BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
It would provide an efficient service for everyone

A single, universal provider of broadband would allow the government to rationalize the management and development of the service. Multiple private service-providers ultimately end up causing three serious problems. The first two are straightforward, that private firms competing in the same area waste money creating multiple distribution channels that are unnecessary for the number of consumers, and that when they opt not to compete they end up dividing up territory into effective utility monopolies. The third problem is especially salient to the state when it is attempting to provide for everyone: many areas are too sparsely populated or economically underdeveloped that private firms are unwilling to invest in them; these areas are entirely dependent on state intervention to allow them to get broadband access. Thus for example, in the United States 19 million people in the United States still have no broadband access.[1] Much like electrical and water utilities, a single provider can create the most efficient outcome for consumers, and when that provider is the state it can guarantee affordable prices and commit to not price-gouging as private firms are wont to do.[2] Broadband should be treated as a utility, and the state has always proven to be the best purveyor of public utilities. [1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elgan/wireless-carriers-nationalized_b_1955633.html [2] Encyclopaedia Britannica. "Public Utility." Encyclopædia Britannica Online Academic Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. 2013 http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/482523/public-utility
Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel

Information technology is critical to the success of contemporary economies, with even the simplest business ventures. Uneven or non-existent penetration of broadband is a major drag on economic progress.[1] The private sector has been unable to effectively adapt with a holistic approach to the provision of data space and internet speed. The state providing these services would guarantee a high quality of service, and penetration across the country, linking all citizens to the network. For a country to compete internationally it needs broadband, and the surest way to provide it, since the private sector has resolutely failed to do so, and where it does provide services, it tends to overcharge.[2] As the Western world is left behind by the internet speeds of erstwhile developing states like Singapore, which has almost total penetration of high quality, state-sponsored broadband, it needs to refocus on what can reverse the trend.[3] Broadband is one of the steps toward the solution. [1] Elgan, M. “Should Wireless Carriers be Nationalized?”. Huffington Post. 10 October 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-elgan/wireless-carriers-nationalized_b_1955633.html [2] ibid [3] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. http://www.itchannelplanet.com/technology_news/article.php/3865856/FCC-Chairman-Wants-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband-In-100-Million-US-Households-by-2020.htm
Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids

Advanced infrastructure technology often relies on the existence of broadband technology universally installed across the grid. Countries like South Korea and Japan have succeeded in expanding their power grids by means of “smart grids”, power-grids that are far more efficient than existing structures in previously leading states like the United States, that make use of the broadband network in the provision of power. The US government has since committed to creating its own new grid, one that would increase efficiency, supply and management, and lower costs of energy provision to its citizens.[1] Such grids depend on the reliable and advanced broadband networks. The incentive for states to employ broadband across their territory is tremendous, beyond mere access to fast internet. This is why private firms will never be sufficient in efficient provision of broadband, because they do not reap all the benefits directly of the smart grid that can arise from its development. The state providing broadband is an essential part of upgrading energy provision for advanced countries in the 21st century. [1] Kass, D. “FCC Chairman Wants Ultra High Speed Broadband in 100 Million US Households by 2020”. IT Channel Planet. 18 February 2010. http://www.itchannelplanet.com/technology_news/article.php/3865856/FCC-Chairman-Wants-Ultra-High-Speed-Broadband-In-100-Million-US-Households-by-2020.htm
State intervention would crowd out private firms

The imposition of a powerful state firm dominating the broadband market would serve to reduce the ability of private providers to compete. The greater resources of the state would be able to give it the power to dictate the market, making it less attractive to private investment. Creating a monopolistic provider would be very dangerous considering that this is a sector upon which much of future national development relies.[1] Crowding out private firms will make them less inclined to invest in new technologies, while the state provider is unlikely to fill the gap, as traditionally state utilities rely upon their power of incumbency and size rather than seeking novel services. An example of this is Eircom which, when it was the state utility, provided broadband of a lower quality and at higher price than most private providers. The end result of state dominance and reduction of private competitors is a loss of innovation, a loss of price competition, and an erosion of customer service. [1] Atkinson, R. “The Role of Competition in a National Broadband Policy”. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 7. 2009, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/jtelhtel7&div=4&g_sent=1&collection=journals
The state can work more effectively through the private sector

If the state is worried about provision of broadband in areas too sparsely populated or disadvantaged, they can provide subsidies to private firms to develop the areas that are not profitable without needing to develop full government-operated companies. Just because the state is not providing the service does not mean that there cannot be compulsory to provide access to everywhere, many countries post offices for example are obliged to deliver to every address.[1] Government employees tend to be overpaid and underworked, leading to chronic inefficiencies that would be absent in a private firm, even one backed with government money. Furthermore, the cost to the state is prohibitively expensive to go it alone, because state contracts have a marked tendency to go over budget, ultimately harming the taxpayers. These overruns are a standard part of government projects, but they can be ruinous to large scale information technology projects. Indeed, one-third of all IT projects end with premature cancellation as the direct result of overruns.[2] The future of countries’ economic prosperity cannot be entrusted to an organization that will stack the odds toward failure. This policy does not make sense when it is an area in which the private sector is willing to make substantial contributions to the cost. The only way to guarantee a decent level of service and an appropriate level of cost is to allow the private sector to take the lead, and to supplement it with incentives to build more and better systems. In the United States encouraging private investment in broadbrand infrastructure has led to a total of $1.2trillion ploughed into broadband access while Europe’s more state investment approach is falling behind.[3] [1] United States Postal Service, “Postal Facts”, 2012, http://about.usps.com/who-we-are/postal-facts/welcome.htm  Royal Mail Group, “Universal Service Obligation”, http://www.royalmailgroup.com/regulation/how-were-regulated/universal-service-obligation
It would give undue power to the government over access to the internet

Monopoly, or near-monopoly, power over broadband is far too great a tool to give to governments. States have a long history of abusing rules to curtail access to information and to limit freedom of speech. Domination of broadband effectively gives the state complete control of what information citizens can or cannot consume online. ISPs function generally under the principle of Net Neutrality, in which they are expected to allow the free transit of information online. If they are the sole gatekeepers of knowledge, people may well be kept from information deemed against the public interest. It is harder for opponents of government regulations to voice their opinions online when they have no viable alternative to the state-controlled network. The internet is a place of almost limitless expression and it has empowered more people to take action to change their societies. That great tool of the people must be protected from any and all threats, and most particularly the state that could so profit from the curtailment of internet freedom.
It would provide an efficient service for everyone

The state is rarely an efficient service provider. Conventionally, it provides a shoddy service when it faces no competition, and when it charges low prices it is usually at the expense of the infrastructure and quality of service. When free of market forces, the state is even more likely to rest on its position of monopoly and provide insufficient service. But even with a state service, prices cannot be guaranteed to be kept low, but rather states can well overcharge and exploit their privileged position.
Broad-based access to broadband is essential for countries to be competitive and to excel

Broadband is a necessary evolution of internet technology that firms would be wise to avail of if they wish to remain competitive. But it is this very desirability that makes the provision of broadband a lucrative business in which many firms participate. Business on a large scale is rarely organised in diffuse patterns, but clustered in major population centres. Economic development can be furnished by the private sector investing in broadband where there is a market. Growth will not be slowed just because some farmers in Nebraska have slower internet. Singapore is an aberrant example, as it is so small and its population so dense that it would be impossible to compare its provision of broadband access to most other countries.
Universal broadband is a necessary prerequisite to developing more efficient and effective power-grids

States can develop new power-grids without needing to furnish all citizens with broadband in order to avail of the smart grid. The cost of developing these technologies and implementing them across the board are woefully high, and the inefficient nature of government services means they would only be more costly to the taxpayer. A better solution would be to liberalize the energy markets in order to encourage private firms to invest in the development of the smart grid.
The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men

The influence of superdelegates acts as a vehicle for an elite that needs little help. The situation in which the superdelegates would be most likely to act were as the result of the membership of the party selecting someone from outside the political class or their friends in business. It was worried that this might happen in 1998 in the close primary contest between Clinton and Obama.[i] There is no reason that this decision should not be left to the members, it is after their party and they should be represented by whosoever they see fit. The decision in a democracy over the governance of the country – or the leadership of the party – should be determined by the populous or the members. Allowing a disproportionate influence to past leaders and those they have selected inevitably discourages new ideas and new voices. [i] Younge, Gary, ‘It’s up to the superdelegates to prove Democrats believe in democracy’, The Guardian, 18 February 2008
Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support

Superdelegates, as many are senators, representatives or officials in the states, often have their own reelection campaigns to secure and as a result their votes can be up for negotiation or go to which candidate will be best for their own reelection chances rather than in the best interests of the party. Presidential candidates are often prepared to make concessions to superdelegates to secure their support. There is public acknowledgement of the fact that this process takes place and the fact that they are not obliged to support the candidate designated by their state parties gives them enormous bargaining power. For example in 2008 several Democratic Representatives of Ohio formed a ‘Protect American Jobs’ pact to hold back from endorsements until a candidate addresses issues of importance to the Ohio economy.[i] The system of superdelegates simply extends the pork-barrel buffet into the convention. With votes to be bought through offer of jobs or political support, the political process is distorted and corrupted[ii]. [i] Czawadzki, ‘Ohio’s Superdelegates Hold Endorsements Hostage’, Ohio Daily, 6 March 2008, http://ohiodailyblog.com/content/ohios-superdelegates-hold-endorsements-... [ii] Robert Schlesinger. “Superdelegates: Show me the money!” Huffington Post. 17 February 2008.
It’s useful to have an informed and experienced group involved in the event of a tie and also to deal with any other issues such as a last minute scandal

The superdelegates are really a valve to deal with the unexpected. Even in the most contentious case of Walter Mondale – in reality only contentious because it was the first time the system had been used – the party had already decided and the superdelegates were just ensuring a clear majority. Imagine a scenario in which a candidate had won the popular vote only to face a major scandal on the eve of the convention. The role of those electors with a free hand would suddenly look very useful to party members.
It’s in the interests of ordinary party members that they don’t have to compete with congressmen to be a delegate

Most delegates are either party activists or, in some states, those selected by the candidate or state party leaderships for a particular role in the campaign. It would be unfair to all concerned if they had to compete for their place at the convention with senators and congressmen, as is the case with the Republicans where the elected representatives often get to be delegates due to being a recognisable name.[i] Likewise ensuring that former party leaders and other elders are in attendance shows both continuity and unity. It seems unlikely that the average activist from Arkansas would be likely to be sent if the alternative was W.J. Clinton [i] Klonsky, Joanna, ‘Backgrounder The Role of Delegates in the U.S. Presidential Nominating Process’, Council on Foreign Relations, 10 June 2008, http://www.cfr.org/us-election-2008/role-delegates-us-presidential-nomin...
The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes

It is a standing joke in both parties that to win the nomination candidates need to run to the extreme and then, to win the election, run back to the middle. The very fact that this disparity exists suggests that having a stop button of people who have actually won some elections because, by definition, they have an understanding of the electorate might not be a bad idea. In essence the superdelegates act as what in parliamentary terms as a reviewing chamber, rarely used but useful in a crisis.[i] [i] Thurow, Glen E., "The 1984 Democratic Primary Election: Issues and Image," in Peter W. Schramm and Dennis J. Mahoney, eds. The 1984 Election and the Future of American Politics (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press), 1987
One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic

Primaries are a process of selection, not one of election. There are plenty of other situations in which political parties recognise the need to introduce particular expertise into their processes such as in drafting policy or developing campaign materials. Superdelegates act as a balancing mechanism in the event of an emergency or a tie. Other than that the system simply ensures that the winning candidate has a clear majority and to provide the leadership with the party a legitimate reason to attend and show their support to those watching at home. Rather than providing an unwatchable parade of faces and names that the electorate has never heard of the superdelegate system means that senior party officials have the opportunity to say that they have actively and publically voted for the successful candidate.
The disproportionate influence of former politicians inevitably benefits old, powerful, white men

The suggestion that superdelegates vote for one of their own are simply disproved by the selection of Obama over one half of the most influential couple in the entire party.[i] Obama drew his support from the grassroots and his funding and that was quite sufficient. There is simply no evidence that the superdelegates act as a drag on the party, indeed they have consistently followed the popular decision of party activists and respected that decision. Indeed the Republican system, without superdelegates, have most recently selected George Bush followed by John McCain; it would be difficult to think of two candidates who would more accurately fit either of the descriptions “old, powerful, white men” or “party establishment”. [i] 2008 Democratic Delegates, Real Clear Politics, 2008, http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delega...
Candidates solicitation of superdelegates damages the political system and requires candidates to go through contortions to secure their support

Overwhelmingly senior party figures have publically declared for a candidate and the suggestion that this does not involve a degree of horse trading is simply naïve. Equally the suggestion that leaving such negotiations until after the election is over would be reckless in the extreme. For anyone seeking reelection their most likely request is the candidates involvement in their campaign. In terms of cash donations the amounts concerned are tiny - Obama donated under a million to election campaigns and Clinton less than half of that, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that someone wanting to lead the party into an election campaign should deploy some of their own funds to help get a congress they can work with.
It’s useful to have an informed and experienced group involved in the event of a tie and also to deal with any other issues such as a last minute scandal

In such a scenario – which is a little concerned – it can be assumed that exactly the same party elders could be relied on to pressure the candidate to resign. Equally the only ‘crisis’ it is conceivable to imagine after months of primaries being raked over by the press and political opponents would seem to be that party grandees considered that the voters had made ‘the wrong choice’. The reason that the Mondale case was contentious was that he wanted – and had wanted for some time – the party apparatus to have an even greater say but this was the best he could get. It also gives the lie to the party ‘experts’ capacity to ensure winning candidates are selected.
It’s in the interests of ordinary party members that they don’t have to compete with congressmen to be a delegate

There is absolutely no reason for the party leadership not to be invited – and to speak – without being given a vote. Every other party manages to do so. Working on the basis that Bill Clinton managed to get an invite to – and address – the British Labour party (with Kevin Spacey as his sidekick) in 2002,[i] it seems unlikely that Democrat party managers would forget to give him an invite. Indeed the fact that the parties great and good have already had an influence over the outcome of the nomination in terms of giving their support and appearing on the campaign trail with candidates to give them an extra say at this late stage seems doubly unfair. [i] ‘Speech by Bill Clinton, former US President, at the Labour Party Conference, 2002’, Winter Gardens, Blackpool, Wednesday 2 October 2002, http://www.staff.city.ac.uk/p.willetts/IRAQ/BC021002.HTM
The party leadership has the experience and expertise of actually winning elections, they provide a useful buffer against activists – usually from the party’s extremes

The very fact that the only time since its creation when the superdelegates played a significant role, they managed to select the most unelectable candidate in modern American history – and by their involvement made him, more unelectable still suggests that the system may not be working. Their intervention in 1984 to nudge Mondale over the winning line produced a candidate who lost in 49 states. If ever there were a situation when the party elders subtle understanding of the electorate might have been useful then it was at that election. Instead they supported the party insider with a mechanism he had helped design and for exactly the purpose he had wanted it in place.
One person, one vote is a basic principal of democracy when the vote of one person is worth 10,000 time as much as that of another is simply undemocratic

It’s simply a violation of basic democratic principles for one vote to be worth more than another. There have been plenty of other attempts to restrict the rights of party members and activists to select candidates by party insiders keen to sew up the selection without members being consulted, super-delegates were created as a watered down response to one of these but the effects are the same[i]. Regardless of how votes are actually cast it gives a very poor appearance a sends a bad message for a major party – especially one called the Democratic Party  - to be justifying such a situation. [i] Paul Rockwell. “Screw the voters. Let the superdelegates decide!” Common Dreams. 18 February 2008.
Going left is step back not a step forward

Labour has tried left wing politics in the past – in the 1980s – in what was described by Gerald Kaufman, himself in the shadow cabinet at the time, as “the longest suicide note in history”.[1] Going leftwards means moving back to these policies rather than carving out new progressive policies that can energise and excite. Why should Labour be backing coal rather than renewables? Should Labour not be looking to give more power to the people rather than brining it back to the state through nationalisation? [1] Clarck, Neil, ‘Not so suicidal after all’, The Guardian, 10 June 2008, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/jun/10/labour.margaretthatcher
Brings labour back to its core values

Old values are just out of date values. There is little point in Labour appealing to the working class as the party they are supposed to represent when those same people have been abandoning it for decades; in 1966 69% of manual workers voted labour, this was only 45% by 1987[1] – long before Labour dropped its left wing ideology. Going back to core values if those core values are the values that the electorate wants. [1] O’Neill, Brendan, ‘Labour lost the working-class vote a long time ago’, The Spectator, 12 May 2015, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/05/labour-lost-the-working-class-vote-a-long-time-ago/