PERIOD 5
Respond to the following questions about our mock congress:
- How did you deal with differing views within your party? The committees? Were you willing to compromise your values or views in order to pass bills?
- How do you think members of Congress approach this process?
- What could you do to be more effective debaters during the floor session?
9 comments:
During Committee, there wasn't much disagreement about what each Bill needed in order to be accepted in Congress. However, during debates it seemed that our parties opinions split many different ways. For example, the lawnmower bill seemed to spark a lot of controversy. Within my party specifically, it seemed as if the opinion was split three ways: those who approved of it, those who thought it needed some amending, and those who were completely against it. As for how we all dealt with it, I think everyone did a good job of maintaining Robert's Rules and allowing other opinions to be heard. You could tell they disagreed when you were talking, but when responding most people were respectful. Hearing everyone's different opinions, and sometimes how they brought up points that would complicate the real life passing of the bill, helped to sway opinions to one side or the other. What I realized most was that for the most part debate started off slow because everyone was set in their opinion, but as talk continued everyone seemed to start questioning points of each bill. In Congress, I am sure the process is similar. I am sure it is even more orderly and sometimes gets heated, but they use others opinions and their own views to decide. I think as far as the floor session goes, we were fairly effective debaters.
The debate of the bills during the floor session, and during committee did not go as smoothly as possible. There was much disagreement among members of the same party; some party members even had opinions that were complete polar opposites. Because of this it was difficult to work well cooperatively within the parties. It was of course necessary to give in on certain issues when I was the clear minority within my party, in order to be as diplomatic as possible. In reality I felt that my party made some poor decisions. Unlike in the actual congress, issues were taken much more lightly and not much thought was put into the decisions made. In an actual congress setting I am sure that I would not give into my party’s will so easily since our decisions had actual impact.
One other problem that I noticed was that people paid little attention when others had the floor and many people would speak and not accomplish anything, by repeating what others had just said. If people were to listen and actually consider what each person said the debate would have been much more effective.
As a member of the minority party, I participated in the Transportation Committee. We discussed a variety of bills in the committee session. Several of them were passed, such as the bill proposing that lawnmowers be allowed to travel on public roads and state highways, a bill that proposed that the U.S. utilize solely green technology in all buildings, and a bill requiring all cars sold in the U.S. to have electronic stability control. Others were shot down, such as a bill proposing that citizens be allowed to obtain their motorcycle license anytime before their driver's license and a bill proposing that left hand turns on red lights be legalized. As a committee, I felt we were very productive and worked well together. We moved through the bills quickly, debating and working together to reach our goal. We did not have any major disagreements, but there was a healthy difference of opinion on some bills, leading to lively debate. The thing that I thought we did very well was maintain decorum and remain courteous to others in our group. Even when some of us disagreed, we attempted to convince others by means of presenting our arguments to show why we supported or opposed the bill. For the most part, there was little disagreement and the decisions were generally ones that we all were OK with. For example, we all shot down the Turn on Red Act and the motorcycle act, as we could all recognize their ludicrousness. However, when there were disagreements, such as on the lawnmower act, we debated them without degenerating into arguing. The final decisions were all relatively acceptable to everyone. Some of us may have had to accept some provisions that they didn't entirely like, but I don't really think that anyone needed to compromise their values on any bill. This may not be the case for actual Congressmen, however. I believe that a Congressman must be willing to accept that the greater good a bill may do might be at odds with their core values, and when that occurs they need to evaluate what would be best, keeping in mind the perspective that the greater good is most important. I think that sometimes they would have to hedge some values to pass a bill that is necessary, even though it may not be what they personally believe in. An example is the stimulus bill. Several Republicans went against their values to pass it, because they believed it was necessary and the good of the American people was worth bending their beliefs for. I think they approach this process by trying to keep to their beliefs, but keeping an open mind for other perspectives. I tried to do the same, especially during the floor session. Concerning the floor debate, I thought I did a good job at maintaining decorum and following Robert’s Rules. I tried to participate as much as I could. I even introduced points that conflicted with my views a couple of times because I thought we should look at all sides of the issue, like on the alcohol bill, even though I voted for it, I brought up several negatives so that we could look at those too and address all sides as fairly as possible. I think many people had very different opinions in their party, but everyone was respectful for the most part--even though not everyone participated/paid attention--and tried to respond to others’ opinions with opinions of their own. To get better, I think we could try to be even more respectful and try to be less willing to give in to the majority, but overall I thought the floor debate went pretty well.
Discussion during the committee meeting went really smoothly. Everyone expressed their thoughts and most often we all agreed. However, during the floor session the distinction between parties was lost and there were many different opinions across the board. Many people expressed views that were unrealistic. Since this was a mock debate I often compromised my real world values to support my view on a frivolous or impractical bill. Also, with some bills I wasn’t 100% for it, but seeing the majority of my party support it, decided to vote to pass it. In actual congress, I would take the bills proposals and my vote much more seriously. The debate did not go as smoothly as possible. Many people repeated each others points, either because they weren’t listening carefully to what other said or they just wanted a chance to voice themselves. Also we could’ve stayed on topic much more efficiently. For instance, when an amendment was proposed people would tend to continue to say what came to mind instead of responding to it or refuting a point some else just made. I think if everyone time and planned their comments more appropriately the decision making would progress much more quickly. Members in congress in a real floor session would be much more knowledgeable and therefore more diplomatic in voicing their opinions. At the same time they would be much more heated in their debate as the issue would be more important and its outcome would have more impact.
Within my party, we all had similar views so we did not have many disagreements. During the committee hearings, I was in the transportation committee. As the minority party, we did not get enough support to veto bills, such as the lawnmower bill. I strongly disagreed with the lawnmower bill, but knowing we would not get enough votes to deny the bill from passing the committee, we tried to compromise with the majority party by amending the bill. We were willing to compromise, by allowing the bill to pass, if more safety requirements were added, such as a roll bar, and seat belt. I feel think that members of Congress would have approached this process much differently than we did. Members of Congress would actually care more about how the bills affect the people they apply to. Some bills had obscenely high costs, if it was a necessary bill I think Congress would find a way to cut costs. Also, while debating a bill Congress members would probably have statistics and facts to back up their point of view. I think members of Congress would have followed Robert’s Rules much more strictly than we did in our mock congress. To be more effective debaters during the floor session, I feel like we could have stood up for what we believe in more. I feel like most people just went a long with the majority and conformed to one person’s opinion. It would have been more realistic, because members in Congress stand up for their beliefs and do not give up without a fight.
I think we dealt with the different views in the party and in the committee very well. We let each other talk and compromised on most of the things. If we had any changes that we wanted made, we just brought it up and if everyone agreed then we would make the necessary changes. I think that since most of the people in our groups were either strongly for or strongly against we didnt really have to change out views about much. I think that members of congress try and figure out bills like we did, but there are so many people with so many different views on a topic that it would be harder for them to make decisions like we did. For us to be more effective debaters we could have had more information about topics. A better background on the bills and what they would do would have made debating a lot easier
and the rest.......??
Well I know that my committee group had a wide variety of ideas and opinions. We dealt with this in the manor of voting, majority wins. As should most things be. Most of the bills we all agreed on, but then there were some that were a challenge. Such as the lawn mower bill. There were those in my group who strongly opposed it, where there were those in my group who strongly enforced it. In the end it passed anyway so everything is ok.
I think that congress uses the same process that we did, majority wins. To me this seems to be the best way to decide on an issue.
As for my performance on the floor, it was ok, nothing special or anything. I’m not exactly a great public speaker while keeping my language and temper under control. On the other hand there were some kids in the class who are excellent public speakers, I might have to see if they will represent my case.
Post a Comment