Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review 2009, 45(6): 1155-1190 | DOI: 10.13060/00380288.2009.45.6.01

An Examination of Legislative Roll-Call Voting in the Czech Republic Using Spatial Models

Pat Lyons, Tomáš Lacina
Institute of Sociology AS CR, Prague

It is not clear from previous research if influential spatial techniques for analysing roll-data used in the Houses of Congress in the United States are appropriate in European multiparty systems. This is because the results of spatial analyses of roll-call data from the United States are interpreted in terms of ideological preferences. Within Europe party discipline is also a central feature of legislator behaviour. Consequently, spatial models of roll call behaviour in European legislatures should be explained in terms of party cohesion and discipline. This means that the correct interpretation of spatial models of roll-call data in places such as the Czech Republic requires access to additional sources of empirical evidence such as parliamentary survey data in order to make valid and reliable inferences about what motivates legislative behaviour. Using roll-call and parliamentary survey data from the sixth legislature in the Czech Republic (2006-2008), this research demonstrates that spatial models of roll-call data are not readily explainable in terms of party cohesion and discipline. The difficulty of making a substantive interpretation of dimensions extracted suggests the use of spatial models of roll-call voting where part discipline is strong requires more theoretical and methodological work.

Keywords: roll-call voting, spatial models, legislative behaviour, Czech Republic

Published: December 1, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Lyons, P., & Lacina, T. (2009). An Examination of Legislative Roll-Call Voting in the Czech Republic Using Spatial Models. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 45(6), 1155-1190. doi: 10.13060/00380288.2009.45.6.01
Share...
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. Achen, C. H. 1985. 'Proxy Variables and Incorrect Signs on Regression Coefficients.' Political Methodology 11: 299-316.
    2. Borz, G. 2009. 'Determinants of Party Unity in Europe: A Comparative Study of Parliamentary Parties in Twenty-three Countries.' PhD dissertation, Department of Political Science, Central European University, Budapest.
    3. Bowler, S., D. M. Farrell and R. S. Katz. 1999. 'Party Cohesion, Party Discipline, and Parliaments.' Pp.3-22 in Party Discipline and Parliamentary Government, edited by S. Bowler, D. M. Farrell, and R. S. Katz. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press. Go to original source...
    4. Carey, J. M. 2007. 'Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting.' American Journal of Political Science 51 (1): 92-107. Go to original source...
    5. Carey, J. M. 2008. Legislative Voting and Accountability. New York: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    6. Carroll, R., J. B. Lewis, J. Lo, K. T. Poole and H. Rosenthal. 2008. 'Comparing NOMINATE and IDEAL: Points of Difference and Monte Carlo Tests.' Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (4): 555-591. Go to original source...
    7. Clinton, J. D., S. Jackman and D. Rivers. 2004. 'The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data.' American Political Science Review 98 (2): 355-370. Go to original source...
    8. Clinton, J. D. and S. Jackman. 2009. 'To Simulate or NOMINATE?' Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (4): 593-621. Go to original source...
    9. Converse, P. E. 1964. 'The Nature of Mass Belief Systems.' Pp. 206-261 in Ideology and Discontent, edited by D. E. Apter. New York: Free Press.
    10. Cox, G. and M. D. McCubbins. 1993. Legislative Leviathan: Party Government in the House. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
    11. Cox, G. and M. D. McCubbins. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the US House of Representatives. New York: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    12. Curini, L. and F. Zucchini. 2008. 'Testing the Theories of Law Making in a Parliamentary Democracy: A Roll Call Analysis of the Italian Chamber of Deputies.' Paper presented at the ECPR Joint Sessions, Rennes, France.
    13. Depauw, S. and S. Martin. 2009. 'Legislative Party Discipline and Cohesion in Comparative Perspective.' Pp. 103-120 in Intra-Party Politics and Coalition Governments, edited by D. Giannetti and K. Benoit. London: Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science.
    14. Desposato, S. W. 2005. 'The Impact of Party-Switching on Legislative Behavior in Brazil.' Unpublished paper, Department of Political Science, University of Arizona, USA.
    15. Desposato, S. W. 2006. 'Parties for Rent? Ambition, Ideology, and Party Switching in Brazil's Chamber of Deputies.' American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 62-80. Go to original source...
    16. Everson, P. R. Valelly and J. Wiseman. 2008. 'NOMINATE and American Political History: A Primer.' Unpublished paper. Retrieved 25 November 2009 (http://voteview.com).
    17. Han, Hun J. 2007. 'Analysing Roll Calls of the European Parliament: A Bayesian Application.' European Union Politics 8: 479-511. Go to original source...
    18. Hazan, R. Y. 2003. 'Does Cohesion Equal Discipline. Towards a Conceptual Delineation.' Journal of Legislative Studies (special issue on cohesion and discipline in legislatures) 9 (4): 1-11. Go to original source...
    19. Heckman, J. and J. M. Synder. 1997. 'Linear Probability Models of the Demand for Attributes with an Empirical Application to Estimating the Preferences for Legislatures.' Rand Journal of Economics 28: S142-S189. Go to original source...
    20. Hix, S. and A. Noury 2008. 'Government-Opposition or Left-Right? The institutional determinants of voting in fourteen parliaments.' Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.
    21. Jackman, S. 2001. 'Multidimensional Analysis of Roll Call Data via Bayesian Simulation: Identification, Estimation, Inference, and Model Checking.' Political Analysis 9 (3): 227-241. Go to original source...
    22. Jackman, S. 2008. 'Measurement.' Pp. 119-151 in The Oxford Handbook of Political Methodology, edited by J. Box-Steffensmeier, H. Brady and D. Collier. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    23. Krehbiel, K. 1993. 'Where's the Party?' British Journal of Political Science 23: 235-266. Go to original source...
    24. Krehbiel, K. 2000. 'Party Discipline and Measures of Partisanship.' American Journal of Political Science 44 (2): 206-221. Go to original source...
    25. Landi, M. and R. Pelizzo. 2006. 'A Spatial Analysis of the XIII Italian Legislature.' Paper presented at the Annual Midwest Political Science Association Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
    26. Landi, M. and R. Pelizzo. 2009. 'A Spatial Analysis of the Italian Second Republic.' Unpublished Working Paper, Singapore Management University.
    27. Lewis, J. B. and D. A. Linzer. 2005. 'Estimating Regression Models in which the Dependent Variable is based on Estimates.' Political Analysis 13 (4): 345-364. Go to original source...
    28. Lewis, J. B. and K. T. Poole. 2004. 'Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in Ideal Point Estimates via Parametric Bootstrap.' Political Analysis 12 (2): 105-127. Go to original source...
    29. Linek, L. 2005. 'Surveys of MPs and Senators in the Parliament of the Czech Republic between 1993 and 2005.' Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 41 (3): 487-497. Go to original source...
    30. Linek, L. and P. Rakušanová. 2005. 'Why Czech Parliamentary Party Groups Vote Less Unitedly. The Role of Frequent Voting and Big Majorities in Passing Bills.' Sociologický časopis/Czech Sociological Review 41 (3): 423-442. Go to original source...
    31. Manski, C. F. 1995. Identification Problems in the Social Sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
    32. Martin, A. D., K. M. Quinn and J. Hee Park. 2010. 'MCMCpack: Markov Chain Monte Carlo in R.' Journal of Statistical Software (forthcoming). Go to original source...
    33. McCarty, N., K. T. Poole and H. Rosenthal. 2006. Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    34. Miller, W. L., S. White and P. Heywood. 1998. Values and Political Change in Postcommunist Europe. New York: St. Martin's. Go to original source...
    35. Noury, A. and E. Mielcova. 2005. 'Electoral Performance and Voting Behaviour. Evidence from the Czech Parliament 1992-2002.' Center on Institutions and Governance Working Paper No.8, Institute of Government Studies, University of California, Berkeley, USA.
    36. Owens, J. E. 2003. 'Explaining Party Cohesion and Discipline in Democratic Legislatures: Purposiveness and Contexts.' Journal of Legislative Studies 9 (4): 12-40. Go to original source...
    37. Ozbudun, E. 1970. Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. SAGE Professional Papers in Comparative Politics. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Books.
    38. Poole, K. T. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting. New York: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    39. Poole, K. T. and H. Rosenthal. 1991. 'On Dimensionalizing Roll Call Votes in the US Congress.' American Political Science Review 85: 955-960. Go to original source...
    40. Poole, K. T. and H. Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    41. Poole, K. T., J. Lewis, J. Lo and R. Carroll. 2007. 'Scaling Roll Call Votes with W-NOMINATE in R.' Journal of Statistical Software (American Statistical Association) 22 (1): 1-21. Go to original source...
    42. Porter, M. A., P. J. Mucha, M. E. J. Newman, and C. M. Warmbrand. 2005. 'A Network Analysis of Committees in the U.S. House of Representatives.' Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 102 (20): 7057-7062. Go to original source...
    43. Rice, S. A. 1924. Farmers and Workers in American Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.
    44. Riker, W.H. and P.C. Ordeshook. 1973. An Introduction to Positive Political Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    45. Rosas, G. and Y. Shomer. 2008. 'Non-ignorable Abstentions in Roll-call Data Analysis.' Unpublished paper, Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
    46. Rosenthal, H. and E. Voeten. 2004. 'Analyzing Roll Call Votes with Perfect Spatial Voting: France 1946-1958.' American Journal of Political Science 48: 620-632. Go to original source...
    47. Sieberer, U. 2006. 'Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis.' Journal of Legislative Studies 12 (2): 150-178. Go to original source...
    48. Spirling, A. and I. McLean 2007. 'UK OC OK? Interpreting Optimal Classification scores for the U.K. House of Commons.' Political Analysis 15: 85-96. Go to original source...
    49. Syllová, J., P. Kolář, J. Kysela, J. Georgiev and S. Pecháček. 2008. Parlament České republiky. (Parliament of the Czech Republic) Prague: Linde Praha a.s.
    50. Taagepera, R. 1999. 'The Number of Parties as a Function of Heterogeneity and Electoral System.' Comparative Political Studies 32 (5): 531-548. Go to original source...
    51. Taagepera, R. 2007. Predicting Party Sizes: The Logic of Simple Electoral Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Go to original source...
    52. Tsebelis, G. and J. Money. 1997. Bicameralism. New York: Cambridge University Press. Go to original source...
    53. Wattenberg, M. 1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    54. Waugh, A. S., L. Pei, J. H. Fowler, P. J. Mucha and M. A. Porter. 2009. 'Party Polarization in Congress: A Social Networks Approach.' Working Paper deposited at: arXiv:0907.3509v1 [physics.soc-ph], version July 20.

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content