May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory

I will begin by rebutting my opponents opening argument and will follow that with refuting their arguments against my opening arguments. "I. MV surfaces the general will through wider representation" Essentially the argument presented here is that more voices will be heard which leads to greater representation. The problem is that there is no reason or evidence to substantiate this claim. Almost 1 in 5 people who did not vote claimed to be too busy, almost 16% actually admitted to simply being disinterested and 4% claim to have just forgotten. These people (almost 40% of non voters) are generally apathetic to the political process. This mean they will not spend enough time sifting through the claims made by politicians to verify that they have an effective track record or that their proposals will actually do what they claim. Additionally, allowing people the choice to vote allows them to decide what issues are important to them which will actually lead to greater representation. Conversely, forcing people to vote in elections that they are apathetic towards will exacerbate the issues of misleading news headlines and political pandering/dishonesty for votes. MV leads to less representation for those who actually want to understand the particular issue while inconveniently forcing people who don't care to vote on things they know little or nothing about even if they start listening to a little more news (which they probably wouldn't) "II. MV dismantles bad tactics" My opponent claims that MV would force politicians to appeal to everyone rather than simply special interest groups. He also makes the claim that appealing to special interest groups undermines the voice of minorities. To substantiate his claim he uses an example of how a minority group (American Jews) lobby the government for policy that is more favorable towards Israel. One doesn't have to look very deep to see how this argument is self defeating. Jewish people are a minority. Yes, they are a financially successful minority in the aggregate as was pointed out, but a minority nonetheless. However it is important to note that American Jews are particularly invested in issues in the Middle-East and specifically Israel. It is precisely this attachment that makes their voice especially important because they are far more likely to be more educated on the history and current events of the region. My opponent failed to provide any evidence of harms presented by the existence of interest groups let alone that the harms outweigh the benefits. Interest groups are often minority groups and they are a way for those educated and invested in a particular issue to channel their voice louder than their numbers would otherwise allow. "III. Voting is a civic duty" My opponent makes the claim that voting is a civic duty and that they therefore ought to have a legal obligation to vote. He attempts to substantiate these claims by comparing one's obligation to vote to other involuntarily performed civic duties like paying taxes. The difference between taxes and voting are really quite apparent. By not paying taxes, one is essentially refusing to do their equal share of upholding the systems of our government and therefore they are undermining the rights that the government is obligated to protect. With voting this is not the case. Voting is a civic opportunity and by not voting, the only person "harmed" is the non-voter by not putting forth their voice to decide what they want the government to be. Voting is essentially an extension of free speech. Forcing someone to say something is illegal hence the 5th amendment right to remain silent. Additionally, if I do not feel qualified to vote on a particular issue or for a particular office because I don't feel adequately knowledgeable on the subject/candidates then I am upholding my government more by abstaining. "IV. MV increases voters political knowledge" My opponent points out that political engagement encourages political knowledge but this obviously ignores the fact that being forced to vote is not the same as engaging in the election process as one requires actually placing value on the election process and the other simply motivates people to check a random box under fear of force or fines. It is wrong of my opponent to suggest that "people will be forced to think rationally the minute they fill up the ballot". Thinking rationally is no replacement for actual knowledge and study on the subjects in question. My opponent uses the CSES project to substantiate the claim that political awareness increases under MV. After reading through the study, it is quite apparent that the study was far from conclusive in proving an increase in political knowledge under MV. It also does not prove greater political knowledge, only an ever so slight increased political knowledge with age and an ever so slight trend toward more evenly distributed political knowledge between some social groups. Even then it does not prove this for all factors as in the case of household income which has an even more severe impact on voting tendencies in countries that have "moderately enforced" or "strongly enforced" mandatory voting laws. (2) This means poorer people have less political knowledge in comparison to those in higher earning households under MV. Regardless though, we should seek greater average political knowledge rather than focusing on more equally distributed political knowledge. In the study my opponent cites, it was proven that countries with voluntary voting systems tend to have greater political knowledge on average than countries with strongly or moderately enforced mandatory voting laws. (3) This strongly counteracts any accrual of knowledge that may come with age because it shows the negative impact of MV on political knowledge overall. Having effectively dismantled and refuted my opponents arguments I will move forward with rebuilding my case as I refute my opponents rebuttals. I) MV undermines liberty and democracy My opponent claims that MV strengthens democracy because it benefits those who vote by through the positive effects of being represented. I have already explained why MV doesn't lead to greater representation but my actual criticism of MV in regards to democracy in this contention was that by abridging freedom of speech (which includes our democratic voice) we undermine democracy. In order to justify this attack on liberty/free speech, my opponent uses the example of jury duty. As I already explained however, an individual abstaining from voting does not harm the rights of others to a governmental system that represents them. This separates it from duties like taxes and jury duty which do directly impact the rights of others to an effective government. The only one "harmed" is the non-voter and even then there are plenty of instances where an individual would find less harm in the choice to exercise their free speech to not vote against their conscience for a candidate they disapprove of or abstain due to an awareness of ignorance to the issues of the legislation/candidates being voted on. II) MV doesn't incentivize political learning Pro reasserts his point about how political knowledge will increase more with age under MV. I already addressed the flaws in his conclusions drawn from this study. Nevertheless I will restate that the CSES also acknowledges that countries with MV have lower averages in regards to political knowledge. (3) Thus the age point is irrelevant. My opponent claims teaching citizens the actual effects of legislation is not relevant to ensuring people vote intelligently. I would contend this. It is essential. We can do this through investing in better civics education in schools and through political activism which encourage people to vote and educates them about the topic as well rather than forcing people to draw conclusions and hoping they research it when doing so. Pro also claims that as people are exposed to propaganda/fake news they will be more equipped to recognize it as such. In making this claim my opponent is misrepresenting the effects of propaganda on society. The more people are exposed (particularly those who are apathetic/inattentive and currently choose not to vote), the more likely they are to start believing and spreading that misinformation. III) MV doesn't lead to better representation for those most affected My opponent disregards my example because of trivial details that he claims make my example an exception to the rule. The whole point was to demonstrate that there are many reasons that cause one to be apathetic to a particular election/vote that does not affect the individual. My opponent did not really respond to my point about how politically apathetic/ignorant people are more likely to accept claims made to pander to them without verifying their truth except to say that pandering is not a big issue because the right to vote is still intact. Pandering is a problem because it encourages political dishonesty when groups simply vote based on claims made by a politician to support their cause without verifying those claims. If people can leave ballots blank then there is no point in MV. Apathetic non-voters will simply leave ballots blank but be inconvenienced by taking the time to go to their ballot box. IV) MV punishes the lower class (and the incapable) My opponent attacks his own argument here by suggesting alternative solutions to low voter turnout like extended voting periods and national voting holidays. The point remains that MV is essentially a threat of punishment to the lower class. Also, 14% of non-voters didn't vote because they couldn't due to handicap/illness. (1) Punishment isn't the solution. 1) https://bipartisanpolicy.org... 2) http://www.democraticaudit.com... 3) http://www.democraticaudit.com...