Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Vol. 26 No. 115 (2022)
Comunicación pospandemia

Monographic

A theoretical and practical matrix to address the electoral debate in cyberdemocracy

https://doi.org/10.26807/rp.v26i115.1975

Published 2023-02-25

  • Gonzalo Sarasqueta

Gonzalo Sarasqueta
Instituto de Ciencias Políticas y sociales (ICPS) de la Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona/ Universidad Católica Argentina (UCA)

Abstract

This article investigates the characteristics of the electoral debate today. First, the features of the cyberdemocracy paradigm are analyzed: prosumer role, cognitive dissonance, discursive economy, cognitive economy, attention economy, hypervisual culture and narrative imperative. Next, it explores how these transformations impact the physiognomy and dynamics of the electoral debate, constituting three key phases in it: pitch (before), performance (during) and spin (after). Finally, some conclusions and a series of questions are added for future research.

Keywords

Electoral debate, cyberdemocracy, teledemocracy, social media

PDF (Español (España)) Ver en línea (Español (España))

References

  1. Abramowitz, A. I. (1978). The impact of a presidential debate on voter rationality. American Journal of Political Science, 22, 680-690.
  2. Barry, A.M. (1997). Visual intelligence: Perception, image, and manipulation in visual communication. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
  3. Barry, A.M. (2005). Perception theory. En K. Smith, S. Moriarty, G. Barbatsis, & K. Kenney (Eds.), Handbook of visual communication, pp. 45-62. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  4. Benoit, W. (2014). Political election debates: Informing voters about policy and character. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
  5. Benoit, W., Hanson, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335–350. doi:10.1080/
  6. Castells, M. (2011). Poder y comunicación. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI editores.
  7. Coleman, S. (2000). Meaningful political debate in the age of the soundbite. In S. Coleman (Ed.), Televised election debates: International perspectives (pp. 1–24). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.
  8. Cho, J. y Ha, Y. (2012). On the Communicative Underpinnings of Campaign Effects: Presidential Debates, Citizen Communication, and Polarization in Evaluations of Candidates. Political Communication., 29(2), 184–204. https://doi.org/info:doi/
  9. Damasio, A. (1999). The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt.
  10. Data reportal (2022). Digital 2022: global overview report (en línea). https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2022-global-overview-report
  11. Erikson, R., Wleizen, C. (2012). The Timeline of Presidential Elections. How Campaigns Do (and Do Not) Matter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  12. Evans, R. y Hester, M. (2020). Winning political debates. Proven techniques for success. Kindle Edition.
  13. Farkas, X. y Bene, M. (2021). Images, Politicians, and Social Media: Patterns and Effects of Politicians’ Image-Based Political Communication Strategies on Social Media. The International Journal of Press/Politics 2021, vol. 26(1), pp. 119–142, DOI: 10.1177/1940161220959553.
  14. Fiske, S. T., y Taylor, S. E. (1984). (2nd ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
  15. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Boston: Northeastern University Press:
  16. Gottfried, J. A., Hardy, B. W., Holbert, R. L., Winneg, K. M., & Jamieson, K. H. (2017). The changing nature of political debate consumption: social media, multitasking, and knowledge acquisition. Political Communication, 34 (2), 172–199.
  17. Grabe, M. y Bucy, E. (2009). Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections. New York: Oxford University Press.
  18. Gutiérrez-Rubí, A. (2019). Gestionar las emociones políticas. Barcelona: Gedisa.
  19. Haidt, J. (2019). La mente de los justos. Barcelona: Deusto.
  20. Jamieson, K., Birdsell, D. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  21. Jennings, F. J., Greenwood, M. M., & McKinney, M. S. (2018). I’m with her: The impact of gender identification on assessments of Hillary Rodham Clinton & Donald J. Trump’s presidential debate performance. In R. E. Denton (Ed.).
  22. Jenkins, H. (2003). Transmedia storytelling: Moving characters from books to films to video games can make them stronger and more compelling. MIT Technology Review. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/401760/transmedia-storytelling/
  23. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
  24. Kernell, S. (2006). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership. New York: CQ Press.
  25. Kenski, K., y Stroud, N. J. (2005). Who watches presidential debates? A comparative analysis of presidential debate viewing in 2000 and 2004. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 213–228.
  26. Kraus, S. (2000). Televised Presidential Debates and Public Policy. New York: Routledge.
  27. Lanoue, D. 1991. The ‘Turning Point’: Viewers Reactions to the Second 1988 Presidential Debate. American Politics Quarterly 19:80–95.”
  28. Lilleker, D. (2019). The power of visual political communication: Pictorial politics through the lens of communication psychology. En A. Veneti, D. Jackson, D. Lilleker (Eds.), Visual Political Communication (pp. 37-53). Palgrave Macmillan.
  29. Marien, S., Goovaerts, I., Elstub, S. (2020) Deliberative qualities in televised election debates: the influence of the electoral system and populism, West European
  30. Politics, 43:6, 1262-1284, DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2019.1651139
  31. Miller, A., MacKuen, M. (1979). Learning about the Candidates: The 1976 Presidential Debates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 3: 326–46.
  32. Mutz, D., Reeves, B. (2005). The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust, American Political Science Review, 99:1, 1–15.
  33. Marcus, G. E., Neuman,W. R. y MacKuen, M. (2000). Artificial intelligence and political judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Martin, P. S. (2004). Inside the black box of negative.
  34. Messaris, P. (2019). The digital transformation of visual politics». En Veneti, Anastasia, Jackson, Daniel y Lileker, Darren G. (Eds.). Visual Political Communication, 17-37. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
  35. Patterson, T. E. (2000). Election 2000: How citizens “see” a presidential debate. Boston, MA: Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, Harvard University.
  36. Plutchik, R. (1980). Emotion: A psychoevolutionary synthesis. New York: Harper & Row.
  37. Popkin, S. (1994). The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  38. Ritzer, G. y Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption. The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13-36.
  39. Rose, E. (2011). Continuous partial attention: Reconsidering the role of online learning in the age of interruption. Educational Technology, 50(4), 41-46.
  40. Rulicki, S. (2015). Comunicación no verbal. Cómo la inteligencia emocional se expresa a través de los gestos. Buenos Aires: Granica.
  41. Salmon, C. (2008). “Hemos pasado de la opinión pública a la emoción pública”, entrevista de Renée Kantor. Foreign Policy Edición Española, (27), 64-68.
  42. Sarasqueta, G. (2021). La matriz discursiva TEP: una propuesta teórica y práctica para persuadir en la ciberdemocracia. Revista Ópera, 29 (jun. 2021), 69–87. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18601/16578651.n29.05.
  43. Sears, D., Chaffee, S. (1979). Uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of empirical studies. En S. Kraus (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976 (pp. 223–261). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
  44. Shah, D. V., Hanna, A., Bucy, E. P., Lassen, D. S., Van Thomme, J., Bialik, K., Yang, J., y Pevehouse, J. C. W. (2016). Dual Screening During Presidential Debates: Political Nonverbals and the Volume and Valence of Online Expression. American Behavioral Scientist, 60(14), 1816–1843. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764216676245
  45. Schill, D. (2012). The Visual Image and the Political Image: A Review of Visual Communication Research in the Field of Political Communication». The Review of Communication, vol. 12, n°2, pp. 118-142, DOI: doi.org/10.1080/15358593.2011.653504
  46. Sigelman, L., Sigelman, C. (1984). Judgments of the Carter-Reagan debate: The eyes of the beholders. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 624-628.
  47. Stewart, P. A., Eubanks, A. D., Dye, R. G., Eidelman, S., & Wicks, R. H. (2017). Visual presentation style 2: Influences on perceptions of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton based on visual presentation style during the third 2016 presidential debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 61(5), 545–557.
  48. Sülflow, M., Maurer, M. (2019). The Power of Smiling. How Politicians’ Displays of Happiness Affect Viewers’ Gaze Behavior and Political Judgments. En: Veneti, A., Jackson, D., Lilleker, D. (eds) Visual Political Communication, pp.207-224. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-18729-3_11
  49. Vaccari, C., Chadwick, A. y O'Loughlin, B. (2015). Dual Screening the Political: Media Events, Social Media, and Citizen Engagement. Journal of Communication, 65, 10.1111/jcom.12187.
  50. Van Eemeren, F., Garssen, B., Krabbe, E., Snoeck Henkemans, A., Verheij, B. y Wagemans, J.(2014). Handbook of argumentation theory. Berlin: Springer.
  51. Verón, E. (1987). La palabra adversativa. Observaciones sobre la enunciación política. En E. Verón et al., El discurso político. Lenguajes y acontecimientos (pp. 1-12). Hachette.
  52. Abad, S., & Cantarelli, M. (2012). Habitar el Estado. Pensamiento estatal en tiempos a-estatales. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Hydra.
  53. Aricó, J. (1963a). Pasado y Presente. Pasado y Presente, 1(1), 1-17.
  54. Aricó, J. (1963b). El stalinismo y la responsabilidad de la izquierda. Pasado y Presente, 1(2-3), 195-204
  55. Campos Ríos, M. (2013, octubre 29) Portantiero. Página 12. Re-cuperado de https://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/universi-dad/10-232336-2013-10-29.html
  56. Delupi, B. (2018). Consideraciones del ethos para un análisis del discurso político: el caso Carta Abierta. Revista de Estudios Políticos y Estratégicos, 6(1), 14-30. Recuperado de https://revistaepe.utem.cl/?p=574Elizalde, J. (2009).