THW have elected representatives take an oath to pursue policies only if those

policies are supported by a significant majority of their constituents.

Type of motion: Policy Motion

What is needed: Policy, mechanism, model

Framing

The representation of a group should be based on the constituent’s opinions and not
an individual person alone. The government thinks that it's the job of a representative
to represent their community and not create solutions solely based on personal
vendetta.

Status quo - people get underrepresented, the representatives themselves are not
qualified enough - media exposure and money and influence, or do not have similar
ideologies

Definition

Representatives - elected politicians to represent a certain community

Constituents - voters
Supported - quantifiable data for accurate portrayal

Model
- As part of their oath, we will compel representatives to pursue policies that
represent their community.
- We will ask for opinions from all stakeholders: indigenous groups, lgbtq, other
ethinicities, women, children, about social matter and policies for a 75%
samples
- To gather the info - online surveys conducted in prisons or schools
- In remote areas, oral surveys conducted by trustworhy people with clean track
record so no one can argue illiteracy
- Transparency after getting the data

Burden
- Our burden is to prove why it would be better for the overall society for the
representatives to take an oath to pursue policies only if those policies are
supported by the majority of constituents.
- The team that can prove whichever is more beneficial for a community’a
representation should win…

Arguments
- It is much more better representation
 - Unlike status quo, where representatives are the only ones who decide
what policies to pursue
- The people know what they need better than one person or team
- Representatives are better of
- It is less vulnerable to corruption -
- People will surely know if they get cheated
- People will be more aware about socio-political issues
- Because they’re asked for their opinion, they will read about it, or for
opinions

Preemptions
1. Close minded constituents
- Close minded constituents should not be the focus of this debate
because that is a factor existing in both worlds. We cannot dictate
people to open their minds no matter how hard we try. So, we would
have to continue living in society accepting that some people might not
be as accepting as the others. Even if this is the case, it would still be
better to proceed with our policy because people would actually be
able to give their opinions about a policy that is supposed to be made
to cater to them.
2. The policy is not accessible for everyone.
- Even if s
THW have elected representatives take an oath to pursue policies only if those
policies are supported by a significant majority of their constituents.

OPPOSITION

FRAMING

The government would like you to believe that under their mechanism corruption wil
not exist or will be mitigated to a negligible extent. Under their model, they sa that
because they rely on digital quantification, because they will have competent or
trustworthy people take surveys that they will mitigate the issue but we say that we
cannot guarantee that. Today I will tell you that not only does it not change the status
quo, but their model makes the society worse.

The government gave adequate definitions but failed to produce a good model

MODEL

- Stick with having a representative represent a community

- We will instead strengthen the election process by
- Implementing strict election policies (matter comelec votebuying crime)
- The ASEAN wil put people into power in COMELEC of all ASEAN countries

BURDEN
- The government side failed to fullfil their burden. Their burden is to prove why
it would be better for the community to have the representative listen to the
majority.
- Our burden is to prove why their model will not work and will make the society
worse

STAKEHOLDERS
- Society as a whole

REBUTTALS
- It is much more better representation but we don’t know if this representation
is good for them - not knowledgeable, fake news, misinformation
- You cannot assure good representatiojn because people can still be coerced
like how politicians free favors in exchange for suport we cannot guarantee
that it will niot happen under their model.

ARGUMENTS

- They voted for the representative in the first place

 People are less aware of the social issues we have in society compared to
how government officials do because it is their livelihood. That is why they
voted for a representative in the first place. The community trusted that
person to make the right decisions for them as a whole. By proceeding with
the motion, it would nullify the election done to select a representative.

- Someone still needs to make a decision on 50/50 cases or cases that don’t
have a significant majority.
GOVERNMENT DEPUTY

INTRO:

CLARIFS:
What our side wants is for the voices of the people to be heard rather than
having 1 person, the representative, making a decision on his own that would
hugely affect the society as a whole.

NEW ARGUMENTS

REFRAME

COMPARATIVES

IMPACTS