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.

中文翻译：

---

公共审议中情感内容的多样性和影响

公民倡议审查 (CIR) 是一个审议过程，在美国已被用于让公民小组参与对提议的投票措施及其潜在影响进行平衡且易于理解的说明。本文的目的是展示 CIR 过程是如何通过评估框架形成的，其中理性成分无法与分配责任的情感基础明确分离。我们分析了 2010 年 CIR 期间关于 Measure 73 的倡导者演讲的辩论动态，并讨论了情感主张作为定义问题情况的叙事结构的产物。我们探讨了如何借助以下三类分析来区分公共审议背景下的操纵性和有效的情感诉求：主题、理想和情景。