Practice Round #52317: LWBeauclair vs. Madgenius


Gov: LWBeauclair
Opp: Madgenius

Judges: ISamuel, Miss Hummingbird, Alan Tauber

[strike]Resolved: The United States should liberalize trade.[/strike]

New resolution at the behest of the involved debaters:

Resolved: The manner in which federal elections are conducted should be altered.


I’m here and being lazy; I am going to go lay by the pool, and then I’ll try to post later. My internet access is sketchy this week, as my brother is home. Worst case scenario- late tonight/early tomorrow.


Suscribing to the thread


Abram -I know you didn’t want a practice round on trade any more than I did, so I negotiated a swap. You’ll like this better.

Oh yea and I subscribe.


Meh, I was ready to whip out a commodies DA and so forth. Oh well, knock yourself out Lucy.


Fine I skewed your prep time shame on me. You’ll live. Besides you said you hated trade. Case to follow.


?If you don?t vote, don?t bitch? a bumper sticker told me today. I would agree, but what happens when it doesn?t matter if I vote- can I still bitch? I do after all live in Utah, where to vote anything but republican is futile. This depresses me when I consider how hard people fought to give me the right to vote. I can?t imagine that all those movements, all those people, ever intended for votes not to count. As such I propose a reform of the United States Presidential elections; because, I really don?t want to have to move to Massachusetts, or vote for Mickey Mouse just to mock the inadequate system? and, I really shouldn?t have to.

But first, my thank you?s. Thanks to Abram for coming out to play. Thanks to NB for giving me somewhere to practice over the summer. And most importantly thanks to the judges who, despite having better things to do, have agreed to judge. Kisses for everyone :kisses.

[B] Up-front: The Plan[/B]

Congress will reform the current electoral college system to better reflect the popular vote by splitting the electoral votes. I.e., If Utah has 5 votes and 2 fifths of the populous votes Kerry… Kerry will receive 2 of Utah?s 5 electoral votes. Further clarification on request in CX.

[B] There is so much wrong with the current system [/B]

  1. Remember 2000? Gore won more popular votes; while Bush won the electoral college. Essentially the entire election was decided by the Supreme Court with a little help from Florida. So, instead of getting the president the majority of America wanted… we got Bush. Hmm, that didn?t end well. It defeated the entire idea of the people electing the president. Last I checked people who get more votes are more wanted… that means that more of the US wanted Gore than Bush, so why is Bush president? A flawed system.

  2. This discourages voter turn out, esp. in states that are considered locked. Again, since it most applies to me, look at the Utah example. The votes are all going to Bush anyway, so democrats and others have very little reason to turn out to vote. As such they are not getting heard, and so the vote is not reflecting the will of the people. They are being effectively denied one of their rights as a United States Citizen. The right to elect their representatives.

  3. Candidates ignore states they know are ?locked?. Abram was telling me the other day about Kerry being at this luncheon he was at, I am so jealous. Why you might ask did they get the chance to chat? Because Missouri is a swing state. The candidates know there are votes that can be won there, so they bring their issues to the voters. Does this happen in locked states… nope. I have not only not seen a candidate, but I haven?t even see commercials. This means stupid voters. If I hadn?t independently researched the elections. I would have no idea who was running (other than Bush), and no idea what they are running on. This means that voters in locked states have no idea what they might be getting when they vote or even what they are voting on. This allows for leaders, who do not represent the people to be elected. It allows for unfortunate surprises; like Bush.

[B]YAY for plan[/B]

  1. Plan solves for repeats of the ?2000" problem. Post plan the electoral college and the popular vote will match. Thus, the candidate that the majority of the public wants gets elected. Impact: a more representative democracy. All people get to elect their leader, not just Floridians.

  2. Increased voter turn out. The main reason for voter apathy is the idea that ?my vote doesn?t count?. Plan allows for every voice to matter. When people believe they have a say in something they are more likely to voice their opinion. Impact: increased voter turn out means that a higher percentage of America is being heard in the election, thus the candidate elected represents more of the populous.

  3. All states become battle grounds, as such all states matter. Candidates will be forced to present their issues in all states. This means better informed voters. Now Utahn?s can vote for Bush because they really support his policies rather than just because he?s republican. Or they can see how flawed that decision is and how great Kerry would be in office. Either way, they are no longer voting stupid.

[B] Bonus Points [/B]

  1. Minority voices are better represented. Ok, so maybe Nader still won?t be president, and maybe most of Utah will still vote for Bush, but at least post plan the minorities are heard. After all two electoral votes from Utah are better than no electoral votes. And because each vote counts, candidates have a vested interest in listening to minority view points.

  2. Encourages candidate accountability. Because candidates are now trying to win constituents nation wide they will have to be able to present a uniform platform to the populous. They won?t be able to skate by saying ?I?ll do what?s best for Missouri? they?ll have to have platforms that ?do what?s best for the United States. This means that we have candidate who know what they stand on and are held to it by the majority of the US. And we get policies that benefit the US as a whole rather than the interests of a few states.

  3. Better upholds the idea of democracy. An important part of our government system is that we as Americans have the right to elect people to represent our views to office. Status Quo a significant portion of America is being denied that right. Post fiat the system works.

  1. Who determines in the SQ whether a state operates under the “winner takes all” system or proportional representation?

  2. Is it your contention that smaller states will get more attention post plan?

  3. Wouldn’t voting for Mickey be a vote for Bush? After all, he is a third party…

  4. Is the US a direct democracy?

  5. So is your ultimate viewpoint that all voices should be heard?


Originally posted by Madgenius

  1. Who determines in the SQ whether a state operates under the “winner takes all” system or proportional representation?

States. So what? Congressional Legislation trumps.

  1. Is it your contention that smaller states will get more attention post plan?

Not more, nor is it reflective of size. I am merely contending that post plan all states will get some lovin’.

  1. Wouldn’t voting for Mickey be a vote for Bush? After all, he is a third party…

Huh, that’s kind of coherent… the argument is that status quo anything but a vote for Bush in Utah doesn’t matter. The opposite applies in MASS. That is just wrong.

  1. Is the US a direct democracy?

Nope, that’s why I never said it was.

  1. So is your ultimate viewpoint that all voices should be heard?

Absolutes are bad. My contention is that the more voices that can be heard the better. Plan allows for more voices to be heard in presidential elections.


Before moving on to case, I’d like to thank our judging panel for taking the time to judge this debate, especially since they are all still competing in LDS. And of course, a thank you is in order to Lucy who has provided a very debatable case that is topicial. You heard that right, no whiney T violations.

Let’s get it on.

No solvency. At all.
Text from the US Constitution: “Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”

Impact: The Supreme Court will shoot this plan down, as it clearly violates the Constitution. I want to remind you in her responce to #1 that she clearly states that the plan is Congressional legislation, and her plan text doesn’t call for a constitutional amendment. Allowing her to change her advocacy abuses me, as this whole arguement become moot.

So heck, by presumption, I’ve already won. But for fun, lets move on.

Let’s look at the criterion Lucy proposes. Hmmm, the case is lacking one. This kinda puts the Opp in a tight spot. Instead of being anal about prima facie burdens, I’m simply going to say the criterion is adherence to democratic ideals She certainly implies this is the case when she makes statements like “My contention is that the more voices that can be heard the better” and that her plan “upholds the ideal of democracy.” Note, do not let her suddenly change criterions. This completely abuses my ground because, again, she can render my whole speech moot by shifting advocacies and becoming a moving target.

The US Constitution will be amended through normal means so that the President is elected through the popular vote

Justification: This counterplan is mutually exclusive with the plan as you can’t both keep the Electorial College and get rid of it too. Hence if you do plan, you can’t get the cool benefits of this counterplan, and that is enough reason to vote Opp.

Status: Unconditional. You are going to see this bad boy as a voter, right alongside no solvency.

Oh counterplan, how more deserving you are? Let me count the ways.

A: It solves! SC can’t shoot it down. Moreover, with the awesome communication technology of today, the origional justification for the Electoral College is eliminated. Vote counts aren’t delieved by horseback anymore; votes can be tabulated electronically almost instantly.

B: I solve Gov harms better:

Under 1st Contention:

  1. Under plan, it is still possible for a candidate to be elected while losing the popular vote as a delegate won with an amazing majority counts the same as a delegate barely one. CP guarantees 100% solvency.

2 and 3)More turns. Under plan, supermajorities can still silence minority voices. Under CP, one’s vote always counts as there is no such thing as a “locked” state.

Under 2nd:
1)Simply untrue. The Electoral College will always be a rough aproximation. America deserves better than a rough appoximation to determine its President.

2 and 3)Cross apply previous arguements. In a 3 electorial vote state, a party with less than 33% of the vote is silenced under plan.

Under 3rd:
1)Speaking of Nader, under plan, all votes for him still don’t count as they aren’t nearly significant. The counterplan allows votes for a 3rd party to count.

2 and 3)Cross apply previous arguments. CP solves better

According to the Electorial College, a person living in California is worth less than one fifth than a person living in Wyoming. A voter in California has less and one fifth the power of a voter in Wyoming.

This in unconsciousable.

This is dehumanizing.

In a democratic society, it is revolting that we continue a practice that makes one person “more equal” than another. A person from California is just as worthy a voter as a voter from Wyoming. To continue a practice that suggest otherwise in consciousable.

The true democratic ideal is one man, one vote. Without the counterplan, this ideal is never achived.

Vote Opp to make the US truly a democratic nation.



  1. You say pass C/P by normal means. Do you know how many ways amendments are formed and passed? Which one are you going with, or can I pick one?

  2. What specific sentence in [B]plan text[/B], says how congress will alter the electoral college? I did tell you to ask for clarification if you wanted it, didn’t I?

  3. So with C/P every vote is counted independently of the states (i.e., the Nation votes as a whole)?

  4. Off your 33% in states with only 3 votes. Who says a candidate can’t get partial votes. I.e. 1.5 electoral votes? I don’t seem to have said it.

  5. Are there more people in CA than WY?

6)“The true democratic ideal is one man, one vote”— you really want to define the criterion that way? I’ll give you one guess as to why that sentence is just wrong.

  1. Yes I do know. I’ll go with the 2/3 of the Senate followed by 3/4 of the state legistlatures ratifying it (Basically, the means used to pass nearly all of our amendments)

2.Plan text alone is horribly vague. But your arguements and your CX answers clearly point to a bill of some sort, and that is what I went with. Abuse voters aren’t that pretty; don’t make me have to use them by being a moving target.

  1. Nothing is stoping state agencies from setting up poll booths, etc. But yes, under CP you vote not as a Utahian (making up words is fun), but as a American.

  2. Unless you manage to split a live breathing elector in half, you can’t do that.

  3. Yes. This does not mean that they are worth less than people from Wyoming.

6.I was using the word “man” in the general sence, ie to express one citizen, one vote. Womyn continue to have the vote. I used the expression to endorse everyone being treated equally under the law, a value both men and womyn and rally behind.


I will be posting the best speech ever later today. :slight_smile:


It hurts when you use the wrong position doesn’t it, Abram? Too bad that whiney potential abuse arguments aren’t solvency takeouts, nor a offensive arguments. :wink:

[B] Solvency [/B]

  1. Nothing in plan text nor CX excludes a constitutional amendment. Plan may be vague, but that is not his argument, and because plan allows for the amendment I solve. (any vagueness impacts or voters will be new in rebuttal). Congress is capable of initiating an amendment while in session. Pre-empt for "but you said in CX “legislation”- Legislation is defined, legally, as 1) the enactments of a legislator or legislative body, or 2) A matter of business under consideration by a legislative body. By definition an amendment would be congressional legislation.

  2. You will never vote on potential abuse in round. Esp, when the round is educational, and completely debatable; both uphold what debate is really about. As such they outweigh any potential abuse in round. More over, this is a smart round with many impacts to weigh, why would you look to potential abuse when you have so much quality argumentation to vote on- there are no impacts here.

Both plan and CP get solvency, so lets pick the best:

[B] Criterion [/B]
The implication of a non-explicit criterion is akin to Comparative Advantage/judges preference, but yours works. Let?s go with that. Marie- I think that means you?re not aloud to vote. Because the ?one man one vote? quote takes us back to a time when women didn?t get to. Abram has left you with only two options… use your feminine wiles to influence one of the white male judges, or you can vote against him to punish him for lazy, discriminatory rhetoric. (Abram-nice attempt at saving your ass in CX, but not enough to excuse the historically flawed lazy rhetoric). Moral voter. I?m offended, Marie should be too.

[B] DA’s on CP [/B]
[B][I] Financing trade offs [/B][/I]
CP requires a large shift in the voting process. Abram says that people no longer vote as ?Utahians? but as Americans. So if states no longer run the elections then an entirely new system has to be developed to cast, count, and monitor the voting process. Abram doesn?t tell you where the additional financing and personnel are going to come from. What does this mean? Trade offs and/or increased deficit spending. Other important programs will suffer budget cuts in order to fund CP. Ex. NCLB, Medicare, National Security, etc. Taking money from any of those programs is a bad decision. As is increasing the national debt by making up money we simply don?t have. How does this stack up against plan? Plan uses the current system of casting and counting votes, so no new system, equipment, or personnel is required. IE, no additional government expense.

[B][I] Two: Chaos [/B][/I]
In the 2000 election a few hanging chads threw the country into election turmoil. Luckily voting is so well organized that the ballots were easily traced to the state of Florida and a recount was feasible. Post CP- that will not be the case. A few hanging chads will no longer be traceable to the states due to the ?national voting system?, so recounts will be impossible or at the very least more time consuming. That leaves two impact-scenarios. 1) all of our elections are decided by the SC- which impact turns Abrams voter on increasing democracy. Or, 2) We have long periods without a decided leader while we either re-vote (to eliminate hanging chads), or recount an entire nations worth of ballots. The impacts to this are a state of vulnerability and chaos affecting international relations. A) International trade and investment will decrease during these times due to decreased US stability, and B) the united states will appear more vulnerable and leaderless, leaving us wide open to terrorist attacks. Vs. Plan, using existing voting techniques; it is easier to recount one state than to recount a nation.

[B] Line-by-Line [/B]

  1. On ?no solvency?- xap above. Education and debatability outweigh presumption and potential abuse.
  2. C/P- extend DA?s and impacts. Advantages of Plan outweigh.
    A) It may solve, but the impacts to passing suck- extend the DA?s.
    B- first 4 paragraphs) ?the majority still has the ability to win the election?. UH duh! That is the idea of popular vote (which both plans advocate). He gives you the 33% example- my answers: 1) who says that the electorates can?t say I give ? a vote to one candidate and ? to the other. That was easy. 2) Even if you don?t buy that, plan is still advantageous vs. the DA?s and allows for a substantial improvement over the Status Quo. So plan outweighs yet again.
    B- ?under the 3rd?) non-unique impact, neither plan nor CP does anything for Nader. Either way the US is still basically a 2-party nation.
    B- the rest) answered above.
    C- Turn. CP encourages candidates to pay attention only to large states. I.e. you win the majority of New York, Cali, and Florida and you?re in. So flow my harm of the majority of the US being ignored; CP makes this worse, and allows candidate to appeal to an even smaller portion of the US that the status quo. This directly contradicts Abram?s criterion of upholding US democracy ( a representative democracy). Vs. Plan which gets the balancing of the Electoral College system w/o the negatives of the Status Quo. It doesn?t undervalue the citizens in CA, it merely allows for WY to exist. So you can extend his moral voter implications on this and vote against him (unless you?re Marie… this is where he tells you that you don?t count).

[B] Wrap-Up [/B]

  1. Extend voter turn out from the PMC. C/P discourages this based on the above C point, the anti-fem rhetoric. Plan eats up this solvency.
  2. Extend Candidate accountability AD from the PMC. Goes dropped and C/P can?t get it, xap above.
  3. Plan outweighs the CP under the criterion. Look to the AD of Plan, the DA?s, and turns on CP.


the edit was a spelling error.
PS I’m 11 words over. If you want them you can have them.

Edit on this post: eh, fuck it. I just can’t type at night. Sorry, to the judges for the few little errors, they don’t change anything… but they are annoying (my bad). Note to self, proof when awake.


I’m not the type to complain about spelling errors, Lucy :stuck_out_tongue:


But I’m an English major. This is embarrassing. Pout.


First, good news for Lucy: I’m not running potential abuse voters. The bad news: I’m running actual abuse voters.


Violation 1:

Case shift: Lucy changes her advocacy to a constitutional amendment


  1. In responce to CX#1, she says “States. So what? Congressional Legislation trumps.” Of all three types of constitutional amendments, none fit the bill of Congressional legislation “trumping” the states.

  2. In plan text, Lucy specifies that Congress is the actor. Of all three ways to amend the constitution, none uses Congress solely.

  3. She uses her shift to steal the ground on my solvency attack, trying to yield my solvency attack worthless.


  1. Ground: Cross apply Link #3 above. By being a moving target, Lucy is able to steal any and all disad ground by altering plan to aviod biting the DA’s. This skews ground wildly in favor of Gov, which clashes with her debatbility arguement. In order to be inviting to those interested in joining, debate must be a game where both sides have an equal chance at winning.

  2. Education: Even if, as Lucy says, all that matters is that the round is educational, then she still loses. Lucy shifting her advocacy destroys the education of this round, as we can’t get into in depth analysis on a case when it keeps changing. Instead of clashing with my solvency arguement, which would be educational, she tries to aviod it through cheap tricks, which is uneducational.

Violation 2:

Plan is terribly vague.


  1. Lucy admits plan is vague on the first point of solvency.

  2. Lucy says, “who says that the electorates can’t say I give 1/2 a vote to one candidate and 1/2 to the other” The fact that she herself [U]asks[/U] this shows that what her plan actually does isn’t concrete.

  3. She tried to to the vagueness to shift her plan to aviod clashing with the 33% example and my solvency take-out.

Implications/ Voters:

Cross apply above voters under 1st violation and add that passing a vague plan allows unchecked abuse my government beaurocrats.


Even if you buy the flagrent case shift (which you shouldn’t), it still doesn’t solve. Every way of amending the constitution requires State approval of some kind. Given the government’s rhetoric of “trumping” the states, the constitutional amendment would obviously fail. Pull across analysis that without solvency, Gov loses by presumption. This is another voter

On the kritik

  1. No link: I made it very clear in CX that I wasn’t saying that womyn couldn’t vote, but was arguing for equality under the law. Lucy completely drops this responce; flow it across.

  2. No link: Statement is not “historically flawed”. The statement “one man, one vote” has been used by many groups to increase voting privleges, not reduce them. It is not only wrong, but offensive, to imply that the liberal protesters in Florida using the statement to protest the flawed felons list were really trying to take the vote away from womyn. Especially since many of the protesters were womyn themselves.

  3. No impact: Lucy gives you little on the actual voter: “I’m offended.” She gives you absolutly zero analysis on why this is a voter. Don’t make it for her. Also, “offensive” is a relative term; almost everything can offend somebody. Heck, the titles of our posts could be offensive to some. Or even, Lucy’s use of “women” instead of “womyn” :wink: .

But let’s have fun with this.

Counter Kritik

Overveiw: Throughout the kritik, the rhetoric operates under the assumption that men and womyn should be treated differently.

Alternative framework: Men and womyn deserve to be treated equally.

Violation 1: The kritik operates under the assumption that only womyn should be concerned about womyn’s issues.

Link: All the kritik’s arguments are directed towards Marie, not Ian or Alan.

Implication/Voter: The assumption that only womyn would care about’s womyn’s rights limits discourse on the subject, especially from male feminists, and weakens the whole womyn’s rights movement. By excluding Alan and Ian, the kritik tacitly endorces this flawed assumption. Only by voting against the government can you undo the harm done in the real world by limiting discourse.

Violation 2: The kritik makes the assumption that the only way a womyn can influence a man is through “feminine wiles”

Link: The language used presents a false dichotmony to the female judge namly to vote against me or to use her “feminine wiles” to influence one of the judges. This completely excludes the possibility of that female judge using her intellegence to reach out to the male judges.

Implication/Voter: This violation also limits discourse in the real world as when the assumption is prevalent, some get apt to reject what womyn say on their face because they think that the womyn is using “feminie wiles” instead of putting out a logical argument. Cross apply the previous voter on why this means a vote against the government.


Lucy totally accepts my criterion of aherence to democratic ideals. This means that you the judges will weigh all plan/counterplan arguementation against that criterion. Ready?

DA 1

Does not link to criterion! When the criterion of adherence to democratic ideals is accepted as the criterion, why should you give a Flying Fig Newton (Sorry Patrick :P) over the finantial costs? Allowing everyone’s vote to be heard equally always outwighs any small finantial problem.

DA 2

  1. No Uniqueness: See 2000 election. See 2000 election fail. Fail election fail. Fail even with states in control. See DA. See DA die. Die DA die! Die die die!

  2. No Link: Lucy completely drops my CX responce that states arn’t going to be forced to stop helping. County and city officials still help out to this day with Presidential elections even though the ultimate obligation is with the states. Even in large states, technicial malfunctions are quickly located to the booth. The power of today’s communication technology eliminates the link.

  3. No Link: Chads had nothing to do with the problem in Florida. The only issue was that the election was close in that state, and Gore wisly decided to use Florida law that allows for a manuel recount. Things only got messy because Bush sued to stop the recount. This is something that would happen in plan or CP world.

  4. TURN this sucker!: The 2000 recount never would have happened in a post CP world! Why? Because Gore would have won by a good margin, and it wouldn’t be within the statistical margin of error, rendering a recount pointless. In a world where plan was passed, each of the states could be so close that a recount would be nessesary, triggering Lucy’s impacts. This adds a hefty bonus to CP which makes it another voter


  1. Cross apply abuse and solvency args

  2. No warrent to why DA’s and Plan outweigh. I contend they do not because allowing someone’s vote to count more than anothers is extremely anti-democratic and rocks the very core of democratic ideals.

  3. Flow accross how under plan, candidate can lose the popular vote yet still win because of delegate counts and varying strengths of majorities. Lucy doesn’t touch this, and it is therefore conceeded. Since Lucy agrees that winning the popular vote is importart and a fundamental democratic ideal, this is another voter

  4. Flow across idea of no more “locked” states. Lucy drew a lot of her impacts off this, mainly because with the idea of “locked” states gone, candidates appeal to everybody and have more accountability. Another democratic ideal CP solves better, another voter

  5. Flow across my untouched CX answer to the 1/2 a vote sceme: you can cut a elector in half and have the two halfs vote. Also, cross apply abuse arguements.

  6. Votes for Nader still don’t count under plan as he won’t get enough to get even one elector. Without electors, votes for him are actually tallied and meaningful nationwide

  7. (Off C) First, Lucy is completely wrong. Even if you have every single vote in New York, California, and Florida, you don’t have a majority. Lucy’s charge that the majority of Americans will be ignored is completely unwarrented, for starters, the C/P by definition listens to the majority. Moreover, Lucy gives no warrent why this “balancing” effect is good; I give arguements why it is a moral abbomination. Finallly this “allows WY to exist” is a blip without any analysis, don’t write it for her. A Wyo voter is the same as a Cali voter with CP.

  8. The biggest impact in the round of dehumanization goes completely untouched and therefore conceeded. Under plan, a Californian is treated as one-fifth of a person. This is a outrage to the very idea of a democracy, so you can bet that you are going to be voting right here

Vote Opp for the good of debate, for the good of shooting down flawed assumptions and for the good of democracy.

-Edit, fixed typo-



  1. You link when you say “man in a general sence” why use it at all- vs. person or citizen? Especially given the historical context. Hence the K.
  2. Historically the quote links back to it’s use in disallowing women a vote. It may have been used since then in better ways, but that?s the link between your rhetoric and K.
  3. Women with a Y is just as bad, as the Y can be argued to represent the male chromosome. But as to impacts… I was merely saying that historically the comment excludes Marie and I from Debate. Bad, vote against it; especially since Abram tells you to uphold the value of debate (I?d suggest debate with women is better).

[B]Counter K:[/B]

  1. No link. I asked that Marie be treated the same, no better/worse. I didn’t address comments to Ian and Alan because the impacts don’t directly effect them. Although if they want to vote to support women?s rights… they should. Nothing in K prohibits that.
    2)My Kritik doesn’t advocate using fem-wiles. It says that your historical comment reduces women’s influence in elections/voting to that. OH LOOK an IMPACT!! All those in favor of women’s rights vote GOV.

#2) All new. Vagueness is new in the rebuttal. It’s abusive and a major shift in OPP strategy/solvency attacks. So flow and turn all abuse standards. We both abuse each other-- No one wins the impacts.

#1) Never answers legal definition of “legislation”, as such plan text still allows for amendments. Congress may not be able do it alone, but I only have so much fiat. I argue in the MG that congress can propose the amendment via plan text. Goes dropped. Flow vagueness being new and abusive.

None of the abuse matters, it drops in a wash. Or it flows GOV on additional abuse… Time skew, decreases education because we spend time on crap rather than substantive argumentation, unfair gov burden. All flow GOV.

Abusive. If he wanted to attack “trumping” as bad rhetoric he should have done it in the LOC. Too late now. No impact except abuse of GOV.

It’s still a negative to voting CP. The world doesn’t exist only with one criterion- the judges should look to it first but not ignore everything else.


  1. CP makes worse
  2. wrong. according to CP states can poll not run voting.
  3. recounting a nation takes longer. CP increases the problem and risk
  4. a pre-fiat turn? That’s silly you can?t claim solvency for something already in the past. Post CP-fiat recounts, and election error, suck way worse. Flow impacts.

DA’s go gov.

(Only answering the ones not answered elsewhere)
3) not true the electoral college splits proportionally to the popular vote w/Plan. No analysis/warrants as to why I can?t do that.
4) Xap- the big states get attention and the anti-democratic results from MG. Only high population states like New York and Cali matter post CP. Flow the unaddressed turn.
5) no warrant
6) no one cares. No impact
7) misses the point. See above dropped turn, flow it through. Bites against the criterion. Drop Abram drop.
8 ) Weigh this against the dropped turn on big and small states. The impacts are similar but ignoring entire chunks of the US population vs a few people per state = worse.

Criterion flows Gov.


  1. Popular vote counts.
  2. NO DA?s.
  3. All states are important.
  4. Best upholds criterion, based on #3 and the turn.
  5. Women?s equality supported.


  1. UniqueDA?s with substantial impacts.
  2. Sucks to be a woman!
  3. Additionally abusive.

[B][I]Go Gov!!![/B][/I]

Format. The 8 ) was a smiley.


I’m going to hold off posting my ballot until Ian and Marie return from Chicago and have indicated they’ve read the round. I wouldn’t want my early ballot to influence anyone’s decision.