I view polarization as the unifying theme between my study of political behavior and political institutions. The ideological extremity of the major political parties at the mass level determines the politicians we observe at the elite level. In turn, these politicians create more or less ideologically extreme laws, bounded by the desires of their constituents and the goals of their parties. These lawmaking strategies and resulting policy subsequently affect how likely individuals are to approve of elite institutions and the lawmakers who embody them. I pair this substantive interest with a broad one in political methodology.
Below are texts of virtually all of my publications (except books). You will also find data and replication material for any publication for which I am the first author. If you're interested in data and replication material for other publications, please contact my co-authors!
Jordan, Soren and Andrew Q. Philips. 2020. ``Exploring Meaningful Visual Effects and Quantities of Interest from Dynamic Models through Dynamac.'' The Journal of Open Source Software 5 (54): 1-4. DOI: 10.21105/joss.02528.
We implement new visualizations of quantities of interest from ARDL models, including visualizations that approximate traditional calculated quantities of interest (like long-run multipliers).
Jordan, Soren. 2020. ``From Ferromagnets to Electoral Instability.'' Nature Physics 16 (2): 125-126. DOI: 10.1038/s41567-019-0761-8.
I comment on recent physics research linking electoral stability to natural phenomena like the Ising model.
Jordan, Soren. 2019. ``Leadership PAC Donations and Party Status: A Technical and Theoretical Extension.'' Research & Politics 6 (4): 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/2053168019889558.
I replicate Aldrich, Ballard, Lerner, and Rohde (2017), expanding the role of incumbency in LPAC donations and introduction a zero-inflated model to account for the modal $0 contribution.
Jordan, Soren and Andrew Q. Philips. 2018. ``Dynamic Simulation and Testing for Single-Equation Cointegrating and Stationary Autoregressive Distributed Lag Models.'' The R Journal 10 (2): 469-488. DOI: 10.32614/RJ-2018-076.
We introduce dynamac for R, a suite of commands designed to assist users in modeling and and visualizing the effects of ARDL models (through dynardl) and implement the bounds test for cointegration (through pssbounds). Please feel free to email me directly with bugs. Please see the Computing page for more information.
Jordan, Soren and Andrew Q. Philips. 2018. ``Cointegration Testing and Dynamic Simulations of Autoregressive Distributed Lag Models.'' The Stata Journal 18 (4): 902-923.
We introduce dynamac for Stata, a suite of commands designed to assist users in modeling and and visualizing the effects of ARDL models (through dynardl) and implement the bounds test for cointegration (through pssbounds).
Conway, Nicholas D., Soren Jordan, and Joseph Daniel Ura. 2018. ``Courts and Issue Attention in Canada.'' Social Science Quarterly 99 (4): 1324-1348. DOI: 10.1111/ssqu.12496.
We pair data collected from Canadian newspapers with Markov-switching dynamic regression (MSDR) models to evaluate whether courts can help set the national policy agenda. (Presented at the The New World of Comparative Political Communication Conference in 2016.)
Wood, B. Dan and Soren Jordan. 2018. ``The Polarizers: Postwar Architects of Our Partisan Era. By Sam Rosenfeld. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017. 336p. $30.00 cloth.'' Perspectives on Politics 16 (3): 798-800. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592718001974.
We review Sam Rosenfeld's book on the micro-level processes in elite polarization.
Wood, B. Dan and Soren Jordan. 2018. ``Response to Sam Rosenfeld's review of Party Polarization in America: The War Over Two Social Contracts.'' Perspectives on Politics 16 (3): 798. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592718001962.
We respond to Sam Rosenfeld's review of our recent book.
Wood, B. Dan and Soren Jordan. 2018. ``Presidents and Polarization of the American Electorate.'' Presidential Studies Quarterly 48 (2): 248-270. DOI: 10.1111/psq.12444.
We present new measures of electoral polarization. We then evaluate the effect of presidents on polarization, both generally and within the individual parties, using Box-Tiao multiple impact assessments. We find presidents are central to polarization. (Presented at APSA in 2015.)
Jordan, Soren. 2018. ``Opting Out of Congress: Partisan Polarization and the Decline of Moderate Candidates. By Danielle M. Thomsen. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017. 202p. $99.99 cloth.'' Perspectives on Politics 16 (1): 230-232. DOI: 10.1017/S1537592717003140.
I review Danielle M. Thomsen's book on the lack of ``party fit'' between moderate legislators and their potential parties in Congress.
Wood, B. Dan and Soren Jordan. 2017. Party Polarization in America: The War Over Two Social Contracts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781108164450.
We generate novel empirical data on the nature of ideology in the public, paired with detailed historical accounts of party conflict (largely the work of B. Dan Wood), to illustrate the historical nature of polarization and its fundamental ties to economic policy. (Portions presented at MPSA in 2012 and APSA in 2011 and 2015.)
Jordan, Soren, Kim Quaile Hill, and Patricia A. Hurley. 2017. ``Constituency Representation in Congress: In General and in Periods of Higher and Lower Partisan Polarization.'' In Congress Reconsidered, eds. Lawrence C. Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer. Eleventh edition. Los Angeles: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp. 119-137.
We pair the Partisan Polarization and Issue Complexity theory of representation with the evolving polarization of issues to predict changes in issue representation over time.
Jordan, Soren, and Cynthia J. Bowling. 2016. ``The State of Polarization in the States.'' State and Local Government Review 48(4): 220-226. DOI: 10.1177/0160323X17699527.
We provide an initial investigation of recent advances in data availability on state legislatures to illustrate the progress of elite polarization in the American states.
Jordan, Soren and Grant Ferguson. 2016. ``Extremism in Survey Measures of Ideology.'' Research & Politics 3 (3): DOI: 10.1177/2053168016669743.
We use the 1989 ANES Pilot Study to evaluate the effects caused by anchoring the common ideology question with the word ``very'' versus ``extremely.'' We find that more individuals indicate a strong ideology when asked if they are ``very'' versus ``extremely'' ideological, but these same respondents do not have strong ideological policy preferences. This work has implications for measuring polarization using general ideology. (Presented at SPSA in 2012.)
Jordan, Soren. 2016. ``Politics: Basic Concepts.'' In Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, ed. Ali Farazmand. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_1403-1.
I illustrate basic concepts of politics and political science, intended to be used as first introduction for understanding approaches to the field.
Hill, Kim Quaile, Soren Jordan, and Patricia A. Hurley. 2015. Representation in Congress: A Unified Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781316256626.
We present an axiomatic theory to account for when different models of dyadic representation (delegate, trustee, responsible party, and so on) arise—along with abundant verification tests of the theory. (Portions presented at MPSA in 2013, APSA in 2011, and SPSA in 2011.)
Jordan, Soren, Clayton McLaughlin Webb, and B. Dan Wood. 2014. ``The President, Polarization, and the Party Platforms, 1944-2012.'' The Forum 12 (1): 169-189. DOI: 10.1515/for-2014-0024.
This project uses basic tools of cluster analysis along with qualitative coding of the polarizing words in the party platforms to accomplish two goals: understanding the timeline of elite polarization and the dimensions on which the parties have polarized. (Presented at MPSA in 2013.)