Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-568f69f84b-h2zp4 Total loading time: 0.264 Render date: 2021-09-17T02:18:15.978Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Estimating Intra-Party Preferences: Comparing Speeches to Votes*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2015

Abstract

Well-established methods exist for measuring party positions, but reliable means for estimating intra-party preferences remain underdeveloped. While most efforts focus on estimating the ideal points of individual legislators based on inductive scaling of roll call votes, this data suffers from two problems: selection bias due to unrecorded votes and strong party discipline, which tends to make voting a strategic rather than a sincere indication of preferences. By contrast, legislative speeches are relatively unconstrained, as party leaders are less likely to punish MPs for speaking freely as long as they vote with the party line. Yet, the differences between roll call estimations and text scalings remain essentially unexplored, despite the growing application of statistical analysis of textual data to measure policy preferences. Our paper addresses this lacuna by exploiting a rich feature of the Swiss legislature: on most bills, legislators both vote and speak many times. Using this data, we compare text-based scaling of ideal points to vote-based scaling from a crucial piece of energy legislation. Our findings confirm that text scalings reveal larger intra-party differences than roll calls. Using regression models, we further explain the differences between roll call and text scalings by attributing differences to constituency-level preferences for energy policy.

Type
Research Notes
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

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.)

Footnotes

*

Daniel Schwarz is postdoctoral research fellow in the Center of Competence for Public Management, University of Bern, Schanzeneckstrasse 1, 3001 Bern, Switzerland, and Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Columbia House, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK (daniel.schwarz@kpm.unibe.ch). Denise Traber is postdoctoral researcher in the Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050 Zurich, Switzerland (traber@ipw.uzh.ch). Kenneth Benoit is Professor of Political Science Research Methodology in the Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Columbia House, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK, and Department of Political Science, Trinity College, 3 College Green, Dublin 2, Ireland (kbenoit@lse.ac.uk). This research was supported by the European Research Council grant ERC-2011-StG 283794-QUANTESS and the Swiss National Science Foundation Fellowship grant PA00P1_134188.

References

Benoit, Kenneth, Schwarz, Daniel, and Traber, Denise. 2012. ‘The Sincerity of Political Speech in Parliamentary Systems: A Comparison of Ideal Points Scaling Using Legislative Speech and Votes’. Paper presented at the 2nd Annual Conference of EPSA. Berlin, 19–21 June.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Lowe, Will. 2013. ‘Validating Estimates of Latent Traits from Textual Data Using Human Judgment as a Benchmark’. Political Analysis 21:298313.Google Scholar
Blaser, Cornelia, van der Heiden, Nico, Mahnig, Fabian, and Milic, Thomas. 2003. Analyse der eidgenössischen Abstimmungen vom 18. Mai 2003. Number 81 in “VOX”. Bern and Zürich: GfS-Forschungsinstitut and Institut für Politikwissenschaft, Universität Zürich.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007. ‘Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting’. American Journal of Political Science 51(1):92107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John M. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
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 Analysis’. British Journal of Political Science 36(4):691704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford, Gabel, Matthew, and Hug, Simon. 2008. ‘Legislative Voting Behavior, Seen and Unseen: A Theory of Roll-Call Vote Selection’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(4):543572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. ‘The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data’. American Political Science Review 98(2):355370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Party Government in the House. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Damgaard, Erik. 1995. ‘How Parties Control Committee Members’. In Herbert Döring (ed.), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe. 308324. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus/St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert. 1995. ‘Time as a Scarce Resource: Government Control of the Agenda’. In Herbert Döring (ed.), Parliamentary and Majority Rule in Western Europe. 223246. Frankfurt a.M./New York: Campus/St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
Hertig, Hans-Peter. 1980. Partei, Wählerschaft oder Verband? Entscheidfaktoren im eidgenössischen Parlament. Bern: Francke Verlag.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon. 2004. ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: Explaining Voting Defection in the European Parliament’. World Politics 56(2):194223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2010. ‘Selection Effects in Roll Call Votes’. British Journal of Political Science 40(1):225235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon, and Schulz, Tobias. 2007. ‘Left-Right Positions of Political Parties in Switzerland’. Party Politics 13(3):305330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Imai, Kosuke, King, Gary, and Lau, Olivia. 2007. Zelig: Everyone’s Statistical Software. Available at http://gking.harvard.edu/zelig, accessed 1 September 2014.Google Scholar
Ladner, Andreas. 2007. ‘Political Parties’. In Ulrich Klöti, Peter Knoepfel, Hanspeter Kriesi, Wolf Linder and Yannis Papadopoulos (eds), Handbook of Swiss Politics. 159188. Zürich: Neue Zürcher Zeitung Publishing.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2002. ‘Locating TDs in Policy Spaces: Wordscoring D´ail Speeches’. Irish Political Studies 17(1):5973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Garry, John. 2003. ‘Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors Using Words as Data’. American Political Science Review 97(2):311331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linder, Wolf. 2010. Swiss Democracy: Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, Will. 2008. ‘Understanding Wordscores’. Political Analysis 16(4):356371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Monroe, Burt L., and Maeda, Ko. 2004. ‘Talk’s Cheap: Text-Based Ideal Point Estimation’. Paper Presented to the Political Methodology Society. Palo Alto, CA, 29–31 July.Google Scholar
Owens, John E. 2006. ‘Explaining Party Cohesion and Discipline in Democratic Legislatures: Purposiveness and Contexts’. In Reuven Y. Hazan (ed.), Cohesion and Discipline in Legislatures. Political Parties, Party Leadership, Parliamentary Committees and Governance. 1240. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2010. ‘Position Taking in European Parliament Speeches’. British Journal of Political Science 40:587611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B.. 2012. ‘Institutional Foundations of Legislative Speech’. American Journal of Political Science 56(3):520537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwarz, Daniel. 2009. Zwischen Fraktionszwang und freiem Mandat. Eine Untersuchung des fraktionsabweichenden Stimmverhaltens im schweizerischen Nationalrat zwischen 1996 und 2005. Norderstedt: BoD.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Daniel, Bächtiger, André, and Lutz, Georg. 2011. ‘Switzerland: Agenda-Setting Power of the Government in a Separation-of-Powers Framework’. In Bjørn Erik Rasch and George Tsebelis (eds), The Role of Governments in Legislative Agenda Setting. 127144. Oxon and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan B., and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2008. ‘A Scaling Model for Estimating Timeseries Party Positions from Texts’. American Journal of Political Science 52(3):705722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan B., and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2010. ‘Look Who’s Talking: Parliamentary Debate in the European Union’. European Union Politics 11(3):333357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traber, Denise, Hug, Simon, and Sciarini, Pascal. 2014. ‘Party Unity in the Swiss Parliament: The Electoral Connection’. The Journal of Legislative Studies 20(2):193215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
VanDoren, Peter M. 1990. ‘Can We Learn the Causes of Congressional Decisions from Roll-Call Data?’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(3):311340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23
Cited by

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. 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 Intra-Party Preferences: Comparing Speeches to Votes*
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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Estimating Intra-Party Preferences: Comparing Speeches to Votes*
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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Estimating Intra-Party Preferences: Comparing Speeches to Votes*
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *