Mandatory Voting

I. Voting is a moral and civic dutyI do beg to differ on this point. Yes, voting is a right, but that doesn't make it your duty to carry through with it. Duty - a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility. [1]If we take this definition into consideration, that would mean that voting is a moral obligation, but like I said in my opening statements, the right to vote also encompasses the right to not vote if you choose so. This doesn't mean that you're being deprived of your right to vote, it just means that you have a choice of whether or not you want to exercise that right. For example, we have the right to practice any religion, which also means you have the right to not practice any religion. So to conclude:P1: We have the right to vote.P2: This means we also have the right to not vote.C: Therefore, our right to vote shouldn't become our obligation. II. Mandatory voting will increase representationMy opponent claims that, by making voting mandatory, it'll make sure that voters consent to the leader's they elect. He uses an example of which Paul LePage was elected with just 48% of the vote. My argument is that this will happen even if voting is made mandatory. Let's pretend for a moment that voting was made compulsory in America around the time of the 2012 Presidential Election between President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. We'll just pretend that Obama got 51% of the vote and Romney got the remaining 49%. Making voting mandatory wouldn't excuse the fact that this hypothetical 49% of Romney voters didn't want Obama to be president. Everyone has differing political beliefs whether by party, other ideologies, religion, etc. It's almost guaranteed that no candidate will ever get 100% of the votes. Also, my opponent highlighted a phrase from whiteflame saying that voter apathy is linked to wealth, so making voting mandatory will increase representation of the poor. However, there's a clear reason that even my opponent acknowledges to why they aren't voting; apathy. As long as they meet the legal requirements to vote then there's nothing stopping them from voting. It's their choice. III. Mandatory voting will reduce polarizationI do have to concede to this point and I personally believe that it's not only the strongest argument for mandatory voting, but also my opponent's best argument for it.IV. Mandatory voting will increase voter participation and knowledgeFollowed by my opponent's strongest point is, in my opinion, his weakest. He argues quotes Eric Liu who argues that the increase of uniformed voters won't lead to worse policymaking. I'm going to pick apart what he says of the last two sentences of his quote to prove my point. "That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment."Yes, the policymaking today isn't very great, but that's due to the amount of uniformed voters we have already. So why increase that number to make policymaking even worse?"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." Technically, those who don't vote are less educated, though not voting doesn't make you inherently stupid. "Other factors distinguish the non-voter. Nearly half (46%) of all college graduates are regular voters, compared to 28% of adults who are high school graduates or have less education." [2]Also, Liu is implying that 'stupid' people don't have the right to vote. They do, as long as they fit the legal requirements to vote. They would be able to vote with or without compulsory voting. However, if voting was made compulsory, then it'd increase those who are uneducated and aren't interested or informed about politics. ConclusionTo conclude, we honestly have no need for compulsory voting. It can prove to be detrimental to the policymaking, it'll increase the amount of uniformed voters, and it violates the right to vote, as it also extends to the right not to vote. Thank you. So long and goodnight!Citations[1]http://tinyurl.com...[2]http://www.people-press.org...