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

Rather than simply focusing on how institutions work, this reader helps students to understand how they can be made to work better. Each pro or con essay considers a concrete proposal for reforming the political system. 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.  

Table of Contents:
Preface Contributors The Constitution 1 Resolved, Article V should be revised to make it easier to amend the Constitution and to call a constitutional convention PRO: - SANFORD LEVINSON CON: - DAVID E. KYVIG Democracy 2 Resolved, American democracy needs less sunshine and more closed-door negotiations PRO: - BRUCE E. CAIN CON: - GARY D. BASS, DANIELLE BRIAN, AND NORMAN EISEN Culture 3 Resolved, Andrew Jackson should be removed from the $20 bill PRO: - BRIAN A. WEINER CON: - MARK CHEATHEM Federalism 4 Resolved, Congress should restore each state’s freedom to set its drinking age PRO: - JOHN MCCARDELL CON: - JAMES C. FELL Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 5 Resolved, Congress should pass the Democracy Restoration Act restoring the right to vote in federal elections to people with criminal records PRO: - ERIKA L. WOOD CON: - ROGER CLEGG 6 Resolved, states should enact voter ID laws and reduce early voting PRO: - MICHAEL NELSON CON: - KEITH GUNNAR BENTELE AND ERIN O’BRIEN Political Participation 7 Resolved, The United States should adopt a national initiative and referendum PRO: - TODD DONOVAN CON: - RICHARD J. ELLIS 8 Resolved, The United States should adopt compulsory voting PRO: - MARTIN P. WATTENBERG CON: - JASON BRENNAN Campaigns and Elections 9 Resolved, Congress should remove the caps on the amount that individuals can contribute to candidates for federal office PRO: - JOHN SAMPLES CON: - RICHARD BRIFFAULT Political Parties 10 Resolved, political parties should nominate candidates for president in a national primary PRO: - CAROLINE J. TOLBERT CON: - DAVID P. REDLAWSK Interest Groups 11 Resolved, Congress should bring back earmarks PRO: - SCOTT A. FRISCH AND SEAN Q KELLY CON: - JEFFREY LAZARUS House of Representatives 12 Resolved, proportional representation should be adopted for U.S. House elections PRO: - DOUGLAS J. AMY CON: - BRENDAN J. DOHERTY 13 Resolved, the redistricting process should be nonpartisan PRO: - ELAINE C. KAMARCK CON: - JUSTIN BUCHLER Senate 14 Resolved, the Senate should represent people, not states PRO: - BRUCE I. OPPENHEIMER CON: - JOHN J. PITNEY JR. 15 Resolved, Senate Rule XXII should be amended so that filibusters can be ended by a majority vote PRO: - STEVEN S. SMITH CON: - WENDY J. SCHILLER Presidency 16 Resolved, the electoral college should be abolished PRO: - GEORGE C. EDWARDS III CON: - GARY L. GREGG II 17 Resolved, the Twenty-Second Amendment should be repealed PRO: - DAVID A. CROCKETT CON: - MICHAEL J. KORZI Bureaucracy 18 Resolved, bring back the bureaucrats PRO: - JOHN DILULIO CON: - BRAD DEWEES Judiciary 19 Resolved, the terms of Supreme Court justices should be limited to eighteen years PRO: - DAVID KAROL CON: - WARD FARNSWORTH Domestic Policy 20 Resolved, Americans should receive four more years of free public education PRO: - ROBERT SAMUELS CON: - NEAL MCCLUSKEY National Security and Foreign Policy 21 Resolved, national security would be strengthened by requiring the government to keep fewer secrets and become more transparent PRO: - MICHAEL COLARESI CON: - STEPHEN F. KNOTT

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 :
“Debating Reform gets students thinking about government in ways that require critical analysis. Government is not static—it is something fluid and ever-changing. Through these readings, students are called to engage in a conversation not only about what government is, but also about what it could be.” “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 been largely unimpressed by readers that take a pro/con approach since they tend to oversimplify complex issues. The essays 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 can affect incentives and choices.”