Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-10T17:58:38.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Political Positions from Legislative Speech

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Benjamin E. Lauderdale  and
Alexander Herzog
Benjamin E. Lauderdale*
Affiliation:
Department of Methodology, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE, UK
Alexander Herzog
Affiliation:
School of Computing, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634, USA, e-mail: [email protected]
*
e-mail: [email protected] (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Existing approaches to measuring political disagreement from text data perform poorly except when applied to narrowly selected texts discussing the same issues and written in the same style. We demonstrate the first viable approach for estimating legislator-specific scores from the entire speech corpus of a legislature, while also producing extensive information about the evolution of speech polarization and politically loaded language. In the Irish Dáil, we show that the dominant dimension of speech variation is government–opposition, with ministers more extreme on this dimension than backbenchers, and a second dimension distinguishing between the establishment and anti-establishment opposition parties. In the U. S. Senate, we estimate a dimension that has moderate within-party correlations with scales based on roll-call votes and campaign donation patterns; however, we observe greater overlap across parties in speech positions than roll-call positions and partisan polarization in speeches varies more clearly in response to major political events.

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 24 , Issue 3 , Summer 2016 , pp. 374 - 394
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.)

Footnotes

Authors’ note: Replication materials are available online as Lauderdale and Herzog (2016). We thank Ken Benoit, Royce Carroll, Justin Grimmer, Paul Kellstedt, Lanny Martin, Scott Moser, Adam Ramey, Randy Stevenson, Georg Vanberg, two anonymous reviewers, and the editor of this journal for their comments and feedback. Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.Google 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):495–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, Nulty, Paul, Barberá, Pablo, Watanabe, Kohei, and Lauderdale, Benjamin. 2016. quanteda: Quantitative analysis of textual data, version 0.9.4 R package available on CRAN at. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/quanteda/, last accessed on June 11, 2016Google Scholar
Bonica, Adam. 2014. Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science 58(2):367–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Royce, and Cox, Gary W. 2012. Shadowing ministers: Monitoring partners in coalition governments. Comparative Political Studies 45(2):220–36.CrossRefGoogle 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 vote analysis. British Journal of Political Science 36(4):691–704.Google Scholar
Carrubba, Clifford J., Gabel, Matthew, and Hug, Simon. 2008. Legislative voting behavior, seen and unseen: A theory of roll-call vote selection. Legislative Studies Quarterly 33(4):543–72.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2):355–70.Google Scholar
Eddelbuettel, Dirk, and François, Romain. 2011. Rcpp: Seamless R and C++ integration. Journal of Statistical Software 40(8):1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Michael and Komito, Lee. 2009. The constituency role of Dáil deputies. In Politics in the Republic of Ireland, eds. Coakley, John and Gallagher, Michael. 5th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giannetti, Daniela, and Benoit, Kenneth, eds. 2009. Intra-party politics and coalition governments. Routledge.Google Scholar
Giannetti, Daniela, and Laver, Michael. 2005. Policy positions and jobs in the government. European Journal of Political Research 44(1):91–120.Google Scholar
Hansen, Martin Ejnar. 2009. The positions of Irish parliamentary actors 1937–2006. Irish Political Studies 24(1):29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heitshusen, Valerie, Young, Garry, and Wood, David M. 2005. Electoral context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 49(1):32–45.Google Scholar
Herzog, Alexander, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2015. The most unkindest cuts: speaker selection and expressed government dissent during economic crisis. Journal of Politics 77(4):1157–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul, and Roland, Gérard. 2005. Power to the parties: cohesion and competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science 35(02):209–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2010. Selection effects in roll call votes. British Journal of Political Science 40(1):225–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kam, Christopher J. 2009. Party discipline and parliamentary politics. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2010. Unpredictable voters in ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 18(2):151–71.Google Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Herzog, Alexander. 2016. Replication data for: Measuring political positions from legislative speech. Harvard Dataverse. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RQMIV3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Clark, Tom S. 2014. Scaling politically meaningful dimensions using texts and votes. American Journal of Political Science 58(3):754–71.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1996. Making and breaking governments: Cabinets and legislatures in parliamentary democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2002. Locating TDs in policy spaces: The computational text analysis of Dáil speeches. Irish Political Studies 17(1):59–73.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Garry, John. 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review 97(2):311–31.Google Scholar
Lowe, Will. 2013. There's (basically) only one way to do: Some unifying theory for text scaling models. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association meeting, September 2013, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lowe, Will. 2015. Austin: Do things with words, version 0.2.2. Available on GitHub at http://github.org/conjugateprior/austin Google Scholar
Lowe, Will, and Benoit, Kenneth. 2011. Estimating uncertainty in quantitative text analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
Lowe, Will. 2008. Understanding wordscores. Political Analysis 16(4):356–71.Google Scholar
Marsh, Michael. 2007. Candidates or parties? Objects of electoral choice in Ireland. Party Politics 13(4):500–527.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 10:134–53.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2004. Policing the bargain: Coalition government and parliamentary scrutiny. American Journal of Political Science 48(1):13–27.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2008. Coalition government and political communication. Political Research Quarterly 61(3):502–16.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2011. Parliaments and coalitions: The role of legislative institutions in multiparty governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Malley, Eoin, and Martin, Shane. 2010. The government and the Taoiseach. In Politics in the Republic of Ireland, eds. Coakley, John and Gallagher, Michael. Routledge, chapter 10, 295–326.Google Scholar
Plummer, Martyn. 2014. rjags: Bayesian graphical models using MCMC. version 3–14. R package available on CRAN at http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=rjags Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1985. A spatial model for legislative roll call analysis. American Journal of Political Science 29(2):357–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. 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(3):587–611.Google Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B. 2012. Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science 56(3):520–37.Google Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B. 2015. The politics of parliamentary debate. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Quinn, Kevin M., Monroe, Burt L., Colaresi, Michael, Crespin, Michael H., and Radev, Dragomir R. 2010. How to analyze political attention with minimal assumptions and costs. American Journal of Political Science 54(1):209–28.Google Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 2003. Identification of multidimensional spatial voting models. Manuscript, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Rosas, Guillermo, Shomer, Yael, and Haptonstahl, Stephen R. 2014. No news is news: nonignorable nonresponse in roll-call data analysis. American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Schwarz, Daniel, Traber, Denise and Benoit, Kenneth. Forthcoming. Estimating intra-party preferences: comparing speeches to votes. Political Science Research and Methods.Google Scholar
Slapin, Jonathan B., and Proksch, Sven-Oliver. 2008. A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 52(3):705–22.Google Scholar
Spirling, Arthur, and McLean, Iain. 2007. UK OC OK? Interpreting optimal classification scores for the UK House of Commons. Political Analysis 15(1):85–96.Google Scholar
Strøm, Kaare, Müller, Wolfgang C., and Bergman, Torbjörn, eds. 2008. Cabinets and coalition bargaining: The democractic life cycle in Western Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thies, Michael F. 2001. Keeping tabs on partners: the logic of delegation in coalition governments. American Journal of Political Science 45(3):580–98.Google Scholar
VanDoren, Peter M. 1990. Can we learn the causes of congressional decisions from roll-call data? Legislative Studies Quarterly 15(3):311–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, Liam. 2010. Parties and the party system. In Politics in the Republic of Ireland, eds. Coakley, John and Gallagher, Michael. Routledge, chapter 5, 137–67.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar Jr., and Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2011. Distinguishing between influences on Brazilian legislative behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(3):363–96.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Lauderdale and Herzog supplementary material

Appendix

Download Lauderdale and Herzog supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 365.8 KB