Public Choice

, Volume 131, Issue 3–4, pp 435–451 | Cite as

Changing minds? Not in Congress!

Original Article


This paper shows a variety of evidence that members of Congress are ideologically consistent. Based upon the roll call voting record, once elected to Congress, members adopt a consistent ideological position and maintain it over time. There may be changing minds, but they are not in Congress.


Congress NOMINATE Optimal Classification 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cahoon, L.S., Hinich, M.J., Ordeshook, P.C. (1976). A Multidimensional Statistical Procedure for Spatial Analysis. Manuscript. Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  2. Carmines, E.G., Stimson, J.A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Clausen, A. (1974). How Congressmen decide: A policy focus. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
  4. Clinton, J., Jackman, S.D., Rivers, D. (2004). The statistical analysis of roll call data. American Political Science Review, 98, 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Converse, P.E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in Mass publics. In D.E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cox, G.W., Katz, J.N. (2002). Elbridge Gerry's Salamander: The electoral consequences of the reapportionment revolution. New York: Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Cox, G.W., Poole, K.T. (2002a). On measuring partisanship in roll call voting: The U.S. House of Representatives, 1877–1999. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 477–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cox, G.W., Poole, K.T. (2002b). Measuring Group Differences in Roll Call Voting. Manuscript, University of Houston.Google Scholar
  9. DiMaggio, P., Evans, J., Bryson, B. (1996). Have Americans' social attitudes become more polarized? American Journal of Sociology, 102, 690–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Enelow, J.M., Hinich, M. (1984). The spatial theory of voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, J.H. (2003). Have Americans' attitudes become more polarized? An update. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 71–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fenno, R.F. Jr. (1978). Home style: House Members in their districts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  13. Fiorina, M.P. (2006). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  14. Froman, L.A. Jr. (1971). Differences between the House and Senate. In R. Wolfinger (Ed.), Readings on Congress. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Glazer, A., Robbins, M. (1983). Voters and roll call voting: The effect of congressional elections. Political Behavior, 5, 377–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman, J.J., Snyder, J.M. (1997). Linear probability models of the demand for attributes with an empirical application to estimating the preferences of legislators. Rand Journal of Economics, 28, 142–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hinich, M.J., Munger, M.J. (1994). Ideology and the theory of political choice. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hinich, M.J., Munger, M. (1997). Analytical politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hinich, M.J., Pollard, W. (1981). A new approach to the spatial theory of electoral competition. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 323–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hoffer, E. (1951). The true believer: Thoughts on the nature of mass movements. New York: Harper Row (Perennial Library Edition, 1966, 1989).Google Scholar
  21. Jackman, S.D. (2000a). Estimation and Inference via Bayesian simulation: An introduction to Markov Chain Monte Carlo. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 375–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jackman, S.D. (2000b). Estimation and inference are ‘Missing Data’ problems: Unifying social science statistics via Bayesian simulation. Political Analysis, 8, 307–332.Google Scholar
  23. Jackman, S.D. (2001). Multidimensional analysis of roll call data via Bayesian simulation: Identification, estimation, inference and model checking. Political Analysis, 9, 227–241.Google Scholar
  24. Jacobson, G.C. (2006). A divider, not a uniter: George W. Bush and the American people. New York: Pearson Longman.Google Scholar
  25. Kernell, S. (1973). Is the Senate more liberal than the House? Journal of Politics, 35, 332–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. King, D. (1998). Party competition and polarization in American politics. Paper prepared for the 1998 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  27. Krehbiel, K. (1993). Where's the party? British Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 235–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loomis, M. (1995). Constituent influences outside the structure of spatial voting. Doctoral Dissertation, Carnegie-Mellon University.Google Scholar
  29. McCarty, N.M., Poole, K.T. (1995). Veto power and legislation: An empirical analysis of executive and legislative bargaining from 1961–1986. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 11, 282–312.Google Scholar
  30. McCarty, N.M., Poole, K.T., Rosenthal, H. (1997). Income redistribution and the realignment of American politics. Washington, DC: AEI Press.Google Scholar
  31. McCarty, N.M., Poole, K.T., Rosenthal, H. (2001). The Hunt for party discipline in congress. The American Political Science Review, 95, 673–687.Google Scholar
  32. McCarty, N.M., Poole, K.T., Rosenthal, H. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  33. Nokken, T.P. (2000). Dynamics of congressional loyalty: Party defection and roll call behavior, 1947–1997. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 25, 417–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ordeshook, P.C. (1976). The spatial theory of elections: A review and a critique. In I. Budge, I. Crewe, D. Farlie (Eds.), Party identification and beyond. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Poole, K.T. (1990). Least squares metric, unidimensional scaling of multivariate linear models. Psychometrika, 55, 123–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Poole, K.T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 954–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Poole, K.T. (2000). Non-parametric unfolding of binary choice data. Political Analysis, 8, 211–237.Google Scholar
  38. Poole, K.T. (2001). The geometry of multidimensional quadratic utility in models of parliamentary roll call voting. Political Analysis, 9, 211–226.Google Scholar
  39. Poole, K.T. (2005). Spatial models of parliamentary voting. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Poole, K.T., Rosenthal, H. (1984). The polarization of American politics. Journal of Politics, 46, 1061–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Poole, K.T., Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Poole, K.T., Rosenthal, H. (2001). D-NOMINATE after 10 years: A comparative update to congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 26, 5–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rothenberg, L.S., Sanders, M.S. (2000). Severing the electoral connection: Shirking in the contemporary congress. American Journal of Political Science, 44, 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Snyder, J.M. Jr., Groseclose, T. (2000). Estimating party influence in congressional roll-call voting. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 193–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stratmann, T. (2000). Congressional voting over legislative careers: Shifting positions and changing constraints. American Political Science Review, 94, 665–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Weisberg, H.F. (1968). Dimensional analysis of legislative roll calls. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  47. Wills, G. (1982). The Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaSan Diego, La JollaUSA

Personalised recommendations