Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

This is the current Lincoln-Douglas debate topic so I wanted some input before I go to a tournament. I've set up my case as if this is a true LD debate so if my opponent would do the same that'd be great. Good luck in advance to my opponent. Franklin Roosevelt once said "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves, and the only way they could do this is by not voting." It is because I agree with these words that I stand in firm affirmation of today"s resolution, which states: Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. I will define terms upon the request of my opponent. Before we begin I"d like to offer some clarification in regards to the resolution. The term ought implies a moral obligation to do something. In this case, the affirmative stance is saying that members of a democratic society are morally obligated to vote. It is therefore imperative to keep in mind that in Lincoln-Douglas debate, the main focus should be values and morals. If I can prove throughout my case that citizens are morally obligated to vote then the round should then flow to the affirmative side. My value for today"s debate will be equality. Our nation was founded on the belief in equality for everyone and freedom to express ourselves. Without this, we lose our country"s values. My criterion in today"s debate will be government legitimacy. In order for a government to be legitimate it must suit the desires of the citizens of the majority to the best of its ability. Compulsory voting would allow previously unheard opinions to be known to government officials therefore making our government more legitimate and making society more equal. I will prove this with the following three contentions. Contention One: Compulsory voting would allow for equality in politics. T.S. Krishna; Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy; Spring 2012 "When the representatives in legislatures are dominated by the elite, the educated, and the affluent, the character of legislative activity is often biased against the poor and the backward, as shown at different times in many African and Asian countries such as Zimbabwe, Uganda, Kenya, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Myanmar. Money, power, and violence are indeed corrupting the quality of voting in many modern democracies. Although anybody could contest an election under the law, the poor may find it difficult to successfully contest an election because of the role of money and physical intimidation exerted by candidates from other strata of society. In such circumstances, the common people experience great difficulties in taking an active interest in the political activities of the state." So as we can see here, in order for the government to properly represent all of its citizens, we all must state our opinions and give a voice to minorities in the country. Contention Two: Voting stimulates interest in politics, legitimizing government. Bryan Solari,Mandatory Voting Undermines Voting Rights;2008 "For one, political scientists suggest that, "the increase in voting participation may stimulate stronger participation and interest in other political activities." Democracy is a multi-faceted system that allows for opportunity to participate on multiple, increasingly demanding levels. Thus, the hope is that by beginning with the democratic root (the vote), the level of participation in the aggregate may grow to someday embody a majority that participates in challenging political activity." One of the biggest arguments on the negative side is that compulsory voting will lead to uninformed voters casting ballots. However as this evidence shows, forcing people to become active in elections will only increase political engagement. Jason Halperin, a writer for the New York University Journal of Legislation and Public Policy, put it best when he said "The arrogance of those who would tell us who is "informed" enough to vote is mind-boggling. Where in the fifteenth amendment grant of the right to vote is the parenthetical that says "but this right to vote only applies to those who would cast an informed vote?" Now that the United States no longer has poll taxes and literacy tests, should states adopt current-events tests to weed out those voters who are not informed enough? The notion is simply outrageous." Contention Three: Every important right contains a corresponding responsibilty. Eric Liu, Should Voting Be Mandatory; Time; August 21,2012 "The most visceral critique is that mandating voting is just un-American. Yet jury duty, the draft, going to school, and taxpaying all have been compulsory without being called communist. At issue is what makes something American " and what makes liberty liberty. The Revolution and the framing of the Constitution were not about the right merely to be let alone or to do whatever one pleased. They were about our liberty to govern and represent ourselves. Core to that liberty is electing representatives and voting on public issues.That is why the best reason for mandatory voting has nothing to do with today"s politics. It"s about redeeming the central promise of American citizenship. Generations marched, fought and died for the right to vote. The least we can do now is treat that right like a responsibility." The right to vote was not just given to everyone. African-Americans and women had to fight long and hard to achieve this right. We must appreciate and take advantage of the ability to vote that was earned for us. While it may take a little while out of your day to go to the polls and cast a ballot, in the end, it will pay off. If our nation implements a compulsory voting system, our government will be able to function better by looking at issues from all groups who would then be voicing their opinions.