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

This is the last round, so all rebuttal and summing up. I'd briefly like to thank Con for his participation - the question I faced in my exam was almost identical to the title of this motion, and this debate helped me greatly, so thank you!Rebuttal XIII: "In elections, you are electing a person or party based on their perceived ability to determine and carry out the best CoA."You don't just elect based on competence, you elect based on the policies they are promising in their manifestos. In this sense a referendum is no different to a standard election. But this is better because instead of inadvertedly voting for a policy you hate because you're also voting for a policy you like, you're able to pick and choose which policies get enacted. This gives value to referendums - you can pick and choose by issue as opposed to ideology.Rebuttal XIV: "By what criteria do you determine them to be the 'wrong' party?" - clashes with - "If the ultimate goal is to make BETTER political decisions..."These points reflect back on themselves - what do YOU define as a 'better' political decision? Democracy has to be neutral. I judge the 'wrong' party based on hindsight, but democracy cannot say that one policy is 'better' than another. People can argue about it, and the electorate can vote on it, but as far as our neutral political structures are concerned each policy is of equal value.Rebuttal XV: "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."I agree with Opposition in that we disagree on what democracy should seek to achieve. Given that democracy exists to guarantee the representation of the people, I believe that it is an inherent feature of democracy that it serves to translate the sentiment of the people into the legislature. My opponent disagrees but we've already discussed this, so I'd ask the voter to see my previous statements in response. I'm not dropping the argument, just saving characters!Rebuttal XVI: "There is simply no interest whatsoever."Look again at my source (note that you have not cited a source for this comment). People are interested in politics and they do care - they just feel that the existing direct avenues are broken as they have no faith in the politicians themselves. So we propose to cut out the middleman and allow people to vote on the actual policies.Rebuttal XVII: "Various factions of Parliament would be spinning their agenda."People would still get the various sides of the viewpoint, and it would be exactly the same as an election campaign for this reason. All the views would still be represented and the various parties would still be trying to undermine each others' views.Rebuttal XVIII: "The electorate would still merely be playing the part of audience members with a vote. And their options would still be held by Parliament."This is still better than the present system where the Government can introduce legislation which was not a manifesto commitment. Moreover, since the First Past The Post system generates large government majorities, leading to suggestions that the UK government is normally an 'elected dictatorship', this is an opportunity for the government to allow a piece of legislation to be voted on by the electorate which they would otherwise be able to steamroll through Parliament.Rebuttal XIX: "If the politics is rotten then the House's efforts would be better directed to addressing the source of the problem."We agree that the politics is rotten to a certain extent, in that MPs are no longer seen as accountable and responsible. By your own admission this is a major wound and will take time to recover. There is no quick fix for this that this House can initiate. So the House should still introduce these new avenues of participation.Rebuttal XX: "Let's put the country as a whole first."We believe that putting the country as a whole first involves giving the people the policies they want, not the policies the small elite class think they should want.Rebuttal XXI: "The people who make policy changes are far better equipped to think through all the nuances..."Surely this is more valid for the much more complicated issues such as economic policy which are decided by manifestos in elections, and not by referendum. I turn this point: is Joe Public really qualified to judge which party has the best economic policy? Because that wouldn't be decided by referendum (as stated by our definition).Rebuttal XXII: "The electorate SHOULD NOT be trusted to make policy decisions!"We don't believe that's what democracy is about. Again, see previous discussions on the disputed purpose of democracy.Rebuttal XXIII: "The REAL problem is that politicians do not speak to the hearts of the masses."See Rebuttal XVI - we're cutting out the politicians (since people have lost faith in them) and letting people have a direct say in concrete policies.Rebuttal XXIV: "Pressure Groups. The great slogan of the Occupy Movement."Occupy's claim to represent the views of the vast majority of the planet is an isolated case. The point still stands that pressure group membership is growing (not denied by Opposition) therefore people still retain an interest in politics but seek to express it in new ways.Rebuttal XXV: "I submit that a government should be a moral, guiding, pioneering authority over its subjects and not a servant of the ignorant masses' whims."In a democracy, Proposition believes that a government exists to enact the views of the people as shown by the democratic processes. People vote for parties, the parties enact their ideological policies. People vote for a policy, Parliament should enact it. Parliament exists to represent the coalition of views in the country, so what right does it have to say "the people have spoken but we're ignoring them because we know better"? That's fundamentally undemocratic.To sum up I will introduce what Proposition sees as the two key Points of Clash (PoC) in this debate.PoC1: What is the purpose of the government?Opposition has argued that the government exists to do the 'right' thing, but this fails to recognise the fact that there is no such thing as the 'right' thing in the neutral eyes of the political process. There is the 'popular' thing, the thing which the people want to see enacted. We believe that if democracy really is government by, of and for the people then Parliament is bound to serve public opinion - as represented more clearly by referendum. We believe that Proposition takes this point.PoC2: Do people still care about politics?Opposition have cited tired and clichéd arguments that people no longer care about politics, they are voting for apathy and they no longer care about the government. We disagree and have cited an academic source which falls on our side of the argument. Pressure groups are growing, people are standing for office, lobbying continues. People DO want to take part, they just don't feel able to fully do so by the traditional method. What Proposition proposes allows the electorate, if they have lost faith in politicians - as we admit we think they have - to cut them out. We believe Proposition has the better argument here.For these reasons, and the many more given in my 25 items of rebuttal, we believe that Proposition wins this debate over the increased use of referendums as we have made a clear and coherent case for their benefits. With that I sign off and urge you to Vote Pro!Thanks again to Opposition - you've helped my revision immensely. I proudly hand you over to Opposition, who I invite to close the debate.