2010
DOI: 10.1080/13572330903541920
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Examining the Influences over Roll Call Voting in Multiple Issue Areas: A Comparative US State Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
11
0
Order By: Relevance
“… The state legislative position‐taking literature offers a number of key variables that provide voting cues for legislators, including the preference of fellow legislators, constituents, party affiliation, party leadership, interest groups, staff, personal reading, values, committee reports, executive branch, and so forth that vary in importance and effect (Ray, ; Songer et al, ). More recently, a wide variety of factors including campaign finances (Harden & Kirkland, ; Roscoe & Jenkins, ), public election funding (Masket & Miller, ), information sources (Mooney, ), and issue salience (Jenkins, ) have been explored. Our study extends this body of work to include bill frames as another variable affecting legislative vote choice.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“… The state legislative position‐taking literature offers a number of key variables that provide voting cues for legislators, including the preference of fellow legislators, constituents, party affiliation, party leadership, interest groups, staff, personal reading, values, committee reports, executive branch, and so forth that vary in importance and effect (Ray, ; Songer et al, ). More recently, a wide variety of factors including campaign finances (Harden & Kirkland, ; Roscoe & Jenkins, ), public election funding (Masket & Miller, ), information sources (Mooney, ), and issue salience (Jenkins, ) have been explored. Our study extends this body of work to include bill frames as another variable affecting legislative vote choice.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Typologies of opposition based on the mentioned systemic factors are still functional and effective, yet they rely on models based on an ideal image of democracy that still exists in theory, but no longer corresponds to the actual performance of political actors (Andeweg et al, 2008;Cowley & Stuart, 2005;Giuliani, 2008;Kaiser, 2008;Mújica & Sánchez-Cuenca, 2006). Consensus in parliament has been proved to be affected also by non-systemic variables such as the preferences of the political actors, the characteristics of the legislation to be approved and, in particular, the policy area involved (De Giorgi, 2011;Green-Pedersen, 2007;Jenkins, 2010;Rose, 1984;Tsebelis, 2002).…”
Section: Preliminary Research Hypothesesmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…M. Miller 2013; Squire 1993; Wright 2007). Lawmaker voting behavior is affected, with those in more professionalized legislatures asserting greater independence from their parties and missing fewer roll calls (Brown and Goodliffe 2017; Jenkins 2010). Professionalization influences collaboration patterns among legislators, particularly in term-limited states (Swift and VanderMolen 2016).…”
Section: The Organizational and Policy Impacts Of Legislative Professmentioning
confidence: 99%