Between the server migration and the Super Bowl, I started to do some reading and thinking about the March topic. It seems to me that two little words are missing from the resolution: and caucuses.
While I ultimately think “presidential nomination process” would have been the best phrase, I think the addition of the words “and caucuses” to the resolution would be sufficient to focus on the debate on the nomination process. My assumption is that the topic was intended to focus on the nomination process and not the problems of primaries to the exclusion of caucuses.
Currently, 13 states have caucuses for both parties: Iowa, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota, North Dakota, Washington, Hawaii, Maine, Kansas, Nebraska, Maine, Wyoming. Another 4 “states” are split with one party having a primary and the other party having a caucus: Louisiana, Montana, Idaho, and Washington, DC. A convention or caucus is used by American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.
The NFL has changed the wording of Public Forum Debate topics at least twice in recent years. I think there is good reason to do it again.
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Nebraska has a Democratic caucus but a Republican primary.
The caucusses are just as much up for grabs in this resolution as primary elections are. A presidential primary is any kind of selection process for nominees for president. So the resolution allows for discussion of both elections and caucusses.
In the contextual literature, the words primary, caucus, and convention have different meanings but all are methods of selecting candidates. The fact that you see the phrase “primaries and caucuses” used frequently means that the words do not mean the same thing.
I’m not deep enough into my reading to know how this distinction may be used, but I do think the addition of “and caucuses” would clarify the resolution and prevent debates from taking a turn that was probably not intended.
I am always opposed to wording re-dos.
Caucuses wouldn’t make much of a difference.
I think that caucuses are left off to focus moreover on the primaries themselves. Because then one could just have a case solely on the caucuses, and things like their infringement on the secret ballot. My point is, that we focus more importantly on primaries. I do know however, that Florida and Michigan will be some very important points for being contrary to Democratic values, since their votes mean nothing. Also, voting allocation based on congressional district. Seems a lot like NCFL’s topic in some ways as well.
Furthermore, if you think that this topic’s wording needs to be changed, check the wording for the LD Topic. “Hate Crime Enhancements”… I think that maybe the word sentencing should be in there.
Leave a Comment