You are on page 1of 47
sp10s Referendum CP __of_ semi Pe Index ANG shell 23 Public opposition t Civil bertes restrictions 46 Restrictions; immoral actions 7 Patriot Act 8 Government searches 9 Search of records 10 Monitoring calls; indefinite detention 1 Detention without charge 12 Racial profiling 13, - Immigrant discrimination 14 Torture 16 Extraordinary rendition 16 Iraq invasion 7 Overseas involvement 18 Solvency Referendums are successful 19 Complex issues are ok 20-21 Referendums are cost-effective 2 AT: low voter turnout 23 Referendums good Referendums benefit citizens 24 Increase power of citizens 25 Increase political responsibilty 26 Increase knowledge/participation 27 Increase minority rights 28-29 Improve democracy 30 Prevent over-centralization 34 Deliberative Democracy qood Social/pottical equality 32 Increased knowledgelparticipation 33 Legitimacy and justice 34-35 Democracy prevents war 36-37 Aff Answ Public fears terror attack 38 Public approves of anti-terror policies. 39 Approves civil liberties restrictions 40 ‘Approves detention without charge 4 ‘Approves secret military tribunals 42 ‘Approves Guantanamo Bay 43 ‘Approves stopping internat." drugs 44 Referendum doesn't help democracy 45 Voting is bad 46-47 so10s Referendum CP of B inc ) Public perceptions regarding the tradeoff between fighting terrorism and retaining civil liberties have changed gradually, but substantially, over the past three years. In the immediate aftermath ofthe 9/11 attacks, and as late as January 2002, majorities believed it would be necessary to sacrifice some personal freedoms to fight terrorism effectively. Today, just 38% take this view, while 56% say it is not necessary for the average person to give up civil liberties in order to curb terrorism, The decline in the belief that it is necessary to give up liberties to reduce terrorism has been uniform across most demographic groups. Only among Republicans and people in upper-income brackets does a majority continue to say it is necessary to give up civil liberties. In all other groups, most say it is not. D105 Referendum CP. __ of INC Shelf Samet Parmom Lb Major issues can-and should- be decided through referendum. Source: Dr. Frey 2003, (Bruno, Professor at the University of Zurich, author of a dozen books on elections and economics, author of 350 articles in academic journals), Institute for Empirical Research in Economics (Zurich), “Direct Democracy: Designing A Living Constitution”, September 2003, ONLINE,, accessed via Google Scholar 7- 14-2005) As the voters are taken to be poorly educated and ill informed, subject to manipulation and to emotional decisions, it is often argued that referendums should only be used for smal] and unimportant issues. In contrast, issues of great consequence ~ such as changes in the constitution ~ should be left to the professional politicians. The opposite makes more sense. Major issues can be reduced to the essential content. Evaluation is then not a matter of (scientific) expertise but of value judgments. Following methodological individualism, only the citizens may be the final judges when it comes to preferences, and a substitution by representatives is, at most, a second best solution. As the politicians have a systematic incentive to deviate from the voters’ preferences, a substitution leads to biased outcomes. Deliberation safeguards against individual oppression + +4y4aNNY) Robert B. Talisse, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Vanderbilt University, 2005. Democracy After Liberalism: Pragmatism and Deliberative Politics, New York : Routledge, 2005 ; 7 MA pragmatic deliberativism can steer cleat of both the ffberal hyperindi- vidualism that makes community impossible and the antiliberal commu nitarianism that makes community oppressive; the pragmatist view, hence, can generate a plausible conception of democratic citizenship. The prag. matic deliberativist view does this by emphasizing that citizens are neither encumbered selves helplessly ensconced within fixed historical or moral traditions and communities, nor atomic and autonomous agents of ex ni- hilo self-creation. We rather are, for better or worse, sharers in a common social-political world and the joint inheritors of political institutions, his- torical traditions, ideas, principles, conflicts, and problems. This social- political world is dynamic and fluctuating, it requires that we respond to it —indifference, nonparticipation, and self-absorption are responses. The pragmatist maintains with the antiliberals that democratic self-government requires a sense of community and shared purpose among citizens it ac- cordingly rejects the liberal aspiration to a neutral politics and accepts the antiliberal claim that the state must play a formative role in the lives of citi- zens. Yet the pragmatist also affirms, with the liberals, the peed for individ. ual protections against majority tyranny and oppression