IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/jothpo/v27y2015i4p673-703.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legislative organization and ideal-point bias

Author

Listed:
  • Keith Krehbiel

    (Stanford University, USA)

  • Zachary Peskowitz

    (The Ohio State University, USA)

Abstract

Four pure types of legislative organization are characterized as data-generating processes for commonly used measures of preferences or, in the spatial vernacular, ideal points. The types of legislative organization are differentiated by their partisan versus nonpartisan nature of agenda formation, and by whether the amendment process is open or closed. For each organization, roll call voting data are Monte Carlo generated and used as input for four different ideal-point measures: standard percent-correct interest-group ratings; linear factor analysis scores; W-NOMINATE ratings; and Markov chain Monte Carlo measures. Three questions motivate and are addressed in the analysis. Do estimated ideal points differ significantly across forms of legislative organization? Are some ideal-point estimates consistently more accurate than others? Are there patterns of substantively relevant, persistent bias in ideal-point estimates? The answers are all affirmative.

Suggested Citation

  • Keith Krehbiel & Zachary Peskowitz, 2015. "Legislative organization and ideal-point bias," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 673-703, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:27:y:2015:i:4:p:673-703
    DOI: 10.1177/0951629814562290
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951629814562290
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0951629814562290?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lewis, Jeffrey B., 2001. "Estimating Voter Preference Distributions from Individual-Level Voting Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 275-297, January.
    2. Herron, Michael C., 2001. "Interest Group Ratings and Regression Inconsistency," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(3), pages 260-274, January.
    3. Adam Bonica, 2013. "Ideology and Interests in the Political Marketplace," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(2), pages 294-311, April.
    4. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1978. "Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 27-43, December.
    5. Londregan, John, 1999. "Estimating Legislators' Preferred Points," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 35-56, January.
    6. James M. Snyder, 1991. "On Buying Legislatures," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 3(2), pages 93-109, July.
    7. Snyder, James M. & Groseclose, Tim, 2001. "Estimating Party Influence on Roll Call Voting: Regression Coefficients versus Classification Success," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 689-698, September.
    8. Groseclose, Tim & Levitt, Steven D. & Snyder, James M., 1999. "Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(1), pages 33-50, March.
    9. Cooper, Joseph & Brady, David W., 1981. "Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(2), pages 411-425, June.
    10. Clinton, Joshua & Jackman, Simon & Rivers, Douglas, 2004. "The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 355-370, May.
    11. Ladha, Krishna K, 1991. "A Spatial Model of Legislative Voting with Perceptual Error," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 68(1-3), pages 151-174, January.
    12. Richman, Jesse, 2011. "Parties, Pivots, and Policy: The Status Quo Test," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 151-165, February.
    13. Joshua D. Clinton & Adam Meirowitz, 2004. "Testing Explanations of Strategic Voting in Legislatures: A Reexamination of the Compromise of 1790," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(4), pages 675-689, October.
    14. Austen-Smith, David, 1987. "Sophisticated Sincerity: Voting Over Endogenous Agendas," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1323-1330, December.
    15. Hetherington, Marc J., 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 619-631, September.
    16. Royce Carroll & Jeffrey B. Lewis & James Lo & Keith T. Poole & Howard Rosenthal, 2013. "The Structure of Utility in Spatial Models of Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(4), pages 1008-1028, October.
    17. Hirsch, Alexander V., 2011. "Theory Driven Bias in Ideal Point Estimates—A Monte Carlo Study," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 87-102, January.
    18. McKelvey, Richard D. & Niemi, Richard G., 1978. "A multistage game representation of sophisticated voting for binary procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ryan J. Vander Wielen & Michael J. Vander Wielen, 2020. "Unpacking the unknown: a method for identifying status quo distributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 49-72, January.
    2. Sanchez-Martinez Carlos A. & Shotts Kenneth W., 2015. "Assessing Robustness of Findings About Racial Redistricting’s Effect on Southern House Delegations," Statistics, Politics and Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1-2), pages 97-116, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Krehbiel, Keith & Peskowitz, Zachary, 2012. "Legislative Organization and Ideal-Point Bias," Research Papers 2124, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    2. Ryan J. Vander Wielen & Michael J. Vander Wielen, 2020. "Unpacking the unknown: a method for identifying status quo distributions," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 182(1), pages 49-72, January.
    3. Richard F. Potthoff, 2018. "Estimating Ideal Points from Roll-Call Data: Explore Principal Components Analysis, Especially for More Than One Dimension?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-27, January.
    4. Christopher Hare & Tzu-Ping Liu & Robert N. Lupton, 2018. "What Ordered Optimal Classification reveals about ideological structure, cleavages, and polarization in the American mass public," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 57-78, July.
    5. James Lo, 2013. "Voting Present," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, December.
    6. Shor, Boris & McCarty, Nolan, 2010. "The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures," Papers 8-11-2010, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    7. moldovanu, benny, 2018. "A Nazi †Killer†Amendment," CEPR Discussion Papers 13260, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    8. Eijffinger, Sylvester & Mahieu, Ronald & Raes, Louis, 2018. "Inferring hawks and doves from voting records," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 107-120.
    9. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00564976 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Jonathan B Slapin, 2014. "Measurement, model testing, and legislative influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 24-42, March.
    11. Sanford C. Gordon & Dimitri Landa, 2018. "Polarized preferences versus polarizing policies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 193-210, July.
    12. Bhaskar Dutta & Matthew O. Jackson & Michel Le Breton, 2004. "Equilibrium agenda formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 23(1), pages 21-57, August.
    13. Stefan Krasa & Mattias Polborn, 2014. "Policy Divergence and Voter Polarization in a Structural Model of Elections," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 31-76.
    14. Raphael Godefroy & Eduardo Perez‐Richet, 2013. "Choosing Choices: Agenda Selection With Uncertain Issues," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 221-253, January.
    15. Krehbiel, Keith & Meirowitz, Adam & Woon, Jonathan, 2004. "Testing Theories of Lawmaking," Research Papers 1860, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    16. Jörg L. Spenkuch & B. Pablo Montagnes & Daniel B. Magleby, 2018. "Backward Induction in the Wild? Evidence from Sequential Voting in the US Senate," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 108(7), pages 1971-2013, July.
    17. Bowen, Renee & Hwang, Ilwoo & Krasa, Stefan, 2022. "Personal power dynamics in bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    18. Dutta, Bhaskar & Jackson, Matthew O. & Le Breton, Michel, 2002. "Voting by Successive Elimination and Strategic Candidacy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 190-218, March.
    19. James Lo, 2018. "Dynamic ideal point estimation for the European Parliament, 1980–2009," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 229-246, July.
    20. Gershkov, Alex & Kleiner, Andreas & Moldovanu, Benny & Shi, Xianwen, 2023. "Voting with interdependent values: The Condorcet winner," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 193-208.
    21. Andreas Kleiner & Benny Moldovanu, 2017. "Content-Based Agendas and Qualified Majorities in Sequential Voting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(6), pages 1477-1506, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:jothpo:v:27:y:2015:i:4:p:673-703. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.