As someone who has done a bit of digging into the theoretical and philosophical justifications for NOMINATE let us say that the results are almost guaranteed by the process and don't really tell us things that we don't know. The primary reason for this is that while we may be able to get a two dimensional understanding of individuals and the relation of individuals we can't get a two dimensional understanding of policy.
To think of why the results are almost guaranteed, consider that voting is not a first order result from your preferences. I.E. when congress votes they do not necessarily vote because something is closer to their preferences than not, they vote because doing so is beneficial to them. That is, democrats tend to vote with democrats because even if they are not wholly on board, democrats will be on board with their ideas when its time to implement them. And similarly with Republicans. In fact, similarly with any system of winner take all voting. Taking the same system and analyzing Parliament and splitting the results between opposition and collation party we ought to see the same thing.
That being said, because the results do not take into account this problem when doing the two dimensional ranking it is still a (relatively) accurate predictor of results. Basically what it means is that each congress persons position on the graph depends on everyone else's, and if you moved one person to the left or right the entire spectrum would shift.
But being an accurate predictor of results(supposing that you can define the policy on the two dimensional axis correctly, which is entirely arbitrary and/or requires calibration of the second axis which invalidates the two dimensional construction) doesn't give us information about the candidate and whether we should vote for them in our district because of that last fact.
And similarly it does not give us information about ourselves if we were to be placed on that same scale.
no subject
To think of why the results are almost guaranteed, consider that voting is not a first order result from your preferences. I.E. when congress votes they do not necessarily vote because something is closer to their preferences than not, they vote because doing so is beneficial to them. That is, democrats tend to vote with democrats because even if they are not wholly on board, democrats will be on board with their ideas when its time to implement them. And similarly with Republicans. In fact, similarly with any system of winner take all voting. Taking the same system and analyzing Parliament and splitting the results between opposition and collation party we ought to see the same thing.
That being said, because the results do not take into account this problem when doing the two dimensional ranking it is still a (relatively) accurate predictor of results. Basically what it means is that each congress persons position on the graph depends on everyone else's, and if you moved one person to the left or right the entire spectrum would shift.
But being an accurate predictor of results(supposing that you can define the policy on the two dimensional axis correctly, which is entirely arbitrary and/or requires calibration of the second axis which invalidates the two dimensional construction) doesn't give us information about the candidate and whether we should vote for them in our district because of that last fact.
And similarly it does not give us information about ourselves if we were to be placed on that same scale.