Political party manifestos should be legally binding

Con does not believe that Pro properly framed the resolution such that it should only be applied to a parliamentary system as opposed to, for instance, a presidential system like the United States. Even if this is only applied to parliamentary systems, Con feels that Pro has failed to adequately show the enforcement mechanism would work at establishing a better democracy. This is mainly because deciding whether a breach occurred is still left up to a judicial panel and not the people (even if the people get to vote if such a breach is deemed to have occurred). Most important is the lack of proof or argument that such a system is actually beneficial to a democracy--rather Pro merely stated this as fact in both round 2 and round 3. Even if voters feel the enforcement mechanism would work, Pro has failed to make a case as to why such a system would be beneficial and has failed to address Con's concerns presented in Round 2, thus essentially conceding that this system would actually be detrimental to a democratic state. The final concession alone is grounds for voting Con. Con does not feel that Pro made it clear that this system is proposed with parliamentary systems in mind. In round 1 Pro makes the statement ". .. and so would lead to a more democratic country. " and in round 2 makes an even more vague statement ". .. and so would create a more honest political system. " This still leaves what might be considered "action" fairly vague. For one, all parties presumably would have to abide by their manifestos. So a minority party may not be able to present legislation and "force" a vote. I suspect that even in parliamentary systems, the rules for how legislation can be considered for a vote is fairly variable and thus one cannot just assume any party will be able to present legislation. Also requiring all party members (or majority party members) to vote the same way is actually contrary to a democracy. A party is generally not monolithic and thus different regions may want different things even from the same party. As such, this type of requirement, to force all party members to vote monolithically, would alienate some regions of the state. While Con acknowledges that this is a new argument, I feel justified since Pro presented this new requirement in round 3 (that party members would be required to vote unanimously). Con also feels that Pro has failed to demonstrate why allowing judicial branches to determine breaches is more democratic. Whether or not voters are allowed to vote party members out is irrelevant to the fact that constituents would not have any say as to whether or not their party has breached their manifesto. Also, any power given to judicial branches is irrelevant as well to whether or not this would increase democracy (i. e. they wrongly asserted claim that SCOTUS can amend the constitution). In fact, this measure only serves to give even more power to the judicial branch. Con still believes that the term "unforeseen circumstances" is vague. In fact, Con doesn't even see how Pro's example of the EU abandoning the Euro would be unforeseen circumstances. If UKIP wants to be independent of the EU, the Euro is only one aspect of their reasoning--surely not the only reason. This is the part of the resolution that really should have been fleshed out in much greater detail as this is the part that the judicial branches are going to have to decipher. Without further details, Con still holds that this would not increase democracy because the decision over whether a breach occurred would still be left in the hands of a judicial panel. Finally, Pro offers no arguments as to why this is beneficial or what it would be successful in accomplishing. At best, they appear to assert that it is more likely for parties to pass legislation as they promised. Again, Con presented arguments for why this could, in fact, be detrimental to a democratic state due to the tyranny of the majority. Pro did not rebut these arguments and as such, must concede that this system would be detrimental. In conclusion, Con has argued that the enforcement mechanism is too vague, that allowing judicial panels to decide breaches would decrease democracy, and, most importantly that this would be detrimental to a democratic state (which went unchallenged).