BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
An active, “big” federal government is best for the American people

Government spending of the level advocated by Obama will only lead to a handicapped economy riddled with inefficiencies. The figures alone suggest that the Keynesian theory of increased spending stimulates growth and reduces unemployment is a myth. Despite trillions of dollars of spending from Obama, the US economy is stagnant and unemployment is higher than it was in 2008. [1] This happens for two reasons. First and foremost because high spending levels must be funded by high taxation levels that stifle individuals’ purchasing power and the private sector as a whole. Secondly, government spending generally causes higher inflation, meaning that the net effect of government spending in real terms is negligible, and only makes the system more inefficient! [2]   [1] Powell, Jim: “Why Government Spending Is Bad For Our Economy”, Forbes, 10/13/2011, http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/10/13/why-government-spending-is-bad-for-our-economy/ [2] ibid
An active, “big” federal government is best for the American people

President Obama believes in an activist government’s role in improving society. Without public intervention, private markets will not sufficiently address inequality or several other public needs, such as environmental preservation and public transportation. Financial returns from investments in such areas are often insufficient to incentivise private sector investment. However such schemes generate high levels of welfare benefits that are desirable from a societal perspective. Obama’s economic policy draws on Keynesian economic theory, which is the belief that a mixed economy of public and private enterprise, bolstered by a strong welfare state, can jumpstart the economy. In order to create public enterprise, the government needs to spend, either by building a deficit or from tax revenue.[1] This is the policy he has pursued in his first term with a successful stimulus of $787 billion.[2] Obama’s tax policy boils down to the empirical belief that taxing the rich will help the economy grow, because the revenue can be used on important government programs that can spur growth, and the philosophical argument that the American economy should be more equal and that the U.S. government can and should do more to directly address inequality. It should therefore not be a surprise that Obama wants the Bush era tax cuts for the richest reversed arguing "I just believe that anybody making over $250,000 should go back to the income tax rates we were paying under Bill Clinton."[3] [1] Blinder, Alan S., “Keynesian Economics”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Ed., 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/KeynesianEconomics.html [2] Grunwald, Michael, “Think Again: Obama’s New Deal”, Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/think_again_obamas_new_deal [3] Bendery, Jennifer, “Obama Calls For One-Year Extension Of Bush-Era Tax Cuts For First $250,000 Of Income”, Huffington Post, 9th July 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/obama-bush-tax-cuts-middle-class_n_1659284.html
A progressive tax policy and a cut in military spending are what America needs.

Raising taxes for individuals with income over $250,000 will have a hugely detrimental outcome. This is because a huge number of small businesses are legally taxed as individuals. Raising taxes may be manageable for wealthy individuals, but small firms will be crushed by such huge tax increases proposed by Obama. The effects of this will be hard felt across the country, since small firms employ half of all private sector employees in the USA. [1] These small companies will see their investing and spending power vastly reduced and will lead to thousands of redundancies that will ensure the American economy remains stagnant! Low taxes are the key to economic growth, not high taxes and government spending. [1] US Small Business Administration, FAQs, http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqIndexAll.cfm?areaid=24 , accessed 8/10/2012
A minimalist state enables a fairer and more competitive economy.

The private sector has indeed been the source of much innovation that has led to improvements in standards of living. However the problem with relying solely on the private sector for social welfare, is that it can only improve the lives of those who can pay for it! It may well be the case that healthcare is better under the private sector, but if only the top 60% (say) of the country can afford it, there is a big problem! Moreover, as has already been mentioned, there is often insufficient financial incentive for the private sector to invest in certain areas, like pharmaceutical development or green energy research. Here, the government must step in and in the interest of public welfare provide the investment needed. High level-taxation on wealthy individuals may be hard on them, but ultimately is desirable. Ethically speaking, we need to balance the harm of a millionaire losing a small portion of his or her wealth, with the enormous social good that can arise if that wealth was spent on social welfare programs. An extent of “redistribution” of wealth is thus fair and just.
A minimalist state enables a fairer and more competitive economy.

Romney believes the best way to improve society is not to spend huge amounts of taxpayer dollars on inefficient government programs, but rather to tax citizens less and allow free-market innovation to improve the quality of life in America. Low taxes are necessary to stimulate innovation and the growth of business because people and businesses are self-interested; they will only invest when they believe they will get the profits from their investment and lowering taxes mean that they will get more of the profit from their investment.[1] At the same time government is a poor manager of the economy because small numbers of people cannot calculate all the effects of central planning and the impact it will have on individuals choices, essentially the market is simply too complex for the government to master so the best option is to reduce government interference as much as possible.[2] For this reason, Romney’s policy preference of lower taxes is coupled with a proposal to cut spending on a wide range of social programs. Romney also outright rejects the idea of “redistribution” of wealth [3], believing it is unfair to those who have worked hard to build businesses and establish their own well-being. The protection of private property is central to the American political system, and taking from one group of citizens to give to another violates the right of private property. [4] In addition to being unfair, it is impractical, as it creates a disincentive for business people to further increase their wealth by working and investing in businesses that would grow the economy and create more jobs.[5] [1] Thurow, Lester C., “Profits”, The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, 2nd Ed., 2008, Library of Economics and Liberty, http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Profits.html [2] "Friedrich August Hayek." The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. 2nd ed., 2008. Library of Economics and Liberty. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Hayek.html [3] Becker, Kyle: “Mitt Romney: We believe in free markets and free people, not wealth “redistribution””, Independent Journal Review, September 19 2012, http://www.ijreview.com/2012/09/16615-mitt-romney-free-markets-and-free-peoples/ [4] Dorn, James A.: “Ending Tax Socialism” September 16 1996, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ending-tax-socialism , accessed 8/10/2012 [5] Li, Wenli & Satre, Pierre-Daniel: “Growth Effects of Progressive Taxes”, US Federal Reserve, November 2001, http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2002/200203/200203pap.pdf
Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability

The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11
Democratisation

If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.
Modernisation

Our political situation is not as dire as this point makes it seem; it is easy to manipulate statistics between voting and reality televisions by discounting the fact that many people who vote in television shows vote multiple times – often as many as ten[1]. Young people are not completely detached from the political or the non-electronic world. Many are passionate about politics and exercising their right to vote[2]. Low voter turnout is a general trend across the nation, and if young people are failing to vote then this too reflects disillusionment with government. For example, many young people who voted for the Liberal Democrats in the UK recently were shocked when he expressly went against his promise to prevent tuition fee rises[3]. Political disillusionment among young people is also a problem in the USA[4] and Europe[5]. It is the state of politics itself, rather than the literal process of voting, which deters people from full political participation. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/ge_website/pages/whyvote.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8127315/Student-tuition-fees-protests-Nick-Clegg-says-he-regrets-signing-pre-election-pledge-not-to-increase-fees.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-65182100.html, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5045246.stm, accessed 24/08/11
Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise

The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11
Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion

Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11
Voter apathy

It is impossible to tackle potential problems in party politics without an input from the electorate. Young people may have the opinion that politics itself is inaccessible, but this will never change if they refuse or fail to vote. A democratic government can only ever be truly representative when everybody casts their vote. At least this mechanism is an attempt to reach those young people – and in cases where they say they do not know enough about politics, to try a different medium of teaching. Ultimately, those who have no intention of voting will continue to refuse. However, this is at least a step towards educating and enabling those who do wish to vote, but perhaps do not currently feel well-equipped enough to do so.
Engagement with democracy

At what stage do we deem that an individual has considered their vote enough to cast it? Would we stop less-educated people from voting at all in case they hadn’t fully considered it? This argument goes completely against any democratic principle which values everybody’s vote as equal, and denounces the idea that one person’s vote is worth more than another’s. Even if a low turnout means that a minority can impact more on society, this is still legitimate – as long as everybody has the opportunity to vote. If the majority choose not to voice their concerns in online elections, then they lose the right to complain about the outcome. Many general or presidential elections have had a low turnout[1][2], but we still see them as legitimate. If we did not, nobody would ever be elected and progress could never occur. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/06/general-election-2010-turnout-since-1945, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 24/08/11
Modernisation

In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices[1][2][3][4]. Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people[5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor[6], it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’[7], indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election[8]. In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population. [1] In the UK: http://www.tnsglobal.com/news/news-6A7B1D614B284E20B26AA3A75601275B.aspx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In Europe: http://www.netimperative.com/news/2010/march/europeans-2018spend-more-time-on-mobile-web-than, accessed 24/08/11 [3] In Asia: http://thenextweb.com/asia/2011/06/13/chinese-now-spend-41-of-their-time-online-on-social-networks-in-lieu-of-news-sites/, accessed 24/08/11 [4] In the USA: http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011/01/average-time-spent-online-per-u-s-visitor-in-2010/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://xfactor.tellymix.co.uk/news/23245-revealed-the-x-factor-2010-voting-percentages-and-detailed-results.html, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11
Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise

Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11
Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion

No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11
Voter apathy

The need to travel to a polling station might be a minor consideration, but growing disillusionment with the political system in general is a far bigger cause of voter apathy. Young people in particular believe that their vote will not make a difference[1], or are confused over politician’s aims[2] and intentions. Others do not believe that a change in government necessarily means a change in real life situations[3], or state that they do not feel as if they know enough about politics to make a decision[4]. Some have even stated that they are embarrassed and patronised by politicians’ eagerness over using the internet to ‘harness’ the votes of young people[5]. Using the internet to portray party policies does not necessarily tackle the problems with the policies themselves. It is politics more generally, rather than the practical system of voting, which is seen as inaccessible. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/06/general-election-2010-young-voices, accessed 24/08/11
Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible

Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11