In the legal context, voting should be compulsory.

My opponent requires that I "prove that someone not voting impacts everyone in a significant or meaningful way. " I accept this burden. Her contention that, "people across political and religious ideologies believe that voting is coercive, unjust and ineffective," is irrelevant. This debate is not about what some sectors of society believe, but rather, what should be imposed by the law. Even if this concept is relevant, it is flawed in the context of this debate. Quoting from my opponent"s reference for her assertion, the anti-electorialism "ideology advocates revolution and views voting as cooperation with a system they oppose and wish to overthrow, and elections as a sham serving only the interests of the ruling class. " The question at hand asks what the law should impose. Imposing "ideology" which "advocates revolution" is not consistent with the law"s general purpose " to maintain order and standards in society. My opponent also argues that "one can influence their life and political sphere through actions other than voting" (e. g. deciding where to shop, labour organizing, etc. ) This is also irrelevant. It matters not what other variables influences one"s lives, the question is whether this variable (not voting) influences society as a whole. I will now move on to her other assertions: 1)"The fallacious standard of tyranny of the majority: that the desires of the majority of people morally trump the desires of the individual, and/or that the majority's standard should necessarily be enforced" "Fallacious": tending to deceive or mislead (Merriam-Webster) "Tyranny": an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act (ibid) "Majority: a number that is greater than half of a total (ibid) In light of these definitions, allow me to rephrase my opponent"s assertion: "The standard and desires of the relevant population"s greater half should not trump the individual"s desires. This is oppressive, harsh or unjust. This standard tends to deceive or mislead. " In the legal context, the desires of the greater half of the population should trump the individual"s desires. This standard does not deceive or mislead. It is what the law has historically been for. Exhibit A: Criminal law " a serial rapist, who desires to take women"s virginity against their will, is locked up. Rationale A - to protect society from the rapist potentially repeating his actions. Rationale B " to deter others considering the same action, thereby protecting society. (. https://marisluste.files.wordpress.com... ) Exhibit B: Taxation " The commissioner fights to tax a multi-million-dollar corporation (who of course, wishes to avoid liability for certain items) in order to collect more funds for the government. Rationale A " so that more funds are available for public use, ultimately benefitting society as a whole. (. https://www.ato.gov.au...) 2)Voter ignorance Ignorantia juris non excusat: Ignorance is not a defence. In modern times, ignorance can be a very limited defence so let"s entertain it. *The voters should not be obligated to vote because they might be ignorant. This is unsound policy. In the long run, it would inevitably promote: -A society generally disinterested in the affairs of their government -Negligent citizens who do not cast a vote to ward off unsuitable candidates On a public policy basis, should not the law prevent this? 3)"We have the freedom of expression and that expression includes freedom to exhibit lack of expression or lack of voting. " This is very interesting. I thank my opponent for this point. Again allow me to get into the heart of your argument: "Mandating voting is against personal liberty " the liberty to choose what one will and will not do. " I partly agree with this statement. But again the point of this debate is not to argue what is, but rather, what should be. Should the law mandate one to vote even if it is against personal liberty? The answer is clearly in the affirmative based on the above discussion. Furthermore, while I am not American myself, I doubt that your revolution and hence, the framing of your Constitution, is merely about letting one do as one pleases. I am of the view that they are about your liberty to govern and represent yourselves. (. http://www.archives.gov...) That is all for now. In the next round I will explore my reasoning on why "not voting impacts everyone in a significant or meaningful way" (the burden). I patiently await my opponent"s response.