sean M. (2008). Party Polarization in Congress. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  18. ↑ Jacobson, Gary (2010). A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People. New York: Pearson Longman.
  19. ↑ Abramowitz, Alan I. (2010). The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  20. ↑ Levendusky, Matthew (2009). The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  21. ↑ Baldassarri, Delia; Gelman, Andrew (2008). "Partisans without Constraint: Political Polarization and Trends in American Public Opinion". American Journal of Sociology. 114 (2): 408–46. doi:10.1086/590649. JSTOR   10.1086/590649. S2CID   222436264.
  22. ↑ Fiorina, Morris P., with Samuel J. Abrams and Jeremy C. Pope. (2005). Culture War? The Myth of Polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman. ISBN   978-0205779888
  23. ↑ Hetherington, Marc J. (2001). "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization". American Political Science Review. 95 (3): 619–631. doi:10.1017/s0003055401003045. JSTOR   3118237. S2CID   14760921.
  24. ↑ McCarty, Nolan; Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (2006). Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN   978-0-262-13464-4.
  25. ↑ Kiewiet, D. Roderick; McCubbins, Matthew D. (1991). The Logic of Delegation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  26. ↑ Shickler, Eric (2000). "Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867–1998: A Test of Partisan and Ideological Power Balance Models". American Political Science Review. 94 (2): 269–288. doi:10.2307/2586012. JSTOR   2586012. S2CID   144490248.
  27. ↑ Cox, Gary W.; McCubbins, Matthew D. (1993). Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  28. ↑ Krehbiel, Keith (1998). Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  29. ↑ Cox, Gary W.; McCubbins, Matthew D. (2005). Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  30. ↑ Azari, Julia (4 April 2016). "Are Sanders And Cruz Really Less 'Electable'?". FiveThirtyEight . Retrieved 24 December 2016.
  31. ↑ Silver, Nate (10 April 2011). "An Imbalanced Budget Deal?". The New York Times . Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  32. ↑ Silver, Nate (1 September 2010). "In Singling Out Murkowski, Tea Party Chose Wisely". The New York Times . Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  33. ↑ Silver, Nate (29 April 2011). "How Liberal Is President Obama?". The New York Times . Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  34. ↑ Klein, Ezra (30 August 2008). "The Republicans on the deficit commission are more conservative than the Democrats are liberal". The Washington Post . Archived from the original on 14 October 2012. Retrieved 9 November 2012.
  35. ↑ Voeten, Erik (2001). "Outside Options and the Logic of Security Council Action". American Political Science Review. 95 (4): 845–858. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.372.7699 . doi:10.1017/s000305540101005x. JSTOR   3117717.
  36. ↑ Hix, Simon; Noury, Abdul; Roland, Gérard (2006). "Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament" (PDF). American Journal of Political Science. 50 (2): 494–511. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00198.x. JSTOR   3694286. S2CID   56074538.
  37. ↑ Mogernstern, Scott. (2004). Patterns of Legislative Politics: Roll-Call Voting in Latin America and the United States. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  38. ↑ Rosenthal, Howard; Voeten, Erik (2004). "Analyzing Roll Calls with Perfect Spatial Voting: France 1946–1958". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (3): 620–632. CiteSeerX   10.1.1.488.6466 . doi:10.2307/1519920. JSTOR   1519920.
  39. ↑ Poole and Rosenthal, Ideology and Congress, p. 295.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.