The Strategy of Rhetoric William H' Riker - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 27
About This Presentation
Title:

The Strategy of Rhetoric William H' Riker

Description:

An argument, h(xj) links xj to di in minds of voters ... Distribution of voters' preferences could favour one side over the other ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:45
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 28
Provided by: KAM152
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The Strategy of Rhetoric William H' Riker


1
The Strategy of RhetoricWilliam H. Riker
  • Summary
  • Negative rhetoric capitalize on voters
    systematic biases
  • Risk aversion
  • Inflation of subjective probabilities of rare
    events
  • Selective attention and ignorance

2
Interactive Debate
  • As in debates or courts, opponent can counter
    arguments
  • Still, campaigns are not debates or court cases
  • No arbiter to decide whats germane
  • No debate judges to score arguments
    effectiveness
  • What do rhetors decide to argue about?
  • How do rhetors decide what works and what does
    not?

3
Rikers Model
  • Campaigns make arguments supporting a position
  • FEDERALIST POSITION
  • Failing to adopt the Constitution will lead to
    another war
  • ANTI-FEDERALIST POSITION
  • The Constitution will create a costly and
    tyrannical federal government
  • Voters accept some of these arguments, reject
    others

4
Rikers Model
  • Campaign over a binary outcome e.g., yes no
  • Advocates take positions, xj, related to outcome
  • Each position, xj, has a set of dimensions, di
  • e.g., a party advertising its ideal points on,
    e.g., defence,
  • Size of force
  • Terms of Service Conscription vs. Volunteer
  • Relative size of defence budget

5
Rikers Model
  • An argument, ?h(xj) links xj to di in minds of
    voters
  • e.g., a standing, professional army is a threat
    to liberty
  • , a professional army can be smaller, less
    expensive, and still more effective than a
    conscript army
  • For some set of voters C(d) this d is salient

6
Rikers Model
  • For voter d is salient if
  • there is a best argument in d, i.e., prefers some
    xh(d) to xj(d),
  • Uses this d to decide how to vote
  • Voter could belong to several sets of Ck(d)
  • Voters choice a (complex) function of arguments
    (?s) positions (xs) on salient dimensions (ds)

7
Rikers Model
  • Advocate (rhetor) does not know
  • How voters choice function works, i.e., what
    argument, ?, makes a position, x, more
    influential in voters choice
  • How many voters take d as salient, i.e., size of
    C(d)
  • Thus, advocates work by trial-and-error

8
Rikers Model
  • Trial-and-error method has many opportunity costs
  • Time spent on xh cannot be spent on xj
  • Determining which C(d) are biggest
  • Mechanical costs of publicizing xj

9
Rikers Model
  • Costs borne regardless of whether or not advocate
    wins on d
  • Costs are linear (i.e., convincing one voter in
    C(d) does not make it easier/harder to convince
    another voter in C(d))
  • Benefits accrue only when majority of voters in
    C(d) are convinced
  • Benefits exceed costs at some point (else
    rational advocates would avoid d)

10
Costs Benefits of Rhetoric on C(d)
B(Yes)
Costs / Benefits
K(Yes)
50
100
0
Voters in C(d) convinced for Yes
11
Mirror-Image Costs Benefits for Opponents
B(Yes)
Costs / Benefits
B(No)
K(No)
K(Yes)
50
100
0
Voters in C(d) convinced for Yes
100
Voters in C(d) convinced for No
0
12
Break-Even Points for Opposing Advocates
B(Yes)
Costs / Benefits
B(No)
t(YES)
t(NO)
K(No)
K(Yes)
50
100
0
Voters in C(d) convinced for Yes
13
Dispersion Dominance
  • Inferences
  • Dispersion If an advocate does not reach the
    break-even point on d, s/he abandons d
  • Dominance If an advocate attains the break-even
    point on d, s/he reiterates these profitable
    arguments
  • When one side has an advantage on an issue, the
    other side ignores it but when neither side has
    an advantage, both seek new and advantageous
    issues.

14
Dispersion Dominance
  • Additional Considerations
  • One side might have lower marginal costs (e.g., a
    reputation that provides credibility)
  • Distribution of voters preferences could favour
    one side over the other

15
Testing Dispersion Dominance
  • Riker offers two sorts of evidence for dispersion
    dominance
  • Statistical examination of the distribution of
    arguments in different campaign periods
  • Qualitative assessment of specific arguments

16
Testing Dispersion Dominance
  • Key statistical problem what is the baseline
    from which we measure dispersion or dominance?
  • A 11 ratio of words implies a standoff... Which
    should not persist
  • But recall basic outline volume of each campaign

17
Anti-Federalist Themes
18
Federalist Themes
19
Testing Dispersion Dominance
  • If campaigns just randomly spouted arguments, one
    might expect a federalist / anti-federalist ratio
    of
  • 3,204,819 / 1,742,434 1.84

20
Testing Dispersion Dominance
  • But this baseline ratio changes over campaign
  • Riker divides campaign into 3 periods

21
Testing Dispersion Dominance
  • Five issues on governmental structure
  • Separation of powers
  • Power of the President
  • Senate too powerful
  • Unicameral vs Bicameral legislature
  • Structure, size, selection of Congress

22
Testing Dispersion Dominance
23
Testing Dispersion Dominance
  • Anti-federalists did not abandon all issues
  • On how a national judiciary might affect
    liberty they dominated

24
Qualitative Evidence
  • Washingtons endorsement
  • the greatest interest of every true American
    was the consolidation of our Union, in which is
    involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, and
    perhaps our national existence.

25
Qualitative Evidence
  • Federalists immediately use Washingtons
    endorsement in their speeches and writings
  • It the Constitution is ushered to us under
    the respectable and illustrious signature of
    GEORGE WASHINGTON.To suppose that any act of
    his, could injure a people whose freedom he has
    already established, would be a piece of base
    ingratitude, that no honest American can possibly
    be guilty of.

26
Qualitative Evidence
  • Anti-federalists try to fight back
  • The wisest and best men may err, and their
    errors, if adopted, may be fatal to the
    community. (Cato I)
  • The counter-arguments are not popular
  • Washington writes an unequivocal letter of
    support in Dec. 1787
  • Federalists reprint this 51 times
    anti-federalists ignore it

27
Research Essay 3 Testing Rikers Theories
  • The battle over Confederation in Nova Scotia was
    fought in the media as much as in the legislative
    assembly. Howe began the public campaign against
    Confederation by publishing a series of
    editorials, the "Botheration Letters", in the
    Morning Chronicle (owned by his friend Annand).
    McCully and Tupper responded using the Unionist
    and Halifax Journal as their mouthpiece.
  • Use the selected editorials from the Morning
    Chronicle and the Unionist to test Riker's
    theories about rhetorical interaction in
    political campaigns.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com