IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v48y2004i1p152-171.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Limits of Ecological Inference: The Case of Split‐Ticket Voting

Author

Listed:
  • Wendy K. Tam Cho
  • Brian J. Gaines

Abstract

We examine the limits of ecological inference methods by focusing on the case of split‐ticket voting. Burden and Kimball (1998) report that, by using the King estimation procedure for inferring individual‐level behavior from aggregate data, they are the first to produce accurate estimates of split‐ticket voting rates in congressional districts. However, a closer examination of their data reveals that a satisfactory analysis of this problem is more complex than may initially appear. We show that the estimation technique is highly suspect in general and especially unhelpful with their particular data.

Suggested Citation

  • Wendy K. Tam Cho & Brian J. Gaines, 2004. "The Limits of Ecological Inference: The Case of Split‐Ticket Voting," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 152-171, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:48:y:2004:i:1:p:152-171
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00062.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00062.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00062.x?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Prendergast, Patrick & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna & Lang, Corey, 2019. "The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 258-268.
    2. Bernard Grofman & Matt A. Barreto, 2009. "A Reply to Zax's (2002) Critique of Grofman and Migalski (1988)," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 37(4), pages 599-617, May.
    3. Sarah Moon, 2024. "Partial Identification of Individual-Level Parameters Using Aggregate Data in a Nonparametric Model," Papers 2403.07236, arXiv.org, revised May 2024.
    4. Baodong Liu, 2007. "EI Extended Model and the Fear of Ecological Fallacy," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 36(1), pages 3-25, August.
    5. Lang, Corey & Pearson-Merkowitz, Shanna, 2022. "Aggregate data yield biased estimates of voter preferences," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Matt Barreto & Loren Collingwood & Sergio Garcia-Rios & Kassra AR Oskooii, 2022. "Estimating Candidate Support in Voting Rights Act Cases: Comparing Iterative EI and EI-R×C Methods," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 51(1), pages 271-304, February.
    7. Álvaro J. Corral & David L. Leal, 2020. "Latinos por Trump? Latinos and the 2016 Presidential Election," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(3), pages 1115-1131, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:amposc:v:48:y:2004:i:1:p:152-171. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.