The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data
Abstract
We develop a Bayesian procedure for estimation and inference for spatial models of roll call voting. This approach is extremely flexible, applicable to any legislative setting, irrespective of size, the extremism of the legislators' voting histories, or the number of roll calls available for analysis. The model is easily extended to let other sources of information inform the analysis of roll call data, such as the number and nature of the underlying dimensions, the presence of party whipping, the determinants of legislator preferences, and the evolution of the legislative agenda; this is especially helpful since generally it is inappropriate to use estimates of extant methods (usually generated under assumptions of sincere voting) to test models embodying alternate assumptions (e.g., log-rolling, party discipline). A Bayesian approach also provides a coherent framework for estimation and inference with roll call data that eludes extant methods; moreover, via Bayesian simulation methods, it is straightforward to generate uncertainty assessments or hypothesis tests concerning any auxiliary quantity of interest or to formally compare models. In a series of examples we show how our method is easily extended to accommodate theoretically interesting models of legislative behavior. Our goal is to provide a statistical framework for combining the measurement of legislative preferences with tests of models of legislative behavior.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing studies on ideal point estimation use two strategies to identify the model: applying two linearly independent restrictions on ideal point parameters, or applying a unit variance restriction.
“Existing studies on ideal point estimation employ two different strategies to identify the model.One is to apply two linearly independent restrictions on the ideal point parameters, u or f in this case.”
From Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data (2015) · cites this paper as Clinton, Jackman, and Rivers 2004
The usual procedure for the first identification strategy is to constrain the ideal points of two legislators (liberal and conservative) at arbitrary positions, such as -1 and +1.
“In particular, the usual procedure is to constrain the ideal points of two legislators (liberal and conservative) at arbitrary positions, such as À1 and þ1 (see, e.g., Londregan 1999; Clinton, Jackman, and Rivers 2004).”
From Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data (2015) · cites this paper as Clinton, Jackman, and Rivers 2004
Cites
Metropolis, N., & Ulam, S. (1949) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1949.10483310 · Cited by 6,474 · see citing works
Bayesian Inference for Comparative Research
Western, B., & Jackman, S. (1994) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.2307/2944713 · Cited by 257 · see citing works
Self-citationEstimating Legislators' Preferred Points
Londregan, J. (1999) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.pan.a029804 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Text as Data: The Promise and Pitfalls of Automatic Content Analysis Methods for Political Texts
Grimmer, J., & Stewart, B. M. (2013) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mps028 · Cited by 3,297 · see citing works
Tweeting From Left to Right: Is Online Political Communication More Than an Echo Chamber?
Barberá, P., Jost, J. T., Nagler, J., Tucker, J. A., & Bonneau, R. (2015) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797615594620 · Cited by 1,472 · see citing works
Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data
Barberá, P. (2015) · Political Analysis · doi:10.1093/pan/mpu011 · Cited by 982 · see citing works
Respect for Human Rights has Improved Over Time: Modeling the Changing Standard of Accountability
FARISS, C. J. (2014) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055414000070 · Cited by 706 · see citing works
How Legislators Respond to Localized Economic Shocks: Evidence from Chinese Import Competition
Feigenbaum, J. J., & Hall, A. B. (2015) · The Journal of Politics · doi:10.1086/682151 · Cited by 178 · see citing works
Identification, Interpretability, and
Lauretig, A. (2019) · Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science · doi:10.18653/v1/w19-2102 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
- Authors
- CLINTON, J., JACKMAN, S., & RIVERS, D.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2004-05
- Volume
- 98
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 355-370
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2119290332
- Cited by
- 1,153
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 81 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 63 · 2020: 59 · 2019: 65 · 2018: 82 · 2017: 47 · 2016: 61 · 2015: 67 · 2014: 53 · 2013: 86 · 2012: 53
- FWCI
- 211.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Keywords
- roll-call voting, legislative behavior, Bayesian spatial models, party discipline, logrolling, sincere voting, legislative agenda, model comparison, uncertainty analysis
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review