Resolved: In the United States, organized political lobbying does more harm than good.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>FRAMEWORK<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< How I win the debate: a) If organized political lobbying (OPL) does more harm than good, then it is necessarily true that a U. S. WITHOUT OPL is preferable to one WITH OPL, because the harms weighed against the good would make the U. S. less desirable overall. If I convince the voters that a U. S. without OPL is less desirable to one with OPL, then I win, because the good (harms prevented) OPL does would in this case outweigh and be more than the harms it causes. Or b) It is the burden of my opponent to prove that the harms are MORE than the good. If it is reasonable to believe that the harms might not be more than the good, that they might be somewhat equal, I also win this debate, for I do not have the burden to prove that good is actually more than harm, just that harm might reasonably not be more than good. Now some definitions: Organized political lobbying or OPL (using and combining opponent's definitions) – A systematic, large scale, organized attempt by members of the public to influence governments, a government, conduct of government, politicians, or public officials. I. e. If I gather 1000 people who support an issue, and form a group that speaks with 1 voice on this issue to politicians, then I am doing an act of OPL. Political Initiative - The right and procedure by which citizens can propose a law by petition and ensure its submission to the electorate. American Heritage Dictionary. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>CASE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< With this said, my neg case will focus on why a world without OPL is worse than a world with OPL. Contention 1 – Protests Note that, under the logical combination of the definitions my opponent provided, MLK march on Washington style protests or Vietnam War style mass demonstrations would be considered acts of OPL. For, MLK's march on Washington was certainly organized, large scale, and systematic. It was done by members of the public to influence politicians and conduct of government. The same is true for most Vietnam protests. Since organized mass protests are OPL, then a world without OPL would exclude these protests. These kinds of protests are essential for democracy. As it is, my opponent agrees that there are little ways for the public to get their voices heard. Protesting is among only a handful of ways the public can directly have their voice. In a world without protests, one of the tools used to efficiently influence politicians by Joe and Jane Commonperson would be destroyed. No OPL means that the only way to protest would be if 1000 people all individually came to the decision to protest in a small way (call your congressman, etc), because any attempt to organize these 1000 people into a group and make the group as a whole call congress every week would be OPL. Thus, to thwart OPL is to thwart any efficient way to reach government, for ANYONE to effectively get their voices heard. In a world without OPL, there would be no efficient voice from corporations (no Jack Abermoths) and no effective voice of the public (protests). The only voice efficiently heard by the government, then, is the government itself. This is tantamount to totalitarian Iran and authoritarian China, where the government makes decisions without input from those who will be affected. My opponent might say that elections would still uphold democracy, make the politicians responsive to the public. However, according to my opponent, currently politicians only represent special interests, and not the public, yet incumbents get re-elected all the time. If politicians can get the public to vote for them without actually doing anything for them, there is no reason to believe this would chance without OPL. Since politicians vote based on what's good for them, which were previously what special interests wanted, a world without OPL will result in politicians voting for what benefits them directly, not the special interests which were once good for them, not the public. Thus, a world without OPL amounts to a complete destruction of democracy, where no one gets their voices heard except those who rule. A world that is far less desirable than the imperfect but at least existent democracy in a world with OPL. Contention 2 – the Initiative Process and Direct Democracy There is a state-wide initiative system in 24 states, and many local initiatives all over the U. S. When the public proposes a law, they have to get a set number of signatures (in the tens or hundreds of thousands) in order to get the proposed law on the ballot, and there is no way to do this except in an organized, systematic way. The government would never allow a proposed law with no signatures to get on the ballot, and getting ten thousand signatures without organizing is simply impossible. Thus, the initiative process would be a systematic, large scale attempt by the public to influence politicians and the conduct of government, an act of OPL. A world without OPL then would also be a world without the initiative process. It is important to note that the initiative is the only way in which the public can directly influence government policy, the only way for the public to write law themselves. The destruction of the initiative process is tantamount to destroying the best and only real way that the public can have a say in what government does to or for them. Any semblance of direct democracy would be destroyed in the U. S. , silencing the voice of the public even more than it is silenced now. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CONCLUSION <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< In conclusion, a world without OPL destroys democracy by not allowing any kind of organized way to petition politicians and talk to them with the unity of one voice, thus making efficiency in influencing politicians by the public impossible. Second, it destroys the only remaining way the public can influence policy, the initiative. A world without OPL is a world in which the public neither gets to voice their opinion in any effective way nor gets a say in what happens to them. Again, totalitarian Iran or authoritarian China resembles this description very well. A world without OPL would be much worse than the imperfect world we have today. Vote Neg. ^_^