Abstract
In the standard account of ambiguous political rhetoric, ambiguity is equated with voter uncertainty: a politician takes an ambiguous stance on an issue by announcing to the voters a lottery over the positions he might take on that issue. The present account equates ambiguity with multiple meanings: a politician takes an ambiguous stance on an issue if his rhetoric admits of different meanings in different contexts. The linguistic account of ambiguity is based upon the formal logical concept of a piecewise definition. Piecewise defined terms provide the politician with the means of uttering statements each of which has seperate meanings for different voters.
This paper formalizes the multiple-meaning account of ambiguity and traces the implications of the formalization for political strategy. The findings are: ambiguous rhetoric is often optimal; the conditions under which it is optimal are simple; and the selection of optimal ambiguous rhetoric is rarely simple.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Bibliography
Brams, Steven J., Paradoxes in Politics, Free Press, New York, 1976.
Dacey, R., Simmons, R., Curry, D., and Kennelly, J. ‘A Cognitivist Solution to Newcomb's Problem’, American Philosophical Quarterly 14 (1977), 79–84.
Downs, Anthony, An Economic Theory of Democracy, Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., New York, New York, 1957.
Gibbard, Allan, ‘Manipulation of Schemes That Mix Voting With Chance’, Econometrica 45 (1977), 665–681.
Goguen, J. A., ‘The Logic of Inexact Concepts’, Synthese 19 (1969), 352–373.
Harsanyi, John C., ‘Nonlinear Social Welfare Functions’, Theory and Decision 6 (1975), 311–332.
Hempel, C. G., ‘Inductive Inconsistencies’, Synthese 12 (1960), 439–469.
Hempel, C. G., ‘Deductive-Nomological vs. Statistical Explanation’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III (ed. by H. Feigl and G. Maxwell), University of Minnesota Press, 1962, pp. 98–169.
Hilpinen, R., Rules of Acceptance and Inductive Logic, (Fasc. 22 in Acta Philosophica Fennica), North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1968.
Hintikka, J., ‘The Varieties of Information and Scientific Explanation’, Logic Methodology, and Philosophy of Science (ed. by van Rootselaar and Stall), North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1968, pp. 151–171.
Hintikka, J. and Pietarinen, J., ‘Semantic Information and Inductive Logic’, Aspects of Inductive Logic, (ed. by J. Hintikka and P. Suppes), North-Holland Publishing Company, Amsterdam, 1966, pp. 96–112.
Kyburg, Henry The Logical Foundations of Statistical Inference, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1974.
Levi, I., Gambling with Truth, Knopf and Company, New York, New York, 1967.
Michalos, Alex. ‘Cost-Benefit Versus Expected Utility Acceptance Rules’, in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (ed. by R. C. Buck and R. S. Cohen), D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1971, pp. 375–402.
Mosteller, Frederick, ‘Swine Flu: Quantifying the “Possibility”’, Science 192 (1976), 1286–1288.
Niiniluoto, I. and Tuomela, R., Theoretical Concepts and Hypothetico-Inductive Inference, D. Reidel Publ. Co., Dordrecht, Holland, 1973.
Shepsle, Kenneth A., ‘A Note on Zeckhauser's “Majority Rule with Lotteries on Alternatives”: The Case of the Paradox of Voting’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 84 (1970), 705–709.
Shepsle, Kenneth A., ‘The Paradox of Voting’, in Probability Models of Collective Decision Making (ed. by R. G. Niemi and H. F. Weisberg), Charles E. Merrill Publ. Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1972, pp. 252–270. (Referred to as 1972a)
Shepsle, Kenneth A., ‘Parties, Voters and the Risk Environment: A Mathematical Treatment of Electoral Competition Under Uncertainty’, in Probability Models o f Collective Decision Making (ed. by R. G. Niemi and H. F. Weisberg), Charles E. Merrill Publ. Co., Columbus, Ohio, 1972, pp. 273–297. (Referred to as 1972b)
Tullock, Gordon, Toward a Mathematics of Politics, The University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1967.
Tuomela, R., Theoretical Concepts, Springer-Verlag, New York, New York, 1973.
Zadeh, L. A., ‘Fuzzy Sets’, Information and Control 8 (1965), 388–353.
Zeckhauser, Richard, ‘Majority Rule With Lotteries On Alternatives’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 83 (1969), 686–703.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dacey, R. The role of ambiguity in manipulating voter behavior. Theor Decis 10, 265–279 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126342
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00126342