title stringlengths 0 221 | text stringlengths 0 375k |
|---|---|
While Daesh may be focused on its war at home it is trying to attack those it is fighting where they are vulnerable. This is illustrated by the bombing of a Russian Metrojet Airliner leaving Sharm el-Sheikh which killed 224 by a Daesh affiliate [1] not long after Russia began bombing the Syrian rebels, and Daesh, in Syria. Such an incident may take place in the Middle East but undoubtedly affects those outside of the region. Daesh’s reach has however extended to the west with the 13th November attacks in Paris which resulted in 130 deaths across the city. [1] AlJazeera, ‘Russia says plane in Egypt's Sinai brought down by bomb’, 17th November 2015, | |
A national primary would disenfranchise large portions of the country, as candidates would be forced to court the support of only the most populous states as they currently do in the general election. At least with the primary system as it stands, candidates have to pay attention to all of the states and all sections within the party. Staggered primaries create a relationship of interdependence between the nomination campaigns that are run in various states. A poor showing in one state can undermine a candidate’s attempts to make gains in the following state. American political culture is much more fragmentary and heterogonous than European conceptions of the Union might lead us to believe. Each state is sufficiently large that what may seem to be a parochial “local” issue within the context of the entire Union may be of vital importance to a particular state’s voters. The protection and promotion of the politically and cultural plural nature of the states of the Union is a key aspect of the American democratic ideal. It is appropriate, therefore, that blunders in one state’s primary campaign should be open to analysis by the citizens of other states. If a president does not have a commanding understanding of the issues affecting one state, he may be unable to make effective decisions on the rights and affairs of other states. It is also worth noting that a single national primary would also be likely to disenfranchise those who do not closely and continuously involve themselves in the political process. Staggered primaries lead major national news services to focus on the local-level issues that may affect turnout and voting in individual states. Staggered primaries allows for reflection on these regional issues. Coverage of this type brings local controversies onto the national stage and fosters cohesion and understanding between the constituent states of one of the largest federal republics in the world. However, a one off election would just deliver national totals and even where this is broken down on a state-by-state basis, there will be much less of an understanding of why certain states supported certain candidates. Only political obsessives will are likely to expend time and effort contextualising and understanding this data; the majority of the population will be less informed than under the status quo. | |
The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations The minority populations of both of the early states are relatively low, and this can impact on the outcome of their primaries. Minority populations- such as African and Latino Americans- and migrants who have been granted citizenship will approach the issues at the heart of a presidential campaign from a different perspective. Due to high levels of social and financial deprivation among minority populations throughout the US, African Americans are likely to vote in a way that reflects concern about laws and policies that regulate access to educational subsidies and state supported health care. Latino voters may have strong familial ties with south American nation states. Correspondingly, candidates’ positions on cross border trade and the enforcement of immigration laws are likely to influence the voting decisions of Latino Americans [i] . There have been a number of solutions proposed to this, including the rotation of first primaries around the country. However, all this does is replicate the problem in new and imaginative ways; every state will have its own demographic abnormalities. Questions of educational aspiration and social mobility among black voters in South Carolina cannot be compared to the debates surrounding community integration and immigration in Arizona. The only way to take a vote that is representative of the nation as a whole is to ballot the nation as a whole. Internationally the model followed is for selection of a candidate by postal ballot, demonstrating that mature democracies are entirely capable of selecting national candidates without such a protracted process. The whole purpose of the resolution is to eliminate or control for statistical and demographic inequalities that may give certain candidates an advantage unrelated to the popularity of their policies. A national primary would apply this principle but within the context of the American model of party affiliation. [i] Kopicki, Allison, 'Iowa and New Hampshire Stand Apart', The Caucus, The New York Times, 7 December 2011 | |
A lengthy primary campaign gives candidates time to test each other on a whole range of issues. Voters, in turn, make their decisions based on a balance of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. Voters can do this because they have had the time to get to know the candidates well, to become familiar with their policies and positions on various issues and to analyse their professional or political backgrounds. Admittedly the experience of getting to know- and be known by- the country is an expensive one. However, Barack Obama’s reliance on small, personal donations demonstrates that this situation need not benefit any particular sectional interest. Side opposition contend that Obama’s grass roots funding model provides a viable alternative to reliance on large donation from powerful donors. Moreover, it also serves to expand and foster public engagement in the political process. There is also little reason to suspect that the resolution would do much to reduce expenditure on campaigns. Indeed, eliminating state-level campaigning may simply mean that candidates are forced to become more reliant on communications delivered via national media, which is both more expensive and provides fewer opportunities to address state-level issues. Finally, it should also be noted that spending in primary campaigns is already subject to a significant external control. The need to fund a full presidential election campaign will always serve to limit and moderate candidate’s ambitions, and to impose a degree of equality between wealthier candidates and those who are more reliant on grass-roots support. | |
The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states As most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority. In 2000 and 2004, by the time New York – the third most populous state in the union – voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn’t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be. The current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates. The primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines. A final argument concerns the role of political capital and states’ influence over candidates’ activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole. | |
The primaries are simply the device by which parties select their candidates. They are part of the internal affairs of America’s independent political organisations and do not require the legitimacy of the election itself. Moving everything to one day could end up exacerbating the problems of inclusiveness and democratic deficit identified by side proposition, as the campaigns and messages of smaller candidates would be drowned out by larger, wealthier rivals and those with pre-existing contacts in the news media. Further, under the system that the resolution would bring about, donors are more likely to provide funding to ‘safe’ candidates. However, with a protracted campaign it is possible for a surprise result to emerge, as has happened on several occasions – for example when incumbents have failed to win key states. Relatively unknown candidates can take advantage of the extended duration of the current primary system to build a public profile and to court the attention of the media. This allows “outsiders” and individuals with a significant political reputation, but no public profile, to establish themselves within popular discourse and to begin building a relationship with swing voters. Staggered primaries also minimize the power of the central parties. A national primary would turn campaigns into entirely national events, run by the national party conventions, marginalising the role of the states and focussing on the large cities, rather than the diffuse populations of rural states. | |
The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible. A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis. | |
The current arrangement means that a handful of small states have a massively disproportionate impact on the primary campaigns. A genuinely national primary would even that out. Grassroots campaigns would also have a reasonable basis for operating on the national stage right up to the event. Stretching the process out ultimately play to the biggest pockets. Unless grassroots candidates get an extraordinary result early, they’re knocked out. Trying to fight their way through several, effectively national campaigns, means that they only really have one chance at the moment. It’s only sensible to make that fact reality with a structure that means all candidates are in an all or nothing race rather than a financial endurance test. | |
Respecting the interests of the majority in making a decision about a candidate to represent them in a national election is not the worst idea in the world. Equally, the state parties would need to be involved as they play a central role in the general election and it is in the interest of candidates to work with them from the start. As things stand at the moment many of the larger states are actually disenfranchised by the same process that allows state parties to portray their role in the primary as valuable and significant. There can be no approach to the current primary election “narrative” that allows the individual states to exert a proportionately fair amount of influence over the other states’ choice of nominee. Candidates with deep pockets – either their own or somebody else’s - can survive early setbacks. but it means that many candidates who do not win support in the first few states can be ruled out by the end of January. By the time Nebraska comes to make their decision in the middle of May, the issue may long since have been decided. | |
Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level The primaries as they stand make an important statement not only about party structure, but also about national identity – a federation of states each with a full right to their time in the sun. This is not misty-eyed nostalgia, but a simple reflection of the realities of the constitution. The balance of the rights of states, as well as a respect for the views of the majority, is reflected in the process of an extended primary campaign that assumes all states to be equal. A final decision made at a national convention acknowledges that the views of the different and distinct populations of the states of the union have been weighed against each other. The current structure of presidential primaries ensures that the separate states of the Union are fully engaged in the selection process, irrespective of the balance of political power or the nature of that state’s political culture. The status quo gives an invaluable opportunity to, say, Texan Democrats or Republicans in Vermont to have a meaningful say in the overall outcome [d1] of the election. Even though Texas consistently supports republican candidates and Vermont Democrat, members of the minority party in both states are able to pass judgment on the candidates they consider would best serve their interests if elected. The results encourage activism and engagement at a local level and are, ultimately, good for democracy. | |
Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relatively small Iowa and New Hampshire are the perfect states to kick off the primary season. It ensures that the opening focus of the campaigns is outside the usual media centers of New York, D.C. and California. This serves to remind political commentators and others that there is an entire country out there. Equally, because they are relatively small states, campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire allow candidates to set out their positions with greater clarity, in contests that popular consensus regard as highly significant, but which are also small enough not to threaten a nomination bid if lost. Put another way, the wealthy and homogenous nature of New Hampshire and Iowa allows candidate’s campaigning there to focus on making broader statements about the policies and normative projects that they will implement on a national level. Candidates can position themselves, ideologically and politically, without becoming mired in local-level issues or demographic controversies. Iowa and New Hampshire function as political laboratories – isolated, controlled and equipped to allow close examination of candidates’ fundamental values and proficiencies. It also gives grassroots candidates a chance to raise their profile and some funds before the costs of contesting the larger states become prohibitive. Attempts by larger states, notably Florida [i] , to move their primaries forward have been opposed by both parties and many activists. [i] Patrick O’Connor. Early Florida Primary Would Scramble 2012 Calendar. Wall Street Journal. September 29 2011. | |
States’ rights Quite apart from the politically controversial contents of the phrase, states’ rights describes a vital and highly relevant aspect of the relationship between the individual states of the Union and the central government. The powers held by the federal government to control and trammel the conduct of the states of the union, and to act on their behalf on issues of foreign policy is to be contrasted with states’ freedom to produce their own laws and legislation on certain issues. The debate on the areas of civil life in which a state retains authority to formulate its own laws, without interference by the federal government, remains controversial, but it can be useful in clarifying the nature of the federal bond that holds the states of the Union together. Political culture in the United States is characterised, not only by a patriotic attachment to the idea of the federal republic, but also to the states that individual citizens inhabit. As noted above, the cultural, religious and economic tropes of each state are highly distinctive. This attachment extends to party politics as well. Political parties within the US are based much more on a consensual, community driven interpretation of political dialog than European parties. Although fund raising and promotion activities of both the Republican and Democratic parties is organised by a central committee, these committees have little influence over the policy goals and ideological position of individual candidates. Political parties in each state view the process of electing a president from a deeply local perspective. The legitimacy and popularity of state primaries is largely a function of each primary’s position within the wider narrative of American politics. | |
Ultimately the primary campaigns, at least for the main parties, are national campaigns. As a result of more frequent and more intensive media coverage- even during early primaries- candidates have to speak to national issues. Furthermore, Super Tuesday is basically a national primary already, it just happens to exclude some of the states. The early primaries simply work to filter out candidates attempting to use the presidential election to promote a single, poorly developed set of maverick views in front of a much larger audience than they would otherwise have access to. Only in the event of very close races are the later states left with any meaningful decisions. It would be far more useful to admit that reality and simply hold all national primaries in early February. Contests would still be organised by the state parties (in conjunction with the state authorities where required) and states would still record their vote separately. | |
Women can carry out many of these tasks without serving in combat roles in the army. For example, female medical staff or female military police can be sent to give medical assistance or conduct bodily searches. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, female U.S. military police officers have searched local women for explosives. [1] If female soldiers are perceived as less threatening than male soldiers, there could potentially be worrying side effects such as a reduction in the deterrent effect of the military presence in an L.I.C. [1] Schult, Marie, ‘Female Soldiers Assist with Cultural Sensitivities’, Defend America, March 2003. | |
Some combat roles are better suited to women than men Modern warfare involves many L.I.C.s, where the battleground is as much “hearts and minds” as it is physical combat. In a conflict where hearts and minds are important delicate handling of local people is required in order gain their support. In L.I.C.s, women are often better suited to intelligence gathering, medical assistance, policing and mediation than men. They are often perceived as less threatening and more understanding. [1] In addition, they would be better placed to deal with women in the local population. For example, the job of many of the female U.S. marines killed and injured in June 2005 in Iraq was to search women for explosives at checkpoints to avoid the near-universal sense of humiliation engendered by a member of the opposite sex conducting an intimate bodily search. [2] [1] DeGroot, Gerard J., ‘Women as Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star, 25 July 1999. [2] Reuters, ‘The Female Fallen’, PTSD Support, Accessed June 2nd, 2011. | |
There is no immediate pressing need for an increased pool of recruits for the army in developed countries. The late-2000s recession has led to an increase in military recruitment; particularly in the U.S. [1] This is as a result of there being many more people searching for work which makes the military a relatively more attractive career. The number of recruits and their talent pool can also be increased in other ways. For example military service can be better promoted and greater incentives to enlist can be offered. For example, educational funding provided to U.S. army veterans under the post-9/11 G.I. bill is a major incentive which has increased recruit numbers in recent decades. [2] [1] Bender, Bryan, ‘Down economy boosts military’, The Boston Globe, 1 March 2009. [2] ‘G.I. Bill’, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Accessed June 2nd, 2011 | |
There should be equality between men and women. There is a fundamental principle that men and women should be considered equal in all walks of life; and as such should both have an equal role in the military, including being in combat. Not allowing combat roles for women has an unfortunate side effect of increasing inequality in terms of ranks. Combat duty is necessary or highly beneficial for promotion to senior officer positions in many armies. [1] If women cannot serve in combat, very few will ever reach the highest ranks of the military; this creates a glass ceiling that will be very hard to break without this change to allowing women to serve in combat. Women have to be given the same opportunities as men, in the army in order to have the same opportunities they have to be exposed to the same risks. [1] Jones, Melissa, ‘Combat Women’, iVillage.co.uk. Powers, Rod, ‘What the Recruiter Never Told You’, About.com guide, Accessed June 2nd, 2011 | |
Differences in physical strength can be overcome Militaries can use ‘gender-blind’ recruitment and training processes, treating all candidates the same regardless of gender. This is 100% fair and some women will certainly succeed in entering combatant roles and will prove themselves the equal or better than the men. For example, several Soviet women have distinguished themselves as snipers and combat aviators. [1] Alternatively, militaries can calibrate recruitment and training to suit female candidates. There is a precedent for this in the U.S. military’s A.P.F.T. (army physical fitness test), which has variations for age. [2] If the test standards can be lowered for older men, they can also be lowered for women. In the modern high technology battlefield, technical expertise and decision-making skills are often more valuable than physical strength. For example, in the American army, performance targets are regularly calibrated for age and position. [3] A forty year-old senior N.C.O. (non-commissioned officer), faces a much easier set of targets than his 20 year-old subordinate, yet both are deployed in an active combat role. [1] ‘Women in the Russian and Soviet Military’, Wikipedia, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011 [2] Casey L., ‘Women in Combat’, 1997, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011 [3] Powers, Rod, ‘Physical Fitness Test’, about.com guide, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011 | |
If we use ‘gender-blind’ recruitment and training, some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. The small number of suitable female candidates set against the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integrating them, mean that integration is not worthwhile. For example, one test of American army officer candidates showed that "only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men” [1] Some roles such as those of sniper and combat aviator clearly require less physical strength than most active combat roles. Many tasks that combat soldiers must accomplish require high muscle density, which women do not naturally possess. [2] Examples would include carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain. Older and more senior soldiers make up for their reduced physical strength with an increased amount of experience. The same cannot be said for new female recruits. [1] Gerber, Bradley, ‘Women in the Military and Combat’, Family Problems and Social Change, 1998, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011 [2] ‘Israeli women won’t see combat’, WND, 20 October 2003. | |
This does not mean that women should have to serve in combat. The alternative is that it is possible to change the promotion policies in armies to give women a fair chance at career advancement. Men and women are both given opportunities to join the army, but with the understanding that different roles require different physical, emotional attributes. This should mean in turn that there are multiple routes to promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight take part in combat operations. | |
There are many conflicts which are not L.I.C.s. Recent combat operations have had historically very low casualty rates, the wars that the United States has been fighting have been operations where the United States had vast technological superiority. There is no guarantee that this will always be the case, a conflict between nations with comparatively equal militaries would still have much more bloody combat operations. | |
Allowing women to serve in combat increases the pool for recruits Volunteer military forces face low recruitment and retention rates as a result of it being a tough and stressful job where workers cannot work for as long as they do in many civilian jobs. [1] Injuries and trauma caused by fighting also add to the turnover rate of soldiers. As a result it is necessary to widen the applicant pool in order to be able to ensure there are more candidates for the army. Allowing women to serve in combat effectively doubles the possible talent pool available for the military to recruit for delicate and sensitive jobs which require interpersonal skills that not every soldier possesses. The result will be better and more diplomatic soldiers who will be particularly useful in L.I.C.s. [2] [1] Cogan, James, ‘US military recruitment crisis deepens’, World Socialist Web Site, 1 June 2005. [2] DeGroot, Gerard J., ‘Women as Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star, 25 July 1999. | |
All modern military roles are combatant anyway Many modern conflicts are L.I.C.s which involve terrorist groups using guerilla tactics. In these situations, there are no clear ‘front-lines’, and no clear difference between combatant and non-combatant roles. All women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”. [1] Attacks on soldiers are as likely to occur on the military’s bases themselves as they are when the soldiers are out on patrol. For example, in late June of 2005 in Iraq, two women marines were killed and about a dozen injured in a pair of suicide attacks. [2] That frontline combat operations are not always much more dangerous than other roles can be shown by the casualties in Iraq comparing the initial invasion and reconstruction phases. The United States lost very few casualties in the invasion phase of the war up to President Bush’s declaration of victory on 1 May 2003 with only 138 dead, [3] compared to an overall death toll of 4422. [4] If men and women are already in practice facing the same risks and as women and men are equal, there should be equality when it comes to being considered being in frontline combat service. [1] Clark-Flory, Tracy, ‘Should women fight on the front lines?’, Salon, 5 November 2010. [2] Glanz, James, et al., ‘Iraq Bombing Kills 4 U.S. Women, a Record Toll’, The New York Times, 25 June 2005. [3] ‘U.S. Casualties in Iraq’, GlobalSecurity.org. [4] ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) U.S. Casualty Status Fatalities As Of: July 24 2012’, Department of Defense. | |
Male soldiers generally take just as much time off as female soldiers, in large part due to their greater alcohol and drug use. [1] Of course this problem can be easily anticipated. Statistics on the number or female soldiers not available for call-up due to pregnancy can be used to factor in the phenomenon so that the military has enough personnel to deploy at any one time. This is already done for male soldiers not available for call-up due to injury. [2] Moreover this should not even be considered as not all women can or want to have children. In western states, it is more common for women to become career women and leave having children to later on in life; this would just as likely be the case with women in the military. Women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army. [1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979. [2] ibid | |
Clearly, training will be required to facilitate the integration of women into combat units. Cultures change over time and the masculine subculture can evolve too. Many previously masculine professions have been successfully opened to women over the past century – some of them, such as working in factories and many other roles as a result of war. People involved in combat will attempt to protect each other, this is natural, and sometimes this kind of act is foolish. But this is something that already happens, involving women in the combat role will not make much difference. In addition, men can be informed that acting foolishly to protect women is unacceptable and reprimanded just as any soldier acting foolishly for any other reason would be. Soldiers can be taught what constitutes sexual harassment and abuse and how to react if they witness it or are victimized. Armies already take such incidents seriously and disciplinary procedures can be put in place to deal with any increases in such incidents in the short term as a result of the change. There would be no difference in uniform or in how males and females would be treated, other than the different physical practice tasks, in order to encourage integration. The change to incorporating women in combat unites would mean that men and women would be given the same treatment so that they would come see each other as equal members of the military. | |
There is a relatively higher female Injury rate If militaries use gender-blind recruitment and training, women will suffer a high rate of injury as a result of physical differences. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. For example, when the U.K. military began using gender-blind training in the 1990s, the rate of medical discharge of female recruits jumped from 4.6% to 11.1%. [1] In addition, regardless of recruitment and training standards, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this. For example, armies march according to the male stride length of 45 cm, rather than the shorter female stride length of 38 cm. Women marching at the male pace are therefore at increased risk of stress fractures in pubic bones. [2] [1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27. [2] ibid | |
Battlefield Rape is a concern A prevalent theme in many nationalist conflicts is both sides attempting to extinguish the bloodlines of the enemy culture. This ethnic cleansing often leads to systematic rape of women and mass murder of men. For example, in the Bosnian Wars of the early 1990s, systematic rape was carried out against all ethnic groups, but particular by ethnic Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. [1] This could present a problem in the modern interventionist or peace-keeping activities of many military forces, third party combatants are often sent to the battlefields of conflicts that involve just this kind of ethnic cleansing. While it is unlikely that anything will happen to peacekeeping units if one side does turn on the peacekeepers it is likely that female soldiers will be treated the same as women from the enemy side if the rape mentality has been set in the minds of the soldiers. [1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘Mass rape ruled a war crime’, The Guardian, 23 February 2001. | |
Female P.O.W.s (prisoners of war) are a liability In wars, soldiers are often captured and become P.O.W.s. Male P.O.W.s are sometimes tortured or raped. Many societies around the world value women less than men. This misogyny may make female soldiers more likely to be tortured or in particular raped than male soldiers if they are captured. [1] At the same time this threat or reality may lead male soldiers, captured alongside female soldiers, to crack more easily under interrogation. [2] Female P.O.W.s are also more likely than male P.O.W.s to be used in propaganda campaigns at home. This may have an effect on the nation’s commitment to the war effort. For example, the story of Jessica Lynch, an American marine captured in Iraq, was widely reported in the American media, affecting national morale. The media paid little attention to the male soldiers captured at the same time. [3] [1] Cook, Gretchen, ‘POWs likely to endure sexual assault’, Women’s Enews, 2002. ‘Women in Combat Frequently Asked Questions’, Center for Military Readiness, 22 November 2004. [2] Brown, Steve, ‘Female POWs Spark Calls to Reassess Military Role for Women’, CNSNews, 4 April 2003, Accessed June 3rd, 2011 [3] Lynne, Diana, ‘Spin behind Jessica Lynch story?’, WND, 6 May 2003. | |
Pregnancy affects military readiness Women who become pregnant are not available to be deployed into warzones. This reduces military readiness. Additionally, pregnancy means that women need to take time off work, which can have worse effects in military units than any other workplace. [1] This effect has been observed in army and navy forces in the past. An increased number of women in the military would make the problem worse. [2] In 1985 up to 10% of active duty women personnel in the US armed forces were unavailable for call-up and duty due to pregnancy. [3] Pregnancy could potentially be a means of avoiding call-up. This is likely with national guard soldiers, who are usually permanently stationed at home and often build lives and families there, not expecting to be deployed abroad. This tactic was used during the Vietnam war by some men. In 1965, the decision to expand the military draft to include married men without children was made. [4] [1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979. [2] Harrell, Margaret C., and Miller, Laura L., ‘New Opportunities for Military Women’, RAND, 1997. [3] UPI, ‘10% of Army Women Pregnant at Any Time’, The New York Times, 7 July 1985. [4] Seelye, Katharine Q., ‘Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue’, The New York Times, 1 May 2004. | |
No woman will be working by herself. Military units work together, and if a woman were, for example, on patrol by herself, she is armed and can legitimately defend herself against an attacker. In fact, women are a better presence in situations where rape is being used as a weapon of war. Local women are not going to trust male soldiers so easily as women, because one man in a camouflage uniform looks much like another. If a woman has been raped, or seen/heard about someone from their neighborhood being raped by an armed militia, or by the army, that woman is in a state of fear already. She will not be able to distinguish between soldiers in her panic. However, a female soldier is not going to rape the local women. This means there is a greater bond of trust between the two parties and they can work together in things like delivering aid, rebuilding infrastructure post-conflict. Local women will also feel more comfortable to come forward to report a crime of rape to another woman, than she would to a man. [1] [1] Carvajal, Doreen, ‘A Female Approach to Peacekeeping’, The New York Times, 5 March 2010. | |
Integrating women into male combat units can cause men to behave badly Many men who join the army maintain traditional gender roles. This may lead them to act foolishly to protect women in their combat units, endangering themselves and everyone else in the unit. In a recent review on the possible introduction of mixed-gender combat units, the British Ministry of Defense cited this as an issue. [1] At the same time, the sudden presence of women in a masculine subculture, can lead to resentment and incidents of abuse. Sexual harassment and assault may become more prevalent. Any bad male behavior will create tensions, affect morale and weaken the military. For example, at the three US service academies, one in seven women report being sexually assaulted, and half have been sexually harassed. [2] Integrating into combat unites is not likely to help these statistics. [1] Norton-Taylor, Richard, ‘Women still banned from combat roles after Ministry of Defence review’, guardian.co.uk, 29 November 2010. [2] ‘One in Seven Attending Military Academies Report Being Sexually Assaulted’, Feminist Majority Foundation, 21 March 2005. | |
The treatment of P.O.W.s is influenced by many factors, including their captor nation’s adherence to the Geneva Convention, discipline within the ranks of their captor army, whether the P.O.W. is expected to possess useful information and whether the captor army is concerned with their public image. The gender of the P.O.W. is likely to have a very small influence compared to these other factors. Upon entering the army, each applicant, male or female are aware of the risks and the possibility of being captured, even if that possibility is small, and are aware of what may occur while in captivity. By deciding to join, each person therefore agrees to understanding these risks and thus making a statement of acceptance. Stories of P.O.W.s are compelling. They are likely to be used in propaganda campaigns whether or not female soldiers are involved. Had Jessica Lynch not been captured, the male soldiers probably would have been at the center of a similar campaign. | |
It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards to women. Extra pre-training for muscle building can also be used to reduce female injury rates. [1] As for the increase of females being discharged in the 1990’s, it is obvious that with an increase of people, the amount of those injured with also proportionally rise, whether male or female. In order to accommodate to more females in the military, rather than integrating women into male combat units, all-female combat units could be created. These would engage in activities designed to suit women’s capabilities. [1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27. | |
Peace talks starting just 18 months before all NATO forces have left is clearly leaving it too late to ensure success. There will be little to persuade the Taliban to compromise as they believe their situation is only going to get better when there is no fear of military defeats. The Taliban has walked away from talks before and could easily do so again. It is notable that a Taliban spokesman says “There is no ceasefire now. They are attacking us and we are attacking them” which makes the chances of breakdown in the talks high. [1] To make matters worse the Afghan government has only been lukewarm about the talks complaining that allowing the Taliban an office in Doha “gave the Taliban an official identity, something we didn't want” and responded by suspending negotiations with the United States on a security agreement that would determine how many US soldiers stay in the country after the NATO mission has ended. [2] [1] ‘US to hold direct peace talks with Taliban’, Al Jazeera, 19 June 2013 [2] Shalizi, Hamid, ‘Afghan government irked over U.S. talks with Taliban’, Reuters, 19 June 2013 | |
Negotiations to ensure lasting peace NATO is also ensuring that peace and security remain in Afghanistan as they draw down by opening up negotiations with the Taliban. Peace can only be assured by bringing together the sides so that almost everyone accepts the status quo and does not want to destroy that status quo through force. United States officials say “We have long said this conflict won't be won on the battlefield” with the deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, adding “The United States will be supporting a process that is fundamentally Afghan-led” meaning that NATO is no longer key to the process. [1] NATO handing over control to the Afghans and eventually withdrawing entirely will make peace more likely to succeed as the Taliban “considerers it its religious and national duty to gain independence from the occupation” with this goal it wants “to support a political and peaceful solution”. [2] Lasting peace is then only possible when NATO leaves. [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013 [2] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013 | |
Some elections may be better than no elections but where the west has control there really should have been exemplary elections. The 2009 Presidential elections in particular have been accused of having been riddled with fraud. The election observers from the National Democratic Institute said “polling was marred by widespread fraud” and the opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah pulled out of the run off pointing to there being no measures taken to prevent the fraud recurring. [1] If Afghan elections are so marred by fraud when the US and NATO still have a lot of control over the country how bad will it be when there is no outside check? And if democracy may not survive the transition from NATO control what hope is there for human rights and particularly women’s rights? [2] [1] National Democratic Institute, ‘The 2009 Presidential and Provincial Council Elections in Afghanistan’, 2010 [2] UN News Centre, ‘Georgette Gagnon: Raising the bar on respect for human rights in Afghanistan’, un.org, 28 May 2013 | |
NATO has brought peace and security “NATO’s primary objective in Afghanistan is to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists.” [1] The invasion of Afghanistan was initially about destroying al-Qaeda and with the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 in Pakistan this objective has been met. There are still efforts to destroy al Qaeda but these have mostly moved out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan and other countries such as Yemen. NATO has also brought Afghanistan to the point where the Afghani’s can look after themselves and exercise their own security. On 18th June Afghanistan took over the lead from NATO on security nationwide having previously been taking control district by district. Handing over security also itself improves security with Afghanis in Kandahar saying “Now that the foreigners are gone, the security situation in the city and in the districts is much better”. [2] [1] ‘NATO and Afghanistan’, nato.int [2] Loyn, David, ‘Afghans take nationwide security lead from NATO’, BBC News, 18 June 2013 | |
The conflict clearly is ongoing in Afghanistan; in 2012 there were 245 drone strikes in Afghanistan compared to only 44 in Pakistan and 28 in Yemen. [1] Even if those drones are not being used to attack al Qaeda but instead the Taliban in Afghanistan it is impossible to say that peace and security has been brought to the country. It is also impossible to say that the handover to Afghan forces shows that the NATO mission has been a success; a handover could occur no matter how peaceful or otherwise the country is. In Vietnam the United States declared victory by signing the Paris Peace Accords and handing over to South Vietnam only for the country to be overrun two years later in the spring of 1975. [2] [1] Woods, Chris, and Ross, Alice, K., ‘Revealed: US and Britain launched 1,200 drone strikes in recent wars’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 4 December 2012 [2] The Learning Network, ‘April 30, 1975 | Saigon Falls’, The New York Times, 30 April 2012 | |
There are still immense problems with infrastructure in Afghanistan, more roads and railways are needed if large scale investment by China and others is to be made a success. There is little point in huge investment in mines if the product of those mines then can’t be transported out of the country to the markets as a result of either poor infrastructure or security concerns. There are also cases where infrastructure built by the US military has been allowed to deteriorate when handed over to Afghan control; there have been problems maintaining almost half the infrastructure projects built by the US in Laghman province. [1] [1] Boak, Josh, ‘U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says’, Washington Post, 4 January 2011 | |
Democracy has been brought to Afghanistan Some of the biggest benefits of the NATO occupation have been through the increase in democracy and human rights. While these were not specific aims of the NATO mission they were among the goals set out by the United Nations. [1] There have been two Presidential elections, one in 2004 the other in 2009, and two parliamentary elections, 2005 and 2010 none have been perfect but it is a clear advance from no elections at all. The most notable human rights increase has been in women’s rights. Under the Taliban Afghanistan strictly limited the activities of women but today 27.3% of the representatives in the Parliament are women (better than in the UK or US) and the first female governor is in office. The literacy rate is still low but they now make up 36.6% of those in primary school up from almost nothing. [2] There have been similar gains in other human rights such as a reduction in the use of corporal punishments such as amputating hands for theft. [1] Annex III Request to the United Nations by the participants at the UN talks on Afghanistan, S/2001/1154, UNDemocracy.com [2] Haidari, M. Ashraf, ‘Afghan women as a measure of progress’, The AfPak Channel Foreign Policy, 18 March 2013 | |
Investment in Afghanistan; rebuilding the economy The ‘rehabilitation’ of Afghanistan’s infrastructure has not been an immense success due to the continuing bombing campaign which inevitably damages infrastructure but there have been big economic benefits from the NATO presence. There have been more than 4,000 schools built and 175,000 teachers trained, although more is needed this is an immense boost to education in Afghanistan. [1] Another benefit of increased stability is a renewal of outside investment, from China in particular. China has been investing billions, Several mining firms have made a $4.4 billion investment in one project; an immense undeveloped copper reserve in Aynak. [2] In total there is more than $20 billion being invested in infrastructure by Afghanistan’s Asian neighbours, as these investments are looking for profit they are clearly believed to be sustainable, by comparison the United States has only funded $1.6billion since 2006. [3] [1] ‘Afghanistan’, USAID, February 2013 [2] Downs, Erica S., ‘China Buys into Afghanistan’, Brookings, 21 February 2013 [3] Barfield, Thomas, ‘Two Diverging Roads in Afghanistan’, YaleGlobal, 11 January 2013 | |
There will still be aid after NATO leaves and Afghanistan is not simply going to be abandoned as the troops go home. Economic growth since the fall of the Taliban has been spectacular with average growth of 9.1% of GDP since 2009 while it is true that this has been in part fueled by aid there are more sustainable sources of growth in the form of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan which can go to the giant and growing economies of India and China. [1] [1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Afghanistan’s economy at a glance’, Al Jazeera, 19 February 2012 | |
In a country where the insurgents are more opposed to the foreign occupiers than their nominal opponents in the Afghan government the complete withdrawal of troops will actually be good for peace and security. Yes Afghanistan is still dangerous but the aim is not necessarily to provide security through NATO forces but to train Afghan forces to do it. | |
The Taliban will likely take over when the NATO forces leave Even if they are willing to negotiate a peaceful US exit this does not mean the Taliban will not wish to use force when the United States has left. In their statement on peace talks they highlighted “the establishment of an independent Islamic system and true security which is the want and aspiration of the nation.” [1] They also style themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly showing their political goal is regaining power in Afghanistan which would mean overthrowing the democratically elected government. Some Afghan experts such as Gilles Dorronsoro believe that this is what will happen “After 2014, the level of US support for the Afghan regime will be limited and, after a new phase in the civil war, a Taliban victory will likely follow” though this would have the advantage of bringing stability as the Taliban did before the US invasion it would represent a complete failure for the US. [2] [1] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013 [2] AFP, ‘Afghan govt will collapse and Taliban will rule again, Afghan expert says’, news.com.au, 27 September 2012 | |
An Afghanistan dominated by warlords. Under the Taliban up to the US invasion Afghanistan was at least united. Today however there is little central control beyond the NATO forces; the Taliban clearly controls some areas but there are also powerful warlords. Appointments are based on nepotism and tribal affiliations not on merit or education and those who were part of the northern alliance that fought on the US side (Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) are taking advantage of the opportunity of the overthrow of Pashtun dominance in the country to grab power and resources. [1] Already the conflict has an ethnic dimension as almost all of the Taliban is made up of Pashtuns. The Taliban meanwhile believes that the other ethnicities want a partition of the country through a very decentralised federal state. In almost any peace scenario with NATO gone there is a large chance that one faction will walk out setting off a civil war and fragmentation of the country. [2] [1] Noor, Ahmad, ‘Power Politics of ethnic groups and the future of Afghanistan’, World Security Network, 8 July 2011 [2] Rafiq Arif, ‘The Coming Civil War in Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy, 3 February 2012 | |
NATO has failed to solve Afghanistan’s economic problems While some progress has been made on the economic and development front in Afghanistan it is difficult to consider it a success. There are still 20% of households who are chronically food insecure and another 18% in need of assistance in some of the year with the result that nearly 40% of children under three are malnourished. [1] Afghanistan is immensely dependent on aid for its economic progress with foreign aid to the country representing 100% of GDP in 2011 which makes the country vulnerable to a change in priorities. Clearly the withdrawal will represent such a change; when NATO goes aid, and spending as a result of the military occupation, will drop at the very least constraining growth and likely taking the Afghan economy with it. [2] Already the International Labour Organisation has been warning that this will mean increasing child labour in the country as lower profit margins force families to use their children to boost incomes. [3] [1] UNDP Afghanistan, ‘Eradicated Extreme Poverty and Hunger’, United Nations Development Programme, 21 July 2011 [2] ‘The hand that feeds’, The Economist, 14 July 2012 [3] Ferris-Rotman, Amie, ‘Afghan child labor fears grow as aid dries up’, Reuters, 7 February 2012 | |
Afghanistan is still a dangerous place Peace talks or no peace talks, NATO military leadership of Afghan would all appear to make no difference. Only hours after the Taliban said it would hold peace talks and the United States handed over control of military operations to the Afghan National Army four US soldiers were killed in a mortar attack at Bagram Airbase one of the centres of NATO operations. [1] Clearly then NATO has not brought peace and security to Afghanistan. The effect of handovers to the Afghans have already been seen; August to October of last year saw a 28% spike in killings from the same period the year before at a time when NATO was handing over control implying that the Afghan army is not yet ready to protect civilians. [2] [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013 [2] Borger, Julian, ‘Can Afghan troops hold off the Taliban after Nato withdraws?’, The Guardian, 1 January 2013 | |
In a country as rugged as Afghanistan there is always going to have to be a lot of decentralisation and at the moment this means warlords having a lot of power in individual areas. However this is better than the alternative of a centralising Taliban which would still have many factions and elements but these would be much more extreme than today’s warlords. It is also difficult to see how this impacts on the success of NATO in Afghanistan. They can be bad but can also bring benefits as they have an incentive to deliver stability and reconstruction to their local areas. [1] [1] Milhopadhyay, Dipali, ‘Warlords as Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience’, Carnegie Papers, Number 101, August 2009 | |
There is little reason to believe that the Taliban will succeed in rapidly forcing the Karzai government out of power. The Taliban has been failing to retake the ground they have lost after offensives by NATO forces so even if the Afghan National Army fails to take more ground it seems unlikely the Taliban will quickly succeed in driving on Kabul. [1] In the unlikely event that the Taliban does begin winning the US and other NATO states are not going to sit back and let the Afghan government fall. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister has said “The clear message is to the Taliban that you can't just wait this out until foreign forces leave in 2014. We will be firm friends and supporters to Afghanistan long beyond that.” [2] [1] American Enterprise Institute, ‘Why we must win in Afghanistan’, 17 October 2012 Biddle, Stephen, ‘Salvaging Governance Reform in Afghanistan’, Council on Foreign Relations, April 2012 [2] Mason, Rowena, ‘David Cameron: Taliban could be waiting for British troops to leave before trying to take Afghanistan’, The Telegraph, 19 July 2012 | |
There is no age at which you start to be taxed. Rich children with investment funds and child stars all earn money at a young age and are taxed on it. This does not mean that the voting age should be lowered so that these individuals are represented. Similarly every visitor to the UK pays VAT on any goods they buy, this does not entitle them to a say in government. | |
No taxation without representation It is unfair to have taxation without representation. Many 16 year olds work and pay tax on their earnings just as any other worker would. Yet unlike other workers at present they are not allowed to have a say in how the government spends their money, nor in how much should be collected from them in taxes. This was famously the grievance of the thirteen colonies that sparked the American revolution. In 2011 in the UK 7.2% of 16-18 year olds were in employment but not being given fair representation. [1] Policies such as the minimum wage and working hours and conditions are also set by governments, and if young people are old enough to have jobs they should be able to have their say in these issues. [1] ‘Participation of 16 to 18 year olds in education and training, England’, Department of Education, 21 February 2013, Table 1 | |
Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined [1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012 [2] , and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users, [3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010 | |
16 year olds are mature enough to vote 16 year olds are mature enough to make important decisions such as voting. If the government agrees that 16 year olds can have sex, join the army, and apply for a passport, then surely they are mature and responsible enough to decide who runs their country and makes important decisions that affect them. Their bodies are fully adult, they have been educated for at least 10 years, and most of them have some experience of work as well as school. By this time, it is likely a teenager will have developed “Advanced reasoning skills...the ability to think about multiple options and possibilities. It includes a more logical thought process and the ability to think about things hypothetically”. [1] This means they are able to form political views and they should be allowed to put these across at election time. Indeed by 16 children are as tolerant as adults and their political skill (the perceived ability to participate effectively in civil life by writing to political leaders and by speaking publically at meetings) is as high at 16 as for those in their late twenties. [2] There is no magic difference between 16 and 18 - indeed, many 16 year olds are more sensible than some 20 year olds. [1] Morgan, Erin, and Huebner, Angela, ‘Adolescent Growth and Development’, VirginiaTech, 1 Mary 2009 [2] Atkins, Robert, and Hart, Daniel, ‘American Sixteen and Seventeen Year Olds are Ready to Vote’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol 633:201, 2011, p.210 | |
The UK electoral commission agrees that “there is no single definition of maturity” [1] . However it is not the case that most 16 year olds are mature enough to vote. Rather, teenagers are emotionally immature and tend to behave as though “they are “on stage” with the attention of others constantly centred upon their appearance or actions. This preoccupation stems from the fact that adolescents spend so much time thinking about and looking at themselves”. [2] The large majority still live at home and go to school. They may have adult bodies, but their minds are still those of children who have to be protected. By 18 young people have become much more independent and are able to make their own way in the world. Their political views are likely to be more thoughtful compared to 16 year olds, who may just copy their parents’ opinions or else will pull away from their parents and as a result “the peer group takes on a special significance... Members of the peer group often attempt to behave alike, dress alike... and participate in the same activities” [3] . [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] University of Maryland Medical Center, ‘Adolescent Development-Overview’, University of Maryland, 17 January, 2011 [3] ibid | |
Since 18-24 year olds already ignore their ability to vote there is no reason to expect that 16-18 year olds will be any more interested. At the moment over 50% of 18-24 year olds don’t vote even though they are eligible. [1] So this kind of change is hardly going to offset aging. It is also wrong to suggest that voters vote according to their age; the elderly are likely to have grandchildren whose interests they may well respect when voting. [1] Dunleavy, Patrick, and Gilson, Chris, ‘Is the UK Electorate Disengaged?’, British Politics and Policy at LSE, 12 March 2010 | |
Voting at a lower age would increase participation There is a problem of apathy in many western countries, with low turnouts at elections. Young people are taught citizenship or civics at school with the aim of building “Knowledge and understanding about being informed citizens...Developing skills of enquiry and communication...Developing skills of participation and responsible action” [1] however they don’t get a chance to put this knowledge into practice for several years. Is it surprising that they lose interest in public affairs during this time? Because national elections are usually only held every four years or so, many people have to wait until they are 20 or 21, years after that civic education, before their first chance to cast an important vote. It is noticeable that political interest is much higher among those in education than those who are not. In Austria it was found that 68% of 16 to 18 year olds in education were interested in politics against only 45% of those who are working. [2] By demonstrating trust and promoting inclusion, young people would feel more confident in their views, become less disillusioned and eventually teach their children the same values. Introducing a lower voting age can only have long term benefits for the expansion of democracy. [1] House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, ‘Citizenship Education’, House of Commons, 21 February 2007 [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.9 | |
Voting at 16 would help rebalance voting ages There is a notable difference between how young people and the elderly are treated. Giving the vote to teenagers would force politicians to take them seriously. Policies on education (e.g. student loans) would have to take their views and interests into account for the first time. 16 year olds today are well-educated and media-savvy, so they can express informed opinions. But at the moment young people’s views are easily ignored by those in power because they don’t have the vote. The vote for 16-18 year olds would help redress the growing age imbalance which is occurring as a result of aging. In the rich world by 2050 one in three will be a pensioner and one in ten over 80. [1] These voters will clearly be looking after their benefits at the expense of the young. [1] The Economist, ‘A slow-burning fuse’, 25 June 2009 | |
Young people are not the only ones who vote for extremists, the elderly are also more likely to vote for far right parties. [1] It is important in a democracy to include as wide a range of opinion as possible; a tendency to vote for more radical ideas should not be a reason for disenfranchising someone, or even more so disenfranchising a whole group. There are however also reasons to believe that 16 to 18 year olds could potentially use their votes more wisely than their elders. When looking at Austria it was found that those in education paid more attention to political news than those in work. 30% of people working followed political news less than once a week compared to only 15% of those in education. [2] As students are therefore better informed it would seem to be likely they would use their votes more wisely. [1] Arzheimer, Kai, and Carter, Elizabeth, ‘Political Opportunity Structures and Right-Wing Extremist Party Success’, European Journal of Political Research, 2006, p.4 [2] Zeglovits, Eva, and Schwarzer, Steve, ‘Lowering voting age in Austrtia – evaluation of accompanying campaigns for 16-18 year olds’, Paper presented at the 5th ECPR General Conference, Potsdam, Sept 12th-15th 2009, p.10 | |
This is an odd idea; should parents not be voting for themselves not their children? If they are voting for their children rather than themselves are they not themselves disenfranchised? The fact is that children and their parents have different interests on account of the age gap that is likely to be at least 20 years. Someone who is 16 is much more interested in university fees than someone who is 40 who will be more interested in how much they will have at retirement. Furthermore with turnouts that are often less than 50% a great many children are not being represented by their parents at all. Adults have the choice to not vote, when their parents are choosing not to vote children don’t get this opportunity. | |
Rights should be gained progressively Just because 16 year olds have the right to do some things, it doesn’t mean that they should use them. If all 16 year olds left home at 16 and started families it would be considered a disaster. And not all rights are given at 16 - most countries have a higher age for important things such as drinking alcohol, serving on a jury, joining the military, etc. It makes sense for different rights to be gained at different times as young people mature and get used to more responsibility. The more difficult and complex the choices involved in that right and the greater the impact the later a right should be given. Because voting is so important, involves complex decision making, and can potentially have a large impact, it should be one of the last rights to be gained. It then makes sense that it voting should be granted at the time we consider adulthood to be beginning, which was agreed in the declaration of the rights of the child is 18. [1] [1] Archard, David William, ‘Children's Rights’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) | |
There needs to be a cut off Everyone would agree that there has to be a minimum voting age. Most people believe that the line should be drawn at 18 rather than 16. Although some 16 year olds may be mature enough to vote, most have not yet formed political views of their own yet. On average, young people are much more likely to be ready for the responsibility of voting at 18. There is then no reason why 16 would make a better cut off point than 18. At both ages some rights are given, at both there will be some who pay tax who are not given representation, at both some will be immature. There is no clear dividing line so there can be no clear reasoning for lowering the voting age to 16. | |
Young people would be more likely to misuse their vote It would be dangerous to give young people the vote. They might use it in foolish ways. For example they will be more likely to make their decision on which party had the best image; so will vote for parties that put up celebrities. They are also more likely to vote for extremists into power or vote without thinking on single issues (e.g. making drugs legal, free university places, cheap beer!). It is notable that in late 1990’s Russia 80% of the Communist party’s members were under 30, and a far right nationalist party, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, has called to lower the voting age to 16. [1] A study from the University of Nijmegen found that younger people are over represented in voters for extreme right wing parties, [2] and the same goes the other way with younger people more likely to support left wing populist measures at the expense of democracy, rights, and freedoms. [3] [1] ‘Extremists push for young voters’, Times Higher Education, 7 December 1998 [2] Lubbers, Marcel et al., ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 41, 2002, pp345-378, p.364 [3] Seligson, Mitchell, A., ‘The Rise of Populism and the Left in Latin America’, Journal of Democracy, Vol.18 No.3, July 2007, pp.81-95, p.91 | |
Parents are guardians and should be trusted to vote in their children’s interests Governments do things which affect every age group but that does not mean everyone deserves the vote. Should 12 year olds get the vote because school policies affect them? Should toddlers get the vote because health services affect them? No - we trust parents to cast votes after thinking about the interests of their families. And there are other ways for young people to have a say - they can write to elected representatives and newspapers, sign petitions, speak at public meetings, join youth parliaments, etc. It is notable that sixteen year olds themselves are divided on whether they should have the vote, [1] if many of them trust their parents to vote for them should not the government? [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 | |
This applies equally to having the cut off at 16 rather than 18. If it is questionable at both ages then since this is an issue of human rights we should err on the side of caution and give the vote to as many as possible. This would mean lowering the voting age. | |
16 year olds already have other rights. For example, in many countries they have the right to leave school and leave home, and the rights to have sex, marry and have children, they can rent accommodation and consent to surgery [1] . It is not reasonable to have different ages for different rights. It makes sense for the right to vote to be at a younger age precisely because the individual has fewer changes to deal with at a younger age, they will therefore find it easier to learn to vote. [2] If young people are considered old enough to make important choices about their own future, why can’t they have a say in deciding the future of their country? [1] Thesite.org, ‘What age can I?’, 5 May 2013 [2] Franklin, Mark N., at al., ‘The Generational Basis of Turnout Decline in Established Democracies’, Acta Politica, March 2004, pp.8-9 | |
The general claim here is that opinion polls can be subject to error and lead to questionable information and decision-making by voters. Also, it has been claimed that opinion polls can be manipulated consciously or inadvertently which then should justifies their damnation. The opposition claims that any tool which gathers information could be manipulated or inadvertently misused. Audience polling is simply a method to gather group opinion and audience analysis is as old as Aristotle as a method for speakers to better understand audiences. Audience response is often sought in regard to attitudes and to isolate opinion polls as not useful or necessary because of possible error or corruption. This denies the need for those advocating to understand the position of those these seek to persuade. To say that opinion polls should not be used because of these reasons would suggest that audience feedback never be used because of possible errors in conclusions. It is far better to understand the nature of polling and its risk factors than to simply abandon the use of this important link between the voter and the politician. The nature of audience polling is critical to communication and should not be dismissed because of its potential for misuse. | |
Opinion polls are subject to bias and often produce faulty information on which decision are made. Since opinion polls are the products of research, they can also be heavily manipulated by the organization performing or commissioning the poll in question. A bias can easily be created by selecting a certain target group, such as a 2011 AP opinion poll which asked more democrats than republicans, [1] or more usually through asking certain questions or phrasing them in a particular way. For example it has been found that Americans are more likely to support spending for the ‘poor’ than for ‘welfare’. [2] This information can generate false information and untrue or exaggerated claims. Even if the research is done with an objective mindset, the research technique or reporting method can skew the results. For example, the opinion polls seldom report the measure of uncertainty of the conclusions, by for example reporting standards deviations from means, sample size, etc. These measures are usually not published. Reporting the results of opinion polls without further statistical information leads to more misinformation. One such example comes from the exit polls of the 2004 U.S. Presidential election. Many of the election polls predicted a win for Kerry, but didn’t consider the fact that Republicans were less likely to respond to an exit poll leading to inaccurate conclusions about what would occur. [3] Thus, opinion polls are not necessarily trustworthy sources of information on which voters can make good decisions. [1] Geraghty, Jim, ‘Latest AP Poll Sample Skews to Democrats by 17 Points’, National Review Online, 11 May 2011, [2] Abroff, Sarah, ‘Question Wording and Issue Salience of Public Opinion Polls: The Energy Crisis Prior to the 2008 Presidential Election’, 6 January 2010, [3] Benen, Steve, ‘Exit Poll Update…’, Washington Monthly, 17 November 2004, | |
The proposition claims that tactical voting is bad because unintended consequences could occur. However, tactical voting is a legitimate tool of the democratic process. Voting is used as a voice to sway majorities and the methods to accomplish a long range goal are part of the political process. The very nature of tactical voting includes an element of chance and is a strategic method to influence the outcome. Any activity involving chance and risk could have unintended outcomes. Opinion polls have often existed in the past when the outcome was different than expected whether tactical voting was a strategy in play or not. Tactical voting could occur whether opinion polls existed or not. Therefore, the publication of opinion polls still remains a legitimate tool of the democratic process in which voters have a right to participate. | |
Politicians will be less likely to engaged in political marketing and speak more directly to substantive issues. When opinion polls become the constant focus of the media, politicians are forced to pander to an ever-changing public marketplace instead of developing a consistent party or personal philosophy. Candidates become overly involved in defending and explaining poll data. Voters become the consumers of political marketing. The democratic process is diminished when changing opinion polls interrupts substantive dialogue. Without the excessive use of poll data, a candidate’s message can be more than an advertisement. Rather than the marketing of a person, important political ideas and public policy discussion occur. Even though poll data would be available during the earlier election season, a plan to control opinion polls would begin to diminish such a focus. The advantage would be less political marketing and room for better democratic discussion. | |
: Opinion polls are harmful to the democratic process because they stifle debate In democratic nations public opinion matters as it is the public who ultimately decides who wins office and opinion polls measure that opinion. As a result politicians have become obsessed with the shifting whims of public opinion upon which the media focuses forcing politicians also focus on popular opinion even between elections. Since the media carries the news, the active use of opinion polls by the media drives the policy agenda. Lack of information on critical issues is likely to result as politicians focus only on areas where the opinion polls highlight. Democracy is also harmed by the publication of opinion polls as subsequent citizen voter behaviour can be influenced. When , for example, an opinion poll portrays a huge majority for a certain subject, or for a particular party, its opponents might be less vocal since they feel “outnumbered” or that decisions have already been made thus diminishing democratic dialogue. Undecided voters may be apathetic toward the election process since they appear to be a foregone conclusion. The potential influence on voters choices is the reason the France forbids opinion polls shortly before an election. [1] [1] Blocman, ‘Ban on Publishing Public Opinion Polls’, 1999, | |
Even though polls may alter public dialogue, an explanation of what stifles debate is not sufficiently provided by the proposition. They seem to infer that ‘stifling’ by opinion polls suggests a that debate shuts down whereas we claim that a politician’s responses to public opinion is exactly what is sought by the public to make them better informed. The stifling of debate does not occur. So even though, the prop suggests that stifling debate is hindering debate, this has not been proven since responses by politicians to opinion polls are simply part of dialogue and not necessarily hindering discussion. The observation that voter behaviour is some- how unfairly influenced through strength of numbers doesn’t include all of the close results which are often reported between platforms or candidates. The assumption that voters feeling outnumbered will often occur and will change their vote as a result cannot be made. Most citizens are already aware of their political leanings regardless of opinion polls or popular opinion. The undecided voter is not necessarily waiting on opinion polls but more likely the continuing debate occurring through the election cycle. Apathy among voters occurs for many other reasons besides the publication of opinion polls. We cannot be certain that the exclusion of public polls to protect apathetic voters will significantly outweigh the value of a more informed public. That democracy is harmed through opinion polls has not been established. | |
Even though the proposition promised that political dialogue would improve when focused on substantive issues, the opposition believes that this is simply a promised hope. Political campaigning is advertising by its very nature. Citizens are informed throughout the campaign through a variety of “advertising” methods from slogans to claims about the product itself. And campaigns always do an analysis of the consumer. Opinion polling is not unique. And, to make the assumption that substantive issues will more likely be addressed without opinion polls suggests that they alone have the power to influence the nature of the dialogue. There are far too many other factors which determine the discussion and debate from immediate events which occur during the campaign to long standing political positions which relate to the development of party consistency or personal philosophy. The outcome the proposition hopes for cannot be guaranteed nor can a position be sensibly made that a political campaign is not one of marketing. To be effective the candidate has the right to all available information which is also critical to better democratic discussion. | |
The propositions plan restricts the publication of polls only for 2 weeks before the election. However, such restrictions would not make a significant impact on the harms of opinion polls that have been outlined by the proposition. The 2 week window would not diminish all the prior opinion polls which existed and were published. The frequency of these polls have already flooded the media as they have been deemed newsworthy. Many voters have already come to conclusions based on the dialogue conducted up to this point. Only the uncertain and apathetic voter could be influenced and that may not be a significant number to restrict freedom of expression. We have no facts about the size of this population. The dialogue during elections should be a continuous process of free expression and never be unnecessarily limited for uncertain proof that these opinion polls pose a serious harm. If the polls were considered to present harm, then why would they not be censored completely? The two week plan of limiting opinion polls would not solve any problems outlined and could hinder the on-going pre-election dialogue. | |
Opinion polls can lead to tactical voting which may have unintended outcomes. Tactical voting is the purposeful casting of votes to sway an outcome. When the outcome is predicted in an opinion poll, it can influence voters to possibly cast a ballot differently than had that poll information not existed. This means that the votes are being cast based upon inaccurate assumptions. For instance, in the 1992 U.K. elections all polls predicted a Labour victory. However, against all expectations, the Conservatives won. It is wholly possible that many people, ensured of a seeming Labour victory, then decided to vote for the Conservatives tactically to ensure that there would be a balance in the House of Commons – or even out of sympathy, the ‘underdog effect’. [1] Or decided to vote for their first preference minor party, such as the liberal democrats, because they believed the Conservatives would be voted out without their needing to cast their votes tactically for Labour. Thus, it is possible that the voters didn’t accomplish the government they actually wanted, as they cast votes based on opinion polls. The unintended outcomes are a result of these opinion polls and tactical voting. [1] Traugott, Michael W., and Lavrakas, Paul J., The Voter’s Guide to Election Polls, Fourth Edition, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2008, p.202 | |
Opinion Polls should not be published 2 weeks in advance of an election. This would ensure a more democratic discussion immediately prior to the decision making process of voting. This does not harm free expression because it is serving a specific purpose at a specific time. For instance, during times of national security or disaster certain citizen behaviour is restricted. Since there is information on public opinion in all of the other weeks of the year, this two week moratorium would solve some of the harms of published opinion polls. There would be less stifling of discussion, voters would not be subjected to possibly biased information or misused statistics at this critical time of thinking and making a wise choice. Tactical voting is likely to be used less, and minority voices are not as likely to be overshadowed by popularly “claimed” opinions. Therefore, we propose that opinion polls not be published 2 weeks prior to an election. | |
There can be no denial to the position that voters have a right to select their own criteria for making choices. We on the proposition believe in the individual choice of citizens. This position, however, does not change our position that opinion polls diminish public dialogue. Of course, people develop their own criteria; however, our responsibility here is to discuss the value of the opinion poll not the value of religion or astrological predictions as a criterion of choice. The criteria may but up to citizens, but the discussion of what criteria is appropriate is valuable to address. We believe that published opinion polls are not a worthy criteria not that citizens do not have a choice in that criteria. Since elections are a public shared event, then the criteria for voting is the legitimate discussion in which we are now engaged. The proposition believes that the focus of our debate is upon the worthiness of opinion polls. | |
The claim that opinion polls are public expression cannot be denied. Although freedom of expression is acknowledged within a democracy, absolute freedom of expression does not exist. There are restrictions related to the public good. The right of free expression to cover all aspects of public speech is limited. Some restrictions are considered legitimate within a democratic society. Also, the claim that any attempt to restrict free expression is bad because of the possible consequences which follow is faulty in reasoning. Stating that one thing “could” lead to another is speculative and not sufficient reason to reject a legitimate need to restrict some expression. Opinion polls do contain some information which may assist in transparency. However, since as has previously been noted, polls can be biased and manipulated and so could be equally untrustworthy in providing a check on fraud or corruption in the voting process. Therefore the claims provided by the opposition do not by themselves lead to a sufficient reason to reject support for restrictions to opinion polls. | |
Citizens should be respected for their opinions Opinion polls may vary in their quality, but we should trust our citizens and politicians to be critical when using them as a basis for decision making. This is a compelling reason to publicize them as much as possible. The more opinion polls on a topic, the more specific questions can be asked, and the greater possibility for critical analysis. Additionally, there are many opinion polls and there is competition between opinion poll firms. There are differences about how studies are conducted as well as their reliability. Thus opinion polls themselves possess a certain level of credibility. The media and citizens discern the least valuable polls and those with less scientific reliability. Some are likely lose legitimacy, whereas the most trustworthy polls gain more attention. For example, in the U.S., the polls that Fox News runs are seen differently than polls conducted by Pew Research which is likely to receive more widespread recognition. A well conducted poll can be very accurate. It is reckoned that a sample of 1,000 people can accurately reflect the views of more than 200 million adults to within a few percentage points. [1] Polling is a statistical science with an established literature and the publication of ongoing research. There is no reason that citizens should be denied information on which to base their decisions. It is their right and responsibility to determine the credibility of opinion polls. The media is also likely to check and question the credibility of opinion polls, particularly as many will have been commissioned by rivals. Citizens should be respected as thinking individuals. [1] ‘Reporting Opinion Polls’, ACE The Electoral Knowledge Network, | |
Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians. They provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process. Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived. Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections. Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable. Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation. | |
Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process. The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting. In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face. Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use. To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically. That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product. Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need. [1] [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx | |
Citizens have a fundamental right to vote on whatever the basis they choose. It is their right to select the criteria for making decisions. Even though it is assumed, certain criteria exist such as prior experience or party affiliation. However, some citizens might turn to astrology or tarot cards to decide their vote. Others may consider a candidate’s religion or appearance. Many decide based upon the opinion of respected others. However much one might personally dislike some of these criteria, every citizen has a right to determine the basis of her/his vote. Therefore opinion polls are a legitimate choice to provide. | |
It has been claimed by the opposition that opinion polls provide useful information to politicians and are necessary for dialogue between the candidate and the public. The proposition however would like to focus upon the term “useful”. Published opinion polls by their very nature present only a few and briefly stated attitudes of voters which is not useful. Knowing the level of support or agreement with a candidate reveals very little useful information about why a voter holds that attitude or how firmly that attitude is held. Thus polls by their nature do not provide useful information but only broad trends. Audience surveys and other methods of gathering feedback provide much different and more specific information on the nature of voter attitudes and beliefs. Yet, we are not discussing voter feedback, but rather the specific tool of published audience polls. The question remains then whether useful information is provided to the candidate through the availability of published opinion polls which would seem to be unnecessary as candidates could still engage in their own private opinion polls which will keep the politicians informed. [1] [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx | |
Opinion polls are a forum for public expression and should be protected They publicize the opinions of large numbers of citizens and therefore can be considered an exercise in free speech. Any attempt to restrict the free exchange of opinion damages the marketplace of ideas. Citizens have a right to express themselves and for their expression to be heard. Restricting opinion polls would be a bad precedent and could become the basis for other restrictions of free speech. For example, in India some have proposed banning the publication of horoscopes during the election period. Democracy itself is safeguarded by opinion polls which represent public expression for they also ensure transparency in public will and choices and can thus discourage or reveal electoral fraud and vote-rigging. Such information could be observed both nationally and internationally. In fact, those regimes which ban or heavily restrict opinion polling are those which are either undemocratic or where corrupt in the election process exists. These regimes know that allowing opinion polling would embarrassingly reveal their lack of legitimacy and could lead to a domestic and international outcry against them. Therefore, opinion polls are a vital form of public expression. | |
Tactical voting may be legitimate within the democratic process but that does not deny the fact that unexpected outcomes could occur. These unexpected outcomes mean that the will of the people is less likely to be served which is the consequence with which we are concerned. Whether tactics is legitimate does not deny the fact that it may not be good or even dangerous. Tactics can vary in outcomes whether it comes to financial investment, competitive sport or election strategy. Therefore, the tactic of voting one way to achieve another outcome could achieve the desired result or it could not. That tactical voting is a choice available does that mean that it serves the democratic process well. Sometimes it is valuable to limit the choices of citizens so negative unexpected consequences do not occur. | |
Of course, citizen opinion and intelligence should be respected and we do not disagree on this issue. Our differences lie in the nature of how mediated messages are presented to citizens as well as fair questions into the motives of those responsible for polling and media outlets which provide them to the public. First, the nature of mediated messages requires that they be reduced to brief and simply forms. There is an abundance of messages in competition for listeners’ attention. Therefore the details regarding polling activity is not provided (purposely or not) and citizens are left with insufficient information on which to make critical judgements. Second, even though the opposition hopes that the natural process of credibility will check this possibility, it cannot be denied that manipulation can occur to the unaware voter. So due to this vulnerability of inaccurate information being disseminated, it is better to acknowledge the problems which occur in mediated messages which are often the primary source of information for voters. This does not deny that polls can be accurate and are constantly being improved; however, the on-going nature of that science is different than the question at hand as to whether they can always be trusted as a form of information for those respected citizens. | |
Corporate entities have the right to be anonymous if they choose. American elections have to reach an extremely large and spread out audience, and this requires large amounts of funding, which is provided by corporations and individuals. There simply shouldn’t be parity with corporations and individuals because they are not the same thing- it is like comparing apples to beef, you can eat both of them but they are nothing alike. Corporations can represent thousands of people that they employ or are their shareholders. They are speaking on behalf of their organisation, not as individuals. They are supporting candidates that they believe will help their business so they are speaking for those who wish to keep their jobs at the company. It is however wrong to assert that citizens united is just about corporations – it is about all groups and therefore about individuals. The Supreme Court in this case recognised that limiting political spending limits speech by limiting citizens ability to deliver their view. In practice the best way for individual citizens to deliver their views is to create groups with other like-minded individuals. Quite the contrary to what democrats may believe this is also necessary for third party candidates such as Ross Perot who would get nowhere without large scale contributions because they have, at least initially, a narrow base of support. [1] [1] Smith, Bradley A., ‘The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.46-62, p.57-58 | |
More parity is necessary between corporations and the regular individuals. There is a need to create more parity between individuals and corporations. There is much more campaign funding where there is non-disclosure, there has been little money flowing into ‘super-PACs’ that must disclose donors instead it goes to tax exempts organizations that are not subject to the disclosure requirements. [1] As non-disclosure means higher fundraising figures, then it becomes optimal for every politician to adopt a strategy of opacity in order to fare better than his or her opponents. The culture of corporate electioneering aided by legally-sanctioned anonymity would likely demoralize voters and funnel candidates’ priorities towards courting big business at great cost to the average American citizen during and after the election. While it may be a stretch to assert that Citizens United granted corporations “personhood,” the impacts of the ruling are far-reaching for campaign finance law. Even small corporations have disproportionate spending power compared to individuals. Oftentimes decisions in corporations are made by boards of executives and not aggregates of working-class citizens, exacerbating the influence of those who already wield greater financial and political capital. If money is indeed speech, then corporations speak much, much louder than individuals from the outset. Some contend that the voices of unions, which are similarly protected under the same ruling, lend a degree of partisan balance—implicitly acknowledging that the divide is indeed tinged with partisanship—but realistically, even the largest union contributions pale in comparison to those of Fortune 500 companies. [2] Distortion in the marketplace of ideas increases reliance on negative campaigning, which hurts voter turnout and morale while usually detracting from substantive dialogue about policy issues. It also raises the barriers of entry for third-party candidates and more moderate candidates during elections and primaries, more deeply entrenching the two-party system. [3] [1] McIntire, Mike, and Confessore, Nicholas, ‘Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses’, The New York Times, 7 July 2012. [2] Pilkington, Ed. ‘Obama wants to see Citizens United Supreme court ruling overturned’. Guardian.co.uk, 29 August 2012. [3] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009. | |
Opponents have expressed other problems with the language of the DISCLOSE Act, including seemingly arbitrary exemptions for large and long-standing organizations—criteria which capture most labor unions. This makes the DISCLOSE act like any other campaign finance reform; essentially it is party political benefiting aimed at the Republicans by the Democrats who passed it who have exempted those in their own camp who might be affected. [1] It is designed to benefit the party that passed it rather than really increase transparency. [1] Smith, Bradley A., ‘The Myth of Campaign Finance Reform’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.46-62, p.53 | |
Elections should be controlled by the people not powerful interests President Obama famously eschewed large corporate donors in favor of grassroots fundraising and social media in 2008, casting a wide net of supporters. [1] By election day his facebook page had 3.4million supporters, his website My.BarackObama.com had 2million members, the campaign had an email list of 13 million and there were 1 million text message subscribers showing how campaigns should be run by mobilizing people not powerful interests. [2] Following a similar strategy, the 2012 campaign garnered hundreds of thousands supporters in the first several months, shattering 2008 records. [3] President Obama has stated in the public record his support for increased disclosure for corporate and individual donors as well as efforts to limit the high-value contributions from corporations that are permitted under Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission [4] . In response to the supreme court decision on Citizens United v Federal Election Commission act Obama declared in the 2010 state of the Union “I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people” [5] . In a democracy where the government is supposed to be accountable to the people this should be self-evident; accountable to the people should mean that rather than accountable to corporate interests. [1] Murray, Shailegh and Bacon, Perry Jr. ‘Obama to Reject Public Funds for Election’. The Washington Post. 20 June 2008. [2] Corrado, Anthony J. et al., ‘Reform in an Age of Networked Campaigns’, in Boatright, Robert G. ed., Campaign Finance, pp.107-128, p.112 [3] Bingham, Amy. ‘Money Wars: Obama Dominates Fundraising Battle’. ABC News. 1 February, 2012. [4] United States Supreme Court. Citizens United vs. Federal Electoral Commission. October 2009. [5] Obama, Barack, ‘2010 State of the Union’, State of the Union Address Library, 27 January 2010. | |
Corporations have just as much stake in the country as individuals do, they are affected just as much by decisions taken by the president; what regulations there should be, should there be subsidies, should free trade or protectionism promoted etc., and so have just as much interest in being able to make their voice heard in elections. Corporations are unable to vote so the only way for them to do this is to finance campaigns. It is also wrong to suggest that corporations funding campaigns gives them undue influence. When looking at voting patterns in congress it appears that candidates voting behavior is almost entirely based on their own beliefs and their party’s preferences and campaign contributions have next to no impact. [1] In fact it makes so little difference that Ansolabehere et al. in their conclusion say “the question is not why do corporations, unions and other interest groups give so little, but why do they give at all?” [2] [1] Ansolabehere, Stephen, et al., ‘Why is There so Little Money in U.S. Politics?’, Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol.17 No.1, Winter 2003, pp.105-130 p.116 [2] Ibid, p.126 | |
Obama has already attempted to increase transparency. Disclosure laws are intended to bring transparency to the electoral process. By scrutinizing the sources of campaign funds, voters can gain insight into how candidates intend to appoint justices and pass laws while in office. Obama’s attempt at transparency, the DISCLOSE Act, has so far failed to gather a majority of votes in Congress in 2010 [1] but it shows how Obama would like to proceed. This kind of transparency is necessary today because during the 2010 midterms the groups that don’t need to disclose contributions outspent the PACs that must disclose donors by 3 to 2 spending $100million on issue ads. [2] Without strict disclosure rules, the legislative agendas of elected officials become more opaque, and the public has fewer ways to hold them accountable. Voters would be forced to rely on the goodwill of their elected officials to voluntarily disclose the sources of funding, a system which generates negative incentives to bury the information that is perhaps most critical and relevant to the public interest. [1] ‘DISCLOSE Act; New Donor Transparency Law Blocked in Senate’. The Washington Post. 16 July 2012. [2] McIntire, Mike, and Confessore, Nicholas, ‘Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses’, The New York Times, 7 July 2012. | |
Romney’s claim that there needs to be reform to campaign finance law are most likely empty words; his complaint over the disadvantage over the use of primary campaign funds demonstrates this because it is only an advantage that one candidate every eight years gets, essentially this then is a complaint at a very marginal advantage the incumbent Obama has over him. Campaign finance needs much more than just the reform that Romney suggests. It needs a complete overhaul to stop allowing for large corporate spending which in turn results in elected officials being more accountable to corporations rather than their constituents. That is why Obama supports the overturning of the Citizens United case. [1] [1] Pilkington, Ed. ‘Obama wants to see Citizens United Supreme court ruling overturned’. Guardian.co.uk, 29 August 2012. | |
The Supreme Court was right with its judgment on the Citizens United case. A principled commitment to freedom of speech under the First Amendment should not distinguish, through intent or impact, protected speech on the basis of its content or source. The ability of nonprofit and for-profit corporations to directly and freely donate to candidates does not warrant a sufficient governmental interest – decrying negative effects of distortion on elections does not merit federal intervention. Furthermore, the unique harm of corporate speech has yet to be demonstrated. The Citizens United case allows unlimited spending by non-profit corporations as well as unions so benefits both Republicans and Democrats equally. The Super PAC Priorities USA Action has spent over $20 million supporting President Obama. [1] Current campaign finance policies could be improved, but the system as a whole is fair, and repealing corporate free speech would be unconstitutional. [1] ‘Super PACs.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012. | |
There needs to be reform to campaign finance law. Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has supported campaign finance law reform. Most of Romney’s recent comments on reform have been in regard to laws governing spending during primaries as opposed to general elections. Primary campaign funds are earmarked as such and forbidden for use in general election campaigns until after the Republican National Convention, so the Republican nominee is at a disadvantage against the Democratic candidate if the convention nomination outcome is evident before August 27. Over the years, Romney has advocated various stances on spending limits: in 1994, he supported capping congressional spending, but in 2007, he disparaged McCain-Feingold warning “We step into dangerous territory when politicians start eviscerating our fundamental freedoms in the name of amorphous principles, like campaign finance reform. If I am elected President, a top priority will be to push for the repeal of this deeply-flawed measure, and restore the full freedom of political participation and expression to the American people.” [1] Romney expressed support for the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United along with concern about the corrupting influence of corporate money in elections. [2] [1] Romney, Mitt, ‘The Fundamental Flaws in the McCain-Feingold Law’, Townhall.com, 25 April 2007. [2] Rivoli, Dan. ‘Romney Backs Citizens United, But ‘Not Wild’ about Corporate Campaign Spending’. International Business Times, 4 November 2011. | |
Campaign spending caps make constitutional arguments about whose speech ought to be protected and under what circumstances. The fact remains that for-profits corporations can have a much larger say than non profits or individuals. The pharmaceutical company Pfizer spends over $11 million PER YEAR on lobbying irrespective of elections, and this goes up to $13 million in an election year. [1] While President Obama may have received $20 million for Priorities USA Action pales in comparison to the $82, 491, 407 that Romney has received from the Super PAC Restore Our Future. [2] [1] ‘Lobbying: Pfizer Inc.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012. [2] ‘Super PACs.’ Open Secrets: Center for Responsive Politics. 14 August 2012 . | |
If the expectation of violence or reprisal is admitted as a legitimate reason not to undertake an action which is protected under freedoms of press and speech, then that effectively stifles a great degree of discourse. This ultimately undermines the purpose of the rights, such as a freedom to publish, and the functioning of western societies like Denmark’s. It also incentivizes groups who would resort to violence to achieve their aims; if terrorists know that Denmark and other European nations will shy away from certain seemingly controversial or offensive actions if they threaten to kill many people every time, then they can much more easily achieve their goals. We should not welcome violence, but we should not allow it to govern us either. As the cultural editor who ran the cartoons said, “Words should be answered with words. That’s all we have in a democracy, and if we give that up, we will be locked in a tyranny of silence.” [i] [i] AFP, ‘Danish book about Muhammad cartoon controversy to go ahead despite threats’, New York Post, 29 September 2010, | |
Violent reactions to the cartoons could have been predicted and should have been avoided Printing the cartoons caused the severe exacerbation of already existing tensions between Muslims and Western communities in Europe and around the world. [i] The terrorist attack on 9/11, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict had already set the stage for increased cultural animosity in the prior few years, and this was added fuel to the fire that resulted in violent attacks on Danish embassies around the world. As a result of this, innocent people died in riots in Afghanistan and Pakistan when riot police stepped in. Organized terrorist groups like the Al Qaeda network led by Bin Laden threatened violence against America and the European Union. [ii] Not only did this cause an emotional impact among Danish and European citizens as a result of increased worries of terrorist attacks, but given the number of terrorist plots that have cited the cartoons controversy as part of their inspiration, there is good reason to believe that the Denmark has become a less safe place as a result. Regardless of the original intention of the editors, they should have been able to see the controversy that would result and the likely practical outcomes of this and so restrain themselves from publishing. [i] Sullivan, Kevin, ‘Muslims’ Fury Rages Unabated Over Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 11 February 2006, [ii] Whitlock, Craig, ‘Bin Laden Threatens Europe Over Muhammad Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 20 March 2008, | |
The publication of the cartoons also resulted in a vigorous debate in Denmark, which saw its Muslim community participate in discourse in the form of debates, opinion pieces in newspapers, protests, and other democratic methods. Ultimately, then, it may well have caused a greater deal of civic integration than discord. Denmark and journalistic institutions within it ultimately have little sway over the politics and cultures of all the various Islamic countries all around the world. Newspapers in Denmark cannot reasonably be expected to gauge what the expected political reactions and emerging dynamics of Muslim communities in every other country might be because of the publication of an article or cartoon. This particular event was exceptional; newspapers publish potentially inflammatory articles and images quite regularly, but this does not result in an international reaction. | |
The cartoons constitute a religiously motivated hate crime The cartoons effectively constituted a series of religious hate crimes, specifically designed to offend and target the Muslim community, whom the editors very well knew would be up in arms over the publication of the cartoons. This is the deliberate association of a venerated religious figure with terrorism. Not only is this in violation of Danish laws and European norms protecting minorities, but it is also simply malicious and immoral. There was already a widespread tendency to conflate Muslims with terrorists before the cartoons; this high-profile incident risked exposing peaceful Muslims to prejudice, discrimination, and even physical danger from increased xenophobia. The cartoons controversy was soon followed by the desecration of Muslim graves at a cemetery in Denmark, for instance. [i] Many US journalism companies had the better judgment to report on the issue without reprinting the cartoons. [ii] Similarly, the Danish newspaper could have run opinion pieces describing their qualms with and thoughts on Islamic censorship, without resorting to the vulgar methods they utilized. [i] ‘Danish PM talks to Muslim group’, BBC News, 13 February 2006, [ii] Folkenflik, David, ‘U.S. Media Avoid Publishing Controversial Cartoons’, npr, 7 February 2006, | |
The cartoons were intended as a democratic challenge to self-censorship, and the Danish courts recognized this when they rejected lawsuits that Muslim groups in Denmark filed against the newspaper on the grounds of hate speech. [i] Furthermore, the cartoons were targeted against the extremist fringe of Islam, and were narrowly tailored to object to the use of violent means in furthering religious causes. There is nothing wrong about pointing out the high incidence rate of terrorism and violence within radical components of a worldwide Islamic community that encompasses many different types of people spread over many nationalities. Ever since 9/11, terrorism and conservative interpretations of Islam have constantly been on the public mind and constitute a legitimate topic for discourse. It is not a hate crime to publicise cartoons that highlight this; cartoons in newspapers target groups who are otherwise in the news all the time, bankers for example, this does not mean they are inciting hatred against that group. [i] Olsen, Jan M., ‘Danish Court Rejects Suit Against Paper That Printed Prophet Cartoons’, The Washington Post, 27 October 2006, |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.