Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting

VOTING ISSUES My opponent concedes that not-voting has ZERO advantages while VOTING has at least some advantages. Therefore, on balance, you must vote PRO.In this debate I don’t need to prove that voting is "the best thing you can do" nor that our electoral system is perfect. I only need to prove that voting is BETTER than not-voting. My opponent argued in round 2 that voting cannot solve every problem, granted, but he conceded that voting has some advantages while not-voting has zero advantages; therefore you must vote PRO. Round 1: Grandbudda: “I agree that most of the time it's better to vote than not to vote“ Round 2: Grandbudda: “I don't suggest that you shouldn't vote” Grandbudda asserted supposed advantages of not-voting in round 1; all of which were refuted in my opening round 2 response. PREFER EVIDENCE OVER MERE ASSERTION. Many of Grandbudda’s arguments are big claims with ZERO evidence. Regardless of your personal biases, in a debate claims should be backed up with hard evidence. Read over his round 2 case and count the amount of claims he makes with zero evidence. All of my arguments are supported with examples from recent history or I cite studies with a link to a reputable website. Prefer the side that uses empirical evidence. VOTE PRO.He failed to attack all of the PRO VOTING advantages I spelled out in round 2. In debate, if you fail to respond to an argument then you concede the argument. He failed to defend any of his non-voting advantages in his round 2 response, opting instead to spend the entire round making these three points in one form or another: 1) Sometimes ignorant people vote and that’s bad 2) Voting is irrational because most elections aren’t decided by a single vote 3) Sometimes politicians do not keep all of their election promises Let’s consider each of these points one by one 1) Grandbudda: Ignorant People Shouldn't VoteHierocles:Prefer a Rawlsian Ethical Analysis Over Assuming A Voter is Ignorant Because of Her Race or Age Who's to say who is too ignorant to vote? It’s convenient to assume that voters whom you disagrees with are misguided. But if you place yourself in the shoes of the person(s) in question then you will probably NOT assume that YOU are ignorant or misguided. In Grandbudda’s example he argues that people like Rock the Vote’s young people are too ignorant to vote. Grandbudda fails to consider the Rawlsian Original Position. He fails to realize that he could be a new voter who registered with Rock the Vote. You could be a young American voter in 2007 considering whether or not to vote. You know that you are worried about student debt, the war in Iraq, and health care. Therefore, you vote for Obama because he campaigned on the issues you care about. Since 2008, American troops have pulled out of Iraq, student loan interest is down, and health-care reform (for better or worse) has passed, just as Obama promised. Although Obama is imperfect, according to the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact, Obama has kept approx. 70% of his campaign promises. Therefore, my opponent’s assertion that politicians never keep their campaign promises is clearly false. (More on this below in contention 3.)<http://www.politifact.com...> Grandbudda argues that “citizens who are young, uneducated, or otherwise less likely to be engaged” should not vote. Assuming that people you’ve never met are too ignorant to vote because of their age, class, or race is prejudiced and wrong. Who’s to say what people are “less likely to be engaged”? Instead of assuming that others are ignorant, use the Rawlsian Original Position to place yourself in the shoes of the person in question. 2) Grandbudda: Voting is Irrational Because a US Presidential Election Has Never Been Won By a Single Vote A) Voters are aware that they are working in concert with fellow voters, like voters in the same political party, to achieve a certain objective on election day. Saying voting is irrational is akin to saying singing in a choir is irrational because one singer will not make it a choir. It’s akin to saying attending a parade is irrational because one person won’t make it a parade. This is a logical fallacy of composition. If people don’t vote because they assume that their vote won’t make a difference then that collective decision makes a huge difference in a lower voter turnout. But if people choose to vote because they understand that millions of voters’ collective decision to vote can make a huge difference, then they will make a difference. To quote Henry Ford, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” Case in point, in 2000 the US president was determined by less than 600 Floridian voters; I think their votes made a HUGE difference. B) In the US over 20 elections have been determined by a single vote. Here’s the list:http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us... C) Many elections were decided by less than 1% of the electorate: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) Grandbudda: Voting is a Waste Because Politicians Never Keep Their Campaign Promises This is clearly an empirical/historical question, yet Grandbudda makes the claim with ZERO evidence to back it up. So I’ll provide some evidence. According to the Tampa Bay Time’s Pulitzer Prize winning Fact-Checking project PolitiFact, Obama has met 70% of his campaign promises so far. <http://www.politifact.com...; Obama, love him or hate him, was reelected in 2012 because he’s kept most of his 2008 promises, not because people are stupid. According to PolitiFact, the GOP congressional leaders have kept approx 68% of their 2010 campaign promises. <http://www.politifact.com...; The charge that politicians never keep their campaign promises is false. It’s worth your time to vote. OTHER ISSUES 1) Electoral College: This is off-topic. Besides, a low voter turnout would only worsen this problem, especially for those from the neglected states. 2) Grandbudda: “Our political candidates are picked by monied interests” This is a popular and cynical view to hold, but it’s not supported by the facts. Many times the non-establishment candidate wins the primary. In 2010 over 60 of the congressional races were won by the candidate that had less campaign dough. In many of the bigger spender wins, it could be attributed to advantages reaped from being the incumbent in a safe district. In most close races, the smaller spender won about half of the time. SOURCE:<http://www.opensecrets.org...; If politicians were commodities to be bought and sold then the highest bidder would always win - that's not the case. 3) Regarding Third Parties: Grandbudda: “ I can write in or vote for a third party. The net effect of these actions are to elect the favored candidate of one of the two main parties.” This is not true. Sometimes third parties win. Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org...; Furthemore: “Voting for a third party candidate allows constituents to make a profound statement regarding their dissatisfactions with the platforms of both of the candidates that might be elected. In large numbers, these votes can change the behavior of the two major parties in future elections by encouraging them to incorporate the views of third parties.” <http://www.yale.edu...; Our democracy still has a lot of problems, but inaction solves nothing. As citizens of a democracy, it is our responsibility to add our voices so we are represented in our government. Falling into cynicism is the lazy way out; accept complexity and fight to make it better. In a democracy, your fight will always be more effective if you backup your convictions with a vote; be counted. History proves that progress can be made.