还是一样吗?前国会议员透露的偏好和意识形态自我认知

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Adam J. Ramey, Jonathan Klingler, Gary E. Hollibaugh
{"title":"还是一样吗?前国会议员透露的偏好和意识形态自我认知","authors":"Adam J. Ramey, Jonathan Klingler, Gary E. Hollibaugh","doi":"10.1177/1532673X221106425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":51482,"journal":{"name":"American Politics Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Still the Same? Revealed Preferences and Ideological Self-Perception Among Former Members of Congress\",\"authors\":\"Adam J. Ramey, Jonathan Klingler, Gary E. Hollibaugh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1532673X221106425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Politics Research\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Politics Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221106425\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Politics Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221106425","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

多年来,无数学者认为选区和政党的压力对立法者的唱名投票记录起到了作用。事实上,尽管对立法者偏好的普遍估计通常来自点名数据(例如,DW-NOMINATE分数),但大多数学者都谨慎地指出,这些不一定是意识形态本身的衡量标准,而是立法者揭示的偏好的衡量标准——也就是说,它们既反映了立法者的意识形态承诺,也反映了政党和选民的影响。在本文中,我们提供了相当有力的证据,证明现有的立法者行为衡量标准可能比以前认为的更接近他们的偏好。我们对前众议院议员进行了一项新颖的调查,利用选举联系的切断和缺乏制度性政党压力来表明,用现有方法衡量的立法者的偏好密切反映了他们对自己的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Still the Same? Revealed Preferences and Ideological Self-Perception Among Former Members of Congress
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Politics Research
American Politics Research POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
6.70%
发文量
66
期刊介绍: The purpose of Amercian Politics Research is to promote and disseminate high-quality research in all areas of American politics, including local, state, and national. American Politics Research will publish significant studies concerning American political behavior, political parties, public opinion, legislative behavior, courts and the legal process, executive and administrative politics, public policy, and all other topics appropriate to our understanding of American government and politics. Manuscripts from all social science disciplines are welcomed.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信