A Bridge to Somewhere: Mapping State and Congressional Ideology on a Cross‐institutional Common Space
Abstract
Researchers face two major problems when applying ideal point estimation techniques to state legislatures. First, longitudinal roll‐call data are scarce. Second, even when such data exist, scaling ideal points within a single state is an inadequate approach. No comparisons can be made between these estimates and those for other state legislatures or for Congress. Our project provides a solution. We exploit a new comparative dataset of state legislative roll calls to generate ideal points for legislators. Taking advantage of the fact that state legislators sometimes go on to serve in Congress, we create a common ideological scale. Using these bridge actors, we estimate state legislative ideal points in congressional common space for 11 states. We present our results and illustrate how these scores can be used to address important topics in state and legislative politics.
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?
Ideology estimates for citizens, state legislators, PACs, and political candidates were not previously available.
“One important reason why the work by Jessee (2009), Shor, Berry, and McCarty (2010), and Bonica (2013b) represents an important contribution to the measurement literature is that ideology estimates for citizens, state legislators, political action committees (PACs), and political candidates were not previously available.”
From Birds of the Same Feather Tweet Together: Bayesian Ideal Point Estimation Using Twitter Data (2015) · cites this paper as Shor, Berry, and McCarty 2010
Cites
Beyond the Median: Voter Preferences, District Heterogeneity, and Political Representation
Gerber, E. R., & Lewis, J. B. (2004) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/424737 · Cited by 324 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…start end roll Calls Bridges Ca 1993 2008 16,632 20 Co 1996 2005 5,874 8 Fl 1996 2005 2,013 15 il 1996 2008 4,759 6 la 1997 2006 3,292 5 Mi 1996 2006 7,281 7 NC 1995 2006 2,889 6 NJ 1996 2005 1,778 5 Ny 1996 2003 3,011 6 oh 1995 2008 1,416 10 pa 1996 2007 2,663 8 425a Bridge to somewhere”
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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
- Authors
- SHOR, B., BERRY, C., & MCCARTY, N.
- Affiliations
- University of Chicago (US)
- Princeton University (US)
- Corresponding author
- SHOR, BORIS
- BERRY, CHRISTOPHER
- MCCARTY, NOLAN
- Venue
- Legislative Studies Quarterly
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-08
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 417-448
- ISSN
- 0362-9805 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-9162
- OpenAlex
- W2081374258
- Cited by
- 100
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 68.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Legislative Studies Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Game Theory and Voting Systems
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Science Research and Education
- Keywords
- state legislatures, legislative ideology, ideal point estimation, inter-institutional comparison, roll call data, legislative careers
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