Debating Reform: Conflicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System

Getting students to engage in debate always makes for a lively classroom. Yet when students only parrot partisan lines, an instructor is left to question if there is real pedagogical value in the exercise. Ellis and Nelson offer a fresh take on the traditional debate-style Reader. With pieces written specifically for this volume by top scholars in the field, each pro or con essay considers a concrete proposal for reforming the political system, from making it easier to amend the Constitution to adopting compulsory voting. By focusing on institutions, rather than liberal or conservative public policies, students tend to leave behind ideology and grapple with claims and evidence to draw their own conclusions and build their own arguments. Students will explore how institutions work in their American government text, but this reader helps them to understand how they can be made to work better.

Table of Contents:
Preface Contributors Pro: Resolved, Article V should be revised to make it easier to amend the Constitution and to call a constitutional convention - Sanford Levinson Con: Resolved, Article V should be revised to make it easier to amend the Constitution and to call a constitutional convention - David E. Kyvig Pro: Resolved, Congress should restore each state’s freedom to set its drinking age - John M. McCardell Con: Resolved, Congress should restore each state’s freedom to set its drinking age - James C. Fell Pro: Resolved, the Constitution should be amended to overturn the Supreme Court′s ruling in Citizens United - Jamie Raskin Con: Resolved, the Constitution should be amended to overturn the Supreme Court′s ruling in Citizens United - John Samples Pro: Resolved, Congress should pass the Democracy Restoration Act restoring the right to vote in federal elections to people with criminal records - Erika L. Wood Con: Resolved, Congress should pass the Democracy Restoration Act restoring the right to vote in federal elections to people with criminal records - Roger Clegg Pro: Resolved, the United States should adopt a national initiative and referendum - Todd Donovan Con: Resolved, the United States should adopt a national initiative and referendum - Richard J. Ellis Pro: Resolved, the United States should adopt compulsory voting - Martin P. Wattenberg Con: Resolved, the United States should adopt compulsory voting - Jason Brennan Pro: Resolved, Congress should bring back the fairness doctrine - Marjorie Randon Hershey Con: Resolved, Congress should bring back the fairness doctrine - James Gattuso Pro: Resolved, political parties should nominate candidates for president in a national primary - Caroline J. Tolbert Con: Resolved, political parties should nominate candidates for president in a national primary - David P. Redlawsk Pro: Resolved, states should require open primaries - Mark A. Siegel Con: Resolved, states should require open primaries - Seth E. Masket Pro: Resolved, earmarks for special interests should be abolished - Jeffrey Lazarus Con: Resolved, earmarks for special interests should be abolished - Scott A. Frisch and Sean Q Kelly Pro: Resolved, proportional representation should be adopted for U.S. House elections - Douglas J. Amy Con: Resolved, proportional representation should be adopted for U.S. House elections - Brendan J. Doherty Pro: Resolved, the redistricting process should be nonpartisan - Elaine C. Kamarck Con: Resolved, the redistricting process should be nonpartisan - Justin Buchler Pro: Resolved, the Senate should represent people, not states - Bruce I. Oppenheimer Con: Resolved, the Senate should represent people, not states - John J. Pitney, Jr. Pro: Resolved, Senate Rule XXII should be amended so that filibusters can be ended by a majority vote - Steven S. Smith Con: Resolved, Senate Rule XXII should be amended so that filibusters can be ended by a majority vote - Wendy J. Schiller Pro: Resolved, the electoral college should be abolished - George C. Edwards III Con: Resolved, the electoral college should be abolished - Gary L. Gregg II Pro: Resolved, the president should be granted a line item veto - Michael Nelson Con: Resolved, the president should be granted a line item veto - Robert J. Spitzer Pro: Resolved, bring back the spoils system - Domonic A. Bearfield Con: Resolved, bring back the spoils system - Marissa Martino Golden Pro: Resolved, , the terms of Supreme Court justices should be limited to eighteen years - David Karol Con: Resolved, , the terms of Supreme Court justices should be limited to eighteen years - Ward Farnsworth Pro: Resolved, the United States should adopt a balanced budget amendment - David M. Primo Con: Resolved, the United States should adopt a balanced budget amendment - John B. Gilmour Pro: Resolved, Congress should pass the War Powers Consultation Act - Nancy Kassop Pro: Resolved, Congress should pass the War Powers Consultation Act - William G. Howell

About the Author :
Richard J. Ellis is Mark O. Hatfield Professor of Politics at Willamette University. His books include The Development of the American Presidency (2015; 2nd ed.); Debating Reform: Conflicting Perspectives on How to Fix the American Political System (with Michael Nelson, 3nd ed., 2016); Judging the Boy Scouts of America: Gay Rights, Freedom of Association, and the Dale Case (2014); Judging Executive Power: Sixteen Supreme Court Cases That Have Shaped the American Presidency (2009); and Presidential Travel: The Journey from George Washington to George W. Bush (2008). In 2008 he was named the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Oregon Professor of the Year. Michael Nelson is Fulmer Professor of Political Science at Rhodes College and a senior fellow at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. A former editor of the Washington Monthly, his most recent books include Trump’s First Year (2018); The Elections of 2016 (2018); The Evolving Presidency: Landmark Documents (2019); The American Presidency: Origins and Development (with Sidney M. Milkis, 2011); and Governing at Home: The White House and Domestic Policymaking (with Russell B. Riley, 2011). Nelson has contributed to numerous journals, including the Journal of Policy History, Journal of Politics, and Political Science Quarterly. He also has written multiple articles on subjects as varied as baseball, Frank Sinatra, and C. S. Lewis. More than fifty of his articles have been anthologized in works of political science, history, and English composition.  His 2014 book, Resilient America: Electing Nixon, Channeling Dissent, and Dividing Government, won the American Political Science Association’s Richard E. Neustadt Award for best book on the presidency published that year; and his 2006 book with John Lyman Mason, How the South Joined the Gambling Nation, won the Southern Political Science Association’s V.O. Key Award.   

Review :
The book is the best ′pro-con′ type book that I have seen on the market, as it organizes each chapter around a singular and provocative idea, rather than a simple policy topic. It also discusses material at a higher level than most such texts, avoiding falling into stock arguments about why one policy is better than another, to instead argue points that are grounded in the empirical literature. Chapters that address important issues that students may not have thought about or encountered before (especially chapters on the Bureaucracy, Interest Groups, and Political Parties) are especially helpful." The book is an excellent addition to the introductory American politics course. It covers a wide range of issues that provide focal points for class discussion, and it facilitates in-depth consideration of how institutional frameworks affect outcomes. In the past, I′ve usually been unimpressed by readers that take a pro/con approach since they tend to oversimplify complex issues. The selections in the Ellis and Nelson book generally avoid this oversimplification, and the competing perspectives encourage students to think about how both current rules and potential reforms would affect incentives and choices. My students generally have expressed positive views of the book. It has been a productive tool for starting class discussion, for short writing assignments, and as a starting point for a larger research paper that I assign. I liked that it wasn′t the usual pro/con on the issues of the day. Most of these are new topics for students, and they help to clarify the core concepts of the introductory course. I love the idea of having students connect to a general topic (like federalism) using contemporary policy questions because it gives them something concrete to think about. Students tend to respond fairly favorably. The question about the drinking age and the issue of non-citizens voting in elections tend to be especially popular. Debating Reform is an outstanding text. It triggers debate on some of the most important issues surrounding the structure of our government. I like how it includes a brief explanation of the issue′s background and then includes two well written essays offering a compelling arguments on both sides of the issues. The collection of authors is an esteemed cast of scholars well versed in their particular subject. The students have responded very positively to this book. It provides great topics for discussion on a weekly basis. The book does a good job of introducing students to the idea that institutions are choices and that institutional choices shape political outcomes. I like this as an alternative to the usual debate books, as institutional design is a key focus in my class.