Argue About the Rules, Not the Players
Day-after conversations tend to get stuck on the players. Who won, who lost, and who’s terrible. That’s the conversation that ends friendships. It’s also the one that fills your inbox with parent emails.
So move the conversation from the players to the rules of the game.
Students who will never agree about a candidate can have a terrific argument about how elections should work. And the morning after is when they care the most, because they just watched the rules in action.
Two of SITC.org’s Both Sides pairings are made for this.
Both Sides: Term Limits asks whether members of Congress should face a limit on how long they can serve. One video makes the case that term limits are popular in theory and ineffective in practice. The other lays out the argument for them. Frustrated students tend to reach for term limits first. (“Vote them all out!”) The pairing pushes them further. Would limits really reduce the number of career politicians? Is that a good thing, or do we need lawmakers with experience? How would it affect partisanship?
Both Sides: Citizens United, new this year, takes on the money. Every election season, students hear about record campaign spending, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. FEC gets a lot of the blame. One video argues that corporations have ended up with more rights than people. The other covers what you probably haven’t heard about the case. Is spending money on political ads a form of speech? Should a corporation, a union, or a nonprofit group have the same speech rights as an individual? Students rarely agree, and that’s exactly the point.
Both pairings come with discussion questions, so you don’t have to build the conversation from scratch.