Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-kw2vx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-04T17:39:23.418Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification Scores for the U.K. House of Commons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Arthur Spirling  and
Iain McLean
Arthur Spirling
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, NY 14627. e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Iain McLean
Affiliation:
Nuffield College, Oxford University, Oxford OX1 1NF, United Kingdom. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Poole's (2000, Non-parametric unfolding of binary choice data. Political Analysis 8:211–37) nonparametric Optimal Classification procedure for binary data produces misleading rank orderings when applied to the modern House of Commons. With simulations and qualitative evidence, we show that the problem arises from the government-versus-opposition nature of British (Westminster) parliamentary politics and the strategic voting that is entailed therein. We suggest that political scientists think seriously about strategic voting in legislatures when interpreting results from such techniques.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Winter 2007 , pp. 85 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aydelotte, W. O. 1967. The country gentlemen and the Repeal of the Corn Laws. English Historical Review 82: 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aydelotte, W. O. 1970. Study 521 (codebook): British House of Commons 1841-1847. Iowa City, IA: Regional Social Science Data Archive of Iowa.Google Scholar
Aydelotte, W. O. 1972. The disintegration of the Conservative party in the 1840s: A study of political attitudes. In The dimensions of quantitative research in history, ed. Aydelotte, W. O., Bogue, A. G., and Fogel, R. W., 319–46. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98: 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowley, Philip. 2002. Revolts and rebellions: Parliamentary voting under Blair. London: Politico's Publishing.Google Scholar
Firth, David, and Spirling, Arthur. Forthcoming. Tapir and the public whip: Resources for Westminster voting. The Political Methodologist.Google Scholar
Gash, N. 1972. Sir Robert Peel. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2000. Non-parametric unfolding of binary choice data. Political Analysis 8: 211–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2005. Spatial models of parliamentary voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Howard, and Voeten, Erik. 2004. Analyzing roll calls with perfect spatial voting: France 1946-1958. American Journal of Political Science 48: 620–32.Google Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, C. 2003. Ideology, party and interests in the British parliament of 1841-1847. British Journal of Political Science 33: 581–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar