Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment

Motion: This house would abolish the death penalty for all crimes in the U.S.

Background

In the U.S., 15 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment.  Of the 35 "death-penalty states," one-third rarely sentence anyone to death and another third impose death sentences but rarely carry them out. In many states, the only people to be executed are "volunteers" -- death row inmates who abandon an appeals process that would otherwise keep them alive. Eighty percent of executions now take place in the states of the former Confederacy, the vast majority of them in Texas. Death sentences have also decreased in recent years. One reason is that states now give juries the power to impose life imprisonment without parole. Another is that prosecutors advise victims' families that they may be better off seeking a prison sentence instead of capital punishment. That way, they will not have to watch year after year as the murderer goes to court seeking to have the death sentence overturned.

Capital punishment in the United States varies by jurisdiction. In practice it applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder or contract killing.^[1] Capital punishment existed in the colonies that predated the United States and that were later annexed to the United States under the laws of their mother countries and continued to have effect in the states and territories they became.

The methods of execution and the crimes subject to the penalty vary by jurisdiction and have varied widely throughout time. Some jurisdictions have banned it, others have suspended its use, but others are trying to expand its applicability. There were 37 executions in 2008.^[2] That is the lowest number since 1994^[3] (largely due to lethal injection litigation).^[4][5] There were 52 executions in the United States in 2009, 51 by lethal injection and 1 by electric chair (Virginia).

International

More than two-thirds of the countries of the world have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. While 58 countries retained the death penalty in 2009, most did not use it. Eighteen countries were known to have carried out executions, killing a total of at least 714 people; however, this figure does not include the thousands of executions that were likely to have taken place in China, which again refused to divulge figures on its use of the death penalty.

In 1977, only 16 countries had abolished the death penalty for all crimes. As of December 2009 that figure stands at 95 and more than two thirds of the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice.

Of the 58 retentionist countries, only 18 are known to have carried out executions in 2009.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, recognizes each person’s right to life. It categorically states that “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment” (Article 5). In Amnesty International’s view, the death penalty violates these rights.

The community of states has adopted four international treaties specifically providing for the abolition of the death penalty. Through the years, several UN bodies discussed and adopted measures to support the call for the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

In December 2007 and 2008 the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted resolutions 62/149 and 63/168, calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. Since then, other regional bodies or civil society coalitions adopted resolutions and declarations advocating for a moratorium on executions as a step towards global abolition of the death penalty.

Arguments for

The death penalty is too expensive

·         A state study in Indiana showed that capital sentences cost 10 times more than life-without-parole cases

·         An appeals case in federal court can cost up to $275,000 and people are allowed to appeal multiple times, as opposed to the $20,000 it costs to keep an inmate in prison each year.

·         A December 2009 news article from Lubbock, Texas revealed that a capital punishment case in the state at the time cost $1 million whereas the average cost of a case devoid of capital punishment is $3,000. This does not include the cost of appeals in capital punishment cases, either, which can more than double the cost. Then there is the cost while the person is in prison. It costs $47.50 to house a criminal in prison in the state of Texas for one day. If someone were sentenced to life in prison, it would cost $693,500 to house him or her for 40 years. That is still only a fraction of the cost of a death penalty court case. Also, prisoners on death row spend, on average, at least 12 years in prison before they are executed. In Texas, this would mean an extra $208,050 added to the high cost of the court case and appeals process.

·         In Florida, budget problems resulted in the early release of 3,000 prisoners.  In Texas, prisoners serve an average of 20% of their sentences and rearrests are common.  Georgia laid off 900 correctional personnel and New Jersey had to dismiss 500 police officers.  Yet these states also pour millions of dollars into the death penalty.  The costs of the death penalty are decreasing the amount of police on the streets, and increasing the amount of criminals on the streets, which only increases the danger for our society

·         In a small county in Washington, the anticipated death penalty costs are causing them to delay pay raises to 350 of their employees, let one government position to go unfilled, and drain their $300,000 contingency fund. In another county in Washington, $346,000 has been spent to seek the third death sentence for Mitchell Rupe. He is dying of liver disease, but the state is making extreme efforts to keep him alive so they can execute him.

Innocent people get killed

There have been 113 people released from death row since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, but only 907 executions since that time.  That means that for every 7 executions in the U.S., 1 person has been found innocent on death row

Case studies of innocent people on death row:

• Gary Gauger - Illinois - Conviction: 1993, Released: 1996 --- He was convicted of killing his parents, but was found innocent after his conviction, when police heard the real murderers talking about the killing.
• Sabrina Butler - Mississippi - Conviction: 1990, Released 1995: --- Convicted of murdering her nine-month old child. When she found her baby not breathing, she performed CPR and took him to the hospital. Even after doing this, the police thought that she was the killer, and she ended up getting sentenced to death. It is now believed that the child died of SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome).
• Andrew Golden - Florida - Conviction: 1985, Released: 1995 --- Convicted of killing his wife, even though the prosecution failed to prove that his wife's death was anything more than an accident. He was finally released from death row in 1995, "to the waiting arms of his sons."

It is not effective in deterring crime

·         According to the 2009 FBI Uniform Crime Report, the South has the highest percentage of executions (80 percent). Yet from 2001 to 2009, the region saw no significant drop in its murder rate.

·         In one study done in Oklahoma, it was found that after Oklahoma resumed capital punishment, no deterrent effect was found - in fact, a brutalization effect (increase in homicides) was reported

·         A 1995 poll of police chiefs showed that the police do not believe that the death penalty lowers homicide rates. In fact, they ranked the death penalty last (1%) in effective ways to decrease violent crime

·         The studies and evidence show that the death penalty is not effective in deterring criminals from committing murders.  Therefore the death penalty is unnecessary and unneeded

The death penalty is racist

·         African-Americans constitute 12% of the U.S. population, but make up 40% of the prisoners on death row

·         People executed for interracial murders:

o   White defendant/black victim – 11

o   Black defendant/white victim – 167

·         84% of victims in death penalty cases are white, although only 50% of murder victims are white

·         Roughly 98% of our nation’s prosecutors are white

Arguments against

The death penalty is used responsibly

·         Last year in the U.S., there were over 15,000 murders, yet only 52 of those murderers were executed.

·         Our system works in weeding out the people who deserve the death penalty from those who deserve a different sentence or are innocent

·         We rarely convict people who turn out to be innocent, but we have parts of our justice system that allow time for appeals for the truth to be found for when the original trial is flawed or makes a mistake

We could save money in the long run using the death penalty

·         It costs an average of $20,000 per year to keep someone in prison.  There are currently 143,000 people in prison for life or on death row.  To keep these criminals alive and away from society costs almost $2.9 billion a year.

·         If we are able to execute these murderers and harmful criminals that are going to sit in jail for life already, then we can save a considerable amount of money

The problem is not the death penalty, it is the appeals system

·         Obviously, there is a major problem in the costs and time it takes to go through the appeals courts

·         The proper response is not to eliminate the death penalty altogether, but to reform this system so that we spend less money and waste less time

Quotations

“The evidence on whether it has a significant deterrent effect seems sufficiently plausible that the moral issue becomes a difficult one,” said Cass R. Sunstein, a law professor at the University of Chicago who has frequently taken liberal positions. “I did shift from being against the death penalty to thinking that if it has a significant deterrent effect it’s probably justified.”

Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.

“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”

Fracking

Brief: Fracking

Background:

            In recent years in the U.S. and elsewhere, there is a push to find better alternatives to oil, one of which is natural gas, which is cleaner and cheaper than oil. There is a controversy as to how some of that natural gas is obtained, however. One process used is known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” which involves injecting massive amounts of water, chemicals, sand and other material under high pressure into shale formations to break the rock and release the gas trapped inside. In 2000, shale beds provided just 1 percent of America’s natural gas supply. Today, that figure stands at 25 percent. The Energy Information Administration estimates that shale gas fields in the United States contain enough natural gas to power the country for 110 years.

            With so much energy to be found by this process, many people propose that we increase our efforts to extract natural gas, since it gives us a viable option separate from oil, and it would be produced at home, lessening our dependence on the stability of other countries for our energy supplies. Critics of fracking say that it damages the environment, leading to a greater propensity for earthquakes, and it also leaves lots of harmful chemicals in the ground after the process is completely finished, which then make their way into the water supply.

The Fracking Process:

·         Fracking involves drilling down to levels of as much as 10,000 to 15,000 feet, far below the aquifer, which is about 300 feet below the surface.

·         Before any water, chemical, and sand mixture is used to frack the shale, a steel pipe encased in cement is laid through the well. This system ensures that the fracking mixture is delivered directly to the shale layers targeted for fracturing, 10,000 to 15,000 feet below the aquifer.

·         The fracking mixture, as well as the released oil or natural gas, is then sucked back up through the protected wellbore and stored in surface reserve tanks. Some is filtered for re-use; some is disposed of at a regulated disposal center.

·         The fracking mixture is 99.5 percent water, 0.5 percent chemical, and sand. Here at Breitling Oil & Gas, the chemical mix typically contains between 15 and 30 different chemicals, with an emphasis on chemicals that are considered safe for human consumption.

Motion: TH Rejects Fracking

Pro:

1.      Environmental Harms

a.       Fracking disturbs, distributes, and carries upward with the fracked gas what are called “produced waters” that normally sit a mile or more beneath the earth’s surface. These “produced waters” contain radioactive materials, heavy metals, hydrocarbons, bromide, highly concentrated salts, and many other organic and inorganic compounds that, when exposed to our environment, are dangerous to biological life. The chemicals added to the fracking process obviously make this worse, but even if fracking fluids were non-toxic, fracking in deep formations will always deliver deadly chemical hazards.

b.      There exists a greater likelihood of earthquakes from fracking, too. In the region surrounding Youngstown in northeastern Ohio, where the fracking boom is in full swing, seismic instruments recorded nearly a dozen small earthquakes in 2011, with a magnitude 4.0 tremor reported on December 31. According to John Armbruster of Columbia University, who has studied earthquakes and drilling for years, “any disposal well that’s been pumping stuff into the ground for months can cause earthquakes.”

2.      Harms to people

a.       In Pavillion, Wyoming, the EPA found fracking chemicals in well water. There is proof that chemicals used in the fracking process do not disappear or stay in one place. They can easily make their way into well water, which directly harms people who get their drinking water from those sources. More fracking would mean more potential disease and death for those living in areas close to shale gas fields.

                                                              i.      New York City gets roughly half its water from the Delaware River Basin, a key area for hydraulic fracturing

b.      The chemicals left by fracking in abandoned capped wells, after production ends, will be hazards for millennia to come. We have no good way of eliminating these chemicals or disposing of them in a safe manner. A high amount of fracking simply means that more and more chemicals will be left for future generations to deal with.

c.       The cement and steel casings used and the plugging methods for post-production gas wells do not isolate methane, other dangerous gases, and pressure-driven contaminated fluids from the groundwater. Even if the very best technology is used, these plugged-up wells will be broken down in 80-100 years, and probably sooner.

d.      Water is a scarce resource. Less than 1 percent of the earth’s water is potable, and fracking puts even more of our drinking water sources at risk. This will be a huge problem for future generations.

3.      Increased Regulation would be Helpful

a.       The fracking industry should follow the same rules as every other industry. Currently, fracking has exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the industry does not have to publicly disclose the chemicals used in the fracking process. At the very minimum, these types of regulations should be implemented to ensure transparency and honesty in the industry, and to help guarantee that we can make this process as safe as possible.

b.      Congress passes laws like the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act, because the government has a role in protecting people and keeping them safe from unnecessary harm.

4.      Energy doesn’t always stay in the U.S.

a.       As seen in the last few years, American domestic oil production has been at record levels, yet gas prices have continued their steady rise. According to logic, more oil production should mean less cost at the pump. However, oil companies in the U.S. found that they could get more profit by selling the oil to Asia, specifically China. There is no reason to think that the same thing won’t happen with natural gas. China can pay more and has a higher demand for energy. Even if fracking produces lots and lots of natural gas, it has to stay in the U.S. to give us a boost in energy independence.

5.      The Fracking Industry is Corrupt

a.       The industry pays state regulators millions of dollars in permitting fees, resulting in a situation like Pennsylvania. In Pennsylvania, the state levied fines on only 4 percent of drillers who violated the law. After one company in PA contaminated drinking water for 16 homes, the fine was less than what the company earns in three hours. Surprisingly, that was the largest fine ever imposed.

Con:

1.      Harms and Risks are not as large as they seem

a.       According to the EPA, natural gas electricity generation produces half the carbon dioxide of coal, less than 1/3 of the nitrogen oxides and 1 percent of the sulfur oxides. While fracking is not perfect, natural gas as a resource is a better option than coal when it comes to environmental impact.

b.      The use of hydraulic fracturing is not new. The process has been used since 1947 to extract oil and natural gas. The claim that groundwater is just now being contaminated lacks substantive data to support its conclusions. The national association of state groundwater agencies have found no evidence of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids.

c.       The EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently reinforced the EPA’s stance that fracturing does not pose a significant threat to groundwater

d.      Claims about the harms to drinking water are unsubstantiated. In western Pennsylvania, the Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority did extensive tests and didn’t find a problem in local rivers.

e.       The industry and regulators have responded to concerns. In the last half of 2011 in Pennsylvania, out of the 10.1 million barrels of shale wastewater generated, about 97 percent was either recycled, sent to deep-injection wells, or sent to a treatment plant that doesn’t discharge into waterways.

2.      Alternative energy needs a backup

a.       We need to utilize all of our resources as we push toward more alternative energies. We currently get 49 percent of our power from burning coal, 21 percent from nuclear, and 18 percent from natural gas. Wind accounts for only 2 percent and solar only 0.03 percent.

b.      The problem with energy sources like wind and solar is that the wind doesn’t blow all the time, and the sun doesn’t shine all the time. Texas, for example, has the capacity to produce 10,000 megawatts (MW) of energy from wind, but it only generates about 2,000 MW. Assuming about 40 percent efficiency for a gas power plant, the gas production from one shale gas field (the Barnett Shale) is about 25,000 MW, the equivalent of over 60,000 wind turbines or 25 coal-fired power plants.

c.       Natural gas is an energy solution that works today, while alternative energy sources need time to be developed. We should use the resources that we have in the present to satisfy our energy needs while pursuing green technologies at the same time.

3.      Economic gains

a.       In 2008, after the innovation of fracking gave way to a surge in resources, the price of natural gas plummeted from nearly $8 per thousand cubic feet to $3.67. The increase in domestic production has kept prices low for American consumers—who get 24 percent of their electricity from natural gas.

b.      In places like Pennsylvania, development of the Marcellus Shale (a shale gas field) is projected to create more than 111,000 jobs in 2011 with $10 billion added to the state’s economy.

4.      Technological advances reduce harms

a.       The risks presented by fracking are avoidable. Just like any other industrial activity, there are risks, but good engineering, in combination with sensible and effective regulation, reduces those risks to maximize societal benefit.

b.      Thanks to today’s technology, we can produce many times the amount of energy we did in the past—but by drilling many fewer wells. In Pennsylvania in 2010, the number of wells drilled was 30 percent less than in 2005, yet the state is producing roughly 12 times the volume of natural gas per day than it did back then.

Sources:

http://www.usnews.com/debate-club/is-fracking-a-good-idea

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/the-real-story-behind-the_1_b_1719554.html

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/15/us/fracking-earthquakes/index.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-whole-fracking-debate-is-based-on-bad-science-2012-7

War in Afghanistan (green-on-blue attacks)

Brief—The War in Afghanistan

From the article:

·         34 “green-on-blue” attacks this year in Afghanistan, in which troops from the NATO-led coalition have been attacked by their local allies in the Afghan security forces

o   In these attacks, 45 soldiers have been killed and 69 wounded

·         On August 29^th, an Afghan soldier shot dead three Australian soldiers at a base in the south-central province of Uruzgan

·         1/7 of all NATO deaths this year have been at the hands of Afghan troops

·         The Taliban claim the attacks are part of a campaign to infiltrate the Afghan army and police with assassins

o   NATO commanders reject this idea, say that only 1/10 of the attacks are the work of infiltrators

·         Most of the attacks are rooted in a mixture of personal arguments and cultural misunderstandings

o   Afghan soldiers and policemen cite foreigners’ swearing, arrogance, ignorance of Islam and disrespect towards civilians as sources of tension with their allies

o   Afghan soldiers are also given little leave, and can be posted in a hotspot such as the Helmand province for years at a time

·         Afghan soldiers or police have also killed 53 of their comrades and wounded 22 in 35 separate attacks this year

·         The attacks weaken American support for the war

Background

            Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, America soon moved to cut off Al-Qaeda at its source, which at the time was in Afghanistan. American and NATO troops have been in the area since 2001, with mixed results and a now unclear mission. After Osama bin Laden, the de facto leader of Al-Qaeda, was killed by U.S. special forces in Pakistan, and dozens of other terrorist leaders have been killed by drone strikes and through counter-insurgency measures, it is difficult to say what the Western role is now. To be sure, Afghanistan is by no means a perfect country. The Taliban continues to fight Western forces, and the newly-elected Afghan government (led by Hamid Karzai, the president) struggles to maintain control and to effectively train its soldiers and police forces. However, the 11-year struggle seems to be coming to an end, as people either see that the mission has been accomplished, or there is no point for American troops to continue to attempt to build a democratic state.

            The plan, at least for American troops, is to decrease the amount of forces to 68,000 by September 2012, from a peak of 100,000 in mid-2011. Barack Obama has promised a “steady pace” of withdrawal after that, until the end of 2014, when only about 20,000 trainers and special forces personnel are left. The controversy is over the ability of Afghanistan to contain the Taliban by themselves. Some say that Afghan forces will not be able to keep the Taliban at bay, while others argue that America needs to let the Afghan government approach the problem with whatever strategies they believe will be effective.

The Motion:

THW Pull out of Afghanistan

Arguments:

Pro:

1.      The War is being Won

a.       American commanders argue that recently, with the arrival of paratroopers, the Taliban has been pushed back. There are still attacks, but less bombs have been found and Taliban leaders have fled into the mountains. With the Taliban out of the towns and roads, the Afghan forces can hold the newly cleared ground.

2.      America (and the West) has done enough harm already

a.       By taking over operations in Afghanistan, American troops have limited the ability of Afghans to take ownership of the fight. We have created a harmful dependency that will make it difficult for the Afghan government to make its own policies and develop its own solutions. Nevertheless, at some point we must break this dependency. We cannot stay in Afghanistan forever.

b.      This year, there have been 34 “green-on-blue” attacks, in which forces from the NATO-led coalition have been attacked by the Afghan security forces, their allies. In these attacks, 45 soldiers have been killed and 69 wounded. Most of the reasoning for these attacks comes from disagreements and cultural misunderstandings. Afghan soldiers are frustrated by their allies’ swearing, arrogance, ignorance of Islam, and disrespect towards civilians. At the point at which our allies in Afghanistan are killing our soldiers, it is time to cut our losses and leave.

c.       Every year, there are thousands of civilian casualties in Afghanistan. In 2009, Western forces accounted for about half of all civilian casualties. In the first six months of 2010, over 3,200 Afghan civilians were killed as a result of the fighting. At some point, the civilian death toll forces us to question the purpose and efficacy of our war strategy. We are clearly at the point where civilian deaths outweigh any victory we could have against the Taliban.

3.      There is no victory strategy

a.       The war in Afghanistan, and this is true for most modern conflicts in the Middle East, is unique. This is not a war between two nations, each with boundaries, economies, constitutions, and (somewhat) uniform values, as in typical wars of the past. Rather, we are attempting to fight an ideological enemy that is extremely mobile and can cross national borders with ease. There is no way to kill the ideology of Islamic extremists. If anything, our attacks against them and their civilians will only increase their recruitment. Attempts to continue to fight the Taliban or Al-Qaeda is a losing battle. We may have superior force, but they know the landscape, the culture, the language, and their ideology cannot be snuffed out.

Con:

1.      The Afghan government is not ready (Taliban will win)

a.       Afghan forces are not numerous enough nor trained heavily enough to be able to combat the Taliban. Even if the Taliban has retreated, they can always come back, and the reason they retreated had to do with the 100,000 American troops, which will drop by at least 80,000 by the end of 2014. There are not enough Afghan troops to compete with the Taliban. They will most likely lose control of the country to the Taliban, and then we lose all the progress of the last eleven years

b.      There are reports of infiltration within the Afghan security forces and police force, as evidenced by Afghan-on-Afghan attacks within the Afghan military, killing over 50 troops this year. The Taliban is not gone, and will continue to infiltrate the military until they take back control of the government.

2.      America has an interest in forming a democracy

a.       After America originally chased off the Taliban at the start of the war, the state-building process began. Afghanistan did (and continues to) welcome U.S. assistance and aid. Not only that, but America has sacrificed thousands of troops for this cause, and it would all be a waste if we give up now. We need to stay longer in the country in order to stabilize the government, root out corruption, and assist them in growing their economy to the point that they are self-sufficient. It is within America’s interest to have a democratic government in the Middle East that supports the U.S. It gives us important diplomatic channels into Iran, Syria, and Pakistan. America also stands to gain economically by having a trade partner. This could be a great way to show the world America’s commitment to its values, as well as to keep important diplomatic connections open.

3.      Afghanistan needs our help

a.       In the last 10 years, the average lifespan of women in Afghanistan has increased by 15 years. This is due mostly to increased access to healthcare, better nutrition and increased GDP. America has made Afghanistan a better country. It is not perfect, but it is much better than rule by the Taliban, and they can still use our help in building the economy and the government.

b.      “Most people still do not have access to clean water or electricity, even in Kabul, the capital city. In part this is due to government corruption. Afghanistan is now ranked one of the most corrupt countries in the world. But it is also a failure of  the international contracting firms that built the roads, many of which were too small to allow farmers to pass trucks to get produce to market. Some used such poor quality  asphalt that the roads need rebuilding already. Even in central Kabul the main road which runs between the airport and a central district called Wazir Akbar Khan is so badly pot-holed that visitors think it is due to war damage. The asphalt of the road, built a few years ago, has already worn away.”—salon.com

                                                              i.      We need concerted efforts to help the citizens while we keep the Taliban at bay. We do not need all of our troops, but we cannot abandon our ally while we have left their country in such a weak state. We are setting them up to either lose control of their government or be mired in poverty for the next decade, and we must right this wrong.

Sources:

http://www.salon.com/2012/02/23/why_the_u_s_should_not_pull_out_of_afghanistan/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/11/us-soldier-kills-afghan-civilians

http://www.economist.com/node/21556611?zid=312&ah=da4ed4425e74339883d473adf5773841

http://www.economist.com/blogs/banyan/2012/03/afghanistan-0?zid=312&ah=da4ed4425e74339883d473adf5773841

Compulsory Voting

Compulsory Voting

Background

            Compulsory voting is the policy that requires citizens to vote, with a punishment of some sort of fine, prison time, or community service if they fail to show up to the polls. Over 20 countries have some form of compulsory voting. In Australia, for example, all citizens over the age of 18 must show up at the poll on election day. Those who do not vote are subject to fines, which increase significantly for repeat offenders. Australia adopted the law in 1924, and has seen voter turnout increase from 59% to 95% since the passing of the law. Proponents of such a system often argue that a government is illegitimate when only 60-70% of a country’s population is voting. Opponents argue that, among other things, compulsory voting is a breach of personal liberty.

            In the United States, 63% of eligible voters (131 million people) cast a vote in the 2008 presidential election. Even fewer voters turn out for Congressional elections (40%) and presidential primaries (about a third). In American history, a president has never been elected by a majority of American adults. America has an incredibly polar political system compared to other Western liberal democracies, many of which have 3 or more established parties. The American political system has also been tainted by things such as corporate financing, negative political advertisements, and gerrymandering. Congress recently (August 2012) had just a 10% approval rating. Clearly, changes of some sort should be made in the U.S.

Possible models:

·         Similar to the Australian system, have fines ($20-$70) for nonvoters, and have election day on a Saturday or Sunday

·         Require voting, but include a lottery in which voters can win money, funded by the fines of nonvoters (from Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute)

Arguments

Pro (in favor of compulsory voting)

1.      Good democracy requires all citizens to participate

a.       The government elected by 60% of the eligible voters is not a legitimate government. Those candidates and policies will not reflect a huge portion of the population, and thus it is inaccurate representation. Not only that, but those who don’t end up voting tend to be poorer, and since their voice is not heard and candidates don’t cater to their needs, we end up with policies that continue to disenfranchise the poorest of our citizens. With compulsory voting, we get candidates that will address the needs of all citizens, because now they have to consider many more people who will be voting.

2.      Compulsory voting is a necessary violation of freedom

a.       There is no doubt that in some ways, a requirement to vote infringes upon personal liberty, but governments do this all the time when it is in the best interest of society. In America, we have mandatory taxation, jury duty, and the requirement to educate our children. All these things violate our freedom, but they are good ideas that benefit the whole country. If we believe jury duty and taxation are necessary for a successful society, then surely we should require citizens to participate in picking the leaders of our country.

3.      This plan could alter the role of money in politics

a.       Quite often, turn-out-the-vote programs are run by big-money groups, which have a desire to get certain people to show up to the polls. Such programs would be irrelevant with compulsory voting. Additionally, the impact of negative political advertisements could be lessened, since one goal of these ads is to discourage participating in the opponent’s camp.

Con (against compulsory voting)

1.      Compulsory voting worsens elections

a.       Voters are influenced by popular media, bloggers, grassroots organizations, and especially special interest groups. It is highly unlikely that American voters are suddenly going to start sufficiently researching candidates and issues. This means that most of their information will come from sound bites, misleading ads, and heavily biased sources.

b.      The average voter is incompetent at politics. We already have people voting who do not understand the implications of their choices. Further increasing participation means we get more people who will not make educated decisions, which leads to candidates who win based on name, face, and celebrity appeal.

                                                              i.      Example: Peter Garrett of Australia, a former lead singer of a rock band, ran for office (and won) in 2004. It was later revealed that he was not even registered to vote for the prior 10 years. He now serves as the Labour Party’s minister for the environment.

2.      Compulsory voting is impractical in America

a.       There are some people who simply cannot find the time to vote because they have to work constantly in order to scrape by a living. This type of policy hurts the poorest of citizens by forcing them to choose between losing pay at work in order to vote, or to be fined if they do not. Additionally, while Australia has 95% voter turnout, that is only 12 million votes to count. America, at 63% turnout in 2008, had about 130 million votes to count. To implement a system of compulsory voting would have be costly as well as a logistics nightmare. If you thought vote counting got complicated in Florida, just imagine 80 million more votes across the country.

3.      This policy violates personal autonomy

a.       America, in terms of voting opportunity, is right up there with the best of democracies. Almost all citizens have no barriers to registering and voting. If voting is so easy, why does it need to become required? Democracy is not about compelling citizens to certain actions, but instead it is about having the choice to participate in whatever way you choose. It is legitimate political expression to not vote, and people should not be punished for it.

4.      There are better ways to improve the system

a.       Open primaries—allow people not registered with either party to vote in either the Republican or Democratic primaries. This forces candidates to appeal to moderates.

b.      End districting by legislatures—don’t let state legislatures choose how their districts are designed; this entrenches polarized politics and reduces competition

c.       Public financing of elections—corporate financing in elections turns people off to voting because they feel their votes cannot compete with the influence of corporations, and it makes it more difficult for challengers to enter the race.

Situation In Libya

Brief: Situation in Libya

            In February of 2011, protestors took to the streets of Benghazi, demanding that the ruler of 42 years, Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, make democratic reforms or step down. Gaddafi’s private security forces met these protests with force, and fired on the crowds. This situation escalated into a revolution in which NATO supplied the rebel forces with arms and set up a no-fly zone to protect them from aerial attacks. Member countries of NATO brought in aircraft carriers and jets to enforce the no-fly zone. In July 2011, Gaddafi and his son Saif al-Islam announced that they supported elections and could hold them within three months, but NATO rejected the offer. On September 16, the National Transitional Council (NTC) was recognized by the UN as the legal representative of Libya. On October 20, Colonel Gaddafi was killed during a battle in his hometown. On October 23, the NTC declared “the liberation of Libya” and the end of the war.

            In August 2012, the NTC handed power to the General National Congress. The 200 seat Congress was elected in July 2012, and it had more liberal, secular, and independent candidates elected than the Justice and Construction Party, which is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood. The chairman of the Congress, Mohamed Magarief, is currently the interim head of state. The Prime Minister is Mustafa Abu Shagur, who has promised to make security a priority. The transition to a democratic government has not been seamless. The country is still fighting against Islamist militias scattered in various regions, and on September 12, 2012, the American embassy in Libya was stormed by a mob (and possibly trained military forces) and the ambassador, Christopher Stevens, as well as 3 aides, were killed. The violence coincided with protests following the release of a video, The Innocence of Islam, on YouTube, which mocked the prophet Muhammad. It was later released that protests related to the video had nothing to do with the attack. The attack was organized and sophisticated, according to the Libyan government.

Motion: THBT Libya is a failure

Pro:

1.      Western intervention led to more deaths

a.       From the time that NATO got involved in the Libya conflict until its resolution, approximately 30,000 more lives were lost. NATO’s weapons and air support only encouraged more violence and continued a conflict that had already taken thousands of lives.

b.      There is no reason to believe that this situation will be different from other countries that toppled authoritarian regimes. In Kosovo, we saw that the post-war regime is liable to be criminal and corrupt. After the liberation of Eritrea and Ethiopia from a brutal dictatorship 20 years ago, the countries soon degenerated into authoritarianism and war. A revolution like this will always lack stability, and those who are unhappy with the government will simply have another revolution, forcing those in power to get out of the way or to tighten security.

2.      The intervention in Libya sets a bad precedent

a.       The UN mandate that authorized action in Libya was supposed to be on the basis of protecting the people of Libya. What this turned into was full-blown Western interventionism, and the “responsibility to protect” was used as a pretext for toppling a vulnerable government. NATO countries overstepped their bounds, which makes future situations like Libya potentially dangerous and hard to control.

b.      Now there are two harms coming out of Libya:

                                                              i.      Nations that we may have attempted to negotiate with previously see Libya as evidence that the West will not negotiate and will instead jump to action. These nations will move away from negotiations and instead start to arm themselves to protect against an invasion

                                                            ii.      Since this conflict served no distinct Western interest, and due to the fact that it is viewed by some as a success, future administrations of the US and other nations are more likely to take the risk of sending in forces to topple a dictator, aside from UN protocol or international law

c.       In the US, Congress is supposed to be the one to declare a war, and the executive branch went around them to wage war in Libya. The executive declaring war without represented leaders approving it is not a good precedent to have for our country. It means future presidents can go to war wherever and whenever they want.

3.      Security Issues in Libya

a.       The killing of the U.S. ambassador and 3 aides in Benghazi shows that there is still much to be done in Libya. The new government has not found a way to control protests and opportunistic militant groups. If this continues to be the case, it is unlikely that Libya will become stable anytime in the near future.

b.      In recent weeks (Oct 2012) Salafists have attacked shrines in Tripoli (capital) and elsewhere. These shrines have been venerated for centuries by Sufis, who practice a more mystical form of Islam. Importantly, the Salafists were allowed to destroy these sites for over 48 hours without the ministry of interior or the police lifting a finger to stop them.

                                                              i.      This suggests that extreme Islamists (like the Salafists) have friends in high places protecting them or that the government’s security is to weak or disorganized to deal with them

Con:

1.      Libyans have a democratic, moderate government

a.       On September 12, 2012, the General National Congress elected Mustafa Abushagur, a secular-minded engineering professor, as prime minister. Another body will write a constitution, with the hopes of electing a parliament within 18 months.

b.      In the congressional election in July 2012, the Muslim Brotherhood only gained 17 out of 80 seats, whereas a coalition of secularists, liberals and milder Islamists won 39 seats. 120 of the 200

2.      This was an organic uprising with multilateral help

a.       Organic

                                                              i.      At its core, the revolution was always a Libyan struggle. The rebels truly wanted a change of power, and they were willing to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve success. This was always about Libyans fighting against an oppressive government, unlike Iraq, which had no organic uprising before the U.S. invasion

b.      International

                                                              i.      This was a multilateral effort of NATO countries. The U.S. took out Libya’s air defense system and provided the majority of the intelligence, and France and Britain provided air and naval assets which struck over 40% of all targets. Italy hosted hundreds of aircraft at seven airbases.

                                                            ii.      This was by no means a U.S. interventionist effort, which is a nice change from the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade. The actions in Libya displayed international cooperation and the ability to support a human rights cause without attempting to obtain selfish gains.

3.      Libya’s economy looks hopeful

a.       One of the biggest concerns during and after the revolution was the state of the Libyan economy. Oil fields and pipelines had been damaged, and unemployment and growth were way down. A weak economy can add to political unrest and frustration. However, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in July 2012 estimated that Libya’s GDP (which fell by 60 percent during the fighting) will grow by more than 116 percent this year (2012), then settle down to growth of over 13 percent over the following two years.

b.      One of the reasons that Libya’s economy can grow so quickly has to do with its oil production. Libya has only 6.7 million people and about 47 billion barrels of proven oil reserves. This allows for a quick economic recovery, and gives a large cushion for bad politics that might make poor economic decisions.

Articles:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/26/libya-war-saving-lives-catastrophic-failure

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/220598/the-war-in-libya-is-still-a-failure

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/07/15/will-libya-be-an-arab-spring-success-story.html