IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/pubcho/v176y2018i1d10.1007_s11127-018-0540-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Ordered Optimal Classification reveals about ideological structure, cleavages, and polarization in the American mass public

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher Hare

    (University of California, Davis)

  • Tzu-Ping Liu

    (University of California, Davis)

  • Robert N. Lupton

    (University of Connecticut)

Abstract

This paper develops an extension of Poole’s (Polit Anal 8(3):211–237, 2000) Optimal Classification (OC) scaling procedure to the analysis of polytomous or ordered choice data. This type of data is regularly encountered in public opinion and expert surveys, legislative and judicial bodies where abstention is relevant, and measures of policy that are coded along ordinal scales. OC is nonparametric and requires only minimal assumptions about voters’ utility functions and the error term. As such, Ordered Optimal Classification (OOC) provides a flexible modeling strategy to estimate latent ideological spaces from ordinal choice data. OOC is also easily estimated in multidimensional space without identifying restrictions. After describing the OOC procedure, we perform a series of Monte Carlo experiments and apply the method to analyze survey data from the 2015 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. We then conclude with a discussion of how scholars can utilize OOC in future work involving multidimensional spatial models of choice.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:pubcho:v:176:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-018-0540-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s11127-018-0540-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11127-018-0540-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11127-018-0540-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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. Christopher J. Fariss & Keith E. Schnakenberg, 2014. "Measuring Mutual Dependence between State Repressive Actions," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 58(6), pages 1003-1032, September.
    3. Michael A. Bailey & Anton Strezhnev & Erik Voeten, 2017. "Estimating Dynamic State Preferences from United Nations Voting Data," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 61(2), pages 430-456, February.
    4. Ladha, Krishna K, 1991. "A Spatial Model of Legislative Voting with Perceptual Error," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 68(1-3), pages 151-174, January.
    5. Enelow,James M. & Hinich,Melvin J., 1984. "The Spatial Theory of Voting," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521275156.
    6. Weisberg, Herbert F. & Rusk, Jerrold G., 1970. "Dimensions of Candidate Evaluation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 64(4), pages 1167-1185, December.
    7. Shepsle, Kenneth A., 1972. "The Strategy of Ambiguity: Uncertainty and Electoral Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 66(2), pages 555-568, June.
    8. Troy Gibson & Christopher Hare, 2016. "Moral Epistemology and Ideological Conflict in American Political Behavior," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 97(5), pages 1157-1173, November.
    9. Brady, Henry E. & Ansolabehere, Stephen, 1989. "The Nature of Utility Functions in Mass Publics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 83(1), pages 143-163, March.
    10. Silberman, Jonathan I & Durden, Garey C, 1976. "Determining Legislative Preferences on the Minimum Wage: An Economic Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(2), pages 317-329, April.
    11. Simon Hix & Abdul Noury & Gérard Roland, 2006. "Dimensions of Politics in the European Parliament," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 50(2), pages 494-520, April.
    12. Hainmueller, Jens & Hazlett, Chad, 2014. "Kernel Regularized Least Squares: Reducing Misspecification Bias with a Flexible and Interpretable Machine Learning Approach," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 22(2), pages 143-168, April.
    13. Aldrich, John H. & McKelvey, Richard D., 1977. "A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(1), pages 111-130, March.
    14. Stephen Nunez, 2004. "Bankruptcy "Reform" in Congress: Creditors, Committees, Ideology, and Floor Voting in the Legislative Process," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(2), pages 527-557, October.
    15. Daniel L. McFadden, 1976. "Quantal Choice Analysis: A Survey," NBER Chapters, in: Annals of Economic and Social Measurement, Volume 5, number 4, pages 363-390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Rosenthal, Howard & Voeten, Erik, 2007. "Measuring legal systems," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 711-728, December.
    17. Layman, Geoffrey C. & Green, John C., 2006. "Wars and Rumours of Wars: The Contexts of Cultural Conflict in American Political Behaviour," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 61-89, January.
    18. Lane, Robert E., 1959. "The Fear of Equality," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 35-51, March.
    19. Jacoby, William G., 2014. "Is There a Culture War? Conflicting Value Structures in American Public Opinion," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(4), pages 754-771, November.
    20. Berinsky, Adam J. & Lewis, Jeffrey B., 2007. "An Estimate of Risk Aversion in the U.S. Electorate," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 139-154, May.
    21. Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Spatial Models of Party Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(2), pages 368-377, June.
    22. Keith T. Poole, 2017. "The scientific status of geometric models of choice and similarities judgment," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 171(3), pages 245-256, June.
    23. Layman, Geoffrey C. & Carsey, Thomas M. & Green, John C. & Herrera, Richard & Cooperman, Rosalyn, 2010. "Activists and Conflict Extension in American Party Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 104(2), pages 324-346, May.
    24. Jessee, Stephen A., 2009. "Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 103(1), pages 59-81, February.
    25. Lauderdale, Benjamin E., 2010. "Unpredictable Voters in Ideal Point Estimation," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(2), pages 151-171, April.
    26. Bullock, John G. & Gerber, Alan S. & Hill, Seth J. & Huber, Gregory A., 2015. "Partisan Bias in Factual Beliefs about Politics," Quarterly Journal of Political Science, now publishers, vol. 10(4), pages 519-578, December.
    27. Kellstedt, Paul M. & Ramirez, Mark D. & Vedlitz, Arnold & Zahran, Sammy, 2019. "Does Political Sophistication Minimize Value Conflict? Evidence from a Heteroskedastic Graded IRT Model of Opinions toward Climate Change," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(4), pages 1309-1332, October.
    28. Keele, Luke & Wolak, Jennifer, 2006. "Value Conflict and Volatility in Party Identification," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(4), pages 671-690, October.
    29. Martin, Andrew D. & Quinn, Kevin M., 2002. "Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 134-153, April.
    30. Poole, Keith T., 2000. "Nonparametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(3), pages 211-237, March.
    31. Tahk, Alexander, 2018. "Nonparametric Ideal-Point Estimation and Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(2), pages 131-146, April.
    32. Ferwerda, Jeremy & Hainmueller, Jens & Hazlett, Chad J., 2017. "Kernel-Based Regularized Least Squares in R (KRLS) and Stata (krls)," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i03).
    33. Ansolabehere, Stephen & Rodden, Jonathan & Snyder, James M., 2008. "The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 102(2), pages 215-232, May.
    34. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. Christopher Hare & Keith T. Poole, 2015. "Measuring ideology in Congress," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 18, pages 327-346, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    3. James Lo, 2018. "Dynamic ideal point estimation for the European Parliament, 1980–2009," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 229-246, July.
    4. 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.
    5. Arianna Degan, 2003. "A Dynamic Model of Voting," PIER Working Paper Archive 04-015, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 May 2004.
    6. Lerner, Joshua Y. & McCubbins, Mathew D. & Renberg, Kristen M., 2021. "The efficacy of measuring judicial ideal points: The mis-analogy of IRTs," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    7. Howard Rosenthal, 2018. "Introduction to the issue in honor of Keith T. Poole," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 1-5, July.
    8. Christopher J Fariss & James Lo, 2020. "Innovations in concepts and measurement for the study of peace and conflict," Journal of Peace Research, Peace Research Institute Oslo, vol. 57(6), pages 669-678, November.
    9. Bjørn Høyland, 2010. "Procedural and party effects in European Parliament roll-call votes," European Union Politics, , vol. 11(4), pages 597-613, December.
    10. Stuart Elaine Macdonald & George Rabinowitz, 1993. "Direction and Uncertainty in a Model of Issue Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 61-87, January.
    11. Daniel Lee, 2014. "Third-party threat and the dimensionality of major-party roll call voting," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(3), pages 515-531, June.
    12. Bon Sang Koo, 2023. "When legislators responded to news media surveys: unstable responses, missing not at random responses, and self-censorship," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 1821-1843, April.
    13. Devin Caughey & James Dunham & Christopher Warshaw, 2018. "The ideological nationalization of partisan subconstituencies in the American States," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 133-151, July.
    14. Degan, Arianna & Merlo, Antonio, 2009. "Do voters vote ideologically?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 1868-1894, September.
    15. Bolton, Patrick & Li, Tao & Ravina, Enrichetta & Rosenthal, Howard, 2020. "Investor ideology," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(2), pages 320-352.
    16. René Lindstädt & Ryan Wielen, 2011. "Timely shirking: time-dependent monitoring and its effects on legislative behavior in the U.S. Senate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(1), pages 119-148, July.
    17. James Lo, 2013. "Voting Present," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(4), pages 21582440135, December.
    18. Mark M. Berger & Michael C. Munger & Richard F. Potthoff, 2000. "The Downsian Model Predicts Divergence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 12(2), pages 228-240, April.
    19. Arianna Degan & Antonio Merlo, 2007. "Do Voters Vote Ideologically?, Third Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 08-034, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 Aug 2008.
    20. Keith Krehbiel & Zachary Peskowitz, 2015. "Legislative organization and ideal-point bias," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 673-703, October.

    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:kap:pubcho:v:176:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11127-018-0540-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.