"Common Space" DW-NOMINATE Scores With Bootstrapped
(Joint House and Senate Scaling)
Royce Carroll, Jeff Lewis, James Lo, Nolan McCarty, Keith Poole, and Howard Rosenthal
Updated 6 February 2013
This is the fourth release of Common Space DW-NOMINATE scores for the House and Senate. The House and Senate were scaled as if they were one legislature using the 642 Legislators who served in both the House and Senate as "glue" (bridge observations). That is, we estimated a single ideal point for each member of Congress based upon his/her entire record of service in Congress. In the Poole-Rosenthal framework we used the Constant model so that each unique legislator has the same ideal point throughout his or her career. After the download links we show some comparisons of these Common Space scores with our regular DW-NOMINATE Scores for the House and Senate.
These new scores for the 1st to the 112th Congresses (1789 - 2012) contain parametric bootstrapped standard errors. For an explanation of the basic theory of the parametric bootstrap see:
"Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in Ideal Point Estimates via the
Parametric Bootstrap." Political Analysis, 12:105-127, 2004,
Jeffrey B. Lewis and
Keith T. Poole.
"Measuring Bias and Uncertainty in DW-NOMINATE Ideal Point Estimates via the Parametric Bootstrap." Political Analysis 17:261-27, 2009, Royce Carroll, Jeffrey B. Lewis, James Lo, Keith T. Poole, and Howard Rosenthal.
There were a total of 100,947 roll calls of which 90,609 were scalable. The number of unique legislators was 11,883 producing a total of 16,501,617 choices. In the scaling, the second dimension weight is 0.4438 and the Beta parameter (proportional to 1/s where s is the standard deviation of the error) is 7.0795. The correct classification is 87.06 percent with an APRE of 0.6152 and a geometric mean probability of 0.7509.
In order to calculate distances from these Common Space DW-NOMINATE scores you must multiply the second dimension by the weight parameter. To calculate the choice probabilities you must apply both the second dimension weight and the Beta parameter. Use the Yea and Nay outcome coordinates with considerable caution because, as we explain in Congress: A Political Economic History of Roll Call Voting, they are poorly identified. However, the cutting line is identified and can be used safely.
Please note that these files contain scores for most Presidents. For Presidents prior to Eisenhower these are based on roll calls corresponding to Presidential requests. These roll calls were compiled by an NSF project headed by Elaine Swift ( Study No. 3371, Database of Congressional Historical Statistics, 1789-1989). Many of these scores are based upon a small number of roll calls so use them with caution!
In the files below the House Coordinates for each Congress are stacked on top of the Senate coordinates. If you have questions or need help with these files please send us e-mail at email@example.com (Jeff Lewis) or firstname.lastname@example.org (Keith Poole).
The format of the legislator files is:
1. Congress Number 2. ICPSR ID Number: 5 digit code assigned by the ICPSR as corrected by Howard Rosenthal and myself. 3. State Code: 2 digit ICPSR State Code. 4. Congressional District Number (0 if Senate or President) 5. State Name 6. Party Code: 100 = Dem., 200 = Repub. (See PARTY3.DAT) 7. Name 8. 1st Dimension Coordinate 9. 2nd Dimension Coordinate 10. 1st Dimension Bootstrapped Standard Error 11. 2nd Dimension Bootstrapped Standard Error 12. Correlation Between 1st and 2nd Dimension Bootstrapped Estimates 13. Log-Likelihood 14. Number of Votes 15. Number of Classification Errors 16. Geometric Mean Probability The format of the roll call files is: 1. Congress Number 2. Roll Call Number 3. "H" if House, "S" if Senate 4. Number of Yeas 5. Number of Nays 6. Month of Roll Call 7. Day of Roll Call 8. Year of Roll Call 9. Number Correctly Classified 10. Predicted Yea/Actual Yea 11. Predicted Yea/Actual Nay 12. Predicted Nay/Actual Yea 13. Predicted Nay/Actual Nay 14. Proportion Correctly Classified (#9 divided by #4 + #5) 15. Proportional Reduction in Error (PRE) -- (Min. on RC - Error)/Min. on RC 16. Geometric Mean Probability 17. Spread on 1st Dimension -- if the roll call was not scaled, there 18. Midpoint on 1st Dimension -- are 0.000's in all four fields 19. Spread on 2nd Dimension -- 20. Midpoint on 2nd Dimension --
Legislator Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Text File, 49,959 lines)
Legislator Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Stata 12 File, 49,959 lines)
Legislator Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Stata 9 File, 49,959 lines)
Legislator Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Eviews File, 49,959 lines)
Legislator Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Excel File, 49,959 lines)
Roll Call Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Text File, 100,947 lines)
Roll Call Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Stata File, 100,947 lines)
Roll Call Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Stata 9 File, 100,947 lines)
Roll Call Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Eviews File, 100,947 lines)
Roll Call Estimates 1st to 112th Houses and Senates (Excel File, 100,947 lines)
A Comparison of the "Common Space" DW-NOMINATE Scores With the Separate House and Senate 2-Dimensional Linear DW-NOMINATE ScoresThe Joint Scaling of the House and Senate utilizes the 2-dimensional constant model developed by Poole and Rosenthal in which each legislator has a single ideal point throughout his or her career. In contrast, the standard DW-NOMINATE scores use the 2-dimensional linear model in which a legislator is allowed to move on a straight line throughout his or her career. These models are discussed in detail in:
- Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of
Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Keith T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal. 2007. Ideology and Congress. Piscataway, N.J.:
- Keith T. Poole. 2005. Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Joint Scaling House Only Senate Only (2-D Const.) (2-D Lin.) (2-D Lin.) .................................................................... Correct Classification 87.0550 87.5990 85.9970 APRE 0.6152 0.6308 0.5866 GMP 0.7508 0.7579 0.7416 Beta 7.0418 7.3550 9.0609 Weight-2nd 0.4388 0.4088 0.5113 .......................................... Unique Legisislators 11,883 10,649 1,876 Total Roll Calls 100,947 52,328 48,619 Scalable Roll Calls 90,609 45,844 44,765 Total Choices 16,501,617 13,454,167 3,047,067The fit of the Joint Scaling is a half percentage point below the House fit but better than the Senate fit. This reflects the fact that the House fit is better than the Senate fit and the number of unique members in the House is more than five times the number of unique members of the Senate. Consequently, when the chambers are combined it is not surprising that the larger number of House members -- even with the constraint of the constant model -- will drive the fit.
Below is a graph of the correct classifications for these three scalings. The pattern of the classifications is essentially the same as that shown in Figure 3.1 of Ideology and Congress. The correct classification of the joint scaling closely tracks that for the separate House DW-NOMINATE scaling. The Pearson correlation between the two is 0.989. The corresponding correlation between the joint scaling and the separate Senate DW-NOMINATE scaling is 0.810. However, the correlation between the correct classifications for the Senates within the joint scaling and the separate Senate DW-NOMINATE scaling is 0.850. The corresponding correlation between the correct classifications for the Houses within the joint scaling and the separate House DW-NOMINATE scaling is 0.955. What these correlations show is that, although constraining the members of Congress to having a single ideal point throughout their careers, the patterns of overall chamber classifications are almost exactly reproduced even though on average the classifications of the joint model are lower.
Below is a graph of the polarization of the House and Senate since the end of Reconstruction (1879-2012) using the joint space coordinates. Polarization is measured as the distance between the two major parties on the first, liberal-conservative dimension (see graph below). The pattern of polarization within the two chambers is almost the same with the 112th House being the most polarized chamber since the end of Reconstruction.
The three figures below show the Party Means for the current Post-Reconstruction Democrat-Republican two-party system. The figures pretty much speak for themselves. We have color coded the party lines and report correlations between the Party Means from the joint scaling versus the separate scalings. Note that for the graphs of the second dimension Party Means we separate out the Northern and Southern Democrats. The basic message of these graphs is that the Joint scaling is reproducing the Party trend lines during the whole Post-Reconstruction period.
Below is a QuickTime Movie of the Separate Scaling Results. The Similarities discussed above can be clearly seen by studying this movie. Note that the second dimension is shown with the proper weighting.
Two Dimensional Movie of the 1st to 112th (2011) Houses and Senates From the Separate Scalings (high resolution, 458 Megabytes!!)
NOMINATE Data, Roll Call Data, and Software
Course Web Pages: UGA (2010 - )
Course Web Pages: UC San Diego (2004 - 2010)
University of San Diego Law School (2005)
Course Web Pages: University of Houston (2000 - 2005)
Course Web Pages: Carnegie-Mellon University (1997 - 2000)
Spatial Models of Parliamentary Voting
Recent Working Papers
Analyses of Recent Politics
About This Website
K7MOA Log Books: 1960 - 2013
Bio of Keith T. Poole