Why?

On January 20, 2017 Donald John Trump was inaugurated as the 45th President of the United
States. Amid widespread complaints of voter suppression, command of the American nuclear
arsenal, intelligence apparatus, and federal policing authority was transferred to a man who lost
the popular contest by three million votes. Meanwhile, Trump claimsso far without evidence
that millions of people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton.

While a panoply of broader historical forces produced this situation, the proximate cause of his
victory was Americas thoroughly broken electoral process. This process is marked by economic
corruption, white supremacist voter suppression, archaic institutions, and mathematical
oddities. Election reform is thus a controversy at the heart of American politics where
momentous political, philosophical, cultural, and ethical issues converge. Elections determine
who guides the state (dont they?), and that is central to all aspects of government policy. Free
and fair elections are extolled as the crown jewel of contemporary advanced democracies,
examples to the world, but their operation in the United States is far from certain. The right to
vote is a central civil rights issue. Elections determine who heads the United States government,
who sits in Congress, and who charts the course for future American policies of all kinds, from
the most mundane to the most existentially horrifying. The stakes of reform are thus immense.

On the other hand, paths to reform are hotly contested by a disparate range of critics from
conservative political scientists to anarchist revolutionaries and scholars of anti-blackness.
Electoral paths draw activists into the orbit of state politics, potentially defanging the most
committed. With greater responsiveness comes greater opportunities for populism, majoritarian
suppression of dissent, and political polarization. Even those who acknowledge that change is
urgent seldom agree on how it should be done. Every reform for one group is a potential
setback for another, and precisely because the stakes are high, the dangers of poor decisions are
also grave.

The central controversies of this topic area are whether democratic politics in the USA can be
reformed, how that should be done, and whether it is desirable to do so at all. Despite the
centrality of voting rights to civil rights demands, expressions of identity, womens suffrage,
transphobia, core national policy decisions, and the overall shape of a representative democracy,
it has not been an intercollegiate debate topic in recent memory.

Questions of meaningful participation in a political community are also burning issues in

debate. Who has access to what, in what circumstances, and under what (explicit or implicit)
rules has occupied a great deal of our attention. Whether reform is possible, what it would
mean, and how different identity groups can survive and coexist are issues that are already
discussed frequently. Even specific elements of voting rightslike the success or failure of the
Voting Rights Actare already debated. Therefore, election reform is not an abstract topic
irrelevant to students lives. Its about the conditions of access to government. Its about unequal
distributions of power. Its about whether civil society can be reformed, or whether it should be
scrapped. It is literally about the meaning of ballots. Its about how our scholarshipin all
sensesmight rework the foundations of the politicalor how we train ourselves in cruel
optimism.

This topic is not a compromise we can all agree on. Voting for Election Reform is more like
picking a battlefield than signing a truce, but its perhaps a terrain which allows all sides to bring
their best arguments to bear on issues that directly impact our individual lives and communities.
Sometimes debates between radically divergent teams are like ships passing in the night. Not
here. This is where the ships collide.
Why now?
Leaving aside the relevance of this topic for contemporary conversations in debate, why should
we debate it in 2017-2018? Isnt this our free year, where we might escape the looming
boredom of a legal topic? Cant this wait? In short, 2017-2018 is the ideal time for this topic. It
has not been a topic in recent memorythe Civil Rights topic, which intersected with some of
these issues, happened before many of our undergraduates were born. Recent events make it
particularly relevant, especially given that the first election since the partial rollback of the
Voting Rights Act has recently concluded (https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voting-
rights-act). 2018-2019 is a poor choice because the midterm elections in November of 2018
could radically alter the topic and require a mid-season reassessment. 2019-2020 makes more
sense, but threatens to drown some of the important structural issues of election reform in a sea
of OMGTrump! hot takes. A core problem with this issue is that people only tend to care
about it during election time. We, as academics in an activity ostensibly linked to civic
participation and critiques thereof, should resist this impulse. 2017-2018 is the perfect balance
of timeliness and stability. Besides, democracy in the United States is eroding now, yet there is
an ominous dearth of public discourse on this issue. It is certainly not too early to begin
debating, organizing, and judging our responses.
What does Electoral Reform even mean?
I have in mind a topic about expanding access to democratic institutions, basically
encompassing the qualifications, procedures, and institutions that govern participation, as
developed above. I favor the term electoral reform. It is used frequently (often synonymous
with electoral change, electoral system change, or electoral system reform, all of which
mean the same thing, but are not terms of art to the same degree that electoral reform is.

Here are some broad definitions. The first essentially encompasses my vision for the topic:

BOWLER AND DONOVAN 2013 (Shaun and Todd, The Limits of Electoral Reform, Oxford University
Press, p. 9)
Changes are not just proposedelectoral rules do change with some regularity. But when are
changes to rules reforms as opposed to simply being changes? Do we need to identify
improvements in order to distinguish between the two? As we noted above, one persons reform
may be another persons loss. Changeespecially with electoral rulesneed not always make
everyone better off and may often make some worse off. We therefore have an agnostic view of
the difference between change and reform and will use the terms interchangeably. For our
purposes an electoral reform is any change to status quo electoral arrangements. We do not
confine ourselves to changes in electoral systems but consider changes in electoral rules as well.
Scholars and politicians alike expect that a wide array of changes to electoral rulesincluding
reapportionment schemes, redistricting plans, changes in the ways redistricting is donecan
have profound effects on elections (Katz 2005:59). The same can be said about changing the
technology and machinery used in voting (Ansolabehere and Stewart 2005). Changes to
campaign finance rules, the adoption of term limits, the presence or absence of direct democracy
are also expected to have major effects on public attitudes (Smith and Tolbert 2004; Buchanan
2000; Will 1992), on who wins elections, and on who gets what from government. Changes in
electoral rules occur with greater frequency than changes to electoral systems and give us a
wider range of examples to consider when looking for the effects of change (or reform).

Heres another; its a touch more technical, but perhaps does not capture some core areas quite
as well (an EMB is an Electoral Management Body):
ACE ENCYCLOPEDIA 2017 (ACE Electoral Knowledge Network [ACE was originally Administration and
Cost of Elections], Electoral Management, http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/em/electoral-management-case-
studies/the-united-states-decentralized-to-the-point-of)
Electoral reform often only catches the public eye when it involves changes to representational
arrangements, such as electoral systems, but it is a much broader concept than this. There are
three distinct areas of electoral reform; an EMB and its stakeholders may play different roles in
each.
Legal: involving the amendment of the constitution, electoral law, and/ or related rules and
regulations to enhance the integrity, relevance and adequacy of the legal framework within
which the EMB delivers its services. This may include institutional reform of the EMB itself.
Administrative: the introduction within an EMB of new strategies, structures, policies,
procedures and technical innovations to enable it to implement its legal responsibilities and
deliver its services more efciently, effectively and sustainably. These could include policies and
practices on issues such as procurement, nancial integrity or employment (such as gender
balance in the recruitment of EMB staff ); making informed voting accessible to groups such as
women, those living in remote areas and the physically impaired; or introducing new technology
for services such as voting, voter registration or electoral logistics.
Political: changes that take place in the political environment within which an EMB operates,
such as giving it more autonomy or creating a more effective and transparent framework for its
funding and accountability.

A bit more concise:

COLOMER 2011 (Josep, Higher Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Barcelona, Electoral Reform, The
Encyclopedia of Political Science, p. 485)
Electoral reform is the change of some element of an electoral system, including suffrage rights,
the size or number of seats in the assembly, the magnitude or number of seats in the districts,
the formula to allocate seats or make a winner, and the ballot form permitting or restricting the
voters' choice of parties and candidates. In the long term, major electoral reforms have
expanded suffrage rights, replaced indirect elections with direct elections by majority rule, and
done the latter with mixed systems and proportional representation rules.

Heres a somewhat limited definition technical definition:

JACOBS AND LEYENAAR 2009 (https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/8ac45958-c311-
43fe-b0f7-183f5ad34609.pdf)
When defining minor electoral reform, we first have to decide on what we mean by electoral
reform. The term electoral provides a good starting point. One could say that electoral reform is
a change in the legislation (versus practice) that regulates the process of voting, which includes
who gets to vote, what he or she is allowed to do in the voting booth (e.g. a vote for a party or a
person), what he or she votes for (e.g. national, provincial, local, executive, recall, elections)
and how these votes are afterwards translated into seats (the electoral system, Farell, 2001) (see
also: Dalton & Gray, 2003: 27).
We now can distinguish four dimensions of electoral reforms, namely (reforms in) the
proportionality of the electoral system, the ballot structure, the inclusiveness of the electoral
legislation and the election levels. In addition, the practical organisation of an election can be
included as a fifth dimension. We thus treat electoral reform as a two-level concept (Goertz,
2006: 237-268). The basic level, electoral reform, taps a factor which is common across cases
of electoral reform, namely change to the legislation on the electoral process.
The secondary level, on the other hand, permits more differentiation among cases, namely a
change to any of the five dimensions. The five dimensions have a substitutable relationship with
electoral reform: they neither define nor cause electoral reform, but are specific paths to
electoral reform (Goertz, 2006: 244).6
Thus, to implement electoral reform a legislator may for instance change the ballot structure or
the electoral system.7

Note that Colomers definition is of major electoral reforms. If the topic committee judged it
necessary to qualify the degree of reform, there is a debate about major reforms versus
minor and technical reforms in academic literature about elections. I believe that this
particular topic should be written broadly (see below), but this is, indeed, a thing.

Here's proof. Although it even includes a quantitative standard (20%), I think thats somewhat
deceptive as the reforms that guarantee a 20% change in some electoral system are unduly
narrow and do not capture the value of this topic.
BIELASIAK AND HUSLEY 2009 (Jack and John,
https://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/2400ae4c-94e5-4e48-bb2b-798dcc95dc09.pdf)
Another central question concerns the definition of the dependent variable: what
constitutes electoral reform? The formal definition of legal changes in the electoral code masks
the dilemma of electoral reform significance. The basic question is which changes are
sufficiently important to form a new rule configuration that alters the mechanisms of vote to
seat conversion and the incentives for political actors (Lijphart, 1994). To assess the differential
impact of diverse election rules, efforts have focused on distinguishing between major and
minor changes in electoral systems (Lijphart, 1994; Katz, 2005). There is wide consensus that
the electoral formula is the critical component in defining the competitive environment
(Duverger, 1954; Lijphart, 1994; Katz, 2005, Colomer, 2005). For our purposes, then, we
consider changes between majoritarian, mixed, and PR formulas as major reforms that
significantly affect the rules of party contestation. A strong case has also been made for the
major impact of district magnitude on the vote to seat calculation, postulating a close
relationship between electoral and party systems through the medium of district size magnitude.
Simply, the higher the number of seats available per district, the better the chance of smaller
political formations to win a seat, and thus to participate in political completion (Taagepera and
Shugarrt, 1989; Lijphart, 1994; Gallagher, 1991). For that reason, changes in average district
magnitude are taken as major alterations that redefine the linkage between electoral and party
systems.
There are numerous other components to electoral codes that must be taken into account
in evaluating the relationship. These minor alterations range across diverse practices (Katz,
2005). We consider the following minor reforms as sufficiently important to affect results: the
vote to seats conversion method in PR systems, the number of tiers in the electoral system,
assembly size, and legal threshold. More inclusive electoral procedures include two tiers as
9 opposed to single tier districting, larger assembly chambers, but lower legal bars for entry into
the legislature, as well as shifts in conversion methods from dHondt and LR-Imeperiali type
towards St Lague and Hare calculation methods (Lijphart, 1994, 159). Lijpharts original
criterion defined significant modification in magnitude, chamber size, or threshold as a 20%
change. This standard is replicated here, so that alongside alteration in electoral formula,
changes of 20% or more in the numerical electoral properties take on the characteristics of
distinct voting systems. All the changes are then codified as to the direction of the reform as
restrictive or permissive. For the purpose of the statistical analysis, the major and minor
changes have been combined into a summary indicator denoting the presence of reform and
whether it was permissive or restrictive.

Heres a longer, more involved interpretation distinguishing between major, minor, and
technical. This same publication defines the five categories mentioned here as election
reform without a reference to the scope of change, i.e., major, minor, technical, and may be
worth reading if youre interested in this topic. While this evidence seems to set clear lines, there
is a strong argument to disregard it if the topic did not contain the word major. Further, the
scholar it cites for the 20% figure (Lijphart) acknowledges that 20% is an arbitrary choice.
JACOBS AND LEYENAAR 2014 (A Conceptual Framework for Major, Minor, and Technical Reform, in
Understanding Electoral Reform, ed. Hazan, Routledge, p. 65-67)
Referring to the first dimension, the proportionality of the electoral system,s we follow Lijphart,
who calls any change from one to another of the three main sub-dimensions of electoral
formulas (majoritarian, semi- proportional and proportional ones) a major change. Equally, a
change in a specific formula that does not cause a shift to a different category can be called a
minor electoral reform. With regard to the (average) district magnitude and the effective
electoral threshold, the proportionality of an electoral system is also determined by the ratio of
inhabitants to seats. Hence, most changes to the boundaries of the electoral districts (rcdistrict-
ing) also fall into this category and depending on the percentage of inhabitants that is affected
redistricting can be regarded either as a minor or as a technical reform. Lastly, any electoral
system change at all but the national level is considered a minor electoral reform at best.9 With
regard to the second dimension, the election level, two different types of level matter. First,
elections can include multiple layers (e.g. the (sub-)local, provincial or national layer) and,
second, public figures can be elected, such as a president, prime minister, mayors, judges, etc.
We follow Katz (2005: 58) in labelling the introduction of the direct election of (national) heads
of state a major reform. Equally the introduction of the direct election of a new layer or type of
public figure not at the national level is a minor electoral reform. Where this newly-introduced
election only affects less than 1 per cent of the total population of a country it is a technical
electoral reform.
The third dimension, the inclusiveness of the electoral law includes three sub-dimensions. First,
it includes any expansion of the electorate by law. Although Lijphart did not consider these
expansions, we regard them as major reforms if they enlarge the electorate by 20 per cent or
more at the time of introduction. The enfranchisement of the working class and of women
clearly fall into this category. If the change is less than 20 per cent but higher than 1 per cent (for
instance, by lowering the voting age or enfranchising foreigners or citizens living abroad) it is a
minor reform. A second sub-dimension concerns the voter registration requirements, which
significantly influence the actual inclusiveness of the electoral legislation. We propose a sub-
division between the costs attached to registration (free or not) and the role of the individual in
the registration process (does the individual have to take the initiative or does the government
automatically register voters). Any categorical change in voter registration is a minor electoral
reform (e.g. from cost-free to non-cost-free), while any change that is not categorical is technical
(e.g. lowering the burden of the registration by the individual, but still requiring him or her to
take the initiative). A third and last sub-dimension of inclusivcncss relates to whether or not
voting is compulsory. The introduction (or wholesale repeal) of compulsory voting at the
national level is a major reform given the number of (non-)votcrs it affects, while changes in the
legislation, such as in the sanctions, are minor or technical.
The fourth dimension, the ballot structure, includes all changes in the degree and the nature of a
voters choice (Farrell 2001; Rae 1967). Traditionally this concerned the choice between
different types of ballots. However, the choice available to the voter does also include which
parties and candidates can be found on the list. The introduction of a gender quota law for
example affects the composition of the candidate list. The ballot structure dimension in Table 1
therefore includes reforms in ballot choice, party choice and the choice of candidates. Regarding
ballot choice, Norris (2002: 3-4) distinguishes four types of ballot structures: candidate ballots,
preference ballots (ballots for candidates within a party list or lists), dual ballots (separate
ballots in both single- and multi-member districts) and party ballots. The electoral formula
influences the boundaries of the ballot structure. For instance an SMP (single-mcmbcr plurality)
electoral system always uses candidate ballots, while in list systems both preference and party
ballots can be found (Norris 2002: 19). Especially in list systems there is ample room for
manoeuvre, since they can range from an open to a closed list system. A wholesale shift from
one category to another (e.g. from preference ballots to party ballots) that applies to more than
20 per cent of the electorate is a major reform. Shifts within a category are influenced by two
other aspects: the number of votes people can cast and the impact of these votes on the actual
election of candidates. Changes in these two aspects are minor or technical reforms.
Referring to candidate choice, we label the introduction of quotas that affect more than 20 per
cent of the candidates on the list a major reform, while a lower percentage or a change in the
existing quota system results in minor or technical reform. Quotas are used mostly to ensure a
fair balance between male and female candidates (gender quota), but one can also think of other
kinds of quota.
Finally, party choice refers to the requirements necessary for parties to take part in elections and
receive government grants for campaigning. In many countries parties are obliged to pay a
specific amount of money and submit a particular number of signatures as an expression of
support before they are allowed to participate in elections. Additional requirements may exist
for obtaining government funds. The introduction or abolishment of these requirements are
major reforms, changes that have an impact of less than 20 per cent are regarded as minor,
while a shift within the categories is regarded as technical.
The fifth dimension, electoral procedures, includes all legislation on how and when elections are
organised. As electoral procedures have no direct relation with the electoral system, or with the
parties or candidates, they are considered as either minor or technical. Many changes in
electoral procedures cannot be measured quantitatively or, when it is possible, proper empirical
analyses are lacking. Furthermore, we still lack detailed empirical classifications of the electoral
procedures. Currently we therefore opt to regard changes in electoral procedures as technical
reforms. However, there is some data on types of electoral management body (EMB)
(Massicotte et al. 2004). Such an EMB can have a wide variety of competences, such as for
instance monitoring elections or supervising rcdistricting, all of which can be highly important.
As Massicotte et al. (2004: 10) note, '[i]f the electoral machinery did not matter, there would be
no need to send international election observers into developing democ- racies. The authors
distinguish between at least two types of EMB (Massicotte et al. 2004: 83): either it is
independent, or a government minister is in charge. Clearly a mixture is also possible. Any
change from one of these three categories to another can be labelled a minor reform. A change
within the categories can be termed a technical reform.

Heres a final card on only major counts which might apply even if the word is not included in
the resolution. Its from a British honors thesis, but stillhere it is:
HELLER 2012 (Abigail,
https://dspace.fandm.edu/bitstream/handle/11016/23876/HellerThesis.pdf;sequence=1)
An electoral system is the set of rules that structure how votes are cast at elections for a
representative assembly and how these votes are then converted into seats in that assembly
(Gallagher and Mitchell 2005a, 3). Different systems convert votes into seats in different ways,
some more proportionally than others. Therefore, the type of electoral system can affect
representation, accountability, stability, type of governmentsingle-party versus coalitionthe
party system, and the experience of democracy more generally (Gallagher and Mitchell 2005a;
see also: Duverger 1984; Farrell 2001). The choice of an electoral system involves trade-offs
between these key components of democratic governance. Electoral system reforms, therefore,
include those changes that alter the way votes are cast and/or how the votes are converted into
seats. There is a spectrum of electoral reforms that ranges from the relatively minor, such as
the alteration of ballot access requirement or a change in the type of proportional formula, to
major reforms in which plurality rules are replaced by proportional or mixed systems (Katz
2005, 60). For our purposes the phrase electoral reform refers to the major changes that are less
frequent than the minor alterations.

This is a significantly narrower definitiondont worry, you can still be a spoilsport if you are
into that kind of thing:
RENWICK 2010 (Alan, The Politics of Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of Democracy, Cambridge
University Press, p. 2-3)
I focus on major changes in electoral systems. Electoral law comprises enormously many
elements, including who has the right to vote or run for office, how voters are registered, who
conducts elections following what administrative procedures, how campaigns are financed, how
people vote, what preferences voters can express, and how votes are translated into seats (on
many of these aspects, see Massicotte, Blais, and Yoshinaka 2004). I cannot cover all of these
here, and, in common with most electoral system scholars, I limit the inquiry to the last two
elements, concerning the nature of the vote and its translation into seats. It is to these elements
that the label of electoral system is typically given.

Here is a much narrower definition, which could require the aff to switch from the current
system (proportional representation, or PR) to an opposite principle:
FINDERS 2010 (Matthew Finders, Democratic Drift: Majoritarian Modification and
Democratic Anomie in the United Kingdom, Oxford UP, 2010, p. 145-6)
The constitutional configuration of a polity conditions and shapes the nature and location of
political power within that system. Institutional reform, as Tsebelis has argued is likely therefore
to be 'redistributive' in that some changes 'may alter who wins and loses' and this is particularly
valid in relation to electoral systemsLijphart's fourth variable.2 In line with the work of a
number of scholarsincluding, for example, Nohlen, Powell, and Shugartelectoral reform is
defined as the introduction of a legislative electoral system that operates towards an opposite
principle from the pre-existing system (and simple-plurality and proportional sys- tems are seen
to be based on opposing principles of representation).3 As such, the characteristics that are
associated with majoritarianismlow numbers of effective political parties, single-party
governments, govern- ment control of the legislaturegenerally form the outputs of single-
member simple-plurality electoral systems, commonly known as 'first past the post' (FPTP)
systems. These are winner-takes-all systems in which the candidate securing the largest number
of votes wins the seat, even if they have not secured a majority of all the votes cast. The dispro-
portionality of FPTP is not accidental, but is based on a normative desire to deliver an executive
with a majority of legislative seats. Democratic criteriasuch as proportionality or fairnessare
therefore traded down in favour of 'governability' criteriastability, clear majorities, and domi-
nance in a direct reflection of majoritarian philosophy.4 The normative values of consensualism
participation, inclusion, equity, etc.are, by contrast, delivered by more proportional electoral
systems that seek to achieve a more direct relationship between votes cast and the allocation of
seats.5 The distinction between simple-plurality and proportional electoral systems therefore
underpins, and in very many ways creates and sustains the contrast between power-hoarding
and power-sharing models of de- mocracy.6 It is in this context that Lijphart found that during
1945-96, the UK had an average electoral disproportionality score of 10.33 per cent.

So, one may ask, whats the secret, awesome, consensus definition that makes the topic
ossified and boring predictable? Maybe none:
BOWLER AND DONOVAN 2013 (Shaun and Todd, The Limits of Electoral Reform, Oxford University
Press, p. 1-2)
First, proponents of changes to existing electoral arrangements regularly take on the mantle not
just of changers but of reformers. The difference in words represents a subtle but meaningful
distinction that implies not simply alternation but also improvement. For some, the title of
reformer is self-selected. Perhaps more commonly, advocates of changes to existing election
rules are simply referred to as reformers. Although the terms reform and electoral reform are
used regularly in the academic literature, scholars of elections and representation have no clear
consensus about the meaning of the terms. For Lijphart reform is equated with electoral
engineering, in the sense that reforming and engineering share the same goals of incremental
improvements to electoral rules (Lijpphart 1990; 1994:9, 139; Norris 2004). Lijphart notes that
a less flattering term than engineering is manipulation, but argues that there are moral
constraints on how often rules can be manipulated for partisan advantage (Lijphart 1994: 151).
Constitutional reformers are also presented as means for improvement, tools that cure
weakness and inefficiency in a political system (Sundquist 1992:4).

But, one might ask, doesnt it make the topic bidirectional if we use the definition you favor
(listed first)? Not necessarily, because electoral reform at least mandates more
democratization, not less, even if its broad. This evidence is admittedly equivocal (read the un-
underlined parts), although further definitions of reform, the poor quality of anti-democratic
affs, and the inability for them to dodge a great deal of work that every team will necessarily
have to complete in any case militates against this concern:
ACE ENCYCLOPEDIA 2017 (ACE Electoral Knowledge Network [ACE was originally
Administration and Cost of Elections], Electoral Management, http://aceproject.org/ace-
en/topics/em/electoral-management-case-studies/the-united-states-decentralized-to-the-point-of)
Electoral reform is a broad term that covers, among other things, improving the responsiveness
of electoral processes to public desires and expectations. However, not all electoral change can
be considered electoral reform. Electoral change can only be referred to as reform if its primary
goal is to improve electoral processes, for example, through fostering enhanced impartiality,
inclusiveness, transparency, integrity or accuracy. However, this distinction is not always clear
in practice: some changes (e.g. US proposals to require voters to produce identity documents at
polling stations) may be characterized as desirable or even necessary reforms by their
proponents, but as improper manipulation by their opponents. Random and/or frequent
electoral change, while it may be reformist, can also be confusing to voters, and thus defeat its
purpose. Frequent change may also negatively affect the sustainability of an EMBs operations.

There are also, of course, functional limits to the topic, and although one can name many cases,
this may not truly represent excessive breadth so much as terminological peculiarities:
LIJPHART 1994 (Arend, Electoral Systems and Party Systems: A Study of Twenty-Seven Democracies, 1945-
1990, Oxford Univ Press, p. 1-2)
The number of electoral systems is, in principle, infinite; the number of systems that democratic
engineers and reformers have proposed is much smaller; and the number that have been in
actual use is smaller still. I shall try to show that there is neither much variation in electoral
systems nor as much complexity as is often assumed. In particular, systems of proportional
representationto which I shall henceforth refer as PRare often thought of as inherently
complicated; newspaper articles reporting on PR elections almost automatically call the PR
system being used a complex form of PR! In fact, with only a few exceptions, PR systems can be
classified and described in relatively simple and straightforward terms. One of the reasons for
the unnecessary confusion surrounding electoral systems is that both electoral engineers and
students of electoral systems have used confused terminologieswith the same term sometimes
being used for different practices and the same practice referred to by different terms. I shall try
to clarify and simplify the basic terms, and I shall present the principal properties of the various
electoral systems in clearly defined categories so as to facilitate comparisons among them as
well as the systematic testing of their political consequences.

Truly small cases can often be solved by the states counterplansee the Neg Ground section.

One last concern: campaign finance reform is a big area for this issue broadly. I think it should
be included, especially for the benefit of policy teams since it has a large and well-defined
literature base with access to significant impacts. Some of the definitions above include it;
others do not. Heres a card saying its topical (see also: 12 Cardozo Stud. L. & Lit. 141):
MATE 2015 (Manoj, Assistant Professor of Law, Whittier Law School; J.D., Harvard Law
School; M.A., Ph.D., Political Science, University of California, Berkeley, Boston University
International Law Journal, 32 B.U. Int'l L.J. 267; https://www.bu.edu/ilj/files/2014/05/Mate-
High-Court-Reform-in-India1.pdf)
By electoral reform, the Author refers to the Indian and U.S. Supreme Court's most significant
decisions involving the regulation of corruption and money in politics. In the United States,
these decisions have primarily involved campaign finance reform regulation. In India, the
Author defines electoral reform decisions as including both campaign finance reform, and
disclosure and transparency reforms that extend beyond campaign finance issues.
What are potential resolutions?
Examples:

The United States Federal Government should [establish, implement, mandate, adopt] electoral
reform in the United States.

According to Bowler and Donovan, there may be no consensus, but I think the term electoral
reform should be adopted anyway, and this is my (provisionally) recommended wording. First,
electoral reform is commonly used in both expert literature and quotidian public discourse. It
is in fact a term of art, even if there are disputes about its exact limits, which is true of nearly
every topic-specific phrase included in nearly every resolution. Second, a relatively broad term is
good for this particular area. There is a fair amount of advantage diversity, but ultimately the
biggest areas for policy affs revolve around changing electoral outcomes, which also runs
directly into the best neg ground (see relevant discussions below). I predict a fair number of
advantages (not a huge number), and relatively more plans, but few of them would be truly field-
disrupting. The basic areas of voter access, voting procedure, and electoral process (which
might include campaign finance reform, but perhaps this is a fourth area) cover most of the real
controversy about elections and let a diversity of teams with different styles debate about things
that matter to them. Third, clarifying phrases or a list could limit the topic, although I think they
are mostly unnecessary because electoral reform is sufficient, and even a very broad reading of
the topic is still fairly limited.

A more limiting resolution is:

The United States Federal Government should [verb] federal electoral reform in the United
States.

I dont think this is necessary or desirable. The states c/p largely solves affs that only change
state procedures, and to the extent that it doesnt (i.e., federal mandates are required), this
resolution might limit out important and interesting areas.

List topics are possible, too. Example:

The USFG should [verb] electoral reform in the United States in one or more of the following
areas:

Here are sets that could be included:

Voting rights, voting procedure, electoral process, campaign finance reform

Voter access, electoral procedure, campaign finance reform
Voting rights, voting procedure, electoral process
Voter access, voting procedure, electoral process

We should not have a list topic. Fellow old people: the sanctions topic will never come back, and
it was not as good as you remember it. It is petit objet a, it is cruel optimism, it is forever over
the horizon, and only if youre looking back over your shoulder. Our pursuit of the Lost Golden
Age of Sanctions resulted in the Europe topic, which was just a bunch of affs mashed together
with little common theme. We really Cronenberged the topic that time, all in the name of
sanctions. Lets not do that again. We should have short, elegantly-worded topics that
adequately divide ground while being legible and accessible to people who know little about
intercollegiate debate. I believe that my first proposed resolution does that. Innovation is good,
and electoral reform is not too broad. Its a great term, and we dont need to have a list.

If electoral reform is considered too broad, the topic committee might consider major
electoral reform on the basis of the evidence I included in the last section. I dont think thats
necessaryin the case of electoral reform, the Devil truly is in the details, so those minor and
technical affs are important. They dont significantly expand the scope of negative prep, and
they permit more aff innovation, which is good. In any case, lots of debates on this topic could
be between one method for electoral reform and another, so small affs are unlikely to catch the
neg with nothing.

A number of hyper-limited resolutions are possible, such as Resolved: The USFG should
establish campaign finance reform, or The USFG should increase voting rights protections.

Alternative actors and the passive voice present some difficulties for this resolution. Passive
voice resolutions (e.g., electoral reform should be established in the United States) threaten to
be extremely broad since many bad policies are present in individual states. This may cause an
overfocus on extremely local areas that dont have much relevance for most debaters and are
very limited, one-sided issues. Non-USFG actors might be tough, too, since electoral law is
largely determined by the government, although resolutions like should demand electoral
reform or should demand electoral representation are certainly possible. This issue is very
hard to divorce from debates over government action, so I favor a USFG actor.

Teams that dont want to defend USFG action can of course continue not doing so, as is already
the norm for many. I think this resolution creates a great opportunity for these teams to have
high quality debates: many of the reasons that teams express a desire not to defend the
resolution (no access to the federal government, determination to oppose civil society rather
than reform it, skepticism about the possibility of reform) directly intersect with issues in
electoral reform anyway, meaning that these arguments are core ground on the topic in any
case. I imagined this topic area as conditions for participation in civil society, encouraging a
wide range of critical and identity-based arguments, with a narrower resolution specifying
ground for policy teams. Some teams just dont want to defend a policy resolution, and they
wont. I believe that this topic makes the question why not? central to debate because the
answers to this question are direct arguments against electoral reform. Again, this doesnt create
an (impossible) compromise. It creates a space for contestation.

One last thought: election reform is an imperfect phrase, just like constructive engagement,
climate policy, military presence, and democracy assistance (okay, its better than that last
one for sure). I urge you to consider how unfortunate it would be for us not to debate this area
given its potential on the basis of an imperfect phrase. I trust in wiser minds than mine to craft
an elegant resolution; we can all trust ourselves to mess it up over the course of the year.
Election reform isnt perfect. Its more than pretty good, though, and the area is immensely
promising.
What are the policy plans like?
Policy ground is partially contingent on the exact wording of the resolution, of course (see
above), but Election Reform could likely include at least these issues: changes to voting access
(e.g., re-enfranchising convicted felons, restoring VRA Section 5 coverage), changes to voting
procedure (e.g., compulsory voting, national holiday for voting, online voting), changes to the
way votes are counted (e.g., redistricting/gerrymandering, national popular vote, instant-runoff
voting), and changes to political campaigning (e.g., public financing, spending limits, campaign
finance reform).

Here are some links detailing different affs. I have not tried to find the best solvency card for
every aff here, but just found references to provide a sense of what might be topical:

Voter ID, representation, big money, restricted choice

http://www.awakendemocracy.com/electoral-reform/

Electoral college/popular vote, ranked choice, rescheduling election day/primaries

https://ivn.us/2015/12/23/4-proposed-reforms-to-strengthen-your-voice-in-presidential-
elections/

Voter suppression/voting rights

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/02/the-long-history-of-black-
voter-suppression-in-american-politics/?utm_term=.65b8179abcb9
https://thinkprogress.org/2016-a-case-study-in-voter-suppression-258b5f90ddcd
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2016/11/08/voter-suppression-in-u-s-elections/

Disenfranchisement of people based on mental competence

http://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-vote/

Felony disenfranchisement
http://sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Felony-Disenfranchisement-
Primer.pdf
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/01/should-felons-lose-the-right-to-
vote/282846/

Finance reform
http://www.pfaw.org/report/money-out-voters-in-a-guide-to-democratic-reform/

Instant-runoff voting, election holiday, public finance

https://thinkprogress.org/three-electoral-reforms-that-would-improve-and-enrich-our-system-
of-representative-democracy-ed0901b2f36f

Patriot dollars, Deliberation day

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032329213483103

Various campaign finance reform proposals

http://www.democracymatters.org/what-you-need-to-know-about-money-in-politics-
2/overview/become-an-expert/
Theres a good deal of evidence about why these discussions are politically important, and why
college students should debate them to potentially influence policy. Heres just the first example
I found:
https://www.hks.harvard.edu/fs/pnorris/Acrobat/ECPR%202009%20Electoral%20Reform
%20Norris.pdf

You could also get right to the socialist revolution:

http://www.socialism.com/drupal-6.8/node/885
What are the policy advantages?
Democracy is the advantage most accessible to policy plans across this spectrum. The internal
links to this are of varying quality, but they are in general excellentelectoral representation
and structure is arguably the sine qua non for American democracy, currently under threat by
racist voting exclusions, income inequality and Citizens United, or a variety of other institutions
such as the Electoral College. Perhaps collapse of American democracy has been considered a
bad advantage in past, there is a lot of speculation about Americas authoritarian drift in the
wake of Trump and Citizens United. Further, there is good evidence about the American
democratic model and other states (heres an exampleolder, but clearly a link to a big impact:
https://www.thenation.com/article/failing-electoral-standards/). I feel like a detailed pitch is
unnecessary here.

Various discrimination advantages are possible. Anti-blackness is the most obvious, although
voting procedure has powerful effects on others, too (e.g., indigenous people
[https://votingwars.news21.com/native-americans-still-fight-for-voting-equality/]; the effect of
voter ID laws on transgender people
[https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/transgender-issues/the-potential-impact-of-
voter-identification-laws-on-transgender-voters/]; disenfranchisement of people based on
disability status [http://disabilityjustice.org/right-to-vote/]). Affs that rescind felony
disenfranchisement and/or voter ID laws could claim to increase access to national politics and
eliminate at least one instance of institutionalized racism. This advantage ground provides a
significantly better introduction to these debates than is afforded by warming hurts minorities
or the like. It includes a more thorough defense of politics oriented around the state since a
number of movements have historically coalesced around the demand for electoral equality
(e.g., the womens suffrage movement, the 1960s-era civil rights movement, some indigenous
struggles [see Willard Rollings, http://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1311&context=nlj]). One example: Marek Steedman defends free contract liberalism as
a response to modern incarnations of Jim Crow, arguing that its incomplete liberalism, not a
deficit in such, that allows white supremacy to persist: see Marek Steedman, Jim Crow
Citizenship: Liberalism and the Southern Defense of Racial Hierarchy, Routledge, 2012 (see the
conclusion). People seem to say TVA a lot without actually reading topical affs about identity
violenceheres your chance.

Third party/multiparty reform advantages are also an unique area for this topic.
Duvergers law states that plurality voting systems in proportional representation elections
tend to favor the rise of two-party systems. This observation has been used as a justification for
electoral reform (e.g., http://induecourse.ca/trump-and-electoral-reform-connecting-the-dots/;
http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/01/how-to-burn-down-the-two-party-system/;
http://www.thepursuitofhappiness.com/category-life/why-we-have-an-electoral-college-
preserve-two-party-system/). There are a variety of advocates for third parties on various parts
of the political spectrum (http://thefederalist.com/2016/05/05/we-need-a-third-party-right-
away/;
http://www.salon.com/2016/01/12/why_america_needs_a_third_party_voters_are_growing
_more_disgusted_with_the_two_party_system/; https://socialistworker.org/2014/10/28/so-
afraid-of-third-parties; http://readersupportednews.org/pm-section/78-78/18886-the-us-
needs-is-a-vibrant-socialist-party), and there is a variety of impact ground like international
leadership, militarism, economic growth, and of course, democracy
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-paine/why-we-need-a-new-indepen_b_9459798.html;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/budgetary-deceit-and-amer_b_907684.html).
Because the aff can make arguments about how the plan would influence the course of future
elections and a nigh-infinite amount of partisan literature exists about how particular kinds of
leadership might influence social, defense, and economic issues, there is feasible access to an
immense range of impacts based on electoral outcomes.
What is the policy neg ground like?
To paraphrase, because the neg can make arguments about how the plan would influence the
course of future elections and a nigh-infinite amount of partisan literature exists about how
particular kinds of leadership might influence social, defense, and economic issues, there is
feasible access to an immense range of impacts based on electoral outcomes. The core
negative generic on this topic is the politics disad. Wait! Hear me out. One could read the
status-quo politics disad if one insisted on mediocrity, but this topic provides access to a real,
actual politics disad about both the structural conditions for policy formation (i.e., the plan may
cause a permanent, structural shift to the left) and specific policies (the plan may cause the GOP
to win the midterms and/or cause Trump to be reelected). If you like the politics disad, at least
in principle, this should be an excellent topic. If you dont like the politics disad, this topic
should remake it in a far more productive, educational, and rigorous way. Its a win-win
situation for policy neg ground.

Further, there is a rich literature about the unintended consequences of electoral reform.
Monitoring Democracy (2012) by Judith Kelley has a criticism of international election
monitoring, for example. Others argue that a passionate, engaged public might cause more
polarization
(http://www.cirpee.org/fileadmin/documents/Vulgarisation_de_la_recherche/Arnaud_Dellis
_web_ang.pdf; look in citations for more). Expanding access to voting might benefit the elite
without increasing civic engagement (http://web.mit.edu/berinsky/www/ElectoralReform.pdf).
As historical examples indicate (Putin, Hitler, Trump), people might vote against democracy
(http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ioan-marc-jones/electoral-reform-and-the-
_b_7505550.html). Democracy, too: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1205&context=ylpr. There are also civic engagement bad arguments:
http://web.stanford.edu/~mfiorina/Fiorina%20Web%20Files/DarkSide.pdf.

Theres even a heg disad. There are internal links from polarization and/or who is elected, but
theres also this:
https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/paradox-americas-electoral-reform

Theres offense against specific proposals. The book Voting Rights edited by Tom Lansford
(2008) has representative argues on a range of things, such as voting rights for immigrants,
felons, and adolescents (its most useful as a resource to track down more complete arguments).
Electoral college: http://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/destroying-the-electoral-
college-the-anti-federalist-national-popular. Money is speech:
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/734501.html. Felons shouldnt vote:
http://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=ustjlpp. Voter ID laws:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/368864/winning-fight-voter-id-john-fund,
http://www.dnj.com/story/opinion/2016/08/22/ketron-voter-fraud-compromises-electoral-
process/89099814/. This list is not intended to exhaust case neg possibilities but just to provide
a few examples.

Process counterplans (e.g., Supreme Court) exist, as does the States C/P, which solves some of
the narrower plans:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/how-to-reverse-citizens-
united/471504/
What nonpolicy ground exists?
In short, a great deal. Criticisms of democracy are legion, from the various pessimism
arguments through indigenous scholarship to anarchist rejections of the state and the most
obscurantist French intellectuals. The central question of the topic is can American democracy
be reformed, or even, can civil society be reformed, which invites an almost endless wealth of
critical responses. I feel that an extended list is unnecessary; it would be impossible to include
everything, and the connections are so clear that I have trouble believing that any policy team
could not predict them. Framework teams often say that critical literature creates an
unreasonable research burden and distracts from the core issues of the topic. No doubt they will
continue to do that, but most critical arguments would be direct impact turns to the aff and
therefore clearly salient. Critical affs about afropessimism (or even afro-optimism), queer
futurity, indigenous identity, and Latinx exclusion from the American polityjust to name a few
directly engage the central questions of this controversy area, even if they dont have topical
plans. As I have already said a number of times, my goal in writing this topic was not to find a
compromise resolution that everyone can agree on, but rather to identify a site where important
conversations that already occur might be productively developed. Electoral reform connects so
many critical issues from so many angles that I think it would be an excellent forum for critical
and identity debates.
Isnt this very one-sided?
No. Debate has largely evolved past the status quo vs. plan model to encompass a range of
negative alternatives. Remember all those no neg fiat decisions in the last five years? No? You
probably remember, like, one, and the reason you remember it is because its basically
steampunk theory at this point. There is a core controversy in this area: how we should change
election law. Of course, negatives wishing to defend the status quo could do so for the reasons
listed above. I do not think this topic is more neg-leaning than climate policy, for example, or
decriminalization. Election reform offers some solid, high-quality ground to the aff, and
contemporary debate practice offers some powerful tools to the neg (as does the controversy
about election reform itself).
This sounds like the framework topic. What if I dont like
framework debates?
Then vote for the Resolved: pretend its 1996 topic. You cannot avoid them. This topic stands a
good chance of making them substantive and high-quality on both sides by making the issues
that we debate anyway central to the discussion.
What are some resources to learn more?
A number of scholars cited throughout are well-known figures studying electoral systems. Check
out work by Katz, Bowler and Donovan, Jacobs and Leyenaar, Colomer, Renwick, and Jijphart
in particular. Also try the Brennan Center (https://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/federal-
election-reform), Brookings, League of Women Voters, ACLU, and others interested in
American democracy generally.

If you like saying falsifiability, small-n, or p-value but mostly because it sounds cool, Try
Donald G. Saaris Geometry of Voting, and when you give up at the part about Borda cyclic
coordinates, just read Jordan Ellenbergs How not to be Wrong. You can still say you read Saari.
Bonus points for obscurity. In all seriousness though, there is a hardcore quantitative element to
this topic for those interested in such things. Voter behavior is a heavily studied and modeled
part of political science, and theres a great deal written about the math, history, and theory of
electoral systems.

For more radical literature you will probably choose according to your interests since theres so
much intersection with the topic. I will always have a soft spot for Crimethinc
(https://crimethinc.com/2016/03/16/feature-the-partys-over-beyond-politics-beyond-
democracy). For a look at the aff side (beyond Habermas or the more cogent Derrida), try
Eckersleys The Green State. For historical work generally, you might start with Howard Zinns
Peoples History of the United States (or just reread the parts relevant to the franchise). I
havent read Keyssars The Right to Vote but its supposed to be a good overall introduction.