BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations

The minority populations of both of the early states are relatively low, and this can impact on the outcome of their primaries. Minority populations- such as African and Latino Americans- and migrants who have been granted citizenship will approach the issues at the heart of a presidential campaign from a different perspective. Due to high levels of social and financial deprivation among minority populations throughout the US, African Americans are likely to vote in a way that reflects concern about laws and policies that regulate access to educational subsidies and state supported health care. Latino voters may have strong familial ties with south American nation states. Correspondingly, candidates’ positions on cross border trade and the enforcement of immigration laws are likely to influence the voting decisions of Latino Americans[i]. There have been a number of solutions proposed to this, including the rotation of first primaries around the country. However, all this does is replicate the problem in new and imaginative ways; every state will have its own demographic abnormalities. Questions of educational aspiration and social mobility among black voters in South Carolina cannot be compared to the debates surrounding community integration and immigration in Arizona. The only way to take a vote that is representative of the nation as a whole is to ballot the nation as a whole. Internationally the model followed is for selection of a candidate by postal ballot, demonstrating that mature democracies are entirely capable of selecting national candidates without such a protracted process. The whole purpose of the resolution is to eliminate or control for statistical and demographic inequalities that may give certain candidates an advantage unrelated to the popularity of their policies. A national primary would apply this principle but within the context of the American model of party affiliation. [i] Kopicki, Allison, 'Iowa and New Hampshire Stand Apart', The Caucus, The New York Times, 7 December 2011
The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns

Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible. A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.
States’ rights

Quite apart from the politically controversial contents of the phrase, states’ rights describes a vital and highly relevant aspect of the relationship between the individual states of the Union and the central government. The powers held by the federal government to control and trammel the conduct of the states of the union, and to act on their behalf on issues of foreign policy is to be contrasted with states’ freedom to produce their own laws and legislation on certain issues. The debate on the areas of civil life in which a state retains authority to formulate its own laws, without interference by the federal government, remains controversial, but it can be useful in clarifying the nature of the federal bond that holds the states of the Union together. Political culture in the United States is characterised, not only by a patriotic attachment to the idea of the federal republic, but also to the states that individual citizens inhabit. As noted above, the cultural, religious and economic tropes of each state are highly distinctive. This attachment extends to party politics as well. Political parties within the US are based much more on a consensual, community driven interpretation of political dialog than European parties. Although fund raising and promotion activities of both the Republican and Democratic parties is organised by a central committee, these committees have little influence over the policy goals and ideological position of individual candidates. Political parties in each state view the process of electing a president from a deeply local perspective. The legitimacy and popularity of state primaries is largely a function of each primary’s position within the wider narrative of American politics.
Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level

The primaries as they stand make an important statement not only about party structure, but also about national identity – a federation of states each with a full right to their time in the sun. This is not misty-eyed nostalgia, but a simple reflection of the realities of the constitution. The balance of the rights of states, as well as a respect for the views of the majority, is reflected in the process of an extended primary campaign that assumes all states to be equal. A final decision made at a national convention acknowledges that the views of the different and distinct populations of the states of the union have been weighed against each other. The current structure of presidential primaries ensures that the separate states of the Union are fully engaged in the selection process, irrespective of the balance of political power or the nature of that state’s political culture. The status quo gives an invaluable opportunity to, say, Texan Democrats or Republicans in Vermont to have a meaningful say in the overall outcome[d1]  of the election. Even though Texas consistently supports republican candidates and Vermont Democrat, members of the minority party in both states are able to pass judgment on the candidates they consider would best serve their interests if elected. The results encourage activism and engagement at a local level and are, ultimately, good for democracy.
Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relatively small

Iowa and New Hampshire are the perfect states to kick off the primary season. It ensures that the opening focus of the campaigns is outside the usual media centers of New York, D.C. and California. This serves to remind political commentators and others that there is an entire country out there. Equally, because they are relatively small states, campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire allow candidates to set out their positions with greater clarity, in contests that popular consensus regard as highly significant, but which are also small enough not to threaten a nomination bid if lost. Put another way, the wealthy and homogenous nature of New Hampshire and Iowa allows candidate’s campaigning there to focus on making broader statements about the policies and normative projects that they will implement on a national level. Candidates can position themselves, ideologically and politically, without becoming mired in local-level issues or demographic controversies. Iowa and New Hampshire function as political laboratories – isolated, controlled and equipped to allow close examination of candidates’ fundamental values and proficiencies. It also gives grassroots candidates a chance to raise their profile and some funds before the costs of contesting the larger states become prohibitive. Attempts by larger states, notably Florida[i], to move their primaries forward have been opposed by both parties and many activists. [i] Patrick O’Connor. Early Florida Primary Would Scramble 2012 Calendar. Wall Street Journal. September 29 2011.
Inventing the idea of fat

There's a lot to be said for eating well and being generally healthy. It's not just a matter of weight but the effect that bad nutrition has in contributing to heart conditions, blood pressure, energy levels and other health indicators.[1] None of these things are helped by trying to drop three stone in a couple of months by filling your body with one thing regardless of what it needs at the time as many of these diets do Our physical appearance should be an indicator of our lifestyle not an accessory to it. The diet industry has poured considerable time and effort, with help from Holywood and the publishing industry, in to promoting the idea that thin and emaciated are the same thing. Fad diets are, for many, less healthy than being a little overweight. [1] BMJ, ‘Obesity – how to lose weight’, 31 October 2012, p.3, http://bestpractice.bmj.com/best-practice/pdf/patient-summaries/556120.pdf
It's my body and I'll starve if I want to

The main problem facing Prop's entire case is that this is simply none of the government's business. What people eat or don't eat is a private matter and the intervention of the nanny state would have us all on a diet of compulsory cabbage and nut roast. People can be grown up about this, and where they're children, their parents can be grown up about this. The entire health and education system already exists to tell us to eat our greens and cycle to work; for those people who chose not to do so, they have a range of diet option and advertising tell them what those options are.  The government regularly runs healthy eating advertising campaigns, and they often focus on obesity such as the Change4Life campaign, so there is plenty of opportunity to get the other side across.[1] It's free speech, it's a free choice for the consumer, it's called the market. Prop seems to think that consumers are idiots, nobody believes that a diet for a couple of weeks will make them look like a super model any more than buying a pair of speedos will. However, they can assess the different products, decide which one they trust more, do further research if they want to and then choose. [1] Politics.co.uk Staff, ‘Anti-obesity campaign launched’, Politics.co.uk, 2 January 2009, http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2009/01/02/anti-obesity-campaign-launched
Banning advertising won't work

How exactly is a ban on promoting diets supposed to work? Proposition isn't talking about tackling advertising online, presumably because it's difficult to do, nor is prop tackling the issue of books promoting certain techniques. So this ban would have failed to catch the largest craze of recent years, the Atkins diet. Equally diets are a mainstay of teen and women's magazines and a fairly central pillar of lifestyle sections of newspapers. Even so called 'quality' papers endlessly talk about lifestyles issues such as how they don't work and everyone would be better off retiring to a country manor in Shropshire for Swedish massage and a diet of organic barley. Unless prop is talking about starting to ban books or shut down entire sections (and profitable sections at that) of publishing companies then it is difficult to see how this measure will have any real affect.
Countercase; Tackling food advertising

If the Proposition is so keen to tackle obesity then regulating then it should tackle food advertising rather than the advertising of diets.[1] Banning the promotion of dieting ads while people are sitting in front of the TV munching on the take away food or complaining that the remote is 'all the way' on the other side of the room, smacks of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. Diets are a response, one of many as Prop is keen to point out, to a serious problem that only government can begin to address. From before we are old enough to walk most people in the developed world are hooked on a fat-, sugar- and salt-rich diet.[2] Going after dieting ads is simply an effort by governments to be seen as doing something in a way that has little electoral impact. People will still use diets because of the gaps, such as the web, already mentioned however it doesn't require government to say anything as risky as “You're fat because you eat rubbish and don't move around much” to the electorate – or worse still, “Your children are fat because you can't put your foot down and tell them they can't have another choc-ice or more chips”. Prop's entire case is tokenism of the highest order. [1] Denis Campbell, ‘Call for ban on TV junk food ads before 9pm watershed’, The Guardian, 4 September 2012, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/sep/04/obesity-tv-junk-food-ads [2] AP, ‘Study: Bad Eating Habits Start Near Age 2’, InteliHealth, 27 October 2003, http://www.intelihealth.com/IH/ihtIH/WSIHW000/20722/8895/371041.html
Selling to the vulnerable

Surely the fact that what is healthy is also considered sexy should be embraced. Any motivation to lose a few pounds in a country where more than a quarter of people are obese[1] is surely a good thing for public health. Prop bemoans that diet advertising is targeted at the young and yet this is the group that policy makers routinely target with legislation to encourage healthy living and an early acceptance of the need for good health. [1] Jeremy Laurance, ‘Britain is the fattest nation in Europe’, The Independent, 17 November 2012, http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/britain-is-the-fattest-nation-in-europe-8324262.html
It's my body and I'll starve if I want to

It's simply not true to say that people automatically take their adverts with a pinch of salt. Research in the US suggests that 1 in five young adults trust advertising to always tell the truth and a clear majority think it does “most of the time”[1], as this is exactly the group that is primarily of concern it can't be taken for granted that they will use caution or undertake further research. [1]    Harris poll. Young adults more trusting of advertising. 5 November 2010. http://www.harrisinteractive.com/NewsRoom/HarrisPolls/tabid/447/ctl/ReadCustom%20Default/mid/1508/ArticleId/612/Default.aspx
Countercase; Tackling food advertising

There is an enormous difference here. Even fast food chains themselves accept that their product should not be eaten all day everyday. Supermarkets have taken on board healthy messages about people's five a day or low fat brands. They've built these messages into their wider marketing strategy. Diet ads, by contrast, do claim to be a panacea that will instantly make you sexy, healthy, popular and, apparently successful. They are 21st century snake oil merchants and should simply be run out of town.
Medical concerns

Dieting is a medical choice and should be treated  as such; advertising the available options rather than discussing this with a doctor means that people do not have all of the available information and cannot make their decision in a safe environment. In comparable areas such as giving up smoking, controlling drinking, making decisions about exercise, knowledge about inoculations before travel and so forth, we prize medical expertise. The diet industry in the UK is worth £2bn[1] (it's $61bn in the US) and is marked out by allowing the same people to tell us that we are sick in the first place and then tell us the cure and then do it all again when the solution didn't work. Generally accepted medical opinion is that this is a slow process with miracle cures both unlikely to work in the first place and, where they do, more unlikely to last. In some cases the dieting may even threaten health. For example French doctors have criticised the Dukan diet, Dr Boris Hansel for example says "There are real risks … infertility, sleep apnoea, high blood pressure, type-two diabetes, liver disease or cardiovascular problems. Following this diet is not harmless; it could cause real health problems" but its endorsement by celebrities mean that many will ignore such warnings or never even hear of them.[2] Most ridiculously, the solution that does work – moderate eating and regular exercise is absolutely free and available to all. [1]    Arabella Weir. Try it – don't diet. The Guardian. 31 December 2010, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/31/hungry-wisdom-diet-g... [2] Kim Willsher, ‘Dukan diet divides French doctors over effect on health’, The Guardian, 30 May 2011, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/30/dukan-diet-france-health-affect
Selling to the vulnerable

Diets are predominantly targeted at those who feel desperate. It has nothing to do with medical need, a constant round of being told that there is only one way to look attractive inevitably encourages people to adopt a mindset that 'thin' equals 'attractive'. This has nothing to do with a medical need nor do diets represent a medical solution; at least not in the meaning of 'diet' at the focus of this debate. The pressure on people, especially young people, to conform to a certain stereotype of physical perfection is astonishing and comes from many sources – music, magazines and the celebrity culture endemic in the media. It is notable that there is a well studied correlation between mass media consumption and eating disorders and fears of poor body image.[1] Diet programmes sell the dream that as long as you look like a given ideal you will come to be like them. This is nearly always untrue.[2] However, it is particularly attractive to those who are most susceptible to peer pressure; primarily the young but really anyone with a desire to fit in. The advertising picks up on this, pictures of happy, smiling, thin people with successful personal lives.  It's simply an illusion and has little to do with the realities of medical need. [1] Kristen Harrison and Veronica Hefner, ‘Media Exposure, Current and Future Body Ideals, and Disordered Eating Among Preadolescent Girls: A Longitudinal Panel Study’, Journal of Youth and Adolescence, Vol.35 No.2, April 2006, pp.153-163, p.153 http://www.kristenharrison.org/uploads/8/7/1/3/8713266/harrisonhefnerjoyo.pdf [2] Federal Trade Commission, ‘Weighing the Evidence in Diet Ads’, November 2004, http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/health/hea03.shtm
Redresses imbalance between state and individual.

Governments exist to serve the will of the people, not the other way round; politicians take their instructions from their constituents, or should do. But in the modern state this relationship is often inverted. By obliging our democratic institutions to take genuine account of public opinion, and returning real political power back to those to whom it rightly belongs – the people – we can put the relationship between the individual and the state back on a healthier footing. In principle, people should have the right to decide for themselves on matters of importance to their lives. [1] [1] . Beedham, Brian: “Power to the people: The case for Direct Democracy”, Civitas Review. Vol.3 Issue 2, June 2006. http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/CivitasReviewJune06.pdf
Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.

People are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1] [1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/apr.pdf
Improves standards in political governance.

The trend in developed countries tends to be towards greater centralisation, and concentration of power in the hands of a small number of representatives. This, in turn, leads to the creation of a separate political class who will in some cases be more concerned with their own influence and enrichment than that of the voters, and makes it possible for wealthy individuals or companies to lobby politicians for laws favourable to their interests. Increased use of referendums would potentially reduce the influence of lobby groups and corporate donors on the political system.[1] [1] Knutsen, John. “Blueprint for a new European Confederation”, Basiclaw.net, January 2004. http://www.basiclaw.net/Principles/Direct%20democracy.htm
The job of a government is necessarily long term.

It is right that once the people have given it a mandate it should be able to carry out legislation with long term aims. Often good legislation is unpopular at first, but effective and popular in the long run. Such legislation would never survive a referendum. It is only fair that the government is given a chance to see if its legislation does indeed work. The people can then vote the government out of office if it fails. Similarly, it is government’s job to lead and not to follow, especially on social legislation. For example, the US civil rights movement in the 1960s, and the equal marriage movement currently, might not command majority support from the public as a whole;[1] in order to advance equal rights, responsible government has to get out in front of public opinion, and make the argument for policies which are not yet popular enough to be passed in a referendum. This approach is justified because parliamentarians are representatives not delegates (as famously pointed out by Burke to the electors of Bristol in 1776)[2] and can do what they think is best for the people even if that does not meet the people’s wishes. [1] Bobo, Lawrence. “Attitudes toward the Black Political Movement”. Social Psychology Quarterly, Vol. 51 No.4, 1988. http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/soc/faculty/bobo/pdf%20documents/Attitudes.pdf [2] Burke, Edmund. “Speech to the electors of Bristol”. 3rd November 1774. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
People are currently bored with politics.

The last thing they want is more votes. This will only lead to greater overall apathy and even lower turnout in general elections. California is a classic example of frequent referendums failing to ignite any noticeable interest among its people. The 2011 referendum on electoral reform in the UK was similarly ignored by the public.[1] [1] Davies, Caroline. “Apathy and anger dominate as AV decision looms”. The Guardian, 15th April 2011. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/apr/15/alternative-vote-referendum-chesterfield
Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.

Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting