In a deomcracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

On the Validity of Voting: Right or Duty? The opponent has stated that voting is a right, not a duty, because you earned a voting status. However, as explained before, many effective democracies hold that voting is a duty. The United States, ironically, holds that a duty of a US Citizen is to “participate in the democratic process” while Athenians held that voting was compulsory in a democracy because citizens of a democratic society must work together as a people rather than persons (in terms of society) for the society to progress. Voting is an ethical issue; we cannot and will never agree on compulsory voting. However, the matter of it being enacted must be looked upon. Let us look at an analogy for a second; if you decide to order, say a salad, at a restaurant and you are alone, your individual decisions does not a affect anyone else. However, say you are the Food Czar, and you have to order food for the whole table. Henceforth, you are forced to make decisions based on the needs of the whole. You wouldn’t order steak, for fear that a Halal-dietary follower would be present. This analogy also applies for an entire electorate and all; every vote counts. Your decisions effect the whole community. Every vote counts. A true democratic society is a society where everyone gathers and makes decisions. Athens is a perfect example of this; its people were educated, very philosophical, and engaged in many public debates (In fact, Gorgias and Republic by Plato were dominated by intense debates). Athens required every person to vote. Singapore is also a highly effective democracy; voting is compulsory there. As we can see, the number of compulsory voting-states that have a highly efficient democratic state correlate, because voters here understand that voting is a civic duty. Henceforth: P1. All definitions of democracy states that democracy is a government elected by the people P2. In many democracies, it is a duty (because of democracy’s definitions) to make decisions C1. Not implementing compulsory voting is undemocratic Australia and Compulsory Voting The opponent has stated that 500,000 Australian voters chose to submit "blank votes" However, this is only 5% of the population we are talking about. The minority. Australia has a very effective democracy when compared with other nations; are we to ignore the efficiency of Australia's democracy just because the minority of the Australian people chose to submit blank votes? Apart from this, voting will create a more educated electorate. Let us take this analogy for example: A student has to study for a test, then he has to study all the resources that are provided to him. If he doesn't do this, then he fails the test and get bad marks. He does not want this; he wants his grades to progress. This makes him study harder and harder until he finally understands all his material. Coming back to the voting issue, the test in this case is voting. The resources in this case are the political parties. Failing the test means that the nation/the people do not progress forward. As state before, Australia has created a highly efficient democracy through the enacting of compulsory voting. Athens also did this; Athenians proved that compulsory voting creates more informed and more philosophical people. As stated before, Athenians loved debating and following their views. Therefore, we can conclude with the syllogism: P1. All countries in which compulsory voting is enforced have a highly educated electorate P2. All countries in which compulsory is enforced have highly efficient democratic institutions P3. Compulsory voting creates this by the want for progress and prosperity C1. Compulsory voting creates a highly-educated electorate and highly efficient democratic institutions The Act of Voting: Follows Democracy Let us look at the two definitions of democracy that I have provided. Abraham Lincoln said that democracy was the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. By saying that compulsory voting shouldn't be enacted is like saying that capitalism should function without money; a democratic society represents the people, of all classes, all races and all sexes. What good is a democracy without the proper representation of the people? This returns to my point on duty and voting; a democratic society was created upon the assumption that democratic states were elected by the people. By the people doesn't mean the "educated voters" but the "voters" Voters run the same ship; the ship of the nation. If voting turnout is low, then the nation fails to gather a politically legitimate government. Class Barriers: Must be broken Many poor people simply do not vote because they are too scared to do so. For example, a poor person wants change, but he does not know how he could change. Compulsory Voting, when enacted, makes the poor seem as if their voices are wanted; the poor want to become rich, or at least achieve a better life than what they have now. They would use their newfound voice to voice change; let us look at Singapore for example. Singapore is not a case of wanting change, but a case of wanting to preserve the status quo; they wanted to keep the PAP in action. In the first elections, the PAP won a huge majority because of the work they had done for the Singaporean people and how the Singaporean people wanted to keep this. A huge majority of the voters voting for the PAP were middle-class and lower-working class workers; quite easily, the lower classes! If voting were not compulsory, they would have thought that they had no voice anyway, so what is the point? Democracy is not a bourgeoisie concept, but many people are anti-democratic because they think so. Time restrictions have deluded the quality of my arguments. I would like to apologize to the opponent for that. I hope this is enough for him to rebut.