IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/stabus/2124.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Legislative Organization and Ideal-Point Bias

Author

Listed:
  • Krehbiel, Keith

    (Stanford University)

  • Peskowitz, Zachary

    (OH State University)

Abstract

Four pure types of legislative organization are characterized as data generating processes for commonly used measures of preferences or, in the spatial vernacular, ideal points. The types of legislative organization are differentiated by their partisan versus nonpartisan nature of agenda formation, and by whether the amendment process is open or closed. For each organization, roll call voting data are Monte-Carlo generated and used as input for four different ideal point measures: standard percent-correct interest group ratings (IGRs), linear factor analysis scores (LFAs), W-NOMINATE ratings (NOMs), and Markov chain Monte Carlo measures (MCMCs). Three questions motivate and are addressed the analysis. Do estimated ideal points differ significantly across forms of legislative organization? Are some ideal point estimates consistently more accurate than others? Are there patterns of substantively relevant, persistent bias in ideal point estimates? The answers are all affirmative.

Suggested Citation

  • Krehbiel, Keith & Peskowitz, Zachary, 2012. "Legislative Organization and Ideal-Point Bias," Research Papers 2124, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    • Handle: RePEc:ecl:stabus:2124
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/RP2124.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Groseclose, Tim & Levitt, Steven D. & Snyder, James M., 1999. "Comparing Interest Group Scores across Time and Chambers: Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(1), pages 33-50, March.
    2. Binder, Sarah A., 1999. "The Dynamics of Legislative Gridlock, 1947–96," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 93(3), pages 519-533, September.
    3. Austen-Smith, David, 1987. "Sophisticated Sincerity: Voting Over Endogenous Agendas," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 81(4), pages 1323-1330, December.
    4. McKelvey, Richard D. & Niemi, Richard G., 1978. "A multistage game representation of sophisticated voting for binary procedures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-22, June.
    5. 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.
    6. Thomas Romer & Howard Rosenthal, 1978. "Political resource allocation, controlled agendas, and the status quo," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 27-43, December.
    7. 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.
    8. Cooper, Joseph & Brady, David W., 1981. "Institutional Context and Leadership Style: The House from Cannon to Rayburn," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 75(2), pages 411-425, June.
    9. Richman, Jesse, 2011. "Parties, Pivots, and Policy: The Status Quo Test," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 105(1), pages 151-165, February.
    10. Hetherington, Marc J., 2001. "Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(3), pages 619-631, September.
    11. Gilligan, Thomas W & Krehbiel, Keith, 1987. "Collective Decisionmaking and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 287-335, Fall.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Ugur Ozdemir & Ali Ihsan Ozkes, 2014. "Measuring Public Preferential Polarization," Working Papers hal-00954497, HAL.

    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. Keith Krehbiel & Zachary Peskowitz, 2015. "Legislative organization and ideal-point bias," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 27(4), pages 673-703, October.
    2. 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.
    3. moldovanu, benny, 2018. "A Nazi †Killer†Amendment," CEPR Discussion Papers 13260, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    4. repec:hal:pseose:halshs-00564976 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Jonathan B Slapin, 2014. "Measurement, model testing, and legislative influence in the European Union," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(1), pages 24-42, March.
    6. Bhaskar Dutta & Matthew O. Jackson & Michel Le Breton, 2004. "Equilibrium agenda formation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 23(1), pages 21-57, August.
    7. Stefan Krasa & Mattias Polborn, 2014. "Policy Divergence and Voter Polarization in a Structural Model of Elections," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 31-76.
    8. Raphael Godefroy & Eduardo Perez‐Richet, 2013. "Choosing Choices: Agenda Selection With Uncertain Issues," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(1), pages 221-253, January.
    9. Krehbiel, Keith & Meirowitz, Adam & Woon, Jonathan, 2004. "Testing Theories of Lawmaking," Research Papers 1860, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    10. Ryan J. Vander Wielen, 2013. "Why conference committees? A theory of conference use in structuring bicameral agreement," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 25(1), pages 3-35, January.
    11. Bowen, Renee & Hwang, Ilwoo & Krasa, Stefan, 2022. "Personal power dynamics in bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    12. Schelker, Mark, 2018. "Lame ducks and divided government: How voters control the unaccountable," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 131-144.
    13. Moser, Peter, 1999. "The impact of legislative institutions on public policy: a survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 1-33, March.
    14. Jaehoon Kim & Lawrence S. Rothenberg, 2008. "Foundations of Legislative Organization and Committee Influence," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 20(3), pages 339-374, July.
    15. Dutta, Bhaskar & Jackson, Matthew O. & Le Breton, Michel, 2002. "Voting by Successive Elimination and Strategic Candidacy," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 103(1), pages 190-218, March.
    16. Daniel Diermeier & Keith Krehbiel, 2003. "Institutionalism as a Methodology," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 15(2), pages 123-144, April.
    17. Aggey Semenov, 2008. "Bargaining in the appointment process, constrained delegation and the political weight of the Senate," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 165-180, July.
    18. Gershkov, Alex & Kleiner, Andreas & Moldovanu, Benny & Shi, Xianwen, 2023. "Voting with interdependent values: The Condorcet winner," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 193-208.
    19. Myunghoon Kang, 2017. "Representation, sophisticated voting, and the size of the gridlock region," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 29(4), pages 623-646, October.
    20. Andreas Kleiner & Benny Moldovanu, 2017. "Content-Based Agendas and Qualified Majorities in Sequential Voting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(6), pages 1477-1506, June.
    21. Lee, Barton E., 2022. "Gridlock, leverage, and policy bundling," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ecl:stabus:2124. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/gsstaus.html .

    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.