BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The gap between the rich and the poor will lead to the downfall of the political system

According to these philosophers, [ . . . Madison, Thucydides, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, and Rousseau] extensive inequalities in wealth and power would lead to self-centered and factional behavior on the part of the upper classes, who, in an effort to protect themselves from the envy of the lower classes, would subvert the law and public office to their own ends. The disempowered majority, meanwhile, would lose their loyalty to the community and act selfishly to gain what they could. Factional conflict would not only engulf governmental functions, but also the entire citizenry. Relations between wealthy and poor citizens would become increasingly marked by polarization and violence, leading to rapid cyclings between demagogic popular politics, uprisings, anarchy, and autocratic control. Ordinary citizens would mistrust the political system so severely that they would cease to voluntarily support the primary structures of governance or to make any commitments to the common welfare. Yasmin Dawood, The New Inequality: Constitutional Democracy And The Problem Of Wealth, Maryland Law Review: 2007. Lexis-Nexis Databases.
The Rich Poor Gap Threatens Political Equality

THB that A GOVERNMENT HAS THE OBLIGATION TO LESSEN THE ECONOMIC GAP BETWEEN ITS RICH AND POOR CITIZENS.Let the definition of poor and rich be define conceptually.The poor according to the UN nations studies is as the below facts. Poverty in the United States The official poverty measure is published by the United States Census Bureau and shows that: In 2010, 46.9 million people were in poverty, up from 37.3 million in 2007 -- the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty . This is the largest number in the 52 years for which poverty rates have been published The 2010 poverty rate was 15.1 percent, up from 12.5 percent in 1997. This is the highest poverty rate since 1993, but 7.3 percentage points lower than the poverty rate in 1959, the first year for poverty estimates. The 2010 poverty rate for Hispanics was 26.6 percent, for Blacks 27.4 percent. In 2010, the poverty rate increased for children under age 18 from 20.7 percent to 22.0 percent. 20.5 million Americans live in extreme poverty. This means their family’s cash income is less than half of the poverty line, or about $10,000 a year for a family of four 49.9 million people or 16.3 percent of the American people, do not have medical insurance In 2011 the Census Bureau published a supplemental poverty measure for the first time (US Census Bureau 2011b). This new measure addresses seven concerns that have been raised about the official poverty measure, including the fact that the offical poverty measure does not reflect the effects of key government policies that alter the disposable income of families and thus their poverty status, such as the SNAP/food stamp program. Taking these adjustments into account, the supplemental poverty measure showed a 3 million increase in the number of poor people in 2010, compared to the official poverty rate. Who is poor shows some striking changes. The percentage of children in poverty is 27.7 percent of the total population in poverty with the supplemental measure and 36.1 with the official measure; while people over 65 are 12.7 percent of the total population in poverty in the supplemental measure and 7.6 percent in the official measure The supplemental poverty measure does measure poverty more accurately, and it is gratifiying to see that programs to reduce poverty and hunger among children have had an impact. .See when there are a gap in between rich and poor , automatically they poor will need to shut their mouth.As the modern country their poverty should be in control like the development country such as Malaysia and Singapore where almost every sectors in those country is in top 5th ranking in 3rd world region specifically Asian plate.So the goverment need to use their authority not campaigning but restoring their poor need. For llight example we can use rich people such as Oprah Winfrey to help the need so that the poor see that, " Oh its okay now the communities is helping us "
Police could influence their votes

This could happen at any given polling station but it doesn't. These measures are being introduced as the European Court of Human Rights considers a blanket ban on voting for prisoners as a breach of human rights. It is likely therefore that the Government will introduce many procedural safeguards to ensure that the voting rights are exercised in a similar fashion to the ones outside of prison. Only then will they be fully meeting the expectations of the Human Rights Court which they do not wish to contravene.
It will cost the tax payer money!

Oh dear, what if people had this view before women had the vote? Money should be of no concern when we are dealing with justice and rights. In addition, given the 2004 ruling of the European Court of Human rights in which it was stated that it was against the European Convention of Human Rights for the vote to be taken away for certain offences [[http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/european-court-of-human-rights]]. Given this fact, prisoners can now take the UK Government to the European Court arguing that the UK is in breach of the Human Rights legislation. This would costs the UK Taxpayer far more than the implementation of the correct rights in the first place.
Giving prisoners the vote would aid their rehabilitation, which is essential if they are to avoid re...

Giving prisoners the vote would aid their rehabilitation, which is essential if they are to avoid re-offending after being released. Denying prisoners the vote implies that they are sub-human: this damages their dignity and sense of self-worth, undermining efforts to help them control their behaviour. Voting encourages prisoners to take an interest in current affairs, which will aid their reintegration into society. Where prisoners are allowed to vote, they are usually required to vote in their home constituency, to avoid several hundred inmates in one jail causing a sudden swing in the constituency in which the jail is sited. This encourages them to take an interest in the particular community from which they came and into which they will probably be released.
Linking a ban on voting to imprisonment is arbitrary. Many people who commit serious crimes are not ...

Linking a ban on voting to imprisonment is arbitrary. Many people who commit serious crimes are not sent to prison, because of their age, the effects upon their dependents or the likelihood that they will not re-offend. Others committing equivalent or lesser crimes, without these special circumstances, may be imprisoned. Even if it were ever right to deprive people of the vote as a punishment (the proposition arguments above would suggest this is never justified), this should not automatically be associated with imprisonment, but should be decided separately, as in France and Germany.
Those who have a proven negetive impact on society should not have a say on how it is run

If you are found guilty in a court of law of breakig the laws of a society, what right do you have to then request a change in those laws? It is laughable that the very people who cannot conform to the laws of a society should get to have their say. I would sooner give foreigners (who weren't in prison) the vote than give it to conficts.
Police could influence their votes

The thing that we have to worry about in giving prisoners the right to vote is the possibility of the police influencing their votes. Given that the prison is such a closed away building from society as it is, how can we ensure that the votes cast in the prisons are legitimate? Any unused votes could be used by office guards themselves. Alternatively, police could exert undue influence over the prisoners and how they vote. Prisoners could be enticed to vote a certain way. This serves no purpose than giving the police more votes than they are entitled to.
The views and needs of prisoners are currently not represented. Issues such as prison overcrowding a...

In practice, few prisoners earn enough to be liable for taxation. In any case, the right to vote does not follow from the obligation to pay tax. In many countries, people start earning money and paying tax before they are old enough to vote (particularly if they leave school as soon as they are allowed to do so). This implies that the right to vote is given to those who can be expected to use it responsibly. Those convicted of serious enough crimes to be imprisoned have shown that they have no respect for society. They therefore cannot be trusted to vote responsibly in the interests of society; many would probably simply vote for candidates promising lighter sentences for criminals. Prisoners’ interests are already represented by NGOs and statutory prison inspection bodies, which ensure that they are not ill-treated. They do not deserve any further representation.
It will cost the tax payer money!

The move to change legislation to allow most members of the prison population to vote will cost the tax payer in administration costs. Not only will we have to pay the costs of the legislation going through both Houses of Parliament and then being sent to draftsmen and then finally to the Queen. Not only will the taxpayer have to pay these costs, but they will also have to pay the costs of implementation. Prisoners will have to be escorted to their voting places, then their votes will have to be collected and counted. This would be such a lengthy procedure. It would be much easier to not change the laws and not allow them to vote.
Few, if any, people are deterred from crime by the prospect of being unable to vote. People are dete...

Banning prisoners from voting is one part of a package of measures that exclude prisoners from normal society, the most obvious of which are restrictions on movement, communication and employment. By itself, a ban on voting may have minimal deterrent effect. As part of this package of measures, however, it sends out a strong signal of society’s revulsion at those who commit crime, thereby discouraging lawbreaking.
Politicans aiming for the "prisoner vote"

This is very unlikely to be the case. Politicians are all about appealing to the majority. As of 28 October 2010 there were 85,159 people in prison [[http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/resourcecentre/publicationsdocuments/index.asp?cat=85]]. Compare this to the 61.8 million population in the UK [[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=6]]. Bearing these figures in mind, it is not feasible that a politician would appeal to the prisoner vote.
Prisoners have forfeited the right to vote by breaking the law

This argument takes an extreme example to prove its point. However, if we take a look at those in prison, the majority have not 'blown people up'. 28% of the prison population are made up of criminals who committed violence against a person[[http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snsg-04334.pdf]]. These do not include sexual offences or murder. They do include minor attacks. How can we equate these minor offences with that of blowing things up? Why should people who get involved in fights be deprived of the right to vote, just the same as a murderer or arsonist?
The views and needs of prisoners are currently not represented. Issues such as prison overcrowding a...

The views and needs of prisoners are currently not represented. Issues such as prison overcrowding and abuse by warders are not treated seriously as political issues, since those most directly affected cannot vote and the public generally has little interest in prisoners’ well-being. Prisoners should also have the opportunity to influence the formation of policy on healthcare, education, the environment and all the other issues that affect the world into which almost all of them will some day be released. Prisoners are not treated as “civically dead” when it benefits the State: they are liable for taxation on any earnings and savings that they have. There should be no taxation without representation.
Few, if any, people are deterred from crime by the prospect of being unable to vote. People are dete...

Few, if any, people are deterred from crime by the prospect of being unable to vote. People are deterred from committing crimes by the prospects of their movement being restricted and of being separated from loved ones. The effectiveness of a sentence can be measured by how well it protects the public, how well it rehabilitates the offender, how well it reverses the effects of the crime committed and how well it deters future offending. Banning prisoners from voting is either counterproductive (i.e. in terms of rehabilitation) or has no positive effect.
Prisoners remain human beings. We should respect their human rights and should infringe upon their l...

People who have been sent to prison are rightly condemned to “civic death”: they are shut away not only to protect society, but also to symbolise society’s disgust at their acts. Although prisoners are no longer executed in many jurisdictions, the idea of “civic death” is that they lose the rights of citizens without dying in a literal sense. Those who offend against the common good of society should have no right to contribute to the governance of society. They can only be readmitted to society, both physically and in terms of their rights, when they have made amends to society by serving their sentence.
Prisoners have forfeited the right to vote by breaking the law

Voting is a privilege, not a right, and people in prison has shown they are not worthy of that privilege by breaking the law in the first place. Is it not oxymoronic to grant someone who has broken the law a privilege granted by the law? If prisoners are unsatisfied with their condition, they should not have got there in the first place, and they have only themselves to blame. If they believe their sentence is too long, then perhaps we should consider changing some other laws, but not grant this one. Would you give someone who has recently blown someone else up the privilege of voting for the leader of our community? What kind of leaders do we want?
It would ruin constituencies

The judgment does not actually mean that prisoners have to have the vote as under the European Convention the right to vote is a very qualified right. Up until 2000 there was a blanket ban, but now people on remand before conviction or sentence can vote because they have a home address. It would be unfair that a whole prison's worth of voters could sway a council or a general election because the prison is so large it would affect the constituency size and count as a large part of the voters in the constituency and it would marginalise the votes of law abiding citizens in constituencies.
Linking a ban on voting to imprisonment is arbitrary. Many people who commit serious crimes are not ...

This is not an argument for letting all, or indeed any, prisoners vote. The imposition of a prison sentence is a good general index of the seriousness of a crime, and those who have committed serious crimes should suffer “civic death”. Where people are exceptionally not imprisoned, they should be deprived of the right to vote for the period for which they would usually have been imprisoned.
Those who have a proven negetive impact on society should not have a say on how it is run

A right to vote is not a right to change the laws in society. Democrats would love to advocate that this is the case but quite simply it is not. Politicians will not change laws on the basis of a few prisoner votes. We must also not forget that those who are in prion are not necessarily guilty. They may be suffering from a miscarriage of justice. In addition, there will be people in prison who only committed menial offences which are not enough of a good reason to remove their right to vote in a society that classes itself as liberal.
The danger of bowing to public opinion

When a category as arbitrary as 'historical importance' is chosen as the factor in preserving or not preserving buildings, final decisions will undoubtedly become influenced by public opinion on what constitutes a site of historical value. Clearly preservation organizations should operate with the public interests in mind, but inevitably, a building of historical importance for one community will be very different to that for another. It is easy to imagine popular media supporting the preservation of sites which are 'conventionally historical' at the expense of perhaps less well-acknowledged but nonetheless important buildings elsewhere. Frequently, examples of mid-twentieth century Brutalist architecture, because of their public perception as eyesores and stigmas associated with urban planning and social housing, are derided as candidates for preservation by a public and media with entrenched views on historical value.
The generation of a middle-class 'heritage industry'

'Historical Importance', aside from raising questions of what such an importance entails, implies that historical heritage is the most important thing worth preserving for British society. The historical record is a notoriously biased thing, and it is inevitable that sites of 'historical importance' will frequently be synonymous with things that the predominately middle-class and influential sector of society that purport to take an active interest in preservation (and can afford memberships to organizations such as the National Trust). If historical importance is the essential feature in preservation, it is likely that the interests of marginal groups such as those of immigrants, low-income communities and LBGT groups will be ignored in favour of traditional, high-profit, popular 'heritage sites'. Factors such as cultural and ethnic importance, which may have immense public significance, could well be put to one side as decisions are made on the relative value of building preservation.
Preservation always involves a trade-off with development

Preservation and development are not mutually exclusive. Projects which attempt to conserve the unique history or culture of a site can also be spurs to future investment. Attractions such as the Black Country Living Museum in Dudley combine the preservation of historic buildings with tourism, which can bring further resources into an area and actually encourage investment. Moreover, if planned effectively, the preservation of buildings which are aesthetically pleasing or which bring a cultural value to an area can have a positive multiplier effect on neighbouring developments, as the demand for property around such sites increases, and new investors seek knock-on benefits from its appeal.
Preservation organizations are obliged to act in the public interest

Both charities and government agencies which seek to preserve historic sites do so with the understanding that their work contributes towards a greater social good. While what constitutes 'historical interest' will always involve contentious judgements, preservation organizations should always attempt to consider the benefits (and costs) to society when attempting to restore and maintain old sites. George Reid's report demands a thorough inventory and assessment of the National Trust for Scotland's many assets[[http://www.nts.org.uk/About/The-Review/]] before any decisions are made, and this approach is essential before valuable charitable or state resources are invested in preserving any developments. 'Historical Interest' may be an unhelpfully vague term, but at the least it should refer to sites which the public as a whole would feel beneficial in preserving. An in-depth and public evaluation of candidates for preservation is always necessary before any work should take place.
The danger of mothballing

Avoiding mothballing and disrepair does not necessarily require cutting back on what is considered worth preserving. Reid's report itself argues that lesser assets of the NTS should instead be handed over to other smaller organizations, charities and local authorities [[http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/news/National-Trust-for-Scotland-to.6465473.jp]]. A charity with an estate as large and as inefficiently run as the NTS does certainly need to prioritize the allocation of its resources, but many smaller properties worthy of preservation can be undoubtedly trusted to other, more specialized, interested parties.
Tastes change over time

The study of historiorgraphy teaches us that, over time and with sufficient debate and research, historical judgements can change dramatically. If we choose only to preserve what is seen as of 'historical importance' today, we run the risk of consigning sites whose significance has not yet been fully realised to extinction. It is more than likely that, in the eyes of planners, 'historical importance' will be linked to public interest and profitability, and less well-known, accessible or immediately eye-catching sites will be lost as cuts are made. The danger of failing to preserve sites which are relatively unknown to the general public or which cannot be immediately made profitable will be especially acute during a recession and a period of cuts to government expenditure, as public organizations are placed under intense scrutiny and as autonomous profits become a key factor in historical sites' survival.
Preservation can bring benefits beyond historical value

Preserving buildings can often bring local benefits to communities which extend beyond their value as 'heritage sites'. Frequently, certain buildings are seen as integral to the character of an area, and become places over which communities can bond through a shared asset. In particular, municipal sites such as swimming pools, town halls and parkland can hold benefits for an area which outside observers such as developers or preservation organiztions may not fully see. As councils attempt to revitalize run-down urban areas through new investment and modern building, they run the risk of depriving these areas of their individuality and cultural history which may have developed over centuries. If building preservation is given such narrow criteria, the often hidden social value of maintaining sites in an area may be tragically lost.
An economically viable solution is vital in hard times

Cultural and national conservation in the UK is administered through a variety of organizations: some governmental, like English Heritage, some corporations created by statute such as British Waterways, and others charitable, like the National Trust. Regardless of their status, however, it is imperative that they can operate in an economically sustainable manner. George Reid's 'Fit for Purpose' report on the National Trust for Scotland was borne out of the catastrophic financial situation the Trust found itself in, which culminated in the sale of their Edinburgh headquarters and the cutting of 45 jobs. The National Trust for Scotland's experience should serve as a lesson for all conservation organizations in the UK. Even though such organizations should not necessarily be focused on profits, they must be governed with prudence and efficiency if they are to surive. The current recession has the benefit of bringing to light the glaring inefficiencies and mismanagements which can beset organizations with social remits or non-profit elements, and for these organizations to continue providing benefits in the future, they must learn to sharpen up their administration now.