Democracy has become a loaded word, along with the U.S. Constitution. Then I was extended the opportunity to playtest a game, Convention of States. I began to see how democracy was complicated and often politically maneuvered. To understand this: Article V of the U.S. Constitution allows state legislatures to bypass Congress and propose amendments to the Constitution. Therein lies the game: a role-playing game that casts players as democratically elected delegates representing the regions and states of America. I was lucky enough to become a Justice, heavily equipped with states, which is voting power. I voted on behalf of Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
The way the game worked was that several amendments were proposed by Congress, and a few were open amendments proposed by fellow delegates. A series of speeches–opening the amendment and also rebuttal speeches–would precede the discussion on each amendment. Sometimes, after the vote, or before one, there would be a caucus to discuss and gather where others were aligning on the particular issue. This would be the time when we would talk about what we were supporting or against, and make alliances to almost guarantee the votes needed to pass or deny an amendment. A lot of trading takes place for pieces of legislation. However, what made it more complicated was that everyone had different agendas (even secret ones), and one person could be stopping the very thing I needed to get passed. Betrayals consistently occurred when deals were supposedly made, and votes were supposed to be exchanged for particular amendments. One person’s amendment comes first, gets voted on, and passes, but then that person, having received the vote from another, would not vote on the other person’s–creating a bit of hostility.
What was also a part of the game was that not all of us were politically aligned with the person we were role-playing. I was a moderate, and I had to think on behalf of southern states,
who tend to be more conservative, taking particular stances based on my role sheet for a given amendment, although I didn’t necessarily agree with it–for example, the legislative veto, which tries to give more power to Congress over the executive branch. What about the separation of powers? I had to argue against the separation-of-powers concerns that came up, and it ultimately got passed– I’d like to think that says something about my debating. But some of those positions clashed with the parental rights amendment that some proposed. The president’s eligibility was also discussed, along with impeachment and future amendments.
Although this is just a game, I can’t help but think about the real version of congressional floors, and how often the voter is left outside the mind of the person they represent–but also, at times, how it isn’t. Democracy in this game felt a little different from what I had seen in classrooms–it felt more necessary and more flawed, but a dictatorship would look and feel worse, so I hope to continue seeing democracy take place.