Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-dkqnh Total loading time: 0.238 Render date: 2021-10-21T16:06:05.364Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Ideology and the US Congressional Vote*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2016

Abstract

A large class of theoretical models posits that voters choose candidates on the basis of issue congruence, but convincing empirical tests of this key claim remain elusive. The most persistent difficulty is obtaining comparable spatial estimates for winning and losing candidates, as well as voters. We address these issues using candidate surveys to characterize the electoral platforms for winners and losers, and large issue batteries in 2008 and 2010 to estimate voter preferences. Questions that were answered by both candidates and citizens allow us to jointly scale these estimates. We find robust evidence that vote choice in congressional elections is both strongly associated with spatial proximity and that individual-level and contextual variables commonly associated with congressional voting behavior condition the magnitude of its importance. Our results have important implications for theories of voter decision-making and electoral institutions.

Type
Original Articles
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

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

*

Boris Shor, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, The University of Houston, 3551 Cullen Boulevard Room 447, Houston, TX 77204-3011 (boris@bshor.com). Jon C. Rogowski, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, One Brookings Drive, Campus Box 1063, St. Louis, MO 63130 (jrogowski@wustl.edu). The candidate survey data in this paper relies on the hard work of Chad Levinson, while roll call data was assembled in a major collaboration with Nolan McCarty, and assisted by Steven Rogers and Michelle Anderson. The authors thank Josh Clinton and Keith Krehbiel for comments on previous versions of this manuscript, and Andrew Gelman, David Park, Gerald Wright, Rob Van Houweling, Will Howell, Stephen Jessee, Michael Bailey, and seminar participants at Princeton, Stanford, UNC, Rochester, and Chicago for helpful discussions about earlier ideas. The authors thank Project Vote Smart for making their data available to them. The authors thank Adam Bonica, Garry Hollibaugh, Lawrence Rothenberg, and Kristin Rulison for providing their candidate data to the authors for comparison. The authors thank Simon Jackman for his invaluable software and assistance. The authors thank anonymous reviewers and to the editors and staff at PSRM for their many helpful suggestions. Funding for the 2008 survey was generously provided by the University of Chicago Harris School. The authors welcome comments and questions. Any errors are the authors own. To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.23

References

Achen, Christopher. 1975. ‘Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response’. American Political Science Review 69:12181223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James. 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based Upon Insights from Behavioral Voting Research. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-National Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Merrill III, Samuel, Simas, Elizabeth N., and Stone, Walter J.. 2011. ‘When Candidates Value Good Character: A Spatial Model With Applications to Congressional Elections’. Journal of Politics 73(1):1730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2004. ‘Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results?’. British Journal of Political Science 34:589610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and McKelvey, Richard D.. 1977. ‘A Method of Scaling With Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections’. American Political Science Review 71:111130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Nagler, Jonathan. 1995. ‘Economics, Issues, and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Election’. American Journal of Political Science 39:714744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James. 2008. ‘The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting’. American Political Science Review 102(2):215232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James, and Stewart, Charles. 2001a. ‘Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 45(1):136159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James, and Stewart, Charles. 2001b. ‘The Effects of Party and Preferences on Congressional Roll-Call Voting’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(4):533572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2000. ‘Old Voters, New Voters, and the Personal Vote: Using Redistricting to Measure the Incumbency Advantage’. American Journal of Political Science 44:1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Jones, Philip E.. 2010. ‘Constituents Responses to Congressional Roll-Call Voting’. American Journal of Political Science 54(3):583597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, David, and Banks, Jeffrey S.. 1988. ‘Elections, Coalitions and Legislative Outcomes’. American Political Science Review 82(2):405422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bafumi, Joseph, and Herron, Michael C.. 2010. ‘Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and their Members in Congress’. American Political Science Review 104(3):519542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Battista, James C., and Richman, Jesse. 2011. ‘Party Pressure in the US State Legislatures’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(3):397422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N.. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Election. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2013. ‘Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace’. American Journal of Political Science 57:294311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David W., Han, Hahrie, and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2007. ‘Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step With the Primary Electorate?’. Legislative Studies Quarterly 32(1):79105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E. 1985. ‘The Perils of Survey Research: Inter-Personally Incomparable Responses’. Political Methodology 11:269291.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2004. ‘Candidate Positioning in U.S. Congressional Elections’. British Journal of Political Science 34:211227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buttice, Matthew K., and Stone, Walter J.. 2012. ‘Candidates Matter: Policy and Quality Differences in Congressional Elections’. Journal of Politics 74(3):870887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.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(1):127140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. ‘The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data’. American Political Science Review 98:355370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2006. ‘Representation in Congress: Constituents and Roll Calls in the 106th House’. The Journal of Politics 68(2):397409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2007. ‘Lawmaking and Roll Calls’. Journal of Politics 69:457469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John J., and Manna, Paul F.. 2000. ‘Congressional Campaign Spending and the Quality of Democracy’. Journal of Politics 62(3):757789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coleman, John J. 2001. ‘The Distribution of Campaign Spending Benefits Across Groups’. Journal of Politics 63:916936.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, Pamela J., and Feldman, Stanley. 1982. ‘Projection and the Perceptions of Candidates’ Issue Positions’. Western Political Quarterly 35:228244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Phillip E. 1964. ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’. In David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, 206261. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cover, Albert D. 1977. ‘One Good Term Deserves Another: The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 21:523541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1996. ‘Why Did the Incumbency Advantage in US House Elections Grow?’. American Journal of Political Science 40:478497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalager, Jon K. 1996. ‘Voters, Issues, and Elections: Are the Candidates’ Messages Getting Through?’. Journal of Politics 58:486515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Enelow, James M., and Hinich, Melvin J.. 1984. The Spatial Theory of Voting: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert S. 1971. ‘The Advantage of Incumbency in Congressional Elections’. Polity 3(3):395405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., and Romero, D.. 1990. ‘Candidate Equilibrium and the Behavioral Model of the Vote’. The American Political Science Review 84:11031126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2007. ‘The Variance Matters: How Party Systems Represent the Preferences of Voters’. Journal of Politics 69:182292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan. 1998. ‘Estimating the Effect of Campaign Spending on Senate Election Outcomes Using Instrumental Variables’. American Political Science Review 92(2):401411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., and Lewis, Jeffrey B.. 2004. ‘Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation’. Journal of Political Economy 112:13641383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Donald, and Krasno, Jonathan. 1988. ‘Salvation for the Spendthrift Incumbent: Reestimating the Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 32(4):884907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Timothy. 2001. ‘A Model of Candidate Location When One Candidate has a Valence Advantage’. American Journal of Political Science 45:862886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollibaugh, Gary E., Rothenberg, Lawrence S., and Rulison, Kristin K.. 2013. ‘Does It Really Hurt to Be Out of Step?’. Political Research Quarterly 66:856867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurley, Patricia A., and Hill, Kim Q.. 1980. ‘The Prospects for Issue-Voting in Contemporary Congressional Elections an Assessment of Citizen Awareness and Representation’. American Politics Research 8(4):425448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2000. ‘Estimation and Inference are Missing Data Problems: Unifying Social Science Statistics Via Bayesian Simulation’. Political Analysis 8:307332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2004. ‘Bayesian Analysis for Political Research’. Annual Review of Political Science 7:483505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackman, Simon. 2015. pscl: Classes and Methods for R Developed in the Political Science Computational Laboratory. Department of Political Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California. R package version 1.4.9. http://pscl.stanford.edu/.Google Scholar
Jackman, Simon, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2010. ‘Primary Politics: Race, Gender, and Partisanship in the 2008 Democratic Primary’. Journal of Elections, Parties, and Public Opinion 20(2):153186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1978. ‘The Effects of Campaign Spending in Congressional Elections’. The American Political Science Review 6(1):469491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobson, Gary C. 1990. ‘The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments’. American Journal of Political Science 5(1):334362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2009. ‘Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election’. American Political Science Review 103:5981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2010. ‘Partisan Bias, Political Information and Spatial Voting in the 2008 Presidential Election’. Journal of Politics 72:327340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jessee, Stephen A. 2012. Ideology and Spatial Voting in American Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kedar, Orit. 2005. ‘When Moderate Voters Prefer Extreme Parties: Policy Balancing in Parliamentary Elections’. American Political Science Review 99:185199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keith, Bruce E., Magleby, David B., Nelson, Candice J., Orr, Elizabeth, Westlye, Mark C., and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Key, V. J. 1959. ‘Secular Realignment and the Party System’. Journal of Politics 21:198210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. 1998. ‘Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics’. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske and G. Lindzey (eds), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed. 778867. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M.. 1995. ‘Political Parties and the Distribution of Federal Outlays’. American Journal of Political Science 39(4):958980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Wolfinger, Raymond E.. 1980. ‘Candidates and Parties in Congressional Elections’. American Political Science Review 74:617632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, Andrew D., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2002. ‘Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the US Supreme Court’. Political Analysis 10(2):134153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan M., and Poole, Keith T.. 1998. ‘An Empirical Spatial Model of Congressional Campaigns’. Political Analysis 7(1):130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merrill, Samuel, and Grofman, Bernard. 1999. A Unified Theory of Voting: Directional and Proximity Spatial Models. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald W.. 1963. ‘Constituency Influence in Congress’. American Political Science Review 57:4556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peress, Michael. 2013. ‘Candidate Positioning and Responsiveness to Constituent Opinion in the U.S. House of Representatives’. Public Choice 156:7794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Guido. 2000. Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge and London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Richman, Jesse. 2011. ‘Parties, Pivots, and Policy: The Status Quo Test’. American Political Science Review 105(1):151165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. ‘The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures’. American Political Science Review 105(3):530551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Simas, Elizabeth N.. 2010. ‘Candidate Valence and Ideological Positions in U.S. House Elections’. American Journal of Political Science 54(2):371388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2013. ‘Measuring Constituent Policy Preferences in Congress, State Legislatures, and Cities’. Journal of Politics 75(2):330342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warshaw, Christopher, and Rodden, Jonathan. 2012. ‘How Should we Measure District-Level Public Opinion on Individual Issues?’. Journal of Politics 74(1):203219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John R. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Shor and Rogowski supplementary material

Appendix

Download Shor and Rogowski supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 67 KB
21
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.

Ideology and the US Congressional Vote*
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.

Ideology and the US Congressional Vote*
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.

Ideology and the US Congressional Vote*
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? *