All spending benefits some states over others, all that depends is the actors who are deciding on where the money goes. If spending is equal per person then it can be accused of not being progressive or benefiting states that need it more. If it is made by some other method then it will always favor some over others. It is right that those who are determining where money is going should be elected representatives rather than a bureaucrat or a simple formula.


Some observers would argue that Congress suffers from a lack of party unity, rather than too much of it, and that anything that helps the leaderships to deliver on their party’s campaign promises is of value. So the promise of earmarks is part of the normal give-and-take of legislative politics, often allowing a representative to ameliorate the adverse impact of a policy at a local level and allow necessary bills to be passed. [1] However, even if you think this is bad, eliminating earmarks will not get rid of undue influence on voting in Congress. Instead it will hand that power to the executive, with the White House being able to offer incentives to wavering Congressmen to get them to vote for its programs in the form of promises about increased spending on projects in their state or district.  [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006


Earmarks erode trust in the government  The use of earmarks erodes trust in politicians and the federal government for two reasons. First, it reinforces a belief that politicians ignore the wider national interest but are simply out for themselves, scrabbling to channel as much federal pork as possible back home in order to aggrandise themselves and ensure re-election. Second, it assumes that the answer to every local problem or issue is for the federal government to raise yet more tax revenue and bestow it from on high because Washington-knows-best. It is a symbol that makes it hard to resist spending both for politicians and their constituents. [1]  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’


Earmarks transfer too much power to political parties' central leadership  The ability to support or withhold approval from earmarks strengthens the party leaderships in Congress too much. Effectively the leadership can bribe elected representatives with pork for their state or district in order to get them to vote for flawed legislation or budgets. This was clearly seen in the 2010 Healthcare bill where in the Senate votes were secured from conservative Democrats by offering federal spending or subsidies that only affected the states of Louisiana and Nebraska. [1] One consequence of the temptation provided by earmarks is poor policy-making, but more broadly it discourages Congressmen from thinking and voting independently, according to their consciences and their belief in what is best for the nation.  [1] Murray, Shailagh and Montgomery, Lori, ‘Deal on health bill is reached’, 2009


Earmarks may represent relatively small sums in themselves, but they act as a “gateway drug” to more profligate spending. By giving individual Congressmen the gratification of directing small amounts of taxpayers’ money to their own advantage, it makes it more likely they won’t say no later when major new spending proposals like Obamacare are put up for a vote. An addiction to earmarks also reinforces the Washington assumption that more government spending and intervention is always the answer.


The power of the purse was given to congress in order to keep taxation down, and therefore spending as well. Unnecessary spending on earmarks is therefore opposed to the founding fathers intentions. [1]  [1] ThisNation.com, ‘Congressional Power’


Earmarking should become a transparent and publicly monitored process  The use of earmarks has become progressively more transparent and accountable in recent years. [1] [2] There is now a Congressional database of earmark requests, a requirement on representatives and senators for disclosure on their websites, as well as a certification obligation that they declare that neither they nor their family will benefit from the requested appropriation. Earmarks are thus a “nonbureaucratic, transparent system of rapid-response grants for pressing local concerns”, something which is genuinely useful. [3] There however could be further reforms such as having committees authorize all spending and banning last minute vote buying. [4]  The attention given to earmarks by the media and campaigning groups means that requests now receive far more scrutiny than they did in the past so we can be sure that campaigners and the press will make sure what they do is benefiting their constituency. [5]  [1] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007  [2] Marlowe, Howard, ‘In defense of earmarks’, 2008  [3] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [4] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009  [5] Sell, T.M., ‘A few kind words for earmarks’, 2009


Imposing a ban on earmarking will destabilise congrerss  There is very little chance of Congress ever being willing to give up on having earmarks for their constituency’s. If the ban is voluntary many will not comply and if the ban is mandatory it will need congress to agree to it in the first place. Even those who voice opposition to earmarks make use of the system so it would never pass. [1]  [1] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009


Earmarks help to create congressional stability  In a system with a two-yearly election cycle, a certain element of incumbent advantage provides stability and continuity in the legislature (and re-election rates have been sharply down in both 2008 and 2010). Many other factors promote incumbency, including the media attention a Congressmen rightly receives back home, perks of office such as large staffs and generous travel expenses, redistricting, and the ability of an incumbent to call upon an existing network of volunteers and donors to support their re-election bid. In any case, earmarks are only a tiny share of overall spending, and donations from local interest groups are usually heavily outweighed by both individual contributions and those from national organisations. Their money goes to candidates who share their ideological position and who they feel will vote to support the major legislative and budget initiatives they favour.


Congressional earmarks are a check on an excessively powerful executive branch  The ability of Congress to earmark funds is an important check on the Presidency. Remember, removing earmarks does not save any money, it just means the executive rather than the legislature determines how it will be spent. [1] There are plenty of examples of US administrations spending money wastefully, [2] and others of Congress forcing them to commit money to worthwhile programs – both the improved body armour for troops and the Predator drone program originated as earmarks. As it is difficult to determine what is waste and what is not the books should be opened to scrutiny letting the public decide rather than there being an outright ban. [3]  [1] Rockwell, Lew, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2008  [2] Elander, Eugene, ‘So, what’s wrong with earmarks?’, 2009  [3] Los Angeles Times, ‘Earmark games in Washington’, 2009


A ban is perfectly possible and Congress has come close already, for example with the house banning earmarks to for profit companies. [1]  [1] Kane, Paul, ‘House bans earmarks to for-profit companies’, 2010


Earmarks are part of the power of the purse  Earmarks are an important aspect of Congress’s proper powers and role within the constitution, they have been used since the early 19th Century. [1] The US Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse – exclusive authority over the raising of money and its appropriation to particular spending areas. Directing federal funds to individual projects at a local level is an important part of this; [2] indeed many Congressmen such as Rahm Emanuel consider it their duty for which they can be held accountable by voters. [3] It is part of having several layers of accountability and representation at the federal level, congressmen for local interests, Senators for states and the President for the whole country. [4] The unconstitutional alternative is for Congress to cede this power entirely to the executive branch.  [1] Plumber, Bradford, ‘The liberal case for pork’, 2006  [2] Feehery, John, ‘Reform, don’t ban, earmarks’, 2009  [3] Emanuel, Rahm, ‘Don’t Get Rid of Earmarks’, 2007  [4] Harris-Lacewell, Melissa, ‘In Defense of Earmarks’ 2009


Earmarks serve to strengthen the advantages of incumbency when Congressmen seek re-election. They are used to generate pork barrel spending in the constituency, for example a former senator of Nevada claims the University of Nebraska lost $30 million per year when he retired, [1] which the Congressman can point to as an argument for their re-election, especially if they have seniority and a place on a major spending committee. [2] They may also make it easier for incumbents to raise large campaign contributions from grateful companies and industry associations, in 2007 people at companies that received defense earmarks gave lawmakers more than $47 million. [3] These reasons help to explain why incumbent re-election rates in Congress are regularly above 90%, a worrying trend as it suggests there is limited democratic accountability.  [1] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [2] Henke, John, ‘Why Earmarks are a Problem’, 2008  [3] Heath, David and Bernton, Hal, ‘$4.5 million for a boat that nobody wanted’, 2007


Transparency is difficult in such immense spending bills as there is no way the appropriations committee can vet all the thousands of earmarks. [1] [2] Earmarks move below the radar so earmarks encourage corruption. [3] Although collusion cannot easily be proved, the ability of a Congressman to solicit campaign contributions in exchange for using earmarks to provide federal investment, subsidies, tariff protection and tax breaks for individual firms and industries is worrying. [4]  [1] Rauch, Jonathan, ‘Earmarks Are A Model, Not A Menace’, 2009  [2] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [3] Minge, David, ‘The Case Against Academic Earmarking’  [4] Lessig, Lawrence, ‘the wong in earmarks’, 2008


Cooperation and compromise often does not happen and acknowledging a wide range of public opinion is the main reason why they cant compromise. Firstly, they frequently won’t agree, which will lead to tortuously slow progress or even to having no government for the country. This happened after the general election in Belgium in 2010, when the record was broken for the time taken to form a new democratic government after an election (The Telegraph, ‘Belgium wins Guinness World Record for political impasse’). This occurred because none of the parties are willing to compromise over election promises and yet do not want to have to fight another election. However if a government is to be formed the parties involved will have to make compromises and resulting in tearing up some of their promises, betraying those who voted for them. The alternative is the expense of going to the country again, with no guarantee of a different result.(DW-world.de, 2011)


Coalition government is a good thing.  Adversarial democratic systems such as the United States, Britain and Australia have been becoming increasingly dysfunctional with politics simply being a shouting match. Coalition governments lead to cooperation and compromise between parties.(Woldring, 2011) Governments which are forced to acknowledge a wide range of public opinion are less likely to introduce policies which victimise minorities or ride roughshod over public opinion for ideological reasons; for example, the poll tax in the UK, 1988-92. Empirically, countries with PR systems, such as Germany, show that great prosperity can result from the policies of such governments.


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?


PR produces fairer results  First past the post (FPTP) often results in a party without majority support being able to dominate parliament. Minority parties, such as the Green party and UKIP (in the UK), which can win 5-10% or so of the vote all over the country, can fail to win a single seat. In the UK 2010 general election, UKIP received 919,546 votes across the country, but not a single seat (BBC News, UK 2010 general election results). Parties with a uniform vote across the country are punished unfairly. Thus in Singapore’s general election of 2011 the National Solidarity Party contested 24 seats and won 39.25% of the valid votes across the wards it contested yet still failed to win any seats.(Wikipedia, Singaporean general election, 2011) Theoretically parties could win huge numbers of votes, potentially up to 49% in every constituency, without ever getting any representation in parliament. As such FPTP favours parties that appeal to local issues or to particular segments of the population these parties that are losing out are likely to be those parties that either appeal to a broad segment of the population or whose support is based upon an issue that affects everyone. Furthermore, in the UK 2010 general election, two thirds of MPs were elected without receiving a majority of the votes in their constituency (Lodge, 2011). This suggests that most people are being represented by people they didn’t vote for.


As there are many different forms of proportional representation some of them will be fairer than others. Implementing AV for example may help sort out the problem of MPs not receiving a majority in their constituency as they will now need to receive 50% of the vote in order to be elected. Yet it will do nothing for the other two problems identified. Minority parties are still unlikely to get any seats and parties with their vote uniformly spread across the country will still be punished. AV in both cases still favours geographically centered parties and still favors the top two parties over any smaller one as the small parties will drop out as the ballots are counted.


If seats are safe, that is because people are continuing to vote for a party that they are satisfied with. Furthermore, it is perfectly possible for politicians to lose safe seats if the electorate is no longer happy with them; for example, in 2008, the Scottish National Party (SNP) won Glasgow East, one of Labour’s safest seats (BBC News, ‘SNP stuns Labour in Glasgow East’).  In almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party. This means if those who don’t vote all got out and voted the election could go any way, they could elect in a fringe party if voting together. So look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the country, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote,(Electoral Calculus, 2010) with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009.(Wells, 2010) However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat.(Vote 2011, 2011)


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)


Safe seats will be reduced.  All political parties have seats that they consider safe and unlikely to lose. If a person in an inner city constituency that has a strong Labour history, wishes to vote for someone other than Labour, then their vote is effectively null and void. Labour will win a majority however they vote. The fact that the seat is so safe means that there is effectively very little effect people can have, resulting in thousands of people's vote being wasted and having no effect when it comes to forming a government. In the 2010 UK general election the result was decided by less than 460,000 voters in only 111 constituencies. This gives an unfair amount of political influence to a tiny minority of the electorate while making the majority’s votes close to worthless.(Miliband, 2011)


On the contrary having several manifestos used by a coalition actually means that there are many more people who get some of the policies they voted for passed. Under FPTP only a minority has ever voted for the manifesto that wins and gets implemented. If there is a coalition created by PR then more than 50% of the electorate will be getting a large amount of the policies they voted for implemented.  The whole issue of manifesto promises also makes the assumption that parties always stick to them when they get into power. This is not the case even under single party government. Election promises are often not implemented as politicians are simply using them to win an election, they may realise that the policy will not form the basis of a sensible government policy, or be too politically difficult to implement. Creation of a democratically elected House of Lords was in every New Labour manifesto, yet after three terms in power was at best half complete.(Summers, Labour’s attempts to reform the House of Lords)


A lot of successful countries use PR, so clearly it doesn’t lead to instability. In particular coalitions don’t always mean weak government. For example, Germany uses PR and has coalitions, yet is one of the strongest economies in the world and a significant power within Europe. Furthermore, Canada, India and the UK use FPTP and all have had coalitions. The UK coalition has so far proven to be both strong and radical. Michael Portillo, a former Conservative Minister of Defence has argued "They have been more radical on deficit reduction than say Margaret Thatcher was, but on top of doing that very difficult fiscal adjustment, they are also reformed schools, health, welfare, and pensions - areas where Margaret Thatcher didn't care to tackle."(Today, 2011)  The assumption that Proportional Representation leads to coalition also needs to be examined. Australia has for decades had strong single party government under the Alternative Vote.


PR creates an unfair balance of power.  Coalition government is actually unfair, as small parties with only a few percent of support nationally can hold the balance of power. This can result in them being able to force through unpopular or sectarian policies with no national mandate as a price for their support in parliament; for example, the Dutch coalition lost its majority in 2011, meaning it may have to rely on the support of the SGP, a very small conservative Christian party that does not even allow women to be members (Financial Times, ‘Dutch Coalition loses Senate majority).  Particularly when there is only one potential small party that could be a coalition partner for the biggest party(s) that small party potentially holds a lot more power than their number of seats in parliament would imply. When either of the main parties could form a government the small party can negotiate with both to get the best deal possible. And once in government they can threaten to walk out if they do not get their way on the issues that matter to them.


Extremist parties will rise under PR.  A democracy means that everybody’s view should be valued equally. However much some people might dislike one party, other people still have the right to vote for them. If extremist parties do gain seats, then it shows the government needs to do more to address concerns. Moreover there are plenty of ways to avoid this problem in a proportional system, for example the German model of setting a lower bar that needs to be crossed before a party can have any representation in parliament. This would show that it is a party that can attract sufficient support to be worthy of representing those views in parliament.


The link between constituencies and Members of Parliament is important.  Most PR systems would result in a break between the constituency and parliament. It is important that there is a single MP that represents a particular area. Having constituencies means that every citizen feels that they have a personal representative in parliament. Much of the work of an MP is constituency business, resolving problems encountered by constituents and raising the particular concerns of their geographical area with the government. The importance of this link can be shown in the difference in feeling towards individual’s own representative and the parliament as a whole. In 2010 there was a dissatisfaction in parliament as a whole of 38% whereas only 16% were dissatisfied with the job of their own MP.(Hansard Society, Audit of Political Engagement 7, p.29, p.88)


PR decreases political engagement.  PR results in less engagement in politics as voters do not get what they voted for – instead post-election deals between the parties create coalitions which do not feel bound by manifesto promises. In order to create coalitions there is a need for parties to be flexible on their manifestos especially where they contradict each other. As elections seldom result in all the parties in a governing coalition leaving power, in practice accountability is blurred and voters feel alienated from the political process. In addition, many PR systems are very complex and off-putting for voters.


PR leads to weaker government.  Typically under PR, no one party gains a majority of the popular vote, so coalition governments have to be formed often between four or more parties. This tends to produce unstable governments, changing as parties leave or join the governing coalition, and frequent elections. Governments are unable to put a clear, positive legislative agenda in place over several years or act decisively in time of crisis. Compare this to the strong governing majorities produced by FPTP, such as the Conservatives in the 1980s in the UK, which allowed them to push through unpopular but necessary policies, such as tackling trade unions and reducing inflation.


A proportional electoral system is more likely to return seats for smaller parties. Amongst these smaller parties, it is likely that we will find parties on either extreme of the left-right spectrum. The British National Party campaigned for PR for this reason (Channel 4 Fact Check, ‘Would AV help or hinder the BNP?’). Potentially even more extreme parties, such as the English Defence League, could get members of parliament under some proportional systems. It is not beneficial to the country to have extremist groups like this in parliament.


Junior partners are by definition junior. It is the biggist party in the coalition that gets the top job; President or Prime Minister while the minor party has to make do with much more junior roles – the Foreign Ministry has been popular in Germany. In the UK Conservative-Liberal democrat coalition the senior partner the conservatives hold all the big offices: Prime Minister, Chancellor, Foreign Office and Home Office. Even if they have to compromise on some issues it is the senior partner that is setting the government agenda.


In a corrupt system the military is likely to be corrupt too. It will have its own sectional interest; getting as much funds for itself, or hyping possible threats. The military interest can often lead to far worse things than corruption – such as wars. 1 In countries where the military is powerful it is likely to have large private interests too; in Egypt the military's holdings in the economy is estimated at anywhere from 5 to 60% of GDP though the military itself says its revenue from its private businesses is only 1% this is still a large interest. 2  1 Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991  2 Hauslohner, Abigail, 'Egypt's 'Military Inc' expands its control of the economy', Guardian Weekly, 18 March 2014,


A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption  Democracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have recently had elections following western intervention are ranked 175, 172, and 171 out of 177 on the corruption perceptions index. Even countries with long established democracies can be perceived as being corrupt, India is 94th. 1 If the political class is incapable of reforming itself it may be necessary for another actor to do it for them.  There have been several coups in which the military has taken power in order to reform the political system before handing over to a civilian government at elections; Turkey in 1960, Portugal in 1974, and the relatively recent coup in Bangladesh in 2007. 2  1 Transparency International, 'Corruptions Perceptions Index 2013',   2 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013,  , p.5


A military government may well be as riven by factionalism and division as the system which it replaces. The main interests of the military is often simply to maintain or increase the position of the military, this makes it likely there will be disagreement on other issues including over how quickly to return to democratic government. The military will often opt to return to barracks rather than have such splits become too deep “Military regimes thus contain the seeds of their own destruction” as there is almost bound to be a split into factions at some point when governing a country. 1  1 Geddes, Barbara, 'What do we know about democratization after twenty years?', Annual Review of Political Science, Vol.2, 1999, pp.115-144,  , p.131


Necessary to restore peace to the country  The clearest, and most common, reason for the military stepping in is to restore peace to the country. When the stakes are so high, power through control of government, the ability to distribute resources, it is something well worth fighting for. The result can be that democracies become unstable and violent with election campaigns particular flashpoints. The runup to the Thai elections in 2014 shortly before the coup left 10 dead and 600 injured 1 with no sign of stability returning after the flawed elections General Prayuth Chan-ocha the head of the army said the coup was necessary “in order for the country to return to normality quickly, and for society to love and be at peace again.” 2 When there violence creating violence it is the military's role to step in the prevent such instability.  1 Wilkinson, Laura, 'Thailand elections: Violent clashes in Bangkok over disputed poll', The Independent, 2 February 2014,   2 Hodal, Kate, 'Coup needed for Thailand 'to love and be at peace again' – army chief', The Guardian, 23 May 2014,


In a country that is so polarised that there is violence at elections the chances are the military is not neutral. In Thailand the royalists had been calling for military intervention because they know it is unlikely they will win an election. A coup cannot therefore be considered to be likely to end violence; Egypt is a case in point as there have been more than 3,200 deaths in the 7 months after the coup against President Morsi. 1  1 'More than 3,200 Egyptians killed since coup', Middle East Monitor, 9 April 2014,


The argument that the military is restoring democracy from a democracy makes no sense. Only once a democracy has been turned into an autocracy can it be said to be restoring democracy. So long as the system is still democratic then there should be constitutional ways to replace an increasingly authoritarian government; elections, vote of no confidence, or the judiciary.


A neutral party  Democracies can turn into an intractable conflict between two political parties with neither side ruling in their national interest but simply using power in an attempt to defeat the other side. Bangladesh is a good example of this as there are two main parties; the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Neither are willing to talk to the other, the competition has at times been violent and attempts to create neutral caretaker governments are scotched by one side or the other as occurred at the start of 2014. 1 The 2007 coup resulted in the arrests of the leaders of both parties along with a major anti corruption drive. 2 Unfortunately this did not prevent Bangladesh quickly falling into the same two party system with the same parties and leaders once civilian rule was restored.  1 Budhwar, Kailash 'Bangladesh elections: The 'battling begums'', Al Jazeera, 4 January 2014,   2 Voice of America, 'Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Arrested', voanews.com, 27 October 2009,


Restoring democracy  A coup that is against an elected government that is however becoming increasingly anti democratic is justified. When an elected government is increasingly concentrating power in its own hands, and particularly if elections are postponed then it is necessary for the military to step in to ensure democracy continues to function. From 1991-2006 31 of 43 coups resulted in an election within five years so far from damaging democracy were often restoring it. 1  1 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013,  , p.2


Whether or not the head of the army is the right man to run the country is immaterial as he will be passing on to another administration quickly. This will either be a temporary civilian administration in which top technocrats are brought in or it will be as a result of new elections. If a military man is still in power after an election, as with Sisi in Egypt, then they have come through the same test as a politician would have done.


Elections do not always return a government that has true popular support; the system may be gerrymandered so it is much easier for one party to win seats. Additionally in many democracies there is a large number of people who don't vote so even a party that is elected may not have a true mandate. If the abstaining majority want a different government should the military not respect their democratic wish?


A coup makes it more difficult to trust in democracy  Military intervention damages trust in democracy even if the intent of the coup is to return to democratic rule as quickly as possible. There are two ways in which democracy is damaged. The first is that it undermines the point of majority rule if the military may just step in and take over if they don't like the result. Secondly if a democratic government is making a mess of ruling and the military steps in to clean things up then this may create an impression that they will do so again, so absolving politicians to clean up their own act.  This may well be what happens in Thailand. Since the end of military rule in 1973 Thailand has now had seven coups; 1976, 77, 81, 86, 91, 2007 and 2014. 1 In the 2007 and 2014 coups the government being overthrown was very popular; in 2005 Shinawatra's Thai Rak Thai party won 60.7% of the vote while in 2011 his sister won 48.41% if the military simply steps in after a few years of rule by a clearly elected majority then what is the point in voting? Already the middle class supporters of a coup argue that elections do not mean democracy to justify military intervention thus undermining the concept of democracy. 2  1 Winichakul, Thongchai, 'Toppling Democracy', Journal of Contemporary Asia, Vol.38, No.1, February 2008, pp.11-37,  , p.15  2 Ibid, p.27


The army is not the best institution to run a country  If the country is in trouble is the army the best placed to take over and manage the country better than it has been in the past? This may plausibly be true if the reason democracy is failing is a large scale insurgency or near civil war but in almost every other case it is not the best institution. The army is trained to fight not to govern. The generals who take over top positions are used to running a bureaucracy that has to respond to politicians, not one that has to respond to the people.  Politicians may be corrupt, venal, or unpopular but at the least they are open about what they stand for. They have a manifesto and a clear ideology which if the people don't agree with they wont be voted for. This is not the case with generals; the chances are they have a bureaucratic desire to maintain the power and funding for the military but otherwise there is likely to be little known about their politics.  Finally for those who are being overthrown the electorate has had a chance to investigate their policies, their past, to question their views and catch the candidate out when they are not consistent. The candidate came through an electoral test and media grilling. When there is a coup there is no such chance to determine if the coup leader is the right man for the job.


The response must be democratic  It is never appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government which the people have chosen. The government is legitimised by being the choice of the people, a coup is by definition not legitimate in such a way. The response to a government that has lost the trust of the electorate, unable to prevent violence, or is corrupt, is to hold an election. In the worst case and an elected government is using its power as a government to manipulate any election then the responsibility is with the judiciary to convict a government which is responsible for such a


Military intervention is most likely to happen only when trust in democracy has already been damaged. In Thailand democracy was already distrusted due to corruption and vote buying, the military acted because of that distrust. When intervention is to clean up corruption and create greater separation of powers the coup may actually improve trust in democracy.


I am only one of thousands of voters who elect my MP so my vote is not going to help hold ‘my’ representative to account. In the UK the average number of voters in each constituency is 68,175 [1] and some have majorities of tens of thousands. In the US House of Representatives the figure is more than ten times this number at 710,767 [2] with so many other voters how will my attempt to hold them to account actually matter?  [1] ‘Parliamentary constituencies’, parliament.uk  [2] Burnett, Kristin D., ‘Congressional Apportionment’, 2010 Census Briefs, November 2011


Hold politicians to account  For the most part in countries with FPTP we don’t like our politicians. In the United States Congress has a job approval rate of 21% and it is often lower [1] while in the UK in 2009 only 1% were ‘very satisfied’ with MPs (total of 29% satisfied 44% dissatisfied). [2] Well elections are your chance to hold them to account by voting for someone else. Elected politicians are there to represent you but if you don’t vote your voice wont be heard and you wont be able to hold your representative to account for what they have done during their time in office. There are increasingly websites which will show you how your MP voted making it simple to find out if they are representing you as you would wish and so making it possible to decide how you will vote on the basis of your representative’s record rather than just their stated intentions at the time of the election.  [1] Jones, Jeffrey M., ‘U.S. Congress’ Approval Rating at 21% Ahead of Elections’, Gallup Politics, 24 October 2012  [2] ‘Satisfaction with Members of Parliament 1991-2009’, Ipsos MORI, 4 March 2010 , (NB satisfaction with own MP is always higher)


The idea that someone who has voted might be more entitled to complain about things is absurd. Yes they have shown how they want the government to run but the idea that their voice is heard on all these particular issues is patently silly.


Have your say  Democracy allows you to have your say and it is important you take advantage of that. It is unusual that your particular vote will make an immense difference but just occasionally it might make all the difference. Barak Obama’s 2012 campaign is running an ad called 537 the ad says this is "the difference between what was and what could have been.” As it is the number of votes that won the Presidency for George W. Bush over Al Gore in Florida in 2000. “So this year if you're thinking that your vote doesn't count, that it won't matter, well, back then there were probably 537 people who felt the same way. Make your voice heard." [1] There will always be places where there are victories by such a small margin. Most of the time it will be known where these marginal contests are but if enough people who have not voted in the past vote previous votes or the pollsters may count for nothing. You never know it might be you who makes the difference, so go vote!  [1] Rama, Padmananda, ‘Obama Campaign Invokes ‘537’ To Get Out The Vote’, NPR, 24 October 2012


Civic duty  Voting is a civic duty, just as paying taxes and jury service. As a citizen of your nation it is your duty to take thirty minutes out of your day every few years to go and vote in an election. This duty is not a very onerous one but it is an important one because the foundation of our government is that it is democratic, and how can it be democratic if the people won’t vote? If the government is to represent the people the people must vote for it. Some civic duties such as taxes are compulsory and while it is not the case that voting is compulsory in the UK and USA it is elsewhere for example Australia and Belgium. [1] That it is not compulsory is consistent with our freedoms so there is the possibility of making the active choice not to vote. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to use it.  [1] ‘ Compulsory Voting’, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, updated 21 March 2012 also see our debate on compulsory voting


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


The chances of you being the one who matters in a marginal contest are infinitesimally small. First most elections are not won on narrow margins and second you are unlikely to be in the right place at the right time. The FPTP system means that very few votes actually matter like this unlike in a proportional system where almost every vote would have a very similar worth.


The question here then essentially lies in do we appreciate our democracy? Does voting every 5 years actually count as a democracy? Does the fact that we have a first past the post system represent our views as a democracy should? The history of voting and the ability of other around the world to vote really has very little bearing on whether we should vote. Voting for the one party, or an other, or none at all is not going to result in me not being able to vote in the future. If losing the vote becomes a real possibility in the future then we can be sure that many currently apathetic voters will turn out because such a vote really would matter.


No right to complain  We all complain, whether it is about the lack of places for schools, higher university fees, trains not running on time, or about how we are being ripped off by the shops. In almost every case the things we may complain about can be influenced by the government either directly as with education policy or indirectly through taxation or regulation. Voting is your one chance to show what agenda you want to government to take; do you want more regulation or less, do you want tuition fees paid by the government or individuals? Of course not everything will be contested in every election but some will be. But next time you complain about something if it actually matters find a party that wants to do something about it and vote for them.


We don’t just vote for ourselves  You are very lucky that you have the chance to vote to choose and influence your government. Most people throughout history have not had this chance; in the UK women only received the vote in 1918 and most men only received the right in the nineteenth century. [1] In the United States the timings were similar with freed slaves not voting until 1970 (even in 1940 only 3% of African Americans in the south were registered) and women not until 1919. [2] We should remember the sacrifices of all those who have fought for the right to vote. Moreover huge numbers of people live in countries where these rights have not yet been won – just think of the 1.3 billion people in China who have no input into the change in the leadership, the Politburo Standing Committee, every ten years. [3] As voting has not been an automatic right throughout history you need to vote not just for yourself but for your children and their children in order to ensure that they have the benefit of growing up in a democracy such as the one you live in.  [1] ‘Chartists Key dates’, parliament.uk  [2] ‘ Timeline: Voting Rights Act’, American Civil Liberties Union  [3] Li, Cheng, ‘The Battle for China’s Top Nine Leadership Posts’, The Washington Quarterly, Vol.35, No.1, pp.131-145, Winter 2012


Yes politicians will sometimes break their promises or for some reason not be able to fulfil them. When the Liberal Democrats made their manifesto they did not expect to be in coalition with the Conservatives, with two incompatible manifestos some things were going to have to be dropped. Equally sometimes the party in power will find they can’t get through the changes they want. The point of voting when events might overtake a manifesto is that the party’s ideology will tell you how they are likely to react – a libertarian in 10 Downing Street would have let the banks go bust or a communist would have nationalised them. Many could have anticipated that a Labour government would engage in some kind of bail out to save savers and the system. By having voted for the Labour party voters were saying they wanted a slightly left of centre response to events.


This is nearly always not actually a reason not to vote as because in almost every constituency the number of people who do not vote outnumbers the vote of the winning party this means if everyone who does not vote did as you will do and all get out and vote the vote could go any way, even a fringe party could be elected if the non-voters vote together. To illustrate lets take a look at Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, one of the safest seats in the UK, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s seat. In 2010 Labour won with 65.2% of the vote, [1] with 29559 labour votes compared to 6550 SNP a majority of 23009. [2] However in this seat turnout was only 62.2% that means that 27863 people did not vote, considerably more than voted for Labour. If they voted together for someone else those who do not vote could always throw out the party in power. No seat is therefore really a safe seat, they are safe because who believe their vote is not worthwhile do not bother to vote when in reality if they did they could make a difference. Indeed in the Scottish elections of 2011 the SNP managed to take a large part of this same seat. [3]  [1] Electoral Calculus, Majority Sorted Seats  [2] Wells, Anthony, Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, UKPollingReport, 2010  [3] ‘Vote 2011 Scotland elections, Kirkcaldy’, BBC News, 11 May 2011


Politicians don’t engage with issues that are important to me  Political parties are not about issues, they are either about ideologies or are purely about trying to triangulate on enough issues so that they can get into power. With relatively few parties able to get representation in the Parliament how can I be sure that my views on issues will be represented. If I want isolationism then who should I vote for in the US election? Both candidates say they want similar policies which are not at all isolationist. [1] Often there is little choice; in the US there are only two real options, the democrats and the republicans, [2] while in the UK all three main parties occupy very similar ground in the centre. [3] The problem is similar if I am interested in multiple issues but no party has a similar portfolio of views.  [1] Helling, Alex, ‘The debate for the rest of the world’, idebate.org, 23 October 2012  [2] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012  [3] Parker, George, and Pickard, Jim, ‘Centre prize: why UK political parties look more and more the same’, Financial Times, 4 March 2008


Not voting is voicing an opinion that is as important as any vote  In both the UK and the US non voters are the biggest block in the country. Governments are routinely voted in with only 30% of the eligible voters – and once it is counted compared against the total population it becomes lower still. We should therefore not assume that these people are all not trying to tell us anything rather they are pointing out that they know how little their vote counts so see no point in casting it. In the United States only 32% of voters agree that only having two parties is good. The non-voters could well therefore be telling us that there needs to be a radical change in the system before it is worth their while voting – ‘you make our vote count and we will begin voting again’. [1]  [1] Caryl, Christian, ‘In Praise of Apathy’, Foreign Policy, 24 October 2012


Politicians will simply ignore how we vote  Even if I do vote who is to say that politicians will actually listen to what I say. A lot of government policy is responding to events, no one who voted for Tony Blair in 2005 voted for bail outs of banks in 2008 by what was then a new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, who had not even faced the electorate. Moreover political parties do not seem to feel that they are tied to their own manifestos. In the United States Obama promised to close Guantanamo yet it is still open. [1] In the UK the Liberal Democrats said in their manifesto they would not raise tuition fees for UK Universities yet this is exactly what they did when they got into government. [2]  [1] Negrin, Matt, ‘Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises’, ABC News, 3 July 2012, also follow our Securing Liberty blog for updates on Guantanamo Bay and other civil liberties issues:  [2] Robinson, Nick, ‘Senior Lib Dems apologise over tuition fees pledge’, BBC News, 20 September 2012


My vote does not count  In safe seats, indeed right across the country there will be millions of votes that will not count when everything is added up because of our first past the post system. [1] Essentially the system means that all the votes that are cast for those who are not the winning candidate do not count at all. In a safe seat there is no way a single vote is going to help overturn some of the immense majorities the party in power has, they could put a monkey for election in these seats and it would still get in.  [1] In the UK take a look at the voter power index to see how worthwhile or otherwise your vote is


We can never be sure what these apathetic voters are saying because they have not said it – some might want a change in the electoral system, or might rouse themselves to vote if one of the options becomes extreme but this may not be the case. In the UK voters rejected the option of changing the electoral system to the alternative vote [1] which would have been more representative so making their voice matter more in future elections. [2]  [1] Hawkins, Ross, ‘Vote 2011: UK rejects alternative vote’, BBC News, 7 May 2011  [2] Jones, Charlotte R., ‘This House would adopt the alternative vote’, Debatabase, 2011


Parties go to the centre because that is where the votes are. You are perfectly at liberty to vote for more minor parties. If you want nationalisation vote communist, clean energy vote green etc. Your vote may not elect a representative but the person who becomes your representative is likely to see which single issue parties received votes in his constituency and act accordingly. Ultimately only one party can govern at a time so it will never be the case that everyone can get their way on the issues they are interested in, but if you don’t vote no one will pay any attention at all.


Sanctions cannot be very finely targeted and will always hit other groups as well as the cyber attackers. The chances of knowing specific individuals who were responsible are next to zero so those individuals cannot be targeted directly. This is the whole problem with cyber-attacks; they are very difficult to pin down. In the best case then sanctions are applied against the right target and happen to hit others as well; for example hackers are not the only new who want advanced computer equipment. At worst the sanctions will completely miss their target; it would be a major embarrassment for a country to impose sanctions for a cyber-attack only for it to later be discovered that the sanctions are against an innocent party through whom the attack had been routed.


Sanctions can be targeted  The big advantage of sanctions is that they can be as finely targeted as needed. If the sanctioning country only knows which country the cyber attack originated from then they can be broad brush sanctions, but if there is knowledge of which group initiated the attack then the sanctions can be more specific. For example in the case of unit 61398 Of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army that Mandiant showed has been attacking US companies [1] the United States could target sanctions at the People's Liberation Army by tightening weapons bans. Alternatively if the hackers are private then banning the import of certain computer equipment into that country would be appropriate. If individuals are known then the sanctions can be even more targeted, for example by freezing any bank accounts held outside their own country as the US did against North Korea when it sanctioned Banco Delta Asia through which North Korea laundered money from criminal activities. [2]  [1] Mandiant, ‘Exposing One of China’s Cyber Espionage Units’, mandiant.com, February 2013,   [2] Noland, Marcus, ‘Why Sanctions Can Hurt North Korea’, Council on Foreign Relations, 4 August 2010,


How can there ever be deterrence when the attacker believes they will not be caught, or that if they are the sanctions swill harm others not themselves? When the problem with preventing cyber-attacks is the difficulty of tracing the source [1] then deterrence becomes more and more difficult to apply. This is not like the Cold War where both superpowers could be certain that if they launched an attack there would be a devastating response. In this instance there is no certainly; the attacker believes they a, won't be caught, b, there will be no response and c, that the response won't affect them, and finally even if they are affected unless they are caught most times they will believe they will get away with it next time round.  [1] Greenemeier, Larry, ‘Seeking Address: Why Cyber Attacks Are So Difficult to Trace Back to Hackers’, Scientific American, 11 June 2011,


Sanctions are a proportionate response  Cyber-attacks pose a distinct problem for international diplomacy in that they are difficult to prevent and difficult to respond to. Any kind of military response as the United States has threatened would be completely disproportionate against all but the very biggest of cyber-attacks (those that actually result in deaths), [1] diplomacy on the other hand is as good as no response, if the response is simply a tongue lashing then the benefits of cyber espionage will be far higher than the cost.  The only proportionate, and therefore just, response to a cyber-attack is sanctions. The sanctions can be used to impose a similar economic cost on the offending state as that caused by the cyber-attack. This would be just like the World Trade Organisation's dispute settlement rules. They allow for the imposition of trade sanctions to a similar value to the losses being experienced as a result of protectionist action, with the sanctions sometimes on differing sectors to those where there are unfair trade practices. [2] Alternatively sanctions could mean a proportionate Internet response; users from the offending nation could be prohibited from using Internet services, for example an attack by hackers on the US could result in people from that country being blocked from Google and other US internet services.  [1] Friedman, Benjamin H., Preble, Christopher A., ‘A Military Response to Cyberattacks Is Preposterous’, CATO Institute, 2 June 2011,   [2] World Trade Organisation, ‘Understanding the WTO: Settling Disputes’, 2013,


How do we determine what is proportionate? If some valuable intellectual property, such as part of the designs for the US's latest fighter jet the F35, which were hacked in 2009. [1] Then what can be the response to this? Can it simply be the cost of developing this design? If so then what about the strategic loss the state has suffered, how can that be calculated in? So long as it is excluded state sanctioned cyber-attacks will not be deterred.  [1] Gorman, Siobhan, Cole, August, and Dreazen, Yochi, ‘Computer Spies Breach Fighter-Jen Project’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 April 2009,


An asymmetric response to cyber-attacks in the form of sanctions may prevent escalation, but they could also simply encourage a cyber-attacker to do more knowing that sanctions cannot stop cyber-attacks. Sanctions in the past have rarely changed policy; Sanctions against Cuba did not result in overthrowing Castro, sanctions have not changed North Korea or Iran’s policy towards nuclear weapons, so there is little reason that sanctions would stop cyber-attacks. [1] Instead the country being sanctioned will find a way around and quite possibly escalate themselves much as North Korea has upped the stakes whenever new sanctions are imposed, most recently by cancelling a hotline to the South. [2]  [1] Friedman, Lara, ‘Getting over the sanctions delusion’, Foreign Policy The Middle East Channel, 14 March 2010,   [2] Branigan, Tania, ‘Expanded UN sanctions on North Korea prompt rage from Pyongyang’, guardian.co.uk, 8 March 2013,


There needs to be action to deter more cyber attacks  At the moment the response to cyber-attacks has essentially been nothing. It is however clear that some response is needed as without a reaction there is no deterrence; the attacks will keep coming until something is done. The number of cyber-attacks and the sensitivity of the information stolen have been increasing over recent years and as more and more work is done online and more and more systems are connected to the Internet so cyber-attacks become more attractive. There needs to be a deterrent and the best deterrent is to make sure that such attacks are costly.  As these attacks are usually cross border (and in this debate we are only concerned with cross border attacks) then the only way to create a cost is through sanctions. These sanctions can either hit the assailant directly or else hit his government so encouraging them to crack down on hacking emanating from their country. It should be remembered that China argues that it does not launch cyber-attacks [1] meaning that any such attacks from China must duly be private. If this is the case then sanctions are the best way of prompting internal law enforcement. Sanctions therefore encourage all nations where there are cyber criminals to make sure they take such cyber-crime seriously. If they do not get their own cyber criminals under control then they may be affected by sanctions.  [1] China Daily, ‘China denies launching cyberattacks on US’, China.org.cn, 20 February 2013,


Sanctions will prevent escalation in cyber conflict  Cyber conflict favours the offence; when the defender is successful they gain nothing and impose no harm on the attacker who is free to try again elsewhere. The attackers are free to attack until they get past the defences somewhere. [1] That the attacks don’t risk lives helps to encourage an offensive mindset as makes it seem like there is no downside to attempting to dominate your opponent. [2] This means the only cyber response is to attack the attacker so that the same advantages apply.  The result is that cyber-attacks have a very real danger of long term tension or escalation. If one side is losing a conflict where both sides are attempting to steal the other's intellectual property (or the other has little to steal) the response may be something like the stuxnet attack that involves physical damage, this then would probably be considered an illegal use of force creating a thin line between a cyber-war and a real war. [3] When the cyber war involves physical damage as the US has warned there then may be a military response. Sanctions are a way to apply pressure without this risk of escalation into a military conflict.  [1] Lin, Herbert, ‘Escalation Dynamics and Conflict Termination in Cyberspace’, Strategic Studies Quarterly, Fall 2012,  p.51  [2] Rothkopf, David, ‘The Cool War’, Foreign Policy, 20 February 2013,   [3] Zetter, Kim, ‘Legal Experts: Stuxnet Attack on Iran Was Illegal ‘Act of Force’, Wired, 25 March 2013,


Cooperation is not a helpful alternative as it really means status quo when we can see that the status quo is not going to reduce cyber-attacks or bring recompense. Rather this is precisely what sanctions are needed for; to encourage states that harbour cyber criminals and hackers to use their law enforcement capabilities to crack down on such attacks.


This will clearly depend on the country engaging sanctions; sanctions from the US or EU will be much more significant than sanctions from the Philippines. Most countries however are a part of larger trade blocks; sanctions from the Philippines may not be much of a threat but sanctions from ASEAN would be much more compelling. Using such regional organisations can help nations get around the problems of agreement associated with broader UN sanctions. There have already been calls for groups such as ASEAN to work together against cyber attacks [1] and these groupings could be expanded to include other nations that agree with the policy on an ad hoc basis in much the same way as Japan is looking to join with ASEAN on such defence. [2]  [1] Minnick, Wendell, ‘Malaysia Calls for ASEAN ‘Master Plan’ to Fight Cyber Attacks’, Defense News, 3 June 2012,   [2] Westlake, Adam, ‘Japan pushes to form cyber-defense network with other ASEAN countries’, Japan Daily Press, 8 October 2012,


Sanctions are indiscriminate  The problem with sanctions is that they are almost always indiscriminate; Iran’s sanctions today are an example where the international community’s concerns are entirely with the government, over nuclear weapons, not the people yet the result has been a doubling in the price of staple foodstuffs and rapidly rising unemployment. [1]  This will equally be the case here. While sanctioners will try to target the sanctions the fact is there is nothing to target with sanctions that would not affect everyday lives. Hackers are ordinary people so clearly sanctions will affect others like themselves. The most obvious reactions involve the internet but blocking access to internet services, or penalising ISP’s, or cutting off technology transfers, harm everyone else as much as hackers. Often this harm is in the form of simply making the internet less safe for people in that country because they will have to turn to pirated versions of software. IDC and Microsoft estimate the chances of being infected with malware when using pirated software at one in three [2] so it is no surprise that the Chinese government in October 2012 launched a campaign to have government and companies purchase legal software. [3]  [1] The Economist, ‘A red line and a reeling rial’, 6 October 2012,   [2] IDC, ‘White Paper: The Dangerous World of Counterfeit and Pirated Software’, Microsoft, March 2013,  p.3  [3] Xinhua, ‘Chinese gov’t says no to pirated software’, People’s Daily Online, 26 April 2013,


Sanctions won't harm the hackers  Sanctions are typically used as a response to the actions of another state, not the actions of a private actor. Much cyber espionage is not carried out by government entities such as the army or intelligence services. It is also not encouraged by government regulation. Rather it is carried out by private actors whether this is criminal organisations or businesses seeking to undermine their rivals and learn their secrets this is usually with a financial motive (75% of data breaches) [1] , or else by individuals motivated by nationalism and patriotism to attack those they see as their nation’s enemies. It is difficult to see how sanctions against the nation as a whole affect these groups and individuals. This is certainly the case in China where many such as the ‘China Eagle Union’ admit to hacking for nationalist reasons rather than being told by the government. [2]  A response such as sanctions are simply likely to breed more resentment that the other power is attempting to bully their nation. The hackers only possible response is then more hacking. For those sponsored by companies if their company is hit by sanctions it simply becomes all the more necessary to find methods of getting ahead to offset any harm by sanctions.  [1] Verizon RISK Team, ‘2013 Data Breach Investigations Report’, Verizon, 23 April 2013,  p.6  [2] Beech, Hannah, ‘China’s Red Hackers: The Tale of One Patriotic Cyberwarrior’, Time, 21 February 2013,


Sanctions won't work  The problem with sanctions is that they almost never work so all they do is provide punishment and damage relations without ever resolving the issue. Numerous studies have shown that sanctions don’t actually change the policy of the country that is being sanctioned. [1] Robert Pape suggests that sanctions are only effective in achieving policy change about 5% of the time because states can take substantial economic punishment before they give up on anything that might be considered to be a national interest, and because states are good at shifting the burden of the sanctions onto opposition groups, [2] or else use the sanctions to rally domestic support against the outside actor. [3]  Instead there need to be renewed cooperation on cyber security. Fundamentally as with things like drug smuggling, and people trafficking this is an international problem that needs to be tackled by law enforcement authorities. To that end there needs to be more cooperation not more recriminations. [4]  [1] Lindsay, James M., ‘Trade Sanctions As Policy Instruments: A Re-Examination’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol.30, Issue 2, June 1986, pp.153-170,  , p.1 provides a list of some of them  [2] Pape, Robert A., ‘Why Economic Sanctions Do Not Work’, International Security, Vol. 22, Issue 2, Autumn 1997, pp.90-137,  p.106  [3] Snyder, Jack, Myths of Empire, Cornell University Press, 1991  [4] Dingli, Shen, ‘What Kerry Should Tell China’, Foreign Policy, 11 April 2013,


Sanctions require international agreement to be effective  When is it legitimate to use sanctions in response to an action? Any individual state (or group of states) can use sanctions against any other state. However for these sanctions to be effective they need to have broad based support. Sanctions by an individual country are unlikely to change the behaviour of an aggressor as they will be able to get around the sanctions. Moreover for any country that is a member of the WTO imposing sanctions may be considered illegal allowing the other country to counter them with similar measures.  The problem then is that there is no international response to hacking and it is unlikely there will be agreement on such a response. When countries like China deny that hacking comes from them are they likely to support the use of sanctions against such actions? Sanctions for much worse actions are often bogged down when they are attempted at the international level such as China and Russia vetoing sanctions against Syria in response to the violence there. [1]  [1] United Nations Security Council, ‘Security Council fails to adopt draft resolution on Syria that would have threatened sanctions, due to negative votes of China, Russian Federation’, un.org, SC/10714, 19 July 2012,


Even taking it at face value that most of these hackers are independent actors not a part of a state policy there would still be solid reasoning behind sanctions. That most cyber-attacks have a financial motive implies that sanctions are the best response; as it is hitting them in an area that the attackers are clearly interested in. As for those who are attacking for ‘patriotic’ reasons if they are truly patriots they will stop when they see their efforts are really harming their country not helping it.


The aim of sanctions does not have to be to directly affect the individuals doing the hacking, though in some cases this may be possible. Rather the aim is to change the attitude towards regulation and enforcement by the central government and possibly by the people as a whole. If the people of a country believe they are suffering as a result of the hackers in their midst they will be much more likely to demand their government make cracking down on such activities a priority.


The current leadership of the party have strong conservative credentials and stand in stark contrast to the increasingly unpopular Obama who has been deserted by his own party and certainly the enthusiastic youthful idealists who elected him.  It’;s perhaps a sign of the lack of both political and intellectual leadership within the Democratic Party that the Iowa Caucus saw many of those same young enthusiasts who supported Obama switch dramatically to Ron Paul in pursuit of a consistent ideology.  The consistency of the Republican Party in making the argument for lower taxes and smaller government stands in stark contrast to the ever shifting sands of the Democrats.


Just as with other parties around the world, once the dominant argument of a political party proves to be a busted flush it takes about a decade to recover  Both the Labour and Conservative parties in the UK, the Conservatives in Canada, the Socialists in France and many others all over the world have gone through periods of regrouping following extended periods in office.  Political movements simply run out of fresh ideas after prolonged periods of government and the Republican Party is going through such a period. The Bush Mantra of a presumption in favour of financial deregulation and in favour of tax cuts to create a trickle-down effect have both been proven to be wrong – or at least were taken to too great an extreme. The country needs to rebalance just as the Republicans need to find new ideas and new standard bearers. Future leaders of the party like Marco Rubio and Tim Pawlenty may have interesting ideas by 2016 but the current leadership is a busted flush [i] .  [i] 2016 Election.com


The Tea Party represents not only a community that has been largely ignored in recent elections but one that is also the mainstay of both the Republican Party and of the American Heartland. Namely, white, working class Americans, whose views and interests have been swept away by a party and national establishment that thought their votes could be taken for granted.  While both parties sort out the votes and support of big companies, organised labour, and minority voting blocs the average American was taken for granted. The current approach of the Republican leadership has corrected that directly as a result of the Tea Partiers, returning the party to its traditional values and core voters.


The leadership of the Republican Party simply has nothing to do with its membership as a result no candidate has, or can, capture the imagination.  It’s difficult for a predominantly working class party to get all that excited about the choice between a range of millionaires. The Bush presidency made it all too clear that the interests of the rich are the primary interest of the party and that it fails to deliver on areas such as a commitment to smaller government.  As party activists becomes ever more obsessed with issues such as gay marriage or the flag-burning amendment, it simply fails to address the concerns of most Americans to whom it has little to say. Until it has a clearer and reasonable economic message, there is little it has to say and less worth listening to


Like all parties in a democracy the leadership of the party responds to the concerns of members. Millions of ordinary Americans have genuine concerns about the state of modern America particularly in relation to the encroachment of every day government into their lives and values and imposing the opinions of a small coastal elite onto communities that want nothing to do with them.  The Republican Party increasingly reflects the historical background of the country as well as a position that reflects the belief of most Americans; historically and culturally Christian and mistrustful of an over-mighty state. Although there are nuances between presidential candidates, those statements would be supported by all of them and they appear divided because they are in the middle of a primary campaign.


The Republican Party has been hijacked by the Tea Partiers who simply don’t have a coherent message or ideology  The Tea Party movement has hijacked the Republican Party, bullying elected representatives to pursue a very narrow political agenda that has more to do with their moral outlook than the traditional role of politics. The Tea Party has little in the way of a political programme and nothing in the way of understanding the nuances of local politics or the realities of electoral politics.  While the party remains in thrall to this vociferous but unrepresentative minority, it has little to offer the wider party and les to offer the wider American public.  Although they are strident in terms of what they are against, they have little to offer by way of a substantive contribution to the national debate.


The Republicans are simply left with nothing to say and nowhere to go. As is traditionally the case for politicval parties following a long period of dominance they tend to degenerate into internecine squabbling while they thrash out a new platform for government; one thing that is clear is that they haven’t found it yet.  The approach they are taking both in terms of fighting their battles in public and demanding a certain orthodoxy of their candidates that is, frankly, unelectable suggests that they need at least another four years to work through their ideas.  The media are not bringing some liberal bias to this they are even masking many of the divisions. However, the reality is the party is divided and, more astonishingly, those division take place within an incredibly narrow ideological spectrum.


It is simply untrue to present the Republicans as the party of small government. The two presidents under whom the size of government grew the fastest - both in terms of personnel and expenditure – were Reagan and Bush Jr. When Republicans says they are interested in small government they simply mean that they want it to be small enough to get under the bedroom door; making it more interventionist not less.  They have been reduced to a fringe organisation obsessed with a handful of issues, endlessly mouthed as soundbites to prove their orthodoxy to the most extreme wing of their party which does nothing to endear them to a largely uninterested electorate. In an age of economic austerity, the party simply has nothing meaningful to say on this, the most crucial, matter of the day.


All parties represent a range of opinions and coalesce around and promote their core values and the Republican debate is simply an example of that  Although there are nuances of belief and differences of approach within the Republican Party, as there are in all political parties, they continue to promote the core values that define the party and the wider movement.  As the primary process demonstrated the is diversity of belief within the party and a healthy sense of debate and that is to be welcomed.  However, the values that the party represents – God, family and patriotism – remain their values of the party’s leadership and the American people


The Republican Party is, yet again, suffering from the inability of the mainstream and liberal media to accurately cover political debate they constantly wish to portray healthy discourse as split and schism  It would be deeply unhealthy if there were not a lively discourse in any political movement but the media fails to reflect that fact. Disillusionment with Obama has been growing almost since day one of his presidency and looks set to continue through the rest of 2012, the Republicans, by contrast have a clear message with growing support at all levels. The very fact that they have been so successful in thwarting the more dangerous of Obama’s policies demonstrate that they have both the arguments and the acumen to defeat him in Congress, just as they do for the presidency.


Having won the economic argument during the Reagan years – both with Russia and the Democratic Party – the Republicans now address social concerns and do so with a consistent message.  Having won the argument over the primacy of the Free Market under Reagan, modern Republicans have turned their attention to other concerns, primarily surrounding the size and role of the federal governments and the social attitudes that are acceptable for the nation to adopt as a whole.  Although the liberal media may grow weary of the message that the majority of Americans hold certain values and expect those to be respected by the government, it remains the case.  The Republican Party has, and continues to be, the strongest and most consistent voice on these matters; defending traditional families and their values.


The Republicans have been highjacked by the extreme right of their party, making them virtually unelectable. In any other circumstance Obama should be looking like a sitting duck, with the disarray in the Republican party, it seems unlikely that they will be able to coalesce in any meaningful way around any candidate. The constant acts of regicide against the only credible candidate they have, Mitt Romney, suggests that he simply won’t have the support he needs come the general election. The very fact that he is unpopular with the party because he doesn’t confirm to an extreme of ideological purity is the very thing that makes him electable. Until Republicans recognise that electoral reality, they are doomed.


Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries.  Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1]  [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation.


Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.  In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1]  [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009.


Referendums can lend greater validity to political outcomes  Particularly on contentious or controversial issues. Laws passed by public approval in this way will be less open to challenge, with all sides having to accept the will of the electorate. This is especially true of minority or coalition governments who may face accusations that they do not have a mandate for certain policies, [1] or situations where minority groups are exercising their right to self-determination. [2]  [1] May, Colin. “Canada’s Questionable ‘Coalition’”. C2C Canada Journal of Ideas. 22nd June 2009.   [2] Tierney, Stephen. “Referendums today: Self-determination as constituent power?”. European Journal of International Law blog, February 9th 2011.


Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells.


Improves standards in political governance.  The trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests.  Increased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system. [1]  [1] Knutsen, John. “Blueprint for a new European Confederation”, Basiclaw.net, January 2004.


Redresses imbalance between state and individual.  Governments exist to serve the will of the people, not the other way round; politicians take their instructions from their constituents, or should do. But in the modern state this relationship is often inverted. By obliging our democratic institutions to take genuine account of public opinion, and returning real political power back to those to whom it rightly belongs – the people – we can put the relationship between the individual and the state back on a healthier footing. In principle, people should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of importance to their lives. [1]  [1] . Beedham, Brian: “Power to the people: The case for Direct Democracy”, Civitas Review. Vol.3 Issue 2, June 2006.


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.


Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption.  As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)


Major constitutional changes such as the secession of South Sudan may well be appropriate for referendums, but using them to improve the democratic legitimacy of a government is misguided. Many policies touch on issues of human rights and the simple fact that a majority votes in favour of a particular policy will not be enough to convince opponents that the resulting law is fair or just.


If none of the parties support a policy it is probably because it has no significant support among the people! Much of modern politics is reactive; policies are tested by focus groups and carefully crafted to appeal to as many potential voters as possible. People may tell pollsters that they favour a particular policy (such as the reinstatement of the death penalty in the example from the Proposition side), but that does not necessarily mean that there is a grounds well of support for changing the law.


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.


Ensures that all views are represented in political debate.  Many countries have two or three party systems in which there is no spread of opinion between these parties. The parties reflect sterile mainstream consensus and do not offer voters what they really want.  Consequently, large sectors of the public find their views unrepresented. Referendums will remedy this and increase engagement with the political system, because people will know that their views simply cannot be ignored.  For example, a majority in the UK favour the return of the death penalty, but no party among the main three offers this. [1] Whatever your views on this issues, it seems unfair that there is simply no way for voters’ views to be represented.  [1] Cafe, Rebecca. “Does the public want the death penalty brought back?”. BBC News, 4th August 2011.


People are bored with politics because they think that it is irrelevant to them and that politicians are not interested in their opinions. Increasing the use of referendums is an excellent way of increasing engagement with the general public; it forces the political establishment to listen to popular opinion, and gives ordinary people a much greater say in how their country is run. See Proposition argument 3, above.


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.


Public opinion is changeable  Unless there is a minimum threshold for valid votes, freak results will occur. If the threshold is too high, on the other hand, then public aspirations may be thwarted, as for example with the Scottish Home Rule referendum of 1979, where a majority of those who voted supported devolution but not enough to get the proposal passed into law. [1]  Furthermore, public opinion changes over time. Once you have introduced the principle that issues of national concern are to be settled by referendums, there will be nothing to stop the same question being put to the public vote time after time.  [1] “The path to devolution”, Scottish Parliament history pages.


Referendums are very artificial.  The results are often strongly influenced by factors unrelated to the proposal on the ballot, such as; the timing of the referendum (controlled by the government); the point in the electoral cycle; media coverage of the issues, which may be biased or irresponsible; and the amount of money spent on advertising by each side. For example, in the 2005 referendum held by France on the European Union Constitution, the Yes lobby was supported by the majority of the political establishment and almost all the media, and outspent the No campaign by a significant margin. Opponents argued that the referendum was not conducted on a level playing field. [1]  [1] Wyatt, Caroline. “French media in referendum ‘bias’ row”. BBC News, 21st May 2005.


People are currently bored with politics.  The last thing they want is more votes. This will only lead to greater overall apathy and even lower turnout in general elections. California is a classic example of frequent referendums failing to ignite any noticeable interest among its people. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform in the UK was similarly ignored by the public. [1]  [1] Davies, Caroline. “Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms”. The Guardian, 15th April 2011.


The job of a government is necessarily long term.  It is right that once the people have given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long term aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails.  Similarly, it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social legislation. For example, the US civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the equal marriage movement currently, might not command majority support from the public as a whole; [1] in order to advance equal rights, responsible government has to get out in front of public opinion, and make the argument for policies which are not yet popular enough to be passed in a referendum.  This approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776) [2] and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet the people’s wishes.  [1] Bobo, Lawrence. “Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No.4, 1988.   [2] Burke, Edmund. “Speech to the electors of Bristol”. 3rd November 1774.


It is perfectly possible to construct a model for increased use of referendums which reduces to a minimum the distorting factors cited by the Opposition. For example, the timing, wording and conduct of the polls could be overseen by an independent commission. Rules could also be implemented to restrict spending by both sides to fair levels. Media, too, are bound by law in many countries to provide equal coverage to both sides. [1]  [1] “A comparative look at referendum laws”, Institute for International Law and Human Rights, February 2009.


It is possible to avoid freakish results by only allowing a referendum to be valid if a certain percentage of the population votes, say 30%. Or indeed by implementing a threshold for setting up a referendum in the first place. There is no reason to think it would be hard to find a formula that avoids these sorts of problems.  It may be formally true that the same referendum question could be put to the public again and again, but the same can be said of any political question in the status quo. Once a referendum has been held on an issue, politicians are unlikely to risk the wrath of the electorate by making them vote on the same question repeatedly.


A directly elected upper house obfuscates the political process. An upper house has a different role in the political process than the lower house: the lower house has to channel public opinion whereas the upper house has to provide critical scrutiny and sober second thought. Its legitimacy therefore doesn't stem from backing in public opinion but from careful reflection and well thought-out arguments.


A directly elected upper house is more effective  When an upper house is directly elected, it will be perceived to be more legitimate by the public, because the public sees their political views directly translated into a legislative branch, albeit in a different way than the lower house. This enhanced legitimacy will help the upper house in performing their constitutional duties: whenever the upper house disagrees with either the lower house or the executive, the upper house can now strengthen their position by pointing to the public support it has.


Appointers and electors have to think about their reputation more. Unethically and unprofessionally behaved members of the upper house can still be sent away, either by the politicians who appointed or elected them or by independent inquiry. An example of this is of a Senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once aided freedom fighters in an assault on the Dutch government, he was sent away after careful inquiry. [1]  [1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005.  last consulted August 15, 2011.


A directly elected upper house is more democratic  Democracy means self-governance by the people, wherein citizens have the fundamental right to decide how they are to be governed and by whom. An appointed or indirectly elected upper house violates this principle, because allows a group of individuals to exercise power without having to explain or justify themselves to the public


Democracy isn't just 'direct elections'. Democracy is a means to ensure good governance. Stating that an appointed or indirectly elected upper house is 'undemocratic' is not enough. Instead, the proposition should show why an appointed or indirectly elected upper house hinders good governance. Moreover, given the fact that the upper house is either appointed by the directly elected executive, as in Canada, or elected by directly elected provincial legislatures, as in the Netherlands, the people still have the right to decide how they are governed, only indirectly.


A directly elected upper house discourages patronage  Politicians who elect or appoint the members of the upper house have an incentive to put their friends an allies there, because this will make their decision making easier. This is patronage pure and simple: the public will have a hard time sending them away when, if ever, a scandal breaks because the members of the upper house don't depend on public opinion to remain in their seats. An example is the case of a senator in the Netherlands, Sam Pormes. After an opinion magazine revealed he once had partaken in terrorist activities, it took almost a year and several mediation attempts to get him removed from parliament. [1]  [1] Expatica, ‘Senator told to resign over 'guerrilla training''. 22 November 2005.  last consulted August 15, 2011.


Feedback in the legislative process reeks of cronyism. Ensuring policy is feasible by checking it with target groups and implementing partners is important. Governments often do this by calling for position papers and organizing focus groups. Using an upper house for this only reeks of cronyism: for example, why would the government award a seat to one big oil company but not to the other?


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'.


An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides more room to involve experts  Appointment or indirect election provides space to involve eminent or expert people into politics. Often, expert and eminent people don't have the time or resources to work on building a career in politics. An example is veteran professional hockey coach Jacques Demers, who was appointed by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper to become a Senator. Demers has been nearly illiterate for all his life but has been a very successful coach. As a Senator, Demers helped raise awareness and generate policy to enhance literacy across Canada. [1]  [1] TSN, ‘FORMER NHL COACH DEMERS TO BE NAMED TO SENATE’. 27 August 2009.  last consulted August 15, 2011.


An appointed or indirectly elected upper house helps policy implementation  Appointment or indirect election provides space to involve leaders of business and civil society in politics. Just like above-mentioned experts, they often don't have time to build a career in politics. But they do have first-hand knowledge of the effects of policy on their businesses and associations. By co-opting them in the legislative process, policy makers don't have to wait until policy is fully implemented to receive feedback on the feasibility of their ideas.


An appointed or indirectly elected upper house provides 'sober second thought'  An extra cycle in the legislative process creates more time to reflect on the pros and cons of each piece of legislation. Moreover, the lower house is pressured by public opinion to react fast to any kind of political hype that comes up. The upper house is more free from public pressure and can thus afford to halt pieces of 'hype-legislation'.


Expert opinion shouldn't play a role at the legislative stage of political decision making. Expertise is relevant for policy making, but doesn't have a place in the legislative. The legislative is a place for deliberation and negotiation amongst public interests. Expert opinion should inform policy making either via expert policy makers who work for ministries and departments and help draft legislation before it is launched, or via the public, whom they inform and persuade via articles, talk shows and publicizing research.


Labour can be bold without turning to the left. It could endorse bolder action on climate change, much greater local democracy, and increasing the use of new technologies. The concern should not be about a policy being left or right wing but about its beneficial (or otherwise) consequences. When labour has won in the past it has been by taking centerist trends and making them their own – for example Wilson’s ‘white fires of industry’. [1]  [1] Skelton, David, ‘What does the Labour party do now?’, Demos Quarterly, 31 July 2015,


Presents a bold new path  Since the start of the 1990s Labour has moved to the right to contest the ‘centre ground’ of politics. This worked in 1997 when the Conservatives were a spent force after 17 Years in power. Tony Blair successfully stole the conservatives moderate policies. However this has resulted in the centre ground moving to the right with policies such as austerity and welfare cuts becoming a consensus. Labour needs to move left to fight on their own ground forcing other parties to match their more populist policies such as renationalising the railways.


It is false that there is a lack of choice now. There are plenty of other parties that voters could vote for if they believe the main two parties do not provide them with the choice they want. On the right there is UKIP and on the left the Greens and also other much smaller more extreme parties standing pain a few constituencies. If there were sufficient numbers who want to vote for a more left wing agenda then the Greens would be doing much better than they are – they currently only have one seat.


Brings labour back to its core values  The original values of the Labour party were “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange” and even today the Labour party aims to “serve the public interest” as well as to create “a just society, which judges its strength by the condition of the weak as much as the strong”, “an open democracy, in which government is held to account by the people”, and “a healthy environment”. [1] In the last parliament Labour supported there being a cap on welfare spending. [2] More recently Labour abstained on a Conservative welfare bill that many felt was too harsh in its cuts. [3] Corbyn, and a move to the left, will bring Labour back to its core values rather than supporting Conservative policies and austerity that harms individuals.  [1] Clause IV, Labourcounts,  , accessed 15 September 2015  [2] Wintour, Patrick, ‘Miliband: Labour not abandoning its values with cap on welfare spending’, The Guardian, 6 June 2013,   [3] Eaton, George, ‘Welfare bill passed as 48 Labour MPs defy leadership and vote against’, The Spectator, 20 July 2015,