2 Anonymous Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Correct MLA heading ENGL 1190—Amolsch Rhetorical Analysis 9/28/15 Pirating Democracy Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Unique title that hints at the overall topic Democracy is being boarded by pirates and taken back to ancient Greece, and those pirates are using technology to do so. These are not Jack Sparrow type pirates, but rather political parties who are using the age of the internet to create open-source democracy. Open-source democracy is essentially direct democracy that is all run through the convenience of your smartphone; it is voting directly on legislation through the channel of technology. These grassroots populist movements have started a very deliberate revolution that is slowly changing the way democracy operates in the modern world. Cole Edick, an author for the Harvard International Review, serves as an advocate for pirate parties by providing many examples of different pirates around the world, offering up reasons why the parties are not reaching wider audiences, and explaining the implications of a return to direct democracy via the internet. While Edick presents a multitude of facts and thought-provoking assertions, his central argument is rendered impotent by his hazy sense of purpose. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Up to this point, student has introduced general topic/issue in his own words. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Here, the student transitions to introduce the article and author to his readers. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Student summarizes the author’s overall argument. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Student writes a thesis that evaluates the author’s argument. In his article, “The golden age of piracy: can open-source democracy redefine citizenship for the internet age?” Cole Edick asserts that while pirate parties are making enough gains in the international political realm to be noticed, their platforms for organizing are not attractive enough to users. Edick illustrates the different practices of pirates by using the examples of the Pirate Parties in Iceland and Germany, the Net Party in Argentina, and the Podemas Party in Spain. Edick argues that one of the most resounding qualities of the pirate parties is that “pirates boast a unique modal of political organizing and decision-making...” This modal being crowdsourcing, the opening up of issues online for the masses to deliberate on. Edick contrasts the systems of LiquidFeedback in Germany to that of DemocracyOS in Argentina; they are both tools to organize meetings, propose votes, and vote on legislation online. Edick argues that DemocracyOS should be the tool that launches all of open-source democracy into the mainstream because it is more user-friendly. Edick believes this is exactly what open-source democracy needs, an attractive platform like DemocracyOS but with a large and energetic political party. With a platform like DemocracyOS, the world could return to direct democracy by allowing people to express their polit.

1. 2
Anonymous Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Correct MLA
heading
ENGL 1190—Amolsch
Rhetorical Analysis
9/28/15
Pirating Democracy Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Unique title
that hints at the overall topic
Democracy is being boarded by pirates and taken back to
ancient Greece, and those pirates are using technology to do so.
These are not Jack Sparrow type pirates, but rather political
parties who are using the age of the internet to create open-
source democracy. Open-source democracy is essentially direct
democracy that is all run through the convenience of your
smartphone; it is voting directly on legislation through the
channel of technology. These grassroots populist movements
have started a very deliberate revolution that is slowly changing
the way democracy operates in the modern world. Cole Edick,
an author for the Harvard International Review, serves as an
advocate for pirate parties by providing many examples of
different pirates around the world, offering up reasons why the
parties are not reaching wider audiences, and explaining the
implications of a return to direct democracy via the internet.
While Edick presents a multitude of facts and thought-
provoking assertions, his central argument is rendered impotent
by his hazy sense of purpose. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna:
Up to this point, student has introduced general topic/issue in
his own words. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Here, the student
transitions to introduce the article and author to his readers.
Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: Student summarizes the
author’s overall argument. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna:
Student writes a thesis that evaluates the author’s argument.

2. In his article, “The golden age of piracy: can open-source
democracy redefine citizenship for the internet age?” Cole
Edick asserts that while pirate parties are making enough gains
in the international political realm to be noticed, their platforms
for organizing are not attractive enough to users. Edick
illustrates the different practices of pirates by using the
examples of the Pirate Parties in Iceland and Germany, the Net
Party in Argentina, and the Podemas Party in Spain. Edick
argues that one of the most resounding qualities of the pirate
parties is that “pirates boast a unique modal of political
organizing and decision-making...” This modal being
crowdsourcing, the opening up of issues online for the masses
to deliberate on. Edick contrasts the systems of LiquidFeedback
in Germany to that of DemocracyOS in Argentina; they are both
tools to organize meetings, propose votes, and vote on
legislation online. Edick argues that DemocracyOS should be
the tool that launches all of open-source democracy into the
mainstream because it is more user-friendly. Edick believes this
is exactly what open-source democracy needs, an attractive
platform like DemocracyOS but with a large and energetic
political party. With a platform like DemocracyOS, the world
could return to direct democracy by allowing people to express
their political views with no major time consumption to their
daily lives. Edick lastly stresses the dangers of this implication
arguing that “the open-source revolution may end up pirating
not from the establishment, but from the already
disenfranchised,” meaning that those who currently have a
difficult time making their voice heard would continue to be
silenced. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna: This whole paragraph
summarizes the article. Notice how the student uses the author’s
name throughout the paragraph to make it clear that he is
talking about the author’s text/ideas.
Edick crafts an argument that is overflowing with evidence
and research making it highly informative for the reader,
however; the purpose is often lost in the landslide of facts.
Edick is attempting to achieve multiple purposes: inform about

3. pirate parties and the platforms they use to operate, discuss the
implications of an open-source revolution, explain why such a
revolution cannot be stopped, but also argue for why the world
should not want one. This muddled purpose makes the argument
tremendously ineffective, making it challenging for readers to
identify Edick’s claim. However, the most effective part of
Edick’s argument is how he contrasts the platform of
LiquidFeedback with that of DemocracyOS by presenting solid
evidence on both, effectively proving why DemocracyOS is a
necessity in the new direct democracy revolution. Comment by
Amolsch, Rianna [2]: The student makes an assertion about the
argument being made: there is plenty of evidence, but a lack of
purpose.
The strongest facet of Edick’s argument is the approach
that is used to reach the intended audience. The topic of pirate
parties is very broad and has a conversation on the international
stage of politics; by publishing this article in the Harvard
International Review the article has the ability to reach a wide
audience across the world. In stark contrast to Edick reaching
his intended audience, the style and tone of the article make it a
very difficult read. Edick puts the language into easy to
understand terms but often repeats himself in multiple
paragraphs due to a lack of organization of the argument. Edick
quickly jumps between different topics and pirate parties,
leaving him with over-saturated paragraphs that begin to feel
repetitive and often contain irrelevant information that is not
necessary to the claim. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]:
The student continues to evaluate the argument by identifying a
strength in the article.
The most glaring problem with Edick’s article is the
omission of opposition and rebuttal. Edick did not address any
opposition to pirate parties, except for briefly mentioning how
mainstream politics has rejected much of their ideals. This
makes his argument completely one-sided and hallows out his
already convoluted claim. Edick does however deliberate the
problems that he foresees an open-source revolution creating in

4. a very confusing stream of consciousness paragraph filled with
mostly questions. At this point in his argument Edick has lost
the majority of his credibility by omitting the opposition and
having a rebuttal session with only himself. This approach
leaves the reader wanting to seek out more information on the
topic, not because of a sparked interest but rather because it is
undeniable that certain information is simply not there.
Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: Again, the student is
evaluating the argumentative strategies being used in the article,
and explaining the reasoning for his evaluations.
While Edick’s argument falters in certain areas, his does
bring about many important and interesting points about the
future of democracy. The most thought provoking point that
Edick brings to light is the implication that an open-source
revolution could lead contemporary citizens to a democracy
with the governance of ancient Greece without being a slave-
owning society. This is because citizens in ancient Greece had
slaves perform all of the daily tasks in order for them to be able
to participate in their hands-on direct democracy. The advent of
technology has oddly enough made that practice out of date, but
at the same time, has made it possible to have a direct
democracy once again in a vastly unique way. Technology is a
crucial player in the game of the pirates, and there are even
connections to the issue of net neutrality in the United States. In
order for a pirate party to form in the United States, net
neutrality has to be present. Parties that thrive on an open
platform and the accessibility of the internet would never be
possible if the internet is not a fair and equal playing field.
Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: More evaluation of the
argument being made in the article. Notice how the student
supports his assertions with explanations and references to the
article.
The grassroots movement of the pirate parties has been
making a foothold in countries across the globe. The topic of
pirate parties is one small part of a much larger occurrence, the
people of democracies are ready to embrace a new type of

5. government, and that new type of government is an updated
form of the original direct democracy that is iconic to ancient
Greece. Technology will be directly tied with an open-source
revolution, and the issue of net neutrality in the United States
could be the deciding factor for the future of pirate parties.
There is no way for this democratic revolution to occur without
pirate parties in the United States; the inclusion of the United
States in the pirate party revolution due to permanently fortified
net neutrality rules will be the catalyst that sparks the whole
reaction. The ship of democracy has been boarded by pirates
and that ship is being taken around the world as direct
democracy. Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: The
conclusion begins without overtly announcing it with a phrase
like “In conclusion.” Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]:
Conclusion looks to the future and predicts how the topic might
evolve in the future.
Work Cited Comment by Amolsch, Rianna [2]: Work Cited
(“Work” because there is only one source) aligns perfectly with
MLA formatting.
Edick, Cole. "The golden age of piracy: can open-source
democracy redefine citizenship for the internet age?" Harvard
International Review 36.4 (2015): 7+. Opposing Viewpoints in
Context. Web. 21 Sept. 2015.

6. Rhetorical Analysis Essay
What is a Rhetorical Analysis?
To begin, let us define what a rhetorical analysis is NOT. A
rhetorical analysis is not merely a summary of a scholarly
article. Instead, a rhetorical analysis requires you to apply your
critical reading skills in order to “break down” a text. In
essence, you break off the “parts” from the “whole” of the piece
you’re analyzing. The goal of a rhetorical analysis is to
articulate HOW the author writes, rather than WHAT they
actually wrote. To do this, you will analyze the rhetorical
strategies the author uses to achieve his or her goal or purpose
of writing their piece. You will also determine whether or not
those strategies were effective and why.
The overall purpose of this paper is to show your analysis and
evaluation of an author’s ideas and writing strategies. Choose
ONE text that has an issue/controversy worthy of academic
attention at the center of it. Provide an explanation of the issue
and a detailed summary of the article early on to orient your
reader, but the majority of the paper should focus on an in-
depth rhetorical analysis, which should include your judgment
about whether or not the article's argument was effective, as
well as your own responses to the writer’s claims.
Considerations for Reading

7. 1. What is the thesis, what is the overall argument the author
presents?
2. What did the author choose to study? Why?
3. What is the writer’s purpose? To inform? To persuade? To
criticize?
4. Who is the author’s intended audience?
5. How does the writer arrange his or her ideas?
Chronologically?
6. How does the writer use diction? (Word choice, arrangement,
accuracy, is it formal, informal? Technical versus slang?)
7. Does the writer use dialogue? Quotations? Why?
8. Are important terms repeated?
9. What is the sentence structure of text? Are there fragments,
run ons? Is it declarative, imperative, exclamatory? What effect
does this have?
10. Does the writer use punctuation to create an effect? Italics,
underlining, parentheses? Which marks does the writer use, and
when?
Considerations for Writing
So, you’ve analyzed your article, answered the questions above,
and identified the rhetorical strategies the author uses. Now
what?
1. First, you’ll need to come up with your own thesis for your
rhetorical analysis. What point do you want to make about the
author’s rhetorical choices? Do the author’s rhetorical strategies
make his/her article a strong argument? A weak one?
2. After identifying your thesis, try to arrange the rhetorical
strategies you’ve identified in a logical way. For example, you
could start by identifying the purpose of the intended audience
and why the author chose to write about their topic. Next, you
could identify specific stylistic choices, such as word choice,
formal/informal language, etc. The idea is to logically transition
from analyzing one rhetorical strategy to another. Stay on topic
with the strategies that the author uses often and actually has a
purpose for using.
3. With each point you make, have a strong topic sentence

8. declaring the overall purpose of the rhetorical strategies you are
about to discuss. This will help identify the argument you are
making, transition your ideas, and add fluidity.
4. Keep in mind that while authors use different strategies to
achieve their purposes, you also need to be making points and
evaluations about these strategies, not simply summarizing
them. For example, instead of simply stating the author uses
formal language in his essay, state what effect is created by
using formal language. By doing this you are not only
identifying the rhetorical strategy, by analyzing its purpose.
5. As with all academic writing, check for grammar, transitional
ease, fluidity, and a logical argument. Proofread, proofread,
proofread!
A Successful Rhetorical Analysis Essay
· Provides a concise and accurate summary of the article early
on to orient reader
· Has a thesis that makes an evaluative judgment about
the effectiveness of the author’s argument
· Offers strong support for its thesis by using specific details
and critical analysis of how the author effectively or
ineffectively supports his or her argument
· Uses analytical tools appropriate to the argument he or she is
evaluating
· Paraphrases and integrates quotations from the article
effectively, smoothly, and ethically through appropriate signal
phrases and parenthetical citations in MLA style
· Uses third-person voice to analyze the article, not first- or
second-person voices