Riker's size principle guides the PHLT 8040 Week 9 coalition memo example, which prices four allies' demands and recommends the smallest coalition able to win a committee vote. Searches like "phlt 8040 week 9 assignment example", "phlt8040 week 9 sample" and "phlt 8040 week 9 example" land here.
What a finished PHLT 8040 Week 9 coalition memo looks like
A four-page memo to the joint steering group of an environmental justice coalition and the pediatric chapter. The recommendation sits in a summary paragraph: accept the union's licensed-plumber requirement and part of the utilities' deadline request, decline the apartment owners' and realtors' terms. A section per prospective ally follows, each in the same four parts: what the ally brings to the committee vote, what it asks for, what that concession would cost the bill, and a verdict. The union brings members in swing districts and asks that only licensed plumbers do the work, which raises cost and slows scheduling. The utilities want a later deadline and liability protection. The apartment owners want the right-of-entry clause removed, and the realtors want no disclosure duty at sale. A closing section applies Riker.
How a PHLT 8040 Week 9 example is structured
The recommendation opens the memo because the steering group has to decide at its next meeting, and the analysis beneath exists to let members check the verdict. Allies appear in order of what they bring, strongest first, so the group sees the most valuable offer before the most expensive one. The four-part template is identical across sections, so the comparison stays honest and a weak case shows at once. Concessions are priced in what the bill loses, whether reach, speed or protection, rather than in abstract compromise. The apartment owners' request is declined at length, since removing entry would reopen partial replacement and gut the purpose the coalition formed around. Riker arrives at the close as the reason to stop adding allies once the committee vote is secure: past that point each ally costs a concession and adds no vote.
The recommendation first
Accept the union's terms and part of the utilities' request; decline the apartment owners and the realtors.
One template per ally
What it brings, what it asks, what the bill loses, and a verdict, in the same order every time.
Licensed plumbers, priced
The union's condition slows scheduling and raises cost, and the memo judges it worth paying for the votes it brings.
The entry clause is not for sale
Removing it would bring back partial replacement, so the apartment owners' support is declined.
Riker's limit on growth
Past the votes needed in committee, each new ally costs a concession and adds nothing.
Where marks go in PHLT 8040 Week 9
Coalition memos are judged on prices. One that welcomes every possible ally, listing organizations that might support the bill with no word on what each would demand, treats coalition building as a mailing list, and sections usually mark it thin. Credit follows concessions described as changes to the bill, with the loss named. A verdict for each ally is commonly expected, and declining one with reasons scores as judgment rather than exclusion. Attention to the vote that matters is weighed: allies are worth what they move in committee, and a memo that counts endorsements without counting members has the wrong unit. Riker belongs in the memo because he explains why growth should stop. Conceding a clause the committee already amended is a quieter error, and it shows the author lost track of the text.
Get a PHLT 8040 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 9 prompt and rubric along with the bill or proposal your coalition is backing, and name the allies your section asked you to weigh. A PHLT 8040 coalition memo comes back with each ally priced in 24 to 48 hours, a first request free. None of the four prospective allies is a real organization, and the coalition itself is invented.
PHLT 8040 Week 9 questions, answered
What is Riker's size principle?
William Riker argued that where winners divide the gains, rational actors form coalitions only as large as needed to win, because each extra member takes a share. The example adapts the idea: past the committee votes needed, each added ally costs a concession without adding strength. It explains why the memo declines support, which is the least intuitive move a coalition can make and the one your steering group will question first.
Is it wise to turn down an ally?
Sometimes it is the only way to protect the bill. The example declines the apartment owners because their price, removing the right-of-entry clause, would undo the bill's purpose. Declining can be done without hostility, and the memo recommends keeping lines open for later amendments. Your memo should give reasons for any refusal so the steering group can judge whether the price really was too high.
How are concessions valued without cost figures?
By describing what the bill would lose: reach, speed, protection or money. The example says the licensed-plumber requirement slows scheduling and raises cost without inventing a number, and that a later deadline delays the last replacements. Those descriptions let a steering group compare concessions directly. Where your section expects figures, fiscal notes or utility estimates can supply them with sources attached.