TEACHING COMPANION / NO ACCOUNT NEEDED
Why Open the Rules?
If people in power control the rules, why accept a contest they could lose?
Political openings, bargaining & comparative causal reasoning · Self-paced; choose 2–5 cases for Class
Learning goals
- Connect pressure or an opportunity to an actor’s possible gain or loss, a decision and a concrete political rule.
- Distinguish documented events and public reasons from inferred motives and invented responses.
- Interpret votes, seats and institutional thresholds with their correct denominators and limits.
- Compare two historical cases, test an earlier claim and apply the explanation with an explicit mismatch and unresolved risk.
Class follows your assigned countries.
Choose at least two countries before starting Class; all five are selected by default. Complete those countries, the comparison and Orvessa prediction/reflection. Explore and Practice writing is optional. Partial reports and progress backups remain available.
Complete teaching packet · PDF · Download teaching pack · ZIP
Before the activity
No advance reading or country knowledge required. Facts, definitions and sources are supplied. Explore freely, Practice with claim checks, or complete the countries your instructor assigns in Class. All five are selected by default; Class requires at least two.
Syllabus description
A protest grows. A ruler offers a bargain. An election exists, but opponents still refuse to compete. Advise actors in South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Poland and Ghana. Predict a response, follow a second decision, then test your explanation against the historical record. Compare two cases and apply what you learned to a new political problem. Students produce an individual report with predictions, evidence-based revisions, a two-country comparison and a final application.
Discussion prompts
- Why might a political opening become acceptable to someone who still wants to stay in power?
- Where did the rules change while the governing party won, and why does that distinction matter?
- Which protections could reduce the cost of losing, and whose choices would they still depend on?
- Which part of your first explanation did the evidence support, weaken or leave uncertain?
- What can these selected openings not establish about transitions that failed to occur?
What to assess
Assess a clear causal connection, a specific historical detail, the correct number and its limits, a comparison and evidence-based reconsideration. Political advice is not scored. Claim checks provide formative feedback; word minimums check length, not reasoning. Instructors review the explanations.
Limitations
The five country records are historical; branch reactions are simplified invented possibilities and do not change that history. The final Republic of Orvessa is fictional. These selected openings do not establish why similar pressures sometimes fail to produce reform. The activity supports guided reasoning; learning gains and completion times have not been established by a classroom pilot. Cover art is symbolic, not historical evidence.
Credit & permissions
Created by Yoav Duman. Free educational use, sharing and hosted embedding; software rights reserved. Software, artwork, branding and third-party materials are separate; see the full reuse information.
Suggested citation: Yoav Duman, “Why Open the Rules?: Teaching companion,” Possible States, https://possiblestates.com/teaching/why-open-the-rules. Include your access date.
ASSESSMENT & SUBMISSION
Grade the explanation.
The interface has no opinion.
Set an endpoint, ask for the activity’s readable report, and use your existing LMS. Students can use Print / Save as PDF where a separate download is not offered. A progress backup is for restoring work, not grading it.
A suggested 10-point rubric
For each criterion: 0 = absent, 1 = partial, 2 = clear and supported. Adapt the weighting to your course; this is guidance, not automatic scoring.
- Concepts / 2
- Use the relevant political concept accurately.
- Evidence / 2
- Support a claim with a specific record or comparison.
- Mechanism / 2
- Explain how the rule or arrangement produces a consequence.
- Revision / 2
- Address a rival account or explain a change of mind.
- Limits / 2
- State what the model or evidence cannot establish.
Say this before they begin.
- Choose For class and follow the instructor’s endpoint.
- Save a progress backup before moving devices or changing website address.
- Open the readable report and check the required responses.
- Upload it to the course assignment. Check the LMS submission confirmation.
Switching from exploration keeps the current work, but skipped class responses may still need completing. A local report cannot establish authorship or make an activity tamper-proof.
Prepare an assignment to share.
Edit this text, then copy it into Canvas or your course website. These edits stay in this tab.
Syllabus description & discussion prompts
Syllabus description
A protest grows. A ruler offers a bargain. An election exists, but opponents still refuse to compete. Advise actors in South Korea, Taiwan, South Africa, Poland and Ghana. Predict a response, follow a second decision, then test your explanation against the historical record. Compare two cases and apply what you learned to a new political problem. Students produce an individual report with predictions, evidence-based revisions, a two-country comparison and a final application.
Questions for a discussion board or class debrief
- Why might a political opening become acceptable to someone who still wants to stay in power?
- Where did the rules change while the governing party won, and why does that distinction matter?
- Which protections could reduce the cost of losing, and whose choices would they still depend on?
- Which part of your first explanation did the evidence support, weaken or leave uncertain?
- What can these selected openings not establish about transitions that failed to occur?