Varieties and effects of emotional content in public deliberation A comparative analysis of advocate arguments at a citizens' initiative review

The Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR) is a deliberative process that has been used in the United States to involve panels of citizens in producing balanced and easily understandable accounts of proposed ballot measures and their potential effects. The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how the CIR process is shaped by evaluative framing in which the rational component cannot be clearly separated from the emotive base of assigning responsibility. We analyze the argumentative dynamic of advocates' presentations during the 2010 CIR on Measure 73 and discuss emotional claims as products of narrative structures that define problem situations. We explore how the distinction between manipulative and valid emotional claims within the context of public deliberation can be made with the help of three categories of analysis: Themes, Ideals, and Scenarios.