Skip to main content
×
Home

Estimating Candidates’ Political Orientation in a Polarized Congress

  • Chris Tausanovitch (a1) and Christopher Warshaw (a2)
Abstract

Over the past decade, a number of new measures have been developed that attempt to capture the political orientation of both incumbent and nonincumbent candidates for Congress, as well as other offices, on the same scale. These measures pose the possibility of being able to answer a host of fundamental questions about political accountability and representation. In this paper, we examine the properties of six recent measures of candidates’ political orientations in different domains. While these measures are commonly viewed as proxies for ideology, each involves very different choices, incentives, and contexts. Indeed, we show that there is only a weak relationship between these measures within party. This suggests that these measures are capturing domain-specific factors rather than just candidates’ ideology. Moreover, these measures do poorly at distinguishing between moderate and extreme roll call voting records within each party. As a result, they fall short when it comes to facilitating empirical analysis of theories of accountability and representation in Congress. Overall, our findings suggest that future research should leverage the conceptual and empirical variation across these measures and avoid assuming they are synonymous with candidates’ ideology.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Estimating Candidates’ Political Orientation in a Polarized Congress
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Estimating Candidates’ Political Orientation in a Polarized Congress
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Estimating Candidates’ Political Orientation in a Polarized Congress
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
* Email: cwarshaw@mit.edu
Footnotes
Hide All

We are grateful for feedback about this project from Gregory Huber, Seth Hill, Howard Rosenthal, Adam Bonica, Walter Stone, Boris Shor, Nolan McCarty, Jon Rogowski, Pablo Barbera, Adam Ramey and participants at the 2015 American Political Science Association Conference. We are grateful to Adam Bonica, Walter Stone, Boris Shor, Nolan McCarty, Jon Rogowski, Pablo Barbera for making publicly available their measures of candidate positions. All mistakes are our own. Replication materials for all of the results in this article are provided in the online dataverse archive associated with this article (Tausanovitch and Warshaw 2016).

Contributing Editor: R. Michael Alvarez

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Ahler Douglas J., Citrin Jack, and Lenz Gabriel S.. 2016. Do open primaries improve representation? An experimental test of California’s 2012 top-two primary. Legislative Studies Quarterly 41(2):237268.
Aldrich John H., and McKelvey Richard D.. 1977. A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential elections. The American Political Science Review 71(1):111130.
Alesina Alberto. 1988. Credibility and policy convergence in a two-party system with rational voters. American Economic Review 78(4):796805.
Ansolabehere Stephen, Snyder James M. Jr, and Stewart Charles. 2001. Candidate positioning in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science 45(1):136159.
Anzia Sarah F., and Jackman Molly C.. 2013. Legislative organization and the second face of power: evidence from US State Legislatures. The Journal of Politics 75(01):210224.
Barbera Pablo. 2014. Replication data for: birds of the same feather tweet together Bayesian Ideal point estimation using Twitter data. doi:10.7910/DVN/26589. Harvard Dataverse, V1.
Barberá Pablo. 2015. Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis 23(1):7691.
Bateman David A., Clinton Joshua D., and Lapinski John S.. Forthcoming. A House divided? Roll calls, polarization, and policy differences in the US House. American Journal of Political Science, 1877–2011.
Black Duncan. 1948. On the rationale of group decision-making. The Journal of Political Economy 56(1):2334.
Bond Robert, and Messing Solomon. 2015. Quantifying social medias? Political space: estimating ideology from publicly revealed preferences on facebook. American Political Science Review 109(01):6278.
Bonica Adam. 2013a. Database on ideology, money in politics, and elections: Public version 1.0. http://data.stanford.edu/dime.
Bonica Adam. 2013b. Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 57(2):294311.
Bonica Adam. 2014. Mapping the Ideological Marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58(2):367386.
Bonica Adam. 2016. Inferring roll-call scores from campaign contributions using supervised machine learning. Unpublished manuscript. Available for download at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2732913.
Bonica Adam, Jowei Chen, and Tim Johnson et al. . 2015. Senate gate-keeping, Presidential staffing of inferior offices, and the ideological composition of appointments to the public bureaucracy. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10(1):540.
Canes-Wrone Brandice, Brady David W., and Cogan John F.. 2002. Out of step, out of office: electoral accountability and house members’ voting. American Political Science Review 96(1):127140.
Clinton Joshua, Jackman Simon, and Rivers Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2):355370.
Cormack Lindsey. 2016. Extremity in congress: communications versus votes. Legislative Studies Quarterly 41(3):575603.
Downs Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy . New York: Harper & Row.
Enelow James M., and Hinich Melvin J.. 1984. The spatial theory of voting: an introduction . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Ensley Michael J. 2009. Individual campaign contributions and candidate ideology. Public Choice 138(1–2):221238.
Gelman Andrew, and King Gary. 1990. Estimating incumbency advantage without bias. American Journal of Political Science 34(4):11421164.
Gimpel James G., Lee Frances E., and Kaminski Joshua. 2006. The political geography of campaign contributions in American politics. Journal of Politics 68(3):626639.
Gimpel James G., Lee Frances E., and Pearson-Merkowitz Shanna. 2008. The check is in the mail: interdistrict funding flows in congressional elections. American Journal of Political Science 52(2):373394.
Grimmer Justin. 2013. Representational style in congress: what legislators say and why it matters . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hall Andrew B. 2015. What happens when extremists win primaries? American Political Science Review 109(01):1842.
Hare Christopher, Armstrong David A., Bakker Ryan, Carroll Royce, and Poole Keith T.. 2015. Using Bayesian Aldrich–McKelvey scaling to study citizens’ ideological preferences and perceptions. American Journal of Political Science 59(3):759774.
Henderson John Arthur. 2013. Downs’ revenge: elections, responsibility and the rise of congressional polarization. Unpublished PhD Dissertation. Available for download at http://gradworks.umi.com/36/16/3616463.html.
Hill Seth, and Huber Greg. 2017. Representativeness and motivations of contemporary contributors to political campaigns: results from merged survey and administrative records. Political Behavior 39(1):329.
Hirsch Alexander V. 2011. Theory driven bias in ideal point estimates—a Monte Carlo study. Political Analysis 19(1):87102.
Jessee Stephen A. 2012. Ideology and spatial voting in American elections . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Joesten Danielle A., and Stone Walter J.. 2014. Reassessing proximity voting: expertise, party, and choice in congressional elections. The Journal of Politics 76(3):740753.
Kousser Thad, Phillips Justin, and Shor Boris. Forthcoming. Reform and representation: a new method applied to recent electoral changes. Political Science Research and Methods.
Lee David S., Moretti Enrico, and Butler Matthew J.. 2004. Do voters affect or elect policies? Evidence from the US House. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 119(3):807859.
Lee Frances E. 2008. Agreeing to disagree: agenda content and senate partisanship, 1981–2004. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(2):199222.
Lee Frances E. 2009. Beyond ideology: politics, principles, and partisanship in the US Senate . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Maestas Cherie D., Buttice Matthew K., and Stone Walter J.. 2013. Replication data for: extracting wisdom from experts and small crowds: strategies for improving informant-based measures of political concepts. doi:10.7910/DVN/23170. Harvard Dataverse, V3.
Maestas Cherie D., Buttice Matthew K., and Stone Walter J.. 2014. Extracting wisdom from experts and small crowds: strategies for improving informant-based measures of political concepts. Political Analysis 22(3):354373.
McCarty Nolan M., Poole Keith T., and Rosenthal Howard. 2006. Polarized America: the dance of ideology and unequal riches . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Montagnes Brendan Pablo, and Rogowski Jon C.. 2014. Testing core predictions of spatial models: platform moderation and challenger success. Political Science Research and Methods 3(3):619640.
Poole Keith T. 2000. Nonparametric unfolding of binary choice data. Political Analysis 8(3):211237.
Poole Keith T., and Rosenthal Howard L.. 2011. Ideology and congress . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Ramey Adam. 2015. Replication data for: vox populi, vox dei? crowd-sourced ideal point estimation. doi:10.7910/DVN/JDPNNU. Harvard Dataverse, V1.
Ramey Adam. 2016. Vox populi, vox dei? Crowdsourced ideal point estimation. Journal of Politics 78(1):281295.
Rogowski Jon C.2014. Faithful agents? Campaign positions, legislative behavior, and the partisan organization of congress.
Rogowski Jon C., and Langella Stephanie. 2014. Primary systems and candidate ideology evidence from federal and state legislative elections. American Politics Research 43(5):846871.
Shor Boris, and Rogowski Jon C.. Forthcoming. Ideology and the U.S. Congressional vote. Political Science Research and Methods.
Shor Boris, and McCarty Nolan. 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review 105(03):530551.
Shor Boris, and McCarty Nolan. 2015. Individual state legislator Shor–McCarty ideology data, June 2015 update. doi:10.7910/DVN/THDBRA. Harvard Dataverse, V1.
Simas Elizabeth N. 2013. Proximity voting in the 2010 US House elections. Electoral Studies 32(4):708717.
Stone Walter J, and Simas Elizabeth N. 2010. Candidate valence and ideological positions in US House elections. American Journal of Political Science 54(2):371388.
Stratmann Thomas. 2000. Congressional voting over legislative careers: shifting positions and changing constraints. American Political Science Review 94(03):665676.
Tam Cho Wendy K., and Gimpel James G.. 2007. Prospecting for (campaign) gold. American Journal of Political Science 51(2):255268.
Tausanovitch Chris, and Warshaw Christopher. 2016. Replication data for: estimating candidates’ political orientation in a polarized congress. doi:10.7910/DVN/GTSXC1. Dataverse [Distributor] V1 [Version].
Thomsen Danielle M. 2014. Ideological moderates won’t run: How party fit matters for partisan polarization in congress. The Journal of Politics 76(03):786797.
Recommend this journal

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

Political Analysis
  • ISSN: 1047-1987
  • EISSN: 1476-4989
  • URL: /core/journals/political-analysis
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×
MathJax
Type Description Title
UNKNOWN
Supplementary Materials

Tausanovitch and Warshaw supplementary material
Appendix

 Unknown (68 KB)
68 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 10
Total number of PDF views: 132 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 549 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 26th April 2017 - 18th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.