"Politimetrics" (Gurr 1972), "polimetrics" (Alker 1975), "politometrics" (Hilton 1976), "political arithmetic" (Petty [1672] 1971), "quantitative Political Science (QPS)," "governmetrics," "posopolitics" (Papayanopoulos 1973), "political science statistics (Rai and Blydenburgh 1973), "political statistics" (Rice 1926). These are some of the names that scholars have used to describe the field we now call "political methodology." The history of political methodology has been quite fragmented until recently, as reflected by this patchwork of names. The field has begun to coalesce during the past decade; we are developing persistent organizations, a growing body of scholarly literature, and an emerging consensus about important problems that need to be solved.

I make one main point in this article: If political methodology is to play an important role in the future of political science, scholars will need to find ways of representing more interesting political contexts in quantitative analyses. This does not mean that scholars should just build more and more complicated statistical models. Instead, we need to represent more of the essence of political phenomena in our models. The advantage of formal and quantitative approaches is that they are abstract representations of the political world and are, thus, much clearer. We need methods that enable us to abstract the right parts of the phenomenon we are studying and exclude everything superfluous

Despite the fragmented history of quantitative political analysis, a version of this goal has been voiced frequently by both quantitative researchers and their critics (Sec. 2). However, while recognizing this shortcoming, earlier scholars were not in the position to rectify it, lacking the mathematical and statistical tools and, early on, the data. Since political methodologists have made great progress in these and other areas in recent years, I argue that we are now capable of realizing this goal. In section 3, I suggest specific approaches to this problem. Finally, in section 4, I provide two modern examples, ecological inference and models of spatial autocorrelation, to illustrate these points.

Also see related research

By downloading these Materials, I agree to the following:

1. I will not use the Materials to
   1. obtain information that could directly or indirectly identify subjects.
   2. produce links among the Distributor's datasets or among the Distributor's data and other datasets that could identify individuals or organizations.
   3. obtain information about, or further contact with, subjects known to me except where the use and/or release of such identifying information has no potential for constituting an unwarranted invasion of privacy and/or breach of confidentiality.
2. I agree not to download any Materials where prohibited by applicable law.
3. I agree not to use the Materials in any way prohibited by applicable law.
4. I agree that any books, articles, conference papers, theses, dissertations, reports, or other publications that I create which employ data reference the bibliographic citation accompanying this data. These citations include the data authors, data identifier, and other information accord with the Recommended Standard (http://thedata.org/citation/standard) for social science data.
5. THE DISTRIBUTOR MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY OPERATION OF LAW OR OTHERWISE, REGARDING OR RELATING TO THE DATASET

BY CLICKING THE "I AGREE" CHECKBOX BELOW, I CONFIRM THAT I HAVE READ AND UNDERSTOOD EACH AND EVERY TERM SET FORTH IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR THE USE OF DATA FOUND ABOVE, AND I AGREE TO BE BOUND BY ALL OF SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

IF I DO NOT UNDERSTAND OR AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, I MUST NOT DOWNLOAD THE MATERIALS.