Mandatory Voting

I have read your previous debates and am delighted to be debating someone who is well articulated and experienced. Arguments- 1. Voting is a moral and civic duty2. Mandatory voting will increase representation3. Mandatory voting will reduce polarization4. Mandatory voting will increase voter participation and knowledge When we vote, we make a conscious decision that will effect the entire nation. Often times, our choices will have consequences, whether good or bad, that could last for generations. In his book, The Ethics of Voting, Princeton philosopher Jason Brennan writes: "Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone. " [1] Brennan further writes: "Voting is the principal way that citizens influence the quality of government. No activity is more emblematic of democracy. Some call voting a civic sacrament. Many people approach democracy, and voting especially, with a quasi-religious reverence. " [2] In his debate, debate. org use whiteflame writes: "[Democracy is] the basis for how our country continues to function, and an essential component in determining who represents the country. As such, voting is necessary to keep the country functioning for the benefit of the people. It's beneficial for all eligible voters to understand that necessity, and to be aware that their duty as citizens is to be involved in the composition of their government, and thus to be involved in the laws it passes. This is the same reason why jury duty is compulsory, as it ensures that the courts can function properly. " [3] So in conclusion, we get this: P1: In democratic countries, voting is the primary way in which the government functions. P2: It is therefore our moral and civic duty to ensure that the government runs properly. C: Therefore, the government ought to make voting mandatory. Among the mantras of democracy is the concept of the consent of the governed. One of the many problems in the United States is the anemic voter turnout. This, in turn, creates a situation in which the vast majority of eligible voters do not consent to the current form of government, nor the leaders in charge. For example, in the State of Maine, the gubernatorial election in 2014 had three candidates. Paul LePage, the highly unpopular governor, won re-election with only 48 percent of the vote. (4) This means that for those who actually voted, 51 per cent did not consent to him being the next governor. How would mandatory voting increase representation? Whiteflame further notes (3): "Part of the reason that voting is so important is because it ensures that your views play a role in how your part of the country, and the country as a whole, are represented. Representation is enhanced by having a larger voting bloc, but that's a basic hazard of democracy in any case. What changes in a voluntary voting system? Those sectors of the public that turn out to vote. Who turns out to vote? Those with higher incomes. Voter apathy is inversely correlated with wealth, as those with more wealth tend to vote more often. This means that these groups receive less representation, as the leadership of our political parties has little reason to see to their needs over those of the rich. Compulsory voting ameliorates this problem, making voting blocs the size of their populations, and, perhaps, even reducing the gridlock that we currently see between political parties. This is what we've seen in studies conducted in Australia, a country that employs compulsory voting. In the end, this ensures that special interest groups and extremist subsets of the population have less control, and over the way U. S. policy is conducted, and have to convince broader subsets of the population that their intentions are for a larger overall benefit than simply for themselves. " Thus to conclude: P1: Democracy is based on the consent of the peopleP2: Citizens show consent by voting. P3: Mandatory voting increases representation and consent of the people. C1: Therefore, a democracy without high electoral turnout rules without consent. C2: Therefore, voting ought to be mandatory. Among the issues with voter turnout is the high polarization in the United States. Justin Valasek in his research for Duke University noted: "When turnout is strategic and citizens have decreasing intensity of political preferences, I show that an incentive to maximize turnout among the base can cause candidates to take partisan positions, in contrast to the median voter result under full turnout. I then study how the results of this model change with the introduction of measures to increase turnout. In contrast to previous literature on turnout and mandatory voting, which takes candidate positions as fixed, I analyze the effect on both who wins the election and the candidates’ political positions. R32;R32;I show that at high enough levels, measures to increase turnout result in convergence at the median citizen’s ideal point. As voting is made cheaper, or strictly beneficial (through subsidies), the strategic effect of turnout on candidates disappears, returning the median voter result. " So, if we made voting mandatory, the results will be that the candidates will largely take political positions that represent a broader aspect of the said population, thus creating a more centrist government as Eric Liu writes (6): "In today’s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don’t currently vote. " One of the main arguments used by those who do not support mandatory voting is the issue of low-informed voters; however, by making voting mandatory, we will prompt more voters to pay attention to politics. Eric Liu further notes (6): "Third, mandatory voting would prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices. Those of us who lament the decline of civic knowledge generally focus on the supply side of the equation: more civics education. A mandate would stimulate the demand side, motivating more voters to learn what they were voting on (just as a draft makes the drafted motivated to learn what they’d fight for). There are many arguments against mandatory voting; each reflects a lack of faith in democracy itself. One says that increasing the number of uninformed voters will lead to worse policymaking. That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment. It also sets up a viciously antidemocratic circle: if you don’t vote you must be stupid and if you are stupid you must not vote. " | Conclusion | In democratic society mandatory voting is necessary for the government to be able to properly function. Voting will also help to reduce polarization, and increase knowledge and awareness of the government. I affirm the resolution. Over to con! _______ Sources 1. Brennan, Jason. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print.2. Ibid3. Used with permission of whiteflame. . http://www.edeb8.com...;4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;5. . http://econ.duke.edu...;6. . http://ideas.time.com...;