Abstract
Roll-call votes provide scholars with the opportunity to measure many quantities of interest. However, the usefulness of the roll-call sample depends on the population it is intended to represent. After laying out why understanding the sample properties of the roll-call record is important, we catalogue voting procedures for 145 legislative chambers, finding that roll calls are typically discretionary. We then consider two arguments for discounting the potential problem: (a) roll calls are ubiquitous, especially where the threshold for invoking them is low or (b) the strategic incentives behind requests are sufficiently benign so as to generate representative samples. We address the first defense with novel empirical evidence regarding roll-call prevalence and the second with an original formal model of the position-taking argument for roll-call vote requests. Both our empirical and theoretical results confirm that inattention to vote method selection should broadly be considered an issue for the study of legislative behavior.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Political Science and International Relations,Sociology and Political Science
Reference46 articles.
1. Can We Learn the Causes of Congressional Decisions from Roll-Call Data?
2. How Effects on Party Unity Vary across Votes;Stecker;Electoral Studies,2015
3. Estimating Party Influence in Congressional Roll-Call Voting
4. Roll-Call Votes in the German Bundestag: A New Dataset, 1949–2013;Sieberer;British Journal of Political Science,Forthcoming
5. Analyzing Roll Calls with Perfect Spatial Voting: France 1946-1958
Cited by
12 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献