Skip to content
AI News HubLIVE
Original source2 min read

Frankly Speaking: The Company Election Integrity Keeps in Congressional Communication

Summary

A study of 10,420 congressional e-newsletters from 2010 to 2025 finds that Democrats and Republicans often attach the same election terms—such as "integrity," "security," and "fraud"—to very different surrounding words. The parties do not need different vocabulary to tell different stories about elections; they only need to place the same words in different company.

SourcearXiv Computational LinguisticsAuthor: Michael A. Robinette, Christina Barsky, Amanda D. Clark, Helen Flannery, Juniper Lovato
Frankly Speaking: The Company Election Integrity Keeps in Congressional Communication
Report an error

The correction channel is not available yet. You can copy the article reference below for later.

Correction instructions
Read article

[Submitted on 26 Oct 2026]

Title:Frankly Speaking: The Company Election Integrity Keeps in Congressional Communication

View a PDF of the paper titled Frankly Speaking: The Company Election Integrity Keeps in Congressional Communication, by Michael A. Robinette and 4 other authors

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:Election integrity is a shared commitment in American politics, but Democrats and Republicans in Congress increasingly mean different things by it. Analyzing 10,420 congressional e-newsletters sent from 2010 to 2025, we examine how the two parties invoke election terms such as `integrity,'' security,'' and fraud.'' Using diachronic word embeddings, which track semantic change through how words are used in context, we measure how differently each party uses each term, how much each party shifts, and whether they share nearest semantic neighbors. We show that members of Congress do not need different words to tell different stories about elections. They need only place those same words in different company. Across nearly every term and year, the two parties surround election-integrity vocabulary with entirely different words. That divergence is easy to miss, because most election vocabulary is no more divergent than other words used at roughly the same frequency, and neither party's usage shifted more than the other's. Only a subset of terms grew more divergent, most notably certification,'' while rigged'' and stolen'' entered election discourse after 2020 and polarized there. By 2024, Democrats surround voter,'' election,'' and integrity'' with the language of access and administration. Republicans surround the same terms with citizenship verification,'' noncitizen voting,'' and `border security.'' For one party, integrity means protecting eligible voters' ability to cast a ballot. For the other, it means protecting the electoral process from illegitimate ballots. Election officials, who must administer a single system under both definitions, inherit this tension.

Subjects:

Computation and Language (cs.CL)

Cite as: arXiv:2610.36187 [cs.CL]

(or arXiv:2610.36187v1 [cs.CL] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.36187

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Juniper Lovato [view email] [v1] Mon, 26 Oct 2026 19:22:29 UTC (8,531 KB)

Full-text links:

Access Paper:

View a PDF of the paper titled Frankly Speaking: The Company Election Integrity Keeps in Congressional Communication, by Michael A. Robinette and 4 other authors

View PDF

HTML (experimental)

TeX Source

view license

Additional Features

Audio Summary

Current browse context:

cs.CL

new | recent | 2026-10

Change to browse by:

cs

References & Citations

SciX

Google Scholar

Semantic Scholar

Loading...

Data provided by:

Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle

Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)

Connected Papers Toggle

Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)

Litmaps Toggle

Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)

scite.ai Toggle

scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)

Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle

alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)

Links to Code Toggle

CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)

DagsHub Toggle

DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)

GotitPub Toggle

Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)

Huggingface Toggle

Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)

ScienceCast Toggle

ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)

Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle

Replicate (What is Replicate?)

Spaces Toggle

Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)

Spaces Toggle

TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)

Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower

Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)

Core recommender toggle

CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)

Author

Venue

Institution

Topic

About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Which authors of this paper are endorsers? | Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)

Key points and analysis

Article intelligence

EngineersAdvanced

Key points

  • The study analyzes 10,420 congressional e-newsletters from 2010 to 2025 using diachronic word embeddings to measure how each party uses election terms.
  • Most election vocabulary is no more divergent than other words of similar frequency, and neither party's usage shifted more than the other's.
  • A subset of terms grew more divergent, most notably "certification," while "rigged" and "stolen" entered election discourse after 2020 and polarized there.
  • By 2024, Democrats framed "voter," "election," and "integrity" around access and administration, while Republicans framed the same terms around citizenship verification, noncitizen voting, and border security.

Highlights and analysis are generated automatically and may contain errors. Check the original source.