title: defence house believes all nations have right nuclear weapons

text: Possessing nuclear weapons will do little to help small and poor nations set the agendas on the international stage. In the present age, economic power is far more significant in international and diplomatic discourse than is military power, particularly nuclear weapon power. States will not be able to have their grievances more rapidly addressed in the United Nations or elsewhere, since they will be unable to use nuclear weapons in an aggressive context as that would seriously threaten their own survival. Possessing nuclear weapons may at best provide some security against neighbouring states, but it creates the greater threat of accidental or unintended use or of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists and rogue states.


text: Nuclear weapons give states valuable agenda-setting power on the international stage  The issues discussed in international forums are largely set by nuclear powers. The permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, for example, is composed only of nuclear powers, the same states that had nuclear weapons at the end of World War II. If all countries possess nuclear weapons, they redress the imbalance with regard to international clout, at least to the extent to which military capacity shapes states’ interactions with each other. [1] Furthermore, the current world order is grossly unfair, based on the historical anachronism of the post-World War II era. The nuclear powers, wanting to retain their position of dominance in the wake of the post-war chaos, sought to entrench their position, convincing smaller nations to sign up to non-proliferation agreements and trying to keep the nuclear club exclusive. It is only right, in terms of fairness that states not allow themselves the ability to possess certain arms while denying that right to others. Likewise, it is unfair in that it denies states, particularly those incapable of building large conventional militaries, the ability to defend themselves, relegating them to an inferior status on the world stage. [2] To finally level the international playing field and allow equal treatment to all members of the congress of nations, states must have the right to develop nuclear weapons.  [1] Fearon, James D. 1994. “Signaling Versus the Balance of Power and Interests: An Empirical Test of a Crisis Bargaining Model”. Journal of Conflict Resolution 38(2).  [2] Betts, Richard K. 1987. Nuclear blackmail and nuclear balance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.


text: Public acknowledgement of the right to nuclear deterrence will benefit the public regulation of nuclear weapons generally  When nuclear deterrence is an acknowledged right of states, they will necessarily be less concealing of their capability, as the deterrent effect works only because it is visible and widely known. Knowledge of states’ nuclear capability allows greater regulation and cooperation in development of nuclear programs from developed countries with more advanced nuclear programs. [1] Developed countries can help construct and maintain the nuclear weapons of other countries, helping to guarantee the safety protocols of countries’ programs are suitably robust. This will cause a diminution in clandestine nuclear weapons programs, and will reduce the chances of weapons-grade material falling into the hands of terrorists. Thus, greater openness and freedom in the development of nuclear weapons will increase the security of nuclear stockpiles.  [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


text: All countries have a right to defend themselves with nuclear weapons, even when they lack the capacity in conventional weapons  The nation-state is the fundamental building block of the international system, and is recognized as such in all international treaties and organizations. States are recognized as having the right to defend themselves, and this right must extend to the possession of nuclear deterrence. Often states lack the capacity to defend themselves with conventional weapons. This is particularly true of poor and small states. Even wealthy, small states are susceptible to foreign attack, since their wealth cannot make up for their lack of manpower. With a nuclear deterrent, all states become equal in terms of ability to do harm to one another. [1] If a large state attempts to intimidate, or even invade a smaller neighbour, it will be unable to effectively cow it, since the small state will have the power to grievously wound, or even destroy, the would-be invader with a few well-placed nuclear missiles. [2] For example, the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 would likely never have occurred, as Russia would have thought twice when considering the potential loss of several of its cities it would need to exchange for a small piece of Georgian territory. Clearly, nuclear weapons serve in many ways to equalize states irrespective of size, allowing them to more effectively defend themselves. Furthermore, countries will only use nuclear weapons in the vent of existential threat. This is why, for example, North Korea has not used nuclear weapons; for it, like all other states, survival is the order of the day, and using nuclear weapons aggressively would spell its certain destruction. Countries will behave rationally with regard to the use of nuclear weapons, as they have done since their invention and initial proliferation. Weapons in the hands of more people will thus not result in the greater risk of their use.  [1] Jervis, Robert. 2001. “Weapons Without Purpose? Nuclear Strategy in the Post-Cold War Era”. Foreign Affairs.  [2] Mearsheimer, John. 1993. “The Case for a Ukrainian Nuclear Deterrent”. Foreign Affairs.


text: While states do of course have the right to defend themselves, this does not extend to the possession and use of nuclear weapons. The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet. International humanitarian law prohibits the use of weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian objects and military targets. [1] Indeed, the use of nuclear weapons could well constitute a war crime or a crime against humanity. [2] Just as biological and chemical weapons are banned by international treaty, so too the international community generally acknowledges the dangers of nuclear proliferation, which is why so many treaties are dedicated to non-proliferation. [3] It is unfortunate that nuclear weapons exist, even more so that a few countries are still seeking to develop them. It is better to fight this movement and to prevent their use or acquisition by terrorists and the like. It is also essential for States to fulfil their obligation under Article VI of the NPT ‘to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control’. [4] Nuclear weapons cannot lawfully be employed or deployed and there is a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith for, and ensure, their elimination. [5]  [1] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226.  [2] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.  [3] Shah, Anup. 2009. “Nuclear Weapons”. Global Issues.  [4] International Court of Justice. 1996. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226.  [5] Grief, Nicholas. 2011. “Nuclear Weapons: the Legal Status of Use, Threat and Possession”. Nuclear Abolition Forum, Issue No 1.


text: It is very unlikely that many states will invite their neighbours to help them in the development of their weapons and in securing them, as doing so would open the risk to sabotage and would disclose potential weakness in their defences. Furthermore, terrorists will not be substantially deterred by greater openness in weapons development, as there will be more potential suppliers of weapons.


text: The nuclear peace theory only holds when all nuclear-armed states behave rationally. This cannot be guaranteed, as rogue states exist whose leaders may not be so rational, and whose governments may not be capable of checking the power of individual, erratic tyrants. Also, international conflicts might well be exacerbated in the event that terrorists or other dissidents acquire nuclear weapons or dirty bombs, leading to greater fear that nuclear weapons will be used. A better situation is one in which nuclear weapons are reduced and ultimately eliminated, rather than increased in number. Furthermore, MAD can break down in some cases, when weapon delivery systems are improved. For example, Pakistan’s military has developed miniaturized nuclear warheads for use against tanks and other hard targets on the Indian border, that will leave little nuclear fallout and thus be more likely to be employed in the event of a border skirmish. This development could well cause escalation in future conflict. [1] In addition to the risk of such smaller weapons is the risk of pre-emptive nuclear strikes, as some countries with nuclear weapons might lack second-strike capability. Clearly, possession of nuclear weapons will not guarantee peace, and if war does occur, it will be far more ghastly than any conventional war.  [1] The Economist. 2011. “The World’s Most Dangerous Border”. The Economist.


text: Nuclear weapons serve to defuse international conflicts and force compromise  Nuclear weapons create stability, described in the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). Countries with nuclear weapons have no incentive to engage in open military conflict with one another; all recognize that they will suffer destruction if they choose the path of war. [1] If countries have nuclear weapons, fighting simply becomes too costly. This serves to defuse conflicts, and reduce the likelihood of the outbreak of war. For example, the conflict between India and Pakistan was defused by the acquisition of nuclear weapons by both sides. Before they obtained nuclear weapons, they fought three wars that claimed millions of lives. Relations between the two states, while still far from cordial, have never descended into open war. The defusing of the immediate tension of war, has given the chance for potential dialogue. [2] A similar dynamic has been played out a number of times in the past, and as of yet there has never been a war between two nuclear powers. When states have nuclear weapons they cannot fight, making the world a more peaceful place.  [1] Waltz, Kenneth. 1981. “The Spread of Nuclear Weapons: More May Better”. Adelphi Papers 171. London: International Institute for Strategic Studies.  [2] Nizamani, Haider K. 2000. The Roots of Rhetoric: Politics of Nuclear weapons in India and Pakistan. Westport: Praeger.


text: Powerful states often couch their imperial ambitions and desires to further their own aims on the world stage in the language of humanitarian intervention. [1] Such interventions are rarely due solely to the abuses, real and imagined, committed by leaders upon their people, but are driven by geopolitical considerations. This is why interventions have been staged in the Middle East, as in Iraq where there were substantial oil reserves, while not in Sudan where civil war has been rife, but which possesses little in the way of strategic or economic significance. Recognizing the right of all states to possess nuclear weapons serves to diminish the number of political power plays of strong states against weaker ones, and entrenches the concept of national self-determination as an ideal that should not be infringed by strong nations against the weak.  [1] Walsh, John. 2011. “Libya and the Hypocrisy of Humanitarian Intervention”. Daily Paul.


text: All parties recognize the risk of their total destruction as a result of starting a nuclear conflict. This is exactly why no full scale war has broken out between nuclear powers. Supposing that states will be unable to handle the responsibility of nuclear weapons does not change the fact that many states have them, and also that many other states are incapable of defending themselves from aggressive neighbours without a nuclear deterrent.


text: The threat of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of rogue states and terrorists increases as more countries possess them  There are many dangerous dictators and tyrants, many of who covet the possession of nuclear weapons not just for the purpose of defence, but also for that of intimidating their neighbours. [1] Such leaders should not possess nuclear weapons, nor should they ever be facilitated in their acquisition. For example, Iran has endeavoured for years on a clandestine nuclear weapons program that, were it recognized as a legitimate pursuit, could be increased in scale and completed with greater speed. The result of such an achievement could well destabilize the Middle East and would represent a major threat to the existence of a number of states within the region, particularly Israel. Furthermore, the risk of nuclear weapons, or at least weapons-grade material, falling into the hands of dissidents and terrorists increases substantially when there are more of them and larger numbers of countries possess them. Additionally, many countries in the developing world lack the capacity to safely secure weapons if they owned them, due to lack of technology, national instability, and government corruption. [2] Recognizing the rights of these countries to hold nuclear weapons vastly increases the risk of their loss or misuse.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).  [2] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


text: The threat of a state developing nuclear weapons could instigate pre-emptive strikes from its neighbours and rivals to prevent the acquisition of such weapons  The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict.  [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8  improve this  COUNTERPOINT  If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.


text: Possessing nuclear weapons will be counter to the peaceful interests of states  Most states will not benefit at all from possessing nuclear weapons. Developing a nuclear deterrent is seen in the international community as a sign of belligerence and a warlike character. Such an image does not suit the vast majority of states who would be better suited focusing on diplomacy, trade, and economic interdependence. [1] The loss of such diplomatic and economic relations in favour of force can seriously harm the citizens of would-be nuclear powers, as has occurred to the North Koreans, who have been isolated in international relations by their government’s decision to develop nuclear weapons. If the right to nuclear weapons were recognized for all states, only those states that currently want them for strategic reasons will develop them, and they will do so more brazenly and with greater speed. These countries might try to develop them even if proliferation is outlawed, but giving them license increases the likelihood that they will succeed. Furthermore, when countries develop nuclear weapons, their neighbours may feel more vulnerable and thus be compelled by necessity to develop their own weapons. This will lead to arms races in some cases, and generally harm diplomacy.  [1] Sartori, Anne. 2005. Deterrence By Diplomacy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


text: Humanitarian intervention becomes impossible in states that possess nuclear weapons  It has often proven to be necessary for the UN, the United States, and various international coalitions to stage humanitarian interventions into states fighting civil wars, committing genocide, or otherwise abusing the human rights of their citizens. [1] An example of such an intervention is the recent contributions by many states to the rebels in Libya. Were all countries permitted to possess nuclear weapons, such interventions would become next to impossible. Were, for example, countries to try and contribute to the Libyan rebels, they would find themselves the targets of Libyan nuclear warheads. The cost of intervention thus becomes too high for virtually any country to tolerate, in terms of both human and political costs. The world would be a worse place if tyrants were allowed to perpetrate whatever crimes they saw fit upon their people, while the international community could do nothing for fear of nuclear retaliation.  [1] Slantchev, Branislav. 2005. “Military Coercion in Interstate Crises”. American Political Science Review 99(4).


text: The threat represented by potential nuclear powers will instigate pre-emptive strikes by countries fearing the future behaviour of the budding nuclear powers. Until a state develops a nuclear capacity that its rivals believe they cannot destroy in a first strike, nuclear weapons increase the risk of war. For example, Israel will have a very real incentive to attack Iran before it can complete its development of nuclear weapons, lest it become an existential threat to Israel’s survival. The United States military even considered attempting to destroy the USSR’s capability before they had second strike capability General Orvil Anderson publicly declared: “Give me the order to do it and I can break up Russia’s five A-bomb nests in a week…And when I went up to Christ—I think I could explain to Him that I had saved civilization.” [1] The development of nuclear weapons can thus destabilize regions before they are ever operational, as it is in no country’s interest that its rivals become capable of using nuclear force against it. Clearly, it is best that such states do not develop nuclear weapons in the first place so as to prevent such instability and conflict.  [1] Stevens, Austin “General Removed over War Speech,” New York Times, September 2, 1950, p. 8  improve this  If a country is surrounded by hostile neighbours that are likely to attempt a pre-emptive strike upon it, then nuclear weapons are all the more desirable. With nuclear weapons a country cannot be pushed around by regional bullies. It seems perfectly fair that Iran would covet the ability to resist Israeli might in the Middle East and defend itself from aggression by it or the United States.


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


text: It is true that most states will not develop nuclear weapons, whether they are recognized as a rightful possession of states or not. The important thing is that those states that do want nuclear weapons can have them, which will likely be only a handful. As to arms races, it is unlikely that they will occur, as the defence pacts between many states, such as NATO defend non-nuclear states without requiring them to possess such weapons themselves. [1] Furthermore, if a state feels vulnerable due to the nuclear armament of its neighbours, it should absolutely have the right to defend itself.  [1] Sagan, Scott D. 1993. The Limits of Safety: Organizations, Accidents, and Nuclear Weapons. Princeton: Princeton University Press.


text: Government legitimacy is defined in its most limited form as the ability to provide security and stability within its jurisdiction. It seems fair to say that international institutions and states with a stake in international order, as most do, will have an interest in keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of failing and failed states, which do not retain the same legitimacy of states that can provide the baseline of security to their people. Furthermore, the openness created by the public recognition of the right to nuclear weapons will allow advanced countries to offer assistance in security and protection of nuclear stockpiles, making it less likely that nuclear weapons will fall into the hands of terrorists.


title: ch debate free speech and privacy health general international africa politics

text: The media always want a good story; they are interested in the health of celebrities when there is no clear reason why they should have any right to this private information. The health of the leader is not something that the press or public needs to know about unless it is an illness that is likely to affect the president’s capacity to make decisions. A government’s decision should not be based upon the possibility that information on the leader’s health will leak and should take a consistent line that it is a private matter or provide a bare minimum of information.


text: Administrative capabilities should not be compared to health. Unhealthy leaders may perform better than the healthy ones, people could be misled to choose inappropriate leaders while taking health as a black spot while the leader could actually have a better potential than the rest. If the electorate had just elected on the basis of health, or had been fully informed about presidents health then it is plausible that neither FD Roosevelt of JF Kennedy would have been elected. Neither completely hid their illnesses but they were not discussed and did not become election issues as they would have in a modern election. 1  1 Berish, Amy, ‘FDR and Polio’, Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum,


text: If a candidate has a condition during an election campaign then there is a clear right to know when the electorate is making the decision. But does such a right to know apply at other times when it will make no difference to the people? There can only be a right to know if it is going to affect the people, something that many illnesses won’t do.


text: All of these procedures could be put in place even if there is secrecy. Doctors are already committed to patient-doctor confidentiality so are unlikely to tell the press if they are told beforehand to be ready to receive the President.


text: Deputy leaders are appointed and they are well versed with how the leader is managing issues and are capable of taking up the role immediately after the leader resigns or dies. Being open and transparent about a leader being ill simply creates the lack of stability. If he lives it is best if the illness is not revealed as everything will carry on as before. If the leader dies then it is best nothing is known until his successor is announced so reducing the period of uncertainty.


text: When leaders choose to serve the country they should be ready to sacrifice their privacy for the country. There is clearly a different standard for those who are in government and should be publicly accountable to those who are not. Even more minor illnesses can damage the running of the country through either affecting the judgment of the leader or limiting the amount of time he can work. The people have the right to demand their leader has his full attention of the issues affecting the nation. If he can't do that then he should resign.


text: If the leader in-charge is in illness, to avoid any repudiation, the representative from the other side could meet the leader in order to confirm or even have a video conference with the leader in charge. The leader only needs to set the overall policy, not negotiate the fine details. When Nixon went to China the Americans knew Mao was ill but realised that he still set the overall direction of policy.


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


title: government house believes governance united states should be split between two

text: It is true that the Founding Fathers did design the complexion of the Federal Government in such a way that prevents power from being concentrated in one place. This made sense in the eighteenth century when the states had most of the power. However the power and responsibilities of the federal government has expanded dramatically. The United States is no longer best off with a slow government that creates compromise. In a period where the poles of the parties are increasingly powerful government is not just slow but glacial as is shown by the crisis in 2011 over negotiations to raise the debt ceiling. [1] Single party government would be able to get its legislation passed and could actually govern rather than merely engaging in political manoeuvring to fend off the other party.  [1] MacAskill, Ewen, and Rushe, Dominic, ‘US debt crisis talks reach an impasse’, guardian.co.uk, 26 July 2011,


text: Constitutional imperative  The Constitution of the United States is designed to prevent power from being concentrated in one place, with each of the three branches (executive, legislative and judicial) placing checks and balances upon each other. As James Madison wrote “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part.” [1]  This principle ensures that power is divided, facilitating greater dialogue between the branches and between the two houses of Congress which seeks to compromise with each other to provide the best possible expression of Congress’ will.  Such a need for compromise between the branches lends itself to having control of the two elected branches being spilt between two parties necessitating compromise as opposed to single party control of both houses, where compromise can be pre-arranged to fit the aims of the executive. Therefore, Divided Government is an extra requirement to government, ensuring that powers are not concentrated to the detriment of Americans.  [1] Madison, James, ‘The Federalist No.51 The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments’, Independent Journal, 6 February 1788,


text: Congress maybe a bicameral body, but it still needs to be able to work effectively and having control split between the parties is not conducive to this. Reconciliation only truly works when there is a clear and coherent ideological programme to work around when making straightening differences between laws. In an ever more polarised politics, divided government would be more likely to result in gridlock as is the case in 2011 the reconciliation.  Voters may also choose an ideological swing, rendering such a point moot. There was a clear mandate for Republican policies from 2003 to 2007 and Democratic policies from 2009. Every democracy has its losers. Voters recognise this and vote for a clear program at elections, not a watered down version of it.


text: Checks and balances  By having both parties in charge of different parts of the Government, there can be a greater degree of scrutiny over policy as the opposition party will force the president to justify his policies.  Under single-party rule, there is a risk of a President being able to push through his/her agenda with little oversight from a legislative branch that is largely in agreement with the policy. One need only look to authoritarian governments the world over to see that governments with too much power are likely to abuse that power.  Divided Government provides a check on the executive, preventing agendas to be pushed through, allowing for compromise to be made between the two major parties, ensuring that the best possible policy for Americans is enacted. As Benjamin Franklin wrote “It is not enough that your Legislature should be numerous; it should also be divided.” [1]  [1] Franklin, Benjamin, Writings, ‘III. On the Legislative Branch.’ 10:55 – 60, 1789,


text: Proposition makes the assumption that Single-Party Government prevents Checks and Balances to be enacted within the United States Government. This is simply not true as there are still institutional breaks on the executive such as the Supreme Court.  In particular the most powerful check of all is still in place, no matter how powerful a party is it will still have to face presidential elections in at most four years’ time and elections in the house within two years. A single partly government will therefore not have long to take advantage of their weak opposition.  Even in congress supermajorities - the high threshold required for a filibuster proof majority – are rare; 60 out of 100 senators which before 2009 had not happened since 1979 and previously 1937 means that congress will still be a check. [1] This along with the ideologically fractured nature of the two major parties forces the executive to compromise with Congress and the opposition to provide a policy which is the best for the electorate.  [1] Tumulty, Karen, ‘A Filibuster=Proof Majority’, Time, 28 April 2009,


text: Divided Government may in theory provide an impetus for co-operation but rather has been an opportunity for the divisiveness of the campaign to continue once the votes have been counted. Instead of co-operation, what is commonly seen is partisan tactics from both sides of the aisle to discredit the other side, preventing compromise and leading to gridlock. In some extreme cases a complete shutdown of the federal government has been forced due to the impasse, such as in 1995 when Clinton was unable to work with an obstinate Republican Congress. [1]  While Reagan was able to use his co-operation with House Democrats to great effect in pushing through policy and gaining re-election. [2] Clinton was re-elected by showing himself as the only one prepared to compromise compared to the dogmatic Republicans, merely continuing the Partisan mode of campaigning the Proposition hopes would end through divided government. [3]  [1] ‘1995-96 Government Shutdown’, Slaying the Dragon of Debt,   [2] Faler, Brian, ‘Reagan’s Tax Increases Have Democrats Recalling Republican Hero’, Bloomberg, 22 July 2011,   [3] Kessler, Glenn, ‘Lessons from the great government shutdown of 1995-96’, The Washington Post, 25 February 2011,


text: How Congress Works  Congress is a bicameral body, with its constituent parts, the House of Representatives and Senate, working largely independent of each other to create bills. However necessary for both the house and Senate to pass laws in identical form in order for it to become law. [1] A period of ‘Reconciliation’ is usually required to find a compromise between two different versions of the same bill in order to maintain and improve what is best about proposed reforms and eliminate flaws before it becomes law. [2]  This independence between the two chambers, with Reconciliation being one of the few areas where the two meet can allow for division in Congress between the two major parties. Indeed this can be seen as beneficial, as the broadest ideological range will be considered when making a policy work by reconciling two bills, making sure that centrist policy is enacted, preventing an ideological swing against the wishes of the people.  [1] Goldman et al., The Challenge of Democracy, Brief ed., Fourth ed., New York 2001, p.196  [2] United States Senate, ‘reconciliation process’,


text: Effect on the structure of the main political parties  Divided Government creates an imperative for compromise, encouraging the parties to work together for the best outcomes. This can help to undermine the more visceral aspects of debate, with the contest for election being left behind in order to focus on governing for the good of all Americans. As a result the greatest American achievements have come when there has been broad bipartisan consensus. [1]  There is also a Partisan consideration to seeking divided Government. The more successful two-term Presidents of recent times, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, governed with Congress partly or completely controlled by the opposition party. [2] They were able to work with the opposition to pursue the best policy, aiding their re-election hopes by pitching themselves as seeking to compromise, in line with the aspirations of voters, who on the whole prefer divided government in order to promote mature co-operation between the parties.  [1] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc  [2] ‘Divided Government’ Wikipedia,  accessed 30/1/12


text: The reason why a febrile atmosphere has emerged in recent years is because both red and blue single-party governments have made unpopular decisions without the necessary checks being place upon it. This has made people disenchanted with the political system and made them think that it is only looks out for ideological elites, causing a backlash in the form of the Tea Party and Occupy movements. [1]  Divided Government combats this by helping to re-establish consensus between the parties over what is best for America, ensuring that policies have the consent of a majority of people, thus preventing the overtly ideological backlashes seen recently.  [1] Miles, Chris, ‘What the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street Have in Common’, policymic,


text: It is Single-Party Government that fails to represent the interest of Americans. By subscribing to just one view of what makes good policy, government risks simply taking into account little over half the electorate (and under half the population, giving how low voter turnout usually is in American Elections [1] ) when taking actions that effect all. By taking into account the wants and aims of both parties, the best policy that can carry the support of the broad cross-section of society will be implemented, preventing disillusionment with unrepresentative, overtly ideological government.  [1] Infoplease, ‘National Voter Turnout in Federal Elections: 1960–2010’,


text: Existing checks and balances  Proposition have made out so far that single-party Government has few checks upon it, allowing for overbearing ideological government. This however is not true as there a many external checks upon a single-party government that can prevent this.  Firstly, the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution means that the executive is unable to do much without the consent of Congress, meaning that the President would need the support of his/her party in the legislature to do what (s)he wants in government.  Within Congress, the governing party would still face oversight from Departmental Committees that scrutinises its work and unless the governing party can get a filibuster-proof majority of 60 Senators in the Upper House, then a degree of negotiation would be required.  Finally, the nominally non-partisan Supreme Court can strike down laws seen to violate the terms of the Constitution. Together these bodies are able to constrain single-party government to prevent it from abusing its power.


text: Parties as coalitions  The two political parties are ideologically broad churches, with many different factions that stand up for varying positions on the ideological spectrum. The republicans for example contain within them several different republican movements; from social conservatives or ‘the religious right’, through libertarian conservatism like much of the tea party, to fiscal conservatives who are mostly more moderate. Interweaving these three is national security conservatism and issues conservatism. [1]  Policies formed by each party are specifically designed to take into account of the different strands within the party, creating a platform that all candidates can stand on.  The policy is in effect a compromise between different wings of the party, with Primaries adding credence to a particular view.  In effect, Policies enacted under Single-Party Government have had the oversight from party members in order to be representative of the different interests within the party, thus delivering clear, coherent policies to the people that are constantly self-corrected due to the different ideological streams.  [1] Westen, Drew, ‘The Five Strands of Conservatism: Why the GOP is Unraveling’, HuffPost, 23 January 2012,


text: Growing partisanship  The current political climate makes divided government difficult anyway. The terms of debate in American politics is based on a perceived ‘culture war’ between liberals and conservatives over what it means to be American, something that has been exacerbated by 24-hour news and a proliferation of partisan blogging.  This makes agreements on core issues difficult to achieve and this has become apparent in recent years, with opposition to Barack Obama’s $1 trillion stimulus package helping to spawn the Tea Party movement [1] that has helped move the Republican Party to the right, making the compromise required for effective divided government unachievable. [2]  While it has been most noticeable recently the US political climate has been becoming more polarized for the last twenty-five years. This polarization helps to create gridlock and less public policy. [3] The stasis in Congress created by the dogmatic Republicans winning the House in the 2010 mid-terms shows how America’s political climate is now much more suited to Single-Party Government, allowing for much more effective decision making than divided government.  [1] Ferrara, Peter, ‘The tea Party Revolution’, The American Spectator, 15 April 2009,   [2] Rawls, Caroline, ‘Moderate Republicans Lament GOP Shift Further Right’, newsmax, 27 July 2011,   [3] McCarty, Nolan, ‘The Policy Consequences of Partisan Polarization in the United States’, bcep.haas.berkeley.edu/papers/McCarty.doc


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


text: The parties may be broad churches with many mechanisms in place to form the ‘best policy’ but that can still lead to flaws under a single-party government. It is easy for one wing to dominate a party, as has been seen recently with the dominance of the Tea Party within the Republican Party.  Primaries are a symptom of this, with the views of grass roots being expressed in results that do not conform to the views of a majority of voters.  This can lead to parties standing and governing on a platform that is unrepresentative of the aims of many Americans. Under Single-Party Government, there is little scope for moderating highly ideological government, thus underlining the need for divided government.


text: As noted earlier, compromises in Congress can be pre-arranged in order to satisfy the aims of the Executive if both are controlled by the same party, reducing the amount of check and balance from Congress. The party in control of Congress also form majorities on Departmental Committees making effective scrutiny conditional upon whether or not government is divided.  The last time a supermajority in the Senate was achieved along party lines was during the 95th Congress of 1977-79 when the Democrats had 61 seats. Since then no party has achieved this yet the majority party has still have been able to use the influence they have to work in conjunction with their President’s agenda. Only by having split control can there be a real check and balance.  The Supreme Court can be quite partisan with Justices reading the law in order to fit their own ideological biases. [1] A seen a number of times during the Presidency of George W. Bush, the largely Republican appointed Court made controversial decisions in favour of the President and Republicans on Abortion and Affirmative Action, undermining the idea of the Court as a check on government power.  [1] Sunstein, Cass R., ‘Judicial Partisanship Awards’, The Washington independent, 31 July 2008,


title: onal asia politics defence house would ignore north korean provocations

text: Negotiations to defuse the cause of the immediate tension, and sanctions to encourage North Korea to the negotiating table are sensible, proportionate responses to North Korean actions. It is difficult to see how sanctions can be seen as encouraging even if those sanctions are then eased when North Korea climbs down.


text: Providing attention simply encourages the regime  North Korea has an attention seeking cycle on the go that was used by Kim Jong Il and now seems to be used by his son Kim Jong Un. Essentially North Korea takes a provocative action (as big or small as it thinks necessary – this may be a missile launch, right up to some kind of military attack) in order to grab the world’s attention. There is then a period where there are condemnations and threats to increase sanctions that usually don’t get anywhere as they are blocked by China. The North Korean regime will then proclaim a willingness to do business and negotiate giving minor concessions on the issue of the provocation in return for aid or whatever the regime happens to want at the time. Of course whatever concession it gives is easily reversible so setting up another round. [1] This is a good deal for North Korea as it essentially gets aid in return for bad behaviour, it is therefore not surprising that the North is willing to continue engaging in bad behaviour.  [1] Hong, Adrian, ‘How to Free North Korea’, Foreign Policy, 19 December 2011,


text: The United States has its own interests in the North Korean question, not only does it have troops in South Korea and security guarantees to maintain with its ally but it is also concerned by nuclear proliferation. If there is a chance to get rid of North Korean nuclear weapons through negotiations, or even a peace treaty should the USA not take that when it is in the US national interest? [1]  [1] DiFilippo, Anthony, ‘Time for North Korea Peace Treaty’, The Diplomat, 11 April 2012,


text: South Korea can handle the situation itself  The two Koreas should be able to solve the situation themselves without recourse to all the neighbouring powers – whose interest does not seem to have spurred a solution to the frozen conflict anyway. With the Cold War over South Korea is more than capable of handling its own security. South Korea is economically far ahead of the North with its economy thirty seven times bigger. [1] Its military is also more capable than the North’s as the International Institute for Strategic Studies argues “As measured by static equipment indices, South Korea’s conventional forces would appear superior to North Korea’s. When morale, training, equipment maintenance, logistics, and reconnaissance and communications capabilities are factored in, this qualitative advantage increases.” [2] So should be able to deter aggression on its own and pull its own weight in negotiations without the need of a multilateral process. Moreover no one would argue that an invasion should be ignored however the South should be the one who responds to North Korean actions on its own.  [1] Oh Young-Jin, ‘South Korean economy 37 times bigger than NK’s’, The Korea Times, 5 January 2011,   [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012,


text: Pressure from other states acts as a force multiplier helping to show that the North has crossed a line with its actions. A lack of reaction from the Unites States, Japan, and other states around the world would show that these nations are no longer supporting the South as strongly as they were. The United States in particular has to be willing to engage with North Korea in order to present a united front with its South Korean ally.


text: Rounds of sanctions and engagement does not bring a solution any closer  The responses to North Korean provocations do not bring a solution any closer. North Korea has yet to sign a peace treaty with the South and the United States. It is however particularly interested in signing a treaty with the United States rather than the South. In 2010 the North Korean foreign ministry proposed that "If confidence is to be built between [North Korea] and the US, it is essential to conclude a peace treaty for terminating the state of war, a root cause of the hostile relations, to begin with". [1] The North wants a peace treaty with the US so as to drive a wedge between the USA and South Korea to prevent US support for the South in the event of war. [2] Ignoring such efforts at negotiating with the USA without South Korea in the room, and indeed all advances and provocations would force the North to accept that it has to negotiate with the south or with no one. Ignoring North Korean actions and reducing the number of allies negotiating while maintaining security guarantees prevents any chance of the North dividing the USA and South Korea.  [1] Walker, Peter, ‘North Korea calls for peace treaty with US’, guardian.co.uk, 11 January 2010,   [2] Cheon, Seongwhun, ‘Negotiating with South Korea and the I.S.: North Korea’s Strategy and Objectives’, International Journal for Korean Studies, Vol XVI No 1, Spring 2012,  p.153


text: So far engagement has done little to resolve the situation in North Korea either; the regime is practically immune to pressure from those states that are willing to pressurise it. There are occasional hopes that China will put more pressure on North Korea but so far these have proven to be false hopes, and indeed China is investing heavily in North Korea, for example creating a port at Rason to serve Manchuria. [1] When the Korean question is resolved it will be through the collapse of the regime, something that is as likely to come about through ignoring it as engaging with it.  [1] Bloomberg News, ‘North Korea Investment Zone Promoted to Chinese as Next Shenzhen’, Bloomberg, 13 September 2012,


text: North Korea is not an irrational regime, and is certainly not going to use its missiles to hit one of its neighbouring great powers. North Korea has shown time and time again that its number one objective is regime survival [1] and its provocations are one method it uses to try and ensure such survival through getting concessions and building deterrence against any possible pre-emptive attack either by the South or the United States. [2] North Korea will therefore never invite such retaliation from the surrounding great powers. All provocations it takes are just to the extent that it thinks it can get away with them. It is notable that since South Korea altered its stance from ‘controlled response’ to ‘manifold retaliation’ in the wake of the shelling of Yeonpyeong Island [3] the provocations from North Korea have been much less provocative i.e. missile testing rather than military actions.  [1] Lankov, Andrei, ‘Weep Not for Kim Jong Il’, Foreign Policy, 23 December 2011,   [2] ‘The Conventional Military Balance on the Korean Peninsula’, The International Institute for Strategic Studies, 2012,   [3] Mc Devitt, Michael, ‘Deterring North Korean Provocations’, Brookings, February 2011,


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


text: Ignoring North Korea wont resolve the situation  While the great powers can try to keep on with business as usual how will this be helpful? The situation is unstable and needs to be resolved which is something that ignoring the North will not do. Commentators thought that the North would collapse as a result of the withdrawal of support that was given by the USSR in the early 1990s but it did not happen. The regime will likely be able to hang on in the status quo situation pretty much indefinitely.  There is also no reason to believe that the provocations may not become bigger should smaller provocations be ignored. While North Korea can attract the world’s attention with a missile test launch it is likely to keep doing such small and relatively harmless actions. Should such actions fail the regime may resort to bigger incidents such as the sinking of the South Korean corvette Cheonan in 2010 which resulted in 46 deaths which may have been an attempt at coercive diplomacy against a regime that was unwilling to engage in negotiations. [1]  [1] Cha, Victor, ‘The Sinking of the Cheonan’, Center for Strategic & International Studies, 22 April 2010,


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


text: While the United Nations is about creating peace that does not mean that it needs to keep trying the same failed formula. It is clear that multilateral discussions and sanctions have not succeeded in creating positive change in relation to North Korea. Trying new tactics does not mean giving up on the goal of international peace and security.


title: edia politics voting house believes film stars music stars and other popular

text: This ‘injustice’ needs to be weighed against the effects of the policy. If you prohibit celebrities from participating in party-political campaigns, commit an injustice against the celebrities.  You violate the right to self-expression of the celebrity. Everyone in a free society has the right to express their political views; indeed, this is something we hold to be a hallmark of such freedom. Celebrities should be no different, and should hold those same rights. Further, they cannot be said to have consented into such a loss of rights (given that not all chose the level of fame and power they find themselves with).  Further, it is a bit melodramatic to suggest that people with influence ‘effectively have more votes’. By this metric, we would have to also prohibit the persuasive from participating in political campaigns. People have differences in their abilities to persuade others to follow their lead, and this is something that we simply have to take measures to ensure does not disproportionately impact upon any given party.


text: This is an unjust use of unelected power  Politicians want endorsements because they know it will bring votes; it is estimated that Oprah’s endorsement of Obama in the Democratic Primary of 2008 brought an additional 1 million votes to Obama. [1] It is unjust for celebs to use their influence in this way. Celebrities have an ability to influence the political sphere that bears no necessary relationship with their knowledge of the subjects concerned, or qualifications otherwise to do so.  Consequently, they represent an unelected, unaccountable pressure on the democratic system: they have been given power and influence, with no mechanism of checking that power, or way to prevent them from misleading the public (unlike, for example, political journalists, news channels and other sources of political information).  This is principally unjust: the optimum democratic system is the one that holds the closest to the principle of “one person, one vote”, and attempts to ensure that those votes are as informed as possible. Celebrity involvement in politics is a hindrance to that, effectively handing the famous more votes than is their due.  [1] Garthwaite, Craig, and Moore, Timothy J., ‘Can Celebrity Endorsements Affect Political Outcomes? Evidence from the 2008 US Democratic Presidential Primary’, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2012,


text: This is not necessarily the case: there remains a diverse assortment of news sources, and with the explosion in size and quality of the blogosphere, people are increasingly accessing information from a wide range of sources. Thus it is decreasingly the case that space in the news can be conceived of as limited in this way.  Further, providers of political analysis might find it easier to sell papers/shows to a wider audience when they can use a celebrity image or quote as well, resulting in a more, not less, informed population.


text: Personality politics is harmful to the democratic process  Celebrity involvement in the political process may increase the extent to which politicians need to court media attention in order to promote their policies.  Many people get their political information from ‘soft-news’ outlets [1] , i.e. entertainment channels and magazines that often focus on ‘celebrity gossip’. Shows such as Oprah Winfrey get millions of viewers many of whom don’t get news through other mediums and although soft news is the preferred format for a minority (10.2%) for a great many more it is in their top three. [2] The involvement of celebrities in the political sphere increases the power of “soft-news” over the political process: due to the wide reach of “soft-news” it is not possible to counter its effects using narrow-reach opinion pieces and policy analysis. Rather, politicians are forced either to package their ideas in a way acceptable to these magazines and talk shows (i.e. reduce the analysis; ‘dumb down’), for example Obama in 2009 became the first sitting president to appear on a late night comedy show; Tonight Show with Jay Leno, [3] or to counter attack by seeking celebrity endorsement of their own.  This makes political debate increasingly shallow, and voters’ decisions correspondingly less well-informed. The harmful impacts upon our democratic process are two-fold: first, voters being less informed means they are less likely to truly be voting in a way that is aligned with their best interests or political beliefs; second, the debate is skewed towards ideas that can be conveyed in short ‘sound-bites’ and away from ideas that require more complicated discussion.  [1] Drezner, Daniel W., ‘Foreign Policy Goes Glam’, The National Interest, Nov./Dec. 2007,   [2] Prior, Markus, ‘Any Good News in Soft News? The Impact of Soft News Preferences on Political Knowledge’, Political Communication, Vol. 20, 2003, pp.149-171, p.151   [3] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘Soft News and the four Oprah effects’, November 2011,


text: The accusation of ‘dumbing down’ is misguided: politicians will increasingly be able to reach a wider voter base if they are willing to repackage their ideas and policies, but this does not require ‘dumbing down’, simply a change in focus of the explanation. So not only is dumbing down not necessary, but politicians’ ideas are reaching more voters!  For example, the ‘war on women,’ has gained considerable attention in the media, and this has given a platform for female celebrities like Eva Longoria, to participate in events like the Democratic National Convention [1] . Eva Longoria and politicians who feel that women are being unfair attacked in regards to their body are now having these issues highlighted. Having celebrities involved in political campaigns like Eva Longoria does not mean the campaign was ‘dumbed down’ it means that it was accessible to a larger audience because they understood what she was talking about. Surely, that cannot be a bad thing.  It should be remembered that those who consume this soft news will be much better informed and be consistent in voting than those who consume no news at all. [2] As a result they will be more likely to vote and soft news will give them some awareness of why they are voting even if a celebrity endorsement has some baring on that vote.  [1] ‘Eva Longoria Speech Draws Cheers At Democratic National Convention’, Huffington Post, 6 September 2012,   [2] Baum, Matthew A., and Jamison, Angela, ‘ The Oprah Effect: How soft news helps inattentive citizens to vote consistently’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.68, No.4, November 2006, pp.946-959, p.955,


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


text: This may well be a side-benefit of celebrity involvement in politics, however, the effect celebrities have on the promotion of minority interests is not decreased by their prohibition from party-politics. They can still engage in general advocacy and campaigning on specific issues important to them without endorsing parties or candidates.  The policy-vote relationship that celebrities have with voters works in the opposite direction than for politicians: where politicians must choose the policies they believe will attract voters, celebrities first attract voters and then advocate for particular policies. This adds to the danger of celebrity participation; a celebrity may be endorsing a particular candidate because of that candidate’s support on that issue. Fans of the celebrity who may be influenced by the endorsement may have no interest or even be opposed to the issue for which the celebrity is endorsing the candidate. This would make celebrity endorsements as a result of minority issues positively counterproductive.


text: There is no particular reason why someone who is interested in a particular politician-endorsing celebrity would choose to do political research. Given, in particular, the segregation of news, where magazines and blogs tend to specialise (on, say, politics or celebrity life) it is hard to see why crossover would occur.  The internet, whilst it makes information more accessible, accentuates this problem: where you can skip from news item to news item so easily, you are less likely to read an in-depth piece of political analysis by your favourite celebrity if you are not, in the first place, interested in politics.  Further, it is worth considering a balance of harms here: on the one hand you have a smaller, but better informed voter base (those interested in politics without celebrities), and on the other hand a larger but less well-informed voter base (assuming not all the people who see a celebrity endorsement and go on to vote do any research first). That former scenario, without the uninformed voters, is the most likely to lead to the best political outcome.


text: Celebrity involvement counters financial power to the benefit of the disenfranchised  Parties advocating policies that benefit the most financially powerful (big business etc.) are able to make large revenues from donations from wealthy business personalities involved in those industries.  Film and music stars tend towards the ‘liberal’ or ‘left’ wing of politics [1] . Consequently, in being prevented from exerting non-financial power (through endorsement) the different political parties are not equally affected: rather, you disproportionately punish the liberal parties. This is significant, given the necessity of a counter-balance to the power of big business (through donations – for example in the USA 90% of donations from mining and the automotive industry goes to the republicans [2] ) over our political system (which is not being similarly banned).  [1] Meyer, D., Gamson, J. ‘The Challenge of Cultural Elites: Celebrities and Social Movements’, Sociological Inquiry. Vol.65 No.2, 1995, pp.181-206  [2] Duffy, Robert J., ‘Business, Elections, and the Environment’, in Michael E. Kraft and Sheldon Kamieniecki, Business and Environmental Policy, 2007, pp.61-90, p.74,


text: Celebrity involvement can highlight minority interests  There exists a problem with regards to advocacy for minority issues within mainstream political movements. This motion would exacerbate that problem.  Voters tend to base their decisions on key issues (things like education, the state of the economy, healthcare policy etc.). Whilst they may care about more marginal issues (e.g. gay rights, religious freedoms, environmental issues), they are often unwilling to sacrifice something they think has a greater impact on them for something that has a lesser impact.  Minority issues suffer particularly here: by their very nature, there are fewer people who feel directly affected than there are people who feel indirectly affected or indifferent. Consequently, there are never a great enough proportion of votes that could be gained by a political party concentrating on these particular issues in a way which might be detrimental. See, for example, the public reaction in the UK to Cameron’s position on gay marriage: whilst most people feel that gay marriage should be allowed [1] , Cameron has not received a political boost as a result of this decision, but rather, has faced hostility from those who believe it is a “distraction” [2] , where they would rather he focused on issues like the economic crisis.  [1] ‘Same-sex marriage in the United Kingdom’, Wikipedia, accessed 10 September 2012,   [2] Telegraph editor, ‘Gay marriage: A pointless distraction’, The Telegraph, 26 July 2012,


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


text: If the celebrity involvement can be proven to be otherwise harmful or unjust then it is immaterial that it impacts one side more than another: if it really does advance the cause of some more than others, if we can prove this is an unfair and therefore illegitimate advantage, it should be stopped.  Similarly, we place limits on the relationship between big businesses and politicians, with laws that attempt to prevent corruption and undue influence.


title: conomic policy economy general international europe politics government house

text: This has simply not been the case; since the launch of the Euro in 2002, London has consolidated her position as the financial centre of Europe. There is no need for Britain to join the Euro, she can profit from the financial influence London exercises while her mainland European counterparts use the single currency. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “at the launch of the Euro…that what were effectively regional financial centres –such as Paris- lost any reason for their existence and saw all European business drain away to Europe’s real financial centre, London.”1 Moreover, Britain is not wholly reliant on her European counterparts for business; “More people work in financial services in London than live in Frankfurt, its only likely rival. We have the English language and a time zone that means we can deal with New York and Tokyo in the working day.”1 If the British economy does not even need mainland Europe for business, even less it needs the single currency.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 93


text: Britain may not like losing the Queen's head on banknotes but London will be at a huge economic disadvantage if Britain stays out.  London will further lose its position as Europe’s financial centre, and the financial influence this brings with it. Britain’s staying out of the Euro has already depleted London’s status as the European financial centre. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “The European Central Bank – the second most powerful in the world – had a natural home in London, but ended up in Frankfurt because of our indecision over the Euro.”1 Germany used this to her advantage, for it “reinvigorated Germany’s bid to ensure that Frankfurt becomes Europe’s financial centre, with a massive office-building programme to rival London’s Docklands.”1Germany seizing London’s sphere of influence will only increase if Britain stays out of the Euro. Moreover, if Britain’s indecision over the Euro continues, “it would lead to a serious rethink by foreign owners of many of the City’s financial institutions about where their core activities should be located.”1 If Britain does not join the Euro, her economic activity both at home and between fellow Member States will be badly affected.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 92


text: No; cheaper goods come at a high monetary price and a high price of a chaotic turnaround. Even before the Euro has taken effect, it is going to be costly; "Converting to the Euro will also cost businesses, and shops in particular, billions of pounds, and that is bound to be passed on to their customers."1 Once it fully takes effect, "The Euro will also lead to higher inflation and more red tape, encumbering businesses and their customers with even higher costs". 1 And so the initial monetary costs and inconvenience are not going to be short lived, but will in fact spread. Any silver lining of cheaper goods prices eventually is not going to be worth the upheaval of complications and inflation its creation entails. 1 The Euro: Should Britain join?, Anthony Browne, p. 102


text: Britain will lose economically if she stays out of the Euro over the long term.  Joining the European single currency (the Euro) may appear unfavourable to Britain, but the negative effect of not joining would be more unfavourable. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Euroland businesses are now…able to raise money for investment across the entire single currency zone, making it easier and cheaper. British companies, on the other hand, are still largely constrained to drumming up money from within Britain if they want to expand.”1Eurozone businesses find it easy to raise money, for they are spared currency conversion charges. The carmaker Nissan has previously told the British government that eliminating exchange rate risk by siting production in the same currency zone as its sales market will be its preferred option’2.  1Browne, A., "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", Page 89  2Morgan, O. "Nissan tells Blair 'join Euro'", 27 May 2011, The Guardian


text: Britain does not have to become a part of the Euro to benefit from the EU economically. Britain has already struck the right balance between EU involvement and managing her own economy. "We are already part of the single market, and getting rid of the barriers put up by having separate currencies will make little difference. It was the removal of all the other barriers– such as tariffs – that mattered far more. The economies of scale are already here – from the EU’s almost 300 million consumers – having an effect.”1.Accepting the Euro could very well upset this balance with very negative effects; “Staying out, we have the advantage of a more flexible economy, more adaptable labour market, and lower taxes.” Therefore, it is more advantageous for Britain to keep the pound whilst maintaining EU membership.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91


text: This theory does not transfer to practice successfully. Questions of lifestyle (such as holidays) under the Euro cannot be treated in isolation. Converting to the Euro will have a series of knock –on effects which are all interconnected, affecting and effected by one another. One of these is the inevitability of higher inflation. With increased inflation, there will be increased unemployment; There will be even more British jobless who cannot afford to go on holiday. Moreover, as explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, “These savings are a mere fraction of the total cost of going on holiday.”1  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 103


text: Amid all the Euroscepticism (sic) and xenophobic scaremongering so typical of the British tabloids, Britain forgets the advantage of cheaper goods would come with her entry into the European single currency.  There will be initial conversion costs and inflation, but this will be short lived. If Britain accepts the Euro, “There will be far more powerful forces – price transparency and economies of scale in a massive single market – that will continuously push the price of British goods down to European levels [resulting in] massive savings.”1. The end of cheaper goods justifies the means of attaining them.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join", Page 91


text: Joining the Euro would reduce the cost of travel in Europe.  Before the arrival of the single currency, holiday makers would spend much money on preparing for the trip, before they had even bought a single souvenir or postcard; “travellers touring this fragmented continent could spend large amounts of their money simply changing it from one currency to another.”1 The loss incurred by currency conversion would be eliminated and accommodation abroad will also be cheaper and easier to book; “Joining the Euro will also make it cheaper to send money around Europe. Sending money to book a holiday cottage in another country with another currency can cost £40. Within Euroland, it would cost less than one Euro - much less than one pound.”2  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 102  2Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join". page 103


text: The Queen's head on British money will not be entirely lost. This nostalgia is simply ridiculous; the head of Queen Elizabeth II has only appeared on English banknotes "since 1960, having been made impossible by the nationalisation of the Bank of England in 1946."1 (Moreover, Scotland and Northern Ireland have never had the reigning monarch's head on their banknotes; and so no change will incur. The Queen's head will be lost from banknotes but "By contrast, we have had the monarch's head on our coins since the Middle Ages, and that will continue. Countries in Euroland can put a symbol- such as their monarch- on one side of each coin."1 The attitude expressed alongside is irrational fear of change. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 83.


text: No; Unemployment will rise if Britain stays out of the single currency. Britain's indecision over joining the single currency has already discouraged foreign investors from doing business with her, and this will only worsen if she stays out, thus reducing the number of jobs there. Britain has to be in the single currency to retain a presence in the European business scene if she is to prosper and make any profit at all. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?; "Without access to the single currency zone, foreign investors who are here will move out, closing factories and businesses; new ones will set up in Euroland in preference to the UK." London's position as the European financial centre has already been depleted by Frankfurt and this situation will only deteriorate if Britain stays out of the Euro. The pound is no longer a source of hope for Britain. 1 Anthony Browne, The Euro: Should Britain join? Page 52


text: In joining the single currency, Britain would have to surrender her sovereignty and allow Brussels (where the EU is based) to dictate her financial affairs.  If she accepted the Euro as her currency, Britain would have to hand the control she has over her economy over to Brussels. EU Committees would dictate how she may spend and tax. It is too dangerous for any country to have her economic affairs dictated by another country. This is an issue even Europhiles (those who support the EU) are sceptical about. "Joining the euro would involve a major surrendering of our sovereignty, severely hindering our ability to run the economy as we see fit. We would lose control over interest rates, and the ability to manage the economy through taxing and spending. Instead, it would be run by European committees… Even British politician Kenneth Clarke, nicknamed “Europe’s biggest friend” and one of the leading campaigners for the euro, admits that Britain’s ability to tax is central to its democracy.”1  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?", page 70


text: Losing the Queen's head on banknotes is NOT a minor issue, it symbolises Britain losing her identity and control over her own economy.  This must not be dismissed as petty nostalgia, desire for outdated British tradition and fear of change. The fact that Britain does not want to lose the national symbol of her Queen on the banknotes is surely a sign that the British want to hold on to their own identity and keep control of their own economy. As explained by Alan Clark, "The European Commission Press Office chose that moment to release facsimiles of the new euro banknotes in their various denominations. The unfamiliar, but so obviously foreign, appearance made many people uneasy. Polls showed that the electorate, for most of the time indifferent to European squabbling, whose technicalities they could not be bothered to master, disliked the removal of their Sovereign's head from the currency of the realm. The sceptics took fresh heart and the likelihood of the dispute fading …became still more remote.”1 This highlights the depth and strength of anti-Euro sentiment in the British psyche. It is surely unfair for both Britain and those fellow EU Member states that ARE under the Euro to enter the single currency while not entirely convinced by it.  1Alan Clarke, The Tories: Conservatives and the Nation State 1922-1997, page 435-6.


text: For Britain to join the single currency is simply unthinkable; jobs will be lost  The EU creates economic conditions that threaten jobs. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "Joining the Euro would damage the British economy with 'one size fits all' interest rates, and so destroy jobs."1 This is not merely a product of anti-EU propaganda created by the British tabloid press; The evidence speaks for itself; "In 2000, (Euro was launched 1st January, 1999) unemployment in Euroland averaged about 10 per cent, compared to under 6 per cent in the UK" Britain must also learn from the mistakes of history; "Past experience has already shown us that locking ourselves into inappropriate interest rates destroys jobs. After we joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism, 100,000 businesses went bankrupt and unemployment doubled before we were finally forced out in 1992." Repetition of this is to be avoided at all costs and by Britain staying out of the Euro.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?"


text: These restraints exist to ensure that all countries contribute to the European Community. Surprisingly, Britain's sovereignty will actually increase by joining the Euro. As explained by Anthony Browne in The Euro: Should Britain join?, "When it comes to interest rates, we would in some ways get more sovereignty. Being represented in the ECB (European Central Bank) would give us more influence over the business cycle, because we would be there as part of the decision-making process, not just having to accept decisions made by others that would have a profound effect on us."1 Joining the single currency and by attachment the ECB would help Britain to better oversee and predetermine her economic activity, thereby improving the handle she has on her finances.  1Browne, A., 2001, "The Euro: Should Britain Join?"


title: conomic policy eurozone crisis finance international europe politics government

text: The proposition vastly understates the negative impact a default has on the local economy. It is unrealistic to compare Greece with Argentina. As a member of the Eurozone, the developments within the Greek debt crisis have a huge impact on nations suffering from similar problems, as well as the Eurozone as a whole. Moreover, devaluing the Drachma would be nowhere near as beneficial as the proposition suggests. Greece is not rich in natural resources or industry and so boosting exports will not make a huge difference.  Yes, a default would resolve the uncertainty about whether Greece will default and exit the Euro. However this new predictability would not be good; it would simply show investors that they cannot invest in Greece because they will lose their money. Ratings agencies are unlikely to consider Greece a safe investment for a long time so there will not be international investment.[1]  [1] Pappa, Eppi: “Q&A: What happens if Greece leaves the euro?”, 14 May 2012, Al Jazeera,


text: Greece’s default will not decrease uncertainty. If anything, the perceived risk of investing in other Eurozone members suffering from their own debt problems like Italy, Spain, Portugal and Ireland would rocket sky-high. The Eurozone project as a whole may struggle on with Germany trying to keep it together, but claiming that a Greek exit from the Eurozone would restore stability is short-sighted. Many of Greece’s creditors are European banks and financial organisations. Greece’s default would, therefore, be a heavy blow for many of their creditor companies who would be unlikely to be willing to invest in other nations suffering similar problems to Greece.


text: The proposition’s claims that the austerity measures have totally failed are unfounded. Although it is true that the total debt % GDP ratio has not gone down, this is not as serious as the prop make out. The budget deficit is the main problem that needs to come down because a consistently high budget deficit is what will make the situation spiral out of control and make Greece default on its debts. There is nothing per se problematic with having a large total debt (look at the USA’s total debt of $10 trillion, or Japan’s much higher debt to GDP ratio of 230% which unlike in Greece has not resulted in high interest rates,[1] for example). The fact that Greece’s budget deficit has gone down from 16% to 9% is an encouraging sign of improvement.  In addition, the proposition are not contentious in their claims about the negative effects of austerity. What they have failed to demonstrate, however, is why defaulting is the only solution to the suffering Greek people and the inability of the austerity measures to have their desired effect. The austerity measures have failed thus far because they have been targeted at the wrong areas of the economy and because the Greek Government has not been implementing them properly. Hitting the private sector with high taxation has done nothing to fix the faulty public sector which is the real cause of the debt crisis. The Greek Government remains hugely reluctant to carry out redundancies and wage cuts within the public sectors, as well as privitisations. [2] Greece, therefore, must be made to see that they must fulfill their promises and actually tackle the public sector, while alleviating taxation from the private sector.  [1] Free Exchange, ‘Defying gravity’, 14 August 2012, The Economist,   [2] Babbington, Deepa: “Greek PM sings in tune, now must hit the hard notes”, Septembe 5 2012, e-kathimerini,


text: The situation in Ireland, Italy, Spain and Portugal is not as extreme as that faced by Greece. It is therefore highly unlikely that a Greek default would have as severe a domino effect as the opposition suggests. Greece is the main source of political and economic uncertainty in the Eurozone, and their departure would ease the situation, facilitate investors and allow for the Eurozone to rally strongly. [1]  [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012


text: It is not necessarily true that the whole banking sector in Greece would collapse. Given that the default would be orderly and take place within the context of the European Union, the ECB and European Commission would still provide substantial liquidity aid for Greek banks. Moreover it is not true that a devaluation of domestic currency necessarily leads to high inflation – this was not the case, for example, when Britain exited the European Exchange-rate Mechanism in 1992 and pursued a devaluation policy of the British Pound. [1] Lastly, evidence of recent governments that have defaulted suggests that even though some of the harms the opposition refer to may actualise, recovery generally follows fairly quickly, as was the case with Argentina, South Korea and Indonesia. [2]  [1] Ruparel, Raoul and Persson, Mats: “Better off Out? The short-term options for Greece inside and outside of the euro”, June 2012, Open Europe, 2012   [2] Becker, Garry: “Should Greece Exit the Euro Zone?”, The Becker-Posner Blog, 20.5.2012,


text: Even in the long-term, continued Eurozone membership for Greece is not sustainable. The size of their total debt % GDP ratio is such that even if Greece were to recover (eventually) with the current austerity measures, Greece would always be susceptible to yet another debt crisis in the event of a future global or European recession. Eurozone membership denies Greece fiscal and monetary policy freedom required to face economic shocks to prevent this from happening. We thus see that in the long-term growth is more sustainable for Greece without the Euro.


text: In receiving financial support from the ECB and European Commission to prevent the escalation of a major banking collapse in Greece, the Greek Government would be expected to continue with reforms of the public sector. What’s more, defaulting would grant the Greek Government more time to implement such reforms, making them more likely to succeed and less painful on the Greek populous. The oppositions fears are, therefore, unfounded.


title: y political philosophy politics government voting house would make voting

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


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


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


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


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


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