Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T07:26:36.759Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Vetoes, Bargaining, and Boundary Conditions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Charles M. Cameron*
Affiliation:
Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544. e-mail: ccameron@princeton.edu
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.

“Testing Theories of Congressional-Presidential Interaction with Veto Override Rates” (henceforth “Veto Override Rates”) offers several tests of two models of vetoes and finds the models wanting. The paper concludes that something is seriously amiss with the models. In my view, the problem lies not in the models but in the tests. Understanding why the tests miss the mark is helpful in understanding models of veto politics, and more generally in thinking about testing strategies when multiple models analyze different causal mechanisms that hold under different circumstances. I should note immediately that the effort in the paper to think hard about override rates is admirable; it simply does not go far enough.

Information

Type
Article Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology