query: Persuasion is more effective than coercion  Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. The election results from compulsory voting may not be a representative view of society, than the current systems. Just because people are required to vote does not mean they become more politically engaged than they were before.  Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Government transparency should be further encouraged as well as evaluating to what extent the current voting system causes low voter turnout.  Low turnout is best cured by more education. Instead of trying to engage people by force, how about introducing political education in schools and encouraging political conversation. How about educating the public on how politics affects them?  Citizenship classes should be taught to students who are approaching voting age, as it would teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy.  The government should be trying to engage people by other means, not compulsory voting. Compulsory voting may improve low turnout but will not affect the root problem- what people actually think about politics. In essence it is just relieving the side effects without curing the disease.

positive: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of people spoiling the ballot.  Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust".  Citizenship classes don't negate the need for compulsory voting but should be used in conjunction to compulsory voting.  If people are genuinely not interested in voting or politics, educating them in school would not change that fact. The education is likely to vary from school to school and is only likely to have an impact if the student likes the subject. Compulsory voting would force those parts of the population who are usually disinterested to voice some form of opinion- created a more balanced democracy.  Besides, who pays for the education? Taxpayers. Who often don't want to vote.

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement  Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement.  States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate.

negative: PR increases political engagement which benefits society.  PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005, p5-6)

negative: Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.  People are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1]  [1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001.

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting Forcing the population to vote will not stop people expressing their wish not to vote. Tucker notes that in Australia 5% of eligible voters did not caste a valid vote. Most countries that use compulsory voting give voters a legal opportunity to abstain. For example, in Australia valid explanations might include being overseas, trying to vote but failing for some reason, or belonging to a religious order which prohibits voting ( Electoral Commission ). Moreover people who vehemently refuse to vote find a way to do so such as paying the fine straight away (for those who can afford to) or attending the polling station but submitting a blank ballot. McAllister et al (1992)1 conclude that compulsory voting has led to a higher level of non-votes because the only legal method of political protest is to spoil the ballot paper or leave it blank deliberately 2. However, in non-compulsory jurisdictions voters so motivated would boycott the ballot.  Furthermore, forcing people to vote will lead to more meaningless votes. People who are forced to vote against their will won’t make a proper considered decision. At best they will vote randomly which disrupts the proper course of voting. Compared to countries that have no compulsory voting laws, in countries where such laws exist there is an increase in donkey votes (where voters simply chose the candidate at the top of the ballot), random votes, "just for the fun of it" votes, protest votes and abstentions. This does not contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced inputadd legitimacy to the mix?  And this is before issues such as controversy about the aged in nursing homes being 'asissted' with their votes.  1. Mackerrassa and McAllister. "Compulsory voting, party stability and electoral advantage in Australia."  2. Laverdea 1991

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting It will cause more people to become interested in politics  Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.  1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005.

negative: It is true that a responsible government should draft legislation with a view to its long term benefits. However, many governments do not do this; programmes are often set up, laws changed or taxes cut with a view to short term electoral benefit and narrow party political gain, not the good of the country. Arguably, the electorate are more likely to vote on issues for the “right” reasons than are their elected representatives.  Saying that government should lead public opinion, rather than follow it, is simply another way of saying that the state should ignore the will of the public. It is hard to see how it can be justified for governments to pass laws which they know do not command public support. Clearly there may be exceptions in extreme situations - such as the abolition of slavery in the 19th century – but, broadly speaking, the citizens of a country should have the right to order their society in the way they think is best.

negative: An opportunity for civic studies  There would be clear advantages in having elections while young people are still in school as school could help prepare them for the elections. Schools would be able to teach their students in advance what the ballot is like, about the process of voting, and most importantly about the European Union and the function of the European Parliament. One of the biggest problems with the European Parliament is that voters don’t understand what it does. To take a couple of basics from a Eurobarometer poll in 2011, 42% of European citizens did not know MEPs were directly elected and 57% did not know that they sit in the Parliament according to ideology not nationality. [1] This shows how necessary education about the European Parliament is. Having elections at 16 provides an ideal opportunity as it means that most will participate in a European election while they are at school.  Teaching about why voting matters would also help to improve turnout. When Austria reduced its voting age to 16 it was found that turnout from 16-17 year olds was significantly higher than turnout for 18-19 year olds when both groups are first time voters. [2] This suggests that 18 may simply be the wrong time to introduce people to voting for the first time. Since voting or not voting tends to be habit forming lowering the voting age could slowly increase turnout across the board.  [1] EP/Eurobarometer - Public Opinion Surveys , ‘Media recall and knowledge of the EP’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom,   [2] Zeglovitis, Eva, ‘Votes at 16: Turnout of the Youngest Voters – Evidence from Austria’, ÖGPW Tagung “Tag der Politikwissenschaft”, Salzburg, 2 December 2011,  p.13

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism.

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting Because mandatory voting means that no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics will decrease. Compulsory voting will reduce spending such as campaign spending on voter turnout. It can also lead to a reduction in the incentive for negative advertising “as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home” 1.  States that sanction fines usually sanction a very low fine, which even the poorest members can afford. Besides, government like the British seem to manage speeding fines just fine, there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to manage non-voting fines. However, other measures such as disenfranchisement (Belgium) and denial of public services (Peru, Greece) can be used, which don’t incur a cost for the individual.  1 Electoral Reform Society

negative: Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten [1] . Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote [2] . Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises [3] . Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA [4] and Europe [5] . It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation.  [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

negative: This point only stands if participatory democracy actually involves more participation. In reality, when taking the example of referendums, for most voters all that changes under a participatory system is that they get to vote more regularly – which given how turned off voting many people are this may simply lead to them ignoring all the new votes. In any referéndum all the electors have to do is decide to vote yes or no. There’s hardly any intellectual stimulation at all. This binary choice is much more basic than choosing which political party to vote for, and encourages even sloppier thinking – just look at the misleading claims the “No to AV” campaign spread in the 2011 UK referendum on electoral reform. [1] Then, participatory democracy is not the be all and end all, we should not ask only for more participation but we must move towards a more deliberative democracy, where the public debate and consequent consensus is an important issue to pass new political decisions. [2]  [1] Newman, C. (25 February 2011) “FactCheck: the AV campaign gets dirty” 4 news.   [2] Elster, J. (Ed.). (1998). Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

negative: Get out the vote!  In a system where every vote counts the same and where there are not set constituencies it is much more important to get the vote out. Political parties in countries with low turn outs, such as the UK which in 2009 has a turnout of just 35%, [1] will need to get their people motivated and voting if they want to win many seats as they currently control. If a country with a comparably sized electorate were to get twice the turnout then it would get twice the representation in the parliament regardless of the similarities in the populations of those countries. What would matter is getting the national constituency out voting. This will help show that individuals really do need to vote in order to get their voice heard.  [1] ‘European Parliament Elections 2009’, House of Commons, Research Paper 09/53, 17 June 2009,  p.23

negative: Voting at a lower age would increase participation  There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action” [1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working. [2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy.  [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007  [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9

negative: People feel disengaged with politics in general not because they don’t have a say over candidacies, but because of the constant merry-go-round that is electoral politics. The voter fatigue that comes from the constant chase for votes from parties will not decrease. If anything, it will increase as candidates and media coverage is dominated by speculation over who will be a candidate for office rather than who will gain the office actually up for election, causing further disillusionment with the political process.

negative: First elections are not just a retrospective vote on how the government did, it is also about what political parties want to do. Yes a few elction promises get dropped but the vast majority stick to their promises because they know that not doing so will result in them losing the next election. It is simply not true that representative democracy is oppressive. If people aren’t happy with the way the government is using its power they can vote for a candidate who promises to undo what the previous government has done, or they can even enter politics themselves. The people can always take back powers that they don’t want the government to have by forming and supporting a party or a lobby specifically for that purpose. The reason why this hasn’t happened yet is that most people are happy with the representative system and do not feel like their liberty is being violated.

negative: Representative Democracy Lets People Get On with their Lives  People should be free to get on with their private lives, but they can’t do that if they’re expected to also be their own government. The reason why we delegate powers to politicians is that we want to have a say in government and still be free to get on with our lives. The business of government is tremendously complex and most people just don’t care about having total control over the details of policy – they just want the power to kick out governments that are no good. Think about it: how many people actually have time, on top of all the other things they have to do, to attend weekly meetings and committees, research technical policy details to decide which policy they will support and then go out and vote on a dozen issues every week? You’ll notice that all the ancient direct democracies – like ancient Athens – were societies in which there were more slaves than citizens. It is only because the slaves did all the work that the citizens were free to spend their time playing politics. The key point is, under the status quo, people who deeply care about politics can get involved in politics – they can join a party, write to politicians, canvass for issues etc – and the people who don’t care about politics that much but still have an opinion are free to vote and then get on with their lives. But under a more direct democracy people have to choose between devoting half of their lives to politics or losing all possible influence over the curse of the decision-making. It’s not right that ordinary citizens should be forced to choose between having any say in politics and having a private life. This makes the difference between the "liberty of the ancients" and the "liberty of the moderns". [1]  [1] Constant, B. (1816). The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns. See online at:

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting The power of lobbying groups is a benefit to politics at large. Their ability to publicize issues that are important to specific interest groups are invaluable to the political process. Similarly, they are able to propel and sustain wider interest in the political agenda, ensuring oversight over public policy and recommending necessary changes. To reduce their power in favour of ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation, not substance, becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Furthermore, by removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to be more inherently motivated.

negative: Participatory forms of Democracy Can Restore Trust in Politics  Representative systems struggle to sustain popular trust, which is bad for democracy. Public trust in politics always tends to be dented by three specific features of representative systems. Firstly, the perception of elite influence over the political process is a largely unavoidable feature of electoral democracy because such elites are easily placed to manipulate politics, even if they do not actually do so. Secondly, the spotlight in representative democracy is on individual politicians (rather than on policies) and consequently exposing scandals and smearing the characters of politicians is an essential part of the political game: media coverage of politicians is largely hostile (particularly problematic if it diverts discussion from the merits and demerits of particular policies). A third feature of the system is that, since public opinion has no direct power, unpopular decisions don’t have to be properly justified. Governments often defy public opinion when they think a policy will pay off in the long run, and often they don’t really bother explaining why they are doing so (a good example of this is Gordon Brown’s signing of the Lisbon treaty in 2007). These three factors all tend to undermine trust in politics in representative systems. Trust is essential for democracy because without it people will not bother following politics or voting, leaving the door open for elites and aggressive minorities to wield undue influence. A clear example of this phenomenon is in the United States, where Christian fundamentalists – despite being a minority – wield enormous power. The reason for this is that turnout in American elections is very low, whilst fundamentalist Christians are politically very active and organised, allowing them huge influence.

negative: This would not stop teenagers from using their votes in the same way as a protest vote. Even people who are 16 and 17 will know the policy of their government and will be just as likely to vote on the basis of that policy regardless of whether they can influence it in national elections. Indeed teenagers tend to be rebellious against authority figures so it would seem much more likely that they would simply use their vote in protest, as a result they may well even be more likely to vote for parties that are extremist rather than simply going for the opposition to the government.

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting Compulsory voting broadens representation of disadvantaged groups  Voter apathy is highest among the poorest and most excluded sectors of society. As the Institute for Public Policy Research highlight, “the higher the income a citizen enjoys, and the higher the educational qualifications attained, the more likely it is that he or she will turn out to vote”. Since they do not vote, the political parties do not create policies for their needs, which leads to a vicious circle of increasing isolation. By making the most disenfranchised vote the major political parties are forced to take notice of them and this would reduce political polarisation 1. An example of this is in the UK where the Labour party abandoned its core supporters to pursue ‘middle England’. Political parties are drawn towards those groups to whom favourable policies will be rewarded in the form of vote. Compulsory voting ensures that all stakeholders in society are proportionally considered in governmental policy.  1 William Galston, 'Mandatory Voting Would Loosen Partisan Gridlock' US News and World Report, July 8th 2010

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting Voting is a civic duty  Other civic duties also exist “which are recognised as necessary in order to live in a better, more cohesive, stable society” 1 like paying taxes, attending school, obeying road rules and, in some countries, military conscription and jury duty. All of these obligatory activities require far more time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than any of these other activities.  The right to vote in a democracy has been fought for throughout modern history . In the last century alone the soldiers of numerous wars and the suffragettes of many countries fought and died for enfranchisement. It is our duty to respect their sacrifice by voting.  1. Liberal Democrat Voice , 2006

negative: Many voters are making an active choice when they decide not to vote, they are either showing that they recognise how little impact their vote will have, or else that they do not believe that it is worth their while spending the time to vote. [1] Finally even if they are not making an active choice not to vote and don’t vote due to ignorance is that really a dereliction of their civic duty? Does it not show that politics, politicians, and parties have not done enough to engage with these voters and tell them why, when and where they can vote? It should be up to politicians to persuade us that they are worthy of our votes.  [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully.  Australia is one of the most notable examples of compulsory voting and shows how it can be implemented. In Australia Compulsory voting was introduced at federal elections in 1924 1. Every Australian citizen who is over eighteen has to vote unless they have a ‘valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’ which is decided by the electoral commission whether a reason is sufficient 2. If the elector who fails to vote does not provide such a reason they pay a penalty and if (s)he does not pay then the matter is dealt with in court 3. There is little reason to believe that this would be more difficult to implement in any other country. 1 Evans, Tim, 'Compulsory voting in Australia', Australian Electoral Commission, (January 2006), (accessed 4/8/11) 2 Harrison, Brianna, and Lynch, Philip. Votes for the Homeless, (March 2003), (accessed 4/8/11) 3 Voter Turnout for Referendums and Elections 1901 , Australian Electoral Commission, 2010

negative: There is no reason to assume that there will be an increase in political engagement. Votes will simply not count in different ways. If there are more coalitions, people could feel their vote doesn’t count even more strongly, as they will see that the parties they vote for change their policies once in government. What is the point in voting for a platform if the party that is pledging to fulfil these promises is simply going to drop them as soon as the election is over and the negotiations begin?

negative: Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined [1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012 [2] , and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users, [3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box.  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004  [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012  [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010

negative: Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government [1] . Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy [2] . The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern [3] .  [1]  , accessed 24/08/11  [2]  , accessed 24/08/11  [3]  , accessed 24/08/11

negative: edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular People will have less information about politicians’ manifestos and ideas.  Celebrity endorsement distracts those who normally provide information to voters. Newspapers, blogs and other online media all have limited space, and, because celebrities sell, will use that space showing who is supporting whom, rather than covering debate about a politician’s policies and ideas.  Though the presence of celebrities may actually give the masses more avenue to relate to electoral processes, the fact still stands that in status quo people are more interested in the activities of their favorite celebrities which will thus blot out the candidates themselves. When voters see celebrity endorsements they are no longer thinking about how these future politicians can make an impact on their lives. In some cases the celebrity may help show the platform of policies the candidate is standing on but most of the time they are simply taking airtime from more in depth analysis. What is worse when wooing celebrities becomes important for politicians the politicians themselves have less time to formulate and articulate their policies.  This is detrimental to the democratic process. People having less information than they would otherwise impairs their ability to make an informed choice about how they would like to vote. A prohibition on celebrity interference in political debate would remove this obscuring effect.  All of the above adds to the depoliticisation of politics. If the celebrity endorsement continues to thrive, younger generations will disengage with the important political issues at hand. Instead of learning about the fundamental issues surrounding their country, they will be exposed to party tactics that are of no use to their political development.

negative: This is an odd idea; should parents not be voting for themselves not their children? If they are voting for their children rather than themselves are they not themselves disenfranchised? The fact is that children and their parents have different interests on account of the age gap that is likely to be at least 20 years. Someone who is 16 is much more interested in university fees than someone who is 40 who will be more interested in how much they will have at retirement. Furthermore with turnouts that are often less than 50% a great many children are not being represented by their parents at all. Adults have the choice to not vote, when their parents are choosing not to vote children don’t get this opportunity.

negative: The public already has an effective veto on legislation, and retains the ultimate power over a politician’s career through its vote at general elections. When governments break their promises, or govern contrary to the preferences of their voters, they are punished by being ejected from office at the subsequent election. This is already an effective way to ensure that public opinion is never ignored for long.

negative: edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular Celebrity involvement can act as a ‘gateway’ to get more people engaged in politics  Celebrity endorsement of a candidate does more than make people vote, drone-like, for the candidate endorsed by their favourite celebrity. Rather, it encourages people who might not otherwise have thought politics was interesting to pay attention to it. Especially in an age of easily accessible information, people can easily access sufficient information about political personalities and policies to cast a meaningful vote.  As a consequence, you have more potential voters, from a wider cross-section of society, note the key role played by personalities like will.i.am in engaging young people during the Obama campaign. Rock the Vote with a large amount of celebrity support registered 2.6million voters in 2008 and it and other celebrity campaigns had been prominent in 2004 as well which was probably a key factor in 2million more 18-29 year olds voting in 2008 compared to 2004 or 6.5million over 2000. [1]  Some of the people thus enthused may go on further with their interest in the political system, some may simply start listening to news shows or reading blogs that they would otherwise have shunned. Either way, celebrity involvement has a beneficial impact on our political system that it would be foolish to discard: the larger and more diverse the voter base, the more politicians are held to account and the more likely we are to reach the best political outcomes.  [1] Brubaker, Jennifer, ‘It doesn’t affect my vote: Third-person effects of Celebrity Endorsements on College Voters in the 2004 and 2008 Presidential Elections’, American Communication Journal, Vol.13 Issue 2, Summer 2011, p.8.

negative: Sober second thought is undemocratic. A directly elected upper house can also provide an extra cycle in the legislative process if this is deemed desirable. When it comes to 'halting hypes', we need to realize that what constitutes a political hype is also a political choice. Democracy is defined as 'rule by the people'. If public pressure for a certain law is mounting, this means that apparently a large part of the public is urgently in favor of it. If democracy truly means 'rule by the people', then the legislative should respond to this kind of public pressure and not effectively hinder the rule of the people out of some misguided notion of 'political hype'.

negative: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting A democracy is based on the principle of respecting basic human rights, such as free choice. This principle is directly violated by compulsory voting. With many civil rights there is a choice to choose to engage in the activity or not. Voting has carries that option, citizens of a democracy have the choice to either vote or not, despite being encouraged to vote. It does not matter why a person chooses to vote or not, it is the fact of principle that they have the right to choose. Compulsory voting goes against such ideas of the freedom of choice, and on that grounds should not be compulsory.  The proposition speaks of those who died for the right to vote, and respecting their sacrifice by voting. Unfortunately the proposition misconstrued the point of their sacrifice- to give us the freedom of choice. That right of choice must be upheld, as it is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Compulsory voting would be infringing upon that.


query: Transparency helps reduce international tension  Transparency is necessary in international relations. States need to know what each other are doing to assess their actions. Without any transparency the hole is filled by suspicion and threat inflation that can easily lead to miscalculation and even war.  The Cuban missile crisis is a clear example where a lack of transparency on either side about what they were willing to accept and what they were doing almost lead to nuclear war. [1] It is notable that one of the responses to prevent a similar crisis was to install a hotline between the White House and Kremlin. A very small, but vital, step in terms of openness.  Today this is still a problem; China currently worries about the US ‘pivot’ towards Asia complaining it “has aroused a great deal of suspicion in China.” “A huge deficit of strategic trust lies at the bottom of all problems between China and the United States.” The result would be an inevitable arms race and possible conflict. [2]  [1] Frohwein, Ashley, ‘Embassy Moscow: A Diplomatic Perspective of the Cuban Missile Crisis’, Georgetown University School of Foreign Service, 7 May 2013  [2] Yafei, He, ‘The Trust Deficit’, Foreign Policy, 13 May 2013

positive: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency in situations of international tension is tricky; with complete transparency how do you engage in bluffing? The state that is completely transparent is tying one hand behind its back in international negotiations.  It is also wrong to assume that transparency will always reduce tensions. Sometimes two countries just have completely incompatible interests. In such instances complete transparency is simply going to set them on a collision course. It is then much better for there to be a bit less transparency so that both sides can fudge the issue and sign up to an agreement while interpreting it in different ways.

negative: The military can only be held to account if there is transparency  States have militaries to protect themselves creating a paradox that “The very institution created to protect the polity is given sufficient power to become a threat to the polity.” [1] The Military is a powerful institution even in a stable democracy like Israel, it needs to be held to account because it is the institution within a state that has most capability to use force if it wishes. An unaccountable military is a military that is much more likely to engage in coups and other anti-democratic actions. Israel is an unusual case in the west in that it has allowed the boundaries separating government, military and society to become blurred leading to worries of military influence on policy. [2] None the less most of the time we can trust the government to hold the military to account however the only sure guarantee is for everyone to have access to all information that have a very low risk of resulting in lives lost; designs of weapon systems, current deployments or planning for current and future missions.  This transparency should of course be from the top down with the military giving out this information freely as the military is in a position to know what information is still current and may result in lives being lost. However if the military refuses to be transparent on crimes committed then there is a need for individuals to provide that transparency themselves. Cases like Anat Kamm’s which punish attempts by soldiers to call their superiors to account are therefore damaging as it shows that the officers will not be brought to justice but the leaker will be punished. [3] This actively encourages the military to believe it is above the law and is not accountable to the people.  [1] Peter Feaver quoted in Norton, Augustus Richard, and Alfoneh, Ali, ‘The Study of Civil-Military Relations and Civil-Society in the Middle East and North Africa’, in Carsten Jensen (ed.), Developments in Civil-Military relations in the Middle East, pp.7-28, p.7  [2] Weinraub, Alan, ‘The evolution of istaeli civil-military relations: domestic enablers and the quest for security’, Naval Postgraduate College, December 2009.  [3] Reider, Dimi, ‘In Israel, Press Freedom is under attack’, The New York Times, 31 October 2011.

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Transparency can result in normalisation  While something is secret it is clearly not a normal every day part of government, it is deniable and the assumption is that when it comes to light it has probably been wound up long ago. However making something transparent without winding it up can be a bad thing as it makes it normal which ultimately makes a bad policy much harder to end.  The use of drones by the CIA may turn out to be an example of this. At the moment we are told almost nothing about drones, not even how many strikes there are or how many are killed. There have however been recent suggestions that the drone program could be transferred to the Department of Defence. This would then make the targeted killing that is carried out seem a normal part of military conflict, somehting it clearly is not. [1] And the public reacts differently to covert and military action; already more Americans support military drones doing targeted killing (75%) than CIA ones (65%). [2]  [1] Waxman, Matthew, ‘Going Clear’, Foreign Policy, 20 March 2013  [2] Zenko, Micah, ‘U.S. Public Opinion on Drone Strikes’, Council on Foreign Relations, 18 March 2013

negative: Missile defence shows Russia is still suspicious of U.S. motives.  Russia has been suspicious of most US actions fearing they are directed against Russia. This suspicion is in part born out of the cold war, Russia is much weaker than the USSR was and is worried about any US expansionism. The expansion of NATO to include former Soviet states such as Lithuania has resulted in one Russian news organisation declaring "Generations of Russians feel betrayed by NATO's expansion." [1] The United States’ missile defence proposals have been a continuing sore in relations. In 2007 then President Putin compared the proposed siting of anti-ballistic missile systems in Eastern Europe with the Cuban Missile Crisis, “The situation is quite similar technologically for us. We have withdrawn the remains of bases from Vietnam and Cuba, but such threats are being created near our borders.” [2] It is clear from this that Russia will not be able to cooperate with many things that the United States considered to necessary. Things like NATO expansion and missile defense which the United States considers to be defensive Russia believes are aimed at Russia, either to encircle it or to negate Russia’s main strategic asset; its nuclear arsenal.  [1] Russia Today "Generations of Russians feel betrayed by NATO's expansion"   [2] President Putting quoted in Philip Coyle and Victoria Samson, ‘Missile Defence Malfunction: Why the Proposed U.S. Missile Defences in Europe Will Not Work, Ethics & International Affairs, Vol.22, No.1, (Spring 2008),  accessed 6/5/11

negative: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons The right of self-defence must be exercised in accordance with international law.  There can be no right to such terribly destructive weapons; their invention is one of the great tragedies of history, giving humanity the power to destroy itself. Even during the Cold War, most people viewed nuclear weapons at best as a necessary defence during that great ideological struggle, and at worst the scourge that would end all life on Earth. Nuclear war has never taken place, though it very nearly has on several occasions, such as during the Cuban Missile Crisis. And in 1983 a NATO war game, the Able Archer exercise simulating the full release of NATO nuclear forces, was interpreted by the Soviet Union as a prelude to a massive nuclear first-strike. Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB colonel who defected to the West, has stated that during Able Archer, without realising it, the world came ‘frighteningly close’ to the edge of the nuclear abyss, ‘certainly closer than at any time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962’. [1] Soviet forces were put on immediate alert and an escalation was only avoided when NATO staff realised what was happening and scaled down the exercise. [2] Cooler heads might not prevail in future conflicts between nuclear powers; when there are more nuclear-armed states, the risk of someone doing something foolish increases. After all, it would take only one such incident to result in the loss of millions of lives. [3] Furthermore, in recent years positive steps have finally begun between the two states with the largest nuclear arsenals, the United States and Russia, in the strategic reduction of nuclear stockpiles. These countries, until recently the greatest perpetrators of nuclear proliferation, have now made commitments toward gradual reduction of weapon numbers until a tiny fraction of the warheads currently active will be usable. [4] All countries, both with and without nuclear weapons, should adopt this lesson. They should contribute toward non-proliferation, thus making the world safer from the threat of nuclear conflict and destruction. Clearly, the focus should be on the reduction of nuclear weapons, not their increase.  [1] Andrew, Christopher and Gordievsky, Oleg. 1991. “KGB: The Inside story of its Foreign Operations from Lenin to Gorbachev”. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.  [2] Rogers, Paul. 2007. “From Evil Empire to Axis of Evil”. Oxford Research Group.  [3] Jervis, Robert. 1989. The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospect of Armageddon, Cornell Studies in Security Affairs. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.  [4] Baker, Peter. 2010. “Twists and Turns on Way to Arms Pact With Russia”. The New York Times.

negative: global middle east house would arm syrian rebels Unforeseeable consequences  We do not know where arming the rebels will lead. The most obvious parallel has to be Afghanistan in the 1980s where the United States armed the mujahideen and succeeded in their objective of damaging the USSR through a war of attrition much as the US had suffered in Vietnam. Afghanistan became an albatross around the Soviet Union’s neck. [1] But the US did not win the peace, Afghanistan descended into civil conflict which had a Taliban victory that sheltered Osama bin Laden; US arms in Afghanistan unintentionally lead more than a decade later to September 11. In this case we would be arming a movement that has many jihadi elements that could end up with the weaponry. Other countries such as Turkey are also worried about where powerful weapons such as anti aircraft missiles could end up if provided to the rebels. They fear they could easily find their way across the border to militant Kurds. [2] Other paths that this could lead to are just as bad; for example helping the Libyan rebels lead to the conflict in Mali. [3] In this case the short term consequences could be just as bad. Arming the Sunnis could provoke retaliation from either Iran or Hezbollah who could feel undermined by the move, in the worst case scenario they could even attack western assets in the area. [4]  [1] Hoffman, David E., The Dead Hand: Reagan, Gorbachev and the Untold Story of the Cold War Arms Race, Icon Books Ltd, 2011, p.211  [2] Hokayem, Emile, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013  [3] Jones, Owen, ‘The war in Libya was seen as a success, now here we are engaging with the blowback in Mali’, The Independent, 13 January 2013  [4] Yacoubian, Mona, in ‘Roundtable: arming the Syrian rebels’, Foreign Policy, 21 February 2013

negative: Schools should teach facts  Quite simply if a school in Japan is going to teach about World War II then it should include the darker side of the Japanese involvement in the conflict. Japans acts such as the Nanjing bombing and the occupation of Asian countries were horrific and must not be glossed over. Not covering such actions is quite simply misrepresenting the facts through omission.  No one would consider teaching about Nazi Germany without mentioning the horrors it committed. Learning about, for example the road to war may be interesting, and potentially be useful in drawing lessons on how to prevent a war. Appeasement is still regularly used as an analogy in international relations discussion as meeting almost any aggression with negotiations is seen as appeasing the enemy with Munich as the analogy [1] for example in negotiations with North Korea. [2] It is however a pointless exercise if the person learning knows nothing of what happened in the resulting war. Why should they want to draw on the lessons of the failure of appeasement if they do not know about the millions killed and the suffering inflicted?  [1] Dallek, Robert, ‘The Tyranny of Metaphor’, Foreign Policy, November 2010,   [2] Rogin, Josh, ‘Senate Republicans accuse Obama of North Korea ‘appeasement’, The Cable Foreign Policy, 16 March 2012,

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Trust goes two ways; the people have to trust that on some issues, such as security, the government is doing the right thing to protect them even when it cannot release all relevant information. But even if the military and security services do claim to be completely transparent then how is everyone to know that it really is being as transparent as they say? Unfortunately there are information asymmetry’s between members of the public and the government; the member of the public is unlikely to have the capability to find out if the government if hiding something from them. [1] Other countries too are likely to be suspicious of ‘complete transparency’ and simply believe that this is cover for doing something more nefarious. Trust then cannot only about being transparent in everything.  [1] Stiglitz, Joseph, ‘Transparency in Government’, in Roumeen Islam, The right to tell: the roll of the mass media in economic development, World Bank Publications, 2002, p.28

negative: onal global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The verification requirements of New START have satisfied not only the Obama Administration but also a large number of foreign policy experts. A panel including Henry Kissinger argues that New START “emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal." [1] Howard Baker argues that: "President Reagan was famous for his adage about dealing with the old Soviet Union: “Trust but verify.” Since the last START treaty expired in December 2009, we’ve had no right to conduct inspections of Russian nuclear bases, and thus no way to verify what the Russians are doing with their nuclear weapon systems. For us veterans of the Cold War, that’s an alarming fact and a compelling reason to ratify this New START treaty without further delay." [2]  When the allegations are gone through individually they do not stand up to scrutiny. On the telemetry issue the treaty does not limit throw-weight so the data is not needed; the number of warheads per missile can be verified by other means. There are less facilities being inspected, but more inspections and the decline in Russia’s nuclear forces means that not so many facilities need to be inspected. [3] There is no reason to be worried about the numbers of missiles as there will be a database detailing all the weapons both sides have and inspections to confirm this, [4] this will also mean that there are unique identifier tags on each missile, launcher and bombers so helping inspectors in their counting. [5] Mobile launchers are much less of a problem than they were as we already know the base number the Russia has whereas when START was originally negotiated the US did not know. Technology to track such mobile launchers has also become much more powerful. Finally if worried about the verification of the elimination of delivery vehicles both sides will have the right to inspect the debris and to demand demonstration of the procedures. [6] Neither side will be able to get around the new START’s verification regime.  [1] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.   [2] Baker, Howard. "Dangerous if we reject New START." USA Today.   [3] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010,   [4] Woolf, Amy F., ‘The New START Treaty: Central Limits and Key Provisions’, Congressional Research Service, 24 October 2011, p.3,   [5] ‘Verification of New START’, Union of Concerned Scientists, 13 July 2010,   [6] Blook, Oliver, ‘Nothing to Fear with New START Verification’, Center For Strategic & International Studies, 8 July 2010,

negative: The foreign aid budget can be made more effective and transparent  While a second Obama administration is not going to cut back on foreign aid the Obama campaign however, does argue for pragmatic budgetary approaches to foreign aid, [1] creating transparency measures [2] to ensure that “assistance [is] more transparent, accountable and effective”. [3] The Obama administration has signed the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation [4] which makes transparency a key pillar of overseas development [5] and has succeeded in significantly increasing transparency; in 2010 the U.S. was ranked 24th [6] in Quality of Official Development Assistance rankings on transparency, by 2012 it had moved up to 9th. [7] It is also clear how beneficial transparency is for the recipients of aid; Uganda implemented Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys in 1996. Surveys had shown that only 13% of funds for schools was actually getting to the schools but the introduction of PETS increased this to between 80-90% simply because it was public that the school should have received money. [8]  [1] ‘U.S. Foreign Aid By Country’, Huffington Post, 30 August 2012.  [2] Foreignassistance.gov.  [3] Shah, Rajiv, ‘Improving the Quality and Effectiveness of International Development Aid’, The White House Blog, 1 December 2011.  [4] ‘Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation’, busanhlf4.org, 29 November – 1 December 2011.  [5] Atwood, Brian, ‘The Benefits of Transparency in Development’, OECD Insights, 3 April 2012.  [6] Baker, Gavin, ‘U.S. Scores Poorly on Transparency of Foreign Aid Spending’, OMB Watch, 7 October 2010.  [7] ‘Transparency and Learning’, Global Economy and Development at Brookings, 2012.  [8] ‘Empowerment Case Studies: Public Expenditure Tracking Surveys – Application in Uganda, Tanzania, Ghana and Honduras’, World Bank.

negative: Everyone is for transparency when it is taxpayers’ money that is being spent however transparency does not make it a worthwhile investment. Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General says that “Last year, corruption prevented 30 per cent of all development assistance from reaching its final destination.” [1] This means huge amounts of money is not helping development as it is meant to. Obama’s transparency initiatives will no doubt help show what the US is spending and where but will it tell us who else benefits? Moreover the administration’s record on aid transparency is very patchy; some budgets like the Millennium Challenge Corporation, created by the Republicans during the Bush Administration, are very transparent while big departments like State and Treasury are just the opposite. [2]  [1] ‘At high-level discussion, UN officials highlight costs of corruption on societies’, UN News Centre, 9 July 2012.  [2] ‘2011 Pilot Aid Transparency Index’, Publish What You Fund, 2012.

negative: onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations North Korea is an unresolved conflict it can’t simply be ignored  Even if the provocations are sometimes relatively small and ineffective, such as the failed missile launch in April 2012, as a conflict zone they cant simply be ignored by anyone even if they themselves are unlikely to be drawn into any potential conflict. After Rwanda the United Nations promised never again would it allow genocide; [1] how much worse would it be to ignore something that could be a spark to a conflict that could cost millions of lives when we already know there is the potential. The United Nations was created “To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace… to bring about … settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” [2] therefore all nations should be attempting to resolve this frozen conflict that could so easily become a shooting war. Wars in Korea have in the past drawn in all the surrounding powers; the Imjin war involved China and Japan, China and Japan again fought over Korea in 1894-5, and the Korean War 1950-53 brought in both the USA and China while Russia and Japan were both involved as supply bases. Clearly the possibility of conflict is not something any power with a stake in Northeast Asia can simply ignore.  It is essential that there is a reaction to every incident just in case that is the incident that spins out of control.  [1] Power, Samantha, ‘Remember the Blood Frenzy of Rwanda’, Los Angeles Times, 4 April 2004,   [2] ‘Article 1 The Purposes of the United Nations are:’, United Nations, 26 June 1945,

negative: ch debate media and good government politics defence government digital freedoms Coalitions can form behind expansionist policies regardless of whether there is transparency. If there is no transparency then it is simply an invitation for these groups to overestimate the strength of their own state compared to their opponents. Where there is transparency the figures will at least be available to counter their arguments. It should not be surprising that interest groups do not have as much influence in creating expansionist policy in democracies. [1]  Transparency showing when a state is to be eclipsed is a greater concern but a lack of transparency in such a case is just as bad. No transparency will simply encourage the fears of the state that is to be eclipsed that the rising state is hostile and not to be trusted.  [1] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991, p.18

negative: The international community cant be relied upon  It is clear that Africa cannot rely on the international community to solve its conflicts. In order to be more independent, what the African Union needs is a standing army, which can intervene whenever there is a crisis.  First of all, when looking at statistics, having dipped in the 1990s the number of conflicts is growing once more, the most recent events of Mali and the Algeria serving as a perfect example(1). “following a year (2010) that signalled hope for a more peaceful development, the number of conflicts increased by nearly 20 percent “(4). This has served to demonstrate Africa’s need for a force to engage in peace keeping and peace making.  Despite the growing need for peacekeeping forces, there is reason to believe that the help coming from the international community will be insufficient. The dysfunctional structure of the UNSC, the body which approves all major international interventions. Russia and China, two countries which have a non interventionist approach on foreign policy, have veto power in this body; which means a lot of possible interventions get vetoed. The examples of Syria and Sudan prove the inability of the international community to intervene in crisis situations(2) (3).  (1) “Jihad in the Sahara”, The Economist, Jan 17th 2013,   (2) ‘Genocide in Darfur’, United Human Rights Council, 2013,   (3) Reuters, “Syria Death Toll Tops 115,000, Group Says”, Huffington Post , 1 October 2013,   (4) ‘The number of armed conflicts increased strongly in 2011’, Uppsala Universitet, 13 July 2013,  =

negative: The 'Middle Way' respects China's right to territorial integrity  The Chinese government has a right to protect the unity of China against Tibetan separatism. US President Abraham Lincoln, in justifying efforts to maintain the union in the face of an imminent civil war, said in 1858, “A house divided cannot stand”. [1] Unity was argued to be essential to the integrity and future of the union if the United States as a much more decentralized federal union cannot sanction such a division then a much more centralized China cannot. China can put forth the same rationale as Lincoln for forcing Tibet to remain part of China, for example when it notes argues that the concept of an independent Tibet has historically been used by what it calls ‘foreign imperialists’ to interfere in China internally and split it up so that it can more easily be controlled from abroad. As an example of this, the CIA’s support for Tibetan separatists during the Cold War is cited. [2] [3]  Mongolia provides a striking precedent for for Chinese worries about Tibetan independence, as it gained independence through Soviet backing and subsequently came under effective control of the USSR. [4] If Tibet were to achieve independence, both China and Tibet would be weaker, with less geopolitical strength and with greater tensions and opportunities for conflict. This is especially true in light of the history of foreign attempts to interfere with China internally, as noted above. The Dalai Lama made a similar argument himself when he stated: “Look at the European Union … What is the use of small, small nations fighting each other? Today it's much better for Tibetans to join [China].” [5] In 2008 the Foreign Minister of Cyprus similarly argued that the ‘One China’ policy, including Tibet, was necessary to safeguard China’s territorial integrity. [6] The government of Fiji has offered similar support. [7] The 'Middle Way' accounts for this need of China's whilst also offering greater autonomy to the Tibetan people, thus respecting the rights of both parties.  [1] Abraham Lincoln Online. “House Divided Speech”. Abraham Lincoln Online.   [2] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News. http :// news . xinhuanet . com / zhengfu /2002-11/15/ content _630888. htm  [3] Wonacott, Peter. " Revolt of the Monks : How a Secret CIA Campaign Against China 50 Years Ago Continues to Fester ; A Role for Dalai Lama ' s Brother " . Wall Street Journal . 30 August 2008. http :// online . wsj . com / article / SB 122005956740185361. html ? mod = googlenews _ wsj  [4] Xinhua News report Xinhua News Report. Xinhua News. http :// news . xinhuanet . com / zhengfu /2002-11/15/ content _630888. htm  [5] Liu, Melinda. “Fears and Tears”. The Daily Beast. 19 March 2008.   [6] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. “Cyprus supports the principle of a ‘single’ China”. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Cyprus. 20 March 2008/ . http :// www . mfa . gov . cy / mfa / mfa 2006. nsf / All /5 B 640 E 57 BE 973 A 1 FC 22574120050 A 086? OpenDocument  [7] Fijilive. “Fiji backs China’s action in Tibet”. Fijilive. 24 March 2008. http :// www . fijilive . com / news _ new / index . php / news / show _ news /3075

negative: The internet enhances communication between countries.  The internet does not only make information available to oppressed people within a country, but also communicates that situation to the rest of the world. People also learn about other authoritarian—and democratic—governments around the world. For example, the internet allowed information about Tunisia’s revolution to reach Egypt, which made it clear that overthrowing a government was entirely possible1. Information about the actions of other countries, and their governments can lead to a push for democratic reforms around the world. In addition, as information flows out of a country it becomes more difficult for the globe’s powers to ignore the events that are ensuing, and makes it more likely that they will take action. This action can create the internal and external pressure necessary for democratic reform as was seen in both the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia2. Contact between countries can also have a more subtle impact as well. It enhances communication between open and closed societies particularly in the form of business, which can bring about an exchange of values. Thanks in part to the internet; Western firms increasingly own large shares of Middle Eastern and East Asian businesses, putting pressure on governments to remove their economic protectionism measures and to allow greater transparency. For example, while China is not a democracy it has made some government and economic reforms that are on the right track3.  1. Jerome, Deborah (2011), “Understand Tunisia’s Tremors”, Council on Foreign Relations, [Accessed June 22, 2011].  2. Wikipedia, “International reactions to the revolution in Egypt”, [Accessed June 24, 2011].  3. Wikipedia, “Chinese Economic Reforms”, [Accessed June 24, 2011]

negative: Necessity for diplomatic relations  International diplomacy involves visits by both diplomats and government figures to other states. This can even include states where relations are tense or even hostile. India and Pakistan, who have a very tense relationship and share one of the most fortified borders in the world, the line of control that divides Kashmir, have embassies in each other. Even throughout the Cold War, the USA and Soviet Union had a full and normal diplomatic relations.  Just as diplomatic immunity prevents politically motivated arrests of diplomats, head of state immunity is necessary to “grease the wheels” of international diplomacy to allow international summits to take place without campaigns for the arrest and trial before domestic courts of foreign politicians.  If a head of state were to be arrested for trial before a foreign domestic court, it would cause immense damage to diplomatic relations between those two countries, Russia recently got into a row over the arrest of one of its diplomats in the Netherlands. The diplomat was quickly released but Russia still demanded the ‘guilty parties’ be punished. [1] The reaction to the arrest of a head of state or government would be much greater and would likely mean the breaking of diplomatic ties. Leaders would be much less willing to visit the country where the arrest occurred in the future for fear it would happen to them and would damage the world diplomatic system by challenging the idea of diplomatic immunity.  [1] ‘Moscow not satisfied with 'sorry' after diplomat arrest’, DutchNews.nl, 17 October 2013,

negative: onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations North Korea is an irrational regime that is a strategic threat to numerous great powers  North Korea is an irrational and irresponsible regime that can’t simply be ignored. As the United States National Security Council spokesman Tonny Vietor said in response to the 12th December 2012 missile test “This action is yet another example of North Korea's pattern of irresponsible behavior.” As a power that is willing to defy international sanctions and resolutions such as “Resolution 1874, which demands the DPRK not to conduct "any launch using ballistic missile technology" and urges it to "suspend all activities related to its ballistic missile programme"” [1] it is essential that there is engagement to prevent the regime breaking more international norms.  It is impossible simply to ignore a regime with such a propensity to engage in provocative actions when it borders you, as is the case with China and Russia, or when it has tested missiles that can potentially hit targets 6000km away, so most of Asia, including numerous US bases. [2]  [1] ‘North Korea rocket: International reaction’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,   [2] ‘North Korea’s missile programme’, BBC News, 12 December 2012,

negative: Intelligence agencies inflate threats.  Having domestic intelligence agencies creates suspicion and fear, and ultimately resentment. Domestic intelligence agencies are created in response to war and external threats, for example MI5 was created in the build up to world war one, and Australia’s intelligence service was created in response to the discovery of a soviet spy ring within the Australian government. [1] Having any such service involved in more than simply counter-intelligence against foreign services shows that the government does not trust its own people. The United States has until very recently not had a domestic intelligence exactly because it was considered that the FBI could do everything that was required without creating undue suspicion. Bureaucracies inflate threats so as to gain more resources, MI5 is a good example, it was given more resources than it needed to engage in counterintelligence against Germany so expanded its role to surveillance of elements such as pacifists and organised labour. [2] More recently the head of MI5 announced there were 1600 Britons plotting terror, which may simply be threat inflation, something which not only makes everyone fearful for no reason. [3] An agency which is equally focused on criminal investigation would have much less reason to inflate dangers in order to maintain or increase funding.  [1] Jackson, Brian a. ed., ‘Considering the Creation of a Domestic Intelligence Agency in the United States’, Rand, 2009,  p.15  [2] Wikipedia, ‘MI5’,   [3] Kayyem, Juliette, and Posner, Richard A., ‘Does the United States Need a Domestic Intelligence Agency?’ CFR, 17 November 2006,

negative: defence science science general house supports development missile defence A strategic missile defense shield will be an effective defense against ballistic missile attacks targeted at the United States and its allies  The missile defense shield the United States intends to build is the most effective and complete ballistic missile shield ever devised. When fully armed with a complement of anti-ballistic missiles both within the United States itself, and in allied nations in Europe, the shield will be virtually impregnable to external missile attack. This means the chance of a nuclear attack succeeding against it will be very unlikely, reducing the chance not only of a full-scale nuclear war between the United States and another nuclear power, but also against missiles fired by rogue states or terrorists, the biggest threats in terms of actual use of nuclear weapons (The Economist, 2009). Technologically speaking, anti-ballistic missile missiles have developed by leaps and bounds in recent years. The current system being put into operation by the United States is the Aegis combat system, designed for deployment on US Naval vessels. This new development has served to sidestep the problems associated with ground and space-based missile defense arrays, due to the slow response time of ground missiles, and the still unfeasible orbital deployment. The sea-based defense array, furthermore, lacks the problem of the land-based system in that it does not need to be placed in countries other than the United States in order to be effective (thus avoiding the political problems of the past). Technology and diplomacy have clearly made a national missile defense system highly desirable.

negative: ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics Transparency is still better than secrecy. There are several reasons why the opportunity of instability is as present when keeping the leader's health a secret. The first is that it is likely that at least some of the leader's rivals are in government so are likely to be in the loop on any illness. In this case secrecy simply gives these individuals more opportunity to do as they wish. Secondly a lack of transparency creates uncertainty which can be filled by a rival wanting to seize power; if the leader is just ill and there is a void of information it is simply for rivals to seize the narrative and claim he is dead enabling their takeover.

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty harms US nuclear capabilities  As David Ganz, the president of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), argues: "This treaty would restrain the development and deployment of new nuclear weapons, missile defense systems, and missile delivery systems." [1] The atrophying U.S. nuclear arsenal and weapons enterprise make reductions in the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal even more dangerous. The new START treaty allows nuclear modernization but while the US capacity to modernize nuclear weapons is limited and either congress or the president is likely to prevent modernization on cost grounds. The Russians have a large, if unknown, advantage over the United States in terms of nonstrategic, particularly tactical, and nuclear weapons. The New START treaty however ignores these weapons entirely as it is focused on strategic arms. This therefore leaves the Russians with an advantage and potentially reduces the potential for deterrence in areas beyond the US. [2]  New START also restricts US missile defence options. The Obama Administration insists the treaty doesn’t affect it, but the Kremlin’s takes a different view: "[START] can operate and be viable only if the United States of America refrains from developing its missile-defense capabilities quantitatively or qualitatively." [3] New START imposes restrictions on U.S. missile defence options in at least four areas. First the preamble recognizes “the interrelationship between strategic offensive arms and strategic defensive arms” it seeks to make sure defensive arms “do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of the strategic offensive arms of the parties” so defensive arms must be reduced to allow offensive arms to remain effective. [4] Russia also issued a unilateral statement on April 7, 2010, Russia reinforced this restriction by issuing a unilateral statement asserting that it considers the “extraordinary events” that give “the right to withdraw from this treaty” to include a buildup of missile defense. [5] Second, Article V states “Each Party shall not convert and shall not use ICBM launchers and SLBM launchers for placement of missile defense interceptors” and vice versa. [6] There are also restrictions on some types of missiles and launchers that are used in the testing of missile defense. And Finally, article X established the Bilateral Consultative Commission (BCC), the treaty’s implementing body, with oversight over the implementation of the treaty which may impose additional restrictions on the U.S. missile defense program. [7]  [1] Weingarten, Elizabeth. “How did New START become a Jewish issue?”. The Atlantic. 1 Decemebr 2010.   [2] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.   [3] Brookes, Peter. “Not a new START, but a bad START”. The Hill. 13 September 2010.   [4] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [5] Bureau of Verification, Compliance, and Implementation, ‘New START Treaty Fact Sheet: Unilateral Statements’, U.S. Department of State, 13 May 2010,   [6] Obama, Barak, and Medvedev, Dmitri, ‘Treaty Between The United States of America And The Russian Federation On Measures For The Further Reduction And Limitation Of Strategic Offensive Arms’, U.S. Department of State,   [7] Spring, Baker. "Twelve Flaws of New START That Will Be Difficult to Fix". Heritage Foundation, The Foundry. 16 September 2010.

negative: global law international law politics defence warpeace house supports new The New START treaty will make for a safer world.  Reducing US and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles makes for a safer world, as Dr. David Gushee states: "The issue on the table is a nuclear arms reduction and verification treaty between the United States and Russia. The treaty, called New START, would reduce Russian and American deployed nuclear weapons to 1,550 and delivery vehicles to 700 each. This would be a 33 percent reduction in the existing arsenals, which is worth achieving and celebrating even as we know that countless cities and millions of precious human beings could be destroyed by the use of even part of the remaining arsenals. Still, these reductions would be a great step on the way to a safer world, as would the re-establishment of bilateral, intrusive verification measures for both sides, also part of the treaty." [1]  The world is simply a much less secure place without New Start, and not just because New START means there are physically fewer nuclear weapons and thus a lesser chance of nuclear disasters (although this in itself is compelling). Rather, New START also has immense symbolic value, in demonstrating that the two greatest powers have enough in common and are interested enough in their mutual security that they can agree to deduce nuclear weapons together. It shows that these nations regard each other as partners for world peace, not as enemies.  The alternative world, without New START, would be one in which the mutual suspicion and animosity of the Cold War might continue. It is notable that Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said in an interview released in early December 2010 that Russia might be forced to build up its nuclear forces against the West if the United States fails to ratify the New START treaty. [2] The threat of Russia, or even the US, resuming nuclear build-ups is a frightening thought for both nations, for the world and for peace.  On top of its other benefits, New START is key to opening Russian nuclear weapons up for verification, which contributes to trust and peace. As former Secretaries of State Kissinger, Shultz, Eagleburger, Baker and Powell argue “the agreement emphasizes verification, providing a valuable window into Russia's nuclear arsenal. Since the original START expired last December, Russia has not been required to provide notifications about changes in its strategic nuclear arsenal, and the United States has been unable to conduct on-site inspections. Each day, America's understanding of Russia's arsenal has been degraded, and resources have been diverted from national security tasks to try to fill the gaps. Our military planners increasingly lack the best possible insight into Russia's activity with its strategic nuclear arsenal, making it more difficult to carry out their nuclear deterrent mission.” [3] Therefore New START should be supported as it represents a positive step for peace and cooperation in the world.  [1] Gushee, Dr David P. "Security, Sin and Nuclear Weapons: A Christian Plea for the New START Treaty". Huffington Post. 4 December 2010.   [2] Abdullaev, Nabi. “Putin Issues Warning on New START”. The Moscow Times. 2 December 2010.   [3] Kissinger, Henry A. ; Shultz, George P. ; Baker III, James A’ ; Eagleburger , Lawrence S. ; and Powell, Colin L. "The Republican case for ratifying New START". Washington Post. 2 December 2010.

negative: The veto is wielded as an ideological tool.  In the rare recent circumstances in which the veto power has been utilised, it has been hijacked by ideological demands and petty national interests. The P5 are able to use their veto powers not to enforce legality, justice and transparency in the international environment, but rather appease their allies and punish their enemies. China prevented peacekeeping operations proceeding in Guatemala and Macedonia on account of the engagement of those countries with Taiwan1. The veto is no longer applied for the maintenance of collective security, but the substantiation of internal security. 1 He, Yin, 'China's Changing Policy on UN Peacekeeping Operations', Institute for Security & Development Policy, July 2007,

negative: africa asia house would sao tome drop relations taiwan favour mainland There is a truce in the diplomatic conflict  There is a truce between Taipei and Beijing on the issue of recognition. Neither is currently aiming to poach countries from the other. China has refused advances from El Salvador and Honduras that have said they wish to change their recognition to the PRC. [1] When Gambia terminated its ties with Taiwan Hong Lei a spokesman for the PRC Foreign Ministry said “We learned the relevant information from the foreign media. Before that, China was not in contact with The Gambia.” [2] The truce has been maintained and Gambia has been left essentially not recognising either China. [3]  [1] Cole, J Michael, ‘Is China and Taiwan’s Diplomatic Truce Over?’, The Diplomat, 18 November 2013,   [2] Enav, Peter, ‘Beijing was in dark about Gambia's broken ties with Taiwan: China official’, The China Post, 16 November 2013,   [3] Atkinson, Joel, ‘Gambia’s Break with Taiwan’, The Diplomat, 2 December 2013,

negative: global house would create international treatyban cyber attacks It would never work  There are immense challenges to making a treaty seeking to prevent or curtail cyber-attacks work. Even on issues where there are clear security concerns it is unusual for the involved nations to be willing to get along and cooperate. This has proven to be the same with regards to the internet governance with Russia and China wanting greater state control while the US and Western Europe is opposed. [1] Even on issues where lives are being lost there is often no global agreement as can be seen by the deadlock in the UN security council over what to do about the civil war in Syria. [2]  Additionally there is the problem that working out who engaged in a cyber-attack is difficult. Such attacks are often routed through proxy computers to launch their attacks. If attacking a difficult target that may seek to strike back the attack will be through numerous proxies which will be in numerous countries to make tracking back difficult. [3] This means there can be misattribution of attacks creating confusion about which state needs to act domestically to prevent the cyber-attacks – or in the worst case resulting in a response aimed at the wrong country. For example South Korea has blamed its Northern neighbour for an attack on the website of the South Korean Presidency but the hacking is more likely to have been the work of someone in South Korea itself as a South Korean detailed his plans on Twitter before the attack. [4] If it is difficult to attribute who launched the attack then it would clearly be easy to get around any ban.  [1] Nebehay, Stephanie, ‘China, Russia seek greater control of Internet’, Reuters, 7 March 2013,   [2] Black, Ian, ‘UN may struggle to respond to reports of Syrian chemical attacks’, The Guardian, 21 August 2013,   [3] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011,   [4] Koo, Soo-Kyung, ‘Cyber Security in South Korea: The Threat Within’, The Diplomat, 19 August 2013,

negative: The chemical weapons inspections take the pressure off Syria. When there was a threat of intervention by an outside power there was a reason for the Syrian government to negotiate with the rebels to find a peaceful solution. It is clear that it was coercion that got the weapons inspectors in as the White House said “It was the credible threat of U.S. military action that led to the opening of this diplomatic avenue.” [1] But it halts future coercion. With weapons inspectors in the country the possibility of using coercion is non-existent; no country is going to consider an attack while they are there and the Syrian regime knows this. The inspections may be considered a diplomatic victory for Russia and the USA but it has come at the expense of the bigger prize of peace. For which there is now almost no prospect.  [1] Zenko, Micah, ‘Would the Syria Deal Be a Coercive Diplomacy Success?’, CFR, 12 September 2013,

negative: Reducing trust in the state  In a world where state agencies would have the possibility of tracking everyone’s moves without any person knowing it, we would reach a point in which the population lose their trust in their elected officials. The consequences could then be very damaging to democracy. This phenomenon took place right after the NSA leaks, as the confidence in the US government was near record’s low.(1)  First of all, the population would know that the government is spying and tracking their moves, but they wouldn’t know how much. This general lack of information on this matter will create a lot of scepticism relating this process, and inevitably the population will reach the conclusion that the government is conducting massive phone tapping and spying campaigns as no one is checking on them.  Despite potential official document trying to give certain facts regarding this, due to the previous incidents when the state has been releasing little or misleading information, these will have little influence over the population. As a result, trust in the state will suffer a massive blow.  This is extremely problematic, as you want and need the general population to trust and listen to what the government, and more particularly law enforcement agencies, say in a lot of instances. When promoting non-discrimination, gender equality or increased social welfare contributions for the poor, you need the population to see the state as someone who is on the same side with them and someone who they can trust. Unfortunately, the scepticism with which those beneficial government proposals will be received will drastically reduce their impact and the chances of them being implemented. If I do not trust that the government is looking after my own good, but rather in a lot of instances its interests are mutually exclusive with mine, then I would most probably lose my respect towards authority.  When talking about law enforcement agencies, i.e the police, the NSA, etc., it is clear that we have trusted them to protect us and our rights. When it is those very agencies that are conducting these warrantless spying campaigns, it comes as a direct contradiction with their very purpose and thus the impact and the loss of trust is higher on this level.  Moreover, in the long term, the whole electoral process could suffer a lot from this lack of confidence, as individuals aren’t particularly inclined to go to elections any more if they see that no matter what they do, their rights will still be breached.  As you need the population to trust the government, so that its reforms are being met with positivism and not reluctance, you must not portray the government as an intrusive, harmful and ill-willing element of the society.  (1) Harry J Enten ” Polls show Obama's real worry: NSA leaks erode trust in government”, The Guardian, 13 June 2013

negative: The quantity of information on the internet, and the number of talented computer users makes it very difficult for the government to fully censor information. The more information there is, the harder it becomes for the government to control it. The US is investing $19 million into researching how to break the firewalls of China and Iran1. There is plenty of easy to use software to evade firewalls2. Internet censorship can be evaded. Therefore, regimes cannot entirely maintain control over information, and any external information can be considered good information.  Furthermore, regimes like China and Iran are not the only countries to “watching” their populations. Many democracies including the US and most of Western European use digital surveillance to safeguard their population- watch out for possible activity that may be harmful to the state.  1. Gaouette, Nicole, 'U.S. Launches New Effort to Evade China's Internet Firewalls', Bloomberg.com, 11 May 2011  2. Irish Times, 'Bunnies Hop the Great Firewall', 2 February 2011

negative: A safer country  On this point, there are two levels on which a government which isn’t forced to obtain warrants protects the population better. In 2011 violent crime went up for the first time since 1993 data collected by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in telephone surveys showed a 22 percent increase in assaults so something clearly needs to be done to stop violent crime.(1)  First of all, let’s not imagine that there are people hired by the government who will listen to every single word of every single conversation and that every email will be read word for word. In this type of situation, the police uses special software designed to identify certain key words like “murder”, “Al Qaeda”, etc as well as more subtle combinations which could possibly be a clue towards finding certain criminals. If someone is talking or emailing about certain wanted criminals belonging to military militias or terrorist organizations, I would want to know what they were talking about. Now, we have the possibility of doing that, as, last year, for instance, the FBI requested help to develop a social-media mining application for monitoring "bad actors or groups".(2) The problem is the initial search needs to be general to find these individuals in the general mass of the world’s population.  This is an efficient way of discovering new previously-unknown criminals. In the past, there would have been no way of ever discovering these individuals and they would continue to be a threat to innocent civilians.  Secondly, this improved government control over phones and the internet would be an immense deterrent. It would prevent people from engaging in planned crime as the chances of them getting caught are drastically improved. Deterrence relies on the criminal knowing that they are likely to be caught, knowing your communications are monitored will make people believe they are more likely to be caught. So, not only will the police be able to catch active criminals but will prevent other persons from engaging in this type of actions.  (1) Terry Frieden ” U.S. violent crime up for first time in years”, CNN ,October 17, 2012   (2) Ryan Gallagher ”Software that tracks people on social media created by defence firm”, The Guardian, 10 February 2013

negative: There are, of course some costs to having a truly open and accountable government, but an effective right of access would allow much of that information to be made available. After all what the public sector bodies are paying in commercial transactions is of great interest to the public. If public bodies are getting a particularly good rate from suppliers, it might well raise the question of “Why?” For example, are they failing to enforce regulations on a particular supplier in return for a good price. In that instance, their other customers and their competitors would seem to have every right to know.

negative: Agreeing to sit down and talk can equally be seen as a gesture of good faith. The further requirement to prove themselves and their intentions can put off leaders who are on the fence about engaging the US on their differences. It should be remembered that the mistrust is not only one way; ‘rogue’ regimes leaders also mistrust US intentions. As a result demanding preconditions frames the negotiations, from the onset, from a position of mistrust

negative: free speech and privacy health general international africa politics Damages diplomacy to be too open  Diplomacy can be very personal; diplomatic initiatives are often the result of a single person, and the individual leader is necessary to conclude negotiations. Transparency about a leader's health may therefore prevent deals being done; Nixon went to China despite Mao's ill heath meaning the supreme Chinese leader contributed little to the historic change in diplomatic alinements. 1 Would such a momentous change in alignment have been possible if both the Chinese and American public knew about Mao's ill health? The Americans would have considered any deal unreliable as they could not be sure it was Mao who made the decision, while opponents in China could have argued that it was advisers like Zhou Enlai who made the deal not Mao himself potentially enabling them to repudiate or undermine the deal.  1 Macmillan, Margaret, Seize the Hour When Nixon met Mao, John Murray, London, 2006, p.76