The Logic of Campaigning
We consider a political candidate campaigning to be elected. Her chances of being elected will depend on how various groups of voters perceive her, and how they perceive her will depend on what she has said. Different groups of voters may have different preferences and a statement preferred by one group of voters may be disliked by another. Moreover, voters may be optimistic (willing to think the best of the candidate), pessimistic (inclined to expect the worse), or expected value voters, who average over various possibilities which may come about if she is elected. Given these considerations, what should she say? We formalize this problem in propositional logic with certain utility values, and certain intensities of preference for various groups of voters, and show that if the voters are expected value voters, then she is best off being as explicit as possible. Thus a reluctance to be explicit may come about as a result of the presence of optimistic voters.
KeywordsTruth Assignment Cheap Talk Approval Vote Ideal World Gasoline Station
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Austin.Austin, J.L.: How to Do Things with Words, Oxford (1962)Google Scholar
- BJR.Benz, A., Jäger, G., Van Rooij, R. (eds.): Game Theory and Pragmatics. Palgrave Studies in Pragmatics, Language and Cognition. Macmillan, Palgrave (2005)Google Scholar
- DEL.van Ditmarsch, H., van der Hoek, W., Kooi, B.: Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Springer’s Synthese Library Series (2008)Google Scholar
- Grice.Grice, P.: Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
- Pa’99.Parikh, R.: Belief revision and language splitting. In: Moss, Ginzburg, de Rijke (eds.) Proc. Logic, Language and Computation, CSLI 1999, pp. 266–278 (1999); Earlier version appeared in 1996 in the prliminary proceedingsGoogle Scholar
- [Pa’09]Parikh, R.: Beth definability, Interpolation and Language Splitting. To appear in the Proceedings of the Beth Symposium, Amsterdam (2009)Google Scholar
- PR’03.Parikh, R., Ramanujam, R.: A Knowledge based Semantics of Messages. J. Logic, Language and Information 12 (2003)Google Scholar