Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:38:51.024Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Modeling Preferences Using Roll Call Votes in Parliamentary Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Thomas Bräuninger,
Jochen Müller and
Christian Stecker
Thomas Bräuninger*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and MZES, University of Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany
Jochen Müller
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science and Communication Studies, University of Greifswald, Baderstr. 6/7, 17489 Greifswald, Germany, e-mail: Jochen.Mueller@uni-greifswald.de
Christian Stecker
Affiliation:
Mannheim Center for European Social Research (MZES), University of Mannheim, 68131 Mannheim, Germany, e-mail: Christian.Stecker@mzes.uni-mannheim.de
*
e-mail: Thomas.Braeuninger@uni-mannheim.de
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Models of ideal point estimation usually build on the assumption of spatial preferences. This ignores legislators' non-policy incentives and is thus likely to produce implausible results for many legislatures. We study this problem in parliamentary systems and develop a model of roll call voting that considers both the policy and the non-policy, tactical incentives of legislators. We go on to show how the relative weight of these policy and tactical incentives is influenced by the identity of the mover and characteristics of the motion. Analyses of two data sets of 2174 roll call votes in German state legislatures and 3295 roll call votes in the British House of Commons result in three main findings. First, we show that tactical incentives may be more important than policy incentives, and second, that the importance of tactical incentives varies with the importance of motions. Third, there are interesting twists: backbench private members' bills may reverse tactical incentives whereas proposals from anti-system parties are virtually always rejected by moderate parties, rendering these votes uninformative. Our findings have implications for ideal point estimation in parliamentary systems, as well as for research on separation of power systems.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , Spring 2016, pp. 189 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Footnotes

Authors' note: Earlier versions of this article were presented at the 2013 annual meeting of the MPSA and the 2014 conference of the EPSA. We would like to thank our panelists, Nicholas Allen, Daina Chiba, Christopher Claassen, Michael Peress, and two anonymous referees for their comments and suggestions. We also thank Masha Haghighat- Kashani and Sebastian Juhl for research assistance. Replication materials are available online as Bräuninger, Müller, and Stecker (2016). Supplementary materials for this article are available on the Political Analysis Web site.

References

Ainsley, Caitlin, and Maxwell, Laura. 2012. What can we learn from roll call votes? Strategic signaling incentives and the decision to call roll call votes. Working paper, Emory University.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Montgomery, Jacob M., and Sparks, David B. 2014. Polarization and ideology: Partisan sources of low dimensionality in scaled roll call analyses. Political Analysis 22(4): 435–56.Google Scholar
Andeweg, Rudy B., and Thomassen, Jacques. 2011. Pathways to party unity: Sanctions, loyalty, homogeneity and division of Labour in the Dutch Parliament. Party Politics 17(5): 655–72.Google Scholar
Benedetto, Giacomo, and Hix, Simon. 2007. The rejected, the ejected, and the dejected: Explaining government rebels in the 2001–2005 British House of Commons. Comparative Political Studies 40(7): 755–81.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2006. Party policy in modern democracies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Blackburn, R., Ryle, M., Griffith, J. A. G., Kennon, A., and Wheeler-Booth, M. A. J. 2003. Griffith & Ryle on Parliament: Functions, practice and procedures. London: Sweet & Maxwell.Google Scholar
Brader, Ted, Tucker, Joshua A., and Duell, Dominik. 2013. Which parties can lead opinion? Experimental evidence on Partisan cue taking in multiparty democracies. Comparative Political Studies 46(11): 1485–1517.Google Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas, and Debus, Marc. 2012. Parteienwettbewerb in den deutschen Bundesländern: Unter Mitarbeit von Jochen Müller. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Bräuninger, Thomas, Müller, Jochen, and Stecker, Chrsitian. 2016. Replication data for: Modeling preferences using roll call votes in parliamentary systems. Havard Dataverse. http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JSXOEY.Google Scholar
Burden, Barry C. 2007. Personal roots of representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007. Competing principals, political institutions, and party unity in legislative voting. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 92–107.Google Scholar
Carroll, Royce, Lewis, Jeffrey B., Lo, James, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2009. Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: Points of difference and Monte Carlo tests. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(4): 555–91.Google Scholar
Cheibub, José Antônio. 2007. Presidentialism, parliamentarism, and democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A., and Primo, David M. 2007. Modernizing political science: A model-based approach. Perspectives on Politics 5(4): 741–753.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2003. Integrating voting theory and roll call analysis: A framework. Political Analysis 11(4): 381–96.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D. 2012. Using roll call estimates to test models of politics. Annual Review of Political Science 15(1): 79–99.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., and Meirowitz, Adam. 2001. Agenda constrained legislator ideal points and the spatial voting model. Political Analysis 9(3): 242–59.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., and Jackman, Simon. 2009. To simulate or NOMINATE?. Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(4): 593–621.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua, Jackman, Simon, and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review 98(2): 355–70.Google Scholar
Coman, Emanuel Emil. 2012. Legislative behavior in Romania: The effect of the 2008 Romanian electoral reform. Legislative Studies Quarterly 37(2): 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowley, Philip. 2002. Revolts and rebellions: Parliamentary voting under Blair. London: Politico's.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. 1993. Legislative leviathan: Party government in the House. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D. 2005. Setting the agenda: Responsible party government in the US House of Representatives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Denwood, Matthew J. 2015. runjags: Interface utilities, model templates, parallel computing methods and additional distributions for MCMC models in JAGS, version 2.0.1-4. http://runjags.sourceforge.net.Google Scholar
Dewan, Torun, and Spirling, Arthur. 2011. Strategic opposition and government cohesion in Westminster democracies. American Political Science Review 105(2): 337–58.Google Scholar
Diermeier, Daniel, and Feddersen, Timothy J. 1998. Cohesion in legislatures and the vote of confidence procedure. American Political Science Review 92(3): 611–21.Google Scholar
Döring, Herbert. 1995. Time as a scarce resource: Government control of the agenda. In Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe, ed. Döring, Herbert, 223–46. Frankfurt am Main/Westview: Campus/St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Godbout, Jean-Francois, and Høyland, Bjørn. 2011. Legislative voting in the Canadian Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science 44(2): 367–88.Google Scholar
Golder, Sona Nadenichek. 2006. Pre-electoral coalition formation in parliamentary democracies. British Journal of Political Science 36(2): 193–212.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoph. 2010. Bringing parties into parliament: The development of parliamentary activities in Western Europe. Party Politics 16(3): 347–69.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard. 2004. Downs and two-party convergence. Annual Review of Political Science 7:25–46.Google Scholar
Heller, William B. 2001. Making policy stick: Why the government gets what it wants in multiparty parliaments. American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 780–98.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, and Noury, Abdul. 2016. Government-opposition or left-right? The institutional determinants of voting in legislatures. Political Science Research and Methods, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Høyland, Bjørn. 2010. Procedural and party effects in European Parliament roll-call votes. European Union Politics 11(4): 597–613.Google Scholar
Hug, Simon. 2010. Selection effects in roll call votes. British Journal of Political Science 40(1): 225–35.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Shannon. 2008. Party influence on roll call voting: A view from the U.S. states. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 8(3): 239–62.Google Scholar
Kellermann, Michael. 2012. Estimating ideal points in the British House of Commons using early day motions. American Journal of Political Science 56(3): 757–71.Google Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1993. Where's the party? British Journal of Political Science 23(2): 235–66.Google Scholar
Ladewig, Jeffrey W. 2005. Conditional party government and the homogeneity of constituent interests. Journal of Politics 67(4): 1006–1029.Google Scholar
Lauderdale, Benjamin E. 2010. Unpredictable voters in ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 18(2): 151–71.Google Scholar
Lewis, Jeffrey B., and Poole, Keith T. 2004. Measuring bias and uncertainty in ideal point estimates via the parametric bootstrap. Political Analysis 12(2): 105–27.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lynch, P. 2009. From social democracy back to no ideology? The Scottish National Party and ideological change in a multi-level electoral setting. Regional & Federal Studies 19(4–5): 619–39.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2004. Policing the bargain: Coalition government and parliamentary scrutiny. American Journal of Political Science 48(1): 13–27.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Vanberg, Georg. 2011. Parliaments and coalitions: The role of legislative institutions in multiparty governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Lanny W., and Stevenson, Randolph T. 2001. Government formation in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 33–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massetti, Emanuele. 2010. Political strategy and ideological adaptation in regionalist parties in Western Europe: A comparative study of the Northern League, Plaid Cymru, the South Tyrolese People's Party and the Scottish National Party. Doctoral thesis (DPhil), University of Sussex.Google Scholar
May, Thomas Erskine. 2004. Erskine May's treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of parliament, 23rd ed. London: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan. 2011. Measuring legislative preferences. In The Oxford handbook of the American Congress, eds. Schickler, Eric and Lee, Frances E., 66–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Poole, Keith T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. The hunt for party discipline in Congress. American Political Science Review 95:674–88.Google Scholar
Meguid, Bonnie M. 2005. Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review 99(3): 347–59.Google Scholar
Müller, Wolfgang C., and Strøm, eds, Kaare. 1999. Policy, office, or votes? How political parties in Western Europe make hard decisions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Munzert, Simon, Rubba, Peter Meissner, Christian, and Nyhuis, Dominic. 2015. Automated data collection with R: A practical guide to web scraping and text mining. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Nolan, Deborah, and Temple Lang, Duncan. 2014. XML and web technologies for data sciences with R. Use R! New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Otjes, Simon. 2011. The Fortuyn effect revisited: How did the LPF affect the Dutch parliamentary party system? Acta Politica 46(4): 400–24.Google Scholar
Pedersen, Helene H. 2012. Policy-seeking parties in multiparty systems: Influence or purity? Party Politics 18(3): 297–314.Google Scholar
Peress, Michael. 2009. Small chamber ideal point estimation. Political Analysis 17(3): 276–90.Google Scholar
Plummer, Martyn. 2013. JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. Version 3.4.0. http://mcmc-jags.sourceforge.net/.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, Lewis, James Lo, Jeffrey, and Carroll, Royce. 2011. Scaling roll call votes with W-NOMINATE in R. Journal of Statistical Software 42(14): 1–21.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, Lewis, James Lo, Jeffrey, and Carroll, Royce. 2014. oc: OC roll call analysis Software. R package version 0.95. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=oc.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T. 2000. Non-parametric unfolding of binary choice data. Political Analysis 8(3): 211–37.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith T 2005. Spatial models of parliamentary voting. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham. 1986. Extremist parties and political turmoil: Two puzzles. American Journal of Political Science 30(2): 357–78.Google Scholar
Priddy, Sarah. 2015. Free votes in the House of Commons since 1997, Number SN04793 in Commons Briefing papers. London: House of Commons Library.Google Scholar
Proksch, Sven-Oliver, and Slapin, Jonathan B. 2012. Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science 56(3): 520–37.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2014. R: A language and environment for statistical computing, version 3.1.2 (2014-10-31). Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/.Google Scholar
Rogers, Robert, and Walters, Rhodri. 2015. How parliament works, 7th ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rosas, Guillermo, Shomer, Yael, and Haptonstahl, Stephen R. 2015. No news is news: Non-ignorable non-response in roll-call data analysis. American Journal of Political Science 59(2): 512–28.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Howard, and Voeten, Erik. 2004. Analyzing roll calls with perfect spatial voting: France 1946–1958. American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 620–32.Google Scholar
Samuels, David, and Soberg Shugart, Matthew. 2010. Presidents, parties, and prime ministers: How the separation of powers affects party organization and behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snyder, James M., and Groseclose, Tim. 2000. Estimating party influence in congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 193.Google Scholar
Spirling, A., and McLean, I. 2006. UK OC OK? Interpreting optimal classification scores for the U.K. House of Commons. Political Analysis 15(1): 85–96.Google Scholar
Stecker, Christian. 2010. Causes of roll-call votes supply: Evidence from the German Länder. Journal of Legislative Studies 16(4): 438–59.Google Scholar
Stecker, Christian. 2015. How effects on party unity vary across votes. Party Politics 21(5): 791–802.Google Scholar
Stoetzer, Lukas F., and Zittlau, Steffen. 2015. Multidimensional spatial voting with non-separable preferences. Political Analysis 23(3): 415–28.Google Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2007. Principle vs. pragmatism: Policy shifts and political competition. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 151–65.Google Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Lacewell, Onawa Regel, Sven Schultze, Henrike and Werner, Annika. 2010. The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin.Google Scholar
Zucco, Cesar Jr., and Lauderdale, Benjamin. 2011. Distinguishing between influences on Brazilian legislative behavior. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36(3): 363–96.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Bräuninger et al. supplementary material

Supplementary Material

Download Bräuninger et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 95.8 KB