Expert Tier Tournament: Compulsory Voting

Thanks to Romanii for the debate! I will now be rebutting Con's case.CONTENTION ONE: Right to InactionCon writes that "with any human right in a democracy comes the right to abstain from exercising that right." This is, essentially, the crux of Con's argument here. That with every right comes a converse right of abstention. It is this notion that I shall be challenging.Firstly, in practice, certain rights impose obligations on citizens to fulfill. For instance, I have a right to a jury trial. If I were ever arrested and made to stand trial, the court, in furtherance of might right to a jury, can compel people to serve as jurors.You cannot escape jury duty simply because you want to. In other words, you cannot simply abstain from jury duty. Why is this so? Well, it is a duty of citizenship. The state has a compelling interest in ensuring that due process is upheld in its legal system, and so therefore can force people to do things (like testify or serve on juries) in order to protect that interest. In simpler terms, the right to due process outweighs my right to use my free time as I see fit, and thus I can be coerced to use my free time to serve the ends of due process.I will argue here that the right to effective, comprehensive, democratic governance outweighs my right to use my free time as I see fit. Consider, choosing to abstain from voting is--for most people--a choice about free time. They just don't want to take the time to vote. If my right to democratic governance outweighs my right to dispense with my free time as I will, and if compulsory voting supports the former right sufficiently, compulsory voting is justified.The compelling benefit to society that compulsory voting serves is manifold, and includes: promoting democratic legitimacy, reducing violence, and promoting equality. I expound on all of these points in my case. These weighty concerns are sufficient to out balance concerns about free time and abstention, and thus, compulsory voting is justified.To summarize, “if there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. Voting is often viewed as an individual privilege, but it is also true that there are collective benefits from the participation of citizens in elections. Because all Americans benefit from having representative democracy as a form of government, all Americans benefit when others exercise the right to vote. The individual act of voting is essential to the collective's ability to have democratic government, and as such should not be waivable.” [1]Secondly, "the theory of democracy is based upon the social contract between the government and the people. When a democracy is established, the people cease to be in a state of nature, where they are free to do whatever they choose, and become part of the community, bound by its laws. The people are the government, agreeing to live together and be bound by laws for mutual security. However, the duty of the citizen does not end simply by following the laws of the community; the citizen owes certain duties to the community. The government (community) must govern justly and with the consent of the governed, and, in return, the individual (citizen) must follow the laws of the community." [2]Whether or not we accept a social contract explanation of government, we can accept that membership in a country entails certain responsibilities, duties that run both directions. Citizens have a duty to the government, and the government has a duty to the people.“The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing…Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold…it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout…It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour.” [3]Free riders have shirked their duty to the state, and therefore are unjustifiably reaping the benefits when the government does good things for the people collectively. Thus, voting can be made compulsory to enforce this two-way relationship actually remains two-way, and to ensure that no one is unjustly gaming the system.Thirdly, Con states: "Even if Pro were to prove that making voting compulsory is 'beneficial,' that still wouldn't prove that compulsory voting is 'justified,' as the resolution states, because it would still be a violation of our right to inaction." Look at my Observation Two from last round, where I point out that I can show that an action is justified in two ways (1) that it is just or morally right, and (2) that it is reasonable or rational. Rights are typically expressed as moral concerns, and therefore if there is a "right" to abstention, I might not be able to show that CV is just or morally right; however, I could still show that CV is reasonable by showing that it is beneficial. So, Con is incorrect when he says that a right to abstention precludes me from affirming the resolution.Fourthly, as a matter of practical fact, Con's underlying assumption (i.e. that a right to X implies the converse right to not do X) is faulty. “Not all positive rights imply negative rights; we have a right to educate our children, but this does not mean that we have a right not to educate our children. We are required by the state to do many other things as well: to pay taxes, and to serve on juries, and to have our names included on the electoral roll.” [4]CONTENTION TWO: "Bad" VotingCon's basic premise here is that CV would lead to bad votes (a.k.a. "donkey" votes). His arguments are woefully unsubstantiated, and I will endeavor to show how, empirically, his arguments are false.Firstly, “empirical evidence casts further doubt on the hypothesis of random distortion: In Australia, donkey votes account for only around 1 per cent of total votes cast. More importantly, this figure is actually lower than in many systems where voting is voluntary. It is also worth noting that…there tend to be about as many deliberately spoiled and blank ballots as there are donkey votes; therefore at least half of random votes are deliberately nullified by their authors. This renders them incapable of distorting outcomes. It might be retorted that this only shows that compelling people to vote is a waste of time because deliberate informality ends up being the functional equivalent of abstention. The obvious response is that this is only true of a very small proportion of typical abstainers; the vast majority cast – or sincerely attempt to cast – valid votes. Given that compulsory voting can increase turnout by as much as 30+ percentage points, one percentage point of intentionally invalid votes and no discernible increase in donkey votes seems to be a tolerable cost of enfranchising the disadvantaged." [5]Secondly, if the empirics don't convince you, there are theoretical arguments out there that suggest that in places where CV is implemented, parties will go out of there way to educate voters more fully about issues and candidates. “Firstly, if conversion replaces mobilization as the main aim of parties during a campaign, they have an incentive to focus on policy rather than on 'hype,' which should in theory lead to an electorate better-informed about issues and policies. Secondly, if voters know in advance that they will be voting on election day and that they will have to choose from among the options on offer, they have greater reason to pay attention to the campaign than is the case when they can toy with the idea of not voting only to change their minds shortly before the election. The third reason is related to the impact of the universality of electoral campaigns under compulsory voting; if the assumption can be made that everyone will be voting, the election is more likely to become a topic of conversation among friends, relatives and colleagues, which should serve to inform people of relevant issues and the policy positions of parties.” [4]“Participation breeds participation--people who take part in politics in one way tend to do so in another. Participation in the political process may bring about an interest in participation in other civic engagements, which in turn has a positive impact on the political competence among citizens. Therein, as Lijphart argues, compulsory voting could serve as a tool for civic education and political stimulation. The act of voting may also indirectly affect civic engagement by increasing the level of awareness of and interest in politics. Mandatory voting may spur people to gather information about politics and societal affairs in order to make a reasonable vote choice…compulsory voting should have a mobilizing and educating influence on citizens, also increasing the levels of political engagement more generally.” [6]SOURCES1 - Source 6, R22 - Carmichael, Christopher W. Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 309-103 - http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...4 - Source 4, R25 - Hill, Lisa. University of Adelaide, 2001, "Increasing Turnout Using Compulsory Voting," Politics, Vol. 31(1), p. 317 - Lundell, Krister. Professor Abo Akademi University, 2012, "Civic Participation and Political Trust: The Impact of Compulsory Voting," Representation, Vol. 48:2, p. 221Over to Con...