The atmosphere in the room can only be described as electric. Two members are in the middle of a fervent “back and forth” debate, only separated by a few feet and a podium. Tensions are high, the success of this proposal rides on the efforts of both speakers and their ability to satisfy the questions of fellow members.
Like a coliseum match, the speakers stand in the center of the room, eyes locked. They are surrounded by fellow members whose approval is paramount in the proposals ultimate prosperity. This is the climax of a Constitutional Convention debate, a culmination of two different ideas clashing in the form of argument.
It all begins with a proposal placed on the docket for all members to see. The author of said proposal rises to give their speech, adamantly asserting its importance in their upcoming constitution. Several questions quickly follow, a modern day inquisition of the proposal’s legitimacy. A con speaker rises, another passionate speech is given, and the questions proceed once again.
Parliamentary procedure is largely thrown out the window in Con Con, it is at this point that the two members begin an alternating set of responses to each other’s points. Two minutes quickly pass, and yet another pro speaker joins the fray. The process repeats, members encourage a second con speaker to enter the debate. The room comes alive with questions flying from other members, and 4 speakers engaged in heated discussion.
The presiding chair suddenly announces that their time has elapsed, a vote is called. Aye’s and Nay’s ring out in dissonant unison, it is in the opinion of the chair that the proposal passes.
Con Con debates are an intense affair, but no serious grudges are held. At the end of the process, members shake hands and exchange a set of curt smiles. The room resets and the procedure begins anew. In Con Con, hard feelings come rarely. It is a program that brings together people with a multitude of different beliefs, and the end result is astounding.