Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-mzsfj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-15T03:32:13.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Anchors Away: A New Approach for Estimating Ideal Points Comparable across Time and Chambers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Nicole Asmussen  and
Jinhee Jo
Nicole Asmussen
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Oakland University, Rochester, MI 48309, e-mail: asmussen@oakland.edu
Jinhee Jo*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Kyung Hee University, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, Korea
*
e-mail: jinheejo@khu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Existing methods for estimating ideal points of legislators that are comparable across time and chambers make restrictive assumptions regarding how legislators' ideal points can move over time, either by fixing some legislators' ideal points or by constraining their movement over time. These assumptions are clearly contradictory to some theories of congressional responsiveness to election dynamics and changes in constituency. Instead of using legislators as anchors, our approach relies on matching roll calls in one chamber and session with roll calls or cosponsorship decisions on identical bills introduced in a different chamber or session. By using these “bridge decisions” to achieve comparability, we can remove any assumptions about the movement of legislators' ideal points. We produce these estimates for both chambers from the 102nd (1991–92) to 111th (2009–11) Congresses, and we show that our estimates provide interesting insights into the nature of legislative behavior change.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , Spring 2016 , pp. 172 - 188
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2016. 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

Footnotes

Authors' note: We thank Josh Clinton, Christian Grose, Alexander Hirsch, Michael Peress, Adam Ramey, Steve Rogers, Larry Rothenberg, Jungkun Seo, and the coeditor and the three anonymous reviewers for insightful suggestions. Replication data are available on the Political Analysis Dataverse at http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/4IOIWV.

References

Adler, E. Scott, and Wilkerson, John. 2001–2004. Congressional bills project. NSF 00880066 and 00880061.Google Scholar
Aleman, Eduardo, Calvo, Ernesto, Jones, Mark P., and Kaplan, Noah. 2009. Comparing cosponsorship and roll-call ideal points. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(1): 87–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Snyder, James M. Jr., and Stewart, Charles III. 2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 136–59.Google Scholar
Asmussen, Nicole, and Jo, Jinhee. 2015. Replication data for: Anchors away: A new approach for estimating ideal points comparable across time and chambers. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/4IOIWV Harvard Dataverse.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael A. 2007. Comparable preference estimates across time and institutions for the court, Congress and presidency. American Journal of Political Science 51(3): 433–48.Google Scholar
Bailey, Michael A 2013. Is today's court the most conservative in sixty years? Challenges and opportunities in measuring judicial preferences. Journal of Politics 75(3): 821–34.Google Scholar
Balz, Dan, and VandeHei, Jim. 2004. McCain's resistance doesn't stop talk of Kerry dream ticket. Washington Post (June 12):A01.Google Scholar
Battista, James Coleman, Peress, Michael, and Richman, Jesse. 2013. Common-space ideal points, committee assignments, and financial interests in the state legislatures. State Politics and Policy Quarterly 13(1): 70–87.Google Scholar
Bernhard, William, and Sulkin, Tracy. 2013. Commitment and consequences: Reneging on cosponsorship pledges in the U.S. House. Legislative Studies Quarterly 38(4): 461–87.Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58(2): 367–86.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004a. “The most liberal senator”? Analyzing and interpreting congressional roll calls. Political Science and Politics 37(4): 805–11.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004b. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–70.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott W., Kearney, Matthew C., and Crisp, Brian F. 2011. Using cosponsorship to estimate ideal points. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(4): 531–65.Google Scholar
Ensley, Michael J., Tofias, Michael W., and de Marchi, Scott. 2014. Are these boots made for walking? Polarization and ideological change among U.S. House members. In The state of the parties, 7th ed., eds. Coffey, Daniel J., Cohen, David B., and Green, John C. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield: 107–120.Google Scholar
Fowler, James. 2006. Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks. Political Analysis 14:456–87.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Rubin, Donald B. 1992. Inference from iterative simulation using multiple sequences. Statistical Science 7(4): 457–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, Carlin, John B., Stern, Hal S., and Rubin, Donald B. 2004. Bayesian data analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard, Griffin, Robert, and Berry, Gregory. 1995. House members who become senators: Learning from a “natural experiment” in representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20(4): 513–29.Google Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, Levitt, Steven D., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1999. Comparing interest group scores across time and chambers: Adjusted ADA scores for the U.S. courts. American Political Science Review 93(1): 33–50.Google Scholar
Harward, Brian M., and Moffett, Kenneth W. 2010. The calculus of cosponsorship in the U.S. Senate. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35(1): 117–43.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J., and Snyder, James M. Jr. 1997. Linear probability models of the demand for attributes with an empirical application to estimating the preferences of legislators. Rand Journal of Economics 28:S142–89.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1986. Ambition in the House: Behavioral consequences of higher office goals among U.S. representatives. American Journal of Political Science 30(3): 651–65.Google Scholar
Kessler, Daniel, and Krehbiel, Keith. 1996. Dynamics of cosponsorship. American Political Science Review 90(3): 555–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. Cosponsors and wafflers from A to Z. American Journal of Political Science 39(4): 906–23.Google Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2010. John McCain is no longer a Maverick. Addendum to “unpredictable voters in ideal point estimation”. benjaminlauderdale.net/downloads/JohnMcCainAddendum.pdf.Google Scholar
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(2): 134–53.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. The hunt for party discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review 95(3): 672–87.Google Scholar
Nokken Timothy, P. 2000. Dynamics of congressional loyalty: Party defection and roll-call behavior, 1947–97. Legislative Studies Quarterly 25(3): 417–44.Google Scholar
Peress, Michael. 2013. Estimating proposal and status quo locations using voting and cosponsorship data. Journal of Politics 75(3): 613–31.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2007. Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and McCarty, Nolan. 2011. The ideological mapping of American legislatures. American Political Science Review 105(3): 530–51.Google Scholar
Sides, John. 2010. Who are the real mavericks? The Monkey Cage (May 6). themonkeycage.org/2010/05/06/who_are_the_real_mavericks/.Google Scholar
Talbert, Jeffery C., and Potoski, Matthew. 2002. Setting the legislative agenda: The dimensional structure of bill cosponsoring and floor voting. Journal of Politics 64(3): 864–91.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn. 2011. Comparing ideal points across institutions and time. American Politics Research 39(5): 804–31.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn. 2010. Ideal point estimation using overlapping constraints in the Senate. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Wilson, Reid. 2011. McCain's shift makes him Senate's most conservative. National Journal (Feb. 24).Google Scholar
Woon, Jonathan. 2008. Bill sponsorship in Congress: The moderating effect of agenda positions on legislative proposals. Journal of Politics 70(1): 201–16.Google Scholar
Zwick, Jesse. 2009. What happened to John McCain? New Republic (Oct. 2).Google Scholar