Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:23:31.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integrating Voting Theory and Roll Call Analysis: A Framework

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Joshua D. Clinton  and
Adam Meirowitz
Joshua D. Clinton
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. e-mail: [email protected]
Adam Meirowitz
Affiliation:
Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Scholars of legislative studies typically use ideal point estimates from scaling procedures to test theories of legislative politics. We contend that theory and methods may be better integrated by directly incorporating maintained and to be tested hypotheses in the statistical model used to estimate legislator preferences. In this view of theory and estimation, formal modeling (1) provides auxiliary assumptions that serve as constraints in the estimation process, and (2) generates testable predictions. The estimation and hypothesis testing procedure uses roll call data to evaluate the validity of theoretically derived to be tested hypotheses in a world where maintained hypotheses are presumed true. We articulate the approach using the language of statistical inference (both frequentist and Bayesian). The approach is demonstrated in analyses of the well-studied Powell amendment to the federal aid-to-education bill in the 84th House and the Compromise of 1790 in the 1st House.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 4: Special Issue on Empirical Implications of Theoretical Models , Autumn 2003 , pp. 381 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

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

Austen-Smith, David. 1987. “Sophisticated Sincerity: Voting over Endogenous Agendas.” American Political Science Review 81:1321–1329.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey, and Duggan, John. 2000. “A Bargaining Model of Collective Choice.” American Political Science Review 94:73–88.Google Scholar
Banks, Jeffrey, and Gasmi, F. 1987. “Endogenous Agenda Formation in Three-Person Committees.” Social Choice and Welfare 4:133–152.Google Scholar
Bjurulf, Bo, and Niemi, Richard. 1978. “Strategic Voting in Scandinavian Parliaments.” Scandinavian Political Studies 1:5–22.Google Scholar
Brady, David, and Sinclair, Barbara. 1984. “Building Majorities for Policy Changes in the House of Representatives.” Journal of Politics 46:1033–1060.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall, and Fenno, Richard. 1994. “Strategy and Sophisticated Voting in the Senate.” Journal of Politics 56:349–376.Google Scholar
Clinton, D. Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2003. “Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data: A Unified Approach.” Typescript. Stanford, CA: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Clinton, D. Joshua, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2001. “Agenda Constrained Legislator Ideal Points and the Spatial Voting Model.” Political Analysis 9:242–259.Google Scholar
Clinton, D. Joshua, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2003. “Integrating Voting Theory and Roll Call Analysis: A Re-Examination of the Compromise of 1790.” Typescript. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.Google Scholar
Denzau, Arthur, Riker, William, and Shepsle, Kenneth. 1985. “Farquharson and Fenno: Sophisticated Voting and Home Style.” American Political Science Review 79:117–134.Google Scholar
Ellis, J. 2000. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Enelow, James. 1981. “Saving Amendments, Killer Amendments, and an Expected Utility Theory of Sophisticated Voting.” Journal of Politics 43:1062–1089.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Hinich, Melvin. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enelow, James, and Koehler, David. 1980. “The Amendment in Legislative Strategy: Sophisticated Voting in the U.S. Congress.” Journal of Politics 42:396–413.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy, and Snyder, James. 1996. “Buying Supermajorities.” American Political Science Review 90:303–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guarnaschelli, S., McKelvey, Richard, and Palfrey, Thomas. 2000. “An Experimental Study of Jury Decision Rules.” American Political Science Review 94:407–423.Google Scholar
Herron, Michael. 1999. “Artificial Extremism in Interest Group Ratings and the Preference versus Party Debate.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24:525–542.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Jeffrey, and Munger, Michael. 2003. “Investigating the Incidence of Killer Amendments in Congress.” Journal of Politics 65:498–517.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, and Meirowitz, Adam. 2002. “Minority Rights and Majority Power: Theoretical Consequences of the Motion to Recommit.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 27:191–218.Google Scholar
Londregan, John. 1999. “Estimating Legislators' Preferred Points.” Political Analysis 8:35–57.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. “The Hunt for Party Discipline in Congress.” American Political Science Review 95:673–688.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard. 1976. “Intransitivities in Multidimensional Voting Models and Some Implications for Agenda Control.” Journal of Economic Theory 12:472–482.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Niemi, Richard. 1978. “A Multistage Game Representative of Sophisticated Voting for Binary Agendas.” Journal of Economic Theory 18:1–22.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Palfrey, Thomas. 1995. “Quantal Response Equilibria for Normal Form Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 10:6–38.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Palfrey, Thomas. 1996. “A Statistical Theory of Equilibrium in Games.” Japanese Economic Review 47:186–209.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Palfrey, Thomas. 1998. “Quantal Response Equilibria for Extensive Form Games.” Experimental Economics 1:9–41.Google Scholar
McKelvey, Richard, and Schofield, Norman. 1987. “Generalized Symmetry Conditions at a Core Point.” Econometrica 55:923–934.Google Scholar
Mouw, Calvin, and Mackuen, Michael. 1992. “The Strategic Agenda in Legislative Politics.” American Political Science Review 86:87–105.Google Scholar
Plott, Charles. 1967. “A Notion of Equilibrium and Its Possibility Under Majority Rules.” American Economic Review 57:787–806.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2000. “Nonparametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data.” Political Analysis 8:211–237.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 35:228–278.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.Google Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 2003. “Identification of Multidimensional Item-Response Models.” Typescript. Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
Signorino, Curt. 1999. “Strategic Interaction and the Statistical Analysis of International Conflict.” American Political Science Review 93:279–298.Google Scholar
Snyder, James. 1991. “On Buying Legislatures.” Economics and Politics 3:93–109.Google Scholar
Snyder, James. 1992. “Artificial Extremism in Interest Group Ratings.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17:319–345.Google Scholar
Snyder, James, and Groseclose, Timothy. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 44:193–211.Google Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas. 1992. “The Effects of Logrolling on Congressional Voting.” American Economic Review 85:1162–1176.Google Scholar
Volden, Craig. 1998. “Sophisticated Voting in Supermajoritarian Settings.” Journal of Politics 60:149–173.Google Scholar
Wilkerson, J. 1999. “‘Killer’ Amendments in Congress.” American Political Science Review 93:535–542.Google Scholar