BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Mandatory voting may increase hold of established parties

"The case against compulsory voting in democracies." Helium: "the political system in America is concentrated in two parties, with only minor successes of alternate parties. These two parties, as opposed to eight competitive parties in Australia, spend millions of dollars annually encouraging their members to vote in elections. With the implementation of compulsive voting, the political parties would instead spend those millions trying to convince non-party members of the superiority of their respective positions. Instead of saving money, the two parties would only increase in power as more members join their folds, reducing the power of smaller parties to democratically compete."
Compulsory voting helps protect voter access.

In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. Compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Similarly, mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens, and postal voting may be provided for people who are away from their electorate on election day.
Voting is more of a duty than a right.

William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "Mandatory voting would loosen partisan gridlock." US News and World Report. July 8th, 2010: "There probably are a lot of people who believe that not serving on juries is a right. But that's not how we see it in this country—it's a duty. So, the issue that my proposal puts on the table is: What are the responsibilities of American citizenship? That's a matter that we can decide collectively." Just like paying taxes, voting is essential and can be seen as a duty of each and every individual because of its great importance for the harmonious functioning of a society.
Compulsory voting won't necessarily make sure the better and capable government comes into power.

Look, just because people are forced to vote now, it doesn't change the fact that they refused to vote in the first place because none of the political parties/candidates contesting has swayed their interest. The very reason they don't vote for any of the contesting candidates is very simply that the citizen thinks (for obvious reasons) that none of the candidates have come up with a manifesto that will solve problems in status quo; none of them will make fine policy-makers because of the lack of leadership portrayed ; and that possibly, all the contesting candidates have had previous issues that deem that incapable of leading the country. The entire purpose of voting would be defeated because it's no longer a civic duty based on the people's choice, but will become just another meaningless electoral technicality in the establishment of a government.
Voters could be given option to vote "none of the above."

Keith Olbermann. "Make voting mandatory voting necessary." Salon. November 5, 2002: "The message has to be clear: We're not trying to make you vote for anybody. We just want you to show up. Every ballot, from the presidency to the sewage district supervisor, would have to include a 'none of the above' option. We might tinker with the terminology to make it hipper, and to tap into the incipient anger. 'None of the above' could become 'Screw you, politicians.'"
Mandatory voting would compel broader campaign messaging.

William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "Mandatory voting would loosen partisan gridlock." US News and World Report. July 8th, 2010: "Campaigns wouldn't have to spend nearly as much time on voter mobilization, nor would they be able to target their message simply to the most passionate partisan members of the electorate. They'd have to craft broader and more inclusive messages. That would be all to the good."
Protest voting composes a small percentage of total.

William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "Mandatory voting would loosen partisan gridlock." US News and World Report. July 8th, 2010: "There's not a lot of evidence that many people are casting protest votes or intentionally foolish votes or are spoiling their ballots. That's about 2 or 3 percent of the electorate. Those are the free spirits who resent the law so much that they are protesting in the only way that the law provides. But by and large, for the other 91 or 92 percent, the system is working just fine."
Forcing a vote is as bad for democracy as poor turnout.

Debra Saunders. "The trouble with compulsory voting." Real Clear Politics. July 13th, 2010: "I do recognise that a low turnout in elections lends itself to questions about the legitimacy of those elected – and indeed, in the institutions themselves. But if we are 'forced to be free' (and I’m using that in not quite the way Rousseau did, though if his assertion that we are only truly free when electing our representatives is correct, then it follows) then the legitimacy that we are bestowing upon those who represent us appears to be artificial and manufactured at best."
Compulsory voting reduces power of lobbying groups.

A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. The outcome of the election reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).
There are many reasons for not participating in elections.

Balaji Chithra Ganesan. "The Case against Compulsory Voting." Musings. January 16th, 2010: "People have genuine reasons not to vote. They could be working away from home and cannot afford to go home for voting. Daily labourers cannot miss a day's work. People might be sick, old and dying. People might be travelling for causes that are much more important like ... family. In the ridiculously staggered elections we have, people can have a holiday when their place of work goes to polls and not when their hometown goes to polls. Now how incredibly arrogant and perverted should someone be, to ask the above people to come, stand before a babu and explain their conduct? Or else face punishment! Really? How arrogant? How can citizens be treated with such disdain?"
Mandatory voting compels voters to better educate themselves.

Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled (some even at the cost of social benefits). Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.
First-time voters will better inform themselves.

William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "Mandatory voting would loosen partisan gridlock." US News and World Report. July 8th, 2010: "In Australia, the case that I know the best, these nonvoters who are being drafted into the political system were referred to pejoratively as 'donkey voters' [who vote for candidates based only on their order on the ballot]. But in fact, once they have to vote, they may work a little bit harder than they would have otherwise to know what's going on."
Mandatory voting does not enhance legitimacy of govt.

Even if compulsory voting allows for abstention, legitimacy is not improved. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. Donkey votes, random votes, "just for the fun of it" votes, protest votes and abstentions do NOT contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced input add legitimacy to the mix?
The US Constitution does not explicitly confer a right to abortion

Byron White, U.S. Supreme Court, one of two dissenters in Roe v. Wade, (January 22, 1973) - "I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the court's judgment. The court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes."[35]
Abortion

One of the most famous arguments against abortion is the "dialysis analogy" put forward by Judith Jarvis in 1971. It compares abortion to a situation in which a healthy woman (the mother by analogy) is attached to a dying patient (the fetus by analogy) in order to keep the dying patient alive. The concept is that the dying person does not have a right to the woman's body, and that the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort) even if it means the death of the other person. The problem with the analogy is many fold: 1. A woman and a fetus have a special relationship that is incomparable to that between a woman and a stranger or even a relative. There is a special biological drive inside the mother to keep the baby alive and a dependency by the baby on the mother. The mother, therefore, has a special responsibility to keep her child alive and not abort; 2. A woman often gives a form of tacit approval to the existence of a fetus in her womb: the act of engaging in sexual behavior; 3. abortion directly kills the embryo and does not merely "unplug" and let it die. These are critical differences that invalidate a classic, central argument for abortion.
In a free society, abortion is truly a matter of personal belief.

The issue of abortion debates the question of whether or not the unborn child is a human being, or at what point it becomes so. This question cannot be answered for the collective body of society, rather should be answered by the individual based on personal and religious beliefs. If an individual believes that an unborn child is a human being, then the "right to life" term can be justified by that individual for their own personal choice. If an individual believes that the unborn child is not a human being, then there is no justification for laws to prohibiting an abortion. Therefore It should be argued that this is an issue for the individual; that an individual seeking an abortion has their own responsibility to be informed thoroughly about the matter, but should never be forced to agree or disagree.
One of the most famous arguments against abortion is the "dialysis analogy" put forward by Judith Jarvis in 1971. It compares abortion to a situation in which a healthy woman (the mother by analogy) is attached to a dying patient (the fetus by analogy) in order to keep the dying patient alive. The concept is that the dying person does not have a right to the woman's body, and that the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort) even if it means the death of the other person. The problem with the analogy is many fold: 1. A woman and a fetus have a special relationship that is incomparable to that between a woman and a stranger or even a relative. There is a special biological drive inside the mother to keep the baby alive and a dependency by the baby on the mother. The mother, therefore, has a special responsibility to keep her child alive and not abort; 2. A woman often gives a form of tacit approval to the existence of a fetus in her womb: the act of engaging in sexual behavior; 3. abortion directly kills the embryo and does not merely "unplug" and let it die. These are critical differences that invalidate a classic, central argument for abortion.

The "dialysis" analogy is invalid; pregnancy is unique One of the most famous arguments against abortion is the "dialysis analogy" put forward by Judith Jarvis in 1971. It compares abortion to a situation in which a healthy woman (the mother by analogy) is attached to a dying patient (the fetus by analogy) in order to keep the dying patient alive. The concept is that the dying person does not have a right to the woman's body, and that the woman has a right to "unplug" (abort) even if it means the death of the other person. The problem with the analogy is many fold: 1. A woman and a fetus have a special relationship that is incomparable to that between a woman and a stranger or even a relative. There is a special biological drive inside the mother to keep the baby alive and a dependency by the baby on the mother. The mother, therefore, has a special responsibility to keep her child alive and not abort; 2. A woman often gives a form of tacit approval to the existence of a fetus in her womb: the act of engaging in sexual behavior; 3. abortion directly kills the embryo and does not merely "unplug" and let it die. These are critical differences that invalidate a classic, central argument for abortion.
Parents must "control their bodies" or else risk being a servant of their children? Rights sometimes come with Responsibilities.

Let's take the roof off the argument that claims that a person (and their body) has unlimited "rights not to be enslaved" as a consequence of being a parent, which was almost always the result of their of their own action (not "controlling their body," use of contraceptives, etc.) and yet their fetus/child has no rights for care. If the principle of "enslavement" were true would it not extend to the care of a new born or older child? A new-born depends on it's mother's body and breast milk for the same nutrition and similar if not greater nurturing available to him/her in the womb. Can a mother, father or caretaker morally or legally neglect or "unplug" the child from nutrition and care on the "enslavement" argument? No. Does one have greater personal rights by virtue of "their body," or can a parent provide care without "their body?" No. Can we protest that "forcing a parent to continue being a parent subjugates them to the child? Of course not. The child has a right to care from it's parents or legal guardians and they have a responsibility to care for him or her.
Abortion has been opposed by important figures throughout history

Synod of Ancyra canon XXI, circa 314 - "Concerning women who commit fornication, and destroy that which they have conceived, or who are employed in making drugs for abortion, a former decree excluded them until the hour of death, and to this some have assented. Nevertheless, being desirous to use somewhat greater lenity, we have ordained that they fulfill ten years [of penance], according to the prescribed degrees."[36]
Abortion is just when birth control fails (involuntary impregnation)

If a woman does not voluntarily choose to seek a pregnancy, it is impossible for a fetus to have any claim over the woman's body. Only when the woman participates voluntarily in creating a life, does she open the door to any responsibilities to the fetus or to any rights that the fetus may have over the mother. If a pregnancy is a result of an accident (the failure of birth control), it cannot be called voluntary. Therefore, the fetus cannot be said to have any rights over the mother's body, and abortion can be said to be justified.
The lives of women have been destroyed by abortion, not enhanced

Norma McCorvey, the anonymous litigant known as "Jane Roe" in the landmark abortion case, Roe vs. Wade in her book Won by Love (June 17, 2003) - "One of my most important activities is that I am involved, together with Sandra Cano of Doe vs. Bolton, in the efforts of the Texas Justice Foundation (and other groups) to work for the reversal of the Roe vs. Wade and Doe vs. Bolton decisions. The approach we are taking is to show that the lives and rights of women have not been advanced or enhanced, but rather destroyed, by abortion-on-demand. We are collecting affidavits from women who have been harmed by abortion, from women who are convinced that authentic feminism is pro-life, and from professionals who know that Roe has weakened the moral fabric of the legal and medical professions."[19]
The right to choice/privacy (abortion) does not override the right to life

Jesse Jackson, U.S. civil rights activist, now in favor of legal abortion, in National Right to Life News, (January, 1977) - "There are those who argue that the right to privacy is of [a] higher order than the right to life ... that was the premise of slavery. You could not protest the existence or treatment of slaves on the plantation because that was private and therefore outside your right to be concerned." Thus, even if a woman has a right to her body and to "choice", this right is overridden by the fetus's right to life. And, what could be more important than life? All other rights, including the mother’s right to choice, surely stem from a prior right to life; if you have no right to any life, then how do you have a right to an autonomous one? The woman may ordinarily have a reasonable right to control her own body, but this does not confer on her the entirely separate (and insupportable) right to decide whether another human lives or dies.
Women should be held responsible for behavior leading to impregnation.

If one does not want to have a baby, they should not have sex, or they should take extreme precaution when having sex. Sex is not a game. It is a serious matter of reproduction and life. If a woman plays with it and becomes pregnant, she should be held responsible to carry out the birth of her child. And, it should be noted that the responsibility could end at child-birth, with it being possible to put a child up for adoption. The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy need not be major, but they must be born by the mother and father.
Adoption is too risky making it a poor alternative to abortion

Kristin Luker, Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood (1984) - "Having a baby and giving it up for adoption, as pro-life people advocate, is not seen by most pro-choice people as a moral solution to the abortion problem. To transform a fetus into a baby and then send it out into a world where the parents can have no assurance that it will be well-loved and cared for is, for pro-choice people, the height of moral irresponsibility."[20]
A woman's rights are not the only rights that need to be respected in abortion:

Of course, human-rights should be respected, but it is never the case that a person has a right to make a decision with no reference to the rights and wishes of others. There are two primary rights that must be considered in addition to the rights of the woman. First, the father has some rights over the fetus. Second, the fetus itself may have some rights. The point is merely that the woman's interests and rights cannot be the only ones under consideration.
Viability is a good cut-off for when abortion is appropriate or not.

Anthony Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, speaking for the Court in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (joint opinion coauthored with Justices Souter and O’Connor) - "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life....[P]eople have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail…. We conclude the line should be drawn at viability, so that, before that time, the woman has a right to choose to terminate her pregnancy....[T]here is no line other than viability which is more workable. To be sure, as we have said, there may be some medical developments that affect the precise point of viability, but this is an imprecision within tolerable limits....A husband has no enforceable right to require a wife to advise him before she exercises her personal choices."[28]
Under a "veil of ignorance", the unborn would adopt a pro-life social contract

The "veil of ignorance" is a notion put forward by liberal philosopher John Rawls. This idea relates to the social contract people would adopt if they were effectively unborn spirits under a "veil of ignorance" regarding where they would "end-up" in life. The conclusion is that everyone would adopt a social contract that hedges against poor outcomes if they get the "short-end of the stick". Abortion could be considered the "shortest stick" (death - no life at all), so it is likely that, under a "veil of ignorance", the unborn would would adopt a pro-life social contract. It is notable that this social contract theory is tenant of liberal thought, and yet liberals are most supportive of abortion. There may be an inconsistency there.
Unborn life should never depend on whether it is "wanted"

Graciela Olivarez, Chicana civil rights and anti-poverty activist, 1972 - "The poor cry out for justice and equality, and we respond with legalized abortion. I believe that in a society that permits the life of even one individual to be dependent on whether that life is ‘wanted’ or not, all its citizens stand in danger...We do not have equal opportunities. Abortion is a cruel way out."[21]
A ban on abortion presents practical problems of enforcement:

Enforcing an abortion ban would require a quite degrading and inhumane treatment of those women who wished to have their foetus terminated. Moreover, if pregnant women traveled abroad, they would be able to have an abortion in a country where it was legal. Either the state takes the draconian measure of restricting freedom of movement, or it must admit that its law is unworkable in practice and abolish it. The ‘third way’ of tacitly accepting foreign terminations would render hypocritical the much-vaunted belief in the sanctity of life. In addition, the demand for abortions will always exist; making abortion illegal, will simply drive it underground and into conditions where the health and safety of the woman might be put at risk.
"Unwanted" children can be adopted; abortion is unnecessary

Mother Teresa of Calcutta quotes (Albanian born Indian Missionary and Founder of the Order of the Missionaries of Charity. Nobel Prize for Peace in 1979. 1910-1997) - "These concerns (for orphan children in India and elsewhere in the world) are very good, but often these same people are not concerned with the millions that are killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today, Abortion...For the pregnant women who don't want their children, give them to me."[22]