Does an individual’s vote still matter? Teams from the NCC Student Senate and the College’s Phi Theta Kappa chapter debated this question on January 22 in Laub Lounge. The debate took place as part of NCC’s week-long commemoration “Vote the Dream, Honoring the Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.”

The debate was structured according to one of the oldest and most formal debate formats, the team policy format, with an “affirmative” team presenting a position and a “negative” team promoting an opposing point of view. The format allows for tightly scheduled arguments, rebuttals and concluding statements.

In the debate on January 22, the Phi Theta Kappa team was the affirmative team and the Student Senate (pictured at left) was the negative one.

Phi Theta Kappa launched the debate by proposing that voting mattered enough in the past for the founding fathers to engrave it into our Constitution and for Martin Luther King, Jr. to fight for it. “If voting mattered then, why would it be different now? Why should we take this right for granted?” a team member asked. “Voting is a privilege and the only successful way for people to have a say.” Individual votes come together, the argument stated, to make a difference.

Such a difference can be determined by a single vote, the team contended, referring to several historical examples. They cited the lone vote that admitted Texas as a state in 1845.

The Student Senate Team challenged the reality of one person/one vote. They argued that the Electoral College robs individual voters in less populated states of influence, pointing to California, whose large population entitles it to more than twice the electoral votes of the sparsely inhabited Montana. “In a presidential election, people are not voting for a candidate but rather for electors who choose the candidate,” a team member said.

Voting fraud and error minimize the significance of one vote, the Student Senate Team maintained. As evidence, the team indicated discrepancies between pre-election polls and election results. They reminded the audience that vote tampering goes back to George Washington’s time, when candidates wooed potential voters with liquor.

One team member proposed that direct vote replace the Electoral College, with safeguards in place to protect the voting rights of minority citizens.

In their rebuttal, the Phi Theta Kappa team held that fraud and technological failures should not be an excuse to relinquish the privilege, right and duty to vote. They countered the opposing team’s argument about inconsistencies between polls and voting results by claiming that more people enter their opinions in polls than enter a voting booth.

Whatever team they supported, all audience members were encouraged to vote. Registration forms distributed after the event and a sample voting machine in Laubb Lounge (where it will stay for the rest of the month), made it easier for people to do so.

Debaters for Phi Theta Kappa included:  Raymond Herron, Jennifer Lomerson and Ellen Stocker (shown at right).  The researcher was Lauren Nation.

The Student Senate team included:  Joe Fox, Paola Mero and Joshua Phillips.  Researchers were Ashley Corona, Eden Fimiano and Darelee Hamilton

Judges were Elizabeth Bugaighis, dean of humanities and social sciences; Jeffrey Focht, dean of business and technology; and Denise Francois , assistant dean of the Monroe Campus. Audience members got to register their own votes through written “ballots.”

Assistant Professor of History Sholomo Levy, who moderated the debate, described debating as a way to honor the memory of Martin Luther King Jr., a great orator, debater and student who valued commitment and the use of language to solve problems and create community.

In addition to Sholomo Levy, faculty and staff collaborators included Kiki Anastasakos, assistant professor of political science; Frank Pologruto, director of student activities; and Marcia Theadford, advising/Career Link specialist.

So, who won the debate? By a slight margin the judges chose the Student Senate team. Both teams received praise for their extensive research and strong arguments and rebuttals. Audience voters weighed in for the Phi Theta Kappa team.