D4.8.9-12: Choosing Deliberative and Democratic Strategies and Procedures

Overview

Lesson Procedure

85-85 minutes of class time across 5 phases.

1. Warm-Up10 minutes
2. Direct Instruction30 minutes
3. Guided Practice15 minutes
4. Independent Practice20 minutes
5. Closure10 minutes

1. Warm-Up10 minutes

   Warm-Up Prompt

   "Your class votes 14 to 13 to change the due date of a project. Half the class is unhappy. Name two things the class could have done before the vote that might have produced a decision more people could accept, and one reason a quick majority vote might still be the right choice."

   Collect ideas such as more discussion, a compromise date, a smaller group to draft options, or letting each student choose. For the last part, students usually point out that some decisions are urgent or small, and that endless discussion has costs too. Tell students that choosing among these tools is a strategy, and that the people who wrote the Constitution argued about the same choices.

2. Direct Instruction30 minutes

   Part 1: The question and the sources. The compelling question is "Which strategies and procedures make a group decision both fair and workable?" The sources are a vehicle for the skill. Terms: a quorum is the number of members needed to do business; to commit a question is to send it to a committee; a roll call or "yeas & nays" records how each member voted; "nem. contradicente" or "nem. con." means with no one voting against; to reconsider is to take up again a question already decided; a minority report states the view of members who lost a vote; the "second branch" in Source 3 is the second house of the national legislature the delegates were planning. In 1787 the Convention voted by states, so a state whose delegates split was recorded as "divided". In Source 4, a "form" is a grade level and a "record section" or "record room" is a homeroom. In Source 3, paragraph 2 begins in the middle of a speech by General Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, whom Madison calls "General Pinkney"; the "He" who proposes a committee is Pinckney.

   Source Information: who wrote each source, when, and from what position (from the sources and their title pages)

   Source	Author and position	Date	Setting
   1-3	James Madison, a delegate, in his notes of the Federal Convention, as edited by Max Farrand	1787 (printed 1911)	Out-of-school civic: a convention of state delegates
   4	J. Kenneth Satchell, Radnor High School, Wayne, Pennsylvania, writing in The School Review	1922	Schools: student government in Pennsylvania high schools
   5	Harrison Sacket Elliott, author of a guide to group discussion	1928	Any group: classrooms, clubs and conferences

   1viz, A House to do business shall consist of the Deputies of not less than seven States; and all questions shall be decided by the greater number of these which shall be fully represented: but a less number than seven may adjourn from day to day.

   [...]

   2Every member, rising to speak, shall address the President; and whilst he shall be speaking, none shall pass between them, or hold discourse with another, or read a book, pamphlet or paper, printed or manuscript—and of two members rising at the same time, the President shall name him who shall be first heard. A member shall not speak oftener than twice, without special leave, upon the same question; and not the second time, before every other, who had been silent, shall have been heard, if he choose to speak upon the subject.

   3A motion made and seconded, shall be repeated, and if written, as it shall be when any member shall so require, read aloud by the Secretary, before it shall be debated; and may be withdrawn at any time, before the vote upon it shall have been declared.

   [...]

   4When a debate shall arise upon a question, no motion, other than to amend the question, to commit it, or to postpone the debate shall be received. A question which is complicated, shall, at the request of any member, be divided, and put separately on the propositions, of which it is compounded. The determination of a question, altho’ fully debated, shall be postponed, if the deputies of any State desire it until the next day.

   [...]

   5Committees shall be appointed by ballot; and the members who have the greatest number of ballots, altho’ not a majority of the votes present, shall be the Committee — When two or more members have an equal number of votes, the member standing first on the list in the order of taking down the ballots, shall be preferred.

   [...]

   6That nothing spoken in the House be printed, or otherwise published or communicated without leave.

   7That a motion to reconsider a matter which had been determined by a majority, may be made, with leave unanimously given, on the same day on which the vote passed, but otherwise not without one day’s previous notice: in which last case, if the House agree to the reconsideration, some future day shall be assigned for the purpose.

   1Mr. King objected to one of the rules in the Report authorising any member to call for the yeas & nays and have them entered on the minutes. He urged that as the acts of the Convention were not to bind the Constituents it was unnecessary to exhibit this evidence of the votes; and improper as changes of opinion would be frequent in the course of the business & would fill the minutes with contradictions. Col. Mason seconded the objection; adding that such a record of the opinions of members would be an obstacle to a change of them on conviction; and in case of its being hereafter promulged must furnish handles to the adversaries of the Result of the Meeting. The proposed rule was rejected nem. contradicente.

   [...]

   2Previous to the arrival of a majority of the States, the rule by which they ought to vote in the Convention had been made a subject of conversation among the members present. It was pressed by Gouverneur Morris and favored by Robert Morris and others from Pennsylvania, that the large States should unite in firmly refusing to the small States an equal vote, as unreasonable, and as enabling the small States to negative every good system of Government, which must in the nature of things, be founded on a violation of that equality. The members from Virginia, conceiving that such an attempt might beget fatal altercations between the large & small States, and that it would be easier to prevail on the latter, in the course of the deliberations, to give up their equality for the sake of an effective Government, than on taking the field of discussion, to disarm themselves of the right & thereby throw themselves on the mercy of the large States, discountenanced & stifled the project.

   1On the question for allowing each State one vote in the Second branch as moved by Mr. Elseworth, Massts. no. Cont. ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Mr. Jenifer being not present Mr. Martin alone voted Va. no. N. C. no. S. C. no. Geo. divd. Mr. Houston no Mr Baldwin ay [Ayes — 5; noes — 5; divided — 1.]

   [...]

   2Some compromise seemed to be necessary: the States being exactly divided on the question for an equality of votes in the 2d. branch. He proposed that a Committee consisting of a member from each State should be appointed to devise & report some compromise. Mr. L. Martin had no objection to a Commitment, but no modifications whatever could reconcile the Smaller States to the least diminution of their equal Sovereignty. Mr. Sharman. We are now at a full stop, and nobody he supposed meant that we shd. break up without doing something. A Committee he thought most likely to hit on some expedient.

   [...]

   3Mr. Randolph favored the commitment though he did not expect much benefit from the expedient. [...]

   [...]

   4On the question “for commiting” (generally) Massts. ay. Cont. ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. no. P. ay. Del. no. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo. ay. [Ayes — 9; noes — 2.] On the question for commiting “to a member from each State” Massts. ay. Cont. ay. N. Y. ay. N. J. ay. Pa. no. Del. ay. Md. ay. Va. ay. N. C. ay. S. C. ay. Geo — ay. [Ayes — 10; noes — 1.] The Committee elected by ballot, were Mr. Gerry, Mr. Elseworth, Mr. Yates, Mr. Patterson. Dr. Franklin, Mr. Bedford, Mr. Martin, Mr. Mason, Mr. Davy. Mr. Rutlidge, Mr. Baldwin. That time might be given to the Committee, and to such as chose to attend to the celebration on the anniversary of Independence, the Convention adjourned till Thursday.

   1Believing that student participation in school government had been generally accepted as an established idea and that better high schools throughout the country were using some form of the plan, the author decided to make a limited survey of the high schools of the state of Pennsylvania and sent out the following brief questionnaire: [...]

   [...]

   2Exactly 150 replies were received and are first summarized on the basis of a direct answer of "yes" or "no" to Question 2. Of the schools reporting, forty-two answered Question 2 in the affirmative, indicating that they had some form of organized student participation; 108 said that they had no such organization. Of the 108 schools without organized student activity in administration, nine schools replied that they had abandoned the plan after a trial. Some of the reasons for discontinuance are given elsewhere in this paper. Twelve schools replied that, while they had no such organization, they were very favorable to the idea and were definitely planning to give it a trial. [...]

   [...]

   3The very first consideration in the election of a girl is that of her ability for the office. If she is capable of holding the office and discharging her duties efficiently, the next question is that of her standing in scholarship. No girl who has failed in any of her subjects during the preceding term can hold office of any kind under the Students' Association. "Elect the girl who can best serve you!" That is the order repeated term after term, and we girls, because we realize the importance of choosing capable officers, take the elections seriously and vote carefully.

   4We nominate through petitions. At the close of every term we take out petitions for vice-president and councillors. Every petition for vice-president, to be considered a nomination, must be signed by fifty or more students; every petition for councillor, by twenty-five or more. These petitions are then turned into the Association, and the list of nominees drawn up accordingly. Very shortly afterwards, in assembly, we are introduced to our nominees for vice-president. (Every form votes for its councillors only, but the whole school votes for vice-president. Our vice-president is elected from the seventh form, and automatically becomes president when she enters the eighth, at which time another election is held for a new vice-president.) It is customary for the nominees to give a very short and informal speech — very often extemporaneously. Everyone very simply and directly pledges herself, if elected, to carry on the work of her predecessors and to do all in her power to make ours a better school and promises to do her best in the interests of the school — elected or defeated. Their spirit is always most admirable. Following these campaign speeches, with the advice of our leaders to "choose wisely," we vote, and the records of these individual record-room elections are later added together and the results announced in the assembly room.

   [...]

   5The following unfavorable comments were received: Discontinued at beginning of present year due to lack of interest on part of students and at suggestion of class leaders. I do not care for it. After all, it is the principal who must decide all such matters. The only thing that is required is complete justice. Never succeeded in forming effective organization. Tried it once under adverse conditions. Was not pleased with results. We had student government for one year in a modified form. Were convinced that we were not yet ready for it. Has been tried here but did not succeed as classes change from year to year. [...]

   1The chairman can be of help, also, in mediating certain attitudes on the part of the group which make frank discussion difficult. If the group shows that it is shocked or violently aroused in opposition to any point of view, persons holding this point of view become sullen and remain quiet, if they are more reticent individuals; and violently argumentative, if of the more aggressive type. The chairman has no final control over the group but he can help the attitude of receptivity and fair mindedness. The chairman has to give attention to securing for unpopular minority attitudes a fair chance, and to preventing strong and aggressive majorities, or even personalities, from dominating the group thinking. There is a question whether distinctly different attitudes get a fair show. If they are contrary to the general temper of the group, they may get “laughed out of court” or be regarded as quite off the point. On the other hand, a person who is very aggressive may succeed in “putting across” in discussion his own point of view if the suggestion is made at the right moment and if two or three other persons join with him in an emotional appeal. Indeed, the question has been raised whether the more fair-minded the group, the more likely it will be that a strong personality will succeed in influencing it unduly. This can be prevented only by the sense of fairness and understanding of the process possessed by all of the group and by the action of the chairman in delaying decision until the more aggressive persons are checked by the discussion and the minority opinions really have a chance. The right sort of a chairman sees to it that the time is not monopolized by further reinforcement of a popular point of view, but that a genuine opportunity is given to the minority.

   [...]

   2In a meeting of a group where an international conference was being planned, there were two very divergent points of view as to the emphasis and the method of the conference. There was a genuine concern on the part of the delegates from some of the countries lest the conference in its method and emphasis might be harmful to the young men and boys of their particular countries. In conferring together, the chairman suggested that, instead of seeking to have one or the other points of view win by a majority, the group work cooperatively in open discussion to make that plan which would meet the honest fears, safeguard the divergent interests, meet the minority viewpoints, and build into the final plan the points of emphasis of all. This suggestion came as a surprise to most of those in the conference. They had been accustomed to a method in which small committees would meet together privately to frame up a compromise course of action which could secure a majority vote. Under this cooperative approach, however, little by little, this became a creative group working in real fellowship.

   [...]

   3The results possible in a discussion are illustrated in the following diagram. The majority may win, the minority lose. There may be a compromise decision which means that the concerns or convictions of neither group are met. There may be an integration which involves a creative result in which the decision is raised above that of either majority or minority and in which the concerns and interests of both are conserved.

   How to cite. The "[...]" lines mark cuts and are not numbered. Source 1 has paragraphs 1-7, Source 2 has 1-2, Source 3 has 1-4, Source 4 has 1-5, and Source 5 has 1-3.

   Part 2: Model the strategies. Work through the examples and place each on Diagram 1.

   • A democratic procedure for proposals (Source 1, paragraph 3)

     The Convention's rule says a motion "made and seconded, shall be repeated", read aloud by the Secretary if written, "before it shall be debated", and "may be withdrawn at any time, before the vote". What does each part do?

     Result: The second shows at least two members want the question discussed; repeating or reading the motion makes sure everyone debates the same words; the right to withdraw lets a mover drop a proposal once debate shows it will fail or needs rewriting. The rule makes the democratic step precise. Diagram 1: "Propose".

   • Thresholds: quorum, majority and plurality (Source 1, paragraphs 1 and 5)

     Business needed delegates of "not less than seven States", questions were "decided by the greater number" of the states fully represented, but committee members were those with "the greatest number of ballots, altho' not a majority". Why use different rules?

     Result: A quorum keeps a few delegations from acting for all the states; a majority rule for decisions means more states agree than disagree. For committees, a plurality is enough because a committee only drafts; the whole body still decides. A strategy matches the threshold to the stakes. Diagram 2.

   • A strategy for changing minds: no recorded votes (Source 2, paragraph 1)

     King objected to recording each member's vote, and Mason added that such a record "would be an obstacle to a change of them on conviction". The rule was rejected without dissent. What did the Convention gain and lose?

     Result: Gain: members could change positions as arguments developed without being held to an earlier vote in public. Loss: the public and the states could not see how each member voted, which weakens accountability. The choice is a strategy that favors deliberation over open record. Diagram 1: "Free to change minds".

   • A strategy for deadlock: commit to a committee (Source 3)

     On July 2 the question of an equal vote for each state in the second branch tied: five states for, five against, and one divided (paragraph 1). Sherman (Madison spells it "Sharman") said, "We are now at a full stop." What did the Convention do, and why might it work?

     Result: It voted 9 to 2 to commit the question and 10 to 1 to give the committee "a member from each State", elected by ballot, then adjourned to give the committee time. A small group with one member from every state could bargain more freely than the full body, and every state had a voice in the draft. Randolph favored it though he "did not expect much benefit", so the strategy was a reasoned gamble. Diagram 1: "Break a deadlock".

   • A deliberative strategy: aim for integration (Source 5, paragraph 3)

     Elliott describes three possible results of a discussion: "The majority may win, the minority lose", a compromise in which "the concerns or convictions of neither group are met", or an integration in which "the concerns and interests of both are conserved". How does a group aim for the third?

     Result: It postpones the vote, asks each side what it most needs, and looks for a plan that meets those needs rather than splitting the difference. Integration is not always possible, so a group still needs a fair vote when time runs out. Diagram 1: "Seek integration".

3. Guided Practice15 minutes

   Pairs read Source 6, four invented plans for dividing a student activities fund. Tell students before they read that two of the four plans are deliberately weak. For each plan, pairs name the strategies and procedures it uses, test it against Sources 1-5, and rewrite the weak plans.

   1Background (invented): Westmere High School's student council must divide a $4,000 activities fund among twelve clubs, whose requests total $7,500. Four council members each proposed a way to decide.

   2Plan A (Mei): Hold an open forum first. Every club president gets three minutes, and no one speaks twice until every club has spoken once. A committee of five, elected by the council by ballot, then drafts a plan that tries to meet each club's most important need rather than cutting every request by the same share. The council votes on the plan by majority, any member may ask to divide it into parts, and a motion to reconsider is allowed at the next meeting with a day's notice.

   3Plan B (Owen): The council should vote right away, with no forum, because the council members were elected and already know what the clubs want. Discussion only wastes time.

   4Plan C (Rosa): Discuss the plan with a speakers' list, then vote by secret ballot instead of a roll call, so that members can change their minds without being blamed by their friends in the clubs. Before the final vote, the chair asks whether anyone who has not spoken wants to be heard.

   5Plan D (Theo): Nothing should be decided until every one of the twelve clubs agrees. If even one club objects, the council should keep meeting until it gives in, however long that takes.

   6Teacher's note printed with the plans: two of these four plans are deliberately weak. Decide which two, and why.

   Teacher key (discussion points). Plan A (paragraph 2) is strong: a forum with a fair speaking order, a committee elected by ballot, an attempt at integration, majority approval, a divided question and reconsideration with notice. Plan B (paragraph 3) is weak: it skips deliberation entirely and assumes representatives already know everything, the attitude behind one principal's comment in Source 4, paragraph 5. Plan C (paragraph 4) is strong: it uses a secret ballot for the reason Mason gave for unrecorded votes and protects members who have not spoken; a class might still debate the loss of accountability. Plan D (paragraph 5) is weak: requiring every club to agree lets one club block the rest indefinitely, and "until it gives in" turns consensus into pressure.

4. Independent Practice20 minutes

   Classroom decision (two stages). The class decides an invented classroom question: which of three formats to use for the next unit's final project (a paper, a recorded podcast script written on paper, or a group exhibit). Stage 1, deliberative (10 minutes): a student chair runs a speakers' list in which no one speaks twice until everyone who wishes has spoken once, then asks each side what it most needs. Stage 2, democratic (5 minutes): a motion, a possible amendment, and a secret ballot by majority; if no format has a majority, the top two go to a second ballot. The class then writes its decision as a short plan for the teacher, who makes the final call. Each student ends with a two-sentence reflection naming the strategy that most affected the result.

5. Closure10 minutes

   Exit ticket: "Name one strategy from today that protects a minority, and one that helps a majority act. When would you use each?"

   Teacher note on the sources: Madison's notes are the fullest record of the Convention but were written by a delegate with his own views, and Source 2, paragraph 2 records a strategy of the Virginia delegation. The deadlock in Source 3 was over representation of large and small states; this lesson uses it only for its procedure. Satchell surveyed principals, so the comments in Source 4 give administrators' views, and the student description comes from a girls' school whose name he does not give. Elliott's book was published by the Association Press, and in places it frames group thinking in religious terms (one section is titled "Group Thinking as Worship"); this lesson does not use those passages.

   Quiz passage. Questions 1-8, 15, 16 and 18-20 use Source 7, an invented youth council.

   1Calder County is an invented county whose Youth Council has 15 members, ages 15 to 18, chosen by the county's high schools. The council advises the county board on how to spend a $20,000 youth grant. Its rules say that 8 members make a quorum (the number needed to do business), that a motion passes with a majority of members voting, and that a motion to reconsider may be made at the next meeting with a day's notice.

   2Thirteen members came to the March meeting. One motion would spend the whole grant on a teen center; another would spend it on free bus passes for students. After an hour of debate, the teen-center motion failed 6 to 6, with one member abstaining (not voting).

   3A member then moved to commit the question to a committee of three, chosen by ballot, to draft a plan both sides could accept. The motion passed 11 to 2. In the ballot for the committee, the three members with the most votes were chosen, although none had a majority.

   4In April, with 14 members present, the committee reported a plan: $12,000 for bus passes on weekday afternoons and $8,000 to open the library's meeting room to teens on two evenings a week. The plan was divided into its two parts at a member's request. The bus-pass part passed 12 to 2 and the meeting-room part 9 to 5. Two members wrote a minority report, attached to the plan, saying the full teen center was needed. The council voted to send the plan and the minority report to the county board.

Differentiation Strategies

Assessment Guidance

1. Question 1 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Did the Calder County Youth Council have a quorum at its March meeting (Source 7)?

   ANo, because 13 is less than all 15 members BNo, because one member did not vote CYes, because 13 is at least 8 DYes, because a majority voted for the motion

2. Question 2 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why did the teen-center motion fail in March?

   ASix is not more than half of 12 voting BThirteen members were too few to decide CThe bus-pass motion had already passed DThe chair voted against it to break a tie

3. Question 3 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   The three committee members were "the three members with the most votes", although "none had a majority" (paragraph 3). What rule chose them?

   AA majority rule BA plurality rule CA two-thirds rule DA unanimity rule

4. Question 4 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What percent of the $20,000 grant would go to bus passes under the April plan?

   A40% B50% C60% D86%

5. Question 5 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   The plan "was divided into its two parts at a member's request" (paragraph 4). What did this make possible?

   AThe committee could rewrite the plan in secret BMembers could back one part and oppose the other CThe council could skip the vote entirely DThe minority could block both parts alone

6. Question 6 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   What does the minority report do in Source 7?

   AIt cancels the vote on the meeting room BIt replaces the committee's plan CIt gives the minority a second vote DIt sends the losing view to the board

7. Question 7 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   One member abstained on the teen-center motion. How did that affect the count?

   AIt left 12 voting, so 7 were needed BIt counted as a vote against the motion CIt counted as a vote for the motion DIt meant the meeting lost its quorum

8. Question 8 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   A member who voted against the meeting-room part wants it reconsidered. Under the council's rules, when may that motion be made?

   AAt once, by any member who voted yes BOnly after the county board decides CNever, once a vote has been taken DAt the next meeting, with a day's notice

9. Question 9 of 20 · Multiple Choice

   Why did the Convention say a member could not speak a second time "before every other, who had been silent, shall have been heard" (Source 1, paragraph 2)?

   ATo keep the meetings shorter than one hour BTo let the President choose all the speakers CTo give silent members a turn before repeats DTo stop members from reading their own speeches

10. Question 10 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Under Source 1, paragraph 4, what could the deputies of a single state do if they were not ready for a vote?

    ADelay the decision until the next day BCancel the question for the whole session CChoose the members of a new committee DCast a vote for every state that was absent

11. Question 11 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Under the May 29 rule (Source 1, paragraph 7), when could a question decided by a majority be reconsidered on the same day?

    AWhenever a majority wanted to BOnly with unanimous leave COnly with the President's consent DNever on the same day

12. Question 12 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    According to Madison's note (Source 2, paragraph 2), what strategy did the Virginia members choose about the voting rule?

    AThey demanded that large states get more votes at once BThey left the Convention until the rule was changed CThey stopped a fight and hoped to persuade later DThey proposed that each delegate vote separately

13. Question 13 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    How were candidates nominated at the school the student describes (Source 4, paragraph 4)?

    ABy petitions with set signature counts BBy the faculty Board of Directors alone CBy the outgoing president's own choice DBy drawing names from each record room

14. Question 14 of 20 · Multiple Choice

    Which unfavorable comment in Source 4, paragraph 5, points to a problem of keeping a student government going over time?

    A"Tried it once under adverse conditions." B"I do not care for it." C"Was not pleased with results." D"[...] classes change from year to year."

15. Question 15 of 20 · Short Answer

    In Elliott's terms (Source 5, paragraph 3), was the Calder County April plan a majority win, a compromise or an integration? Defend your answer with evidence from Source 7, and say what the minority report suggests.

    Show model answer

16. Question 16 of 20 · Short Answer

    Check every vote in Source 7 against the council's rule that a motion needs a majority of members voting. Show the number needed and say whether each passed.

    Show model answer

17. Question 17 of 20 · Short Answer

    Satchell mailed his questionnaire to 200 high schools, received 150 replies, and found 42 with student participation (Source 4). What percent of the replies had student participation, and what percent of the schools surveyed? Why should a reader be careful about concluding how common student government was in Pennsylvania?

    Show model answer

18. Question 18 of 20 · Short Answer

    Should the Calder County Youth Council record how each member votes, or use unrecorded votes? Use Mason's and King's arguments (Source 2, paragraph 1) and at least one argument on the other side, then decide.

    Show model answer

19. Question 19 of 20 · Short Answer

    Using Elliott's advice to the chairman (Source 5, paragraph 1), describe two things the Calder County chair could have done during the March debate before the 6-to-6 vote.

    Show model answer

20. Question 20 of 20 · Short Answer

    Compare how the 1787 Convention (Source 3) and the Calder County council (Source 7) handled a tie. Name one strategy both used, two steps the council added, and judge which added step mattered most.

    Show model answer

These standards connect to D4.8.9-12: prerequisites to review first, parallel standards at the same level, and next steps that build on it.

Standard text: National Council for the Social Studies (NCSS), The College, Career, and Civic Life (C3) Framework for Social Studies State Standards: Guidance for Enhancing the Rigor of K-12 Civics, Economics, Geography, and History (Silver Spring, MD: NCSS, 2013). NCSS was not involved in the production of this lesson and does not endorse it.