Cited by 1,153Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSpatial and Panel Data AnalysisGame Theory and Voting Systems

The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data

CLINTON, JOSHUA, JACKMAN, SIMON, RIVERS, DOUGLAS·2004·American Political Science Review

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

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003055404001194

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
CLINTON, J., JACKMAN, S., & RIVERS, D.
Affiliations
  • Princeton University (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
American Political Science Review
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