My Netlogo model was based on policy responsiveness and policy congruence in the study of public policy. Policy congruence is the matching of public opinion and elite opinion on policy, it is the outcome of responsiveness. Policy responsiveness is the movement of elite opinion towards the public's opinion on policy, this is dynamic. Policy can be responsive while also being incongruent. This is what my model is trying to show. This model was inspired by Lax and Phillip's 2012 article "The Democratic Deficit in the States," where they found that policy in the states was over-responsive to public opinion, making it incongruent to public opinion. Policy was generally responsive in all types of states (liberal, conservative, and moderate), but it was more likely to be incongruent because of the over-responsiveness in liberal and conservative states. My model is also trying to show the effect of policy domains, or how a policies level of salience and technical complexity can have an effect on the outcome on policy responsiveness and policy congruence. When policy is low in salience and high in technical complexity, politicians are more likely to use their own personal biases than their constituent's opinions when voting on legislation. So, the outcome of a policy that is low in salience and high in technical complexity is more likely to be ideologically extreme. However, when a policy is high in salience and low in technical complexity, the politician will have an easier time translating their constituent's opinions when voting on legislation. Thus the outcome of the legislation is less ideologically extreme, more representative, and more likely to be congruent with public opinion. The policies I have chosen for this model are healthcare and abortion. Healthcare policy is relatively low in salience and high in technical complexity. Abortion policy is relatively high in salience and low in technical complexity.

Agents represent politicians within a statehouse legislatures. VeryLiberals, SomeWhatLiberals, CloserToLiberals, VeryConservatives, SomeWhatConservatives, CloserToConservatives, ConservativeVotingBoxs, and LiberalVotingBoxs. I represent VeryLiberals, SomeWhatLiberals, CloserToLiberals, VeryConservatives, SomeWhatConservatives, and CloserToConservatives as shapes of people. The Conservatives are varying shades of red. As the Convervatives move up to more extreme (Very) they become darker in color. The ConservativeVotingBoxs is pink and is the shape of a box. The Liberals are varying shades of blue. As the Liberals move up to more extreme (Very) they become darker in color. The Liberal Voting Boxs is lime and is the shape of a box.

For VeryLiberals, SomeWhatLiberals, CloserToLiberals, VeryConservatives, SomeWhatConservatives, and CloserToConservatives, on 'go', they will move towards their respective voting box in order to score a vote for their team. The vote is based off of the opinion that the agent owns and the policydomain that is currently selected. For VeryConservative agents and VeryLiberal agents, they will have an opinion of 3 and vote of 3 when healthcare is selected and an opinion of 1 and a vote of 1 when abortion is selected. For SomeWhatConservative agents and SomeWhatLiberal agents, they will have an opinion of 2 and vote of 2 when healthcare is selected and an opinion of 1 and a vote of 1 when abortion is selected. For CloserToConservative agents and CloserToLiberal agents, they will have an opinion of 1 and vote of 1 when healthcare is selected and an opinion of 1 and a vote of 1 when abortion is selected. To score these votes, they will have to move to their voting boxes and be on top of them. The opinion and vote number go back to the idea of a policy domain and the policy's level of technical complexity and level of salience. When debating abortion policy, politicians can translate their constituents opinions into policy relatively easily - so all politicians have 1 vote and no bias. When debating healthcare policy, politicians cannot translate their constituents opinions into policy relatively easily - so the more extreme politicians rely on the more extreme background. They have more votes, which will lead to the creation of more incongruent policy.

I am focused on how often the policies are congruent under each statetype and under each policy domain. I am also focused on the difference in speed at which the healthcare and abortion policies end in each statetype. My first hypothesis is that in liberal and conservative states, it is more likely that legislators will pass an incongruent bill than in a moderate state. My second hypothesis is that abortion policy is more likely to be congruent than healthcare policy.

I found that healthcare was more likely to be incongruent than abortion policy in both liberal and conservative statetypes. Abortion was significantly more likely to be incongruent in liberal and conservative states than it was in moderate states. Lastly, the speed at which the policy was passed at had no effect on it being congruent or incongruent. I found evidence for both of my hypotheses. It was extremely rare for an incongruent bill to pass in a moderate state while passing an incongruent bill happens often in the liberal and conservative states. In all statetypes, abortion policy is more likely to be congruent than healthcare policy. I am surprised that the speed at which legislation was passed did not have an effect on the policy being incongruent or not, especially on healthcare policy. When passing the legislation slower, I would have expected the legislation to have been congruent more often than not. Instead, the more extreme members still got their vote in the ballot box and changed the legislation.