Week 7 Discussion — Fused or Separate? — Traditional alternative (no AI)
Instructors: publish this instead of the adaptive version if you prefer, and unpublish or delete the adaptive one.
Hook
Every constitution has to answer one practical question: when a government is failing, how do you get rid of it? This week gave you the removal test, the three designs, and a famous argument about which design holds up better under pressure.
Your discussion question — choose Option A or Option B; they carry the same weight and the same rubric, and you say which you picked.
Option A: A new democracy (an illustrative, made-up country) is writing its constitution and must choose between a parliamentary design and a presidential one. Take a position: which should it choose, and why? Use the removal test to say how a failing government would fall under your choice, and state at full strength the strongest case for the design you reject, using Linz's worries or the identifiability and checks replies.
Option B: A made-up federation of provinces is deciding whether its legislature should have one chamber or two. Take a position: should it be unicameral or bicameral? Use the Inter-Parliamentary Union's count of 188 national parliaments to say what is common, label which of your premises is empirical and which is normative, and state the strongest case for the other side as its defenders would put it.
There is no single right answer. Thoughtful people defend parliamentary government and thoughtful people defend presidential government, and the same is true of second chambers; your job is to argue your side well and to state the other side fairly.
Expectations
Activity format: one initial post followed by two substantive peer replies. Plan on about 45 minutes across the two deadlines; your instructor sets both due dates in Canvas.
Your initial post — by the first due date (early in the module week):
- Say which option you chose.
- State your position in one clear sentence.
- For Option A, say how a failing government would be removed under your choice (a vote of no confidence, impeachment, or both). For Option B, say what the count of 188 national parliaments shows and what it does not.
- Give at least one reason, and label each premise you rely on as empirical or normative.
- State the strongest case for the other side, as its own defenders would put it, before you answer it.
- Use at least two of this week's terms (legislature, unicameral legislature, bicameral legislature, head of state, head of government, removal test, parliamentary system, vote of no confidence, fusion of powers, presidential system, fixed term, impeachment, semi-presidential system, coalition government, dual democratic legitimacy, winner-take-all, identifiability) correctly, and keep Linz's argument in your own words.
- Length: roughly 150–250 words if written. You may instead record your post as audio or video (about two minutes) and attach a transcript; both forms are scored by the same rubric.
Your replies — by the second due date (the end of the module week):
- Reply substantively to at least two classmates.
- A substantive reply does more than agree: check whether a poster used the removal test rather than the title "president", test whether a premise labelled empirical could really be checked, or state the side the poster did not take at its strongest. "Nice point!" on its own does not count.
What a strong post looks like:
I chose Option A, and I argue the new country should choose a parliamentary design. Under it, a failing cabinet falls to a vote of no confidence, with no wrongdoing required. My premise that a fixed term cannot be cut short over a policy fight is empirical, a fact about the presidential design. My premise that a stuck government is worse than a short-lived one is normative. The strongest reply is identifiability: in a presidential design, voters can see who is responsible and choose that person directly.
Notice how it takes a side, applies the removal test, labels each premise by kind, and states the other side fairly before answering it. That is the bar.
Participation rubric
This discussion is worth 10 points. The three criteria below look at your initial post and your peer replies.
| Criterion | Strong | Developing | Missing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Quality of the initial post (4 pts) | A clear position on the design or chamber question, with the removal test or the parliament count used accurately, premises labelled by kind, and the other side stated at its strongest | A position is present, but the test or count is used loosely, the premises are unlabelled, or the other side is weakened | Missing, off-topic, or no reasoning about the design choice |
| Use of course concepts (3 pts) | Uses this week's terms precisely, keeps head of state and head of government apart, and never treats a no-confidence vote as impeachment | Uses a term loosely or with a small error | No course terms, or used incorrectly |
| Engagement with peers (3 pts) | Two or more substantive replies that extend or fairly challenge a classmate's reasoning | One substantive reply, or replies that only agree | No replies, or "I agree" with nothing added |
Post early if you can — the best threads happen when people have time to reply before the second due date.
Built with The Course Maker · samples.thecoursemaker.com