Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America (Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology) by Noel Hans

Author:Noel, Hans [Noel, Hans]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Published: 2013-08-31T00:00:00+00:00

Model 3: A Shared Space with Members of Congress

The first two models attempt to understand the basic space that intellectuals themselves define. They are estimated without reference to Congress, because part of the claim is that the space defined by ideology might be different than the space defined by Congress. To the extent that different issues load onto the first dimension among pundits and legislators, this is evidence for divergence.

The third model tests divergence directly by estimating a common space for legislators and pundits. This space is interpreted in Chapter 5; this appendix addresses technical issues in those models.

The first task required to estimate those models is to identify common items between the legislative agenda and the pundits’ writings. In some cases, this is straightforward, as when pundits directly discuss active legislation, such as the Taft-Hartley Act or the Civil Rights Act of 1990. More often, however, a judgment must be made linking the usually more general pundit position with the specific roll call.

Identifying common issue areas is not hard. Several scholars (here I use codes from Poole and Rosenthal 1997) have coded votes into a large number of issue areas. However, to match them to pundit positions, we need to identify the direction of the vote. A vote to raise the minimum wage is probably the same as a pundit advocating raising the minimum wage. But it is possible that a vote that increased the minimum wage a small amount would be opposed by most advocates of the minimum wage. Thus, it is necessary to check the debates surrounding each vote. The hypothetical reasoning that motivates the linkage is to ask how a pundit would likely have voted on the roll call. When this could not be determined, the vote is not coded.

A few examples may be helpful. Consider roll call 236 on May 11, 1970, in the 91st Congress. This vote increased pay for police, firemen, and teachers in the District of Columbia. The description in the ICPSR file for the vote is: “TO AMEND H.R. 17138, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA POLICE AND FIREMEN’S SALARY ACT OF 1958, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TEACHER’S SALARY ACT OF 1955, BY INCREASING SALARIES.” On the basis of that description, a yea vote would presumably be a pro increased-wages vote. However, in the congressional record, it is clear that congressmen saw this vote differently. The debate concerns whether the pay increase would be implemented retroactively, back to July 1, 1969, rather than to January 1, 1970 (Congressional Record 1970, p. 14912). This change, an amendment in committee, makes the pay raise less than many wanted, so it is a vote against increasing pay for public employees.

The final vote bears out this interpretation. Voting aye are many Republicans and Southern Democrats. Voting nay are Northern Democrats and a number of more liberal Republicans. See Figure A4.1 for the spatial map of the NOMINATE scores of legislators voting yay and nay on this roll call. It is a conservative vote, not a liberal one.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.