IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v95y2001i03p689-698_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Party Influence on Roll Call Voting: Regression Coefficients versus Classification Success

Author

Listed:
  • Snyder, James M.
  • Groseclose, Tim

Abstract

Contrary to the claims of McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal, our method does not estimate the ideal points of moderates significantly less accurately than the ideal points of extremists. This is true for at least two reasons: (1) there is significant randomness in voting; as a consequence, on a lopsided vote moderates often vote with the extremists; and (2) our data set includes some roll calls that require a supermajority for passage; for these we define a 50%–50% roll call as lopsided. We also show that the classification-success method of McCarty, Poole, and Rosenthal severely understates the presence of party influence. Furthermore, we show that a proper interpretation of some of their results reveals a significant amount of party influence in Congress.

Suggested Citation

  • Snyder, James M. & Groseclose, Tim, 2001. "Estimating Party Influence on Roll Call Voting: Regression Coefficients versus Classification Success," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 689-698, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:95:y:2001:i:03:p:689-698_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055401003070/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Samuel Merrill III & Bernard Grofman & Thomas L Brunell, 2014. "Modeling the electoral dynamics of party polarization in two-party legislatures," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 26(4), pages 548-572, October.
    2. Keith Krehbiel & Zachary Peskowitz, 2015. "Legislative organization and ideal-point bias," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 673-703, October.
    3. William Hixon & Bryan W. Marshall, 2007. "Agendas, Side Issues and Leadership in the US House," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 19(1), pages 83-99, January.
    4. Krehbiel, Keith & Peskowitz, Zachary, 2012. "Legislative Organization and Ideal-Point Bias," Research Papers 2124, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    5. Adam Ramey, 2015. "Bringing the minority back to the party: An informational theory of majority and minority parties in Congress," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(1), pages 132-150, January.
    6. Shor, Boris & McCarty, Nolan, 2010. "The Ideological Mapping of American Legislatures," Papers 8-11-2010, Princeton University, Research Program in Political Economy.
    7. John Patty, 2010. "Dilatory or anticipatory? Voting on the Journal in the House of Representatives," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 143(1), pages 121-133, April.

    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:cup:apsrev:v:95:y:2001:i:03:p:689-698_00. 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    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.