The Daily Delegate

Derek Dermott

Media Journalist

     Youth & Government gives two choices in cases of mock government, International Convention (ICON) and Constitutional Convention (Con Con), each designed to develop distinct governance skills. While both utilize parliamentary procedure, their objectives, tones, and outcomes diverge significantly. Recognizing these differences enables delegates to engage meaningfully with the simulations’ unique challenges.  

     ICON simulates global diplomacy, tasking participants with addressing international crises like climate change or humanitarian conflicts. Delegates draft single sentence proposals as starting points for debate. For example, a proposal might state, “Nations should impose fines on corporations that pollute freshwater sources,” or “A mascot named Edgar the Environmentalist will publicly shame polluters.” These concise ideas require 20 signatures to advance, emphasizing coalition building and negotiation. Debates follow a structured format: a sponsor introduces the proposal, followed by alternating pro and con speeches before a majority vote determines passage. While some proposals prioritize symbolic or humorous solutions, they serve as catalysts for broader discussions about accountability and global cooperation.  

     Con Con, by contrast, focuses on constitutional law, requiring delegates to propose one sentence amendments to foundational governance structures. Examples include, “The judicial branch shall have expanded authority to review executive actions,” or “Voting rights shall be extended to citizens aged 16 and older.” Though similarly brief, these proposals demand precise legal language and grounding in historical precedent. Debates mirror ICON’s parliamentary structure but prioritize technical rigor. The simulation’s formality appeals to those interested in dissecting constitutional principles, civil liberties, or the separation of powers.  

     The cultures of ICON and Con Con further highlight their differences. ICON balances creativity with diplomacy, allowing delegates to experiment with unconventional ideas. A humorous proposal about Edgar the Environmentalist, for instance, might coexist with a serious resolution about clean water access, fostering inclusivity and adaptability. Con Con, however, prioritizes intellectual precision. Delegates scrutinize the wording of amendments, debating potential loopholes or long term societal impacts.

     Ultimately, ICON and Con Con demonstrate how governance operates at different scales. A one sentence proposal in ICON might spark dialogue about global ethics, while a Con Con amendment could redefine a nation’s legal identity. By participating in both, members gain an understanding of policy making, preparing them to engage with civic challenges both locally and globally.