Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:11:11.788Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideology, Party, and Voting in the U.S. Congress, 1959–1980

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 June 1985

Keith T. Poole  and
R. Steven Daniels
Keith T. Poole
Affiliation:
Carnegie-Mellon University
R. Steven Daniels
Affiliation:
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Current methods of roll-call analysis have practical as well as theoretical shortcomings. We propose here a method based on a spatial theory of voting that overcomes these problems. We apply metric multidimensional unfolding to interest-group ratings of members of Congress in order to obtain a Euclidean spatial configuration of congressmen. Each roll-call vote is then mapped into the configuration of members in a way consistent with spatial theory. Based on 190,000 ratings issued from 1959 to 1980, our empirical analysis demonstrates that a single liberal-conservative dimension accounts for more than 80% of the variance in the ratings. A second dimension, associated with party unity, accounts for 7% of the variance. Approximately 86% of all roll-call voting for the 22 years of our study is consistent with a simple one-dimensional spatial model. The votes that best fit the liberal-conservative dimension are drawn from the government management, social welfare, and foreign policy areas. The votes that best fit the two-dimensional configurations are drawn from the agricultural area.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 79 , Issue 2 , June 1985 , pp. 373 - 399
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Asher, B., & Weisberg, H. Voting change in Congress: Some dynamic perspective on an evolutionary process. American Journal of Political Science, 1978, 22, 391–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berge, M. F. Ten. Orthogonal Procrustes rotation for two or more matrices. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 267–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, C. Congressional voting and mobilization of a black electorate in the South. Journal of Politics, 1981, 43, 662–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cherryholmes, C. H., & Shapiro, M. Representatives and roll-calls. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969.Google Scholar
Clausen, A. R. How congressmen decide: A policy focus. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Clausen, A. R., & Cheney, B. A comparative analysis of Senate-House voting on economic and welfare policy, 1953–1964. American Political Science Review, 1970, 64, 138–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clausen, A. R., & Van Horn, C. The congressional response to a decade of change: 1963–1972. Journal of Politics, 1977, 39, 624–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, P. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (Ed.). Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Daniels, R. A multi-level, longitudinal model of congressional voting. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1983.Google Scholar
Froman, L. A. Jr. The congressional process: Strategies, rules and procedures. Boston: Little, Brown, 1967.Google Scholar
Froman, L. A. Jr. Congressmen and their constituencies. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.Google Scholar
Hoadley, F. The dimensions of congressional voting, 1971–1978: Some preliminary considerations. Presented at the Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois, 1980.Google Scholar
Kingdon, W. Congressmen's voting decisions. New York: Harper & Row, 1973.Google Scholar
Kristof, W., & Wingersky, B. Generalization of the orthogonal Procrustes rotation procedure for more than two matrices. Proceedings of the 79th Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, 1971, pp. 89–90.Google Scholar
Kritzer, H. M. Ideology and American political elites. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1978, 42, 484–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, J. Representative-constituency linkage: A review article. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1979, 4, 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Libby, O. A plea for the study of votes in Congress. Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1896 (2 vols.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, I, 1897, pp. 323–334.Google Scholar
MacRae, D. Jr. Dimensions of congressional voting. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1958.Google Scholar
Matthews, D. R., & Stimson, J. Yeas and nays: Normal decision-making in the U.S. House of Representatives. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1975.Google Scholar
Morrison, R. J. A statistical model for legislative roll-call analysis. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1972, 2, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norpoth, H. Explaining party cohesion in Congress: The case of shared policy attitudes. American Political Science Review, 1976, 70, 1156–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ordeshook, P. C. The spatial theory of elections: A review and a critique. In Budge, I., Crewe, I., & Farlie, D., Party identification and beyond. New York: Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T. Dimension of interest group evaluation of the U.S. Senate, 1969–1978. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 49–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K. T. Least squares metric, unidimensional unfolding. Psychometrika, 1984, 49, 311–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, K. T. Least squares multidimensional unfolding with applications to political data. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 1982.Google Scholar
Poole, K. T. Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. Working Paper No. 44-82-83, Graduate School of Industrial Administration, Carnegie-Mellon University, 1983.Google Scholar
Rice, S. A. The political vote as a frequency distribution of opinion. Journal of American Statistical Association, 1924, 19, 70–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, J. E. Ideological coalitions in Congress. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Schonemann, P. H. A generalized solution of the orthogonal Procrustes problem. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonemann, P. H., & Carroll, R. M. Fitting one matrix to another under choice of a central dilation and a rigid motion. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, B. Agenda and alignment change: The House of Representatives, 1925–1978. In Dodd, L. C. & Oppenheimer, B. I. (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Smith, S. The consistency and ideological structure of U.S. Senate voting alignments, 1957–1976. American Journal of Political Science, 1981, 25, 780–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, W. J. A panel analysis of representation in Congress: A preliminary report. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 1977.Google Scholar
Weisberg, H. F. Dimensional analysis of legislative roll-calls. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1968.Google Scholar
Weisberg, H. F. Evaluating theories of congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 1978, 22, 554–578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.