From March 3-6, I served as an alumni volunteer with Michigan Youth in Government (MYIG) at their annual early-March state conference held in Lansing. I attended the late-March conference last year as a delegate to the National Issues Forum; my delegation consisted of myself – and only myself. Hundreds of high school students from across the Great Lakes State, from Ann Arbor to Petoskey, participated in the conference. The large gathering of youth government activists was based in the Causeway Bay Hotel, with program sessions, opening and closing ceremonies, and extra-curricular events occurring throughout the establishment. The highlight of the conference is the chance that students have to debate during multiple legislative sessions held in the House and Senate chambers within the State Capitol building. In addition, “mock trial” and some legislative sessions were held in the Farnum building and within Cooley Law School in downtown Lansing.
My duties as a first-time member of the alumni staff included maintaining order during legislative session – I was assigned to the “Green” House -, serving as a knowledge-base for students and advisers, roaming the floors of the hotel at night and prior to mandatory sessions, among other obligations. In particular, my input was welcomed regarding the newly-implemented “two-party system” within two-of-the-three legislatures. For the first time, students were placed into one-of-two parties, the Whig Party (Liberal) or the Tory Party (Conservative), based on a brief survey administered during the application process. The survey’s sole objective was to sort the students according to their view of the role of the government – beliefs of social issues and fiscal policy were not accounted for.
In my opinion, the two-party system, though in its infancy, is a fantastic idea as it is a reflection of reality – exposing the students to the systematic make-up of the actual state and federal legislatures. It was to my surprise that such an idea had not been previously implemented in MYIG . Naturally, several issues arose amidst the early stages of the conference. Student participants complained that their uncertain ideological opinions were not accurately represented by either the Whig or Tory parties. Moderate delegates felt that their views were being oppressed by the party leadership (leader and whip). Still others, for whatever reason, felt compelled to vote along party lines for all votes even if they were not fully on board with the rhetoric of the proposed measure (sound familiar?). Prior to session on day two (Thursday), the party leaders were confronted by members of the alumni staff, myself included, and were told that their party’s members were not forced, or even obliged, to vote one way over another; the message was then relayed to the entire body. The alumni and program staff believed that this was the best route to take given the discontent of many students and advisers. Granted, the promotion of freelance voting is not exactly how its done in Lansing or Washington, with difficult-to-ignore aspects such as powerful interest groups, influential lobbying firms, and party alliance in mind.
By the end of Saturday’s final legislative session, I felt that the two-party system had been an overall success. From my perspective and interaction with student legislators and fellow alumni staff, I came away with the following remarks, both positive and negative:
Positives:
-Stimulated debate and intrigue amongst the students
-Sparked interest for debating certain bills over others
-Did not fully shape the outcome of each vote, as there were many cross-overs
-The Speaker of the House and Lt. Governor (Senate) were neutral, did not belong to either party
-Agenda was not controlled by one party over the other
-Individual delegates were not wholly tied to their party, i.e. they were allowed to bring to the floor’s attention any bill that had made it out of committee
-Allowed for expression of own opinion within the party
-Encourages group discussion amongst party members and both parties’ leaders
Negatives:
-Certain bills were kept off each party’s desired “agenda”
-Promotes support of party over individual beliefs
-Discourages communication amongst the parties on controversial topics
-Delegates are required to belong to one party
-Procedural issues and format implementation certainly could be perfected, improved, i.e. prior knowledge of system, more delegate- and adviser-friendly
While the pros outnumber the cons, there was a clear divide amongst delegates and advisers. During a late-night conversation in the middle of the second floor hallway, a few alumni staffers and a teacher adviser had a discussion on the aforementioned positives and negatives of the two-party experiment. A point that had repeatedly arisen amongst Green and Red delegates was a call for an “independent-” or third-party. Such a move, if weaved through the current format, would make it far different from a majority of the actual State Legislatures today.
Post-conference, I would like to examine the survey that was administered. I plan to offer my input and may, along with fellow alumni staffers and advisers, comprise an alternative survey for review by the Board of Directors and program coordinators, for potential future use. For comparative purposes, I am interested to hear how the two-party system is received at the late-March conference.
Posted by Nicholas Kowalski 
The Other Side 