Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data


We develop a Bayesian procedure for estimation and inference for spatial models of roll call voting. This approach is extremely flexible, applicable to any legislative setting, irrespective of size, the extremism of the legislators' voting histories, or the number of roll calls available for analysis. The model is easily extended to let other sources of information inform the analysis of roll call data, such as the number and nature of the underlying dimensions, the presence of party whipping, the determinants of legislator preferences, and the evolution of the legislative agenda; this is especially helpful since generally it is inappropriate to use estimates of extant methods (usually generated under assumptions of sincere voting) to test models embodying alternate assumptions (e.g., log-rolling, party discipline). A Bayesian approach also provides a coherent framework for estimation and inference with roll call data that eludes extant methods; moreover, via Bayesian simulation methods, it is straightforward to generate uncertainty assessments or hypothesis tests concerning any auxiliary quantity of interest or to formally compare models. In a series of examples we show how our method is easily extended to accommodate theoretically interesting models of legislative behavior. Our goal is to provide a statistical framework for combining the measurement of legislative preferences with tests of models of legislative behavior.

Corresponding author
Assistant Professor, Department of Politics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08540 (
Associate Professor and Director of the Political Science Computational Laboratory, Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6044 (
Professor, Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-6044 (
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

AlbertJames. 1992. “Bayesian Estimation of Normal Ogive Item Response Curves Using Gibbs Sampling.” Journal of Educational Statistics 17: 25169.

BockR. D., and M.Aitken. 1981. “Marginal Maximum Likelihood Estimation of Item Parameters: Application of An EM Algorithm.” Psychometrika 46: 44359.

Canes-WroneBrandice, David W.Brady, and John F.Cogan. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting.” American Political Science Review 96: 12740.

ClintonJoshua D., and AdamMierowitz. 2001. “Agenda Constrained Legislator Ideal Points and the Spatial Voting Model,” Political Analysis 9: 24259.

CoxGary, and Keith T.Poole. 2002. “On Measuring Partisanship in Roll-Call Voting: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1887–1999.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 47789.

DavisOtto A., Melvin J.Hinich, and Peter C.Ordeshook. 1970. “An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process.” American Political Science Review 64: 42648.

HeckmanJames J., and James M.Snyder. 1997. “Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences of Legislators.” RAND Journal of Economics 28: S14289.

HowellWilliam, ScottAdler, CharlesCameron, and CharlesRiemann. 2000. “Divided Government and the Legislative Productivity of Congress, 1945–94.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 285312.

JackmanSimon. 2001. “Multidimensional Analysis of Roll Call Data via Bayesian Simulation: Identification, Estimation, Inference and Model Checking.” Political Analysis 9: 22741.

JenkinsJeffrey A. 1999. “Examining the Bonding Effects of Party: A Comparative Analysis of Roll-Call Voting in the U.S. and Confederate Houses.” American Journal of Political Science 43: 114465.

KrehbielKeith. 1998. Pivotal Politics: A Theory of U.S. Lawmaking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

KrehbielKeith. 2003. “The Coefficient of Party Influence.” Political Analysis 11: 95103.

LancasterTony. 2000. “The Incidental Parameter Problem Since. 1948.” Journal of Econometrics 95: 391413.

LondreganJohn. 2000a. “Estimating Legislator's Preferred Points.” Political Analysis 8: 3556.

McCartyNolan, Keith T.Poole, and HowardRosenthal. 2001. “The Hunt for Party Discipline in Congress.” American Political Science Review 95: 67387.

MetropolisN., and S.Ulam. 1949. “The Monte Carlo Method.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 44: 33541.

NeathAndrew A., and Francisco J.Samaniego. 1997. “On the Efficacy of Bayesian Inference for Nonidentifiable Models.” American Statistician 51: 22532.

NokkenTimothy P. 2000. “Dynamics of Congressional Loyalty: Party Defection and Roll Call Behavior.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 25: 41744.

PatzRichard J., and Brian W.Junker. 1999. “A Straigtforward Approach to Markov Chain Monte Carlo Methods for Item Response Models.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 24: 14678.

PooleKeith T. 2000. “A Non-Parametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data.” Political Analysis 8: 21137.

SchicklerEric. 2000. “Institutional Change in the House of Representatives, 1867–1998: A test of Partisan and Ideological Power Balance Models.” American Political Science Review 94: 26988.

SnyderJames M. Jr. and TimGroseclose. 2000. “Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 44: 187205.

VoetenEric. 2000. “Clashes in the Assembly.” International Organization 54: 185215.

WesternBruce, and SimonJackman. 1994. “Bayesian Inference for Comparative Research.” American Political Science Review 88: 41223.

WrightGerald C., and Brian F.Schaffner. 2002. “The Influence of Party: Evidence from the State Legislatures.” American Political Science Review 96: 36779.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

American Political Science Review
  • ISSN: 0003-0554
  • EISSN: 1537-5943
  • URL: /core/journals/american-political-science-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 7
Total number of PDF views: 135 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 449 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 30th March 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.