Article Analysis

The argument my article was trying to make wasn't exactly hidden, it was explicitly expressed in the title " Vote No on con-con question". I found this article in the opinion section of the local newspaper , The Winnetka Talk. The author's name is not given. Every twenty years voters must decide whether a constitutional convention should be held to rewrite the Illinois constitution.  The author says " We have a good constitution that serves the state. That's why there is no hue and cry for a new one." The author disputes the pro con-con argument that says a new constitution is the only way to resolve issues that the leaders are unwilling to fix. They agree that there are pressing issues that need attention, but says " They are political issues to be resolved by the state's elected representatives for a certain time and place, not determined and enshrined for all time in a constitution." Also, they mentions that it may cost up to $80 million dollars to revise, as well as a lot of time. This is a logical appeal, they are saying that the constitution cannot be used as a way to fix issues, that is the job of elected officials. Also, saying "for all time" makes the idea seem impractical. They use the example of Patrick Quinn, a man who made a cutback amendment to the constitution created yet another issue with the constitution, which the pro con-con side wants fixed. The author says " What other supposed constitutional fixes will have similar unintended consequences?" This example appeals to logic again, if amending the constitution didn't work in the past, why would it work now? The author concludes their argument by saying " We have tough issues facing us in Illinois that require political courage and much political skill. But we don't require a new constitution." 

I believe that this was a very successful argument. The author doesn't try to disguise their opinion as fact, instead they blatantly state "Vote No". The article appeals to logic by using the Patrick Quinn example and providing a lot of fact. The author doesn't deny the issues that face Illinois, he just states another more effective way of dealing with them. The cost of the revision made me really doubt whether it is necessary. This is both a logical and emotional appeal, because it seems like a large amount of money in an economically perilous time. The author constantly refers to other sides beliefs, and uses evidence to prove why they are wrong. Obviously there is bias, but the evidence given makes the author's opinion more credible. It is clearly written by someone who not only has passion, but knowledge of the subject. Although I cannot vote, I still connect with the author because the issues they mentioned effect my everyday life. I thought the argument was a very logical approach to the issue and was persuaded by the evidence put forth by the author. The ending quote was particularly powerful, it called for courage and skill, which I think our leaders need to have more of. The article succeeded in persuading me, and I'm sure it did for other readers. If I could vote, I would definitely vote no on the con-con issue.