Expert Tier Tournament: Compulsory Voting

Thanks, Pro.Rebuttal time!R1) TurnoutPro argues that having a large amount of non-voters is detrimental to democracy because it would mean a large portion of the people go unrepresented, which defeats its entire purpose (rule by the people). He goes on to argue that enforcing compulsory voting would increase voter turnout (obviously...). But this argument is very ideological in nature; sure, it is "more democratic" to have more voters, but one thing that democracy guarantees is the protection of rights, and compulsory voting is a clear violation of some people's right to inaction, as explained in my opening argument. On that note, Pro observes that a lot of the non-voting population consists of socio-economically disadvantaged groups that cannot vote simply because of "situational forces" (i.e. that it's often not a purposeful choice to exercise the right to inaction). And in that case, compulsory voting IS a justifiable method of getting more of them to vote. However, compulsory voting, by definition, doesn't just apply to those disadvantaged groups; it applies to ALL citizens... and we must note that there are plenty of other non-voters who make a *conscious decision* not to vote for a variety of personal reasons, thus exercising their right to inaction (http://www.people-press.org...). For these people, the enforcement of compulsory voting results in a violation of their rights.What compulsory voting does, then, is that it solves one problem (low turnout from poorer citizens) while creating another (a rights violation for purposeful non-voters). Thus, it is far more beneficial for the government to find other ways to mitigate the "situational forces" preventing socio-economically disadvantaged people from voting.This contention does not affirm the resolution at all; the rights violations that it would entail make alternative solutions to socio-economic voting barriers preferable to the enforcement of compulsory voting. Also, I can cross-apply my argument regarding "bad" voting here, to show that a lower turnout could plausibly be *better* for society as a whole, from a strictly practical perspective. R2) ViolencePro argues that compulsory voting causes more people to be involved in government, which oftentimes reduces social unrest. I do not deny that having a large portion of the population to be unrepresented is dangerous. However, it is completely illogical to believe that people who choose not to vote would be causing turmoil over a lack of representation... And if Pro his referring to those "socio-economically disadvantaged groups" here, then this contention falls into the same trap as the last contention; compulsory voting, while it may be one possible method to increase voter turnout among the disadvantaged, is rendered unfavorable relative to alternative methods because of the rights violations it entails.R3) CitizenshipPro suggests, here, that being a citizen in a democracy naturally includes having an obligation to vote.However, the argument fails, as there is no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion. It is true that a democratic government affords each of its citizens political power in the form of voting, but that does not mean that all citizens have an obligation to *use* that power; they should be able to utilize their natural right to inaction to abstain from using their power if they wish to do so. The power being vested in "the people" does not necessarily mean that each and every person needs to participate in exercising that power. If someone refuses to exercise their power, it is their own loss.CONCLUSIONS-Compulsory voting may have its benefits when it comes to helping those who are simply unable to vote due to external circumstances, but when it comes to people who purposefully choose not to vote, it is nothing more than a violation of their right to inaction.-Voting cannot be said to be a democratic obligation because being *allowed* to do X is not a valid logical basis for being *required* to do X. A person who does not wish to exercise the power given to them in a democracy should be free to do so.Back to you, Pro!