Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Measuring Political Positions from Legislative Speech

  • Benjamin E. Lauderdale (a1) and Alexander Herzog (a2)
Abstract

Existing approaches to measuring political disagreement from text data perform poorly except when applied to narrowly selected texts discussing the same issues and written in the same style. We demonstrate the first viable approach for estimating legislator-specific scores from the entire speech corpus of a legislature, while also producing extensive information about the evolution of speech polarization and politically loaded language. In the Irish Dáil, we show that the dominant dimension of speech variation is government–opposition, with ministers more extreme on this dimension than backbenchers, and a second dimension distinguishing between the establishment and anti-establishment opposition parties. In the U. S. Senate, we estimate a dimension that has moderate within-party correlations with scales based on roll-call votes and campaign donation patterns; however, we observe greater overlap across parties in speech positions than roll-call positions and partisan polarization in speeches varies more clearly in response to major political events.

Copyright
Corresponding author
e-mail: b.e.lauderdale@lse.ac.uk (corresponding author)
Footnotes
Hide All

Authors’ note: Replication materials are available online as Lauderdale and Herzog (2016). We thank Ken Benoit, Royce Carroll, Justin Grimmer, Paul Kellstedt, Lanny Martin, Scott Moser, Adam Ramey, Randy Stevenson, Georg Vanberg, two anonymous reviewers, and the editor of this journal for their comments and feedback. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.
Benoit, Kenneth, Laver, Michael, and Mikhaylov, Slava. 2009. Treating words as data with error: Uncertainty in text statements of policy positions. American Journal of Political Science 53(2):495513.
Benoit, Kenneth, Nulty, Paul, Barberá, Pablo, Watanabe, Kohei, and Lauderdale, Benjamin. 2016. quanteda: Quantitative analysis of textual data, version 0.9.4 R package available on CRAN at. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/quanteda/, last accessed on June 11, 2016
Bonica, Adam. 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58(2):367–86.
Carroll, Royce, and Cox, Gary W. 2012. Shadowing ministers: Monitoring partners in coalition governments. Comparative Political Studies 45(2):220–36.
Carrubba, Clifford J., Gabel, Matthew, Murrah, Lacey, Clough, Ryan, Montgomery, Elizabeth, and Schambach, Rebecca. 2006. Off the record: Unrecorded legislative votes, selection bias and roll-call vote analysis. British Journal of Political Science 36(4):691704.
Carrubba, Clifford J., Gabel, Matthew, and Hug, Simon. 2008. Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: A theory of roll-call vote selection. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(4):543–72.
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2):355–70.
Eddelbuettel, Dirk, and François, Romain. 2011. Rcpp: Seamless R and C++ integration. Journal of Statistical Software 40(8):118.
Gallagher, Michael and Komito, Lee. 2009. The constituency role of Dáil deputies. In Politics in the Republic of Ireland, eds. Coakley, John and Gallagher, Michael. 5th ed. London: Routledge.
Giannetti, Daniela, and Benoit, Kenneth, eds. 2009. Intra-party politics and coalition governments. Routledge.
Giannetti, Daniela, and Laver, Michael. 2005. Policy positions and jobs in the government. European Journal of Political Research 44(1):91120.
Hansen, Martin Ejnar. 2009. The positions of Irish parliamentary actors 1937–2006. Irish Political Studies 24(1):2944.
Heitshusen, Valerie, Young, Garry, and Wood, David M. 2005. Electoral context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 49(1):3245.
Herzog, Alexander, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2015. The most unkindest cuts: speaker selection and expressed government dissent during economic crisis. Journal of Politics 77(4):1157–75.
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul, and Roland, Gérard. 2005. Power to the parties: cohesion and competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science 35(02):209–34.
Hug, Simon. 2010. Selection effects in roll call votes. British Journal of Political Science 40(1):225–35.
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party discipline and parliamentary politics. Cambridge University Press.
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2010. Unpredictable voters in ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 18(2):151–71.
Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Herzog, Alexander. 2016. Replication data for: Measuring political positions from legislative speech. Harvard Dataverse. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RQMIV3
Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Clark, Tom S. 2014. Scaling politically meaningful dimensions using texts and votes. American Journal of Political Science 58(3):754–71.
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1996. Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Laver, Michael, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2002. Locating TDs in policy spaces: The computational text analysis of Dáil speeches. Irish Political Studies 17(1):5973.
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Garry, John. 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review 97(2):311–31.
Lowe, Will. 2013. There's (basically) only one way to do: Some unifying theory for text scaling models. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association meeting, September 2013, Chicago.
Lowe, Will. 2015. Austin: Do things with words, version 0.2.2. Available on GitHub at http://github.org/conjugateprior/austin
Lowe, Will, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2011. Estimating uncertainty in quantitative text analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.
Lowe, Will. 2008. Understanding wordscores. Political Analysis 16(4):356–71.
Marsh, Michael. 2007. Candidates or parties? Objects of electoral choice in Ireland. Party Politics 13(4):500527.
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M. 2002. Dynamic ideal point estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U. S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999. Political Analysis 10:134–53.
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2004. Policing the bargain: Coalition government and parliamentary scrutiny. American Journal of Political Science 48(1):1327.
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2008. Coalition government and political communication. Political Research Quarterly 61(3):502–16.
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2011. Parliaments and coalitions: The role of legislative institutions in multiparty governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
O'Malley, Eoin, and Martin, Shane. 2010. The government and the Taoiseach. In Politics in the Republic of Ireland, eds. Coakley, John and Gallagher, Michael. Routledge, chapter 10, 295326.
Plummer, Martyn. 2014. rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. version 3–14. R package available on CRAN at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29(2):357–84.
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press.
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B. 2010. Position taking in European parliament speeches. British Journal of Political Science 40(3):587611.
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B. 2012. Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science 56(3):520–37.
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B. 2015. The politics of parliamentary debate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Quinn, Kevin M., Monroe, Burt L., Colaresi, Michael, Crespin, Michael H., and Radev, Dragomir R. 2010. How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. American Journal of Political Science 54(1):209–28.
Rivers, Douglas. 2003. Identification of multidimensional spatial voting models. Manuscript, Stanford University.
Rosas, Guillermo, Shomer, Yael, and Haptonstahl, Stephen R. 2014. No news is news: nonignorable nonresponse in roll-call data analysis. American Journal of Political Science.
Schwarz, Daniel, Traber, Denise and Benoit, Kenneth. Forthcoming. Estimating intra-party preferences: comparing speeches to votes. Political Science Research and Methods.
Slapin, Jonathan B., and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2008. A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 52(3):705–22.
Spirling, Arthur, and McLean, Iain. 2007. UK OC OK? Interpreting optimal classification scores for the UK House of Commons. Political Analysis 15(1):8596.
Strøm, Kaare, Müller, Wolfgang C., and Bergman, Torbjörn, eds. 2008. Cabinets and coalition bargaining: The democractic life cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Thies, Michael F. 2001. Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments. American Journal of Political Science 45(3):580–98.
VanDoren, Peter M. 1990. Can we learn the causes of congressional decisions from roll-call data? Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(3):311–40.
Weeks, Liam. 2010. Parties and the party system. In Politics in the Republic of Ireland, eds. Coakley, John and Gallagher, Michael. Routledge, chapter 5, 137–67.
Zucco, Cesar Jr., and Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2011. Distinguishing between influences on Brazilian legislative behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(3):363–96.
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
PDF
Supplementary materials

Lauderdale and Herzog supplementary material
Appendix

 PDF (366 KB)
366 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed