AMS Dimensionality

Drawing (Inferences) Outside the Lines
Dimensionality in Congress
John Aldrich
Jacob Montgomery
David Sparks
Duke University, Department of Political Science
September 1, 2010
Aldrich, Montgomery, Sparks (Duke) Drawing (Inferences) Outside the Lines September 1, 2010 1 / 29
The Main Event
Q: Do low-dimensional estimates of ideology from congressional roll-call

data necessarily imply a truly low-dimensional ideological world?
The Main Event
Q: Do low-dimensional estimates of ideology from congressional roll-call

data necessarily imply a truly low-dimensional ideological world?
A: No.
Expanded Research Question
Estimates generated from roll-call scaling typically characterize policy

conflict as taking place in “one-and-a-half” dimensions.
Results from many formal theories (e.g., Austen-Smith and Banks
1988, Krehbiel 1991) take as an assumption that the ideological space
of Congress is, in fact, one-dimensional.
But do these low-dimensional estimates necessarily imply a truly
low-dimensional ideological world?
Simulation
We simulate Congressional roll-call data under a range of assumptions

about congressional voting behavior.
Pure ideological voting.
Pure ideological voting with bi-modal distributions of preferences.
Distributive voting (with and without party bias).
Mixed motives.
Estimation
After generating roll-call matrices, we scale the simulated voters’

ideology using principal components analysis.
We adopt the “eigenvalues-greater-than-one” heuristic (Kaiser 1960)
in our sweep of 132, 480 parameter settings.
We compare the number of recovered dimensions to the number of
“true” dimensions.
Estimation

We find that there are many parameter settings under which we
recover a low-dimensional space even when the actual simulated
dimensionality is high.
Estimation

We find that there are many parameter settings under which we
recover a low-dimensional space even when the actual simulated
dimensionality is high.
Methodological issues:
Why eigenvalues?
Why principal components analysis?
More Dimensions, Better Fit
Uni−dimensional voting with error Perfect two−dimensional voting
Y Y
YYY Y
P
Cutpoint
Dimension 2
P SQ
YY NN YYYYY N Y N Y NNNN Cut−line N
Y Y N N
Y N
N
SQ
N
NN
Single Policy Dimension Dimension 1
It is always possible to add dimensions to better predict the data.
Poole and Rosenthal’s WNOMINATE method always results in lower dimensionality
than does PCA.
Some Simple Examples
●
●
● ●
S ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
● ●
●
● ●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
P
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●● ●
● ● ●
●● ● ● ● ●
● ●● ● ●●
● ● ●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
● ●
● ● ● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●● ● ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
● ●● ●
● ● ●
●● ● ● ● ●
● ●● ● ●●
● ● ●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
● ●
● ● ● ●
● ●
● ●
●
● P ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●●
● P ●●
●
●
● ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
●● ●
● ● ●
●● ● ● ● ●
● ●● ● ●●
●● ● ●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
● ●
● ● ● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
S ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●●
● S
●
● ● ●
●
● ●● ● ●
●
● ●
● ● ●
●● ●
●
●
●●
●●
P
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●●
●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
● ●
● ● ● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●● ● ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
●● ●
● ● ●
●
●
●
●●
●●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
P
●●
● ●● ● ●
●
● ●
● ● ● ●
●
●
●
S ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
● ●
P
●
●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●●
● ●● ●
● ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
●● ●
● ● ●
●● ● ● ● ●
● ●● ● ●●
S
●
●
●
●● ●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ● ● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●● ● ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
●● ●
● ● ●
●
●
●
●●
●●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
P
●●
● ●● ●
●
●
S ●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
S
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●● ● ● ●
● ●
● ● ●
●● ●
● ● ●
●● ● ● ● ●
● ●● ● ●●
● ● ●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
● ●
●
● P ●
●
●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
S
● ●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●
●
● ●● ● ● ●
● ● ●
● ● ●
●● ●
● ● ●
●● ● ● ● ●
● ●● ● ●●
● ● ●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
P ●
● ●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
●
● ●
● ●
●
● ●
●
●
● ● ● ●
●
●
● ●
● ●●
●
●
● ● ●
● ● ●
● ●●
●
● ●
●
● P ●
●
●
●●
●
●
● ●
●
●
●● ●
● ● ●
●● ● ● ● ●
● ●● ● ●●
● ● ●
● ●
● ●● ●
●
● ● ●
● ● ● ●
● ●
● ●
● ●
●
●
S ●
●
●
●
●
Basic Spatial Voting
Members’ voting calculus:

2
0 if kxi − aj k2 − kxi − bj k < 0
yij = 2 (1)
1 if kxi − aj k2 − kxi − bj k > 0
Determining status quo from proposal and cut-point:

cjp − |cjp − bjp | if bjp > cjp
ajp = (2)
cjp + |cjp − bjp | if bjp < cjp
Real versus recovered dimensions under basic spatial voting
Gray line represents “perfect” recovery of dimensionality.
Visualizing an increase in the distance between party distribution means.
Basic spatial voting model with party separation
Increased polarization tends to collapse estimates of dimensionality.
Spatial voting, varying dimensions of party separation
Increasing the number of dimensions along which parties are separated tends to reduce
estimates of dimensionality.
Basic distributive politics
Priority for inclusion in distributive coalition:
rij ∼ N (0, 1). (3)

1 if rij > rankα (rj )
Bij = (4)
0 if rij < rankα (rj )
Voting decision; yea iff in coalition:

1 if Bij = 1
yij = (5)
0 if Bij = 0
Party bias in the determination of the coalition:

N (ρ, 1) if τk = τi
rij = (6)
N (−ρ, 1) if τk 6= τi
Real versus recovered dimensions under distributive politics
Random versus party-biased coalition formation.
Conclusions
Truly low-dimensional voting is correctly estimated.

Wide separation of parties generates low-dimensional estimates, at all
levels of true dimensionality.
Distributive motivations generate low-dimensional estimates, at all
levels of true dimensionality, regardless of partisan bias.
⇒ Low-dimensional estimates do not imply a truly low-dimensional
world.
⇒ Formal models that rely on unidimensionality may not be valid.
Mixing distributive and spatial motivations
Re-scale distributive component with CDF of standard normal distribution,

and γ-weight relative import of distributive and spacial considerations.
if (1 − γ) × Φ kxi − aj k2 − kxi − bj k2 + γ × Bij < .5

0
yij =
1 if (1 − γ) × Φ kxi − aj k2 − kxi − bj k2 + γ × Bij > .5
(7)
Mixing distributive and spatial motivations.
Increasing weight on distributive concerns tends to collapse estimates of dimensionality.
Distributive and spatial motivations, with party bias.
Distributive voting with no party bias is essentially random, party bias does not effect
spatially-motivated voting.
Distributive and spatial motivations, with party separation.
Low-dimensional spatial voting: about one-and-a-half dimensions; high party separation

and/or distributive motivations: about one-and-a-half dimensions.

AMS Dimensionality

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AMS Dimensionality

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Drawing (Inferences) Outside the Lines

Duke University, Department of Political Science

Q: Do low-dimensional estimates of ideology from congressional roll-call

Q: Do low-dimensional estimates of ideology from congressional roll-call

Estimates generated from roll-call scaling typically characterize policy

We simulate Congressional roll-call data under a range of assumptions

After generating roll-call matrices, we scale the simulated voters’

After generating roll-call matrices, we scale the simulated voters’

After generating roll-call matrices, we scale the simulated voters’

Uni−dimensional voting with error Perfect two−dimensional voting

Single Policy Dimension Dimension 1

It is always possible to add dimensions to better predict the data.

Members’ voting calculus:

Determining status quo from proposal and cut-point:

Gray line represents “perfect” recovery of dimensionality.

Increased polarization tends to collapse estimates of dimensionality.

rij ∼ N (0, 1). (3)

Party bias in the determination of the coalition:

Random versus party-biased coalition formation.

Truly low-dimensional voting is correctly estimated.

Re-scale distributive component with CDF of standard normal distribution,

if (1 − γ) × Φ kxi − aj k2 − kxi − bj k2 + γ × Bij < .5

Increasing weight on distributive concerns tends to collapse estimates of dimensionality.

Low-dimensional spatial voting: about one-and-a-half dimensions; high party separation

You might also like