Testing the power of arguments in referendums: A Bradley-Terry approach

Electoral Studies

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 212-221

  Loewen, Peter John ^a   Rubenson, Daniel ^b   Spirling, Arthur ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b RYERSON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Bradley Terry models; Elections; Methods; Public opinion; Referendums

Indexed keywords

ELECTION; MODEL TEST; MODEL VALIDATION; PARTY POLITICS; POLITICAL GEOGRAPHY; POWER RELATIONS; REFORM PROCESS; VOTING BEHAVIOR;

CANADA; ONTARIO [CANADA];

EID: 84857236813     PISSN: 02613794     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2011.07.003     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Agresti A. Categorical Data Analysis 2002, John Wiley and Sons, New York. second ed.
2. Ansolabehere S., Iyengar S. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate 1997, The Free Press, New York.
3. Ansolabehere S., Snyder J. The incumbency advantage in U.S. Elections: an Analysis of State and Federal Offices, 1942-2000. Election Law Journal 2002, 1(3):315-338.
4. Ansolabehere S., Snyder J.M., Stewart C. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science 2001, 45(1):136-159.
5. Aristotle (322BC/1991), Rhetoric, Oxford University Press (translation by George A. Kennedy), New York.
6. Blais A., Massicotte L. Electoral systems. Comparing Democracies 2: New Challenges in the Study of Elections and Voting 2002, Sage, London. L. LeDuc, R.G. Niemi, P. Norris (Eds.).
7. Bradley R., Terry M. Rank analysis of incomplete block designs, I. The method of paired comparisons. Biometrika 1952, 39:324-345.
8. Carter D., Spirling A. Under the influence? Intellectual exchange in political science. PS: Political Science and Politics 2008, 41(2):375-378.
9. Chong D., Druckman J.N. Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review 2007, 101(4):637-655.
10. Downes A. How smart and tough are democracies? Reassessing theories of democratic victory in war. International Security 2009, 33(4):9-51.
11. Erikson R.S., Wright G.C. Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections. Congress Reconsidered 1997, Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington DC. L.C. Dodd, B.I. Oppenheimer (Eds.).
12. Fenlon B. Referendum on electoral reform an 'Unmitigated Disaster'. The Globe and Mail 2007, October 11, 2007, Online edition.
13. Fiorina M. Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment 1989, Yale University Press, New Haven. second ed.
14. Firth D., De Menezes R. Quasi-variances. Biometrika 2004, 91(1):65-80.
15. Gayle V., Lambert P. Using quasi-variances to communicate sociological results from statistical models. Sociology 2007, 41(6).
16. Hobolt S.B. Europe in Question: Referendums on European Integration 2009, OUP, OUPad.
17. Lake D. Powerful pacifists: democratic states and war. The American Political Science Review 1992, 24-37.
18. London H., Meldman P.J., Lanckton A.V.C. The jury method: how the persuader persuades. Public Opinion Quarterly 1970, 34:171-183.
19. Luce R.D. Individual Choice Behaviour: A Theoretical Analysis 1959, J. Wiley, New York.
20. Monroe B.L. Fully proportional representation. American Political Science Review 1995, 89(4):925-940.
21. Political Persuasion and Attitude Change 1996, University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. D. Mutz, P.M. Sniderman, R. Brody (Eds.).
22. Page B. Choices and Echoes in Presidential Elections 1978, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
23. Pammett J.H., LeDuc L. Sovereignty, leadership and voting in the Quebec referendums. Electoral Studies 2001, 20:265-280.
24. Pattie C., Denver D., Mitchell J., Bochel H. Partisanship, national identity and constitutional preferences: an exploration of voting in the Scottish devolution referendum of 1997. Electoral Studies 1998, 18:305-322.
25. Powell G.B. Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions 2000, Yale University Press, New Haven CT.
26. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing 2006, R Development Core Team, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
27. Reiter D., Stam A. Democracy and battlefield military effectiveness. Journal of Conflict Resolution 1998, 259-277.
28. Shadish W.R., Cook T.D., Campbell D.T. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference 2000, Houghton Mifflin, Boston.
29. Sham P., Curtis D. An extended transmission/disequilibrium test (TDT) for multiallele marker loci. Annals of Human Genetics 1995, 59(3):323-336.
30. Sigelman L. Hair loss and electability: the bald truth. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 1990, 14(4):269-283.
31. Spirling A. Power tool: measuring power in political science-a new methods with application to the United States Senate 2007, University of Rochester, Working Paper.
32. Springall A. Response surface fitting using a generalization of the Bradley-Terry paired comparisons model. Applied Statistics 1973, 22:59-68.
33. Stigler S. Citation patterns in the journals of statistics and probability. Statistical Science 1994, 9:94-108.
34. Stuart-Fox D.M., Firth D., Moussalli A., Whiting M.J. Multiple signals in chameleon contests: designing and analysing animal contests as a tournament. Animal Behaviour 2006, 71:1263-1271.
35. Suppes P., Krantz D., Luce D., Tversky A. Foundations of Measurement: Representation, Axiomatization, and Invariance 1990, Academic Press, New York.
36. Thurstone L. The Measurement of Values 1959, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
37. Tranter B. The Australian constitutional referendum of 1999: evaluating explanations of republic voting. Electoral Studies 2003, 22:677-701.
38. Turner H., Firth D. Bradley-Terry models in R: The BradleyTerry2 package 2010, R package version 0.9-4.