Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-k7rjm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-05T23:31:27.673Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Giving Order to Districts: Estimating Voter Distributions with National Election Returns

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Georgia Kernell
Georgia Kernell*
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania, 207 Stiteler Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104. e-mail: gkernell@sas.upenn.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Correctly measuring district preferences is crucial for empirical research on legislative responsiveness and voting behavior. This article argues that the common practice of using presidential vote shares to measure congressional district ideology systematically produces incorrect estimates. I propose an alternative method that employs multiple election returns to estimate voters' ideological distributions within districts. I develop two estimation procedures—a least squared error model and a Bayesian model—and test each with simulations and empirical applications. The models are shown to outperform vote shares, and they are validated with direct measures of voter ideology and out-of-sample election predictions. Beyond estimating district ideology, these models provide valuable information on constituency heterogeneity—an important, but often immeasurable, quantity for research on representatives— strategic behavior.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , Summer 2009 , pp. 215 - 235
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2009. 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1978. Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science 22: 475–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adcock, Robert, and Collier, David. 2001. Measurement validity: A shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review 95: 529–46.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2000. Old voters, new voters, and the personal vote: Using redistricting to measure the incumbency advantage. American Journal of Political Science 44: 17–34.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Charles Stewart, III. 2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science 45: 136–59.Google Scholar
Ardoin, Phillip J., and Garand, James C. 2003. Measuring constituency ideology in U.S. House districts: A top-down simulation approach. The Journal of Politics 65: 1165–89.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael, and Brady, David W. 1998. Heterogeneity and representation: The senate and free trade. American Journal of Political Science 42: 524–44.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L. 1998. Measuring citizen and government ideology in the American states: 1960–93. American Journal of Political Science 42: 327–48.Google Scholar
Bishin, Benjamin G. 2007. Heterogeneity and representation reconsidered: Overcoming a paradox of responsiveness Unpublished manuscript, presented at the 2007 meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
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: 127–40.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., and Engstrom, Erik J. 2005. Assessing the electoral connection: Evidence from the early United States. American Journal of Political Science 49: 746–57.Google Scholar
Carson, Jamie L., Engstrom, Erik J., and Roberts, Jason M. 2006. Redistricting, candidate entry, and U.S. House elections. American Political Science Review 50: 283–93.Google Scholar
CCES. 2007. Cooperative Congressional Election Study. http://web.mit.edu/polisci/portl/cces/index.html (accessed April 21, 2009).Google Scholar
Degan, Arianna, and Merlo, Antonio M. 2006. A structural model of turnout and voting in multiple elections, second version. PIER Working Paper No. 06–021. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=925647.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Engstrom, Erik J., and Kernell, Samuel. 2005. Manufactured responsiveness: The impact of state electoral laws on unified party control of the presidency and House of Representatives, 1840–1940. American Journal of Political Science 49: 531–49.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. Jr. 1980. Policy representation of constituency interests. Political Behavior 2: 91–106.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Wright, Gerald C. Jr. 1997. Voters, candidates and issues in congressional elections. Congress reconsidered. 6th edn, eds. Dodd Lawrence, C. and Bruce, I. Oppenheimer, Chapter 4. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., Wright, Gerald C. Jr., and McIver, John P. 1993. Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and the American states. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard. 1978. Home style: House members in their districts. Boston, MA: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1974. Representatives, roll calls and constituencies. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., and Rubin, Donald B. 2004. Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Griffin, John D., and Newman, Brian. 2005. Are voters better represented? The Journal of Politics 67: 1206–27.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 2000. Party polarization in national politics: The electoral connection. In Polarized politics: Congress and the President in a partisan era, eds. Bond, Jon R. and Fleisher, Richard. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., and Carsey, Thomas M. 2002. Party polarization and ‘conflict extension’ in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46: 786–802.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S., Pope, Jeremy C., and Jackman, Simon. 2008. Measuring district level preferences with implications for the study of U.S. elections. Journal of Politics 70: 736–753.Google Scholar
Masket, Seth E. 2007. It takes an outsider: Extralegislative organization and partisanship in the California Assembly, 1849–2006. American Journal of Political Science 51: 482–97.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y. 1992. The rational public: Fifty years of trends in Americans’ policy preferences. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1984. U.S. Presidential Elections 1968–80: A spatial analysis. American Journal of Political Science 28: 282–312.Google Scholar
Schwarz, John E., and Fenmore, Barton. 1977. Presidential election results and congressional roll call behavior: The cases of 1964, 1968, and 1972. Legislative Studies Quarterly 2: 409–22.Google Scholar
Segal, Jeffrey A., Cameron, Charles M., and Cover, Albert D. 1992. A spatial model of roll call voting: Senators, constituents, presidents, and interest groups in Supreme Court confirmations. American Journal of Political Science 36: 96–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, James M. Jr. 2005. Estimating the distribution of voter preferences using partially aggregated voting data. The Political Methodologist 13: 2–5.Google Scholar
Wright, Gerald C. Jr., Erikson, Robert S., and McIver, John P. 1985. Measuring state partisanship and ideology with survey data. The Journal of Politics 47: 469–89.Google Scholar