This House favours the use of referendums as a form of decision-making

Thanks to my opponent. My substantives ARE based on criticisms. How else would I argue for the inadequacy of referenda as a decision-making method without criticising their utility? Do these apply more to democracy than to referendums? Well, referendums are primarily a democratic tool, they are the emodiment of the democratic ideal, so it stands to reason that any criticism of a specific democratic tool, in this case referenda, will by proxy be a criticism of the system itself. I have no need to mention the fact that democracy itself is inherently populist, as that is implied. That is automatically understood. I can however use populism as an argument against either or both democracy or referenda. It is specifically referenda that is up for debate here though, so I will keep my focus on that. It should be noted however that the weaknesses and arguments I use to defeat the proposition carry an implicit argument against democracy as well. But it shall remain only implicit. Response to Rebuttal I Electing a person or a party is not equivalent to electing a specific CoA. In elections, you are electing a person or party based on their perceived ability to determine and carry out the best CoA. You say people elect the wrong party. By what criteria do you determine them to be the 'wrong' party? More accurately, you should say that people elect a party who then subsequently go on to make (some) wrong decisions. There is a massive gulf between the two. The criticism remains valid and still stands. Response to Rebuttal II Accepted Response to Rebuttal III It depends on what you want to achieve by adopting referenda. If the ultimate goal is merely to make the citizenry feel more engaged in the political process, then yes, knock yourself out. If the ultimate goal is to make BETTER political decisions and to achieve societal and national progress, then, no - the two don't marry. At all. I submit that making optimal political decisions and advancing the welfare of the country as a whole is a far more important ideal to attain than that of making the populace feel like they are engaged in the political process. Why? Because making them feel engaged comes with no guarantees. It is an end in itself and it is simply its own reward. The danger however is that the groupthink of the masses could render the whole nation impotent. Inert. I cite the Occupy movement as a case in point of what happens when you try to put such a system in place. Indecision and poor decision abounds! The real life importance of politics simply would be undermined. Severely so. Response to Rebuttal IV This is only a common view because it is quite plainly the case. Those two factors you mentioned will help contribute to the apathy, undoubtedly. But they only help contribute and are not the only two reasons that there exists political apathy. Scan your surroundings and engage with your everyday, working class acquaintances. Engage them in a meaningful political discussion. That smattering of people can be viewed as a microcosm of the working class attitudes to politics of the whole country. What do you see? What do you hear? Unless it involves them directly or they are already predisposed to n opinion on the matter, there is simply no interest whatsoever. Response to Rebuttal V The point stands. How well informed could they be come polling day? By your answer, they would only be as informed as the media and parliament make them. Various factions of parliament would be spinning their agenda, supported by their agenda driven media outlets. The point was, would the Everyman conduct enough of his own analysis and research to come to an informed decision? And the answer is an emphatic NO! Politics would remain its own self contained game show, talent show, trying to win the vote for their proposition with their promoters, their ad men, in their corner. The electorate would still merely be playing the part of audience members with a vote. And their options would still be held by parliament. Limited. Response to Rebuttal VI Sounds almost fair enough, however the Opposition feels that the House is merely trying to put a plaster over a gaping wound. If people have lost faith in politics, allowing them to vote in referendums would only give the appearance of restored faith. If politics is rotten, then the Houses efforts would be better directed to addressing the source of the problem. Response to Rebuttal VII I agree. They are highly class-based. People vote for the colour rather than the policies offered by a party. Take Scotland as a case in point. Scotland will vote with the negative intention of keeping power OUT of the hands of the Tories. ". .but that's democracy". Knowing what we know about the voting habits of people and their motivations in voting, why allow such a tribal, partisan and unbalanced mindset to call the shots on political decisions? It certainly cant be justified with a Gallic shrug of the shoulders and a nonchalant "but thats democracy" Lets put the country as a whole first. Response to Rebuttal VIII To be fair, we are not even on the road that you are suggesting. No one is talking about taking the vote away from people. We are talking about whether the people should be allowed to vote on more, and more specific things. They are different roads altogether. My point is that the people who make policy changes are far better equipped to think through all the nuances and understand all the less obvious I placating than is the layperson who spends his time in other ways. Response to Rebuttal IX I am more than suggesting that the electorate shouldn't be trusted to make a decision - I am flat out and emphatically proclaiming it to be the case! Nothing implied. I'm leaving it all out there. The electorate SHOULD NOT be trusted to make policy decisions! Response to Rebuttal X I disagree that it is discontent with the voting system that is the problem. The real problem is political incompetence. The REAL problem is that politicians do not speak to the hearts of the masses. Also see my Response to Rebuttal V Response to Rebuttal XI Pressure groups. The great slogan of the Occupy Movement, which espoused all the same values as you are with regards to Democracy was "We are the 99%". The truth however was that they didn't speak to the hearts of the masses either and far from being the embodiment of the 99%, the reality as it unfolded showed that their sentiments were really only that of the 0.0000000000000000000000001% which comprised their movement. The Everyman couldn't endorse or get behind their message, as he was apathetic towards those who want enhanced democracy also. He is apathetic towards politics all round. Response to Rebuttal XII Says who? It would be a disgusting move if a government were to quench its citizens bloodthirst purely for its own sake. We are in disagreement as to what a government ought to be. I submit that a government should be a moral, guiding, pioneering authority over its subjects and not a servant of the ignorant masses whims. Government should be boss and not the people. In sum The people at large are unworthy of decision-making power, as un-PC and horrible as that sounds. People should collectively earn the right to make decisions. For instance, when the UK tops all education and health global rankings we could be more certain that the population in general were of a high enough calibre that the likelihood of them making good decisions was increased. But not before. I am certainly against just handing over decision-making power to the electorate - and PARTICULARLY during a high of voter apathy. Could there really be a more inappropriate time to hand over the reigns? I believe the House wants to introduce referenda for all the wrong reasons. Not because the nation itself will be enhanced, will advance. Not because it will do anything great for the country but because it will diminish the appearance of apathy.