[eDebate] Coalition of the list-supporter

[Mikedavis13 at aol.com]

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.
 
Mike
 
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 ½ 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
502-852-3522
_e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu_ (mailto:e0warn01 at gwise.louisville.edu) 
_http://comm.louisville.edu/~debate_ (http://comm.louisville.edu/~debate) 


_______________________________________________
eDebate  mailing  list
eDebate at ndtceda.com
http://www.ndtceda.com/mailman/listinfo/edebate


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.ndtceda.com/pipermail/edebate/attachments/20060603/41729906/attachment.html