Q10 - Claude: To introduce greater

[goriano]

I have two questions:

(1) What is the difference between a referenda and an election?

(2) I understand the correct answer is (C), but I'm confused with the wording. (C) says "Decision by referendum would make the overall course of policy unpredictable, and countries of friendly to France could not make reasonable decisions based on a CONSISTENT French line."

I don't get the bolded part. It seems to be saying that being PREDICTABLE is a bad thing, when it's supposed to be a good thing.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thank you for your questions, goriano.

First, the vocab: a referendum (singular of referenda) is when the voters vote on an issue rather than a candidate. Think about when states vote whether to legalize gay marriage or medical marijuana or any major issue like that. Instead of voting for a candidate who promises to do certain things (by passing a bill through the legislature), you are voting directly for a change in policy.

Lorraine thinks this is a bad idea because the French are unwilling or unable to learn enough about foreign policy to make good decisions. We're looking for an answer choice that supports Lorraine's argument.

(C) gives us exactly the foreign policy disaster Lorraine is talking about. The policy would be unpredictable which would make it hard for friendly countries to make reasonable decisions. I can see why this seems a little out of scope. But if your friends can't make reasonable decisions, they won't be able to work with you. If France is coordinating a humanitarian mission and they suddenly drop out because there is a referendum and the French vote down the policy, the friendly countries who are working with France will be in trouble. They won't want to work with France in the future because they can't trust them to follow through on commitments. So the consistent line (consistent foreign policy) is a good thing after all.

The wrong answers:

(A) weakens Lorraine's argument. She thinks the French don't know enough to have a referendum. But (A) tells us they would get more informed if they knew they were voting.

(B) also weakens. Lorraine is worried about the people not knowing enough to vote on policies. But if they were only voting on the broad outlines, maybe they could manage it. Then, the experienced foreign policy experts could work out the details. That's making the policy sound better but Lorraine thinks it's a bad idea.

(D) seems to weaken. If the issue must be important to make it on the ballot, a lot of people must know something about it. That sounds like it undermines Lorraine's argument. (Note: it seems to me like making it hard to get on the ballot would also be very bad for foreign policy because small problems would never get solved, but the answer choice doesn't mention this possibility and Lorraine never said this either, so we would be assuming too much to consider that problem here).

(E) supports Claude's argument. Claude is saying that election results (these are elections for candidates, not referenda) aren't a good way of polling public opinion on foreign policy. (E) picks up on this by saying that one of the problems with using elections to gauge public support is they only consider past decisions rather than future decisions. But all of this supports Claude while we want to weaken Claude or support Lorraine.

I hope this explanation helps. Let me know if you have any further questions.

Demetri