Question

In November 1971 Montana voters went to the polls to elect 100 delegates to the constitutional convention. These delegates were remarkable for one striking reason: they were not professional politicians. A little-known restriction in the old constitution prohibited anyone from holding two public offices at the same time—so no active legislators or political appointees could be constitutional convention delegates. As a result, the delegates were ordinary people from many walks of life. The press called them "extraordinarily ordinary."

How were the delegates seated during the meetings? Was the seating arrangement effective? Why or why not?

Answer 1

The delegates at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were seated based on their state affiliation, with each state having its own section. This seating arrangement allowed delegates from the same state to coordinate their positions and present unified arguments. It was effective in facilitating discussions, maintaining order, but could also lead to regional divisions.

Step-by-step explanation:

Seating Arrangement at the Constitutional Convention of 1787

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the delegates were seated based on their state affiliation. Each state had a designated area or section in the meeting hall where its delegates sat. For example, the delegates from Virginia would sit together, while the delegates from New Jersey would have their own section. This seating arrangement was effective in allowing delegates from the same state to collaborate and present their state's perspectives collectively.

Effectiveness of the Seating Arrangement

The seating arrangement was effective in facilitating discussions and the exchange of ideas between delegates from the same state. It allowed them to coordinate their positions and present unified arguments. Furthermore, seating delegates by state also helped maintain order during debates, ensuring that every state had a chance to express its opinions. However, this arrangement could also lead to regional divisions and conflicts, as different states had varying interests and priorities.