@article {GelKin89, title = {Electoral Responsiveness in U.S. Congressional Elections, 1946-1986}, journal = {Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section, American Statistical Association}, year = {1989}, pages = {208}, author = {Andrew Gelman and Gary King} } @article {King89c, title = {Event Count Models for International Relations: Generalizations and Applications}, journal = {International Studies Quarterly}, volume = {33}, year = {1989}, month = {June}, pages = {123{\textendash}147}, abstract = {International relations theorists tend to think in terms of continuous processes. Yet we observe only discrete events, such as wars or alliances, and summarize them in terms of the frequency of occurrence. As such, most empirical analyses in international relations are based on event count variables. Unfortunately, analysts have generally relied on statistical techniques that were designed for continuous data. This mismatch between theory and method has caused bias, inefficiency, and numerous inconsistencies in both theoretical arguments and empirical findings throughout the literature. This article develops a much more powerful approach to modeling and statistical analysis based explicity on estimating continuous processes from observed event counts. To demonstrate this class of models, I present several new statistical techniques developed for and applied to different areas of international relations. These include the influence of international alliances on the outbreak of war, the contagious process of multilateral economic sanctions, and reciprocity in superpower conflict. I also show how one can extract considerably more information from existing data and relate substantive theory to empirical analyses more explicitly with this approach.}, author = {Gary King} } @book {BraHarKin89, title = {The Presidency in American Politics}, year = {1989}, publisher = {New York University Press}, organization = {New York University Press}, address = {New York and London}, author = {Paul Brace and Christine Harrington and Gary King} } @article {King89b, title = {Representation Through Legislative Redistricting: A Stochastic Model}, journal = {American Journal of Political Science}, volume = {33}, year = {1989}, month = {November}, pages = {787{\textendash}824}, abstract = {This paper builds a stochastic model of the processes that give rise to observed patterns of representation and bias in congressional and state legislative elections. The analysis demonstrates that partisan swing and incumbency voting, concepts from the congressional elections literature, have determinate effects on representation and bias, concepts from the redistricting literature. The model shows precisely how incumbency and increased variability of partisan swing reduce the responsiveness of the electoral system and how partisan swing affects whether the system is biased toward one party or the other. Incumbency, and other causes of unresponsive representation, also reduce the effect of partisan swing on current levels of partisan bias. By relaxing the restrictive portions of the widely applied "uniform partisan swing" assumption, the theoretical analysis leads directly to an empirical model enabling one more reliably to estimate responsiveness and bias from a single year of electoral data. Applying this to data from seven elections in each of six states, the paper demonstrates that redistricting has effects in predicted directions in the short run: partisan gerrymandering biases the system in favor of the party in control and, by freeing up seats held by opposition party incumbents, increases the system{\textquoteright}s responsiveness. Bipartisan-controlled redistricting appears to reduce bias somewhat and dramatically to reduce responsiveness. Nonpartisan redistricting processes substantially increase responsiveness but do not have as clear an effect on bias. However, after only two elections, prima facie evidence for redistricting effects evaporate in most states. Finally, across every state and type of redistricting process, responsiveness declined significantly over the course of the decade. This is clear evidence that the phenomenon of "vanishing marginals," recognized first in the U.S. Congress literature, also applies to these different types of state legislative assemblies. It also strongly suggests that redistricting could not account for this pattern.}, author = {Gary King} } @article {King89e, title = {A Seemingly Unrelated Poisson Regression Model}, journal = {Sociological Methods and Research}, volume = {17}, year = {1989}, month = {February}, pages = {235{\textendash}255}, abstract = {This article introduces a new estimator for the analysis of two contemporaneously correlated endogenous event count variables. This seemingly unrelated Poisson regression model (SUPREME) estimator combines the efficiencies created by single equation Poisson regression model estimators and insights from "seemingly unrelated" linear regression models.}, author = {Gary King} } @article {King89d, title = {Variance Specification in Event Count Models: From Restrictive Assumptions to a Generalized Estimator}, journal = {American Journal of Political Science}, volume = {33}, year = {1989}, month = {August}, pages = {762{\textendash}784}, abstract = {This paper discusses the problem of variance specification in models for event count data. Event counts are dependent variables that can take on only nonnegative integer values, such as the number of wars or coups d{\textquoteright}etat in a year. I discuss several generalizations of the Poisson regression model, presented in King (1988), to allow for substantively interesting stochastic processes that do not fit into the Poisson framework. Individual models that cope with, and help analyze, heterogeneity, contagion, and negative contagion are each shown to lead to specific statistical models for event count data. In addition, I derive a new generalized event count (GEC) model that enables researchers to extract significant amounts of new information from existing data by estimating features of these unobserved substantive processes. Applications of this model to congressional challenges of presidential vetoes and superpower conflict demonstrate the dramatic advantages of this approach.}, author = {Gary King} }