query: The present system of earmarking in Congress is wide open to abuse. The party leaderships in each house can use the offer of pork, or the threat to withhold it to enforce party discipline. “Logrolling” occurs whereby an earmark is obtained in return for support on an unrelated piece of legislation. All this leads to legislators who put party above country and vote for bad legislation in pursuit of their own vested interest. They basically “are federal dollars that members of Congress dole out to favor seekers — often campaign donors. In the process, lawmakers advocate for the companies, helping them bypass the normal system of evaluation and competition.”1Forcing pork out in the open by making Congress vote to defend it after a Presidential line-item veto is the best way to remedy matters. Overall the President is more accountable to the people as a whole than individual representatives, and with their national mandate, more able to stand up to powerful interest groups.  1 David Heath and Hal Bernton, $4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted, The Seattle Times, 15/10/07 , accessed 5/5/11

positive: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment There are other means by which cutting earmarks could be achieved, without the drastic step of mutilating the work of the Founding Fathers. For a start, Congress could just ban the use of earmarks, unfortunately an attempt in 2010 was defeated 39-56 in the Senate.1 Existing rescission powers could be toughened by requiring Congress to hold a prompt vote on Presidential requests for appropriations cuts, rather than ignoring them as invariably happens now. The Impoundment power removed in 1974 could be restored. The convention that spending items in committee reports should be binding on the executive could be challenged. And the practice of legislating massive omnibus spending bills could be ended; more, smaller and more focused bills would make pork more obvious and make it more viable for a President to veto a whole bill without causing the federal government to collapse for want of funding.  1 Rushing , J. Taylor, 'Senate votes down ban on earmarks 39-56', The Hill, 30/11/10,accessed 5/5/11

negative: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment Has made little difference in the past  The precedent of the Line Item Veto Act under President Clinton should warn against a constitutional amendment. The sums saved were laughably small, $355 million, in the context of the entire federal budget, $1.7 trillion, (0.02% of spending)1 but nonetheless provoked considerable friction between elected representatives and the White House. There was unhappiness that the large majority of his cuts were of earmarks requested by Republican members, and an allegation that the Administration had threatened a Congressman with the veto of an item dear to them unless they supported an unrelated piece of legislation.  1Virginia A. McMurty, 'Enhancing the President's Authority to Eliminate Wasteful Spending and Reduce the Deficit', Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and International Security Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Committee Hearing 15/3/2011, p.9

negative: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment A President would be able to abuse the power given to them in a line-item veto authority, leveraging it into undue influence over other elements of the legislative process. By threatening to veto items dear to particular Congressmen, they could obtain assent to bills, treaties and appointments that otherwise would not be forthcoming. Such intimidation would be subtle and hard to prove, but it would erode checks on the executive and fundamentally alter the balance of power within the constitution. This means that budgets are politicised even more than is currently the case. When the line item veto was previously used by Clinton republicans such as Rick Santorum argued that every decision "has political overtones, but that's fine, it comes with the territory," Senator Ted Stevens went further "We're dealing with a raw abuse of political power by a president who doesn't have to run again".1  1 Hugliotta, Guy and Pianin, Eric, 'Line-Item Veto Tips Traditional Balance of Power', Washington Post, 24/10/97,accessed 5/5/11

negative: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment The use of the line-item veto power by President Clinton in 1997 demonstrates the advantages of such authority. Although the power was declared unconstitutional in 1998 by the Supreme Court, while he held it Clinton demonstrated what could be achieved. He acted cautiously, only cancelling 82 appropriations, but these totalled nearly $2 billion1– a useful contribution in itself to reducing the federal deficit, and one that suggested that much bigger savings could be achieved by a more determined President. The Congressional Budget Office agreed according to the Congressional Budget Office "The 1997 cancellations had a relatively small impact on the budget's bottom line, but that outcome may have resulted in part from temporary factors, such as last year's balanced budget agreement."2 This period also demonstrated that Congress would still retain the power of the purse, as it was able to overrule one of Clinton’s deletions, on the Military Construction bill worth $287billion, by majority vote in both houses.3  1 It is time for congress to kill the pig, Center for individual freedom, 11/11/04, accessed 6/5/11  2 The line item veto act after one year’, Congressional Budget Office, April 1998, accessed 6/5/11  3 Marc Lacey, ‘Senate Votes 1st Override of Clinton Line-Item Vetos, Los Angeles Times, 26/2/1998, accessed 6/5/11

negative: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment This amendment would only give the President a limited power for a limited but worthwhile purpose. The media and interest group scrutiny that accompanies the Presidency will ensure that the White House will have to justify every line-item decision made. It does not affect the Congress's power regarding policy-making, entitlement programmes or taxation. Indeed, it is little different to the existing convention of executive "Signing Statements" whereby the President can sign legislation while making it clear his intention not to fully implement aspects of it. It would create a budgetary separation of powers between the president and congress so introducing checks and balances against the abuse of power.1  1 Ferro, Lucas and De Magalhaes, Leandro M. 'Budgetary Separation of Powers in the American States and the Tax Level: A Regression Discontinuity Design', Bristol University, Oct 2009,accessed 5/5/11

negative: Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support  Superdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy. [i]  The system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted [ii] .  [i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008,   [ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008.

negative: The need to constantly fight elections compromises a politician's ability to make the difficult and unpopular decisions that may be needed at a given time:  A major focus of a legislator hoping to serve another term is on the next election and on vote getting. It is often the case that hard decisions need to be made by legislators, but it is difficult for them to do so when they are fixated on being reelected. Legislators have an incentive to put tough decisions off if they can retain power by doing so. An example of such seemingly perpetual procrastination is observable in the United States Congress's attitude toward social security. The fund is set to become insolvent, by some estimates, in less than two decades, yet congressmen and senators have chosen time and again to put off enacting painful, but necessary reform to the system. They find it easier to delay a decision until the next Congress, preferring their own reelection to the good of the nation. When constrained by term limits, legislators must make the most of their limited time in office, resulting in greater prioritization of difficult decisions and reform1. Furthermore, the need to constantly fight elections places politicians in the pocket of lobby-groups and election supporters to a greater degree, as they will always need to go back to them for support, and thus cannot make decisions that are in the national interest alone. While there will always be some of this behavior, it is curtailed by term limits, as legislators will, in their final term at the very least, not be beholden to as many special interests as they cannot run again. Bolder legislative action is observed from retiring legislators in the United States Congress, for example. When a congressman or senator does not intend to seek reelection, his tendency to vote along strict party lines diminishes substantially. Term limits, just like voluntary retirement, leads legislators to vote more on the basis of principle than on party stance2. The result of this is a more independent legislature, with a greater interest in actually serving the people.  1 Chan, Sewell. 2008. "Debating the Pros and Cons of Term Limits". New York Times. 2 Scherer, Michael. 2010. "Washington's Time for Bipartisanship: Retirement". Time.

negative: Corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and have the right to influence politics differently.  The rules under which an individual citizen operate are different from those of corporations and should remain that way. Corporations and individuals are two completely different entities and they represent different interests. While an individual accounts for her interests, a company represents a large number of people and may not fully represent the views of any of them. Thus many big companies while favoring one party or the other actually give to both parties, Honeywell International for example to July 2012 had given more than $2.2million with 63% going to the Republicans and the rest to the Democrats. [1] These companies clearly then bet on both sides, presumably however their senior staff are actually supporting one or the other.  Empirical evidence suggests that large sums from corporation almost never buys votes but access to policy-makers at key moments of policymaking after campaigns which has serious implications on the levels of corruption. While individuals often contribute as an act of democratic participation, the interest groups donate money in campaigns as investment. Therefore, the rules regulating them should be different. Reforms like the BCRA that limit donations from corporations and unions enable individual contributions and minimize the role and influence of interest groups.  [1] McIntyre, Douglas A., and Hess, Alexander E. M., “10 Companies Making the Biggest Political Donations: 24/7 Wall St.”, Huffington Post, 2 July 2012,

negative: Even under the most radical proposals for reform, loopholes will exist and enable candidates to spend more or reach their audiences through alternative means. This was precisely the kind of development which led reformers to want to close the soft-money loophole. As with the tax system, the more elaborate the regulation, the more obscure and distorting the ways that are adopted to get around it.  There is actually a higher turnover in public office than some critics of the present campaign finance systems would like to admit. Retirements, scandals, and careful allocation of party resources make turnover possible under a variety of scenarios. Turnover also has significant negative effects, as critics of term limits have pointed-out. The more often new officeholders begin their jobs the steeper the "learning curve" for a new Congress or other legislative body becomes.  Moreover, the effect for challengers could be different. Finance limitations benefit the most popular candidates who already have a large base of support. Political minorities, newcomers, and outcasts will find it difficult to reach enough people to raise the money they need through many small contributions. The financial limitations further limit the possibilities for such campaigns in the future.

negative: onal americas politics government house wants line item veto amendment The constitution should not be amended  We should always be cautious of altering the United States’ Constitution. Once an amendment is passed, it is extremely hard to overturn, even if its consequences are clearly negative (as the experience of constitutionally-mandated prohibition of alcohol should make clear). It would be both difficult and unnecessary. There are problems of wording and interpretation. The 1996 Act covered 22 pages and went into great detail to define the extent and limits of Presidential authority under the legislation, including the exact meanings of “single item of appropriation”, ''direct spending'' and ''limited tax benefit'', as well as the means by which Congress could override his decisions.1 It is hard to believe that a one-paragraph amendment to the Constitution could achieve such precision, opening the budgetary process up to confusion, shifting interpretation and constant legal challenge. It is also unnecessary. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues "The short of the matter is this: Had the Line Item Veto Act authorized the president to 'decline to spend' any item of spending ... there is not the slightest doubt that authorization would have been constitutional… What the Line Item Veto Act does instead -- authorizing the president to 'cancel' an item of spending -- is technically different."2 Thus the act could simply have been worded differently in order to make it constitutional. This would not change the substance of the ability of the ‘veto’ to cut spending.  1 One hundred fourth Congress of the United States of America at the second session, “Line Item Veto Act”, 3/1/1996, The Library of Congress, accessed 6/5/11  2 Supreme Court Justice Scalia quoted in Michael Kirkland, ‘Under the U.S. Supreme Court: Like the South, will line item veto rise again?’, upi.com, 17/4/11 accessed 6/5/11  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  "I do not take these matters lightly in amending the Constitution. However, I am convinced in this case it is the only way to provide the President with the same authority that 44 Governors already have to influence spending."1It would in general be preferable to make such a change through normal legislation, but that was attempted in 1996 and found unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Stevens in his majority opinion for the Supreme Court argued that it was necessary for there to be an amendment to make it constitutional, "If there is to be a new procedure in which the president will play a different role in determining the text of what may "become a law", such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution."2  1 Item veto constitutional amendment hearing before the subcommittee on the constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives, 23/3/00, accessed 5/5/11  2 Clinton, President of the United States, et al. v. City of New York et al. No.97-1374, United States Supreme Court, 1998,accessed 5/5/11  improve this  APPENDIX

negative: The UK or rUK is not going to leave the EU.  Despite the legislative activity an EU referendum is still not an immediate prospect. Legislation as it stands only calls for a referendum in the event of treaty change, which would itself take years to negotiate. The private members bill currently progressing through the Commons is likely to be butchered in the Lords and David Cameron's promise of a 2017 referendum relies on a Conservative victory in 2015. Such a victory may not happen, despite Labour's soft poll lead the natural bias of the current boundaries make an outright Conservative victory a very remote prospect. [1] Even if a referendum does get held the out supporters would then have to win it. Although polls for a prospective EU membership referendum tend to show those who favour the exit leading this cannot be taken as necessarily meaning that it is likely to happen. Polls change, the AV referendum saw numbers initially favourable to AV swing round to a decisive victory against AV over the course of the campaign. [2] There are a number of reasons why this is likely in an in/out EU referendum. A vote to leave the EU is in fact rather unlikely because of the full weight of the establishment in the staying in camp. Businesses tend to favour staying in because [quote=John Cridland, Director General of the CBI] being a member of a reformed EU is the best way to preserve market access [3] [/quote]. The CBI released a report that said that each UK household was £3,000 better off due to EU membership. [4] That is a lot of money and if opinions on the EU are anything like those on Scottish independence it is a killer argument. 56% of scots would favour independence if it would make them £500 better off but only 22% would still be in favour of independence if it would make them £500 worse off. [5] If similar swings were to occur in an EU referendum Britain would not be leaving the EU. Furthermore, the referendum is likely only to occur after a renegotiation which is bound to bring something, enough for the (presumably Conservative) Prime minister to recommend a vote to stay in, the result would be support for the EU across all three main parties, plus the nationalist parties as well. A renegotiation sufficient for a conservative PM to recommend staying in also has an interesting effect upon polled voting intentions by almost exactly reversing them. A YouGov poll (May 2013) found that while under the current terms 47% would vote to leave and only 30% to stay but after renegotiation 32% would vote to leave and 45% to stay. [6]  [1] Mylles, Richard, ‘The chances of an EU referendum in the next parliament are wildly overstated’, New Statesman, 18 July 2013,   [2] UKPollingReport, ‘Alternative Vote’, accessed 4 November 2013,   [3] Cridland, John, ‘Leaving Europe would be bad for British business’, The Guardian, 17 May 2013,   [4] CBI, ‘In with reform or out with no influence – CBI chief makes case for EU membership’, 4 November 2013,   [5] ICM, ‘Scottish Independence Poll – September 2013’, 18 September 2013,   [6] YouGov, ‘YouGov / Sunday Times Survey Results’, 10 May 2013,  p.15.

negative: The Tax Cuts Only Exist Due to An Unjust System  The tax cuts that were created under a Republican government can be strongly linked with the Republican power base. The Republican party relies on a relatively small number of very rich and powerful donors. A tax cut for these people often leads to an increase in funding for the Republican party. Republican representation among the other classes generally comes from other conservative policies as opposed to one fiscal policy.  Further, there is an attitude in the U.S. among many poorer communities that tax regardless of the actual purpose is a bad thing. As such, the Republicans can often reduce taxes for the wealthy without significantly harming their voting base among other communities, despite the fact that these changes often harm poorer communities a great deal.  This means that implementation of the tax cuts was due to a political system that focuses on parties winning elections as opposed to doing what is best for America as a country. As such the system forces the Republicans to pander to the rich for funding and this leads to a worse situation for the country overall. Given that this is true, the tax cuts are unjust and should be removed. [1]  [1] Creamer, Robert “Why Congress Must End Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich.” Huffington Post. 28/07/2010/

negative: Term limits tend to increase partisanship between political parties and factions:  Term limits on legislators serve to exacerbate partisan tensions between political parties1. This is due to several causes. First, the increased iteration of primary elections, caused by politicians being forced out of office by term limits, in which there tends to be low voter turnout, and higher voter apathy when they happen to regularly. This leads to the selection of more conservative candidates from the right, and more radical candidates from the left. These more opposed groups forming large portions of political parties' representation will lead to more tension in the legislature. Second, newly elected politicians are often more likely to readily take the party whip when they enter the legislature. These results in more disciplined voting, which restricts the ability of moderates on either side to build consensuses on legislation. Third, the ability to build consensus and support from other parties relies on experience and deft political acumen, which are usually garnered through lengthy participation in the legislative process.2 Term limits exclude many skilled politicians from being able to use their expertise in the building of such consensus efforts. Fourth, concerns for their post-legislative career can lead to greater partisanship from retiring legislators. This is due to their need to court appointments to positions at party-affiliated, or party-leaning, think tanks, and on corporate boards favorable to their party. All of these factors lead to a less cooperative legislature when term limits are instituted. 1 Marcus, Andrew. 2010. "Dodd and Other 'Retiring' Democrats Show Why Term Limitsare a Bad Idea". Big Government. 2 Kouser, Thad. 2004. Term Limits and the Dismantling of State Legislative Professionalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

negative: Penalizing a non-act is unconstitutional  It is unconstitutional to require individuals to buy private insurance, and penalize them for not doing so (that is, penalizing their non-act, their omission to purchase insurance). As David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey argue: “… Can Congress require every American to buy health insurance? In short, no. The Constitution assigns only limited, enumerated powers to Congress and none, including the power to regulate interstate commerce or to impose taxes, would support a federal mandate requiring anyone who is otherwise without health insurance to buy it.”(1)  The Congressional Budget Office believes “a mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”(2) An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it imposes a duty on individuals due to them being members of society. Second, it requires the purchase of a specific service on pain of tax penalties if that product is not purchased. (2)  As noted by Sen. John Ensign, a Nevada Republican: "Anything we have ever done, somebody actually had to have an action before we could tax or regulate it."(3) As Robert A. Levy and Michael F. Cannon of the CATO Institute argue: “Congress' attempt to punish a non-act that harms no one is an intolerable affront to the Constitution, liberty, and personal autonomy. That shameful fact cannot be altered by calling it health-care reform.”(4) The individual healthcare insurance mandate would, for the first time, mean the government setting uo a monopoly or a cartel with which every citizen of the US would be compelled- by a statutory power- to do business. This destroys any pretence of individual market freedom, individuals would be required to contribute money out of each and every pay check they earned to either a government entity which would be staffed and/or controlled by political appointees or to a cartel made up of companies that would owe their continued existence on the cartel list to the acquiescence of political overseers. Either way, the reduction in individual autonomy and freedom over health care choices would be dramatically decreased and inevitably politicized. This has obvious worrying possibilities for corruption, the party in power would favour those who donate to the party.(5)  Enforcing the mandate may also intrude on Constitutional rights. Sherry Glied, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has warned, “[d]eveloping a system to promptly identify and penalize scofflaws [people who flout the law] will take effort and ingenuity, particularly in our diverse and mobile country. It may require a degree of intrusiveness and bureaucracy that some will find unpalatable.”(6)This is likely to mean much more intrusive inspection, for example hospitals having to report to the government patients they have who don’t have health insursnce..(6) This is why a majority of the states, and numerous organizations and individual persons, have filed actions in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the individual mandate, and several courts have already struck it down on constitutional grounds.(7)  For all these reasons it is clear that for Congress to try to penalize a non-act is an unprecedented and unconstitutional power grab, and so the individual mandate is unconstitutional.

negative: Identifying strong, honest candidates.  As noted above, the rougher, ruder, character-oriented tone of a negative campaigning environment acts as a useful test of a politician’s reputation and integrity. Further, opposition wish to restate their early counter-argument on the evolving and dynamic nature of election campaigns. No campaign is uniformly negative of positive.  A candidate who is able to stand firm in the face of attacks against his character and his policies is much more likely to be able to act as a strong advocate in a legislative forum, or when accounting for the actions of the executive. Determination and strong argumentation skills in one area imply a similar degree of dedication in other areas. By contrast, how much confidence should we have in a politician who would be prepared to appeal to the enforcement mechanism created by the proposition to forcibly exclude a particular statement or allegation from a political debate, rather than respond to it? The problems that confront national governments cannot be dismissed simply by invoking a law designed to eliminate fuzzily defined forms of unfair conduct.  Attack adverts are used much more frequently in US-style primary selection contests, which poll members of a particular political party in order determine the candidate who will represent it in national or lower-level elections [i] . The use of negative campaigning in the context of party or semi-open primaries may help to distinguish between politicians running on very similar ideological platforms.  If an aspiring president’s ideological allies can be dissuaded from voting for him, based on his past actions or associations, it will be extremely easy to convince undecided voters to do the same.  By identifying politicians who are difficult to assail on an ad hominem basis, and by identifying politicians who can remain composed and professional when subjected to such attacks, political parties are able to field significantly stronger candidates in open elections. Voters then carry out similar assessments of character and integrity in the polling booth.  [i] “Clinton Questions Role of Obama in a Crisis”. The New York Times, 01 March 2008.

negative: Open primaries promote moderate, non-partisan politics  By creating a situation whereby all voters have a potential say in selecting candidates, it can prevent overweening control by party grass roots who may vote for overtly ideological candidates who turn off the moderate voters needed to win elections.  An Open Primary is more likely to choose more centrist candidates for the general election, providing a degree of moderation to the process of election and politics in general. This in turn can help foster a consensual atmosphere in political discourse with general agreed points, focusing the debate on more core issues between the main parties. [1]  This then means that much more is likely to get done. At the moment American politics is plagued by gridlock both in the states and in Congress. Individuals elected under open primaries are much more likely to be willing to compromise across the aisle. [2] As a result government will begin moving again.  [1] ‘Editorial: California should switch to open primary elections’, The Stanford Daily, 12 May 2010,   [2] Michael Alvarez, R., and Sinclair, Betsy, ‘Electoral Institutions and Legislative Behavior: The Effects of Primary Processes’, P.2

negative: Open primaries prevent the centralisation of party power  Political Parties are able to wield considerable power, controlling their party members and representatives, particularly in Parliamentary political systems. Through use of patronage and the threat of sanctions such as deselection, party leaders are able to manipulate representatives to fulfil their own aims rather than those of constituents. [1]  By instituting Open Primaries, the focus of representatives shifts from the party leadership to the constituents whom prospective candidates hope to represent. Scrutiny over the representative’s conduct would be in the hands of the voters, with reselection in an Open Primary being contingent upon the member looking after the interests of their constituents, rather than the interest of the party as is the case in many countries that do not have Open Primary systems. [2] By using Open Primaries, elections once again becomes about representing the people as opposed to being a means to power as is the case under the status quo in countries that do not use it.  [1] Stone, Daniel, ‘Prop 14’s Winners and Losers’, Newsweek, 8 June 2010,   [2] Triggs, Matthew, ‘Open primaries’, Adam Smith Institute, 16 September 2010,

negative: church marriage religions society gender family house believes reproductive The bill violates the Philippine values of harmony and respect  Perhaps the most important values in the Philippines are social harmony and respect for the family. [i] The Reproductive Health bill undermines both. Allowing contraception will take away a psychological barrier that prevents pre-marital or casual sex and once that barrier is crossed the individual will have higher sexual activity. [ii] In the Philippines this will mean greater numbers of teen pregnancies and pregnancies out of marriage because abortion will remain illegal.  In terms of politics these values mean support for democracy but also being against corruption and graft. [iii] Obviously the bill has been very politically divisive so undermining social harmony but also to pass this bill many parliamentarians had to be bribed so undermining this social harmony. The Reproductive Health bill represents the worst excesses of the pork barrel buffet. With a single-mindedness of purpose, the presidential palace has put everything on the table to shore up the votes required in parliament. Legislators, who had previously voted against the legislation, often repeatedly, where threatened with the loss of programmes in their constituencies if they failed to back the project, which has been at the heart of the presidential agenda [iv] .  [i] Dolan, Ronald E., ed., Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991.   [ii] Arcidiacono, Peter, et al., ‘Habit Persistence and Teen Sex: Could Increased Access to Contraception have Unintended Consequences for Teen Pregnancies’,  P.30  [iii] Talisayon, Serafin D., ‘Teaching values in the natural and physical sciences in the Philippines’, University of the Philippines,   [iv] Philippine Daily Inquirer. Philip Tubeza. ‘Philippine President accused of ‘bribing’ Congress’. Reported on Yahoo News 19 December 2012.

negative: Elections should be controlled by the people not powerful interests  President Obama famously eschewed large corporate donors in favor of grassroots fundraising and social media in 2008, casting a wide net of supporters. [1] By election day his facebook page had 3.4million supporters, his website My.BarackObama.com had 2million members, the campaign had an email list of 13 million and there were 1 million text message subscribers showing how campaigns should be run by mobilizing people not powerful interests. [2] Following a similar strategy, the 2012 campaign garnered hundreds of thousands supporters in the first several months, shattering 2008 records. [3] President Obama has stated in the public record his support for increased disclosure for corporate and individual donors as well as efforts to limit the high-value contributions from corporations that are permitted under Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission [4] .  In response to the supreme court decision on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission act Obama declared in the 2010 state of the Union “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people” [5] . In a democracy where the government is supposed to be accountable to the people this should be self-evident; accountable to the people should mean that rather than accountable to corporate interests.  [1] Murray, Shailegh and Bacon, Perry Jr. ‘Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election’. The Washington Post. 20 June 2008.  [2] Corrado, Anthony J. et al., ‘Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.107-128, p.112  [3] Bingham, Amy. ‘Money Wars: Obama Dominates Fundraising Battle’. ABC News. 1 February, 2012.  [4] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009.  [5] Obama, Barack, ‘2010 State of the Union’, State of the Union Address Library, 27 January 2010.

negative: The mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause  Many attorneys general have fought constitutionality of mandates. Since the passage of the legislation in March of 2010, many state governments, governors, and attorney generals have pressed forward with lawsuits centred on the idea that the individual mandate in the legislation is unconstitutional.(7) Underlying these legal challenges is a debate about the basis of the national Congress’s lawmaking powers. In order for laws passed by Congress to be considered legitimate and enforceable, those laws must be based on a power conferred on congress by the Constitution. On those areas of law and public life where the Constitution is silent, legislative power rests not in the hands of Congress, but rather is “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(9)  It has been argued that the individual healthcare mandate is authorised by the Constitution's empowerment of Congress to “regulate interstate commerce” (known as the “commerce clause”), however this is not true and the commerce clause does not authorize health insurance mandates. As the Congressional Research Service has written: "Despite the breadth of powers that have been exercised under the Commerce Clause, it is unclear whether the clause would provide a solid constitutional foundation for legislation containing a requirement to have health insurance. Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service.”(2) The most obvious reason for this is that an omission to buy health insurance can in no way be termed 'interstate commerce', as there is no activity or commerce going on. This is not in keeping with the commerce clause, unlike other previous federal healthcare laws.  There is no doubt that Congress can regulate an entire array of economic activities, large and small, inter- and intra-state. Thus, for example, there is no problem, Constitution-wise with having Congress regulate health care insurance purchase transactions. The problem with an individual insurance purchase mandate, however, is that it does not regulate any transactions at all; it regulates human beings, simply because they exist, and orders them to engage in certain types of economic transactions.(8)  While most health care insurers and health care providers may engage in interstate commerce and may be regulated accordingly under the Commerce Clause, it is a different matter to find a basis for imposing Commerce Clause related regulation on an individual citizen who chooses not to undertake a commercial transaction. The decision not to engage in affirmative conduct is arguably distinguishable from cases in which Commerce Clause regulatory authority was recognized over intra-state activity: growing wheat, for example, (Wickard v. Filmore) or, more recently, growing marijuana (Gonzales v. Raich).(6)  If Congress were to invoke its Commerce Clause authority to support legislation mandating individual health insurance coverage, such an action would have to contend with recent Supreme Court precedent limiting unfettered use of Commerce Clause authority to police individual behaviour that does not constitute interstate commerce: United States v. Lopez, invalidating the application of the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 to individuals, and United States v. Morrison, invalidating certain portions of the Violence Against Women Act.  In the case of a mandate to purchase health insurance or face a tax or penalty, Congress would have to explain how not doing something – not buying insurance and not seeking health care services – implicated interstate commerce.(6) Therefore, it is clear that Congress is not empowered to regulate the choice not to buy healthcare, as it lacks constitutional authorisation to interfere in this aspect of individual Americans’ private lives.

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting It will reduce the power of special interest groups  A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2  The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).  1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, "Jewish Population of the United States, 2006," in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011)

negative: Even the most liberal FoI regime tends to pander to certain groups in society full disclosure levels that playing field  People have many different interests in the accountability of governments; different areas of concern, differing levels of skill in pursuing those interests and so on. They deserve, however, an equal degree of transparency from governments in relation to those decisions that affect them. Relying on a right to access is almost certainly most likely to favour those who already have the greatest access either through their profession, their skills or their social capital. The use of freedom of information requests in those countries where they are available shows this to be the case, as they have overwhelmingly been used by journalists, with a smattering of representation from researchers, other politicians and lawyers and so on. In the UK between 2005 and 2010 the total number registered by all ‘ordinary’ members of the public is just ahead of journalists, the next largest group. The public are overwhelmingly outnumbered by the listed professional groups [i] .  Required publication, by contrast, presents an even playing field to all parties. Rather than allowing legislators to determine how and to whom – and for what – they should be accountable, a presumption in favour of publication makes them accountable to all. As a result, it is the only truly effective way of ensuring one of the key aims set out in favour of any freedom of information process.  [i] Who Makes FOI Requests? BBC Open Secrets Website. 14 January 2011.

negative: Discussing electoral systems may seem esoteric but the voting system makes an immense difference to the composition of a parliament. This in turn affects the balance of power in that Parliament and so what laws are actually passed. So a change in the voting system does not completely avoid the question of powers. It may also change perceptions because of the ability of parties to campaign in countries where they have not done so before.  While the lack of powers is a concern for the European Parliament this is something that is slowly changing anyway. The European Parliament was in 2009 made co-legislator with the council meaning it has much more power to stop European level legislation rather than simply being consulted. The change in 2014 to having an elected Commission President will also mean that parliament elections have some influence on the executive. Additionally even on those issues where the Parliament has little power this does not mean it does not take into account citizens’ concerns, on youth unemployment for example the parliament has launched a €15 million program of job creation aimed at youth. [1]  [1] ‘European elections 2014: Different this time?’, EurActive.com, 18 September 2013,

negative: Obama has already attempted to increase transparency.  Disclosure laws are intended to bring transparency to the electoral process. By scrutinizing the sources of campaign funds, voters can gain insight into how candidates intend to appoint justices and pass laws while in office. Obama’s attempt at transparency, the DISCLOSE Act, has so far failed to gather a majority of votes in Congress in 2010 [1] but it shows how Obama would like to proceed. This kind of transparency is necessary today because during the 2010 midterms the groups that don’t need to disclose contributions outspent the PACs that must disclose donors by 3 to 2 spending $100million on issue ads. [2]  Without strict disclosure rules, the legislative agendas of elected officials become more opaque, and the public has fewer ways to hold them accountable. Voters would be forced to rely on the goodwill of their elected officials to voluntarily disclose the sources of funding, a system which generates negative incentives to bury the information that is perhaps most critical and relevant to the public interest.  [1] ‘DISCLOSE Act; New Donor Transparency Law Blocked in Senate’. The Washington Post. 16 July 2012.  [2] McIntire, Mike, and Confessore, Nicholas, ‘Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses’, The New York Times, 7 July 2012.

negative: The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states  As most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority.  In 2000 and 2004, by the time New York – the third most populous state in the union – voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn’t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be.  The current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates.  The primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines.  A final argument concerns the role of political capital and states’ influence over candidates’ activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole.

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting This idea is nonsense. Political parties do try and capture the ‘disadvantaged groups’ vote, specifically in order to convince them that voting is in their best interest. As opposed to compulsory voting, a voluntary system in fact encourages political parties to target policies at the disadvantaged in order to convince them to get out and vote , rather than accept that the disadvantaged will simply vote for the opposition. The Labour Party shifted to the right in the UK specifically because no-one was voting for it; the majority of the population, from across the social spectrum, no longer believed in its socialist agenda and it altered its policies to be more in line with the majority of the population. Low turnout is best cured by more education, for example, civics classes could be introduced at school. In addition, the inclusion of these ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Another alternative could be reforming the voting system of the individual countries to better accommodate its population.

negative: government house believes governance united states should be split between two Effect on democratic participation  Divided Government undermines the democratic will of the people as it prevents a clear policy choice from being enacted by those elected to represent them.  The compromise necessary will result in policy platforms enthusiastically chosen by voters being watered down in order for it to be even partly enacted. It is notable that the majority of legislation originates from Congress when government is divided rather than from the President. This is despite the president being the one with the nationwide mandate. [1]  Single Party Government counters this by ensuring that policies clearly presented to and chosen by the electorate are enacted without having to countenance the opinions of an opposition whose policies have just been discredited by the electorate, Thus ensuring that government is responsive to the aims and wishes of the people.  [1] Jones, Charles O., The Presidency in a Separated System, The Brookings Institution, 1994, p.222

negative: Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability  The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting [1] [2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out [3] . If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically [4] . It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’ [5] . 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet [6] ; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression [7] , which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11  [7]  , accessed 24/08/11

negative: Term limits create more competitive elections for public office that empower new leaders and ideas:  Incumbency provides a huge election advantage. Politicians almost always win reelection. The frequency with which they win varies over time and between states, but incumbency is always a powerful advantage. This is seen most visibly in the United States Congress of the past 30 years, in which it has become virtually impossible to unseat an incumbent legislator. Legislators are reelected because they have better name recognition both with the electorate and with lobby groups. People have a tendency to vote for whom they recognize, and firms tend to support past winners who will likely continue to benefit their interests. Term limits actually increase voter choice by making elections more competitive and encouraging more candidates to run. In areas where term limits have been instituted there is far higher turnover amongst legislators, giving voters far more choice in who should represent them. In California, the institution of term limits on state legislators caused a rush of retirements, which led to 50 percent more candidates than would otherwise have been expected, as well as a marked increase in the diversity of the backgrounds of those elected [1] . Ultimately, old legislators using election machines to retain power do their country and constituents a disservice. Power is best used when it changes hands over time in order to allow for dynamic new solutions to be mooted in a changing world.  [1] Bandow, Doug. 1995. "Real Term Limits: Now More Than Ever". Cato Institute Policy Analysis.

negative: Modernisation  In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices [1] [2] [3] [4] . Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people [5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor [6] , it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’ [7] , indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election [8] . In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population.  [1] In the UK:  , accessed 24/08/11  [2] In Europe:  , accessed 24/08/11  [3] In Asia:  , accessed 24/08/11  [4] In the USA:  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11  [7]  , accessed 24/08/11  [8]  , accessed 24/08/11

negative: Neither individuals nor corporations should be permitted to make unlimited contributions  Currently, Super PACs are organizations that can receive unlimited contributions, which encourages the belief that the amount of money contributed is directly correlated to the amount of influence the donor could have. By permitting individuals or corporations to make unlimited contributions, the current legislation undermines the democratic character of the elective process. Political figures related to the sponsored Super PACs have an incentive to satisfy the needs of those who contribute huge amounts of funding towards their campaign rather than meet the needs of the average citizen. This is not the way that democracy should be; it must represent the viewpoint and needs of the majority of the population, not just the small fraction of it that is wealthy enough to effectively pay for policies they want. Furthermore, caps on contributions to Super PACs will bring competition in elections back into the mainstream and when more citizens contribute to politicians, they will be more engaged in politics. [1]  For example, the pass of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) eliminated soft money for parties and attempted to handle the elections contributions through PACs. With the elimination of soft money for parties, the role of interest groups investment decreased in the 1990s. [2] Obama’s campaign in 2008 raised 114.1 million or 34% of his general election fund from small contributions. His unprecedented small donor fundraising success can be interpreted as increased credibility and public visibility for Obama and through this the benefit of mobilizing lots of small donations. In 2008, Obama used online communications and social networking tools to reach and mobilise more people. In effect of this approach, he not only inspired an unprecedented number of young and retired people to get involved in the campaign, but also achieved the highest rate of small contributions. [3]  [1] Malbin, Michael, Anthony Corrado, Thomas Mann, and Norman Ornstein. "Reform in an Age of NEtworked Campaigns." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. By Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011. 84-106. Print.  [2] Franz, Michael. "The Interest Group Response to Campaign Finance Reform." Campaign Finance: The Problems and Consequences of Reform. Ed. Robert Boatright. New York: International Debate Education Association, 2011, 2011. 66-83.  [3] Malbin, 2011.

negative: It is wrong to assume that the individual always knows best  With subsidies at least the government knows what their money is being spent on. This is not the case with cash; it just gets taken and can be spent on anything. As already mentioned the most obvious examples are where the individual uses the money they are given on drugs or other harmful products not what they need. Yet there are times where individuals may simply not have their own best interests at heart for various reasons, particularly because they know no better. This does not just happen in economic situations but also in public heath. For example development agencies know that cooking on open fires in homes leads to thousands of deaths every year and is costly in terms of fuel. So thousands of clean smokeless stoves have been given out yet they are not being used despite them being cheaper to run and potentially a life saver. [1]  [1] Duflo, Esther, et al., ‘Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves’, MIT Department of Economics Working Paper, No.12-10, 16 April 2012

negative: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise  Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise [1] , Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million [2] , and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion [3] . Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult [4] . In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups [5] . Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use. [6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process.  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11  [4]  , accessed 24/08/11  [5]  , accessed 24/08/11  [6]  , accessed 24/08/11