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

Thanks to the House. Only too glad I could be of help, and I hope the exam went well! Response to Rebuttal XIII their manifestos and campaigns serve to outline their ability to detect appropriate solutions to the issues facing the country. The proposition may well give value to referendums in themselves, but it does not follow that referendums necessarily give value to the political process. I contend that they do not. Our respective arguments can be summed up largely by this piece from the Riksdag. . http://www.government.se... Response to Rebuttal XIV Of course democracy is neutral. Of course democracy cannot judge one decision as 'better' than another, being, as it is, just a process, a method. But we are in severe danger of putting the cart before the horse here if we are to claim that all decisions made within a democracy are of equal value purely by virtue of the fact that they were made democratically, which really boils down to popularity. As humans, we have a unique ability to analyse, scrutinise and discern the objective 'best' course of action, and the objective findings may well be at odds with the majority opinion. Should we defer our better reasoning to a mere formula which is inherently dubious and open to abuse? Or should we charge the most competent amongst us with determining the best CoA and then put our faith in them delivering? . http://liberalconspiracy.org... Response to Rebuttal XV Ok, so I admit that my own thoughts in this regard are based entirely on my own experience. I am working class. I am surrounded by working class. My whole existence is working class. I simply do not trust some far-off survey results to tell me what those around me think of politics. I can go straight to the horses mouth in that regard. Indeed, I am IN the horses mouth already, perched atop a molar. I trust my own perception and findings, based on my own interactions, more than a 'survey' though I appreciate that that may not pass as evidence in a formal court case on the matter. But still, there it is. .. Response to Rebuttal XVII "And the various parties would still be trying to undermine each others views" this, for me at least, is the clincher. Might my opponent agree that the constant undermining, petty squabbling, smear campaigning - the whole adversarial, antagonistic nature of politics may be one of the main culprits in the growing apathy of the electorate? Might the electorate be tired of seeing people they can't relate to engage in a meaningless, vacuous exercise in pure rhetoric? Might he agree that it leads to confusion? that the 'truth' is necessarily sidelined for the 'win'? Does my opponent really propose that the answer is to introduce more of the same? Political homeopathy anyone? . http://m.youtube.com... Labour. Think about what Labour ought to be. He is quick to point out how his schooling makes him 'one of us', but listen to his RP accent. Listen to the things he says. Can anyone relate? A minority only. Response to Rebuttal XVIII See above response. It is not 'better', it is just more of the same on a micro level. Response to Rebuttal XIX Introducing such a measure in lieu of an actual cure is surely no reason for doing so. It's time-wasting, paper-shuffling, putter a plaster on a gaping wound. Response to Rebuttal XX Should a parent give their kids sweets and allow them to stay home from school, just because that is what the kids want? The kids would get what they want in the short term, but over the long term such measures would prove disastrous for the kid. They would become fat, unhealthy and uneducated. Their prospects diminished to a point of near-nothingness. Getting what one WANTS, doesn't always equate to getting what one NEEDS. In fact they can often be at odds. A responsible government is there to fulfill the needs of the nation first. And needs should never give way to desires. Response to Rebuttal XXI See my sources for a sound critique. In essence, my opponent, in this line "I turn this point: is Joe Public really qualified to judge which party has the best economic policy? " is arguing that two wrongs make a right. Democracy itself, as it is, is dubious. Adding more of it is alleviating none of the problems associated with modern UK democracy. Response to Rebuttal XXII Agree to disagree. Response to Rebuttal XXII You have in no way cut out politicians. They are the ones who will present and fight the case on each issue that is to be put up for referendum. Suggesting that you have taken them out of the equation is patently false. Response to Rebuttal XXIV It's only isolated since it fails to support your claim. Why sideline what was perhaps the single most vocal example of the point you sought to make? Response to Rebuttal XXV "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. " And yet, that exact point can still be illustrated through the use of referendums. I attach a link to the Wikipedia entry on the aptly titled 'Never-end-um' . https://en.wikipedia.org... And I refer to the Lisbon treaty as a case in point. Response to PoC1 I don't believe that Proposition takes this point by any stretch of the imagination. My opponent seeks to reduce the whole interrelated fabric of humanity, society, its organisation and moral obligations down to a heartless, faceless process which is laden with danger and opportunities for abuse. A country doesn't run by mere data. The sum of a country can't be calculated through recourse to Excel spreadsheet formulas, by just making sure the numbers tally. It is much, much more than that. It is much more delicate than that. If there are already pains with democracy as it is, then introducing even more of it is surely just sado-masochism. Politicians and their seedy endeavours to convince the electorate using dishonest means would become even more of an ever-present than it already is. Referendums are not the answer - to anything. They are cheap ways to gain a mandate, but perhaps not so cheap to enact - in terms of both time and money. The cost of financing, campaigning and organising them would give very little return of investment. In fact I believe overall, we would not see a return of investment. It would be all cost, no benefit. PoC2 The premise for Propositions argument here is flawed. He believes that his method cuts out the politicians, but this is erroneous. Someone still has to fly the flag for whatever the proposition would be. Someone with a vested interest in the outcome of the proposition. Politicians would still campaign for the outcome of the referendum. Their presence and attempts to influence our political decision-making would only be - in fact, could only possibly be - greatly increased. The only true difference is that they would no longer be held accountable for the effects that such a decision would bring about. Absolved of any responsibility. A get out of jail free card. Can you imagine a situation that you would like to find a disingenuous politician less than the one proposed by the house? Me either. In sum Well-intentioned though I believe the proposition is, I believe referendums are an inadequate and short-sighted method of decision-making for a slew of reasons. I don't believe that populism is the way forward for anybody. It opens the door for things like Fox News. It only divides the people further. It enhances the undermining, competitive nature of democracy which I believe is one of its main weaknesses and one of the main reasons why people are becoming apathetic to the same old, same old. Hopefully I have argued convincingly enough for the case against referendums.