Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

Modeling Preferences Using Roll Call Votes in Parliamentary Systems

  • Thomas Bräuninger (a1), Jochen Müller (a2) and Christian Stecker (a3)

Models of ideal point estimation usually build on the assumption of spatial preferences. This ignores legislators' non-policy incentives and is thus likely to produce implausible results for many legislatures. We study this problem in parliamentary systems and develop a model of roll call voting that considers both the policy and the non-policy, tactical incentives of legislators. We go on to show how the relative weight of these policy and tactical incentives is influenced by the identity of the mover and characteristics of the motion. Analyses of two data sets of 2174 roll call votes in German state legislatures and 3295 roll call votes in the British House of Commons result in three main findings. First, we show that tactical incentives may be more important than policy incentives, and second, that the importance of tactical incentives varies with the importance of motions. Third, there are interesting twists: backbench private members' bills may reverse tactical incentives whereas proposals from anti-system parties are virtually always rejected by moderate parties, rendering these votes uninformative. Our findings have implications for ideal point estimation in parliamentary systems, as well as for research on separation of power systems.

Corresponding author
Hide All

Authors' note: Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the MPSA and the 2014 conference of the EPSA. We would like to thank our panelists, Nicholas Allen, Daina Chiba, Christopher Claassen, Michael Peress, and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. We also thank Masha Haghighat- Kashani and Sebastian Juhl for research assistance. Replication materials are available online as Bräuninger, Müller, and Stecker (2016). Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

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.

John H. Aldrich , Jacob M. Montgomery , and David B. Sparks 2014. Polarization and ideology: Partisan sources of low dimensionality in scaled roll call analyses. Political Analysis 22(4): 435–56.

Rudy B. Andeweg , and Jacques Thomassen . 2011. Pathways to party unity: Sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of Labour in the Dutch Parliament. Party Politics 17(5): 655–72.

Giacomo Benedetto , and Simon Hix . 2007. The rejected, the ejected, and the dejected: Explaining government rebels in the 2001–2005 British House of Commons. Comparative Political Studies 40(7): 755–81.

Ted Brader , Joshua A. Tucker , and Dominik Duell . 2013. Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on Partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies 46(11): 14851517.

Thomas Bräuninger , and Marc Debus . 2012. Parteienwettbewerb in den deutschen Bundesländern: Unter Mitarbeit von Jochen Müller. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

John M. Carey 2007. Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92107.

Royce Carroll , Jeffrey B. Lewis , James Lo , Keith T. Poole , and Howard Rosenthal . 2009. Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: Points of difference and Monte Carlo tests. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(4): 555–91.

Kevin A. Clarke , and David M. Primo 2007. Modernizing political science: A model-based approach. Perspectives on Politics 5(4): 741753.

Joshua D. Clinton 2003. Integrating voting theory and roll call analysis: A framework. Political Analysis 11(4): 381–96.

Joshua D. Clinton 2012. Using roll call estimates to test models of politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15(1): 7999.

Joshua D. Clinton , and Adam Meirowitz . 2001. Agenda constrained legislator ideal points and the spatial voting model. Political Analysis 9(3): 242–59.

Joshua D. Clinton , and Simon Jackman . 2009. To simulate or NOMINATE?. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(4): 593621.

Joshua Clinton , Simon Jackman , and Douglas Rivers . 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–70.

Emanuel Emil Coman . 2012. Legislative behavior in Romania: The effect of the 2008 Romanian electoral reform. Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(2): 199224.

Gary W. Cox , and Mathew D. McCubbins 2005. Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Torun Dewan , and Arthur Spirling . 2011. Strategic opposition and government cohesion in Westminster democracies. American Political Science Review 105(2): 337–58.

Daniel Diermeier , and Timothy J. Feddersen 1998. Cohesion in legislatures and the vote of confidence procedure. American Political Science Review 92(3): 611–21.

Jean-Francois Godbout , and Bjørn Høyland . 2011. Legislative voting in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science 44(2): 367–88.

Sona Nadenichek Golder . 2006. Pre-electoral coalition formation in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science 36(2): 193212.

Christoph Green-Pedersen . 2010. Bringing parties into parliament: The development of parliamentary activities in Western Europe. Party Politics 16(3): 347–69.

Bernard Grofman . 2004. Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science 7:2546.

William B. Heller 2001. Making policy stick: Why the government gets what it wants in multiparty parliaments. American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 780–98.

Simon Hix , and Abdul Noury . 2016. Government-opposition or left-right? The institutional determinants of voting in legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods, forthcoming.

Bjørn Høyland . 2010. Procedural and party effects in European Parliament roll-call votes. European Union Politics 11(4): 597613.

Simon Hug . 2010. Selection effects in roll call votes. British Journal of Political Science 40(1): 225–35.

Shannon Jenkins . 2008. Party influence on roll call voting: A view from the U.S. states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 8(3): 239–62.

Michael Kellermann . 2012. Estimating ideal points in the British House of Commons using early day motions. American Journal of Political Science 56(3): 757–71.

Keith Krehbiel . 1993. Where's the party? British Journal of Political Science 23(2): 235–66.

Jeffrey W. Ladewig 2005. Conditional party government and the homogeneity of constituent interests. Journal of Politics 67(4): 10061029.

Benjamin E. Lauderdale 2010. Unpredictable voters in ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 18(2): 151–71.

Jeffrey B. Lewis , and Keith T. Poole 2004. Measuring bias and uncertainty in ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Political Analysis 12(2): 105–27.

P. Lynch 2009. From social democracy back to no ideology? The Scottish National Party and ideological change in a multi-level electoral setting. Regional & Federal Studies 19(4–5): 619–39.

Lanny W. Martin , and Georg Vanberg . 2004. Policing the bargain: Coalition government and parliamentary scrutiny. American Journal of Political Science 48(1): 1327.

Lanny W. Martin , and Georg Vanberg . 2011. Parliaments and coalitions: The role of legislative institutions in multiparty governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lanny W. Martin , and Randolph T. Stevenson 2001. Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 3350.

Nolan McCarty , Keith T. Poole , and Howard Rosenthal . 2001. The hunt for party discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review 95:674–88.

Bonnie M. Meguid 2005. Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review 99(3): 347–59.

Wolfgang C. Müller , and Kaare Strøm, eds . 1999. Policy, office, or votes? How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Deborah Nolan , and Duncan Temple Lang . 2014. XML and web technologies for data sciences with R. Use R! New York: Springer.

Simon Otjes . 2011. The Fortuyn effect revisited: How did the LPF affect the Dutch parliamentary party system? Acta Politica 46(4): 400–24.

Helene H. Pedersen 2012. Policy-seeking parties in multiparty systems: Influence or purity? Party Politics 18(3): 297314.

Michael Peress . 2009. Small chamber ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 17(3): 276–90.

Keith Poole , Jeffrey Lewis, James Lo , and Royce Carroll . 2011. Scaling roll call votes with W-NOMINATE in R. Journal of Statistical Software 42(14): 121.

Keith T. Poole 2000. Non-parametric unfolding of binary choice data. Political Analysis 8(3): 211–37.

Keith T Poole 2005. Spatial models of parliamentary voting. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

G. Bingham Powell . 1986. Extremist parties and political turmoil: Two puzzles. American Journal of Political Science 30(2): 357–78.

Sven-Oliver Proksch , and Jonathan B. Slapin 2012. Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science 56(3): 520–37.

Guillermo Rosas , Yael Shomer , and Stephen R. Haptonstahl 2015. No news is news: Non-ignorable non-response in roll-call data analysis. American Journal of Political Science 59(2): 512–28.

Howard Rosenthal , and Erik Voeten . 2004. Analyzing roll calls with perfect spatial voting: France 1946–1958. American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 620–32.

David Samuels , and Matthew Soberg Shugart . 2010. Presidents, parties, and prime ministers: How the separation of powers affects party organization and behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

James M. Snyder , and Tim Groseclose . 2000. Estimating party influence in congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 193.

A. Spirling , and I. McLean 2006. UK OC OK? Interpreting optimal classification scores for the U.K. House of Commons. Political Analysis 15(1): 8596.

Christian Stecker . 2010. Causes of roll-call votes supply: Evidence from the German Länder. Journal of Legislative Studies 16(4): 438–59.

Christian Stecker . 2015. How effects on party unity vary across votes. Party Politics 21(5): 791802.

Lukas F. Stoetzer , and Steffen Zittlau . 2015. Multidimensional spatial voting with non-separable preferences. Political Analysis 23(3): 415–28.

Cesar Zucco Jr., and Benjamin Lauderdale . 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? *
Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

Bräuninger et al. supplementary material
Supplementary Material

 PDF (96 KB)
96 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 40 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 110 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 4th January 2017 - 24th September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.