107 Crossfire Mar08

of 147

  • date post

    06-Apr-2018
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    215
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of 107 Crossfire Mar08

  • 8/3/2019 107 Crossfire Mar08

    1/147

    Volume1,Number7

    March2008

    Resolved:TheUSsystemofpresidentialprimariesis

    contraryto

    democratic

    values.

    Crossfire Briefs

    PFDebate.com

    presents

  • 8/3/2019 107 Crossfire Mar08

    2/147

    Copyright2008,PFDebateLLC 2

    PFDebate.com|CrossfireBriefs March2008:PresidentialPrimaries

    March2008

    Thetopicareaistimelyandinteresting.Ijustwishtheresolutionwaswordeddifferently.

    ThePRO

    and

    CON

    sections

    are

    not

    even

    because

    the

    topic

    literature

    is

    not

    even.

    Most

    people

    think

    there

    is

    aproblemandnotmanypeoplearedefendingtheexistingprimaryprocess.IllseeifIcanevenitoutinthe

    Update,butIwontmakeanypromises.

    GoodLuck!

    BobJordan

    CopyrightandDistribution

    CrossfireBriefs

    are

    sold

    per

    school.

    Whether

    purchased

    by

    aschool

    or

    by

    an

    individual,

    you

    may

    distribute

    as

    manycopiesasyoulikeforuseatyourschool.YoumaynotdistributeCrossfireBriefstopeoplewhoattend

    otherschools,includingotherschoolsinyourdistrict.

    ContactInformation

    Emailisfarandawaythebestwaytocontactus.Youarelikelytoreceivearesponsewithinminutes.

    PFDebate,LLC

    1325W.

    Sunshine

    St.

    #203

    Springfield,MO658072344

    pfdebate@gmail.com

    4174292411(voicemessage)

    4178636655(fax)

  • 8/3/2019 107 Crossfire Mar08

    3/147

    Copyright2008,PFDebateLLC 3

    PFDebate.com|CrossfireBriefs March2008:PresidentialPrimaries_______.CriteriaForAPresidentialNominatingSystem.

    Ranneyin1980,

    AustinRanney.[ProfessorofPoliticalScience,UniversityofCaliforniaBerkeley].ThePresidentialNominatingProcess:Can

    ItBeImproved?AmericanEnterpriseInstitute.1980.pp.1314.

    Webeganbystatingthecriteriabywhichwebelieveanypresidentialnominatingsystemshouldbejudged,andwe

    agreeduponfivemaincriteria:

    1. Theprocessshouldencouragebothpartiestonominategoodcandidatesthatis,personswhowillbebothef

    fectivecampaignersand,ifelected,effectivepresidents.Suchcandidates,webelieve,musthavemanyqualities,

    butfirstandforemosttheymusthavehadbroadexperienceingovernment,atleastsomeofitinthenational

    government.

    2. Theprocessshouldbeperceivedbybothpoliticalleadersandordinarycitizensasfair,proper,andlegitimate.

    3. TheprocessshouldforcethecandidatestomeetfrequentlyanddobusinesswithleadersofCongress,leadersof

    stategovernments,andleadersofthemajorinterestgroupsthatis,withthepeoplewithhomeapresident

    mustdealifheistobeeffective.

    4.

    The

    process

    should

    stimulate

    public

    understanding

    of

    the

    major

    issues

    of

    the

    day

    and

    crystallize

    public

    opinion

    on

    thoseissues.

    5. Theprocessshouldencouragethenationalconventionstobetrulydeliberativedecisionmakingbodies.

  • 8/3/2019 107 Crossfire Mar08

    4/147

    Copyright2008,PFDebateLLC 4

    PFDebate.com|CrossfireBriefs March2008:PresidentialPrimaries_______.CriteriaForAPresidentialNominatingSystem.

    Jacksonin2008,JohnS.Jackson.[VisitingProfessor,PaulSimonPublicPolicyInstitute].PresidentialNominationsandRegionalPrimaries:

    AnAnalysisofProposalsforReform.AnOccasionalPaperofthePaulSimonPublicPolicyInstitute.Paper#9.January2008.

    p.9.

    http://www.siu.edu/~ppi/PDF/papers/Regional%20Primaries%20Plan.pdf.

    Accessed

    February

    11,

    2008.

    Whatshouldbethestandardsorcriteriaweusetoselectasetofrules?Thefollowingarecriteriadevelopedbytheauthor

    whichheadvocates.Italsoprovidesabriefrationalefortherulesadvocated.

    1. Therulesofthegameshouldbepredictable,transparent,andagreeduponinadvance.

    2. Therules,insofaraspossible,shouldbeneutral,i.e.notunfairlyadvantageordisadvantageanyparticularparty,

    candidate,faction,orgroupwhoarelikelytoplay.(Iftherulescantbeentirelyneutral,theadvantagesanddis

    advantagestheybestowshouldatleastberandomlydistributed.)Candidateswillalwaysactstrategically,that

    istrytomaximizetheirownbestinterests;however,thatshouldnotpreventtherulesfromseekingtomakethe

    rulesneutral.

    3. Theplanshouldmaximizecommunitiesofinterest,i.e.showwhichcandidateswillrunbetterinwhichdifferent

    parts

    of

    the

    nation.

    4. Theplanshouldnotforeclosetheoutcomeprematurelybyitstiming,i.e.determinethewinnertooearlyinthe

    seasoninawaywhichleavesoutasubstantialpartoftherestofthenation,ormajorstateplayersandinterests.

    5. Nosinglestate,orsmallnumberofstatesorsingleregion,shouldhavetheabilitytodeterminetheoutcomeact

    ingalone.Allvotersshouldhaveanequalinitialopportunitytohaveanimpactontheoutcomeandnosingle

    voter,orgroupofvoters,shouldbeleftout(asisthecasenow).

    6. Theresultsshouldbeasrepresentativeaspossibleofallpartsofthenation,andalltheinterestsandpeople

    whowillvoteinthegeneralelection.

    7. Thesequenceofstateeventsshouldhaveenoughspacebetweeneacheventtoprovideforrationalreflection

    anddiscourseonwhatthoseresultsmeanforwhowillbepresident.Theresultsofeacheventshouldprovide

    timeforthepeople,thecandidatesandthemediatoreflectontheresultsandmakeadjustmentsandseekaddi

    tionalinformationanddebateaboutthemeritsofeachsurvivingcandidate.Thereshouldbetimeforbuyers

    remorsetobeaccommodatedandthereshouldbenorushtojudgmentwhichcutsoffdebateprematurely.

    Jacksonin2008,

    JohnS.Jackson.[VisitingProfessor,PaulSimonPublicPolicyInstitute].PresidentialNominationsandRegionalPrimaries:

    AnAnalysisofProposalsforReform.AnOccasionalPaperofthePaulSimonPublicPolicyInstitute.Paper#9.January2008.

    p.12.http://www.siu.edu/~ppi/PDF/papers/Regional%20Primaries%20Plan.pdf.AccessedFebruary11,2008.

    Obviously,thesystemwehavenowfailsvirtuallyallofthecriteriaofferedabove.Themostdammingindictmentofthe

    systemnowisthatwecantevenagreeupontherulesofthegameaheadoftime,andthatwehavesuchchaosinthe

    mannerinwhichthe20072008presidentialnominationscontestsarebeingconducted.However,thischaoticsituation

    didnotjusthappenyesterday.Wehaveknownforalongtimethatthefrontloadingphenomenonwasacceleratingand

    thatsomethingneededtobedone.

    http://www.siu.edu/~ppi/PDF/papers/Regional%20Primaries%20Plan.pdfhttp://www.siu.edu/~ppi/PDF/papers/Regional%20Primaries%20Plan.pdfhttp://www.siu.edu/~ppi/PDF/papers/Regional%20Primaries%20Plan.pdfhttp://www.siu.edu/~ppi/PDF/papers/Regional%20Primaries%20Plan.pdf
  • 8/3/2019 107 Crossfire Mar08

    5/147

    Copyright2008,PFDebateLLC 5

    PFDebate.com|CrossfireBriefs>PRO March2008:PresidentialPrimaries

    PRO

    TopicAnalysis 4

    General

    TheCurrentPrimarySystemIsBroken 78TheCurrentPrimarySystemNeedsToBeReformed 9TheTimeForPrimaryReformIsNow 10TheCurrentPrimarySystemViolatesDemocraticPrinciples 1113TheTopicFocusesOnTheWrongIssue;EveryoneAgreesThereIsAProblem 14

    FrontLoading

    FrontLoadingDefined 15FrontLoadingIsCausedByNewHampshireEnvy 16The2008PrimarySeasonIsTheMostFrontLoadedInU.S.History 1718FrontLoadingGetsWorseWithEachElection 19FrontLoadingHasResultedInADeFactoNationalPrimary 20FrontLoadingDecreasesDiscussionAndDebate 21

    WithoutReform,

    Front

    Loading

    Will

    Continue

    To

    Get

    Worse

    22

    FrontLoadingViolatesDemocraticPrinciples 23OnBalance,FrontLoadingIsBad 24

    FrontLoadingDecreasesVoterParticipation 25FrontLoadingDisenfranchisesVoters 26FrontLoadingResultsInShallowDecisionMaking 27FrontLoadingPreventsDarkHorseCandidates 28FrontLoadingFuelsTheMoneyPrimary 2930FrontLoadingHasManyUndesirableConsequences 31

    Iowa&NewHampshire

    TheEmphasisOnIowaAndNewHampshireIsUndemocratic 3233

    BrownUniversity

    Study

    Says

    Iowa

    &

    New

    Hampshire

    Have

    Up

    To

    20

    Times

    The

    Influence

    Of

    34

    36

    VotersInLaterStatesBrownUniversityStudyProvesThatTheCurrentPrimarySystemIsUndemocratic 37Iowa&NewHampshireAreNotRepresentative 38Iowa&NewHampshireReceiveMajorBenefitsByGoingFirst 39OtherStatesCouldServeTheSameFunctionAsIowa&NewHampshire 40TheIowaCaucusesAreUndemocratic 41TheIowaCaucusesDisenfranchiseVoters 42TheIowaCaucusVotersAreNotBound 43

    DemocraticPartySuperDelegates

    SuperDelegatesDefined 44SuperDelegatesCouldDetermineTheDemocraticNominee 45

    Super

    Delegates

    Are

    Undemocratic

    46

  • 8/3/2019 107 Crossfire Mar08

    6/147

    Copyright2008,PFDebateLLC 6

    PFDebate.com|CrossfireBriefs>PRO March2008:PresidentialPrimaries

    TopicAnalysis:PRO

    Resolved:TheUSsystemofpresidentialprimariesiscontrarytodemocraticvalues.

    Theliterature

    on

    this

    topic

    overwhelmingly

    favors

    the

    PRO

    this

    month.

    Iwould

    go

    PRO

    every

    chance

    Icould.Alotofpeopleareunhappyabouttheprimaryprocess,buttherearetoomanyentitiesinvolvedandthe

    folksinvolvedcannotagreeonasolution.

    Idontthinkthisisatopicwhereyouwanttotrytobecreative.Theevidenceissogoodwithregardto

    frontloadingandIowa&NewHampshirethatIstronglysuggestthatyousticktothebasics.Thesuper

    delegatecaseareaisinteresting,anditcouldbeahotissueinMarchoradud.Itisimpossibletoknowatthis

    point.Acasewithtwocontentions,onefocusingontheDemocraticPartyssuperdelegateproblemandan

    othercontentionfocusingontheRepublicanPartysWinnerTakeAllsystemwouldbeaninterestingcasethat

    doesnotpickonaparticularparty.

    Iknow

    there

    is

    some

    temptation

    to

    go

    outside

    the

    mainstream

    and

    discuss

    the

    prim