Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T00:40:13.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Theory Driven Bias in Ideal Point Estimates—A Monte Carlo Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Alexander V. Hirsch
Alexander V. Hirsch*
Affiliation:
Department of Politics and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes the use of ideal point estimates for testing pivot theories of lawmaking such as Krehbiel's (1998, Pivotal politics: A theory of U.S. lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago) pivotal politics and Cox and McCubbins's (2005, Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representations. New York: Cambridge University Press) party cartel model. Among the prediction of pivot theories is that all pivotal legislators will vote identically on all successful legislation. Clinton (2007, Lawmaking and roll calls. Journal of Politics 69:455–67) argues that the estimated ideal points of the pivotal legislators are therefore predicted to be statistically indistinguishable and false when estimated from the set of successful final passage roll call votes, which implies that ideal point estimates cannot logically be used to test pivot theories. I show using Monte Carlo simulation that when pivot theories are augmented with probabilistic voting, Clinton's prediction only holds in small samples when voting is near perfect. I furthermore show that the predicted bias is unlikely to be consequential with U.S. Congressional voting data. My analysis suggests that the methodology of estimating ideal points to compute theoretically relevant quantities for empirical tests is not inherently flawed in the case of pivot theories.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , Winter 2011 , pp. 87 - 102
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2010. 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.)

References

Chiou, Fang-Yi, and Rothenberg, Lawrence S. 2003. When pivotal politics meets partisan politics. American Journal of Political Science 47: 503–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2007. Lawmaking and roll calls. Journal of Politics 69: 455–67.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of legislative behavior: A unified approach. American Political Science Review 98: 355–70.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., and Meirowitz, Adam. 2003. Integrating voting theory and roll call analysis: A framework. Political Analysis 11: 381–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Covington, Cary R., and Bargen, Andrew A. 2004. Comparing floor-dominated and party-dominated explanations of policy change in the House of Representatives. Journal of Politics 66: 1069–87.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. 1993. Legislative Leviathan. Berkeley, CA: University of California.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representations. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groseclose, Tim, and Snyder, James M. Jr. 2000. Estimating party influence in Congressional roll call voting. American Journal of Political Science 44: 193–211.Google Scholar
Heckman, James, 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 S142–89.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1998. Pivotal politics: A theory of U.S. lawmaking. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith, Meirowitz, Adam, and Woon, Jonathan. 2005. Testing theories of Lawmaking. In Social choice and strategic decisions: Essays in honor of Jeffrey S. Banks, ed. Austen-Smith, David and Duggan, John, 249–68. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B. 2001. Estimating voter preference distributions from individual-level voting data. Political Analysis 9: 275–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Londregan, John. 2000. Estimating legislators' preferred points. Political Analysis 8: 35–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. The hunt for party discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review 95: 673–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neyman, J., and Scott, Elizabeth L. 1948. Consistent estimates based on partially consistent observations. Econometrica 16(1): 1–32.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2001. The geometry of multidimensional quadratic utility in models of parliamentary roll call voting. Political Analysis 9: 211–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29: 357–84.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., Rosenthal, Howard, and Koford, Kenneth. 1991. On dimensionalizing roll call votes in the U.S. Congress. American Political Science Review 85: 955–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenthal, Howard. 1992. The Unidimensional Congress is not the result of selective gatekeeping. American Journal of Political Science 36(1): 31–35.Google Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth, and Weingast, Barry R. 1994. Positive theories of Congressional Institutions. Legislative Studies Quarterly 19(2): 193–215.Google Scholar
Stiglitz, Edward H., and Weingast, Barry R. 2010. Agenda control in Congress: Evidence from cutpoint estimates and ideal point uncertainty. Legislative Studies Quarterly 35 (May): 157–85.Google Scholar
Volden, Craig. 1998. Sophisticated voting in supermajoritarian settings. Journal of Politics 60(1): 149–73.Google Scholar
Volden, Craig, and Wiseman, Alan. 2010. Forthcoming. Formal approaches to the Study of Congress. In Oxford handbook on the American Congress, ed. Lee, Frances and Schicker, Eric. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar