[eDebate] Coalition of the list-supporter
Mikedavis13 at aol.com
Sat Jun 3 17:14:10 CDT 2006
This assumes a world with vote splitting. I don't understand how this works
in the world where all the pro list people rank the area topic last.
In a message dated 6/3/2006 6:06:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
ewarner at louisville.edu writes:
Dear Debate Community,
When the final slate of topics was announced, it was apparent that first
amendment would be what we debate in the fall for a couple of reasons: 1) some,
perhaps many, feel that it is the only topic with enough limits; 2) many
just don't like the use of "overrule" in the other topics; 3) it is the only
area topic competing against 7 area topics, which means the most likely outcome
is that a 1/3 to ? of the community votes for first amendment as their #1
choice, and no one list topic generates more than 1/5 of the vote. Now, given
the criticisms coming out, perhaps that is not the case, but the lone area
topic is at a huge strategic advantage. Ironically, as someone who supported
areas, the process created strange bedfellows the way it played out. I think
the lists were made with broad strokes to allow for a lot of flexibility.
Ironically, this is the major criticism of the list topics. I strongly feel
that the committee created a series of lists that have much pedagogical value
in terms of diversity of case options, than the free speech topic. And
finally, I don't agree that the stem for the lists are as open-ended as others do.
But that is not here nor there. If you are interested in voting for a list
as your #1 topic, please continue.
The last three years, whatever topic had the overall most number of #1
votes, won. 93 total ballots cast last year with pressure getting 29 first round
first place votes, with 21 the next highest. The year before that, there
were 95 total ballots, with the winning topic receiving 46 followed by 19, and
in 2003-4, there were 75 ballots cast, and the winning Europe list had 31
first round first place ballots, with second place having 22.
If your school is a list supporter, and I concede that for many it is too
early to make that call (depending on how much investigation the school wants
to do or the inclusiveness of the decision making process at the school), I
call on those in favor of any list to participate in a coalition-building
process to give a list topic a fighting chance to win.
I propose this: If you support any of the lists, let's have a discussion on
the blog until a deadline date, perhaps July 1st or even a little later.
The goal of the discussion is to create some consensus for what order we think
the lists should be voted in. From there let's have our own vote amongst the
supporters of a list. We each agree to support the results of that voting
as a group and vote accordingly. And we all cast our individual ballot as
part of a collective voting block.
If we got 48 willing schools to participate, we could assure that a list
topic was likely victorious. I suspect we can't get that many, but we should
strive to maximize our coalition. Without any external effort on this, a
relatively small minority of first amendment #1 votes will likely win.
I will post this note to edebate, CEDA-L, and the Blog. Please let me know
if you are interested. I will create and defend a rank order of the lists to
start the discussion, only on the blog. I hope people see the strategic
necessity to think of this as one list versus one area, and not 8 separate
topics. Thanks for reading.
Ede "Doc" Warner
Ede Warner, Jr.
Director of Debate Society/Associate Professor of Communication
University of Louisville
308E Strickler Hall
_e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu_ (mailto:e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu)
eDebate mailing list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Mailman