Heresthetics in ballot proposition arguments
An investigation of California citizen initiative rhetoric
Political actors typically use language with the goal of persuading an audience. But what shapes the use of language in political settings? Is it differences between ideologues — liberals and conservatives — that change language use? Or is it support or opposition to the issue? Using techniques adapted from cognitive psychology we examine arguments used in ballot proposition elections and show them to exhibit systematic patterns in line with the theoretical arguments of Riker (1996). The actor’s choice of issue position — for or against — can be seen to imply that the arguments they advance in support of their position are constrained. More specifically, we show that arguments in support of propositions are consistently similar to each other and consistently dissimilar from arguments against a proposal in language use. These patterns of similarity and dissimilarity persist across a wide range of issues and actors. Identification of these patterns helps explain a persistent empirical regularity within ballot proposition politics: the advantage held by “NO” campaigns.
Keywords: decision-making, high-dimensional text analysis, ballot initiatives, political rhetoric
Published online: 22 March 2012
Cited by 5 other publications
Keller, Sarah, A.J. Otjen, Mary McNally, Timothy J. Wilkinson, Brenda Dockery, Jennifer Leonard & Hayley Southworth
Li, Ping, Benjamin Schloss & D. Jake Follmer
Murphy, Chad & Chris Westbury
Sloman, Sabina J., Daniel M. Oppenheimer, Simon DeDeo & Thomas Holtgraves
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 january 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan
Burgess, Curt, and Patrick Conley
Burgess, Curt, and Kevin Lund
Cobb, Michael and James Kuklinski
Edwards, Adrian, Glyn Elwyn, Judith Covey, Elaine Matthews, and Roisin Pill
Gerber, Elisabeth R.
Hart, Roderick P.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler
Lupia, Arthur, and John G. Matsusaka
Magleby, David G.
Monroe, Burt L., Steven P. Abney, Michael P. Colaresi, Kevin M. Quinn, and Dragomir Radev
Monroe, Burt L., and Ko Maeda
Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A.
Nicholson Stephen P.
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H.
Proksch Sven-Oliver and Jonathan B. Slapin
2007 WORDFISH: Scaling Software for Estimating Political Positions from Texts. Version 1.0. 12 June 2007. http://www.wordfish.org.
Quinn, Kevin M., Burt L. Monroe, Michael Colaresi, Michael H. Crespin and Dragomir R. Radev
2006 An Automated Method of Topic-Coding Legislative Speech Over Time with Application to the 105th-108th U.S. Senate http://tangra.si.umich.edu/~radev/papers/ mpsa06.pdf
Rook, Karen S.