Question: Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?

Efficiency Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11

Efficiency Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]. [1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11 [3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11. [4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11 [5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11

Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

Engagement with democracy If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Efficiency

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible

Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability Computer literacy is constantly on the rise[1][2]. In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide[3], and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors[4][5]. Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5223192.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: http://computerliteracyusa.web.officelive.com/default.aspx [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7770469.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/computer_classes/Computer_Training_Classes_User_Groups.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/, accessed 24/08/11

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.

Online voting should replace traditional voting. I staunchly disagree! Online voting should NOT replace traditional voting. It holds far too many ways to fail than suceed. Idealy, yes, for convenience sake online voting would be far superior to traditional voting. However it makes the already problematic voter fraud even easier then it already is. While you have listed ways that you think will be able to prevent this, I shall now go through and show how each is inevitably able to fail to virus', hackers, and general vote bombers. c-1: Voting fraud on this site has not been unheard of, and debate.orgs 'fail safe' with cell phone identity is a speed bump at best. All one needs is a phone number that can recieve text messages, an viola, that account can vote. I do not have a phone that can recieve TM, and so am unable to confirm my identity, though I know I exist. This means I can't vote, which is very inconvenient. However, if I so chose to I could get one or convince a friend or even steal a phone and "confirm" my identity tot he satisfaction of debate.orgs fail safe, though as you can see there are more dishonest ways to pass this than the honest one. Now, for your example of what I am assuming are serious political elections, you say that a social security number will do the trick. Not so. Just as with the cell phone all one needs to do attain a SSN, and they are now that person whether they are or not. If you have contention with this then you are probably not aware of identity theft [http://www.ftc.gov...]. Now as you'll have surly noticed this site is not just about what identity theft (IT) is but how to fight it. I fully admit that there are ways to fight IT after it has happened, though they are often lengthy, inconvenient, and costly. In all cases, IT could be fought but not after the damage has been done. This means that in a serious election, the mere possibility of the damages of IT far outweight the benefit of convenience. An election where seemingly thousands have voted could just as well be 1 person, or group with a particular agenda. Even if 1 vote is not that of the legitimate holder of the SSN, your fail safe has failed. It is far more pssoible than not, and for this reason, online voting clearly fails. C-2: If we lived in a perfect world then you'd be right. An electronic voting system would be more relable in counting votes. That is, if those votes were real and reliable. As I've already shown, the reliablity of votes is already in question. But whether a real person in any degree cast those is also in question. A virus, especially a well designed one, could easily pass through a fail safe of any kind, and perform a simple operation of changing a 1 into a 2, or 3, etc. Hacks and viruses into what where thought to be secure systems is all too common, and a simple google search can reveal hundreds of stories of real life scenarios where such a thing happened. Here's on that happened just 2 years ago [http://www.crn.com...] and a famous story where the FBI's database was hacked into [http://www.computerworld.com...]. The moral of the story is that if there is a will, then there's a way, especially when it comes to computers. Vote bots exist, and are able to be purchased easily and effectively, as well as (obviously) designed [http://cheatingnetwork.net...]. So again here, electronic votes fail as they would only suceed if there were not people who would exploit them. C-3: Sure they do, but it isn't as easy to fraud those as it is from a computer. With absentiee votes there is an official form, that has to be filled out be hand. A very lengthy process and definetly not immune to the effects of fraud, but it would take more time and resources to produce anywhere near the amount of damage that can be caused by a few key strokes. I believe I've sufficently described how that can happen above. C-4: Undoubtably, but like I've shown, for every honest elderly shut in who could use the technology to vote, there are more who would use it exploit their own agendas dishonestly. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliabilty and accessibility that a hacker or virus could take advantage of over the web, online voting does more harm than good. With traditional voting, were one has to go into a set voting center, and show an ID that matches the person to it to another living person, the chance of fraud exists but is minimalized by the ability to verify the actual physical existence of a person right then and there. Opperations to commit fraud with traditional voting are far more costly, time consuming, and active (as in one has to get up and go do something) than it is with a computer. No system is perfect but a computerized voting system is far more so in the ease that it could be hacked. So while we are not in contention that a online system would do some good, I hold that it's far too easily penetrated by wrongdoers for it to become the mechanism that decides the course of an entire country, or even county.

Online voting should replace traditional voting. Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you!

Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11

Democratisation If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Voter apathy

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Modernisation

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day 1. "I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. "...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. "Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to." Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. "Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well." Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. "For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both." Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. "Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. "EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. "Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability

Modernisation In modern, developed countries, many people spend both work and leisure time on the internet or using electronic devices[1][2][3][4]. Our traditional voting systems, with polling stations and paper slips, is out of line with how many of the population now live their lives. When we see an overwhelming number of people – especially young people[5] – voting for reality television programmes such as The X Factor[6], it demonstrates a valuable method of engagement which the political system is missing out on. This had led to sources such as the BBC darkly questioning ‘Is Big Brother really more popular than election?’[7], indicating that while the overall number of votes in the 2005 general election in the UK outweighed those cast for Big Brother and Fame Academy, the proportion of votes by young voters (18-34) could be understood to show more engagement with these television shows than with the general election[8]. In any case, it is clear that we should bring our voting systems up to date in order to engage young people and the wider population. [1] In the UK: http://www.tnsglobal.com/news/news-6A7B1D614B284E20B26AA3A75601275B.aspx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In Europe: http://www.netimperative.com/news/2010/march/europeans-2018spend-more-time-on-mobile-web-than, accessed 24/08/11 [3] In Asia: http://thenextweb.com/asia/2011/06/13/chinese-now-spend-41-of-their-time-online-on-social-networks-in-lieu-of-news-sites/, accessed 24/08/11 [4] In the USA: http://www.comscoredatamine.com/2011/01/average-time-spent-online-per-u-s-visitor-in-2010/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://xfactor.tellymix.co.uk/news/23245-revealed-the-x-factor-2010-voting-percentages-and-detailed-results.html, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [8] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4586995.stm, accessed 24/08/11

Automatic Voter Registration First of all, I must state that this debate is solely concerned with whether or not automatic voter registration should be implemented within a democracy, not whether or not democracy should exist as a political system. Such discussion should be reserved for another debate. With that in mind, here is my main argument. In comparison to traditional voter registration, automatic voter registration would be able to save time for voters by eliminating the need for any voter to fill out any forms needed to officially register to vote, while at the same time, it would also save the state time by eliminating the need to process any such forms needed to register said voter. This would be accomplished by tying voter registration to existing government databases, such as tax information, employment information, address information, or other information that is not available to the state, but to the federal government, which state governments could easily request. [1] For example, the state already knows where each resident living within it's boundaries resides, and the state already knows the boundaries of its voting precincts, so automatic voter registration would simplify changing a voter's voting precinct by tying it to a voter's change of address. Furthermore, this would allow for a simpler change in state voter registration, where if a voting-age American moves to a different state, that voter's new address would be given to both the voter's previous state of residence, and his or her current state of residence, allowing for simpler additions to the current state's registered voter population, and simpler removal from the previous state's registered voter population. [1] As for automatically registering new voters, there is plenty of information available to the state that can be used to register those voters. Employment information, for example, is already available to the state since employers have to give an employee's information to the state so taxes can be deducted from that employee's paycheck. Also, states have access to social security information, and each citizen of the United States is given a social security number at birth. States could use this information available to monitor when a resident of the state becomes eligible to vote, and thus is able to be registered. [1] Now, apart from streamlining the voter registration process, there is another benefit to having automatic voter registration in place, and that benefit is increased voter turnout. as of November 2014, there were approximately 219 million eligible voters in the United States.[2] In the 2014 midterm elections, approximately 92 million of those eligible voters voted in the 2014 elections, constituting a voter turnout of roughly thirty-nine percent of the total voting eligible population.[2] However, when taking into account the number of eligible voters that were registered as of November 2014, which stands at 142 million, or roughly sixty-five percent of the total US voting eligible population, then the voter turnout jumps to sixty-five percent of total registered voters.[2] If all eligible voters in the US were registered to vote, and if they turn out at roughly the same rate as registered voters did in 2014, then there would be an additional fifty million votes counted during that election. In short, automatic voter registration simplifies voter registration, and manages to boost voter turnout by getting more people registered to vote, allowing for elections to more accurately reflect the total voting eligible population. Sources: [1]: http://www.fairvote.org...... [2]: http://www.census.gov......

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion

Online voting should replace traditional voting. My opponent has failed to provide reasoning as to why hacking, viral infections, and cheating would be impossible in his perfect little system, beyond saying something akin to "nuh-uh". The truth of the matter is is any computer system can be hacked into. All one needs are the time, money, and resources to do it, none of which would be impossible to get [http://articles.latimes.com...], especially with such high stakes. It is likely that converting to an online voting system would bring on a new wave of internet terrorism, and would even make it possible for other countries to decide the course of our nation. Because this one problem WILL exist, and is such a serious threat that it outweighs any good online voting could do because of the amount of damage it could cause to us as a country. Therefore, online voting should not replace traditional voting.

Online voting should replace traditional voting. It appears that my opponent's only true objection is the possibility of hacking. In the first round, I stated that such a system could be created and regularly updated to prevent intrusion from pirates and hackers, thereby dismantling my opponent's only objection. As such, no new evidence is admissible. The benefits clearly outweigh the cons. My opponent agreed on several points, at least in theory, that this is indeed a good concept. With the sole objection addressed and countered, and concurrence with my ideals, I respectfully request an Affirmative ballot. Thanks.

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Democratisation

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less

The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. The electoral college may have made sense many years ago when it took weeks to hand deliver votes by horseback to Washington, DC but it no longer makes sense. With today's technology it is possible to tally everyone's vote quickly and securely. Unfortunately, the current implementation of electronic voting is lacking from a security perspective but that shouldn't affect the scope of this debate as it could be fixed and implemented using current technology. Giving more power to residents of Wyoming over the residents of California is simply not fair. Each and every american is as much as American as the other one and each of their vote should be counted equally regardless of any state borders. Of course California should have more influence as it contains many more Americans than Wyoming. While states can and should regulate themselves, when it comes to our nation, we are all the same. As far as susceptibility to manipulation and corruption, with proper multi-factor authentication, authorization, cryptography and other strong security controls being used, a modern system can be significantly more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt [1]. Using blockchain technology to vote could be used to provide much more secure voting with built-in validation vs. the current system [2]. In addition, as you have stated, 1% of electors sometime do not vote per their constituents which is 1% too much. A properly designed, vetted, tested and peer reviewed algebraic solution to voting would represent the will of the people 100% of the time. In conclusion, the electoral college had a purpose that it no longer serves. By switching to a better and more secure system, the will of the people would be respected 100% of the time and the risk of tampering with election results would be significantly reduced. Sources: http://www.politico.com... [1] https://followmyvote.com... [2]

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments

The electoral college stands in the way of election reform Alternative election methods such as Approval voting, Condorcet voting, and even Instant Runoff Voting cannot be properly implemented at the Presidential level if the Electoral College remains in place. This is unfortunate, given that these methods are a marked improvement on the current systems.

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Engagement with democracy

Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates " 1) There is no way of knowing whether or not the candidates are making their own arguments" We presently know that the candidates typically do not make their own arguments, especially during debates. They are coached by staffers on everything from what to say to how to walk to when to look at their opponents, for hours and hours on end. The questions are prepared ahead of time, carefully screened for "neutrality," etc. The process is presently designed so that if anything comes up the candidate wasn't told what to say about specifically, they can easily change the subject without anyone noticing. At the worst then, if your point is true, it does not represent a flaw that is not also true of the present system. "How would we know that a candidate's chief of communications isn't writing for the candidate?" They already do that. "How would we judge a president's intellect? " Same way we do now? By paying attention to what they say and knowing that, even if they didn't write what they said, they had to hire the guy who did, and thus know what they were doing insofar as they did so? And if they are controlled to the point where they didn't even have to think much to do that... than aren't we really electing whoever controls them anyway, and it doesn't matter? Whoever the president trusts enough to control him is de facto president. " 2) Electronic debates are easily susceptible to hacking. If, say, a hacker changed Senator McCain's position on the Iraq war, many voters would become incorrectly informed, and his chances for President may be unfairly hurt. " Each campaign currently operates at least one website. Have those been hacked? Video, too, is subject to alteration. In any case, in such an unlikely event, it would necessarily be quickly discovered, and for that matter a huge news event, which would correct itself. The people who actually pay attention to the debates aren't the ones who fail to hear the memo about obvious falsehoods. 3) Almost 30% of Americans do not have access to the Internet![2][3] Now, it's much easier to get access to a TV than it is to a computer with Internet access. I believe that as many voters as feasibly possible should have be informed. Having Internet debates would deny 30% of America to be informed. At home perhaps. Yet public libraries typically happen to have computer access. With those factored in, that number shrinks dramatically, to mostly rural types (who frequently lack access to much in the way of TV stations either). Also, I'm sure newspapers and such would want to include transcripts of the debates, or perhaps they'd be published independently, depending on length. Also, some of the current debates are on CNN. How many americans lack cable? I'm sure the number has to compare with that lacking internet, and public libraries lack cable. " 4) Even if everyone did have Internet access, fewer people would view the debates-- it is much easier to watch something for an hour than to read for multiple hours." Not true at all! Because reading can be broken up into chunks, and done at ANY TIME. The debates are broadcast once or twice, cannot be broken into chunks, etc. All of this, of course, largely ignores the nature of current television debates- They tell us very very little. The candidates spend as much time practicing body language as they do their actual arguments. EVEN IF fewer people get the message of electronic debates, those who do will get far more information, because the words can be picked over more easily, and weaselling out of things will be far too obvious. There will be time to mull over the actual LOGIC of the arguments, and fewer options to cloud them in emotionalism. This is not to say that it will be impossible, most voters will still get about as much as before as they did out of the debates- that is, nothing at all, since most frankly don't understand much about what's being said. But of those who do have a modicum of the ability to understand, far more will actually learn something of substance. There will be no excuse for, say, making up unsourced statistics in mid-debate... with time to actually formulate the arguments they will be able to give a source if one exists, and be exposed if none does. Imagine a debate where the resolution has to do with the tactical prosecution of the war in Iraq, and I start, unprompted, to talk about how much respect I have for the troops without ever answering the question. It would look kind of silly on debate.org, everyone would notice, and rightly so. Yet that is the state of the average presidential debate. For a more concrete example, take a gem from the Republican primary debates... Huckabee was being questioned about extending education benefits to illegal immigrants, I believe it was Romney who responded "This is why I say you're a liberal on that issue, that's not your money to be generous with" or some such (unfortunately it is hard to source video debates, at least hard for me, youtube searches tend not to work very well for finding a specific exchange of words, while electronic debates would not have that problem, imagine that!). Huckabee trailed off "I think we're a better country than to discriminate based on parentage.." Perhaps, but the writing on the wall, Romney's implied attack on the welfare state was never followed through on. Not many noticed the evasion by Huckabee, nor the fact that this conflicted with Romney's actions as governor (signing into law universal health care and such). Were the debates electronic, some commenter would bring this up, and such issues of logic, that are currently relegated to the fringe element would become central. It is, quite simply, harder to evade in text. You can't shout someone down endlessly for being cruel or unpatriotic or what not, there is no volume to quiet them :D. You can't interrupt them, their speaking does not conflict.

A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel

Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could ... Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could be made much more quickly (particularly with electronic voting) without the issue getting bogged down by political parties fighting one another, scoring points and trying to slow down the system.

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day This is my first debate, so forgive me if I"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don"t follow politics so they don"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?

for the increased use of referendums. Improves standards in political governance.

A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. Voter ID cards are unfair and ineffective in preventing voter fraud. The main concern with requiring an ID card, other than voter registration card, would be the additional costs incurred just to use the inherent right granted to all Americans to vote. While not posing a strong disincentive preventing voters from paying one-time fee to exercise their future right to vote, the principle of paying to vote is unfair and should not be advocated. As a counter-plan to solve the problems of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the solution should be a federal mandate requiring paper trials for all election precincts. A paper trail would allow voter fraud to be caught most efficiently. More of a concern than having individuals vote under a fake identity is the possibility of having electronic voting booths have their votes switched without being able to prove otherwise.

Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet v... Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet voting becomes available in a few years everyone will be able to vote from their own home.

"should voting be done online" My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement "" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote "" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond "a lot of hacking in internet". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...

Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics. Most people are apathetic about politics because they find it dull or do not believe that it affects them. This may be regrettable but it is hard to see how increasing the number of votes they are asked to participate in will have a positive effect on this trend. On the contrary, many of those who do not like politics will quickly become even more bored and irritated if they are constantly bombarded with campaign literature, television adverts and activists ringing on their doorbells.

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

"should voting be done online" points well noted...but are u trying to say that young people have no tym...sir they can't remove just 1 hour frm their work time..by they can party ryt...sir I appritiate that u have IT baground but sir do u ssly don't know that nowadays hacking is so simple...sir nowadays it is so simple to do fraud in a currency note so this is just a internet..sir u spoke about rural areas having internet...sir than they are no more rural...coming to connectivity.. Sir China one of the developed nation have internet connections limited,check it out..sir talking about the Estonian and the swiz govt adopting this method..sir first check their population.sir still I say the worlds largest democracy still does not follow this method. HAD A gud debate 😃 😉

The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. In this round I will address all of my opponent's contentions and then reaffirm the resolution. 1. Actually that wouldn't happen. If you don't want a candidate to win, you don't rank them at all and leave the box blank. So if you want the Democrat to win but like none of the others, and if the Democrat gets eliminated in the first round, then you're not electing another candidate whom you don't like. 2. They can already corrupt the system in the status quo. In the scenario you gave, David wouldn't necessarily win because you're assuming that 100% of John supporters ranked David #2, which is highly unlikely. You say that people in this system would just listen to others without doing research, but I'll remind you that that also happens very much in today's FPTP system. 3. If you were to do a poll using the "regular" First Past The Post system we used today, found the "early predicted winner", and then did an election using an entirely different system, of course the results will be different. The point of the system is to find a candidate that most people would actually want to have, and so people voting for a 3rd party candidate would be justified. 4. That doesn't have to do with Instant Runoff Voting but more of people today. It's irrelevant. 5. http://www.oilempire.us... "Those who cast the vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything." - Joseph Stalin According to Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org), an independent company investigating voter fraud, hand counting the paper ballots is actually quicker. The machines can break down at any time, and when they do, they must spend hours trying to fix it. The machines are also more susceptible to corruption. They can easily alter the results and hackers can change the outcome (for more see HBO's "Hacking Democracy"). So not only would hand counting be quicker and cheaper, it would also be more reliable (assuming they did the correct thing by allowing the public to watch the counting, like in Germany). The purpose of IRV is that you can rank #1 a candidate whom you agree with the most. Especially if they are a 3rd party candidate. In the current voting system, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are throwing your vote away. You can't get the majority of people collectively in the FPTP system to elect a 3rd party candidate. In cases like the Bush-Gore recount, while it may take longer, but it would be worth the significant change that could benefit everyone.

Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11

Mandatory voting compels voters to better educate themselves. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled (some even at the cost of social benefits). Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.

Improves standards in political governance. Increased use of referendums is unlikely to make much difference to the quality of governance. Governments and state commissions will retain most of their power, as only a small proportion of laws will be put before the public vote even if use of referendums is increased. It will certainly make no difference to the level of corruption. As for corporate lobbyists, it can be argued that increased use of referendums will actually increase the influence of such groups. (See Opposition argument five, below.)

People are already required to produce valid identification for a whole range of activities that are... If the integrity of our democracy is the main concern, then absentee ballots offer much more opportunities for fraud. Voters who send their ballots through the mail only have to provide a signature, even in states where those voting in person are required to prove their identity in much more rigorous ways. This is unfair and a much more obvious loophole demanding closure.

Most states with voter identification laws make it easy for those without current forms of photo ID ... Most states with voter identification laws make it easy for those without current forms of photo ID to obtain them from the government either free of charge or very cheaply. This would additionally benefit minorities and poorer citizens who are currently most likely to lack valid forms of photo ID, and who suffer a range of problems as a result. For example, they may face very high fees for cashing a check without a formal means of identification, or suffer problems in applying for state benefits. Finally, knowing that they already have what they need to vote will make it more likely that they will choose to do so, boosting participation rates.

Mandatory voting decreases need for big dollars in campaigns. Because mandatory voting means that no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics will decrease.

on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process ok so i would like to start by by thanking master riddle for accepting this topic and would like to encourage everyone to comment on what i could improve on. With that said here is my case: Contention 1: The Citizens united ruling increase voter turnout. According to "the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 presidential race over $380,000,000 have been raised by super PACs and $330,000,000 have been spent".This money according to the wall street journal is so super PACs can run advertisements for or against political candidates.. This is important because these advertisements are essential for maintaining voter turnout according to Paul freedman of the University of Virginia "respondents were as much as 10 percentages Points more likely to vote if they watched television in media Markets that were bombarded with presidential ads". Furthermore according to Dr. Hillygus of Duke University "Among those who early in the campaign did not intend to vote, exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points". The impact of this is that by increasing voter turnout we get a more accurate representation of the publics will which is the purpose of the election process. Contention 2: citizens united allows voters to make informed decisions According to political scientist David Downing "without freedom of media and wider freedom of speech people cannot make informed decisions on how they should vote". This is important because according to Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission "many associations we have in this country (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on), from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association, are also corporations. Yet those corporate associations were prohibited under penalty of criminal and civil sanctions from expressing the views of their members. This means that before this landmark decisions many important organizations where barred from expressing their opinions and thus the public lacked vital information that may have significantly affected the outcome of previous elections. Lastly this increase in corporate spending does not favor either political party since according to matt bia a correspondent for the new York times campaign spending tends to be cyclical since when one party increases its spending the other party tends to mobilize and increase its spending. Thus not only does citizens united create more informed voters but it also prevents any one party from gaining an advantage. Contention 3: Citizens united increases transparency Transparency is one of the most important aspects of the election process according to political watchdog the electoral knowledge "Transparency makes institutional systems and the actions/decisions they take widely accessible and understood [and] It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system that permits abuse and corruption". This is important because before this landmark decisions political donors would use social-welfare groups or 527"s to make political contributions. These social welfare groups according to New York correspondent mat bia are unlike super PAC"s generally not required to disclose their donors. This means that by allowing the creation of super PAC"s the Supreme Court has given the public better access to political finance and thus increased the transparency of the electoral process. Sources: http://blog.heritage.org... http://www.slate.com... https://docs.google.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.bowdoin.edu... http://jurist.org... http://aceproject.org...

Voter ID's Bill Clinton, George Bush, and Ronald Reagan are in a boat in the Potomac, when suddenly the boat develops a leak. They have only one life preserver jacket. Bill says: "Let's do the Democratic thing. Take a vote to see who gets the life preserver. " They each write a name on a piece of paper and stuff it in a coffee can. Bush and Reagan get one vote each; Clinton gets six. Obviously in this joke there was some voter fraud happening (regardless of whether your for or against Clinton), but it could have been prevented with just a little supervision which is what ID's will be providing. Pro stands for one person, one vote. But how can we keep this idea if we will do nothing to protect it? My opponents only argument in round 1 is that in person voter fraud is rare. My response to this is that even though it may be rare voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud thus providing voters with more assurance in their political system. Since my opponent has not directly argued at this point that there is any negative effects of voter ID then there is not reason to not add an extra safeguard to our voting system. Any positive impact, change or deterioration of fraudulent votes is a reason to vote pro. I'd like to illustrate my point with a quote: "Their other claim is that voter fraud is so exceedingly rare, so unlikely, such an impossibility that there's no need for any voter identification. According to the Democrats, we can afford to assume that everyone will be honest on Election Day. So, there's no need to take any basic precautions or take any steps to prevent fraud because it just doesn't happen. Well, to the contrary, voter fraud happens all the time and it does sometimes occur on a level large enough to impact close elections. Furthermore, it undoubtedly happens much more than we realize. " (. http://townhall.com...) In regard to mail in voting, ID's will be required to register for absentee or any other form of mail in ballot. People may also be required to submit their ID's or a photo copy of their ID when they mail in their vote as well. In regard to California, voter fraud is generally only detected after the fact, if at all and investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly. It"s far better to prevent fraudulent voting than to track it down after the votes have already been counted. My next point is that people support voter ID's. In a Fox poll 70% of people said they supported voter ID's. Only 27% of people say that it is unnecessary (. http://www.foxnews.com...;). As a country created by the people and for the people there is no reason not to follow the will of the majority in this case. If the vast majority of the population is in favor of something and it doesn't harm anyone else, why not implement the policy? At the end of the day however what will we be gaining by requiring voter ID's? Well, requiring a state-issued photo ID enables the use of common technology to further improve the integrity and efficiency of our election system. A simple computer terminal and a card reader could replace old-fashioned, wasteful and error-prone paper voter registrations and roster books when coupled with an ID requirement. Long lines could be eliminated, voter check-in would be faster, data more accurate and less money would be spent on inefficient, out-dated data entry practices.

Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could ... Slow political processes are often vital to make sure that laws are properly written. Debate and strong political opposition means that legislation must be well written, balanced and clearly explained. Slower processes also remove the risk of over-reaction by people. For example, support for the death penalty often rises suddenly after news about terrible crimes, but then returns to lower levels soon after. If people could change laws instantly, then some very extreme proposals might be accepted.

"should voting be done online" Hello Sheety! This is my first debate here so it"s a pleasure to do it with you! If I make any mistakes with my presentation please let me know. Onto my argument. Voting is the essential basis of a democratic government; it ensures that the people are fairly represented so that the best leader can be found. It is essential that in a democratic society all of its members are represented equally, however my opponent would seem to disagree with this simple fact, stating that "if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote". This means that people or peoples who have busy lifestyles where the time to vote may be very precious to them, or live in rural areas where the nearest voting location is a distance away "do not deserve to vote". In reality we should be encouraging all people to vote, thus a fair representation of the citizen's interests can be measured. The bias caused by the restrictive nature of ballet voting can be seen very clearly in many locations, For example during the American 2014 midterm elections 37% of voters where over 60, while only 12% where under 30 years old[1]. The reason college students do not vote is 34.7% that they are too busy, or have conflicting work [2]. It is clear that the voting system needs to be made more effective and allowing online voting would easily improve this issue, allowing a fairer representation of all people and thus a more democratic society. My opponent also argues that online voting can cause discrepancy and fraud, however fails to back up these arguments with any evidence. I cannot argue against these until my opponent is able to back them up. [1] (The Young Turks "Old people run the country") [2]http://www.civicyouth.org...

Equality and Univeral Suffrage A standardization process: Not all voters are equal, because not everyone has an equal stake in an election. Not everyone is a follower, sometimes charismatic personalities surge a giant vote count in one direction and the vote of these people should not be made public for this reason (Obama girl springs to mind). Or if it is made public, the votes s/he influenced for a party/leader; should not be as relevant as those that are a product of informed opinion and true choice, thus. Since all voters are not equal in their natural state, they must be equalized by administering lower/higher value to different votes.

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

On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process Perhaps the most fundamental argument the Pro can make is that Citizens United has increased the amount of money present in national elections, and thus expanded the ability of the rich to drown out the speech of the rest of us. While money has always been a major factor in modern elections (and probably always will be) Citizens United allows it to play a much more direct and unregulated role. Previously outside groups were limited in the kinds of ads they could run and the amounts of money they could collect from specific sources. In the 2012 Presidential election most of the largest Super PACs collected far more than 90% of their money from donors giving more than $25,000 at once.7 The ability of a single wealthy individual or corporation to inject millions of dollars into the political system significantly affects the perceived legitimacy of that system and gives the perception that people's political voices are proportional to their pocketbooks. This also decreases citizens' ability to make meaningful choices between candidates, as the only candidates likely to have these massive fund ds supporting them are those who are amenable to the rich. Candidates with policies that are aggressively opposed to the aristocracy are almost inevitably drown out by these groups, meaning that the voters never truly get the option to find out about - and thus choose - candidates who do not propose policies broadly favorable to the rich.While the role of Citizens United on national elections has received significant coverage, perhaps more significant is the effect it can have on local elections. The smaller the race, the more impact a large amount of money can have. Since large corporations tend to have interests spread out in various parts of the country, it is possible for them to target specific House or Senate races in districts in which they do business and coerce the cooperation of local Representatives by threatening to fund or 7 http://www.nytimes.com... a Super PAC that supports an opponent. Imagine a scenario in which a company wants certain regulations on its business eased. That company can go to a Representative who sits on a relevant committee and suggest that if the Representative does not support the company's wishes the company will spend millions of dollars endorsing a challenger to that representative. In this scenario the corporation does not even need to spend any money to impose its will on the government, merely the threat of being able to so severely effect the electoral system could be enough to get its way. While government officials bowing to the will of corporate interests is nothing new, the sheer scale on which a corporation can now impact a local election greatly expands this risk. The more the election system can be used as a tool to unduly influence politicians the less legitimacy it possesses.A third argument many Pro teams may consider deals not just with the quantity of political ads outside groups can produce, but rather with their quality. When a campaign creates an ad that is wildly inaccurate or culturally unacceptable, the candidate can be directly challenged about that ad in interviews and debates and forced to defend it. This creates a degree of risk for campaigns that helps to discourage them from providing blatantly inaccurate information to the public. When a group the candidate does not have any official control over produces such an ad, the candidate can deflect any criticism of the ad because he or she had no role in producing or approving it. Now that Citizens United has opened the floodgates of funding for these outside groups it has massively increased the degree of disinformation being distributed. An effective election process is dependent on an informed public, and the increase in disinformation being propagated following Citizens United has done significant harm to the electoral system.One important concept for the Pro to keep in mind throughout this debate is that the resolution is ultimately about whether Citizens United makes things better or worse. Many of these problems existed before, but the Pro only needs to show that Citizens United makes them worse, not that it created them entirely. There will always be money, corruption and disinformation in politics – the question is whether there is more or less of that post-Citizens United

Elections frequently unseat experienced, and seat inexperienced, judges. In general, elections tend to create a higher rate of turnover in the judiciary. This means that experienced judges are more quickly booted out of office and replaced by less experienced judges. This does not benefit democracy.

Compulsory voting reduces power of lobbying groups. A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. The outcome of the election reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Electronic (Text) Presidential Debates ----Premise---- This debate was inspired by the comments section of another debate.[1] Let it be clear that the positions of this debate are established and should not be argued (ie "I didn't say PRESIDENTIAL debates!"). The debate positions are clear: My opponent, Ragnar_Rahl, believes that text electronic debates should take over the current system for presidential debates, while I believe that doing so would be disastrous. ----Arguments----- Replacing the current system of presidential debates with electronic over-the-internet debates (similar to Debate.org) would be disastrous because: 1) There is no way of knowing whether or not the candidates are making their own arguments. How would we know that a candidate's chief of communications isn't writing for the candidate? How would we judge a president's intellect? 2) Electronic debates are easily susceptible to hacking. If, say, a hacker changed Senator McCain's position on the Iraq war, many voters would become incorrectly informed, and his chances for President may be unfairly hurt. 3) Almost 30% of Americans do not have access to the Internet![2][3] Now, it's much easier to get access to a TV than it is to a computer with Internet access. I believe that as many voters as feasibly possible should have be informed. Having Internet debates would deny 30% of America to be informed. 4) Even if everyone did have Internet access, fewer people would view the debates-- it is much easier to watch something for an hour than to read for multiple hours. This would lead to even more uninformed voters. 5) In following with argument four, political pundits would have an easier job spinning debates as the public would be less informed. That's all for now. I leave the floor open to my opponent. ----References---- [1] http://www.debate.org... [2] https://www.cia.gov... [3] https://www.cia.gov...

Being a part of the process is an important requirement in any democracy. The citizens identify themselves more closely with the EU when they are allowed to cast votes. Only when they do so is the government a government by the people, of the people and for the people.

A mail-in ballot risks disenfranchising poor, more transient voters A mail-in system depends on ballots being received by voters. One of the problems, however, is that poor voters are frequently transient or without permanent or up-to-date addresses. This means that poor voters are uniquely disadvantaged and disenfranchised by a mail-in ballot system. A walk-in caucus or primary, conversely, does not depend on voters having permanent addresses, and is subsequently more accessible to poor voters.

Compulsory voting Compulsory voting helps protect voter access.

Elected judges are more in tune with public opinion The system of training through law schools and vocational work is elitist and prolonged, and leaves judges’ opinions at risk of being, or appearing, out of date or out of touch. Law schools have a reputation for being more liberal than the majority. Judges are often seen as lacking knowledge of recent social trends. Elections can help reverse these trends by forcing judges to understand and respect public opinion so they can advance a form of law that is seen as "just" to all citizens, not just to their own conscience.

"should voting be done online" No, I completely disagree with the fact that voting should not be done online as there can be many discrepancy while voting online there can be fraud to....now talking about the largest democracy in the world that is the USA too does not follow this type of voting.......if the fact arises that some people do not vote by coming in the booths.....it's for their betterment that they can vote online...I completely disagree by saying that if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote...thereby I remain unchanged in my stance...becoZ I believe ballot voting is the best method of voting

for the increased use of referendums. Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.

New Age Electronic Government Direct democracy via the Internet is impractical given the modern limitations of technology and of access to technology.

The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Thanks for the quick response. 1. There is a very low chance of that happening. There are loopholes in any voting system, but they're highly unlikely. As far as the not ranking = ranking last, I see what you're saying but I was talking about if there were several candidates whom you don't like. Then, it wouldn't be the same. 2. Adding candidates in the status quo can alter the outcome of the election. The problem you're referring to is the Condorcet method. But IRV solves for that, while the status quo does not. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The second link has a great graph showing the advantages and disadvantages of all. You can see that IRV solves for much more than Plurality (FPTP). I'll include it in the comment section. Officials can find it much easier to tamper with electronic machines. All they need is a hacker. http://www.youtube.com... I need evidence that the U.S. can't mandate IRV, states don't award proportionately for the presidential race (final). Multi-party systems can be a great thing, they provide much more balance. On the large global political scale, our Democrats and Republicans are very similar. That's the problem. If you want to vote for who YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, then you can't do it in FPTP without wasting your vote. This way, you have a backup. *Overall, you can see that IRV may not be the best mathematical system, but it's the easiest for people to understand, it blows the current system out of the water and makes it look prehistoric, and it makes the most sense. I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent.

There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism. improve this

Postal and proxy voting is available for those who are otherwise busy. In addition, when Internet v... Many people don’t vote because they are busy and cannot take the time off. Making voting compulsory will not get these people to the ballot box if they are actually unable to do so.

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

It will reduce the power of special interest groups The power of lobbying groups is a benefit to politics at large. Their ability to publicize issues that are important to specific interest groups are invaluable to the political process. Similarly, they are able to propel and sustain wider interest in the political agenda, ensuring oversight over public policy and recommending necessary changes.  To reduce their power in favour of ‘less-interested’ voters will increase the influence of spin as presentation, not substance, becomes more important. It will further trivialise politics and bury the issues under a pile of hype. Furthermore, by removing incentives for political parties to mobilise their support, compulsory voting favours established parties over minor parties and independents, whose supporters tend to be more inherently motivated. improve this

On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process As this is the last the last i will be posting a short argument ,it is as follows: 1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates" positions and ideas. 2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as "buying votes" for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.

It will reduce the power of special interest groups A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2  The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?). 1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, "Jewish Population of the United States, 2006," in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011) improve this

Increasing voter engagement A major problem with politics in Western Liberal Democracies is that electorates feel disengaged from the political process as they are generally presented with a choice between parties at irregular intervals without much oversight over the calibre of candidate presented to them by each party. This issue would be countered by introducing Open Primaries for candidates to elections. By making candidates from the same party compete for a party candidacy by appealing to the same group that will choose between all parties in General Elections, voters will have a chance to greater examine each prospective candidate at greater detail, allowing for a more considered choice of candidate than the binary choice made at elections.[1] By giving more time to voters, this will increase interest in what candidates have to say, and allow those of all political persuasions to contribute to the debate, turning contests away from ideology and towards representation.    [1] Hannan, Daniel, ‘Conservative Democrats prove the case for open primaries’, The Telegraph, 18th July 2009, http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100003880/conservative-democrats-prove-the-case-for-open-primaries/

The Electoral College C1: Regional DifferencesA. The electoral college is excellent in giving smaller states representation in an election. Without the electoral college smaller states would be irrelevant in an election, and candidates would ignore them. The electoral college lets the less populous states in the middle of our country get a voice in our country.B. For example, in 2012 a topic in the election was military bases, key issues in florida and south carolina. Without the electoral college this topic, along with many others, would be dwarfed by the issues that californians or new yorkers consider important.C. A big issue in the 2016 presidential election was police shootings and violence, which is a big problem in only a few states, but the electoral college forced this pressing issue to be acknowledged. The states where this is an issue has an electoral vote, and this vote causes the candidates to acknowledge this. D. The majority of this nation’s population in democratic party, and because of this the republican party would lose much of it’s power. This creates a president that is not receptive to the republican part of the population.C2: Better CandidatesA. The electoral college creates better candidates that are more aware of the places in the united states. The create candidates that are more on the middle of the spectrum instead of the ends, which is what a popular vote would create.B. If we were under a popular vote democratic candidates could only focus on the costs, and the republican candidates could only focus on the south. This creates very extreme candidates that would not be responsive to the other part of our population. This, of course, is not an advantage because a part of the population would feel oppressed for 4 years or more.C. The electoral college leads to candidates being more moderate, which leads them to be more receptive to the population as a whole. This is good overall because the entire population would feel at least a little represented in the population, and none would feel completely ignored. C3: Pure Democracy is Not AdvantageousA. The united state is not a democracy, we are a Federal Republic. A popular vote would be completely democratic, and that is simply not what the US is. The Electoral college is the perfect mix between democracy and a republic.B. A pure democracy leads quickly to anarchy. A group with a large population would rule the rest of the population, which leads to an oppressed minority. Oppression is never good, and almost always leads to conflict, as seen in Iran or in the American civil war.C. Our founding fathers were scared of a strong state that would create a dictatorship, the youngest child learns this from school. Lesser known was that they also fear anarchy, which they believed lead from democracy. The electoral college is part of the balance that they created.C4: EfficiencyA. The electoral college rarely makes mistakes, and when it does the problems are easy to isolate and fix. A popular vote is messy, and because of this the result of the election would take longer to realise, and mistakes are very hard to fix. If the result may be flawed would necessarily have to have another election. Counting popular votes is very messy.

On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process Thanks for debating with me and I hope we have a great debate! We would like to start with a proper framework for today"s debate First, some Definitions Election Process- Includes voting, free speech, campaigning Harm- We would like to define undermine subvert the base or foundation of insidiously (oxford+merriam) (ADD IF----the NY Times and commoncause.org defines the Citizens United vs (FEC) as The Supreme Court"s decision permits corporations, unions and other special interests to spend as much as they like to advocate the election or defeat of political candidates.) Obsv 1- Time sensitivity- Harm refers to any harms now, or any harms that are imminent. My opponents have to show you, Judge, any harm of great magnitude to the election process that is current or imminent, and we have to show you how without this decision does not harm the election process, and might even help it. Contention 1- Corporate Contributions Increase Voter Turnout Corporate contributions create ads and messages causing an increase in the number of voters, increasing participation in democracy. A 2010 Common Dreams article expresses that since corporations are free to spend funds on political ads, they spend an infinite amount of money on political ads. This obviously increases the number of political ads in the united states. Actually according to a wnyc article published in May 2012 , 70% of political ads were negative in the 2012 election. This all might seem bad, however, A Illinois Wesleyan University study found that increased voter turnout is due to negative television advertisements and that positive advertisements have no significant effect on turnout. By fostering an emotional response in voters, negative or attack advertisements and messages increase voter turnout. An NYC magazine study showed that negative ad-filled campaigns throughout history have been largely successful: In the Massachusetts senate races, Ted Kennedy volleyed Mitt Romney with negative ads, resulting in Kennedy"s victory by 17%. George W. Bush used this same technique against John Kerry in 2004, and he won by a 6.5% margin. The impact is clear- Voter turnout is better for the democratic processes because the people"s voices will be heard. With corporations funding campaigns and producing ads, there is an increased voter turnout, and therefore the democratic process is not harmed. Contention 2-Corporations are beneficial to society, thus they should have the rights of citizens Corporations have the rights of free speech protected under the first Amendment, just like a person. Huffington Post states that Corporations are the foundation of wealth creation, innovation, jobs, markets and the economy in our society. If they spend unlimited money to a certain candidate, the companies could save money, leading to more jobs. Corporations are run by people, help create jobs, and are consisted of people. Obviously, the corporations should be considered as a person. A Gallup Poll showed that Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech. The impact- is that since companies consist of people and help the people, when companies get it their way, the benefits carry on to the citizens. Thus if a company funds a candidate that gives them tax breaks, the company saving money can directly impact to the workers at the company getting higher salaries. Thus when people have reliable jobs, they have more time to stay informed on election news, thus leading to a more informed populous, hereby improving the election process. Contention 3- Super PACs are creating Competition Super PACs, which take the money from corporations and donate them to candidates, are actually creating competition between the political candidates bettering democracy and voter turnout. A February 2012 Slate Magazine article gave us is the Republican Primaries and how without Super PACs, Mitt Romney would win by a huge margin. But since there are Super PACs, there is a more competitive race for the fight for president, and this keeps other alternative candidates in the election too. Because of this, there are more choices in the election, and thus, with more candidates to fit these voter"s ideologies, there is more voter turnout. Another study conducted by the CATO organization was published in 2002 which showed that without PACs, the Mccain-Feingold Act would apply and most donations would go to the incumbents instead of the challenger. With the PACs, the current law made by the Citizen"s United decision would apply and money would go to both candidates. This makes the election fair and competitive. The impact is clear- With the more competitive environment, elections are tighter causing more voter turnout. However, if elections are not competitive, voters will not want to vote, as they already know who will win. This will lower participation in democracy resulting in harming the election process.

A nation-wide popular vote risks recounts and crises of legitimacy. If the popular vote is used, it is possible that a close election would fall prey to accusations of voter-fraud and calls for a recount. This could stall the necessary election of a president or create a crisis of legitimacy in the result of the election.

Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. I affirm the resolution, Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. There are many reasons as to why a popular system is better than an electoral one, but due to space reasons, I shall limit myself to three contentions. Contention #1: The electoral vote system is flawed and less democratic than a popular election.The present system of electoral votes represents an indirect democracy. In this system, citizens cast ballots to select individuals who in turn then vote for a presidential candidate. Allowing individuals to directly select presidential candidates removes this “middle man” and treats each vote equally. The present system was created as blend of a populist and federalist style, allotting each state an amount of votes equal to their Representatives and Senators. Despite the fact that the Constitution allots the President only executive powers, the president is in practice also responsible for dictating their party’s policy. As such, the president’s role is extremely important, affecting each citizen of the United States in an equal manner. The present system allows for the marginalization of citizens, and was born out of the need to compromise with Southern States due to granting suffrage to slaves [1]. Even at its creation, some delegates supported the idea of a popular vote, recognizing it as more democratic. The unequal representation is further aggravated by the fact that most states (except Maine and Nebraska) follow a winner takes all mentality for the selection of electors. This system makes the popular vote essentially irrelevant as a president can be elected as president without capturing the popular vote. The most popular example is the United States Presidential Election of 2000, which saw Pr. G. W. Bush elected over Al Gore, despite the latter winning the popular vote. In fact, under the present system, the votes cast by the Electoral College usually differ significantly from those of the popular vote (e.g. Barack Obama received 68% of the electoral votes in the last election, but captured only 53% of the popular vote). The use of a winner takes all system creates other problems as well, which will be mentioned later. Finally, while measures exist in some states to punish faithless electors, it is still a potential problem that could be subject to abuse. Although there has only been one occasion where faithless electors have prevented the selection of an expected candidate (In the 1836 elections, where the expected candidate was elected anyway by the Senate [2]), the problem is still present, and could be abused in a time of crisis or controversy to circumvent the will of the People of the United States. Contention #2: The present system marginalizes what candidates perceive as “safe states” and gives disproportionate attention to “swing states”.This problem is birthed out of the winner takes all system that is used in nearly all states to select electors. States which tend to overwhelmingly vote for a particular candidate become less important for campaigning purposes, since minor swings in the vote will not cause a loss of electoral votes as long as the candidate retains plurality. This leads to candidates focusing their efforts on “swing states”, that is, states having a history of voting for either party. Candidates will disproportionately visit these states and spend more money on advertising in these states [3]. To garner votes in such states, issues important to these voters are given disproportionate attention. Contention #3: Direct popular vote has the support of most US Citizens.Multiple polls have been conducted on this issue, and a majority of those surveyed support changes to the electoral system [4]. Due to the President’s nature as a representative of American people and interests, both domestically and internationally, the opinions US Citizens hold on this issue is important. This notion has prompted attempts to change the system. One of the most notable occurred during Nixon’s Presidency in the form what is called The Bayh-Celler Amendment. The amendment made it to the Senate, but ultimately died there due to protests from Senators from southern and small states. Another ongoing attempt is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). Under this agreement, the Electoral College will be retained, but electors of states who join the compact will cast ballots for the candidate who captures the popular vote. The NPVIC currently has about half of the electoral votes required achieve a majority in the Electoral College. If and when the NPVIC gains enough electoral votes to come into effect, the electoral system will find itself in need of review. Government ultimately represents the will of the people and history has shown that ultimately, if a significant majority commit to an idea, change can be effected. Citations[1] http://memory.loc.gov...[2] http://www.senate.gov...[3] http://archive.fairvote.org...[4] http://www.gallup.com...

The United States Should Adopt a Ranked-Choice Voting System The Ranked Choice voting system (also called transferable vote, instant-runoff vote, and preferential vote), is a voting system where the voters rank the candidates in order of preference rather than only voting for one candidate. The process works as follows: The first place votes for all of the candidates are counted as normal. If no one candidate has the majority of votes, however, the candidate with the least number of first-place votes is eliminated, and those votes are redistributed to whoever that voter's second choice was. This flowchart explains the process clearly: . https://en.wikipedia.org...I will take the position that adopting a Ranked Choice voting system would be benifical to the United States. My opponent's position should be that either the current first past the post voting system or another voting system would be better.

It will cause more people to become interested in politics Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain.  This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary. 1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005. improve this

Compulsory voting decreases risk of political instability. High levels of participation decreases the risk of political instability created by crises or dangerous but charismatic leaders.

The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. My opponent doesn't respond to most of my arguments and doesn't describe anything in his sources. I'll rebut a few things he says real quick and then restate my case in the last round. {{{ Adding candidates alters the outcome now }}} This is only true if you add a candidate who gets the most votes. Under IRV, you can add a candidate who has very little support, but who splits the vote count of the *most* popular candidate enough so that this candidate loses and is eliminated before the last "round" of voting. For example, candidate A could have 60% of the vote to candidate B's 40% in a head-to-head matchup. But if enough candidates run that are similar to candidate A in ideology, candidate B advances to the finals, but candidate A was eliminated early on, allowing candidate B to beat a weaker opponent. Candidate B could even have his friends run with similar political platforms to candidate A in order to have him eliminated early. {{{ Is Hand-Counting the Votes under IRV feasible? }}} As to hand counting votes vs. machine tallying, there has yet to be a reported incident of hacking. The machines are a closed system, which is nearly impossible to hack. In contrast, my opponent drops all my arguments as to why having openly partisan election officials hand-counting ballots - with little to no oversight - is a bad idea. {{{ Voting 3rd Party }}} My opponent claims that IRV is easier to understand. This makes no sense. The current system is whoever you vote for gets your vote: vote for the candidate you want. Under IRV, there are scenarios where you are HURTING your candidates chances by voting for him. This system is far more complicated. In addition, 3rd Parties don't suddenly win under IRV, as seen in the UK. But even if they did, my opponent drops all my arguments about having more than 2 parties under a presidential system of government is BAD. {{{ Awarding Electors Proportionately }}} My opponent claims that no states do this. He is wrong, quite simply. Nebraska and Maine currently award electors proportionally instead of winner-take-all, and many other states are considering moving towards proportional awarding of electors. [1] My opponent still doesn't respond to the argument that awarding electors proportionally solves many of the problems with winner-take-all, without the baggage of IRV (overcomplicating the system, allowing the majority candidate to lose, strategic voting, additional candidates altering the outcome, etc). [1] http://www.archives.gov...

A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud The concern with mail-in voting surrounds the verification of voter identity as well as voter signatures. This requires a fairly well developed balloting infrastructure, standards, and administration. But, in the state of Florida, there is no past experience with mail-in ballots, making the risk of voter fraud very high.

Abolish the Electoral College The Electoral College system of electing the President of the United States of America should be changed to a popular voting system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The US system of voting to elect the President is done through the Electoral College. This is enumerated under Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution. It was established in 1787 during the Constitutional Convention. During that time, it was impractical for Presidential candidates to travel trough the country campaigning. Votes were counted in each precinct; carried on horseback to the state capital, and then, each elector reported to the nation's capital to cast their vote. Furthermore, the President was elected indirectly. This was meant to prevent the general public from voting for someone they did not know. Each state is responsible for determining their voting procedure. At the time this was established, reasonable justification was present for that system. 221 years later, those justifications are not valid. Widespread media enables candidates to disseminate their message to the millions of voters with televisions, radios, computers, and other forms of media. The election process is computerized in many states, making the tallying and computation of the winner much quicker than it was in years past. Additionally, voting rights have been given to a much broader spectrum of voters, making equal representation a question of civil rights and freedoms. I contend that the Electoral College, in its current form in today's U.S. Federal Government, is unnecessary using the following points in this debate: 1.The Electoral College limits American citizen's access to Presidential candidate's media and attention, making their votes seem meaningless. 2.The Electoral College discourages voter turnout in non-swing states, thus affecting concurrent elections for other races. 3.Faithless electors can cause the non-representation of voters in the states they serve. 4.The electoral college undermines the intelligence and integrity of American voters by assuming they do not have the capability to make and informed, educated decision, and 5.The electoral college has failed to represent the popular vote of American citizens Determining the President by a popular voting method would give greater accountability to individual reporting districts, and equalize the power that swing states and large electoral vote states have over the Presidential election process.

Mandatory voting broadens representation and legitimacy. Such a system guarantees that the government represents a majority of the population, not only a minority of individuals who vote. This helps ensure that governments do not neglect sections of society that are less active politically, and victorious political leaders of compulsory systems may potentially claim greater political legitimacy than those of non-compulsory systems with lower voter turnout.

New Age Electronic Government 1. 15% of Americans do not use the Internet (that is 1 for every 7) [1]. So your policy automatically disenfranchises about 36 million adults from participating freely in the democratic process[2]. 2. Unemployment rate has not gone over 10% in the past 10 years, currently it is at 6.6% [3] 3. An "education revolution" would imply, and necessitate, having the government be less involved with education - electronic or otherwise. 4. Education, Unemployment, time, Direct Democracy[4] via the internet, etc.. your argument is all over the place and somewhat incoherent at this point. Ironically, your viewpoint is more in line with Anarchists and Communists [5] [1] http://www.foxnews.com... [2] http://quickfacts.census.gov... [3] http://data.bls.gov... [4] http://en.wikipedia.org... [5] http://en.wikipedia.org...

Compulsory Voting Compulsory voting is a system in which voters are obligated to vote on election day. If the voter chooses not to vote they may be subject to small punitive measures, much like a speeding ticket. This system is used by 22 countries around the world and has various pros and cons. Voter turnout in the United States is currently at a alarming low rate. The last general election in 2014 has a turnout of 36.4% of eligible voters. In a time where technology is able to connect so many people, 64.6% of the US population wasn't represented in the 2014 general election. I argue that increasing voter turnout in the United States through compulsory voting would increase productivity of the government, and in term benefit many other areas of life.

Direct Popular Vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. I negate the Resolution, Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections. Contention One: Ere on the side of caution-the electoral college works. American democracy has far outpaced any form of democracy in the history of the world. George Washington's peaceful transition to John Adams set a precedent that would be followed for years to come-that citizens of the United States would follow an orderly method of governing themselves. The electoral college has been the guiding hand in this incredibly successful system. As a panel of senators on the judiciary committee pointed out, "It is not sufficient for the partisans of direct election to argue that the electoral college is somehow defective. All mode of election are less than perfect, all provide certain benefits at the expense of certain other. " The Pro in today's debate has an extraordinary burden of proof-it must show that a system which has overwhelmingly worked for over 200 years ought to be thrown away in a blink of an eye. The stakes are immensely high. The United States is the leading power in the world, it cannot afford-the world cannot afford-for even one election of the executive to be called into question. As two professors noted in the Journal of Public Choice, the public debate rages on and "If, with the advantage of 200 or so years of data on how an institution operates, we cannot agree on what it does, we must express even greater skepticism about our ability to predict what some new institution for electing the president will do. " It is entirely noteworthy to uphold the electoral college because it is a system we know: a reliable and stable form of democracy. Contention Two: Direct popular vote is flawed in many ways. Proponents of a direct popular vote too often over simplify the question at hand. They fail to realize that, like any other system, direct popular vote will be vulnerable to numerous problems. One such problem is the increased threat of vote fraud. The electoral college is a series of self-sealing containers, so that each state does not influence the outcome of another. If fraud occurs, it is isolated. In a direct election, however, each vote is of premium importance to the national decision. As such, agents within the election will have a far greater decision to manipulate votes. Consider an election that stays in an almost complete deadlock throughout the day. As word travels, the urgency of West Coast votes becomes so great that the temptation to commit fraud by local officials is overwhelming. The election is illegitimate. The electoral college avoids this because even if one county of one state commits fraud, it will not be enough to impact the overall election. A far greater concern in direct popular vote is the problem of inevitable recounts. As Professor Judith Best argues, "an electoral system should produce a definite, accepted winner and avoid prolonged contests and disputes that create uncertainty and public turmoil. " This is the function now played by the Electoral College. To its defenders, it does so in two ways. On, it saves the nation "from the effects of an ambiguous outcome. " In this way, it confers the requisite legitimacy even in the face of close elections. And two, it also "protects the nation from the crisis of a disputed election. " In a direct popular vote, during a close election, candidates will be too tempted to challenge every result. Whereas before if you carry a state by 10% there is no reason to challenge under the electoral college, now a nationwide deadlock will ensure each state undergoes a recount. The judiciary committee once again explains, If one candidate contests a certain area, his opponent, to protect himself, warns of a contest where he thinks something might have been adverse to him. And in a little while, the whole electorate is involved. Contention Three: The electoral college creates a reasonable, moderate majority. The cornerstone of democracy is not majority rule. It is reasonable majority rule with the protection of minority rights. A nation is far better served when moderate ideologies prevail. This government ensures liberty and equality maintain an optimal balance for all citizens. As former senator James Eastland writes, "Because of winner-take-all(under the electoral system), a party is under a strong inducement to extend its platform as widely as possible within each State; it must expand its base of support to carry a popular plurality. Since both major parties face the same requirement, both must campaign in most of the same places before most of the same votes. Both must be hospitable to a wide range of minority interest which might otherwise be excluded from electoral competition. " This has so many great benefits, including reasonable polices that are widely applicable in nature. Under a direct popular vote, no such system would hold. Candidates must currently be able to get a majority of votes in a statewide election to obtain even a single electoral vote. Ideologically extreme candidates are discouraged from running because they know they cannot appeal to that broad of an electorate. Under direct popular vote, however, there is no need to win statewide majorities and therefore elections will become crowded with extreme candidates. This will further polarize politics as candidates make specific appeals to narrow voter interests. Then, the President will not be elected by a large body politic. He or she will be the voice of only a few.

Children Should Have The Right To Vote In Elections The education system will be improved.

for the increased use of referendums. Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.

Super pacs harm the election process. In order to be fair i will refrain from posting a rebutall this round. Before I start I would like to offer one sole observation: 1) As noted by political watchdog the electoral knowledge the three pillars of any electoral process are voter participation, informed citizens and transparency. Contention 1: The Citizens united ruling increase voter turnout. According to "the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 2012 presidential race over $380,000,000 have been raised by super PACs and $330,000,000 have been spent".This money according to the wall street journal is so super PACs can run advertisements for or against political candidates.. This is important because these advertisements are essential for maintaining voter turnout according to Paul freedman of the University of Virginia "respondents were as much as 10 percentages Points more likely to vote if they watched television in media Markets that were bombarded with presidential ads". Furthermore, according to Dr. Hillygus of Duke University "Among those who early in the campaign did not intend to vote, exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points". The impact of this is that by increasing voter turnout we get a more accurate representation of the publics will which is the purpose of the election process. Contention 2: citizens united allows voters to make informed decisions According to political scientist David Downing "without freedom of media and wider freedom of speech people cannot make informed decisions on how they should vote". This is important because according to Hans von Spakovsky, former member of the Federal Election Commission "many associations we have in this country (no matter which side of the political aisle they are on), from the NAACP to the Sierra Club to the National Rifle Association, are also corporations. Yet those corporate associations were prohibited under penalty of criminal and civil sanctions from expressing the views of their members. This means that before this landmark decisions many important organizations where barred from expressing their opinions and thus the public lacked vital information that may have significantly affected the outcome of previous elections. Lastly this increase in corporate spending does not favor either political party since according to matt bia a correspondent for the new York times campaign spending tends to be cyclical since when one party increases its spending the other party tends to mobilize and increase its spending. Thus not only does citizen united create more informed voters but it also prevents any one party from gaining an advantage. Contention 3: Citizens united increases transparency According to the center for political accountability 85% of company"s increased their disclosure over the last election cycle and there has been an 11% overall increase in disclosure rates. David Weigel a correspondent for the Washington post supports this consensus and notes "there's more information out there about super PAC donors than there is about virtually any other kind of campaign fundraising. The impact of this increased transparency is twofold: sub point a) Transparency reduces political corruption, as noted by political watchdog the electoral knowledge "Transparency makes institutional systems and the actions/decisions they take widely accessible and understood [and] It is difficult to maintain or publicly justify a system that permits abuse and corruption". This corruption is devastating to the democratic process as noted social advocate John Samuel states "The subversion, misuse and abuse of power tends to undermine the process and content of the democratic process" sub point b) Transparency allows voters to maintain confidence in our democratic system according to John Wonderlich of the sunlight foundation "Public knowledge of the money flowing into our politics is absolutely fundamental to public accountability in campaigns and elections, [because] without it we can"t properly" maintain confidence in our democratic system". Voter confidence is essential because as Lonna Atkeson of the University of New Mexico notes "If voters do not have faith in this most fundamental aspect of a democratic society " then the legitimacy of representative government might be at risk" and If we can"t even trust are representatives then we have completely undermined the entire purpose of the election process. Thus for all the aforementioned reasons I urge a con ballot. Sources: http://blog.heritage.org... http://www.slate.com... https://docs.google.com... http://www.nytimes.com... http://www.bowdoin.edu... http://jurist.org... http://aceproject.org... http://news.yahoo.com... http://infochangeindia.org... http://sunlightfoundation.com... http://aceproject.org... http://aceproject.org...

United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out. The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily. Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time. Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time. I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.

Judicial elections are far more transparent than appointments. This is true in many ways. First, the actual competitive election and campaigning process reveals the nature of judicial candidates, as compared to the judicial appointment process where there is no effort required to make citizens aware of an judges qualifications. And, due to the higher profile of elections, the judiciary takes on a much more prominent public profile, receiving greater scrutiny from the public and journalists, all which increase transparency and accountability.

The Electoral College Should Be Abolished and Replaced in the American Voting System The Electoral College is fundamentally flawed. There are no aspects of the system that make it better than a direct popular vote. It gives smaller states more power than others, allows Electors to completely ignore the election outcomes of the states they are representing, allows the voices of at least 49.9% of state voters to remain unheard due to the winner-take-all system, and sustains the flawed two-party system that even our founding fathers were afraid of when they created this nation. The Electoral College was originally created as a buffer between the government and the people, because the government did not trust the people of the USA. In a country that was made Of the People, By the People, and For the People, this kind of system that completely ignores the people should not exist. It's time to ratify a 28th Amendment to the Constitution to abolish this undemocratic system.

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Nothing new to add, will be happy to respond to arguments counter to Rd #1.

Electronic Devices are interfering with the learning in young children. I see your point that many children wouldn't be able to manage their time well enough. However, it can be only a case to few of them. That means it is not an obvious fact that a lot of children are not responsible for managing time. Even though that problem is considered seriously, there are a lot of benefits other than that. By using electronic devices, children do not have to carry their heavy books to every class. It is pretty hard for them to carry their books home whenever there is homework. However, with the electronic books, they do not have to do that. It gives them a total convenience. Also, children can get extra lessons through electronic devices. For the most representative example, there is computer. A lot of educational websites are already helping children to study, but there has been something newly popular recently. It is called "Online lectures", and is gaining a lot of support from students all over the world. They offer many subjects that not only what we learn at school but also other subjects that we don't even have at school. Children can try other practical subjects that they have wanted to try before, or they also can get extra help from the lecturers if they didn't understand the class enough at school. Of course they can contact with their own teachers whenever they have questions through email, if they didn't get enough answer, internet lecture can be a great help.

Opinion polls provide useful information to politicians. They provide important information about what people think of their performance during the election process.  Politicians have the right to change tactics if need be and opinion polls often provide voter feedback about how a candidate is perceived.   Informed candidates can better speak to voter concerns, thus increasing dialogue prior to elections.  Candidates who speak more specifically to issues develop a better public trust as well as commitment regarding their future performance to which they can be held accountable.   Since candidates or platforms which win the election influence future policies, citizens benefit from informed politicians who can speak to the concerns of citizens and issues of the nation.