resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals

My partner and I are here in affirmation on resolved: In the United States, current income disparities threaten democratic ideals. Before continuing it is important to define some key terms pertaining to the resolution. The definition of income as defines by National oceanic and atmospheric administration is the total payments received by individuals for employment. The definition of disparities as defined by Merriam-Webster dictionary is the markedly distinct quality or character between persons or objects. Lastly, the definition of threaten as defined by Princeton University is to "pose a threat to; present a danger to". To support our ballot we will use the following contentions. Our first contention states that with a lack of socioeconomic diversity in congress, most Americans will be unequally represented which goes against the democratic ideal of diversity Sub point A – Because of a widened income gap the representative elite often ignorantly represent the people. Our second contention states that with a disparity in income, minority voices are overshadowed. Sub point A- Economic status ultimately decides representation in the government which opposes the fundamental democratic idea of equality. Finally our third contention states that with the disparities in income, candidates who have more material wealth gain a superior advantage over those who generate less income. This infiltrates on democratic ideals such as equality and fairness. Our first contention states that with a lack of socioeconomic diversity in congress, most Americans will be unequally represented which goes against the democratic ideal of equal and fair representation. Congressmen make up the top 0.1% of income in America; it is inefficient for those who represent us to not have of a clear comprehension of our needs because of lack of experience. In fact according to New York Times columnist and economist Paul Kruggman "it is bad for democracy… the people who have the most influence are not interested in having good public services, because they do not use them." Sub point A- Because of a widened income gap the representative elite often ignorantly represent the people. The fact that politicians do not live in the same "material universe as the rest of the population" as put by New York Times columnist and economist Paul Kruggman, makes it incongruous for those who represent us to execute decisive and needed action without keeping their own personal interest out of the ball game, for example, protecting their own wealth. In fact according to an economist article and quote "the wealthy bend the results of democracy…because wealth tends to breed a kind of cosmopolitan tolerance unrepresentative of the broader population". Our second contention states that with a disparity in income, minority voices are overshadowed. Due to the fact that most wealthy Americans get word to the government through some sort of lobbying, contribution or media, most minorities are put to a disadvantage because their low income does not allow them to keep up with the type political bombardment that can be easily afforded by the elite whom happen to make the lesser part of the American population. According to a New York Times article "We have a society in which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few people, and in which that concentration of income and wealth threatens to make us a democracy in name only." And according to an article released by the department of politics and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and international affairs at Princeton University "senators appear to be considerably more responsive to the opinions of affluent constituents than to the opinions of middle-class constituents, while the opinions of constituents in the bottom third of the income distribution have no apparent statistical effect on their senators' roll call votes." This Uneven attention degrades on the very democratic ideal of equality. Sub point A - Economic status ultimately decides representation in the government which opposes the fundamental democratic idea of equality. The government is unfortunately run by 1% wealthy American population. Therefore congressmen focus a lot of resources towards protecting the trade of many in their own class rather than subsidizing programs to benefit the middle class. With this inequality is illustrated that wealth/income determines ones representation in the government. A Vanity Fair article articulately states that "Virtually all U.S. senators, and most of the representatives in the House, are members of the top 1 percent when they arrive, are kept in office by money from the top 1 percent, and know that if they serve the top 1 percent well they will be rewarded by the top 1 percent when they leave office." Finally our third contention states that with the disparities in income, candidates who have more material wealth gain a superior advantage over those who generate less income. This infiltrates on democratic ideals such as equality and fairness. It is no surprise that in order to execute a successful campaign when running for a government office requires a substantial amount of capital. Due to the income disparity, certain important groups of people do not make it to Capitol Hill because of a lack of funds. According to University of Chicago`s Journal of Law and Economics: "It is conventional wisdom that wealthy candidates have an 'unfair' advantage in elections... wealthy candidates have a leg up in political contests." The article then goes on to discuss how these "leg ups" demoralize other candidates from competing. This unfair advantage and demoralization which causes les diversity threatens the democratic ideals of equality and pluralism. It is for these reasons that my partner and I urge a pro ballot. Thank you.