Practice Round #52317: LWBeauclair vs. Madgenius


Ok— They appear to be back. So post away.

Thanks All!


At the top, just some words about the plan. The Constitution does give the power to appoint electors to the states, but I?m not sure there?s anything there that would prevent Congress from passing a law that provided for apportionment of electoral ballots. I do know, however, that you can?t have half votes. Each elector casts one whole ballot for one person.

Additionally, I?m always inclined to give leeway on ?the Supreme Court will strike plan? arguments because of fiat.

I?m going to sidestep the K and abuse debates for now and turn to the merits of plan v. CP

I think, at the core, that the plan does a better job of making sure each state gets some attention. Based purely on demographics, I think that a purely national election, absent the electoral college, privileges the large states, like California and New York, while smaller states, like Wyoming and Utah, get ignored. Under the current ?quest for 270? regime, each state can make a difference. So I think plan does a better job of ?upholding democratic ideals.?

I see where Abram is coming from with the argument that a Californian?s vote is worth 1/5 of a Wyomingans (?). I think Lucy needs more here. Maybe point out it?s not a unique harm. Since electors are equal to Congressional representation, that remains true anyway. I do think Lucy?s answer that under CP a Wyomingan?s vote is not even worth one fairly persuasive. So on the pure case debate, I?m inclined to vote gov.

This leaves us the messier pre-fiat debate.

As to the abuse, I?m not going to pull the trigger here. I?m always loathe to make a decision in a good round on an argument like that. I think Lucy adequately avoids any problems with her definition of ?legislation.? I think this can lead to serious solvency problems, but that?s not an answer I?m seeing in the LOR.

On the K debate:

My first inclination on reading the K was the same as Abram?s. Lucy, why are you framing the issue specifically for Marie? I understand your argument that since she is a woman, she?s uniquely harmed by the language used, but as a man who considers himself a feminist, I think I have just as much reason to take offense, and I felt a bit excluded by the language used.

As a side note, I really don?t care about Judith Butler and the whole ?woman/womyn? thing, especially since I know there?s literature out there, by Butler herself, which says people misappropriate the ?y?. So that doesn?t weigh in.

As for the K itself, I don?t think Abram meant to essentialize women?s role in politics, even though I agree that people should watch their language choices.

As for the counter K, it really comes out late to be developed well. I understand that it came out late out of necessity, but I honestly think the whole foray into the critical realm was ill advised. The case debate was solid, and I hate to see a round abandon that because of a careless slip of the tongue. When used in a truly bad way, I have no problems with a language K. But I don?t this qualifies.

I guess, in the end, that I agree with Lucy?s answer that while her K was directed to Marie, nothing prevents Ian and I from voting there.

But based on the above, I?m not inclined to do so.

So I return to the case debate, which as I explained above, flows Gov. in my opinion.


I will post my ballot later today.


I’m still interested in how Marie viewed the K-CounterK battle given that it kinda revolved around her