Regional and Temporal Patterns of Partisan Polarization during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States and Canada

We collected a large-scale dataset of COVID-19 political discussions on Twitter (X) occurring between October \nth9, 2020, to January \nth4, 2021, comprising about 46.6 million tweets linked to Canada and 12.5 million tweets linked to the United States. We geolocated users based on their provided location and classified them by their declared party affiliation. Specifically, we include identifiers for the two major liberal and conservative ideological divisions in each country: the left (Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, and Green Party) and the right (Conservative Party and People’s Party) for Canada; and the Democratic (left) and Republican (right) parties for the United States. Using official population census and election results, we verify that these data provide a politically balanced set of users in the different regions of these two countries. For each of the users, we then compute a vector representation for the language they used in their social media messages during this period. We condition on region, time, and topic and for each combination compute the value of the C-index as a proxy for polarization. To narrow the content of the messages analyzed, we focus on three specific topics of discussion: lockdowns, masks and vaccines. These topics were chosen because of their salience for polarized discourse around the pandemic [27, 33, 34], and because they span different types of interventions (group behaviour, individual behaviour, and medicine, respectively). Based on these measurements, we then compare the polarization observed in different American states and Canadian provinces over time for each of the three topics. We also look into how polarization is correlated with epidemiological data and conspiracy-related content. We refer the reader to the Methods section for further details.

Our analysis begins by visualizing the geography of partisan polarization in fig. 2 and fig. 3 for the United States and Canada. The regional heterogeneity in the amount of polarization observed over different topics is apparent in both countries. We also see heterogeneity in the amount of conspiracy-related tweets shown in fig. 2d and fig. 3d for both countries, respectively.

Next, we analyze how this heterogeneity varies with the partisan leanings found in each region by analyzing election voting patterns (the 2020 presidential election in the case of the United States and the 2019 federal election for Canada). Our first observation is that conservative states and provinces show higher levels of polarization compared to their liberal counterparts. To display results over all covered regions, we show the polarization rankings for American states and Canadian provinces in fig. 4 and fig. 5, respectively. This ranking is applied separately to each of the three topics and is based on their weekly polarization averaged over the 12-week period. An additional fourth ranking labelled overall is shown and gives the average over the three topics. Each region is associated with a color graded from blue to red based on the vote margin for the Republican party (US) or the conservative party family (Canada) obtained from the votes reported in the most recent election in their corresponding country. In these figures, a blue to red color gradient for conservative to progressive is used such that the names of predominantly conservative/Republican regions appear in red, predominantly liberal/Democratic regions in blue, and mixed or less definitive regions in purple. Referring to fig. 4, in the United States we can see clearly that conservative states are more polarized compared to liberal states overall and specifically on discussions related to masks and vaccines. The ranking is more mixed in the discussions about lockdown measures with outliers from both liberal and conservative states; namely Idaho, Alabama, and Arkansas showing the least polarization, and Delaware (ranked 1st), Colorado (ranked 17th), and New Jersey (ranked 15th) showing higher values. The expected relationship between pandemic response and state partisanship is however still present for lockdown discussions, with liberal states such as Vermont (ranked 41st) and Massachusetts (ranked 43rd) displaying less polarization compared to more conservative states such as Mississippi (ranked 2nd), North Dakota (ranked 3rd), and Oklahoma (ranked 4th).

Looking now at Canada fig. 4, we find that Alberta, a conservative province, shows higher polarization compared to Ontario, and British Columbia (among the Canadian provinces with the most number of social media users). Quebec is overall the highest ranked province. Although the pandemic was highly polarized in Quebec—e.g., with violent protests [35]—we want to acknowledge the limitation of our study, which was focused on the English language; in Quebec, the main language is French whereas only English tweets were included in our analysis.

Finally, the correlation between polarization and the partisan vote margin is more clearly represented in the scatter between the two, shown for both countries in fig. 6(a). We see a strong and significant correlation between Republican vote share in the United States and the polarization index around masks and vaccines discourse, but not lockdowns. The remaining associations (Lockdown for US, and all topics for Canada) are, however, insignificant (for Canada this is in part due to the relatively small number of regions).

The strong correlation that we observe between the polarization score for discourse around vaccines in conservative-leaning states follows the well-known negative correlation between Republican vote share and vaccination rates [36]. Since vaccines were not available yet over this time period, we nevertheless present a comparison using official vaccination rates measured for different states by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for a similar period of time one year later, after the vaccines were rolled out (i.e. October \nth11, 2021 to January \nth3, 2022). Averaging on a weekly basis, we confirm this correlation in fig. 6(b), where we observe that vaccine polarization is strongly negatively correlated to vaccination rates in the different American states. We did not observe a similar pattern in Canada, due to small sample size and the implementation of vaccine mandates. While disentangling the causal relationships among conservative vote margin, polarization score, and vaccination rate is not possible here, the results suggest that polarized discourse played a role in shaping the highly heterogeneous vaccination rates across the U.S.

We next focus on the temporal trends of daily partisan polarization at the national level for each topic and overall, as displayed in fig. 7 for the United States and Canada, respectively. In these figures, the value of the metric fluctuates rapidly on the timescale of days. This is on the faster end of the range of timescales found in other topic tracking studies, e.g., [37]. These short timescales are consistent with our assumption that language adapts quickly in rapid anticipation of or as an immediate response to specific events. In particular, we considered two kinds of events. First, we preselected political and vaccine-related events (shown in table 1(a) and as vertical lines in fig. 7). These provide the scaffold for the socio-political trajectory of each country related to political discourse and pandemic response. Second, we detected highly polarized events through analysis of the highest two peaks in polarization (shown in table 1(b) and as red circles in fig. 7). We also show in the figures the tweet volume as a relative indicator of day-by-day reliability of the estimation of the polarization score. While we do not have direct causal evidence linking a highlighted peak in the polarization score to a specific event, we do find that many of the largest polarization peaks occur around highly contentious events related to each country’s specific context (table 1(b)). In the following two sections, we summarize these events and discuss how they relate to the topic for which the polarization simultaneously peaks.

Finally, we explored the relationship between conspiracy discourse and polarization using our time-resolved measurements of the number of conspiracy-related tweets. In particular, we compared it with the time course of the aggregate daily polarization presented in the previous section. The profiles broken down by progressive and liberal partisanship for U.S. and Canada are shown in fig. 9(c) and fig. 9(a), respectively. For both countries, conservative partisans tweet conspiracy-related content in higher numbers than progressive partisans. The correlation with aggregate daily polarization for the U.S. and Canada (fig. 8(a) and fig. 8(c)) is shown in fig. 9(b) and fig. 9(d), respectively. For the U.S., we find a small but significant negative correlation with polarization.

The early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States prompted a variety of public discussions online that reflected strong regional variation of partisan support [25, 47, 48, 49, 50]. State-specific polarization obtained from our computational approach could be expected to be uniformly low, with the message content of conservative and liberal states each having internally homogeneous semantics. Instead, our analysis confirmed that polarization was notably higher in conservative states, where we found that Republican vote margins had a significant positive effect on polarization in discussions concerning masks and vaccines, after controlling for other factors.

This main result is consistent with previous studies that suggest conservative states exhibited higher levels of polarization in response to public health interventions compared to their liberal counterparts [10, 48]. Nevertheless, we found that this pattern does not hold across every state. Delaware, a liberal state, exhibited a distinctly high level of polarization, likely due to the strict public health measures implemented by the governor in response to the rapid increase in the number of cases during the first wave of the pandemic [51, 52, 53]. Similarly, low levels of polarization were observed in several conservative states, like Arkansas, Alabama, and Idaho, with a possible explanation coming from more unified opposition to restrictive COVID-19 measures like mask mandate orders [54]. Nevertheless, most conservative states exhibited relatively high levels of polarization (fig. 6(a)).

Our analysis did not identify a single, general cause for this relationship. That said, commonalities in each state’s trajectory in the pandemic offer some clues: e.g., Mississippi, North Dakota, and Oklahoma experienced specific political decisions—such as mask mandates—made in the earlier phase of the pandemic, that led to resistance despite rising COVID-19 cases [55, 56, 47]. In Mississippi, the decision by the governor to lift the statewide mask mandate in late September could also have contributed to heightened levels of polarization [55, 54]. A similar pattern was observed in North Dakota, South Dakota, and Oklahoma, where initial hesitancy to enforce mask mandates also appears to have led to increased partisan divisions [57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 54]. This finding is not surprising, since the party affiliation of governors is the most important predictor of the widespread adoption of mask mandates [63]. One possible explanation for our main result that can be gleaned from these anecdotes is that pandemic severity increasingly strains the more uniform opposition to restrictive health measures in more conservative states, leading them to exhibit higher levels of polarization [64, 65, 54]. This is a distinct source of polarization than that in states with more equal distribution of partisans across competitive districts.

Through our approach, we could also dissect how polarization varies in time over the three topics we considered: lockdowns, masks, and vaccines. These three topics exhibited similar baseline levels of polarization during the period of study, which was between the second and third waves of the pandemic, punctuated by large positive deviations that typically rise and fall quickly. The prevalence of these deviations was smallest for the lockdown topic. Its low correlation with Republican party vote share suggests that it did not act as a meaningful indicator of partisan opposition. The polarization time course for masks and vaccines, however, contained many, sharp peaks, many of which we were able to identify with a real world event. For example, South Dakota initially experienced very high levels of mask polarization, coinciding with efforts by medical authorities to promote mask-wearing, despite Governor Kristi Noem’s opposition [54, 66]. Her public display of opposition to Biden’s suggestion of mask mandates lead to one such peak in polarization. Similarly, North Dakota also displayed early signs of increased polarization on conspiracy theories [47], which may have been exacerbated by the posthumous electoral win of a Republican candidate who died from COVID-19 [67, 68, 69].

The strong negative correlation between vaccines polarization and vaccination rates that we observed in the U.S. demonstrates that states with higher vaccination rates were also less polarized around this issue [70]. The exact origin of this correlation is unclear. However, factors such as education and political ideology, which also have a strong geographic dependence, likely played a role [71]. Indeed, higher education levels are generally associated with greater vaccine acceptance and trust in vaccine safety [72]. Moreover, Democrats tend to trust the COVID-19 vaccines more and have been early adopters, whereas Republicans generally show lower levels of such trust [73].

Overall, the high levels of polarization observed in the United States relative to Canada point to a more divided society. Several studies have confirmed that conservative states and counties were less likely to adopt social distancing measures, impose mask mandates, and get vaccinated in the second and third wave of the pandemic. Our study offers new insights into these trends by demonstrating that they correlate with regional heterogeneity in social media discourse, particularly during salient political events around health measures. We also found that this discourse reflects changes in the pandemic timeline, initially related to stay-at-home lockdown orders, followed by mask mandates, and later transitioning to vaccines as they first became available.

The Canadian set of results also suggest that partisan divisions influenced public responses to COVID-19 measures in this country [74]. Compared to the U.S., we found a similar, albeit much weaker association between polarization and conservative political leaning, with conservative provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan experiencing higher levels of polarization during stricter lockdown measures than their more liberal counterparts, such as British Columbia and Ontario [75, 35]. Polarization levels varied over smaller and medium-sized provinces as well, measured as relatively high for New Brunswick and low for Nunavut, where the rates of COVID-19 infections remained relatively low during the pandemic (the sole COVID-free jurisdiction in North America until November 2020) [76, 77]. Additionally, we also found that polarization surrounding mask mandates and vaccines were not homogeneously distributed across provinces.

Among the Canadian provinces, Quebec is an interesting case for our analysis of polarization. For example, our results confirmed that Quebec had the highest level of partisan division over vaccines, but also the highest reported incidence of COVID-19 in Canada during the first and second waves of the pandemic [78]. Quebec’s unique approach to managing the pandemic with its more restrictive measures relative to other provinces is also somewhat reflected in our results. After a relative hiatus with several restrictions relaxed in the summer of 2020, Quebec once again became the epicenter of the pandemic in the fall [79]. This resurgence led to the reinstatement of strict pandemic control measures and a ban on public demonstrations following significant anti-government protests against lockdowns and mask mandates [80, 81]. These events also coincided with an increase in online conflicts, promoted by Canadian far-right populist rhetoric and conspiracy theories on Twitter (X) [82]. It is important to note, however, that most of these conversations in Canada were heavily influenced by discussions in the US, with Canadians retweeting American vaccine-related content 8 times as often as Canadian content during the period covered by our study [83, 84]. Likewise, vaccine hesitancy was also linked to political affiliation in Canada, with those supporting the Conservative Party more likely to refuse vaccination [85].

As in the U.S. case, the polarization time course computed for Canada also exhibits spikes observed around key events like protests against lockdown measures, mask mandates, and vaccine roll-outs. These findings suggest that public reactions to significant political and social events during the pandemic are reflected in the measure of polarization we use. We did not observe the negative correlation between polarization and volume of conspiracy-related tweets that we saw in the U.S. case. This contrasts with [83], who found a reduction in negative sentiment in Canadian vaccine-related tweets between January and December 2020. The relationship between polarization and sentiment is complex and long-term trends are likely driven by processes besides pure volume of discussion around conspiracy theories [86].

Finally, the relatively lower influence of polarization on vaccine attitudes may be attributed to the country’s more widespread vaccine mandates [87, 88]. This prevalence, along with higher levels of trust in politicians [89] and social capital [90, 91], could have contributed to a broader acceptance of COVID-19 health interventions [84, 85]. Indeed, there was a rare ‘cross-partisan consensus’ among Canadians regarding emergency measures in the early stages of the pandemic [92]. This consensus, however, was not mirrored on social media, where conspiracy theories widely circulated [24, 84]. Overall, our results indicate that online discussions surrounding lockdowns, masks, and vaccines did mirror polarization, and were shaped by regional reactions to events and circumstances specific to Canadian provinces.

While our method offers valuable insights, it comes with certain limitations. First, we viewed partisan polarization only through the proxy of semantic similarity. This choice may in certain cases obscure some signals not captured by the semantic embedding representation. Second, specifically in the Canadian context, we categorized users into liberal (left) and conservative (right) party family groups. During the manual annotation of Twitter (X) profiles, we encountered few users who identified as supporters of the Bloc Quebecois political party; therefore, we opted to exclude them from the analysis. Additionally, our classification of users into liberal and conservative partisan groups is based on self-reported information, which may not be entirely accurate. Third, it is important to note that our analysis is based on Twitter (X) data, which may not fully capture the views and sentiments of the broader American and Canadian public. Fourth, our analysis is restricted to tweets in English. In the context of Canada, this means we are capturing only or primarily the perspectives of either anglophones or bilingual francophones, which could potentially bias our data; for example, the high levels of polarization observed in Quebec on COVID-19 measures may be influenced by this language bias. Finally, while several of our analyses rely on correlations, it is crucial to remember that these results do not imply causation; the relationship between polarization and public health measures is complex and multi-dimensional.

To conclude, our method has provided valuable insights into the dynamics of partisan polarization during the COVID-19 pandemic. Political ideology, public trust, and key events have emerged as important factors influencing public discussions on pandemic-related issues in the United States and Canada. By combining our polarization measure with other data, researchers and practitioners can better understand how polarization varies across location, time, and specific issues. This knowledge could help in detecting particularly polarizing discussions on social media and in developing communication strategies to mitigate the spread of misinformation, both for the current pandemic and for future health-related crises.

The differences observed between these two countries are somewhat harder to explain. Our analysis, along with insights from recent studies, suggests that Canadian responses to public health measures could explain the lower levels of polarization found in Canada. Indeed, there was a significant consensus on the effectiveness of stay-at-home orders (i.e., lockdowns), mask mandates, and vaccines not only at the federal and provincial levels, but also within the news media. And unlike the U.S., where an important number of Republican leaders aligned with Trump’s anti-mask and anti-lockdown positions, the pandemic did not become a salient partisan issue within a political campaign until much later in 2021. Prior to this, the opposition to public health measures in Canada was primarily found in online communities, outside of the mainstream media and political parties, where protesters remained heavily influenced by American sources. Although our results suggest that social networks contributed to the diffusion of these opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, more work needs to be done to quantify the impact of online communities interactions on polarization.

Similar to the COVID-19 pandemic data, we also used the officially reported vaccination rate of the populations. We used the vaccination rates one year later compared to the Twitter (X) data, as COVID-19 vaccines were created and approved at the very end of our data collection process. Thus, the vaccination rates are for those who obtained at least two doses. For Canada, this is the $numtotal\_fully$ from the government’s vaccine coverage map. We normalize this column by Canada’s 2021 population per province or territory. For the United States, we use the $people\_fully\_vaccinated\_per\_hundred$ reported in the COVID Data Tracker from the CDC.

For this study, we looked into three key topics for COVID-19: lockdowns, masks and vaccines. We also looked into conspiracy theories. For each topic, tweets were classified as relevant or irrelevant to the topic based on whether they contained at least one of the topic-specific keywords. For conspiracy-related tweets, relevant means that the content is related to COVID-19 conspiracy theories (either supporting or opposing). A tweet can belong to more than one topic.

We first used a hashtag-based filtering step. We extracted all hashtags within our dataset, ordered it by frequency, and discarded those that appeared less than 100 times. This filtered list contained 3,600 hashtags for Canada and 18,000 for the United States. Two political scientists manually annotated this list with topic and relevance labels. The list was narrowed to only those hashtags labeled as relevant, resulting in 631 relevant hashtags. We then merged these with hashtags identified in previous studies for the same topics—i.e., from refs. [93, 94, 95].

For Canada, this process resulted in 46,636,206 tweets and 1,757,675 users that shared content related to COVID-19. For the United States, this represents 12,552,213 tweets and 2,657,355 users. Using the RoBERTa-base model [31] from HuggingFace, we further pre-trained this model on the respective COVID-19 tweets from each country dataset—i.e., performing a self-supervised learning on predicting masked words within tweets. This results in two different country-specific pre-trained language models for COVID-19 tweets.

We then randomly sampled 200 relevant and 200 irrelevant tweets per topic from each dataset, for a total of 1,600 tweets. The same two political scientists manually reviewed each tweet separately to determine if the tweet was relevant/irrelevant. We discarded tweets where the annotators could not reach a consensus. We then trained the respective pre-trained RoBERTa-base model on each dataset to classify by topics—i.e., 4 topic language models per country, for a total of 8 language models. We report the support, Cohen Kappa, F1-score and number of tweets we extracted for each topic within each dataset in Table 4. Our analysis achieved a near perfect F1-score for each of these topics.

We wanted to quantify users in each province or state represented in our data, as the users retrieved from Twitter (X) could be imbalanced relative to region population size. For this, we geolocated all users with an explicit location provided in the location field, a free-form text, as part of their profile information. We process the information with Open Street Map and the ArcGIS API. Both of these return a latitude and longitude if a location was found. We set the threshold for a clear geolocation if both API responded with a latitude and longitude that was within one degree of each other. We found this to be more accurate, and preferable to using a pre-trained Named Entity Recognition algorithm; most of the user-provided locations can be handled by these Geographic Information System APIs, and the APIs could also provide important details such as the country, state and city. We correlated the geolocated users with the official population census for each country’s region. In total, we geolocated 282,454 users with strong correlation of 0.92 (n=13, p=6.20e-06, CI=[0.76, 0.98]) for Canada and 757,601 users with strong correlation of 0.98 (n=52, p=9.27e-35, CI=[0.96, 0.99]) for the United States. This means that each region is well represented in our data. Further information is reported in Table 5.

We determine a user’s party affiliation using a two step approach. First, we classify politically explicit users based on their profiles. We then use the predictions from this profile classifier as labels to train a classifier based on the user activity. We report the support, F1-score, and number of users we classified for each party within each dataset in Table 6 for Canada and Table 9 for the United States. We achieve a macro-F1-score of 91% for both Canada and the United States.

Given a set of political parties $\mathcal{P}$ and a set of given user embeddings $\mathcal{U}=\{{u^{(1)},u^{(2)},\dots,u^{(n)}}\}$ where $u^{(i)}\in\mathbb{R}^{768}$ and $n$ is the number of users, we measure polarization as follows.

We first look at the distance and dispersion between each party, $p\in\mathcal{P}$. We base our measure on the C-index of Hubert [32] to quantify the extent of clustering and overlap of each political party. This is done by first calculating the sum of inter-cluster distances:

We then normalize this value based on its minimum and maximum possible ranges, $S_{min}$ and $S_{max}$. These correspond to the sum of the $m$ smallest (resp. largest) distances between points in $\mathcal{U}$; where $m=\sum_{p\in\mathcal{P}}\frac{|p|(|p|-1)}{2}$.

Based on these, we define our polarization index $poli$ as:

The minimum value 0 represents no polarization, whereas the maximum value 1 represents the most extreme possible polarization, i.e., $p\in\mathcal{P}$ are completely isolated from each other.

Equation 2 is not scalable to large $n$, as it is $O(n^{2}\log(n^{2}))$. We approximate it by sub-sampling a sufficient set of users which enables us to scale to a large number of users. To determine the minimum sample size needed, we use the coefficient of variation, which is defined as $\frac{std}{mean}$ and expressed as a percentage. Generally, a coefficient of variation under 10 gives reasonable results [97].

Algorithm 1 summarizes this procedure. This approximation allows us to scale our measure significantly without compromising accuracy. One loop of the approximation has a time complexity of $O(rf^{2}*n^{2}\log((n)^{2}))$ where $r$ is the repeat count and $f$ is the fraction (e.g., 0.01). From our testing, we know that at large values of $n$, the fraction needed rarely increases, so only one loop is required. Therefore, the time saved is $rf^{2}$ for large values of $n$.

We test the accuracy of approximation in Algorithm 1 over the daily lockdown and vaccine tweets. In Figure 19(a), we plot the total number of users against the absolute error (and its standard deviation) of the approximated $poli$ compared to the exact value, binned for every 1,000 users. We observe a dramatic drop of the absolute error term at around 3,000 users. When we reach the 10,000 users value, the absolute error is usually below 0.001. In Figure 19(b), we plot the total number of users against the time saved in running the approximation algorithm compared to running the exact $poli$, binned also for every 1,000 users. We observe that the time saved is exponential to the number of users. We note that at around 50,000 users, the approximation rarely needs to increase the fraction of users sampled.

These findings confirm that we can accurately approximate $poli$ for large-scale data that is impossible to measure exactly because of memory constraints. As $poli$ relies heavily on finding pairwise distances (time and memory intensive), we see from our analysis that a sampling approach can save both time and memory exponentially.

In fig. 10 and fig. 11, we show the ranking of the regions (American states and Canadian provinces and territories, respectively) by partisan polarization per topic.

In fig. 12, we show the correlation in the polarization scores and relative vote margins. The latter shows that states in which the margin by which Republican party votes exceeded those of the Democractic party correlates significantly with the amount of polarization exhibited by the Twitter (X) discourse in those states, when conditioning the discourse on masks and on vaccines, but though significantly when conditioning on lockdowns.

In Figure 13, we remove Nunavut as an outlier because of its very small population. While we get strong positive correlation with vaccination rate, it is over a relatively low number of points. In Canada, vaccines were mandated, requiring vaccine passports to be served in public areas. We assume that vaccine partisan polarization increases, as people are not happy with being forced to be vaccinated, but most of the population still are vaccinated. However, with the few points, we do not have a definite conclusion for this result.

Here, we investigate the topic-specific polarization over time and how it relates to the reported number of Deaths for COVID-19 for specific regions in Figure 14 for Canada and in Figure 15 for the United States.

Here, we investigate the aggregated polarization over time for each country and how it relates to the reported number of New Cases and Deaths for COVID-19. In Figure 16, we observe that polarization is not correlated with the severity of the pandemic, in both Canada and the United States. To compute the daily aggregate polarization measure, we employ a weighted sum of each topic’s polarization, considering the percentage of each topic’s tweets within that day’s volume of COVID-19-related tweets.

We report the classification metrics for Canada in Table 6 and for the United States in Table 9. For Canada, our model classified users for each parties for the activity as well, but the F1-score was not satisfactory as parties within the liberal (left) party family and conservative (right) party family was easily confused as shown in the confusion matrix in Table 7. Thus, for our analysis, we merged the parties in Canada, and show the confusion matrix for after the merge in Table 8.

We further validate our party affiliation distribution using the 2019 Canada Federal Election and the US 2020 Election results for the respective country. We calculate the correlation between the ratio of numbers of liberal and conservative families-labelled users per region in our data compared to the election results and obtain strong correlations of 0.815 for Canada visualized in Figure 17 and 0.802 for the United States visualized in Figure 18. We also visualize the ratio for all geolocated users for the respective topics.

Following the best practice for evaluating party affiliation predictions [96], we matched Twitter (X) users from our dataset with the primary voter registration records available for five states: Ohio, New York, Florida, Arkansas, North Carolina, as well as Washington DC. From these records, we obtain the party affiliation of unique users in each state by md5-hashing their names and county to construct a key identifier. From our set of geolocated Twitter (X) users, we kept everyone that belonged to one of the five states or DC, and we removed those whose location could not be retrieved. Finally, we matched the most recent voter party affiliation records from the registration data to the unique Twitter (X) users that matched both the county and either the first name and last name or the first, middle and last name. We pre-processed the user’s name on Twitter (X) to remove emojis. After matching, we removed users not affiliated with either of the two major parties and users whose name matched with more than one record per county (indicating a non-unique match).

We then compare users’ party from voter registration with their predicted party, first using their profile description and second their COVID-19-related tweets. Using our geolocation and voter record matching, Table 10 shows we are able match a significant number of users, more than 30k, across the 5 states and DC with their voter records.

We get an accuracy of 74.35% for the first method and 73.35% for the second one. We note that both methods are binary classifiers while users can also be independent or support a third party, despite an ideology (and behavior/voting) that aligns strongly with one of the two main parties. They can also have an outdated registration that no longer reflects the beliefs they currently hold and express on Twitter (X). Therefore, although accuracy here is lower, it still indicates our classification is acceptable and on par with the standard for this type of evaluation [96].

We test accuracy of approximation in Algorithm 1 over the daily Lockdown and Vaccine tweets.

In Figure 19(a), we plot the total number of users against the absolute error (and its standard deviation) of the approximated $poli$ compared to the exact value, binned for every 1,000 users. We observe a dramatic drop of the absolute error term at around 3,000 users. When we reach the 10,000 users value, the absolute error is usually below 0.001.

In Figure 19(b), we plot the total number of users against the time saved in running the approximation algorithm compared to running the exact $poli$, binned also for every 1,000 users. We observe that the time saved is exponential to the number of users. We note that at around 50,000 users, the approximation rarely needs to increase the fraction of users sampled.

These findings confirm that we can accurately approximate $poli$ for large-scale data that is impossible to measure exactly because of memory constraints. As $poli$ relies heavily on finding pairwise distances (time and memory intensive), we see from our analysis how sampling can save both time and memory exponentially.

We also explore the impact of changing the minimum coefficient of variation. We start with a minimum sample size of 1% or $fraction=0.01$. We keep the step_size constant at 0.01. For the first experiment, $repeats$ is set to $10$. For the second experiment, shown here in figures 20 and 21, $epsilon$ is set to $0.05$.