Heresthetic

Riker argues that herestheticians win because they compel or persuade others to join them in voting or political coalitions.[4] Heresthetic focuses both on the use of rhetoric and political strategy. Riker argues that there are three vital components to heresthetic.[1]

1. Agenda control: political agents may structure debate in ways that highlight favorable or eliminate undesirable policy alternatives.[5] Depending upon the order that policy options are discussed, debate can produce different outcomes, including outcomes that are not preferred by the heresthetician.[5] The order of choice matters.[6] Riker's concept of agenda control differs from conventional accounts of agenda-setting involving policy-makers, which focus on how policy-makers’ agendas are influenced by exogenous factors, such as the media and public opinion.[7] Riker's focus is on how policy-makers affect the ordering of items on the political agenda, and how that ordering can be manipulated.[8]
2. Strategic voting: in deliberative settings herestheticians can take advantage of voting procedures to influence outcomes.[9] For example, agents may vote against their own interest in the short-term to secure a better long-term position. Another element of strategic voting is vote trading.[10] Policy-makers may informally trade votes with others in exchange for future votes or benefits.[11] Strategic voting is common in legislative settings because of open rules and sequential voting procedures.
3. Dimension manipulation: herestheticians can manipulate the dimensionality of political decision-making by introducing new dimensions or modifying existing framing.[12][13] Dimension manipulation can either expand a decision-making space by reconfiguring acceptable topics of debate and policy alternatives, or shrink dimensions by eliminating certain topics or alternatives.[14] The manipulation of dimensions is important because once an agent manipulates framing, it cannot be removed from debate.[15]

These components allow herestheticians to manipulate political outcomes by structuring debate, rhetorically or structurally, to be more advantageous to their preferred position.[1]

The British Parliament is scheduling upcoming referendum votes to determine Scottish independence from the United Kingdom and if the UK should remain a member of the European Union. A member of parliament who has influence on how the votes will be structured, has a preference that Scotland will remain in union with the UK and that the UK will leave the EU. Scottish independence and the UK remaining a member of the EU is an undesirable outcome for the MP. While polling indicates that a majority of Scottish voters do not support independence, voters are more likely to support independence if the UK leaves the EU.[16] In order to receive his preferred outcome, the MP seeks for the referendum votes to be held in a sequence in which Scottish independence is determined first, and then UK withdrawal from the EU. This voting sequence demonstrates how herestheticians can manipulate the decision-making process so they can win.

• Agenda-setting theory
• Choice modelling
• Opportunism
• Political economy
• Tactical voting
• Voting systems