To view this on the COS website, click here idaho-republicans-consider-prohibiting-debate

Idaho Republicans Consider Restricting Debate

What do you call a government in which the voters are only allowed to choose between “option a” and “option b” but not “option c”? It is an aristocracy, in which the elites restrict the choices of the electorate, to only approved options, and it's under consideration in Idaho.

What do you call a government in which the voters are only allowed to choose between “option a” and “option b” but not “option c”? It is an aristocracy, in which the elites restrict the choices of the electorate, to only approved options. It’s rather like the Soviets saying, “You may democratically elect your next President from among these two communist choices.” Aristocracies may masquerade as various forms of democracy, but functionally they are never self-governance by the people.

True self-governance requires an open debate of ideas, so that “option c” – as well as options “d,” “e,” and “f” – can be discovered, evaluated, and considered. Sometimes the problems faced by a society can’t be corrected by the choices preferred by those in power. Willingness to consider all ideas provides the essential ingredient for democracy – information.

That’s why the cancel culture corrodes our self-governance. Debate is foreclosed and alternative solutions to problems are never discovered when

* Speakers are shouted down at universities,
* Livelihoods are threatened because of political views, and
* Unapproved opinions are censored as “disinformation.”

To prohibit debate is the equivalent of a jury only being given the evidence which the prosecution wishes them to see. Without the essential prosecution/defense debate, the verdict cannot be taken as justice, because the jury was not given complete information.

Unfortunately, recent news from Idaho is very disturbing. Former Chairman of the Idaho Republican Party, Trent Clark, is raising the alarm in an article he has on Substack – //Booting the Bundyites, A Medicine that May Be Worse than the Disease//.

Mr. Clark reports that the Idaho Republican party is debating a rule change that would implement panels empowered to enforce party orthodoxy. If approved, those panels would have the power to “un-affiliate” (or as Clark calls it: excommunicate) party members supporting non-party approved positions, such as an Article V convention. The “excommunicated” would subsequently be prohibited from voting in primary elections. Does that sound like an invitation for open debate, or is it an attempt to prevent the consideration of unfavored ideas?

It is increasingly apparent that a desire to control the choices of the electorate, is an inclination shared by both major political parties. Perhaps that’s why populism is growing in America. This universal party propensity to restrict debate reveals why many of our government problems will not be solved at the ballot box – because the solutions are not beneficial to those in power, and are never considered.

However, an Article V convention empowers the states to shift the balance of power – back to “we the people” – in a way that the political parties have no interest in, by conducting a debate about ideas, without the consent of Congress.

If you’d like to learn more about how an Article V convention can be used by the states to take corrective action on our federal government, go here.

Page Metadata
Login Required to view?	No
Created:	2025-06-12 15:12 GMT
Updated:	2025-06-19 07:00 GMT
Published:	2025-06-12 15:18 GMT
Converted:	2025-11-11 12:05 GMT
Change Author:	John Green
Credit Author: