Political Analysis Advance Access originally published online on February 12, 2008
Political Analysis 2008 16(2):226-233; doi:10.1093/pan/mpm031
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Search for Comparability: Response to Binder
Institute of Political Science, Academia Sinica, 128 Academia Road, Taipei, Taiwan e-mail: fchiou{at}gate.sinica.edu.tw
Department of Political Science, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627
e-mail: lrot{at}mail.rochester.edu (corresponding author)
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.