Does Mode Matter For Modeling Political Choice? Evidence From the 2005 British Election Study

Harold D. Clarke and Marianne C. Stewart School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75083 e-mail: hclarke{at}utdallas.edu e-mail: mstewart{at}utdallas.edu Paul Whiteley Department of Government, University of Essex, Colchester, England CO4 3SQ e-mail: whiteley{at}essex.ac.uk e-mail: sanders{at}essex.ac.uk (Corresponding author) Although political scientists have begun to investigate theproperties of Internet surveys, much remains to be learned aboutthe utility of the Internet mode for conducting major surveyresearch projects such as national election studies. This paperaddresses this topic by presenting the results of an extensivesurvey comparison experiment conducted as part of the 2005 BritishElection Study. Analyses show statistically significant, butgenerally small, differences in distributions of key explanatoryvariables in models of turnout and party choice. Estimatingmodel parameters reveals that there are few statistically significantdifferences between coefficients generated using the in-personand Internet data, and the relative explanatory power of rivalmodels is virtually identical for the two types of data. Ingeneral, the in-person and Internet data tell very similar storiesabout what matters for turnout and party preference in Britain.Determining if similar findings obtain in other countries shouldhave high priority on the research agenda for national electionstudies. Authors' note: We thank the U.K. Economics and Social ResearchCouncil (ESRC) and Gary Williams, Senior Science Manager atthe ESRC, for their generous support of, and interest in, thisproject. We also thank the editor and anonymous reviewers forhelpful comments and suggestions.     

Health care joint ventures between tax-exempt organizations and for-profit entities

Health care exempt organizations have many options regarding their structure and affiliations with for-profit entities. As long as any joint ventures are carefully structured and the nonprofit retains control over the exempt health care activities, the Internal Revenue Service should not question the structure. However, as outlined above, if the for-profit entity effectively gains control over the activities of the venture, the structure is not likely to be upheld by the IRS or the courts, and either the exempt status of the nonprofit will be denied or revoked, or health care income will be subject to the unrelated business income tax. In summary, the health care industry has been severely impacted by many economic forces, including uncertainty in the area of joint ventures between nonprofits and for-profit health care systems. The uncertainty as to whether the joint venture would negatively impact the nonprofit's tax-exempt status undoubtedly caused many nonprofits to form for-profit subsidiaries and otherwise expanded operations in a for-profit marketplace. Fortunately, with the guidance that is currently available in the form of Revenue Ruling 98-15, Redlands, St. David's, and now Revenue Ruling 2004-51, health care institutions can move forward with properly structured joint ventures with greater confidence that the joint venture will not endanger the tax-exempt status of the nonprofit.     

Much Ado About Very Little: Reply to Herron

Mitchell S. Sanders Department of Political Science, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46556 e-mail: msander1{at}nd.edu While Herron (2004, Political Analysis 12:182–190) iscorrect that sensitivity to changes in underlying scale andhow they affect estimates and inferences is generally important,our assumption in Rothenberg and Sanders (2000, American Journalof Political Science 44:310–319) that W-NOMINATE scalescan be directly compared from one Congress to another to studylegislative shirking is quite defensible because scale variabilityis not a substantial problem. Not only are the assumptions inour original analysis regarding variability very reasonable,because any variability is quite small, but effects on consistencyare marginal and, to the degree that they are relevant, indicatethat our test of the shirking hypothesis is conservative. Furthermore,even generous estimates of variability in W-NOMINATE betweenone immediate Congress and another have little impact on results.In addition, Herron's analysis includes an unaddressed censoringproblem that again, while unlikely to have much substantiverelevance, indicates that Rothenberg and Sanders have workedagainst themselves in trying to find shirking. In conclusion,the issues that Herron highlights are of marginal consequencefor the original analysis and, to the extent they matter, onlybuttress the findings generated and the inferences drawn.