Presentation of voting statistics and democratic models

Bertelli, Anthony

Richardson, Lilliard E. Jr.

University of Missouri: MOspace

1Testing Formal Models of Direct DemocracyAnthony BertelliTexas A&M and Univ. of GeorgiaLilliard E. Richardson, Jr.University of MissouriBertelli, A. & Richardson, L. E. (2004) Testing Formal Models of Direct Democracy, Report 37-2004.  Retrieved [Month, Day, Year], from University of Missouri – Columbia, Institute of Public Policy Web site:  http://www.truman.missouri.edu/ipp/publications/presentations.htmlResearch Questions• Many issues in state politics require preference estimates for constituents, legislators, and governors– Legislator responsiveness– Impact of initiatives– Committee outliers – Power of governors• What is the best methodology for estimating preferences given the spatial model of voting?   2Coding – Arizona 44th Legislature• Substantive coding of I&R vs. Roll Calls– Proposition 203 (2000) general election would mandate English-only instruction in Arizona public schools – HB 2387 in the 44th Legislature, 1st Regular session provides for bilingual education.– County vote for Proposition 203 as a “nay”vote on HB 2387 and vice versa. • Similar for governorsStatistical Model• Logit model with the probability of a “yea”vote as a function of an unobserved regressor, the ideal point of actor I• zij = αj + βjθi + eij– item response model with “difficulty”parameter αj and “discrimination” parameter βj. 3β=2β=0.5β=1α=1α=0 α=-1Pr(z=1) Pr(z=1)θ=0θθ=0Identification• Bayesian setup (e.g., Martin and Quinn 2003; Clinton, Jackman, and Rivers 2003; Trier 2003; Bailey 2004)– Diffuse priors of N(0,25) on bill parameters– “Spike priors” of N(-1,.000001) for known liberal legislators, N(1, .000001) for known conservative legislators– N(0,1) on other legislators• Very little information in these priors4Posterior Density Summary of Ideal Points, Governor & Counties0.050690.01050Maricopa0.09986-0.39084 Gov Hull 0.07725 0.16583 Yuma 0.07163 0.16031 La Paz  0.071290.15958 Yavapai 0.04731 0.09452 Greenlee 0.05352 0.04839 S Cruz 0.077430.15284 Graham0.05185 0.06698 Pinal 0.08646 0.17053Gila0.05760 0.04493 Pima 0.04887 -0.00517 Coconino0.04897 -0.00795 Navajo 0.07483 0.15815 Cochise0.07821 0.16252 Mohave 0.04887 -0.03593 ApacheS DevMeanActorS DevMeanActorPreference Estimates vs. a Scale of Interest Group EndorsementsComparison of Interest Group Endorsements and Ideology Estimatesy = -0.0174x2 - 0.1271x + 0.5422R2 = 0.5811-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.60.81-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5Interest Group EndorsementsIdeology Estimates5Preference Estimates vs. Scores from the Arizona League of Conservation VotersComparison of Conservation League Scores and Ideology Estimatesy = -0.0083x + 0.8139R2 = 0.5169-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.60.810 20 40 60 80 100 120Conservation League ScoresIdeology EstimatesPreference Estimates vs. Scores from the National Federal of Independent BusinessesComparison of National Federation of Independent Business scores to Ideology Estimatesy = 0.0135x - 0.4066R2 = 0.6119-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.60.810 20 40 60 80 100 120NFIB scoresIdeology Estimates6Preference Estimates vs. the District Minority Percent Comparison of District Minority Percent and Ideology Estimatesy = -0.0127x + 0.8654R2 = 0.3499-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.60.81.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 80.00 90.00District Minority PercentIdeology EstimatesComparison of Preference Estimates and Bush’s Vote Share in the DistrictComparison of Bush District Vote Share and Ideology Estimates y = 2.3534x - 0.6616R2 = 0.3838-1-0.8-0.6-0.4-0.200.20.40.60.810.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70Bush District Vote ShareIdeology Estimates7Next Steps• Agenda Considerations • Estimate District Level Ideal Points • Expand Data to 1994• Examine Voters vs Legislator Ideal Points• Test Formal Models • Other States 

Testing Formal Models of Direct Democracy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Missouri: MOspace