Existing methods of disciplining and controlling candidates are ineffective.  Many political parties- even those in operating in the US- claim that regulation of the content of political campaigns is unnecessary. Parties assert that they supervise and monitor the content of their candidates’ statements. Self-regulation is claimed to be in parties’ own interests. However, ensuring that individual candidates maintain good standards of conduct and are disciplined for infractions goes only half way to ensuring that campaigning remains honest and equitable. Articles written and speeches made by candidates can easily be surveiled and monitored for misleading or litigious content. However, the most damning and intractable forms of negative campaigning often occur indirectly, without being explicitly associated with a particular political figure.  Due to the frequency with which candidates’ activists and survey staff make contact with voters, there is the danger that they could be used to propagate negative messages via word of mouth campaigns. Tactics of this type were successfully employed by the radical socialist George Galloway to oust a Labour incumbent in the UK constituency of Bethnal Green and Bough. Allegations later emerged that Galloway’s door-step campaigners had made ad hominem and racist comments against his opponent. It is unacceptable that a candidate should be able to maintain a “clean” image by using his electoral staff to make negative attacks by proxy.  Independent lobbying and campaigning groups that claim no party affiliation make important contributions to debate and policy making throughout the liberal world. However, despite their “independent” status, many of these organisations are guided by issues and ideological and philosophical principles that are closely linked to party politics. Particular think-tanks or single issue groups may be ideologically aligned to certain parties, even if they are not part of that party’s internal structure. The pro-life lobby in the US, for example, is politically aligned with the republican party, due to a shared support base among American Christians. Similarly, although the British think-tank ResPublica describes itself as non-party-political, it propagates social research based on identifiably right wing ideas, and is guided by an advisory board containing four Conservative party MPs.  Under these circumstances, it is unrealistic to assume that pronouncements made by these organisations are free from the influence of those directly involved in political campaigns. In America, where independent “527” [i] groups are banned from contacting and coordinating with political parties, it is not unusual for such organisations to fund ad hominem attacks against a candidate perceived as being unsympathetic to a particular cause. Indeed, this is exactly why a broad interpretation of this motion is necessary. Organisations such as Swift Boat Veterans for truth are able to mount attack campaigns that directly benefit a particular participant in an election, while not being bound by the restrictions on conduct, spending or donor relationships that candidates themselves must abide by.  Finally, limiting negative campaigning in the press will address the incentives on politicians to pursue campaign strategies oriented solely around garnering publicity. One of the first examples of negative campaigning, a 1964 television advert produced by Harry Truman, which implied that presidential candidate Barry Goldwater would initiate a nuclear war, proved so controversial that it was replayed in news broadcasts, effectively granting additional, free campaign coverage. The press is already confronted with too many engineered leaks and scandals. As noted above, these obscure more cogent analysis by neutral experts and commentators.  [i] Section 527, United Stated Internal Revenue Code.


Politics is a tough game, and those that decide to play it should expect to come away bruised. Politicians, almost by definition, seek publicity and the attention of the media. They should, therefore, be prepared to accept that positive press coverage will inevitably turn negative.  Much as debaters are trained to continue delivering clear and structured speeches in the face of badgering POIs, indifferent judges and poorly behaved opponents, we should expect our politicians to be tough enough to give a robust defence of their policies and actions, no matter how pernicious the attacks launched against them. This is the only way in which we can be certain of their skills as a political operator and their commitment to the ideological cause they claim to support.  Politicians with families are consistently perceived as more trustworthy and competent than those who lack familial ties. A family is a useful general indicator of a politician’s willingness to set aside personal ambition and self-interest, and invest himself wholly in ensuring the well-being of others. Likewise, a politician who welcomes attacks on his character and policies and fights vigorously to defend them is also more likely to have a clean past.  Moreover, due to the organic and emergent nature of interactions that occur between states on the international stage, politicians will not have access to the types of legal protection proposed by the resolution when doing business with the representatives of other nations. Coddled politicians will lack the pragmatism and guile necessary to effectively represent western nations’ interests in the international community.


Negative campaigning creates voter apathy and prevents accurate reporting of candidates’ policies and ideologies.  The contemporary political environment throughout much of the democratic world- and especially the USA- is mired in negative and aggressive campaigning. Tactics of this type breed apathy and anomie among groups within society who have previously been politically engaged. Politicians are increasingly portrayed as uniformly corrupt, incompetent or both.  Research published by Stamford University in the late nineties has linked an overall decline in voter turnout (approximately 10% between 1960 and 1992) [i] and a further decline in voter roll-off (the likelihood that an individual will vote for a high office, but neglect to vote for state or federal legislative positions) to increased reliance on attack ads and negative campaigning among American politicians. The authors of the Stamford report identify several causative factors underlying this connection.  Firstly, the study acknowledges that adverts attacking an individual’s credentials, policies or background are likely to reduce the number of voters who back a particular candidate. However, campaigns of this type do nothing to increase support for alternative candidates. The supporters of a politician undermined by negative campaigning are unlikely to switch to his or her opponent, preferring instead to abstain from the vote. Although party- or candidate- loyalty can be quickly disrupted, it takes a considerable amount of time for a party or politician to gain a voter’s trust [ii] .  As proposition will show, negative campaigning tends to engender further negative campaigning, leading to the main contenders in an election forgoing the use of positive campaign media. In short, aggressive campaigning is effective in reducing the popularity of opponents of a particular candidate, but this advantage comes at the expense of preventing that candidate from broadening his support-base or contributing meaningfully to democratic discourse.  Secondly, building on the previous point, voters have become increasingly aware negative campaigns’ ability to sterilise political debate. Voter apathy rises in response to aggressive campaigning that highlights flaws in the policies of political opponents, but does nothing to explain the contributions that another candidate may make.  Declining turnout figures are also a response to the knock-on effect that negative campaigning has on independent media [iii] . The press tends to use more airtime and page-space covering attack campaigns, due to their sensationalist and lurid nature. Especially in the US, newspapers and television stations function as commercial entities, and controversy and fear mongering will always draw in more readers or viewers than cool, balanced argumentation [iv] . This tendency, in turn, closes off an important forum for public debate on the merits of candidate’s policies and on issues that voters may want to see addressed.  Reporting on the shock tactics and partisan comments of politicians sells newspapers, but reporting on the statistics, proposals, claims and counter-claims of formal political debate does more to convince voters that their political system is representative and responsive to their needs.  Banning overtly negative campaigning will remove the perverse incentives that distort press coverage of the meaningful, practical details of election campaigns. Consequently, voters will be able to draw on a wider range of information when making their choice at the ballot box. A ban will prevent politicians from engaging in attrition based campaigns designed purely to breed apathy among their opponent’s supporters. Participants in the political process should be encouraged to test and investigate each other’s policies, premises and ideals. The evolutionary, dialectical pressures that debate of this type exerts will ultimately lead to more refined policy making. In attempting to do more and offer more to voters, politicians will be forced to survey and interact with a wider range of potential supporters than they normally would.  [i] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [ii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iv] Political attack ads can be effective but risky. Rotman Business School, 10 May 2004.


It is fashionable to exaggerate the pervasiveness of the “negative campaign environment”, but democracy still functions perfectly well in almost all liberal states. People still vote when their vote will matter the most. Voter turnout in the 2008 [i] American presidential election and in the 2010 UK general election [ii] was significantly higher than in previous years. Both of these elections took place against the backdrop of a rapidly evolving financial crisis. Both elections focussed on candidates promoting a wide range of new and radical ideas. Both elections produced a preponderance of attack adverts that focussed on the content of policies, ideologies and the reliability of evidence showing the candidates’ previous policy success. With one or two over-reported exceptions, the politics of the personal was largely absent in both the US and the UK.  Moreover, liberal-democratic ideals promote openness and transparency within both the government and the political class. Voters are entitled to information on a candidate’s “down-side”; the opponents of a candidate are obviously well placed to voice such concerns. Journalists risk accusations of bias if they attempt to publish details of an individual politician’s failings in office. However, when these issues are raised by an opponent of that politician, the press is placed in a position that allows it to act as a disinterested assessor of that claim. Far from simply reproducing negative messages, as side proposition claim that they do, the mass media frequently conduct detailed investigations into the content of attack adverts. “Ad watch” reports of this type are now a common feature of US election coverage [iii] . The interrelationship of politicians and the press enhances the transparency of the campaigning process.  Proposition have unrealistic expectations when it comes to assessing the efficacy of campaign adverts. It is true that an attack advert will not be able to convert a supporter of its target into a supporter of the attacking politician. However, this is equally true of positive campaign adverts. The transfer of political loyalties will always be a long, drawn out process that on-spec campaigning cannot hope to influence [iv] .  The resolution would compromise the efficiency of political campaigning by obliging candidates to over emphasise the role of ideology and policy in campaign literature, rather than their qualities as a decision maker.  Moreover, the resolution would encourage politicians to “over-promise” in manifestos and campaign literature. If the only means by which contenders in an election can distinguish themselves is by pledging to initiate more new policies, taxes, tax cuts, projects or consultations than their opponents, the workloads of successful candidates will become artificially inflated and unmanageable.  In short, politicians running for office will be incentivised to create ever more outlandish manifesto pledges and policy initiatives. Due to term-limits, organisational inefficiencies and unpredictable, emergent problems, very few of these promises will be realised. The consequence of this situation is obvious. When politicians fail to keep their promises, citizens will lose confidence in the effectiveness of the state.  There is greater utility in encouraging politicians to be cautious and conservative when campaigning. If an election is dominated by fantastical and elaborate schemes that are left unfulfilled, the likely result will be chronic apathy and disengagement among the electorate – precisely the outcome that proposition wish to avoid.  [i] Voter turnout in presidential elections: 1828-2008, The American Presidency Project,   [ii] The Electoral Commission,   [iii] Winning, but losing. How negative campaigns shrink electorate, manipulate news media. Ansolabhere, S. Iyengar, S. Stamford University.   [iv] Effectiveness of negative political advertising. Won Ho Chang and others. 1998. Ohio University, Scripps School of Journalism.


It is not possible for a politician to win on a no-policy platform. As proposition points out, negative campaigning does little to convince its target’s supporters of the wisdom of the attacker’s policies. A politician who decides to use attack adverts in his campaign will not be able to transfer support from his opponents’ tickets to his. Thus, a politician who wants to employ negative campaigning tactics must already be confident that he has an existing support base and policies that other voters will be attracted to.  Policy making and analysis remains the meat and drink of politics. The politics of the personal is reserved for campaigning season. Moreover, negative campaigning tactics are reserved for closely fought constituencies, states or districts. Side proposition does not give politicians credit for recognising that voters are rational individuals motivated by reasoned arguments.  Where negative campaigning is used in public polls, it is usually deployed at the end of a protracted a very closely fought campaign. The number of negative adverts broadcast by a politician is usually tied to the closeness of a campaign itself.  Moreover, negative campaigning can assist candidates who may be seeking to implement new policies, but lack the necessary name recognition and financial backing to succeed against a more experienced competitor. Negative campaigning, even if it is unable to instantly generate loyalty, may at least help to compel voters to seek out alternative perspectives on the issues over which an election is fought. Indeed, recommendations by the political consultancy business Complete Campaigns indicate that similar strategies have been successfully employed by their previous clients [i] .  [i] Negative Campaigning. Complete Campaigns.


Negative campaigning reduces the diversity and representativeness of government.  Many able, idealistic and talented individuals are discouraged or excluded from participating in the political process by aggressive negative campaigning [i] . Bright potential candidates may be concerned about intrusion by political opponents into their private lives or backgrounds [ii] . They may be opposed in principle to participating in a political culture that obliges aspirant office holders to engage in smear- and fear-lead campaigning.  Under the status quo, only those able to stomach the confrontational and bullying tactics that have grown up around contemporary electioneering will dare enter the political arena. Moreover, such trends in political culture favour candidates with close links to the media. Individuals able to command the ear of newspaper owners, or who possess a professional background in journalism or publicity will be better able to manipulate or evade attacks launched via television and mass communications.  A democratic system is best served when it encourages the participation of candidates from a range of backgrounds and professional fields. The ability of a government to arrive at novel solutions to problems confronting a state, to understand that state’s economy and to effectively represent different sectors of the population will be compromised without a diverse skillset within the state’s legislative and executive branches.  By transforming politics into a game based on the production of political “brands” and unassailable, manufactured “personalities,” the jousting and muckraking of negative campaigning gives a disproportionate advantage to former editors and PR men [iii] . This dilutes the pool of professionals from which future leaders are drawn, leading to poor policy making (due to a lack of professional skills) and a conservative, sclerotic, defensive approach to political problem solving. Western liberal politics is increasingly discussed only in terms of communication, image, rhetoric and appearance [iv] , rather than the technical language of law, economics and diplomacy. Negative campaigning artificially limits the types of people and professions who can engage in political discourse, infantilising and disabling politics itself.  [i] “Meg’s mistake”, The Economist, 28 September 2009,   [ii] “Tory woman attacks ‘misogyny’ of grassroots members”, The Guardian, 01 November 2009.   [iii] “Analysis: PR people fall prey to the lure of parliament.”, PR Week, 04 April 1996.   [iv] “I’m fake, vote for me”, The Guardian, 22 September 2006.


Negative campaigning leads to negative governance.  Information on demographics, on taxation rates, on the state’s finances are made publically available precisely so that voters can arrive at reasoned, rational and nuanced decisions as to whom they should vote for. Governments are judged by evidence of the efficacy of their policies.  Analysis conducted by political scientists William Riker, Michael Davis and Michael Ferrantino [i] show that where negative campaigning is permitted, even politicians with no history of running attack campaigns will adopt aggressive electoral tactics. If a politician wins on a positive platform- by promising to implement new policies and reform existing ones- then his chances of re-election will be affected by his success or failure in bringing about those changes. The electorate are able to test and assess a politician’s positive claims. However, if a politician campaigns on a negative platform, portraying his opponent as incompetent or his policies as damaging, an electoral victory will make such claims unassailable. The attacking politician will be free to state that his election has prevented the dire consequences he warned from coming about. Non one will be able to prove otherwise, notwithstanding the spluttering of his defeated opponent.  By portraying opponents as reckless or dangerously radical, an attacking politician immediately sets himself up as the lesser of two evils. This may do little to convert undecided voters, but it still allows the successful candidate to take credit for “protecting” the electorate. Although this strategy may be the easiest to implement, it does not fit with the ideal of critical and ideological transparency that characterises contemporary liberal states.  The increasing amount of information produced by governments, think tanks, universities and political parties is intended to make the state- and the electorate- more responsive to the success and failure of particular policies. By closing the gap between the proposal of a policy, its implementation and the indicators of its success, information-led democracy supposedly makes governance and democratic choice more efficient. Negative campaigning circumvents this feedback system. It distorts ideas, by misrepresenting them and rendering them unacceptable, before any objective assessment of their merits has taken place.  Moreover, negative portrayals of candidates and policies, as noted above, are more likely to dominate media coverage, than the sober, balanced information produced by academics and analysts. This line of argument also leads to equally damaging distortion of the attacking candidate’s platform and proposals. By diverting resources to negative campaigning and attack adverts, candidates have less time and money to expend on the creation of positive policies. Indeed, the fewer testable claims that a candidate makes about his own policies, the less likely he is to be subject to effective criticism by opponents or the electorate if he takes up office.  Negative campaigning incentivises a distant, evasive, conservative approach to government. It creates an adversarial relationship between politicians and those wishing to gather and disseminate information about the effects of policies – academics, political analysts and engaged citizens.  [i] The Rational Attacker in Russia? Negative Campaigning in Russian Presidential Elections. Sigelman, L and Shiraev, E. New York University, April 2001.


It is almost impossible to guarantee that groups are truly independent, in the sense in which side opposition uses the word. In America, so called “527” organisations [i] , which profess no direct affiliation with a candidate, are permitted to launch campaigns to attack or support particular politicians, without being subjected to the same funding limitations and fair conduct rules as political parties. [ii]  Right-to-life groups and religiously motivated organisations may operate as 527s, along with groups controlled by business organisations. Coordination between 527 groups, candidates and political parties is banned in the US. In practice, however, the close alignment of the groups’ ideological objectives and the characteristic policies of Republican and Democrat candidates leads to 527s taking their cues (and their targets) from the pronouncements of politicians and their campaigns.  Groups such as Citizen’s Solidarity and the Indian anti-corruption movement mobilised around Anna Hazare [iii] are comparatively rare. Where flaws in a nation’s democratic institutions are pervasive, affecting coalitions, government and opposition parties, the role of the press as a neutral observer is usually more effective than political attacks in bringing problems to light – consider the role of the Daily Telegraph in disclosing British MP’s misuse of their publicly funded expense allowances [iv] .  [i] “FEC collects $630000 in civil penalties from three 527 organisations”. Federal Election Commission, 13 December 2006.   [ii] Section 527, United Stated Internal Revenue Code.  [iii] “No modern-day Mahatma”. The Economist, 27 April 2011.   [iv] MPs’ Expenses. The Daily Telegraph.


Use of negative campaigning in primaries may help to build support among voters who already identify with a particular party, but it can also lower a politician in the view of undecided or swing voters.  Primaries, now more than ever, are public contests, given as much attention by the media as elections themselves.  Mudslinging tactics deployed by candidates during a primary are likely to give ammunition to opponents in any ensuing election. The fact that all participants in an election are likely to have engaged in negative campaigning at one time or another is beside the point – the activity is harmful in and of itself, because of its ability to engender apathy.  Negative campaigning in political primaries fuels further negative campaigning during general elections. Even if, as opposition suggest, an aggressive primary campaign is useful for winnowing out weak and compromised candidates, negative campaigning in the election that follows will prevent those “strong” candidates from disseminating useful, political positive information.  As noted in proposition’s second substantive argument, the strongest candidate many not always be the individual best able to respond to slanderous and fear-mongering attack adverts. Intelligence, compassion, charisma and technical expertise do not always go hand in hand with a thick skin and the ability to dig dirt.


The difficulty of identifying attack adverts and negative messages.  The content and meaning of a particular broadcast or print advert will not always be clear. A piece of campaign media may not be uniformly and objectively positive or negative in tone. Words are ambiguous, their definition based partly on the experiences and opinions of observers.  Context can also play an important role in determining how a political communication may be perceived. When a scandal breaks involving an opponent, is it legitimate for one of the others candidates in an election to run positive adverts about their own background on a particular topic. If an incumbent is found to be a cuckold, for example, could a challenger run an advert asserting that he was a “good family man”?  Side proposition may choose to respond by creating some variety of independent campaign commission, or by expanding the role of the judiciary. However, this does nothing to address the basic issue of subjectivity highlighted above.


Independent campaign groups.  The resolution ignores the possibility that negative campaigns may occur outside of a partisan context. In India [i] and Korea [ii] , grass roots campaigns without specific party or ideological ties have been used to highlight corruption among electoral candidates and legislative incumbents. These campaigns are arguably an expression of democratic political freedom, with individual citizens banding together to enforce core democratic norms. However, as the example of the Citizen’s Solidarity movement in South Korea shows, because such actions inevitably involve questioning the character and conduct of politicians running for election, they frequently fall foul of laws designed to restrict negative campaigning.  Similar problems are encountered by the professional press. Even in countries with liberal electoral and libel law regimes, the press frequently find themselves accused of political bias if they attempt to highlight mendacity or wrongdoing by a particular candidate. Unless the wrongdoing in question is particularly severe, western journalists may find themselves in the position of their Singaporean counterparts – held accountable for “electoral crimes”, libel or contempt of court by a body of law that treat political institutions as sacrosanct and denies that scrutiny of those institutions’ officer holders is necessary.  [i] “No modern-day Mahatma”. The Economist, 27 April 2011.   [ii] “Korea’s art of negative campaigning.” The Economist, 6 April 2000.


Identifying strong, honest candidates.  As noted above, the rougher, ruder, character-oriented tone of a negative campaigning environment acts as a useful test of a politician’s reputation and integrity. Further, opposition wish to restate their early counter-argument on the evolving and dynamic nature of election campaigns. No campaign is uniformly negative of positive.  A candidate who is able to stand firm in the face of attacks against his character and his policies is much more likely to be able to act as a strong advocate in a legislative forum, or when accounting for the actions of the executive. Determination and strong argumentation skills in one area imply a similar degree of dedication in other areas. By contrast, how much confidence should we have in a politician who would be prepared to appeal to the enforcement mechanism created by the proposition to forcibly exclude a particular statement or allegation from a political debate, rather than respond to it? The problems that confront national governments cannot be dismissed simply by invoking a law designed to eliminate fuzzily defined forms of unfair conduct.  Attack adverts are used much more frequently in US-style primary selection contests, which poll members of a particular political party in order determine the candidate who will represent it in national or lower-level elections [i] . The use of negative campaigning in the context of party or semi-open primaries may help to distinguish between politicians running on very similar ideological platforms.  If an aspiring president’s ideological allies can be dissuaded from voting for him, based on his past actions or associations, it will be extremely easy to convince undecided voters to do the same.  By identifying politicians who are difficult to assail on an ad hominem basis, and by identifying politicians who can remain composed and professional when subjected to such attacks, political parties are able to field significantly stronger candidates in open elections. Voters then carry out similar assessments of character and integrity in the polling booth.  [i] “Clinton Questions Role of Obama in a Crisis”. The New York Times, 01 March 2008.


It is perfectly easy to rule on what is positive and negative. It is true that some positive broadcasts might be meant to play up the strengths of one candidate, precisely because that’s where his opponent is weakest – but that approach still represents an improvement on the current situation, where the majority of campaign media focuses on the flaw of a candidate’s rivals.  Subjectivity has no role to play in the verification of objective facts. Currently, many campaign adverts are based around misrepresenting the content of an opposition candidate’s policies, or making far-fetched connections between negative social or economic trends and bills that a particular candidate voted in favour of.  Questioning the objective distance of the body that would enforce the rules created by the resolution is also ineffective. Judges are appointed based on their ability to analyse and sift complicated arguments based on disputed or compromised sets of facts. There is no reason to assume that similar principles of neutrality and respect for the separation of powers within a democratic state would not also apply to reformed election laws


No doubt Daesh does have long term territorial plans, but in practice Daesh is currently stuck in Iraq and Syria unable to conquer either. Yes Daesh being territorial makes it very unusual for a terrorist organisation. However this also provides a fixed target to defeat, and that defeat can be on foreign soil.  Daesh has a long shot chance of tearing up the borders of the Middle East. However as these borders have long been criticised as illogical and contrived this would not necessarily undermine the state system in the Middle East, it may even benefit from more cohesive populations with national boundaries. [1]  [1] Trofimov, Yaroslav, ‘Would new borders mean less conflict in the Middle East?’, WSJ, 10 April 2015,


The territory claimed by Daesh extends to Europe  Daesh territory currently spreads across parts of Syria and Iraq. It is this transnationalism that makes it a dangerous opponent. It is not just a threat to one state but to every state in the Middle East and North Africa. Daesh claims to be a Caliphate which means it claims leadership over the entire Muslim community. Such a claim would inevitably include European countries such as Bosnia and Albania where there are Muslim majorities. The Caliphate’s legitimacy is tied to its territorial expansion. [1]  A threat to the territorial states system within the Middle East, let alone Europe, is a significant threat to the west who created that system. The deconstruction of the states of the Middle East would destroy western allies, give an extreme organisation immense oil wealth from the Gulf, and likely make Israel an untenable outpost.  [1] Vick, Karl, ‘As ISIS Grows Its Territory, It Becomes Increasingly Dangerous’, Time, 15 June 2015,


Daesh ideology and the possibility of terrorist attacks resulting from it is undeniably a problem. However the flow of fighters is mostly the other way; from Europe to Syria and Iraq, five to six thousand have made this journey. [1] It might therefore be said that Daesh is importing terrorism from the west rather than exporting it. We have no way of knowing how many terrorist attacks these fighters may have committed had they stayed in their home countries.  [1] Reuters, ‘Islamic State smuggling terrorists among the migrants? Unlikely, say experts’, EurActive.com, 28 August 2015,


Deash has a compelling ideology  Daesh has an ideology that is a threat to western states, particularly those with Muslim minorities. Although Daesh’s ideology might seem incompatible with west the west an ICM poll found in 2014 that 16% of French citizens have a positive opinion of Daesh. [1] This means that western countries face an ideological clash within their own populations. A majority dislikes and fears Daesh and its ideology while a minority supports them despite their violence. Such a split reduces community cohesion and will likely breed distrust of Muslim populations (even of those who don’t have positive views of Daesh). [2]  [1] Grant, Madeline, ‘16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll finds’, newsweek, 26 August 2014,   [2] Hundal, Sunny, ‘The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west’, AlJazeera, 26 August 2014,


Daesh may have an ideology that is compelling to some people, but that number is comparatively tiny, nothing like the millions that were attracted to western ideology during the cold war. Daesh needs a population to consider itself a success and yet the population of Syria have voted with their feet [1] – they have fled to neighbouring countries not IS controlled areas. The United Nations has almost 4.3million registered refugees, [2] when the 7.6million internally displaced are included the numbers are far higher yet these people are not flooding into IS controlled areas. [3]  [1] Sky, Emma, ‘Standing idly by while the Middle East unravels is not an option’, The Guardian, 26 November 2015,   [2] ‘Registered Syrian Refugees’ Syria Regional Refugee Response, updated 17th November 2015,   [3] ‘Syria IDP Figures Analysis’, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, July 2015,


Daesh and the Syrian civil war is nurture terrorism for export  Daesh is a terrorist organisation. [1] There are large numbers of people within Europe who support Islamic State and Europeans travelling to fight for Daesh is an ongoing problem; more than 700 from the UK alone. [2] There is therefore concern about these people coming back and mounting terrorist attacks, as appears to have been the case with three of those involved in the 2015 Paris attacks; Omar Ismail Mostefai, Bilal Hadfi, and Samy Amimour. [3]  [1] Bureau of Counterterrorism, ‘Foreign Terrorist Organizations’, U.S. Department of State, accessed 1 September 2015,   [2] BBC News, ‘Who are Britain’s jihadists?’, 25 June 2015,   [3] Farmer, Ben, ‘Who were the terrorists? Everything we know about the Isil attackers so far’, The Telegraph, 20th November 2015,


Distance does not matter in today’s world. Refugees from Syria are pouring in to Greece but also enter the EU much further afield through Hungary or Italy. Ideology has its influence regardless of distance meaning resulting terrorist attacks are as likely to happen in Paris as Nicosia and are as likely to be by those who have grown up in western Europe as those arriving from Syria itself. Thinking that distance insulates us from the threat posed by Daesh is as wrong as the belief that what a state does matters only inside its borders.


There may be threats that can cause much greater damage than Daesh but these are neither immediate nor very likely. Nuclear war is undoubtedly a massive threat, but we succeeded in getting through 45 years of cold war without these weapons being used so the probability of the threat happening is low. Climate Change on the other hand is less a security issue than an environmental, economic, and societal one. Daesh on the other hand has already struck at western states with the Paris attacks, and has sucked large numbers of western citizens into a war against their own countries in Syria and Iraq. The threat from Daesh is therefore immediate, almost certain, and large.


Daesh has little impact outside the Middle East  The main threat from Daesh is to Muslims, and to those who live in and around the areas it controls. The main goal of Islamic state is to set up an Islamic caliphate and that means the primary enemy is the existing states of the Middle East. Those who support those states, and other ‘apostates’ such as Shia Muslims are also threatened by IS but this very focus means that western states have less to worry about when considering their own national security. [1] Daesh’s priority quite simply lies within Syria and Iraq not in launching attacks against western states. It is undeniable that the threat of IS attacks exists, and Daesh has struck back against states, France and Russia, that have been fighting it but unlike with 9/11 western intervention caused the terrorist response rather than the other way around.  [1] Hundal, Sunny, ‘The real threat from the Islamic State is to Muslims, not the west’, AlJazeera, 26 August 2014,


The west is insulated by distance from Daesh  All western countries are insulated by distance from Islamic State. The closest western countries are Greece and Cyprus which is as close as the EU comes to Syria. But both are separated from Syria by the Mediterranean Sea. If Daesh were truly considered a threat of the kind that requires harsh national security responses then Europe could close its borders to the South and East – its borders with Turkey in particular. This has however not happened because the risk of terrorists (re-)entering Europe is not considered great enough to warrant such a response.


There are other larger threats.  Terrorism by Daesh is undoubtedly a threat to the West. It is however a minor one. The largest security concern should still be the small chance of complete destruction by nuclear weapons. Tensions with Russia make this more likely than at any time since the gold war. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists’ doomsday clock is set at 3 minutes to midnight in 1015 – it was last 3 minutes to midnight in 1984 at the height of the cold war before Gorbachev gained power in the USSR. [1]  Disasters are increasingly seen as an issue of national security and Climate Change is quite possibly an even greater threat as a result of the certainly of considerable warming and the resulting disasters it is likely to bring; by 2045 the Union of Concerned Scientists say that cities such as Atlantic City could face tidal flooding more than 180 times a year resulting in costly damage. [2]  [1] Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, ‘Timeline’,   [2] Union of Concerned Scientists, ‘Encroaching Tides (2014)’,


While Daesh may be focused on its war at home it is trying to attack those it is fighting where they are vulnerable. This is illustrated by the bombing of a Russian Metrojet Airliner leaving Sharm el-Sheikh which killed 224 by a Daesh affiliate [1] not long after Russia began bombing the Syrian rebels, and Daesh, in Syria. Such an incident may take place in the Middle East but undoubtedly affects those outside of the region. Daesh’s reach has however extended to the west with the 13th November attacks in Paris which resulted in 130 deaths across the city.  [1] AlJazeera, ‘Russia says plane in Egypt's Sinai brought down by bomb’, 17th November 2015,


A national primary would disenfranchise large portions of the country, as candidates would be forced to court the support of only the most populous states as they currently do in the general election. At least with the primary system as it stands, candidates have to pay attention to all of the states and all sections within the party.  Staggered primaries create a relationship of interdependence between the nomination campaigns that are run in various states. A poor showing in one state can undermine a candidate’s attempts to make gains in the following state. American political culture is much more fragmentary and heterogonous than European conceptions of the Union might lead us to believe. Each state is sufficiently large that what may seem to be a parochial “local” issue within the context of the entire Union may be of vital importance to a particular state’s voters. The protection and promotion of the politically and cultural plural nature of the states of the Union is a key aspect of the American democratic ideal. It is appropriate, therefore, that blunders in one state’s primary campaign should be open to analysis by the citizens of other states. If a president does not have a commanding understanding of the issues affecting one state, he may be unable to make effective decisions on the rights and affairs of other states.  It is also worth noting that a single national primary would also be likely to disenfranchise those who do not closely and continuously involve themselves in the political process. Staggered primaries lead major national news services to focus on the local-level issues that may affect turnout and voting in individual states. Staggered primaries allows for reflection on these regional issues. Coverage of this type brings local controversies onto the national stage and fosters cohesion and understanding between the constituent states of one of the largest federal republics in the world. However, a one off election would just deliver national totals and even where this is broken down on a state-by-state basis, there will be much less of an understanding of why certain states supported certain candidates. Only political obsessives will are likely to expend time and effort contextualising and understanding this data; the majority of the population will be less informed than under the status quo.


The current system disenfranchises minorities as Iowa and New Hampshire have disproportionately low Black and Latino populations  The minority populations of both of the early states are relatively low, and this can impact on the outcome of their primaries. Minority populations- such as African and Latino Americans- and migrants who have been granted citizenship will approach the issues at the heart of a presidential campaign from a different perspective. Due to high levels of social and financial deprivation among minority populations throughout the US, African Americans are likely to vote in a way that reflects concern about laws and policies that regulate access to educational subsidies and state supported health care. Latino voters may have strong familial ties with south American nation states. Correspondingly, candidates’ positions on cross border trade and the enforcement of immigration laws are likely to influence the voting decisions of Latino Americans [i] .  There have been a number of solutions proposed to this, including the rotation of first primaries around the country. However, all this does is replicate the problem in new and imaginative ways; every state will have its own demographic abnormalities. Questions of educational aspiration and social mobility among black voters in South Carolina cannot be compared to the debates surrounding community integration and immigration in Arizona.  The only way to take a vote that is representative of the nation as a whole is to ballot the nation as a whole. Internationally the model followed is for selection of a candidate by postal ballot, demonstrating that mature democracies are entirely capable of selecting national candidates without such a protracted process.  The whole purpose of the resolution is to eliminate or control for statistical and demographic inequalities that may give certain candidates an advantage unrelated to the popularity of their policies. A national primary would apply this principle but within the context of the American model of party affiliation.  [i] Kopicki, Allison, 'Iowa and New Hampshire Stand Apart', The Caucus, The New York Times, 7 December 2011


A lengthy primary campaign gives candidates time to test each other on a whole range of issues. Voters, in turn, make their decisions based on a balance of candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. Voters can do this because they have had the time to get to know the candidates well, to become familiar with their policies and positions on various issues and to analyse their professional or political backgrounds.  Admittedly the experience of getting to know- and be known by- the country is an expensive one. However, Barack Obama’s reliance on small, personal donations demonstrates that this situation need not benefit any particular sectional interest.  Side opposition contend that Obama’s grass roots funding model provides a viable alternative to reliance on large donation from powerful donors. Moreover, it also serves to expand and foster public engagement in the political process.  There is also little reason to suspect that the resolution would do much to reduce expenditure on campaigns. Indeed, eliminating state-level campaigning may simply mean that candidates are forced to become more reliant on communications delivered via national media, which is both more expensive and provides fewer opportunities to address state-level issues.  Finally, it should also be noted that spending in primary campaigns is already subject to a significant external control. The need to fund a full presidential election campaign will always serve to limit and moderate candidate’s ambitions, and to impose a degree of equality between wealthier candidates and those who are more reliant on grass-roots support.


The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states  As most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority.  In 2000 and 2004, by the time New York – the third most populous state in the union – voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn’t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be.  The current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates.  The primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines.  A final argument concerns the role of political capital and states’ influence over candidates’ activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole.


The primaries are simply the device by which parties select their candidates. They are part of the internal affairs of America’s independent political organisations and do not require the legitimacy of the election itself.  Moving everything to one day could end up exacerbating the problems of inclusiveness and democratic deficit identified by side proposition, as the campaigns and messages of smaller candidates would be drowned out by larger, wealthier rivals and those with pre-existing contacts in the news media. Further, under the system that the resolution would bring about, donors are more likely to provide funding to ‘safe’ candidates.  However, with a protracted campaign it is possible for a surprise result to emerge, as has happened on several occasions – for example when incumbents have failed to win key states. Relatively unknown candidates can take advantage of the extended duration of the current primary system to build a public profile and to court the attention of the media. This allows “outsiders” and individuals with a significant political reputation, but no public profile, to establish themselves within popular discourse and to begin building a relationship with swing voters.  Staggered primaries also minimize the power of the central parties. A national primary would turn campaigns into entirely national events, run by the national party conventions, marginalising the role of the states and focussing on the large cities, rather than the diffuse populations of rural states.


The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns  Immense pressure is placed on candidates to win in the early primaries and then to deliver repeat performances across “key” states. Each stage of the process is effectively a national campaign and has to be treated- and funded - as such. Even though votes in primaries are limited to the citizens of individual states, or the members of state parties, the media can communicate a poor showing in the polls or a blunder in a debate to the entire nation. The overall cost of running campaign adverts, researching a candidate’s position on a huge range of local issues and organising rallies, debates and press briefings can quickly become astronomical– hence the need to establish as decisive lead as early as possible.  A single national primary would both reduce costs and provide for a clearer result. Moreover, a single national primary would compel candidates to mount campaigns based around positive policy statements and direct involvement in issues local to states. The role of attack campaigning- aimed at undermining opponents with an early lead- would be de-emphasised. To give these practical benefits some context we should consider the 2008 campaign for the democratic party nomination. By the end of primary season, Obama and Clinton between them had raised nearly a quarter of a billion dollars. Obama won on paper, but the campaign had been dominated by the differing perspectives of two figures who would go on to be President and Secretary of State. It can hardly be in the interest of party of national unity to know that the Secretary of State thinks the President lacks the experience to receive a late night phone call concerning an international crisis.


The current arrangement means that a handful of small states have a massively disproportionate impact on the primary campaigns. A genuinely national primary would even that out. Grassroots campaigns would also have a reasonable basis for operating on the national stage right up to the event.  Stretching the process out ultimately play to the biggest pockets. Unless grassroots candidates get an extraordinary result early, they’re knocked out. Trying to fight their way through several, effectively national campaigns, means that they only really have one chance at the moment.  It’s only sensible to make that fact reality with a structure that means all candidates are in an all or nothing race rather than a financial endurance test.


Respecting the interests of the majority in making a decision about a candidate to represent them in a national election is not the worst idea in the world. Equally, the state parties would need to be involved as they play a central role in the general election and it is in the interest of candidates to work with them from the start.  As things stand at the moment many of the larger states are actually disenfranchised by the same process that allows state parties to portray their role in the primary as valuable and significant. There can be no approach to the current primary election “narrative” that allows the individual states to exert a proportionately fair amount of influence over the other states’ choice of nominee.  Candidates with deep pockets – either their own or somebody else’s - can survive early setbacks. but it means that many candidates who do not win support in the first few states can be ruled out by the end of January. By the time Nebraska comes to make their decision in the middle of May, the issue may long since have been decided.


Primaries encourage organisation and activity at a local level  The primaries as they stand make an important statement not only about party structure, but also about national identity – a federation of states each with a full right to their time in the sun.  This is not misty-eyed nostalgia, but a simple reflection of the realities of the constitution. The balance of the rights of states, as well as a respect for the views of the majority, is reflected in the process of an extended primary campaign that assumes all states to be equal. A final decision made at a national convention acknowledges that the views of the different and distinct populations of the states of the union have been weighed against each other.  The current structure of presidential primaries ensures that the separate states of the Union are fully engaged in the selection process, irrespective of the balance of political power or the nature of that state’s political culture. The status quo gives an invaluable opportunity to, say, Texan Democrats or Republicans in Vermont to have a meaningful say in the overall outcome [d1] of the election. Even though Texas consistently supports republican candidates and Vermont Democrat, members of the minority party in both states are able to pass judgment on the candidates they consider would best serve their interests if elected. The results encourage activism and engagement at a local level and are, ultimately, good for democracy.


Iowa and New Hampshire are ideally placed to start the primary process, specifically because they are relatively small  Iowa and New Hampshire are the perfect states to kick off the primary season. It ensures that the opening focus of the campaigns is outside the usual media centers of New York, D.C. and California. This serves to remind political commentators and others that there is an entire country out there.  Equally, because they are relatively small states, campaigns in Iowa and New Hampshire allow candidates to set out their positions with greater clarity, in contests that popular consensus regard as highly significant, but which are also small enough not to threaten a nomination bid if lost. Put another way, the wealthy and homogenous nature of New Hampshire and Iowa allows candidate’s campaigning there to focus on making broader statements about the policies and normative projects that they will implement on a national level. Candidates can position themselves, ideologically and politically, without becoming mired in local-level issues or demographic controversies.  Iowa and New Hampshire function as political laboratories – isolated, controlled and equipped to allow close examination of candidates’ fundamental values and proficiencies.  It also gives grassroots candidates a chance to raise their profile and some funds before the costs of contesting the larger states become prohibitive.  Attempts by larger states, notably Florida [i] , to move their primaries forward have been opposed by both parties and many activists.  [i] Patrick O’Connor. Early Florida Primary Would Scramble 2012 Calendar. Wall Street Journal. September 29 2011.


States’ rights  Quite apart from the politically controversial contents of the phrase, states’ rights describes a vital and highly relevant aspect of the relationship between the individual states of the Union and the central government.  The powers held by the federal government to control and trammel the conduct of the states of the union, and to act on their behalf on issues of foreign policy is to be contrasted with states’ freedom to produce their own laws and legislation on certain issues. The debate on the areas of civil life in which a state retains authority to formulate its own laws, without interference by the federal government, remains controversial, but it can be useful in clarifying the nature of the federal bond that holds the states of the Union together.  Political culture in the United States is characterised, not only by a patriotic attachment to the idea of the federal republic, but also to the states that individual citizens inhabit. As noted above, the cultural, religious and economic tropes of each state are highly distinctive. This attachment extends to party politics as well. Political parties within the US are based much more on a consensual, community driven interpretation of political dialog than European parties. Although fund raising and promotion activities of both the Republican and Democratic parties is organised by a central committee, these committees have little influence over the policy goals and ideological position of individual candidates.  Political parties in each state view the process of electing a president from a deeply local perspective. The legitimacy and popularity of state primaries is largely a function of each primary’s position within the wider narrative of American politics.


Ultimately the primary campaigns, at least for the main parties, are national campaigns. As a result of more frequent and more intensive media coverage- even during early primaries- candidates have to speak to national issues. Furthermore, Super Tuesday is basically a national primary already, it just happens to exclude some of the states.  The early primaries simply work to filter out candidates attempting to use the presidential election to promote a single, poorly developed set of maverick views in front of a much larger audience than they would otherwise have access to.  Only in the event of very close races are the later states left with any meaningful decisions. It would be far more useful to admit that reality and simply hold all national primaries in early February. Contests would still be organised by the state parties (in conjunction with the state authorities where required) and states would still record their vote separately.


Women can carry out many of these tasks without serving in combat roles in the army.  For example, female medical staff or female military police can be sent to give medical assistance or conduct bodily searches. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, female U.S. military police officers have searched local women for explosives. [1]  If female soldiers are perceived as less threatening than male soldiers, there could potentially be worrying side effects such as a reduction in the deterrent effect of the military presence in an L.I.C.  [1] Schult, Marie, ‘Female Soldiers Assist with Cultural Sensitivities’, Defend America, March 2003.


Some combat roles are better suited to women than men  Modern warfare involves many L.I.C.s, where the battleground is as much “hearts and minds” as it is physical combat. In a conflict where hearts and minds are important delicate handling of local people is required in order gain their support. In L.I.C.s, women are often better suited to intelligence gathering, medical assistance, policing and mediation than men. They are often perceived as less threatening and more understanding. [1] In addition, they would be better placed to deal with women in the local population.  For example, the job of many of the female U.S. marines killed and injured in June 2005 in Iraq was to search women for explosives at checkpoints to avoid the near-universal sense of humiliation engendered by a member of the opposite sex conducting an intimate bodily search. [2]  [1] DeGroot, Gerard J., ‘Women as Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star, 25 July 1999.  [2] Reuters, ‘The Female Fallen’, PTSD Support, Accessed June 2nd, 2011.


There is no immediate pressing need for an increased pool of recruits for the army in developed countries. The late-2000s recession has led to an increase in military recruitment; particularly in the U.S. [1] This is as a result of there being many more people searching for work which makes the military a relatively more attractive career.  The number of recruits and their talent pool can also be increased in other ways. For example military service can be better promoted and greater incentives to enlist can be offered.  For example, educational funding provided to U.S. army veterans under the post-9/11 G.I. bill is a major incentive which has increased recruit numbers in recent decades. [2]  [1] Bender, Bryan, ‘Down economy boosts military’, The Boston Globe, 1 March 2009.  [2] ‘G.I. Bill’, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Accessed June 2nd, 2011


There should be equality between men and women.  There is a fundamental principle that men and women should be considered equal in all walks of life; and as such should both have an equal role in the military, including being in combat.  Not allowing combat roles for women has an unfortunate side effect of increasing inequality in terms of ranks. Combat duty is necessary or highly beneficial for promotion to senior officer positions in many armies. [1] If women cannot serve in combat, very few will ever reach the highest ranks of the military; this creates a glass ceiling that will be very hard to break without this change to allowing women to serve in combat. Women have to be given the same opportunities as men, in the army in order to have the same opportunities they have to be exposed to the same risks.  [1] Jones, Melissa, ‘Combat Women’, iVillage.co.uk.  Powers, Rod, ‘What the Recruiter Never Told You’, About.com guide, Accessed June 2nd, 2011


Differences in physical strength can be overcome  Militaries can use ‘gender-blind’ recruitment and training processes, treating all candidates the same regardless of gender. This is 100% fair and some women will certainly succeed in entering combatant roles and will prove themselves the equal or better than the men. For example, several Soviet women have distinguished themselves as snipers and combat aviators. [1]  Alternatively, militaries can calibrate recruitment and training to suit female candidates. There is a precedent for this in the U.S. military’s A.P.F.T. (army physical fitness test), which has variations for age. [2] If the test standards can be lowered for older men, they can also be lowered for women.  In the modern high technology battlefield, technical expertise and decision-making skills are often more valuable than physical strength.  For example, in the American army, performance targets are regularly calibrated for age and position. [3] A forty year-old senior N.C.O. (non-commissioned officer), faces a much easier set of targets than his 20 year-old subordinate, yet both are deployed in an active combat role.  [1] ‘Women in the Russian and Soviet Military’, Wikipedia, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011  [2] Casey L., ‘Women in Combat’, 1997, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011  [3] Powers, Rod, ‘Physical Fitness Test’, about.com guide, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011


If we use ‘gender-blind’ recruitment and training, some women will be able to meet the required standards, but most will not. The small number of suitable female candidates set against the additional logistical, regulatory and disciplinary costs associated with integrating them, mean that integration is not worthwhile.  For example, one test of American army officer candidates showed that "only one woman out of 100 could meet a physical standard achieved by 60 out of 100 men” [1]  Some roles such as those of sniper and combat aviator clearly require less physical strength than most active combat roles. Many tasks that combat soldiers must accomplish require high muscle density, which women do not naturally possess. [2] Examples would include carrying a wounded soldier, throwing grenades or digging a trench in hard terrain.  Older and more senior soldiers make up for their reduced physical strength with an increased amount of experience. The same cannot be said for new female recruits.  [1] Gerber, Bradley, ‘Women in the Military and Combat’, Family Problems and Social Change, 1998, Accessed on June 2nd, 2011  [2] ‘Israeli women won’t see combat’, WND, 20 October 2003.


This does not mean that women should have to serve in combat. The alternative is that it is possible to change the promotion policies in armies to give women a fair chance at career advancement. Men and women are both given opportunities to join the army, but with the understanding that different roles require different physical, emotional attributes. This should mean in turn that there are multiple routes to promotion so that women have equal opportunities without having to fight take part in combat operations.


There are many conflicts which are not L.I.C.s.  Recent combat operations have had historically very low casualty rates, the wars that the United States has been fighting have been operations where the United States had vast technological superiority. There is no guarantee that this will always be the case, a conflict between nations with comparatively equal militaries would still have much more bloody combat operations.


Allowing women to serve in combat increases the pool for recruits  Volunteer military forces face low recruitment and retention rates as a result of it being a tough and stressful job where workers cannot work for as long as they do in many civilian jobs. [1] Injuries and trauma caused by fighting also add to the turnover rate of soldiers. As a result it is necessary to widen the applicant pool in order to be able to ensure there are more candidates for the army.  Allowing women to serve in combat effectively doubles the possible talent pool available for the military to recruit for delicate and sensitive jobs which require interpersonal skills that not every soldier possesses. The result will be better and more diplomatic soldiers who will be particularly useful in L.I.C.s. [2]  [1] Cogan, James, ‘US military recruitment crisis deepens’, World Socialist Web Site, 1 June 2005.  [2] DeGroot, Gerard J., ‘Women as Peacekeepers’, Toronto Star, 25 July 1999.


All modern military roles are combatant anyway  Many modern conflicts are L.I.C.s which involve terrorist groups using guerilla tactics. In these situations, there are no clear ‘front-lines’, and no clear difference between combatant and non-combatant roles. All women serving in the military are exposed to “front-line risks”. [1] Attacks on soldiers are as likely to occur on the military’s bases themselves as they are when the soldiers are out on patrol.  For example, in late June of 2005 in Iraq, two women marines were killed and about a dozen injured in a pair of suicide attacks. [2] That frontline combat operations are not always much more dangerous than other roles can be shown by the casualties in Iraq comparing the initial invasion and reconstruction phases. The United States lost very few casualties in the invasion phase of the war up to President Bush’s declaration of victory on 1 May 2003 with only 138 dead, [3] compared to an overall death toll of 4422. [4] If men and women are already in practice facing the same risks and as women and men are equal, there should be equality when it comes to being considered being in frontline combat service.  [1] Clark-Flory, Tracy, ‘Should women fight on the front lines?’, Salon, 5 November 2010.  [2] Glanz, James, et al., ‘Iraq Bombing Kills 4 U.S. Women, a Record Toll’, The New York Times, 25 June 2005.  [3] ‘U.S. Casualties in Iraq’, GlobalSecurity.org.  [4] ‘Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) U.S. Casualty Status Fatalities As Of: July 24 2012’, Department of Defense.


Male soldiers generally take just as much time off as female soldiers, in large part due to their greater alcohol and drug use. [1]  Of course this problem can be easily anticipated. Statistics on the number or female soldiers not available for call-up due to pregnancy can be used to factor in the phenomenon so that the military has enough personnel to deploy at any one time. This is already done for male soldiers not available for call-up due to injury. [2] Moreover this should not even be considered as not all women can or want to have children. In western states, it is more common for women to become career women and leave having children to later on in life; this would just as likely be the case with women in the military.  Women, who choose to become active combat soldiers, are unlikely to shirk their duty by becoming pregnant after a call-up as these women have willingly joined the army.  [1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979.  [2] ibid


Clearly, training will be required to facilitate the integration of women into combat units. Cultures change over time and the masculine subculture can evolve too. Many previously masculine professions have been successfully opened to women over the past century – some of them, such as working in factories and many other roles as a result of war.  People involved in combat will attempt to protect each other, this is natural, and sometimes this kind of act is foolish. But this is something that already happens, involving women in the combat role will not make much difference. In addition, men can be informed that acting foolishly to protect women is unacceptable and reprimanded just as any soldier acting foolishly for any other reason would be. Soldiers can be taught what constitutes sexual harassment and abuse and how to react if they witness it or are victimized. Armies already take such incidents seriously and disciplinary procedures can be put in place to deal with any increases in such incidents in the short term as a result of the change.  There would be no difference in uniform or in how males and females would be treated, other than the different physical practice tasks, in order to encourage integration. The change to incorporating women in combat unites would mean that men and women would be given the same treatment so that they would come see each other as equal members of the military.


There is a relatively higher female Injury rate  If militaries use gender-blind recruitment and training, women will suffer a high rate of injury as a result of physical differences. The standards of physical fitness have been set to suit men, and women attempting to reach them will over-stretch themselves. For example, when the U.K. military began using gender-blind training in the 1990s, the rate of medical discharge of female recruits jumped from 4.6% to 11.1%. [1]  In addition, regardless of recruitment and training standards, combat units engage in activities designed to suit men’s capabilities. Women serving in integrated units will suffer higher injury rates as a result of this. For example, armies march according to the male stride length of 45 cm, rather than the shorter female stride length of 38 cm. Women marching at the male pace are therefore at increased risk of stress fractures in pubic bones. [2]  [1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27.  [2] ibid


Battlefield Rape is a concern  A prevalent theme in many nationalist conflicts is both sides attempting to extinguish the bloodlines of the enemy culture. This ethnic cleansing often leads to systematic rape of women and mass murder of men. For example, in the Bosnian Wars of the early 1990s, systematic rape was carried out against all ethnic groups, but particular by ethnic Serbs against Bosnian Muslims. [1]  This could present a problem in the modern interventionist or peace-keeping activities of many military forces, third party combatants are often sent to the battlefields of conflicts that involve just this kind of ethnic cleansing. While it is unlikely that anything will happen to peacekeeping units if one side does turn on the peacekeepers it is likely that female soldiers will be treated the same as women from the enemy side if the rape mentality has been set in the minds of the soldiers.  [1] Osborn, Andrew, ‘Mass rape ruled a war crime’, The Guardian, 23 February 2001.


Female P.O.W.s (prisoners of war) are a liability  In wars, soldiers are often captured and become P.O.W.s. Male P.O.W.s are sometimes tortured or raped. Many societies around the world value women less than men. This misogyny may make female soldiers more likely to be tortured or in particular raped than male soldiers if they are captured. [1] At the same time this threat or reality may lead male soldiers, captured alongside female soldiers, to crack more easily under interrogation. [2]  Female P.O.W.s are also more likely than male P.O.W.s to be used in propaganda campaigns at home. This may have an effect on the nation’s commitment to the war effort. For example, the story of Jessica Lynch, an American marine captured in Iraq, was widely reported in the American media, affecting national morale. The media paid little attention to the male soldiers captured at the same time. [3]  [1] Cook, Gretchen, ‘POWs likely to endure sexual assault’, Women’s Enews, 2002.  ‘Women in Combat Frequently Asked Questions’, Center for Military Readiness, 22 November 2004.  [2] Brown, Steve, ‘Female POWs Spark Calls to Reassess Military Role for Women’, CNSNews, 4 April 2003, Accessed June 3rd, 2011  [3] Lynne, Diana, ‘Spin behind Jessica Lynch story?’, WND, 6 May 2003.


Pregnancy affects military readiness  Women who become pregnant are not available to be deployed into warzones. This reduces military readiness. Additionally, pregnancy means that women need to take time off work, which can have worse effects in military units than any other workplace. [1] This effect has been observed in army and navy forces in the past. An increased number of women in the military would make the problem worse. [2] In 1985 up to 10% of active duty women personnel in the US armed forces were unavailable for call-up and duty due to pregnancy. [3]  Pregnancy could potentially be a means of avoiding call-up. This is likely with national guard soldiers, who are usually permanently stationed at home and often build lives and families there, not expecting to be deployed abroad. This tactic was used during the Vietnam war by some men. In 1965, the decision to expand the military draft to include married men without children was made. [4]  [1] ‘Sexes: The Military Is Pregnant’, Time, 8 October 1979.  [2] Harrell, Margaret C., and Miller, Laura L., ‘New Opportunities for Military Women’, RAND, 1997.  [3] UPI, ‘10% of Army Women Pregnant at Any Time’, The New York Times, 7 July 1985.  [4] Seelye, Katharine Q., ‘Cheney’s Five Draft Deferments During the Vietnam Era Emerge as a Campaign Issue’, The New York Times, 1 May 2004.


No woman will be working by herself. Military units work together, and if a woman were, for example, on patrol by herself, she is armed and can legitimately defend herself against an attacker.  In fact, women are a better presence in situations where rape is being used as a weapon of war. Local women are not going to trust male soldiers so easily as women, because one man in a camouflage uniform looks much like another. If a woman has been raped, or seen/heard about someone from their neighborhood being raped by an armed militia, or by the army, that woman is in a state of fear already. She will not be able to distinguish between soldiers in her panic. However, a female soldier is not going to rape the local women. This means there is a greater bond of trust between the two parties and they can work together in things like delivering aid, rebuilding infrastructure post-conflict. Local women will also feel more comfortable to come forward to report a crime of rape to another woman, than she would to a man. [1]  [1] Carvajal, Doreen, ‘A Female Approach to Peacekeeping’, The New York Times, 5 March 2010.


Integrating women into male combat units can cause men to behave badly  Many men who join the army maintain traditional gender roles. This may lead them to act foolishly to protect women in their combat units, endangering themselves and everyone else in the unit. In a recent review on the possible introduction of mixed-gender combat units, the British Ministry of Defense cited this as an issue. [1]  At the same time, the sudden presence of women in a masculine subculture, can lead to resentment and incidents of abuse. Sexual harassment and assault may become more prevalent. Any bad male behavior will create tensions, affect morale and weaken the military.  For example, at the three US service academies, one in seven women report being sexually assaulted, and half have been sexually harassed. [2] Integrating into combat unites is not likely to help these statistics.  [1] Norton-Taylor, Richard, ‘Women still banned from combat roles after Ministry of Defence review’, guardian.co.uk, 29 November 2010.  [2] ‘One in Seven Attending Military Academies Report Being Sexually Assaulted’, Feminist Majority Foundation, 21 March 2005.


The treatment of P.O.W.s is influenced by many factors, including their captor nation’s adherence to the Geneva Convention, discipline within the ranks of their captor army, whether the P.O.W. is expected to possess useful information and whether the captor army is concerned with their public image. The gender of the P.O.W. is likely to have a very small influence compared to these other factors. Upon entering the army, each applicant, male or female are aware of the risks and the possibility of being captured, even if that possibility is small, and are aware of what may occur while in captivity. By deciding to join, each person therefore agrees to understanding these risks and thus making a statement of acceptance.  Stories of P.O.W.s are compelling. They are likely to be used in propaganda campaigns whether or not female soldiers are involved. Had Jessica Lynch not been captured, the male soldiers probably would have been at the center of a similar campaign.


It is possible to calibrate recruitment and training standards to women. Extra pre-training for muscle building can also be used to reduce female injury rates. [1] As for the increase of females being discharged in the 1990’s, it is obvious that with an increase of people, the amount of those injured with also proportionally rise, whether male or female.  In order to accommodate to more females in the military, rather than integrating women into male combat units, all-female combat units could be created. These would engage in activities designed to suit women’s capabilities.  [1] Gemmell, Ian M. M., ‘Injuries among female army recruits: a conflict of legislation’, Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, Vol.95, No.1, January 2002, pp.23-27.


Peace talks starting just 18 months before all NATO forces have left is clearly leaving it too late to ensure success. There will be little to persuade the Taliban to compromise as they believe their situation is only going to get better when there is no fear of military defeats. The Taliban has walked away from talks before and could easily do so again. It is notable that a Taliban spokesman says “There is no ceasefire now. They are attacking us and we are attacking them” which makes the chances of breakdown in the talks high. [1] To make matters worse the Afghan government has only been lukewarm about the talks complaining that allowing the Taliban an office in Doha “gave the Taliban an official identity, something we didn't want” and responded by suspending negotiations with the United States on a security agreement that would determine how many US soldiers stay in the country after the NATO mission has ended. [2]  [1] ‘US to hold direct peace talks with Taliban’, Al Jazeera, 19 June 2013  [2] Shalizi, Hamid, ‘Afghan government irked over U.S. talks with Taliban’, Reuters, 19 June 2013


Negotiations to ensure lasting peace  NATO is also ensuring that peace and security remain in Afghanistan as they draw down by opening up negotiations with the Taliban. Peace can only be assured by bringing together the sides so that almost everyone accepts the status quo and does not want to destroy that status quo through force. United States officials say “We have long said this conflict won't be won on the battlefield” with the deputy national security advisor, Ben Rhodes, adding “The United States will be supporting a process that is fundamentally Afghan-led” meaning that NATO is no longer key to the process. [1] NATO handing over control to the Afghans and eventually withdrawing entirely will make peace more likely to succeed as the Taliban “considerers it its religious and national duty to gain independence from the occupation” with this goal it wants “to support a political and peaceful solution”. [2] Lasting peace is then only possible when NATO leaves.  [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013  [2] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013


Some elections may be better than no elections but where the west has control there really should have been exemplary elections. The 2009 Presidential elections in particular have been accused of having been riddled with fraud. The election observers from the National Democratic Institute said “polling was marred by widespread fraud” and the opposition candidate Abdullah Abdullah pulled out of the run off pointing to there being no measures taken to prevent the fraud recurring. [1] If Afghan elections are so marred by fraud when the US and NATO still have a lot of control over the country how bad will it be when there is no outside check? And if democracy may not survive the transition from NATO control what hope is there for human rights and particularly women’s rights? [2]  [1] National Democratic Institute, ‘The 2009 Presidential and Provincial Council Elections in Afghanistan’, 2010  [2] UN News Centre, ‘Georgette Gagnon: Raising the bar on respect for human rights in Afghanistan’, un.org, 28 May 2013


NATO has brought peace and security  “NATO’s primary objective in Afghanistan is to enable the Afghan authorities to provide effective security across the country and ensure that the country can never again be a safe haven for terrorists.” [1] The invasion of Afghanistan was initially about destroying al-Qaeda and with the killing of Osama bin Laden in 2011 in Pakistan this objective has been met. There are still efforts to destroy al Qaeda but these have mostly moved out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan and other countries such as Yemen.  NATO has also brought Afghanistan to the point where the Afghani’s can look after themselves and exercise their own security. On 18th June Afghanistan took over the lead from NATO on security nationwide having previously been taking control district by district. Handing over security also itself improves security with Afghanis in Kandahar saying “Now that the foreigners are gone, the security situation in the city and in the districts is much better”. [2]  [1] ‘NATO and Afghanistan’, nato.int  [2] Loyn, David, ‘Afghans take nationwide security lead from NATO’, BBC News, 18 June 2013


The conflict clearly is ongoing in Afghanistan; in 2012 there were 245 drone strikes in Afghanistan compared to only 44 in Pakistan and 28 in Yemen. [1] Even if those drones are not being used to attack al Qaeda but instead the Taliban in Afghanistan it is impossible to say that peace and security has been brought to the country.  It is also impossible to say that the handover to Afghan forces shows that the NATO mission has been a success; a handover could occur no matter how peaceful or otherwise the country is. In Vietnam the United States declared victory by signing the Paris Peace Accords and handing over to South Vietnam only for the country to be overrun two years later in the spring of 1975. [2]  [1] Woods, Chris, and Ross, Alice, K., ‘Revealed: US and Britain launched 1,200 drone strikes in recent wars’, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, 4 December 2012  [2] The Learning Network, ‘April 30, 1975 | Saigon Falls’, The New York Times, 30 April 2012


There are still immense problems with infrastructure in Afghanistan, more roads and railways are needed if large scale investment by China and others is to be made a success. There is little point in huge investment in mines if the product of those mines then can’t be transported out of the country to the markets as a result of either poor infrastructure or security concerns. There are also cases where infrastructure built by the US military has been allowed to deteriorate when handed over to Afghan control; there have been problems maintaining almost half the infrastructure projects built by the US in Laghman province. [1]  [1] Boak, Josh, ‘U.S.-funded infrastructure deteriorates once under Afghan control, report says’, Washington Post, 4 January 2011


Democracy has been brought to Afghanistan  Some of the biggest benefits of the NATO occupation have been through the increase in democracy and human rights. While these were not specific aims of the NATO mission they were among the goals set out by the United Nations. [1] There have been two Presidential elections, one in 2004 the other in 2009, and two parliamentary elections, 2005 and 2010 none have been perfect but it is a clear advance from no elections at all. The most notable human rights increase has been in women’s rights. Under the Taliban Afghanistan strictly limited the activities of women but today 27.3% of the representatives in the Parliament are women (better than in the UK or US) and the first female governor is in office. The literacy rate is still low but they now make up 36.6% of those in primary school up from almost nothing. [2] There have been similar gains in other human rights such as a reduction in the use of corporal punishments such as amputating hands for theft.  [1] Annex III Request to the United Nations by the participants at the UN talks on Afghanistan, S/2001/1154, UNDemocracy.com  [2] Haidari, M. Ashraf, ‘Afghan women as a measure of progress’, The AfPak Channel Foreign Policy, 18 March 2013


Investment in Afghanistan; rebuilding the economy  The ‘rehabilitation’ of Afghanistan’s infrastructure has not been an immense success due to the continuing bombing campaign which inevitably damages infrastructure but there have been big economic benefits from the NATO presence. There have been more than 4,000 schools built and 175,000 teachers trained, although more is needed this is an immense boost to education in Afghanistan. [1] Another benefit of increased stability is a renewal of outside investment, from China in particular. China has been investing billions, Several mining firms have made a $4.4 billion investment in one project; an immense undeveloped copper reserve in Aynak. [2] In total there is more than $20 billion being invested in infrastructure by Afghanistan’s Asian neighbours, as these investments are looking for profit they are clearly believed to be sustainable, by comparison the United States has only funded $1.6billion since 2006. [3]  [1] ‘Afghanistan’, USAID, February 2013  [2] Downs, Erica S., ‘China Buys into Afghanistan’, Brookings, 21 February 2013  [3] Barfield, Thomas, ‘Two Diverging Roads in Afghanistan’, YaleGlobal, 11 January 2013


There will still be aid after NATO leaves and Afghanistan is not simply going to be abandoned as the troops go home. Economic growth since the fall of the Taliban has been spectacular with average growth of 9.1% of GDP since 2009 while it is true that this has been in part fueled by aid there are more sustainable sources of growth in the form of the mineral wealth of Afghanistan which can go to the giant and growing economies of India and China. [1]  [1] Al Jazeera and agencies, ‘Afghanistan’s economy at a glance’, Al Jazeera, 19 February 2012


In a country where the insurgents are more opposed to the foreign occupiers than their nominal opponents in the Afghan government the complete withdrawal of troops will actually be good for peace and security. Yes Afghanistan is still dangerous but the aim is not necessarily to provide security through NATO forces but to train Afghan forces to do it.


The Taliban will likely take over when the NATO forces leave  Even if they are willing to negotiate a peaceful US exit this does not mean the Taliban will not wish to use force when the United States has left. In their statement on peace talks they highlighted “the establishment of an independent Islamic system and true security which is the want and aspiration of the nation.” [1] They also style themselves as the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan clearly showing their political goal is regaining power in Afghanistan which would mean overthrowing the democratically elected government. Some Afghan experts such as Gilles Dorronsoro believe that this is what will happen “After 2014, the level of US support for the Afghan regime will be limited and, after a new phase in the civil war, a Taliban victory will likely follow” though this would have the advantage of bringing stability as the Taliban did before the US invasion it would represent a complete failure for the US. [2]  [1] Taliban, ‘Taliban agree to peace talks with US over Afghanistan – full statement’, guardian.co.uk, 18 June 2013  [2] AFP, ‘Afghan govt will collapse and Taliban will rule again, Afghan expert says’, news.com.au, 27 September 2012


An Afghanistan dominated by warlords.  Under the Taliban up to the US invasion Afghanistan was at least united. Today however there is little central control beyond the NATO forces; the Taliban clearly controls some areas but there are also powerful warlords. Appointments are based on nepotism and tribal affiliations not on merit or education and those who were part of the northern alliance that fought on the US side (Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazaras) are taking advantage of the opportunity of the overthrow of Pashtun dominance in the country to grab power and resources. [1] Already the conflict has an ethnic dimension as almost all of the Taliban is made up of Pashtuns. The Taliban meanwhile believes that the other ethnicities want a partition of the country through a very decentralised federal state. In almost any peace scenario with NATO gone there is a large chance that one faction will walk out setting off a civil war and fragmentation of the country. [2]  [1] Noor, Ahmad, ‘Power Politics of ethnic groups and the future of Afghanistan’, World Security Network, 8 July 2011  [2] Rafiq Arif, ‘The Coming Civil War in Afghanistan’, Foreign Policy, 3 February 2012


NATO has failed to solve Afghanistan’s economic problems  While some progress has been made on the economic and development front in Afghanistan it is difficult to consider it a success. There are still 20% of households who are chronically food insecure and another 18% in need of assistance in some of the year with the result that nearly 40% of children under three are malnourished. [1] Afghanistan is immensely dependent on aid for its economic progress with foreign aid to the country representing 100% of GDP in 2011 which makes the country vulnerable to a change in priorities. Clearly the withdrawal will represent such a change; when NATO goes aid, and spending as a result of the military occupation, will drop at the very least constraining growth and likely taking the Afghan economy with it. [2] Already the International Labour Organisation has been warning that this will mean increasing child labour in the country as lower profit margins force families to use their children to boost incomes. [3]  [1] UNDP Afghanistan, ‘Eradicated Extreme Poverty and Hunger’, United Nations Development Programme, 21 July 2011  [2] ‘The hand that feeds’, The Economist, 14 July 2012  [3] Ferris-Rotman, Amie, ‘Afghan child labor fears grow as aid dries up’, Reuters, 7 February 2012


Afghanistan is still a dangerous place  Peace talks or no peace talks, NATO military leadership of Afghan would all appear to make no difference. Only hours after the Taliban said it would hold peace talks and the United States handed over control of military operations to the Afghan National Army four US soldiers were killed in a mortar attack at Bagram Airbase one of the centres of NATO operations. [1] Clearly then NATO has not brought peace and security to Afghanistan. The effect of handovers to the Afghans have already been seen; August to October of last year saw a 28% spike in killings from the same period the year before at a time when NATO was handing over control implying that the Afghan army is not yet ready to protect civilians. [2]  [1] Roberts, Dan, ‘Taliban peace talks: ‘Peace and reconciliation’ negotiations to take place in Qatar’, The Guardian, 19 June 2013  [2] Borger, Julian, ‘Can Afghan troops hold off the Taliban after Nato withdraws?’, The Guardian, 1 January 2013


In a country as rugged as Afghanistan there is always going to have to be a lot of decentralisation and at the moment this means warlords having a lot of power in individual areas. However this is better than the alternative of a centralising Taliban which would still have many factions and elements but these would be much more extreme than today’s warlords. It is also difficult to see how this impacts on the success of NATO in Afghanistan. They can be bad but can also bring benefits as they have an incentive to deliver stability and reconstruction to their local areas. [1]  [1] Milhopadhyay, Dipali, ‘Warlords as Bureaucrats: The Afghan Experience’, Carnegie Papers, Number 101, August 2009


There is little reason to believe that the Taliban will succeed in rapidly forcing the Karzai government out of power. The Taliban has been failing to retake the ground they have lost after offensives by NATO forces so even if the Afghan National Army fails to take more ground it seems unlikely the Taliban will quickly succeed in driving on Kabul. [1] In the unlikely event that the Taliban does begin winning the US and other NATO states are not going to sit back and let the Afghan government fall. David Cameron, the British Prime Minister has said “The clear message is to the Taliban that you can't just wait this out until foreign forces leave in 2014. We will be firm friends and supporters to Afghanistan long beyond that.” [2]  [1] American Enterprise Institute, ‘Why we must win in Afghanistan’, 17 October 2012  Biddle, Stephen, ‘Salvaging Governance Reform in Afghanistan’, Council on Foreign Relations, April 2012  [2] Mason, Rowena, ‘David Cameron: Taliban could be waiting for British troops to leave before trying to take Afghanistan’, The Telegraph, 19 July 2012


There is no age at which you start to be taxed. Rich children with investment funds and child stars all earn money at a young age and are taxed on it. This does not mean that the voting age should be lowered so that these individuals are represented. Similarly every visitor to the UK pays VAT on any goods they buy, this does not entitle them to a say in government.


No taxation without representation  It is unfair to have taxation without representation. Many 16 year olds work and pay tax on their earnings just as any other worker would. Yet unlike other workers at present they are not allowed to have a say in how the government spends their money, nor in how much should be collected from them in taxes. This was famously the grievance of the thirteen colonies that sparked the American revolution. In 2011 in the UK 7.2% of 16-18 year olds were in employment but not being given fair representation. [1] Policies such as the minimum wage and working hours and conditions are also set by governments, and if young people are old enough to have jobs they should be able to have their say in these issues.  [1] ‘Participation of 16 to 18 year olds in education and training, England’, Department of Education, 21 February 2013, Table 1


Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined [1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012 [2] , and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users, [3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box.  [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004  [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012  [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010