Roll-call votes are central tools for studying legislative politics, but their representativeness remains questionable.
This article addresses two common defenses against concerns about roll-call sampling: its pervasiveness and the benign strategic incentives behind vote requests.
First, we analyze voting procedures across 145 chambers and find that roll calls are typically discretionary — meaning legislators decide when to use them. Second, we present a formal model showing how this method selection affects position-taking strategies.
Our findings reveal three key problems:
- Roll-call votes don't always capture all legislative decisions
- Strategic incentives can bias which bills get put to vote
- Measurement practices often lack transparency
These results suggest that scholars must more carefully consider the relationship between roll-call data collection and substantive political phenomena. The analysis highlights significant gaps in current approaches to measuring legislative behavior.
