[grey_zealot's_zone]

At work today, relistened to the following: Intelligence Squared (US): CALL A CONVENTION TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION

http://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/call-convention-amend-constitution

Looking at the graphs on the website, of the ‘audience votes’ about ‘the motion’, taken before the arguments and after, the results seem odd. 43% claim they were undecided before the debates. Huge swing afterward. Final vote had the motion go down in defeat, with only 13% left undecided. Always strikes me as suspicious when I see that in graphs on the site, like a large number of ‘audience voters’ really came in to the show with thier minds made up but falsely voted ‘Undecided’ before the debate, in order to swing the motion into defeat for the final vote.

Keep in mind, I listened to the full 1 hour 39 minute program (didn’t watch it; had the audio running while I was doing hands-on work), and not the edited-down 50-odd minute ‘podcast version’.

My opinion: the side FOR the motion made the better arguments. They did a better job explaining, the Constitution, the Amendment process, the history of other conventions that proposed Amendments, and assessment of the risks, and all the checks and balances on the process.

The side AGAINST were the “Merchants of Doubt”, leaning heavily on fear of trying to do anything at all for fear of a messy process, and/or failure. Cynical. And couching it in some sort of Conservative/Originalist language. Definitely devoid of the pioneering, problem-solving “Can Do” American Spirit I *thought* we had.

But, they did their job, and it was a great debate.

Advertisements