BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Rationalises an irrational system

The current system for the European Parliament elections is irrational and quirky because it is partially set individually per nation. The vote is not held on the same day in every country – the elections take place from Thursday when the UK and Netherlands votes through to Sunday when most of the EU votes,[1] some countries divide themselves into multiple constituencies – such as the UK which has 12[2] – while others like Germany have one constituency for the whole country. Perhaps oddest of all Austrians are able to vote when they reach 16 years old while everyone else has to wait until they are eighteen.[3] And all this is before the oddities of little countries votes counting for more is included. Rationalisation of this system is clearly necessary and this is what this proposal does. Clearly the main rationalisation is in terms of making the value of votes the same. It would also eliminate differences over constituencies. It is likely that it would eliminate the age difference too; Austria allowing its citizens to vote at 16 would effectively give it more say compared to its population size. The chances are then that other states would follow and reduce their voting age for European Parliament elections to 16. While there is no necessary link to voting on the same day it would also provide a good chance to make the change so the voting occurs at one time. [1] ‘EU elections: Polling day will stay on Thursday, insists government’, BBC News, 13 March 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21764632 [2] ‘Your Members in the European Parliament’, European Parliament Information Office in the United Kingdom, http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs.html [3] European Parliament, ‘About Parliament - Members’, europarl.europa.eu, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/0081ddfaa4/MEPs.html, accessed 3 May 2013
Big countries will dominate

This system would create a tyranny of the majority that the current system guards against. The reason why smaller member states have greater representation is to prevent the possibility of the bigger states dominating in the parliament. Having smaller countries with a greater share of the seats in parliament ensures that their voice is heard. A change to a single constituency would change this to a big advantage for the bigger states. Under the current system in 2014 Germany will have 96 seats; if it were exactly proportional Germany would have 120 – a gain of 24 seats (presuming the limit of 750 remains the same). The smaller states will on the other hand loose seats and their voice in the parliament will become much more marginal.
Would undermine national sovereignty

Separating the European Parliament elections from the individual countries of Europe is clearly a challenge to national sovereignty. Each member state should be able to decide how it conducts its elections (within a certain general framework), what parties can compete in those elections, the rules governing campaigning etc. The basis of the European Union is what is agreed between the member states by the members of the European Council. In the treaty of Lisbon it was agreed that “Representation of citizens shall be degressively proportional, with a minimum threshold of six members per Member State. No Member State shall be allocated more than ninety-six seats.”[1] A change to a single constituency would break this provision that has been agreed by the nation states. [1] ‘Article 9 A’, Official Journal of the European Union, 17 December 2007, http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:FULL:EN:PDF C306/17
One person one vote that will count in exactly the same way as everyone else’s

While it may be true on an individual level that everyone’s vote would count for the same in practice when looked at from a broader perspective there will not be equality. It will mean inequality among nations as turnouts will differ. Moreover democracy is not just about equality but also about defending the rights of the minority so as to prevent a tyranny of the majority this system however does not protect smaller states but allows the larger much greater influence.
Some countries may be left without representation

It is difficult to conceive of how a system can be fair when some countries will be left without any representation at all. On average there is one seat in the European Parliament for every 670,000 individuals in the EU however Malta (452,000) and Luxembourg (537,000) both have populations that are smaller than this. In effect each of these countries will only have around two thirds of a MEP. It is very unlikely that even the most popular Maltese and Luxembourgian parties will secure a seat in a fully proportional system with a single constituency. Two countries would therefore effectively be disenfranchised by this system.
Much more choice

It is not just much more choice but too much choice! Do people in Greece really want the opportunity to vote for the UK Independence Party? Will anyone really have the information to make an informed choice between all the possible parties throughout Europe? The European People’s party (one of the groupings in the European parliament) alone has 51 parties as members of its grouping is anyone really going to look up the different party policies to work out which best represents their views?[1] [1] ‘Member Parties European Union countries’, European People’s Party, http://www.epp.eu/sites/default/files/lmp.pdf
Punishes apathy

Part of the reason for such apathy is the belief that 62% of European Citizens believe that their vote “wouldn’t change anything”.[1] Why vote if it does not matter. However by changing the electoral system to being completely proportional as this change does peoples votes really do count, this is no longer a reason for apathetically not voting.  [1] Merritt, Giles, ‘European parliament: unpopular, uninteresting, indispensable’, theguardian.com, 31 May 2009, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2009/may/31/european-parliament-elections-apathy
This avoids the real questions about the European Parliament

Discussing electoral systems may seem esoteric but the voting system makes an immense difference to the composition of a parliament. This in turn affects the balance of power in that Parliament and so what laws are actually passed. So a change in the voting system does not completely avoid the question of powers. It may also change perceptions because of the ability of parties to campaign in countries where they have not done so before. While the lack of powers is a concern for the European Parliament this is something that is slowly changing anyway. The European Parliament was in 2009 made co-legislator with the council meaning it has much more power to stop European level legislation rather than simply being consulted. The change in 2014 to having an elected Commission President will also mean that parliament elections have some influence on the executive. Additionally even on those issues where the Parliament has little power this does not mean it does not take into account citizens’ concerns, on youth unemployment for example the parliament has launched a €15 million program of job creation aimed at youth.[1] [1] ‘European elections 2014: Different this time?’, EurActive.com, 18 September 2013, http://www.euractiv.com/eu-elections-2014/eu-elections-2014-time-different-linksdossier-530239
One person one vote that will count in exactly the same way as everyone else’s

The European Parliament has a proportional representation system meaning that almost everyone’s vote counts but the change to a single constituency would still improve this. Everyone’s vote should count for the same no matter where they live. This system ensures that there is such equality in the voting for the European Parliament. From the 2014 elections Germany will have 96 MEPs and Malta 6[1] since Germany has a population of 82 million against Malta’s 400,000[2] it has one for every 854,000 inhabitants against Malta’s one MEP per 66,000. Voters in smaller states have an outsize influence. Changing to a single constituency would make every European citizen’s vote worth the same. [1] European Parliament, ‘How many MEPs will each country get after European Parliament elections in 2014?’, Europarl.europa.eu, 13 March 2013, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/content/20130308STO06280/html/How-many-MEPs-will-each-country-get-after-European-Parliament-elections-in-2014 [2] ‘Member countries of the European Union’, Europa.eu, http://europa.eu/about-eu/countries/member-countries/index_en.htm, accessed 7 May 2013
Much more choice

Having only one constituency across the whole of the European Union would mean a lot more choice for the voter. They would not be restricted to just their own national parties, instead they could vote for parties from other countries across the EU. One of the most important things in a democracy is making sure that votes actually count – a greater choice helps immensely. There will not be any opportunity to say ‘they are all the same’ when there are dozens of parties to choose from. Everyone will be able to find a party that represents their views. For example a left wing voter in the UK might want to vote for the left party in Germany feeling that the Labour party no longer represents them.
Encourages Europe wide thinking

At the moment paradoxically European elections are often not about Europe. Much of the time they are about national politics, and since they are almost always mid-term what they are often about is punishing the national government. Governing parties’ almost always loose votes while opposition parties gain, it is notable that governing parties only gain if the election is held in their ‘honeymoon’ period after they are voted into power. More generally European elections are seen as an opportunity to vote for small parties rather than bigger ones – implying it is a chance to follow ones heart over one’s head. Europe however remains a minor element.[1] This change in system is unlikely to mean that national governing parties gain significantly more votes but it will raise the profile of the European dimension in the elections. When people are able to vote for parties that do not contest their national elections they will have no choice but to see it as a European election rather than a national one. Voters will be much more likely to ask how the policies of these foreign parties affect them and some may even consider voting for them. A few particularly enterprising parties are likely to run transnational campaigns in the hope of picking up votes outside their home nation. The vote will simply be more European rather than the same old national parties being the only choice. [1] Hix, Simon, and Marsh, Michael, ‘Punishment or Protest? Understanding European Parliament Elections’, The Journal of Politics, Vol.69, No.2, May 2007, pp.495-510, http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hix/Working_Papers/Marsh-Hix-JOP2007.pdf, pp.501, 503, 507
Punishes apathy

People have a right not to be engaged by voting, and all the more so for a parliament they see as a gravy train with little political power. The European Parliament has comparatively little power, and where it does have power it does not affect the issues that concern people; taxes, welfare, education, and health.[1] This policy however punishes their countrymen for their desire not to vote because political apathy means less votes within that nation – which in turn means that nation’s parties will be less represented in the parliament. [1] Pech, Laurent, ‘European Parliament Elections: The Significance of Voter Apathy’, International Law Prof Blog, 3 June 2009, http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/international_law/2009/06/european-parliament-elections-the-significance-of-voter-apathy.html
This avoids the real questions about the European Parliament

The real problems with the European Parliament are not about the voting system; most people agree that the system is currently pretty fair. Rather the problem is with A, a lack of interest in European policies – only 43% are interested in European Affairs in 2013, a fall from 51% in 2012. B, the inability of the European Parliament to address the main concerns of the people which are in order unemployment, social inequalities, public debt, jobs for youth, it is not until the 7th most important challenge, immigration that the European parliament has a significant impact.[1] C, a lack of power, and where it has power lack of knowledge about the European Parliament. A change in voting system does not mean a change in the Parliament’s powers or perception. [1] Directorate-General for Communication Public Opinion Monitoring Unit, ‘European Parliament Eurobarometer: One year to go until the 2014 European elections’, European Parliament, EB 79.5, 21 August 2013 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/eurobarometre/2013/election/synth_finale_en.pdf, p.69, 81
Rationalises an irrational system

Far from rationalising the system the European Parliament elections will become more irrational with a single constituency. Everyone will find it very odd that they can potentially vote for parties from the other side of the continent that they have never heard of. It may make the system the same everywhere but this does not mean it is a sensible system for European elections. The number of parties makes it complex, as does the concept of an international parliament where all votes go into one central pool rather than being based on nationality.
The failure of rule of law

Opposition agree that the culture and law of a nation has a prodigious impact on the conscience of its civilians. However, according to Alcinda Honwana, an anthropologist and authority on the topic of child soldiers, the problem does not "have its roots in African traditional culture."[i] Although culture has an impact on society, the issue of child soldiers is not affiliated with it. Side proposition implied that conscripting children should be excusable if it is permitted by an authoritative body of local law. However, are laws based on value-sets that do not aspire to an accessible law making process more valid than the abiding law of that nation? No. Side opposition believe that the "rule of law is a legal maxim according to which no one is immune to the law.” The fundamental purpose of government is the maintenance and promotion of basic security and public order. Without it the nation will deteriorate. The proposition mentioned the Democratic Republic of Congo as an example. The DRC signed the “Convention on the Rights of the Child” on 21 September 1990. During this time era, Congo was not a declared democracy. However they have hitherto developed a more democratic and stable government. Additionally, DRC has not withdrawn from the Convention on the Rights of the Child, thus accentuating the fact that they are strongly against conscription of children. Being oblivious of the fact that conscripting child soldiers is illegal is no defence. As side opposition’s substantive material will show, both national and international systems of law are expected to take account of the fact that cultural, environmental and social plurality will lead to variable rates of compliance with particular laws. While it may be difficult to make community leaders liable for the creation of child soldiers, the ICC frequently seeks to make officials linked to state actors liable for failing to protect children from military recruitment[ii]. Moreover, cultural relativism originally assumed some degree of parity and open exchange between communities with diverging cultural values. There is no parity between the value-sets of stable liberal democratic states and the adaptations that vulnerable cultures undergo in order to survive amongst prolonged military conflict. Finally, it would damage the reputation and reduce the efficiency of the ICC if states were permitted to argue that regions in which child soldiers were active had an established tradition of military activity among the young. [i] “Children’s Involvement in War: Historical and Social Contexts”, Alcinda Honwana, The Journal of the history of Childhood and Youth, Vol 1 2007 [ii] The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dylio, The International Criminal Court, http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Situations+and+Cases/Situations/Situation+ICC+0104/Related+Cases/ICC+0104+0106/Democratic+Republic+of+the+Congo.htm
Removing barriers to demobilisation, disarmament and rehabilitation

The proposition understates the extent to which the needs of child soldiers are catered to by international justice bodies. The Paris Principles[i], which are used to guide the formation and functions of national human rights organisations, state that “3.6 Children who are accused of crimes under international law allegedly committed while they were associated with armed forces or armed groups should be considered primarily as victims of offences against international law; not only as perpetrators... 3.7 Wherever possible, alternatives to judicial proceedings must be sought, in line with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international standards for juvenile justice.” Although not strictly binding, an onus is placed on bodies such as the ICC to seek alternatives to the trial process when dealing with children. (The Principles define a child as anyone less than 18 years of age). Even where children are placed in the role of officers or recruiters, they are unlikely to be tried in the same fashion as an adult. This leaves only the issue of social exclusion following the process of demobilisation and treatment. Many of the problems of reintegration highlighted by the proposition do not seem to be uniquely linked to ICC prosecutions. Columbian child soldiers are as likely to be perceived as threatening whether or not they have come to the attention of the ICC. The ICC does not create negative stereotypes of former child soldiers. As noted above, it seems perverse to give military commanders an opportunity to use cultural relativism to excuse their culpability for what would otherwise be a war crime. Ranking officers are much more likely than Yemeni tribesmen or orphaned Sudanese boys to understand the intricacies of such a defence, and much more likely to abuse it. Realistically, the commanders of child solders, and the politicians who sanctioned their use are the only class of individuals pursued by the ICC. Where the boundaries between community leader, military officer and political leader become blurred, the court will always be able to fall back on its discretion. Practically, however, this mixing of roles is only likely to be observed in marginal communities a few major conflict zones. This does not favour stepping away from established judicial practice in order to create an entirely new form of defence. [i] “Principles and Guidelines On Children Associated With Armed Forces or Armed Groups”, International Workshop on National Institutions for the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, 2007, http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/IMG/pdf/Paris_Conference_Principles_English_31_January.pdf
The cultural construction of armed conflict

The ICC is not likely to target children or the leaders of marginalised communities when prosecuting the use of child soldiers. Officials of states parties who play a role in commanding and deploying military units can be held liable for failing to prevent the use of child soldiers at a local level. If the agony of their circumstances forces a community to recruit ever younger boys into its militia, then officers, ministers or heads of state, along with the commanders of non-state actors, can be brought to trial for allowing children to be used as soldiers. This will be the case whether these individuals do so negligently or by omission. A guilty party need not engage in a positive act. ICC prosecutors and judges exercise their discretion in order to avoid the types of injustice that the proposition describes. The lack of prosecutions relating to the ad-hoc use of child soldiers by pro-independence groups in South Sudan underlies this fact[i]. Moreover, the ICC is bound by the principle of complementarity, an obligation to work alongside the domestic courts and legislators of the states that refer potential war crimes to the international community. If a state’s corpus of law allows for a margin of appreciation in judging the actions of isolated and endangered communities, these principles must also be reflect in the investigation and inquiries conduct by the ICC. Complementarity enables the ICC to function with the flexibility and insight that proposition assume it lacks. [i] “Raised by war: Child Soldiers of the Southern Sudanese Second Civil War”, Christine Emily Ryan, PhD Thesis, University of London, 2009
Making children military targets

The purpose of the resolution is not to eliminate conflict in the developing world. Side proposition are merely seeking to remove the harmful side effects of the way in which the use of child soldiers is currently prosecuted – the risk of criminalising children and teenagers, the stigma attached to being a child soldier, and the condemnation of communities that rely on child soldiers for protection. Children are already the victims of atrocities perpetrated against civilians. They already volunteer to engage in military service. Armed groups that target civilian populations have already broken international law and have proven willing to do so repeatedly. Children will always be a target, whether or not they have sought out the means with which to defend themselves. With the international community unwilling to provide wide-ranging policing and supervision of international legal norms, it is not just to condemn individuals and communities who unwillingly take up arms to try to survive attacks by groups who flagrantly disregard international law. Peaceful communities forced to adopt abnormal survival strategies in the face of lawless aggression should be given the opportunity to compel the ICC to make situation specific judgments.
Punishing objectively harmful conduct

It is not sufficient to observe that there exist groups that use brutality to recruit and control child soldiers. As accounts of conflicts in South Sudan and Myanmar show, politically motivated recruitment of children is less common than children volunteering through necessity. Side opposition should not overlook the fact that there are few constructive alternatives available to children in such situations. Educational institutions are often the first forms of state support to be withdrawn when war breaks out. Many children are orphaned as a result of the indiscriminate targeting of civilians. Taking flight as a refugee may postpone a child’s exposure to conflict, but is rarely useful in escaping it. Proposition have already established that child soldiers do not originate exclusively within state-based bodies or organised opposition groups seeking control of a state. They are just as likely to be the products of necessity or non-western conceptions of adulthood. The status quo is blind to this distinction, failing to recognise that military involvement is entirely consistent with other norms of adulthood in certain non-western cultures. Further, taking up arms as part of an organised, coherent force is often preferable to remaining a vulnerable, untrained civilian. Finally, it should be noted that very few opposition-side speakers are likely to argue that individuals, including children, do not have a right to defend themselves against aggression. However, a right to self-defence can be rendered meaningless if weak individuals are not permitted to combine their strength and resources to defend themselves. For ICC prosecutors this would likely be seen as the first step to forming a militia. For a physically weak fourteen year old, it is simply a survival strategy.