Possible Debates Flashcards
Has there been effective legislation to curb the power and influence of big corporations - Intro
The subject of big business and corporation influence in US politics is a contentious one - some point to legislation such as the FECA limits of 1972, the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002, and the overall lack of hard money contributed by big business as reasons for the success of legislation - however others point to influential SC cases such as Buckley v Valeo in 1974 and Citizens United v FEC in 2010 which effectively overturned this legislation, leading to the amount of money and big business influence in US politics today - overall there has not been effective legislation to curb the power and influence of big corporations
Has there been effective legislation to curb the power and influence of big corporations - YES (counterargument)
1) FECA - 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act - enacted during a time of political instability (1968 Dem convention and Watergate) - FECA limits included full reporting of campaign contributions and expenditures and limited spending on media ads - also provided the legislative framework for PACs and super PACs - FECA didn’t provide for a single independent body to enforce this law, instead the Clerk of the House, Secretary of the Senate, and the Comptroller General of the United States Accounting Office (GAO) monitored compliance with FECA - this is an example of effective legislation introduced to curb the power and influence of big corporations as candidates could no longer accept whatever donations they liked and had to be transparent about their campaign finance
2) McCain - Feingold - 2002 - Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) - bipartisan effort to get rid of soft money as a means to fund campaigns as it had been blown out of proportion - soft money was therefore banned under the Act and labour unions and corporations were banned from issuing ads 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general - also set limits on individual contributions to candidates at $2300 as well as introducing a stand by your ad provision requiring candidates to include a verbal consent to their campaign ads - again similar to FECA this is an effective piece of legislation at curbing the power and influence of big corporations
3) In terms of the landscape today, some argue that big business and corporations today are still in check through the lack of hard money that PACs and super PACs are able to spend directly on political campaigns - some argue that this is enough to curb the influence of big business in US politics and use this as a reason to suggest that there has in fact been effective legislation introduced to curb the power and influence of big business and corporations
Has there been effective legislation to curb the power and influence of big corporations - NO (argument)
1) However, in 1974 the Buckley v Valeo SC ruling declared FECA to be limiting the amount of hard money that individuals, corporations, and unions could give and therefore infringed upon first amendment rights and was deemed to be unconstitutional on these grounds - as a result of this ruling corporations were able to spend what they liked, not directly on their prospective candidate but on smear campaigns targeting their opposition - this greatly increased the amount of money the Pres campaigns received from big businesses and corporations as well as increasing the power and influence of these organisations as they will have bought a degree of influence over presidential policy and action by especially large donors EG NRA contributing loads of $ to the GOP and influencing legislation - shows that there has not been effective legislation to curb the power and influence of big corporations
2) However, the Citizens United v FEC SC case in 2010 again limited the power of previously effective legislation by again rulings a piece of legislation that sought to limit campaign finance and the influence of big business to be in violation of the first amendment - it was therefore declared unconstitutional by the SC which saw the massive rise of PACs and super PACs - super PACs type of independent PAC which may raise unlimited sums of money from corporations, unions, and individuals, but is NOT permitted to contribute to or coordinate directly with parties or candidates - this again failed to curb the power and influence of corporations and big business
3) However, this is a weak argument as there is still a ridiculous amount of money in US politics today - a significant amount of which is contributed by big businesses seeking to gain influence over law makers in Congress - over the course of the 2016 elections cycle Trump was able to raise £340 million while Clinton was able to raise just shy of $600 million at $581 million raised - fast forward to the 2020 election and a total of $14.1 billion was raised across all Pres and Congressional campaigns, including $1.6 by the Biden campaign and $1.1 by the Trump campaign - including notable Super PACs associated with gun control or defending the second amendment such as the NRA’s Victory Fund spending over $16 million on supporting Reps and attacking Dems - this shows that there is not effective legislation to curb the influence of big businesses
Do primaries and caucuses really enhance democracy - Intro
Primaries and caucuses are X - those who argue that primaries and caucuses don’t enhance democracy point to the low turnout for both systems as well as the especially low turnout for caucuses, issues surrounding crossover voting, and the lack of independent representation in closed primary states - however those who agree with the thought that primaries and caucuses enhance democracy point to the protection of federalism enshrined through the system, the relative lack of crossover voting, and the representation independents gain through modified primaries - overall this essay will argue that primaries and caucuses do enhance democracy
Do primaries and caucuses really enhance democracy? - YES (argument)
1) Key aspect of democracy in the US is federalism - primaries and caucuses maintain this independence on the parts of states as they are allowed to choose whichever system they would like to employ EG choosing primaries or caucuses and open or closed primaries - this helps to enhance federalism and by extension democracy in the US
2) Open primaries are hardly ever actually effected by crossover voting - the 2012 Wisconsin Rep primary still saw Romney go on to win - today this is being used as a scaremonger tactic by election-denying Trump supporters EG Loren Culp blaming election tampering/election tampering for his loss in the Washington primary - no evidence of this - could suggest crossover voting is not as much of a problem
3) Modified primaries allow for independents to vote in either party’s primary - independents can also vote in open primaries - open/modified primaries = 26/50 = majority of states allowing independent representation - this enhances democracy - EG New Jersey primary in 2020 Reps could vote in Rep primary, Dems could vote in Dem primary, Inds could vote in either - enhances democracy
Do primaries and caucuses really enhance democracy? - NO (counterargument)
1) Turnout for caucuses far lower than turnout for primaries - EG Nevada and Iowa both have pops of around 3 million - turnout = 46% in Nevada primary 2020 vs 28% in Iowa caucus 2020 - may be due to a number of different reason but bottom line is that 28% turnout is not very representative therefore does not enhance democracy
2) Open primaries allow for crossover voting - EG 2012 Wisconsin Rep primary - 11% of voters said they were Dems - Romney won the primary by 44% to 37% against Rick Santorum - could be a case of Dems deliberately sabotaging Rep primary - probably not the only instance of this happening - there was also sporadic reports of this throughout the 2022 - not democratic
3) Closed primaries don’t have Ind representation - only allows members of that party to vote in primary - EG Pennsylvania being a closed primary with over 1 million unaffiliated voters who can’t vote - bad for democracy
Should the electoral college be replaced with the popular vote - Intro
The point of an election system in a democracy such as the US is to accurately represent the views of the people and uphold the values of the democratic system it entails - the electoral college was devised over 200 years ago and there are many different interpretations over is effectiveness - in this regard those who argue that the electoral college should be maintained point to its upholding of federal values, its representation of smaller states and the unity of a two horse race as reasons for its positive impact - meanwhile those who argue it should be replaced with a form of popular vote or proportional system argue that it is inherently disproportional, it over-represents smaller states and is completely non-representative of independent or third party voters - it is due to these factors that this essay will argue that the electoral college should be replaced with the popular vote
Should the electoral college be replaced with the popular vote - YES (argument)
1) HOWEVER - winner-takes-all system can lead to winner of the popular vote not being elected Pres - this can be very unrepresentative and undemocratic as the will of the people is not being put forward through the supposedly democratic election system - this was the case in both 2000 and 2016 when Al Gore and Hilary Clinton both won the popular vote (Clinton by nearly 3 million more votes than Trump) yet Bush Jr and Trump were both elected Pres due to the disproportionate nature of the electoral college voting system - if the popular vote had been in place for these elections the will of the people would have been accurately represented - this shows that the electoral college should be replaced with the popular vote
2) HOWEVER, there is also the line of reasoning that suggests the electoral college system over-represents small-population states - in 2020 California had 55 electoral votes to Wyoming’s 3 - California had a population 39.5 million to Wyoming’s half a million - this means that California had one electoral college vote for every 718,000 people while Wyoming has one electoral college vote for every 192,000 people - this again shows that the electoral college in unrepresentative and undemocratic and presents a strong argument for it to be replaced by some form of popular vote
3) HOWEVER, this two party system is very unfair to national third parties and independents - in the US there are over 3 million more registered independent or third voters then there are registered Reps - yet these voters have no representation whatsoever in the electoral college - EG Ross Perot in 1992 running as an independent and receiving 18.9% of the popular vote but not winning a single electoral college vote - this shows that representations for a large portion of American citizens under the electoral college system is non-existent and provides further evidence as to why it should be replaced by some form of proportional or popular vote
Should the electoral college be replaced with the popular vote - NO (counterargument)
1) An important aspect of US democracy that the electoral college upholds is federalism - the electoral college is state-based and federal separation of powers allows each state to decide how its electors are selected - while most states do use the winner takes all methods notable exceptions come in the form of Maine and Nebraska who use the congressional district method to more accurately share out its electoral college votes in proportion to the will of the people - this suggests that the electoral college should not be replaced with a popular vote system
2) Another point in favour of maintaining the electoral college system is that it preserves the voice of small-population states - if the electoral college were to be abolished the voices of less populated states such as Wyoming and Alaska would be made inferior to largely populated states such as California and New York - this maintenance of the voices of the smaller states is a significant argument towards keeping the electoral college system
3) A final argument in support of the electoral college election system is that it creates a two-party system which engenders a significant amount of national unity - in 27 out of the last 40 Pres elections the winner has taken more than 50% of the popular vote - this shows that electoral college elections are broadly uniting and goes towards an argument to maintain the electoral college system
