Article published in:
Journal of Language and Politics
Vol. 11:1 (2012) ► pp. 135–156

Heresthetics in ballot proposition arguments

An investigation of California citizen initiative rhetoric

| University of Mary Washington
| University of Mary Washington
| University of California, Riverside
| University of California, Riverside
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
https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.11.1.07mur
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Bowler, Shaun
2015. Information availability and information use in ballot proposition contests: Are voters over-burdened?. Electoral Studies 38 ► pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo
Li, Ping, Benjamin Schloss & D. Jake Follmer
2017. Speaking two “Languages” in America: A semantic space analysis of how presidential candidates and their supporters represent abstract political concepts differently. Behavior Research Methods 49:5 ► pp. 1668 ff. Crossref logo
Murphy, Chad & Chris Westbury
2013. Expanding the Scope of Selective Exposure: An Objective Approach to Measurement of Media Ideology. Communication Methods and Measures 7:3-4 ► pp. 224 ff. Crossref logo
Sloman, Sabina J., Daniel M. Oppenheimer, Simon DeDeo & Thomas Holtgraves
2021. Can we detect conditioned variation in political speech? two kinds of discussion and types of conversation. PLOS ONE 16:2 ► pp. e0246689 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2021. 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.

References

References

Bowler, Shaun, and Todd Donovan
2002 Do voters have a cue? Television advertisements as a source of information in citizen-initiated referendum campaigns. European Journal of Political Research. 41:777—793. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, Curt
1998 From Simple Associations to the Building Blocks of Language: Modeling Meaning in Memory with the HAL Model. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 30: 188—198. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Burgess, Curt, and Patrick Conley
1998 Representing Proper Names and Objects in a Common Semantic Space: A Computational Model. Brain and Cognition. 40:67—70.Google Scholar
Burgess, Curt, and Kevin Lund
2000 The Dynamics of Meaning in Memory. In Eric Dietrich and Arthur B. Markman, eds. Cognitive Dynamics: Conceptual and Representational Change in Humans and Machines. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
British Broadcasting Corporation
1980 Yes, Minister: The Right to Know, 31 March 1980.Google Scholar
Cobb, Michael and James Kuklinski
1997 Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. American Journal of Political Science. 41,1:88—121 CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Adrian, Glyn Elwyn, Judith Covey, Elaine Matthews, and Roisin Pill
2001 Presenting Risk Information — A Review of the Effects of ‘Framing’ and Other Manipulations on Patient Outcomes. Journal of Health Communication 6:61—82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R.
1999 The Populist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, Roderick P.
2000 Campaign Talk: Why Elections Are Good for Us. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jerit, Jennifer
2008 Issue Framing and Engagement: Rhetorical Strategy in Public Policy Debates. Political Behavior 30, 1—24. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack L. Knetsch, and Richard H. Thaler
1990 Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98:1325—1348. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
2002 Moral Politics; How Liberals and Conservatives Think Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004 Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. New York: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
Luntz, Frank
2007 Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear. New York: Hyperion.Google Scholar
Lupia, Arthur
1994 Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections. American Political Science Review. 88:63—76. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and John G. Matsusaka
2004 Direct Democracy: New Approaches to Old Questions. Annual Review of Political Science. 7:463—82. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Magleby, David G.
1984 Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Matsusaka John G.
2005 Direct Democracy Works. Journal of Economic Perspectives. 19:185—206. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Burt L., Steven P. Abney, Michael P. Colaresi, Kevin M. Quinn, and Dragomir Radev
2005 The Dynamics of Political Rhetoric and Political Representation. Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Monroe, Burt L., and Ko Maeda
2004 Rhetorical Ideal Point Estimation: Mapping Legislative Speech. Society for Political Methodology, Stanford University, Palo Alto.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A.
1997 Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19: 221—246. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nicholson Stephen P.
2005 Voting the Agenda: Candidates, Elections, and Ballot Propositions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nunberg, Geoffrey
2006 Talking Right. New York: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles E.
1976 Focus on Meaning: Explorations in Semantic Space. Mouton Publishers,Google Scholar
Osgood, C.E., Suci, G.J., and Tannenbaum, P.H.
1957 The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
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
Riker, William
1986 The Art of Political Manipulation. New Haven: Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
1996 The Strategy of Rhetoric. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Rook, Karen S.
1986 Encouraging Preventive Behavior for Distant and Proximal Health Threats: Effects of Vivid versus Abstract Information. Journal of Gerontology 41:526—534. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stratmann, Thomas
2006 Is Spending More Potent For or Against a Proposition? Evidence from Ballot Measures. American Journal of Political Science. 50:788—801. CrossrefGoogle Scholar