The Search for Comparability: Response to Binder

Fang-Yi Chiou and Lawrence S. Rothenberg

Political Analysis, 2008, vol. 16, issue 2, 226-233

Abstract: Binder (n.d., Taking the measure of Congress: Reply to Chiou and Rothenberg. Political Analysis. Forthcoming) highlights areas of agreement and disagreement with our discussion of preference measurement and legislative gridlock. We now both agree that W-NOMINATE scores—employed in Binder (1999, The dynamics of legislative gridlock. American Political Science Review 9:519–33) to measure key independent variables, including bicameral differences—should not be used when examining multichamber legislatures over time. We continue to disagree over whether Common Space scores or Binder's conference vote measure is superior. In this response, we show that, although several of the theoretical and statistical objections that Binder (n.d.) raises to our Common Space measure do not apply, they are all relevant for her conference vote analog. Additionally, we detail how, despite protests to the contrary, the conference vote measure is plagued by insufficient data. Finally, we demonstrate how new efforts to show that Binder's (1999) results continue to hold are not robust.

Date: 2008
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:polals:v:16:y:2008:i:02:p:226-233_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Political Analysis from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().