For years, countless scholars have posited the role of constituency and party pressure on legislators’ roll call voting records. Indeed, though popular estimates of legislators’ preferences often come from roll call data (e.g., DW-NOMINATE scores), most scholars are careful to note that these are not necessarily measures of ideology per se but rather of legislators’ revealed preferences—that is, they reflect both legislators’ ideological commitments as well as the influence of party and constituency. In this paper, we offer fairly robust evidence that existing measures of legislator behavior may be closer to their preferences than once thought. Using a novel survey of former members of the House of Representatives, we leverage the severing of the electoral connection and lack of institutional party pressure to show that legislators’ preferences as measured by existing methods closely mirror their own perceptions of themselves.
AldrichJ. H.McKelveyR. D. (1977). A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 111–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055400259339
AnsolabehereS.SnyderJ. M.Jr.StewartC.III. (2001). Candidate positioning in U.S. house elections. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 136–159. https://doi.org/10.2307/2669364
4.
BarberM. (2022). Comparing campaign finance and vote-based measures of ideology. Journal of Politics, 84(1), 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1086/715247
5.
BarberáP. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using Twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpu011
6.
BonicaA. (2013). Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 294–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12014
7.
BonicaA. (2018). Inferring roll-call scores from campaign contributions using supervised machine learning. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 830–848. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12376
8.
BonicaA. (2019). Are donation-based measures of ideology valid predictors of individual-level policy preferences?The Journal of Politics, 81(1), 327–333. https://doi.org/10.1086/700722
9.
BurdenB. C.CaldeiraG. A.GrosecloseT. (2000). Measuring the ideologies of U.S. senators: The song remains the same. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25(2), 237–258. https://doi.org/10.2307/440370
10.
CareyJ. M.NiemiR. G.PowellL. W. (2000). Term limits in state legislatures. University of Michigan Press.
11.
CaugheyD.SchicklerE. (2016). Substance and change in congressional ideology: NOMINATE and its alternatives. Studies in American Political Development, 30(2), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0898588x16000092
ClintonJ. D.JackmanS. (2004). “The most liberal senator”? Analyzing and interpreting congressional roll calls. PS: Political Science and Politics, 37(4), 805–811. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096504045196
15.
ClintonJ. D.MeirowitzA. (2001). Agenda constrained legislator ideal points and the spatial voting model. Political Analysis, 9(3), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1093/polana/9.3.242
Duck-MayrJ.GarnettR.MontgomeryJ. M. (2020). Gpirt: A Gaussian process model for item response theory. In Conference on uncertainty in artificial intelligence, 3‐6 August 2020, Virtual (pp. 520–529).
18.
Duck-MayrJ.MontgomeryJ. (2022). Ends against the middle: Measuring latent traits when opposites respond the same way for antithetical reasons. Political Analysis. Conditionally Accepted.
19.
EgarW. T.WilhelmA. H. (2019). Congressional careers: Service tenure and patterns of member service, 1789-2019 (p. R41545). CRS Report for Congress.
GrimmerJ.WestwoodS. J.MessingS. (2014). The impression of influence: Legislator communication, representation, and democratic accountability. Princeton University Press.
22.
HillS. J.HuberG. A. (2017). Representativeness and motivations of the contemporary donorate: Results from merged survey and administrative records. Political Behavior, 39(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-016-9343-y
23.
HollibaughG. E.Jr.RothenbergL. S.RulisonK. K. (2013). Does it really hurt to be out of step?Political Research Quarterly, 66(4), 856–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913481407
24.
JoestenD. A.StoneW. J. (2014). Reassessing proximity voting: Expertise, party, and choice in congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 76(3), 740–753. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381614000140
25.
LeeF. E. (2009). Beyond ideology. University of Chicago Press.
26.
MaestasC. D.ButticeM. K.StoneW. J. (2014). Extracting wisdom from experts and small crowds: Strategies for improving informant-based measures of political concepts. Political Analysis, 22(3), 354–373. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt050
27.
ManningJ. E.BrudnickI. A. (2020). Women in congress, 1917-2020: Service dates and committee assignments by member, and lists by state and congress (p. RL30261). CRS Report for Congress.
28.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2001). The hunt for party discipline in congress. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 673–687. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401003069
29.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. MIT Press.
30.
NyhanB.McGheeE.SidesJ.MasketS.GreeneS. (2012). One vote out of step? The effects of salient roll call votes in the 2010 election. American Politics Research, 40(5), 844–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673x11433768
31.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Oxford University Press.
32.
RameyA. (2016). Vox populi, vox dei? Crowdsourced ideal point estimation. Journal of Politics, 78(1), 281–295. https://doi.org/10.1086/683395
33.
RameyA. J.KlinglerJ. D.HollibaughG. E.Jr. (2019). Measuring elite personality using speech. Political Science Research and Methods, 7(1), 163–184. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.12
34.
RiversD. (2003). Identification of multidimensional spatial voting models. Unpublished manuscript.
35.
SaieghS. M. (2009). Recovering a basic space from elite surveys: Evidence from Latin America. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34(1), 117–145. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298009787500349
36.
ShorB.BerryC.McCartyN. (2010). A bridge to somewhere: Mapping state and congressional ideology on a cross-institutional common space. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 35(3), 417–448. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298010792069198
37.
SnyderJ. M.GrosecloseT. (2001). Estimating party influence on roll call voting: Regression coecients versus classification success. American Political Science Review, 95(3), 689–698. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055401003070
38.
SnyderJ. M.Jr. (1992). Committee power, structure-induced equilibria, and roll call votes. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111421
39.
TausanovitchC.WarshawC. (2017). Estimating candidates’ political orientation in a polarized congress. Political Analysis, 25(2), 167–187. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.5
40.
VanDorenP. M. (1990). Can we learn the causes of congressional decisions from roll-call data?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15(3), 311–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/439766
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
