Gary King Research Articles

Replication and Non-Quantitative Research

In “Replication, Replication,” Gary King convincingly argues that publications by political scientists should adhere to what he calls a replication standard. Although King's article explicitly embraces qualitative as well as quantitative research, the policy statement that he suggests editors and reviewers of books and journals endorse exclusively imposes standards on studies based on quantitative research. Qualitative work is treated in a simple sentence and one that enforces no standards: “Authors of works relying upon qualitative data are encouraged (but not required) to submit a comparable footnote that would facilitate replication where feasible.”

Replication and Non-Quantitative Research

In “Replication, Replication,” Gary King convincingly argues that publications by political scientists should adhere to what he calls a replication standard. Although King's article explicitly embraces qualitative as well as quantitative research, the policy statement that he suggests editors and reviewers of books and journals endorse exclusively imposes standards on studies based on quantitative research. Qualitative work is treated in a simple sentence and one that enforces no standards: “Authors of works relying upon qualitative data are encouraged (but not required) to submit a comparable footnote that would facilitate replication where feasible.”

Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Political Science

In Designing Social Inquiry, Gary King, Bob Keohane and Sidney Verba (KKV) have performed real service to researchers. I, for one, will not complain if I never again have to look into the uncomprehending eyes of first-year graduate students when I enjoin them (pace Przeworski and Teune) to turn proper names into variables. The book is brief and lucidly argued and avoids the weighty, musclebound pronouncements that are often studded onto the pages of methodological manuals. But following KKV's injunction that a slightly more complicated theory will explain vastly more of the world (p. 105), I will praise them no more but focus on an important weakness in the book. Their central argument is that the same logic that is explicated and formalized clearly in discussions of quantitative research methods underlies-or should-the best research (p. 4). If this is so, then they really ought to have paid more attention to the relations between quantitative and approaches and what rigorous use of the latter can offer quantifiers. But while they offer good deal of generous (at times patronizing) advice to qualitatively oriented scholars, they say very little about how approaches can be combined with quantitative research. Especially with the growth of choicetheoretic approaches, whose users often illustrate their theories with stories, there is need for set of ground rules on how to make intelligent use of data. KKV do not address this issue. Rather, they use the model of quantitative research to advise researchers on how best to approximate good models of descriptive and causal inference. (Increasing the number of observations is their cardinal operational rule.) But in today's social science world, how many social scientists can be simply labeled qualitative or -quantitative? How often, for example, do we find support for sophisticated game-theoretic models resting on the use of anecdotal reports or on secondary evidence lifted from one or two sources? More and more frequently in today's social science practice, quantitative and data are interlarded within the same study. A recent work that KKV warmly praise illustrates both that their distinction between quantitative and researchers is too schematic and that we need to think more seriously about the interaction of the two kinds of data.

Comment: Conceptualization, Measurement, and the Analysis of Representation in Electoral Systems Undergoing Structural and Social Change

Understanding the consequences for democracy and representation of various electoral structures has never been easy. Scholars from the Reverend Dodgson to Kenneth Arrow to Gary King have all undertaken theoretical and empirical studies of the comparative strengths and weaknesses of different electoral arrangements, yet these debates continue with no resolution in sight. Empirical studies often cannot distinguish social from structural effects, while analytic studies often make assumptions that diminish our ability to apply the findings to any real world comparison. Such enterprises are most difficult when the electoral systems under consideration are concurrently in the midst of structural, social and issue evolution. The two preceding papers undertake a difficult task; i.e., separating the consequences of structural change from those of social change in the US South during a period of great flux in racial and partisan power relations. Much of the disagreement between these two analyses—and perhaps some of the agreement as well—can be attributed to the conceptual and methodological difficulties of the enterprise they undertake. The two key questions addressed are: 1) which party benefited from the change to single-member districts, winner-take-all elections, from various multimember district electoral formats, and 2) which party benefited from redistricting?

A Review: Preelection Survey Methodology: Details From Eight Polling Organizations, 1988 and 1992

D. STEPHEN voss is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Government of Harvard University. ANDREW GELMAN is assistant professor in the Department of Statistics in the University of California, Berkeley. GARY KING is professor in the Department of Government of Harvard University. They thank the following individuals for their openness and detailed assistance: David K. Krane and Robert Spanski of Louis Harris and Associates; Martin Frankel, a consultant for Louis Harris and statistian at Baruch College; Kathleen Frankovic, Bala Ramnath, and Marla Kaye of CBS; Sharon Warden of the Washington Post; Kristen Conrad of Chilton Research; Dale Kulp and Amy Starer of Marketing Systems Group, responsible for the GENESYS Sampling System; Steve Shaw of Media General; Kathy Walenczyk and Linda Piekarski of Survey Sampling, Inc.; Dan Soulas of ICR Survey Research Group; Bums W. Roper, Peter Case, and Brad Fay of the Roper Organization; Hal Quinley of Yankelovich; Jeff Alderman of ABC; Shari Weber of Gallup; and especially Gallup's Jack Ludwig, who weathered the inherent inefficiency of a trial run. They also thank Mark Lew and Cassie Hartzog for programming assistance; Bradley Palmquist, Dale Kulp, Roger Purves, Bob Groves, and anonymous reviewers for comments and corrections; and the National Science Foundation for grants SBR-9223637 (to Gelman and King), DMS-9457824 (to Gelman), and SBR-932121 (to King). Gary King also thanks the John Simon Guggenheim Memorial Foundation for a fellowship during which time this research was completed. E-mail addresses are Voss, dsvoss@isr.harvard.edu; Gelman, gelman@stat.berkeley.edu; King, gking@harvard.edu. 1. Most of these data are available through the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR) or the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research.

Party Platforms, Mandates, and Government Spending

In their 1990 Review article, Ian Budge and Richard Hofferbert analyzed the relationship between party platform emphases, control of the White House, and national government spending priorities, reporting strong evidence of a “party mandate” connection between them. Gary King and Michael Laver successfully replicate the original analysis, critique the interpretation of the causal effects, and present a reanalysis showing that platforms have small or nonexistent effects on spending. In response, Budge, Hofferbert, and Michael McDonald agree that their language was somewhat inconsistent on both interactions and causality but defend their conceptualization of “mandates” as involving only an association, not necessarily a causal connection, between party commitments and government policy. Hence, while the causes of government policy are of interest, noncausal associations are sufficient as evidence of party mandates in American politics.

Abusus Non Tollit Usum: Standardized Coefficients, Correlations, and R 2 s

In a withering critique of statistical praxis, Gary King (1986) has recently warned modelers off standardized regression coefficients, bivariate correlations, and coefficients of determination (R2s). Without denying that these particular statistics are frequently abused (and without taking issue with any of King's other admonitions), I want to argue here that they are not therefore useless-and, in the process, to sketch their legitimate uses.

The Elusive Executive. By Gary King and Lyn Ragsdale. Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1988. 526p. $22.95 cloth, $17.95 paper.

The Elusive Executive. By Gary King and Lyn Ragsdale. Washington: Congressional Quarterly, 1988. 526p. $22.95 cloth, $17.95 paper.

The Elusive Executive: Discovering Statistical Patterns in the Presidency.Gary King , Lyn Ragsdale

<i>The Elusive Executive: Discovering Statistical Patterns in the Presidency.</i>Gary King , Lyn Ragsdale

The Presidency &amp; Political ScienceThe Elusive Executive: Discovering Statistical Patterns in the Presidency. By Gary King and Lyn Ragsdale The Presidency and the Political System. By Michael Nelson The Modern Presidency: From Roosevelt to Reagan. By Malcolm Shaw The Rhetorical Presidency. By Jeffrey K. Tulis

The Presidency &amp; Political Science<i>The Elusive Executive: Discovering Statistical Patterns in the Presidency</i>. By Gary King and Lyn Ragsdale <i>The Presidency and the Political System</i>. By Michael Nelson <i>The Modern Presidency: From Roosevelt to Reagan</i>. By Malcolm Shaw <i>The Rhetorical Presidency</i>. By Jeffrey K. Tulis

Redistricting and Congressional Stability, 1962–72

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesRedistricting and Congressional Stability, 1962-72Charles S. BullockCharles S. Bullock Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 37, Number 2May, 1975 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160004130X Views: 12Total views on this site Citations: 21Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1975 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Matthew P. Dube, Jesse T. Clark, Richard J. Powell Graphical metrics for analyzing district maps, Journal of Computational Social Science 5, no.11 (Jul 2021): 449–475.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00131-xShingirirai Savious Mutanga Technology transformation and changing demographic patterns: Perspectives for Africa’s future elections, International Journal of African Renaissance Studies - Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity 12, no.11 (Aug 2017): 107–119.https://doi.org/10.1080/18186874.2017.1333284Richard Powell, Jesse T. Clark, Matthew P. Dube Assessing the Causes of District Homogeneity in U.S. House Elections, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3032604Mary E Adkins The Same River Twice: A Brief History of How the 1968 Florida Constitution Came to Be and What it Has Become, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2016).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2959628 The Study of Presidential–House Elections, (Dec 2012): 21–31.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139333733.004THEODORE S. ARRINGTON Affirmative Districting and Four Decades of Redistricting: The Seats/Votes Relationship 1972-2008, Politics & Policy 38, no.22 (Apr 2010): 223–253.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00236.xSeth C. McKee Redistricting and Familiarity With U.S. House Candidates, American Politics Research 36, no.66 (May 2008): 962–979.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08322881Jamie L. Carson, Erik J. Engstrom, Jason M. Roberts Redistricting, Candidate Entry, and the Politics of Nineteenth-Century U.S. House Elections, American Journal of Political Science 50, no.22 (Apr 2006): 283–293.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00184.xMichael H. Crespin Using Geographic Information Systems to Measure District Change, 2000–2002, Political Analysis 13, no.33 (Jan 2017): 253–260.https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi016Robert G. Boatright Static Ambition in a Changing World: Legislators' Preparations for, and Responses to, Redistricting, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4, no.44 (Aug 2016): 436–454.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400405Marc J. Hetherington, Bruce Larson, and Suzanne Globetti The Redistricting Cycle and Strategic Candidate Decisions in U.S. House Races, The Journal of Politics 65, no.44 (Jul 2015): 1221–1234.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00134 Donald Ostdiek Congressional Redistricting and District Typologies, The Journal of Politics 57, no.22 (Oct 2015): 533–543.https://doi.org/10.2307/2960322Andrew Gelman, Gary King Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting, American Political Science Review 88, no.33 (Sep 2013): 541–559.https://doi.org/10.2307/2944794 John C. McAdams , and John R. Johannes Congressmen, Perquisites, and Elections, The Journal of Politics 50, no.22 (Oct 2015): 412–439.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131801Harvey L. Schantz Inter-Party Competition for Congressional Seats: the 1960s and 1970s, Western Political Quarterly 40, no.22 (Sep 2016): 373–383.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298704000214Bruce E. Cain Assessing the Partisan Effects of Redistricting, American Political Science Review 79, no.22 (Jun 1985): 320–333.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956652Charles S. Bullock The Inexact Science of Congressional Redistricting, PS: Political Science & Politics 15, no.0303 (Sep 2013): 431–438.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500060480J O'Loughlin District Size and Party Electoral Strength: A Comparison of Sixteen Democracies, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 12, no.33 (Jul 2016): 247–262.https://doi.org/10.1068/a120247Richard Born Generational Replacement and the Growth of Incumbent Reelection Margins in the U.S. House, American Political Science Review 73, no.33 (Aug 2014): 811–817.https://doi.org/10.2307/1955406Morris P. Fiorina The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, American Political Science Review 71, no.11 (Aug 2014): 177–181.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400259376Morris P. Fiorina The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, American Political Science Review 71, no.11 (Aug 2014): 177–181.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956961

Redistricting and Congressional Stability, 1962-72

Previous articleNext article No AccessResearch NotesRedistricting and Congressional Stability, 1962-72Charles S. BullockCharles S. Bullock Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by The Journal of Politics Volume 37, Number 2May, 1975 Sponsored by the Southern Political Science Association Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1017/S002238160004130X Views: 13Total views on this site Citations: 22Citations are reported from Crossref Copyright 1975 Southern Political Science AssociationPDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:H. Benjamin Ashton, Michael H. Crespin, Seth C. McKee Dueling Incumbent House Elections, 1843-2018, American Politics Research 50, no.66 (Aug 2022): 735–742.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X221116618Matthew P. Dube, Jesse T. Clark, Richard J. Powell Graphical metrics for analyzing district maps, Journal of Computational Social Science 5, no.11 (Jul 2021): 449–475.https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00131-xShingirirai Savious Mutanga Technology transformation and changing demographic patterns: Perspectives for Africa’s future elections, International Journal of African Renaissance Studies - Multi-, Inter- and Transdisciplinarity 12, no.11 (Aug 2017): 107–119.https://doi.org/10.1080/18186874.2017.1333284Richard Powell, Jesse T. Clark, Matthew P. Dube Assessing the Causes of District Homogeneity in U.S. House Elections, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2017).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3032604Mary E Adkins The Same River Twice: A Brief History of How the 1968 Florida Constitution Came to Be and What it Has Become, SSRN Electronic Journal (Jan 2016).https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2959628 The Study of Presidential–House Elections, (Dec 2012): 21–31.https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139333733.004THEODORE S. ARRINGTON Affirmative Districting and Four Decades of Redistricting: The Seats/Votes Relationship 1972-2008, Politics & Policy 38, no.22 (Apr 2010): 223–253.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-1346.2010.00236.xSeth C. McKee Redistricting and Familiarity With U.S. House Candidates, American Politics Research 36, no.66 (May 2008): 962–979.https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X08322881Jamie L. Carson, Erik J. Engstrom, Jason M. Roberts Redistricting, Candidate Entry, and the Politics of Nineteenth-Century U.S. House Elections, American Journal of Political Science 50, no.22 (Apr 2006): 283–293.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00184.xMichael H. Crespin Using Geographic Information Systems to Measure District Change, 2000–2002, Political Analysis 13, no.33 (Jan 2017): 253–260.https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi016Robert G. Boatright Static Ambition in a Changing World: Legislators' Preparations for, and Responses to, Redistricting, State Politics & Policy Quarterly 4, no.44 (Aug 2016): 436–454.https://doi.org/10.1177/153244000400400405Marc J. Hetherington, Bruce Larson, and Suzanne Globetti The Redistricting Cycle and Strategic Candidate Decisions in U.S. House Races, The Journal of Politics 65, no.44 (Jul 2015): 1221–1234.https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00134 Donald Ostdiek Congressional Redistricting and District Typologies, The Journal of Politics 57, no.22 (Oct 2015): 533–543.https://doi.org/10.2307/2960322Andrew Gelman, Gary King Enhancing Democracy Through Legislative Redistricting, American Political Science Review 88, no.33 (Sep 2013): 541–559.https://doi.org/10.2307/2944794 John C. McAdams , and John R. Johannes Congressmen, Perquisites, and Elections, The Journal of Politics 50, no.22 (Oct 2015): 412–439.https://doi.org/10.2307/2131801Harvey L. Schantz Inter-Party Competition for Congressional Seats: the 1960s and 1970s, Western Political Quarterly 40, no.22 (Sep 2016): 373–383.https://doi.org/10.1177/106591298704000214Bruce E. Cain Assessing the Partisan Effects of Redistricting, American Political Science Review 79, no.22 (Jun 1985): 320–333.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956652Charles S. Bullock The Inexact Science of Congressional Redistricting, PS: Political Science & Politics 15, no.0303 (Sep 2013): 431–438.https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096500060480J O'Loughlin District Size and Party Electoral Strength: A Comparison of Sixteen Democracies, Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 12, no.33 (Jul 2016): 247–262.https://doi.org/10.1068/a120247Richard Born Generational Replacement and the Growth of Incumbent Reelection Margins in the U.S. House, American Political Science Review 73, no.33 (Aug 2014): 811–817.https://doi.org/10.2307/1955406Morris P. Fiorina The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, American Political Science Review 71, no.11 (Aug 2014): 177–181.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055400259376Morris P. Fiorina The Case of the Vanishing Marginals: The Bureaucracy Did It, American Political Science Review 71, no.11 (Aug 2014): 177–181.https://doi.org/10.2307/1956961