Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Thanks, thett3FrameworkWhether a government is democratic isn't the only criterion for whether it is a good democracy, yet it is a factor, largely because having a democratic system is linked to increased welfare of the populace (1). I agree that the protection of individual rights and the common good are also crucial when considering what ought to be the case in a democracy.Nevertheless, this concession in no way harms my case. This is because compulsory voting doesn't violate a single individual right and it also maximises the common good due to the apparent trend where democracy is linked to the general welfare of the populace (1) (hence a more democratic system - compulsory voting - would probably increase general welfare).TurnoutCon is entirely incorrect here; he claims that I 'immediately contradict [myself] by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule'. I never said anything of the sort.He also argues that a high voter turnout isn't inherently good. Maybe so, but it is inherently democratic, and therefore it will prima facie accord with the common good. Con does say that it would have been better for the Jews to have voted more than the Nazis, but it is uncontroversial to say this because we have the benefit of hindsight. In the present day, it would be extremely bigoted to say that one group of people is less worthy of political representation in Government.Democracy should involve everyone. Even if we view someone's views as extremist or stupid, it is still democratic and better for the common good to ensure that everyone is involved. Thus I would still advocate that a high voter turnout is, prima facie, a good thing - one that compulsory voting will actualize.Con says I don't provide evidence that low-turnout elected governments are less legitimate than high-turnout elected governments. This is wrong, I did provide evidence that in a low-turnout election, it is more likely to turn out that the majority of the population didn't support the victorious government. Conversely, this is less likely to happen if we have a high voter turnout.To illustrate, we have two elections:Election 1- 60% turnout- Labour party wins by 70% majorityElection 2- 90% turnout- Labour party wins by 70% majorityIn election 1, only 42% of the population actually supported the Labour party. In election 2, this figure is 63%.In which election is the Labour party more legitimate? Obviously the latter because in that one, the majority of the population support them.This proves my point that a higher turnout will increase the chances that the victorious government will be legitimate. Of course, the chances of a government having majority support are much lower in a multi-party system, and yes, because of this there will be a smaller chance that the government in a multi-party system will be as legitimate as the same party in a two-party system. Nevertheless, even in a multi-party system, the increased turnout resulting from compulsory voting will still increase the chances that the winning government will be more legitimate.Having a legitimate government is both more democratic and better for the common good, since people are more likely to trust in the government and be content with their authority if they are aware that the government's authority is legitimate. For example, in the UK earlier this year, the Conservative party won the General Election with only 36.9% of the vote (2), this caused bitterness and protests, in which a common complaint was that people felt the government was illegitimate (3). In other words, a less legitimate government is more likely to result in unrest, political apathy and anti-government feeling - all symptoms of a less happy society.Tax credits could work, but they are financially inferior to my plan. I'll expand on this later.AccessibilityWhilst there are many things that would help solve the problem of inaccessibility to voting, compulsory voting is the solution that would be the most effective. If voting was compulsory, then there would be a legal mandate to help everyone to vote - after all, nobody wants to see a disabled person punished simply because he couldn't get to a polling station by himself. Because nobody wants to see that, this would place a mandate on society to assist anyone who needs it to cast their vote. This is shown in the case of Australia, which has a plethora of help and assistance available for disabled/elderly voters (4).If voting is optional, then there is an attitude of, 'why should I help this person cast their vote? It's not as if they need to vote'.National holidays are all very well, but they do cost the economy a fair bit (5) and still wouldn't help those who don't work but still struggle to leave the house. The same applies to early voting and same-day registration; all these help solve the problem, but none moreso than compulsory voting.Con claims that, if voting is compulsory, it will end up punishing the hard-working and disabled people. This would be the case if my plan wasn't accompanied by policies that would give the disabled assistance in casting their vote, to the extent that nobody should fear being on the wrong side of the law because they were unable to reach a polling station. But I advocate such policies, as does Australia - the poster-child for compulsory voting.Furthermore, if voting is compulsory then there is a mandate for employers to permit their employees the chance to vote - hence there is no worry of a hard-working person being punished because they were kept at work during election day. If this did happen to be the case, then the punishment would fall on the employer. In contrast, if voting was optional then employers have no obligation to allow their employees time to vote - after all, it's not as if they need to vote if voting is merely optional.EducationWhilst there is no empirical evidence linking compulsory voting to an increase in political knowledge, the reasoning for such a link remains cogent.Compare a compulsory voting system and an optional voting system. All else being equal, the former is more likely to prompt people to educate themselves politically. This is because of the fact that one cannot choose to isolate themselves from political involvement if voting is compulsory, whereas someone can choose to isolate themselves if voting is optional. There might not be a large difference, but it is a difference nonetheless. If someone is required to vote, then this will create a demand for education - after all, if people are required to participate in something then they will naturally want to learn about what it is they are required to participate in. To give an example, if people are required to attend a football game every year, then this will increase the level of football-knowledge because the mandatory-participation prompts people to educate themselves.Con writes that the large amount of election coverage in the media is enough to educate anyone 'through sheer osmosis'. Yet this is passive education, where you inevitably absorb some information just by exposure to it. Compulsory voting would encourage people to take an active approach and seek out political information. The latter is preferable because it avoids many of the media biases that would be exacerbated by passive political education.ExtremismCon's rebuttal here exclusively refers to the American system of primary elections, yet this debate doesn't explicitly pertain to the USA. In countries such as the UK and Australia, voting is for members of an unlimited amount of different political parties, unlike the two party system in the US. Hence Con's rebuttal doesn't harm my case here.Just to clarify, I do not think that extremists voting is a bad thing - of course I don't. I think that disproportionate representation is a bad and undemocratic thing. Because extremists are more likely to vote than moderates, this means that extremists are given representation that their number does not warrant. The moderates may have consented by refraining from voting, but this doesn't resolve the issue. The principles of democracy require equal representation.Con's counterplanTax credits may grow the economy - any government spending does. But the issue is that if government spending is given through tax credits, that spending is being redirected from more worthy projects such as schools or hospitals. Tax credits for voting would needlessly use up money that could be spent on infrastructure and housing. Whilst the counterplan may grow the economy, my plan is superior because it frees up the money so it can be spent on more worthy investments. Therefore, my plan is more economically benefitial.Undemocratic?It may be best to let other countries decide their own policies, but that is irrelevant to this debate. We are supposed to be debating whether it is preferential to have compulsory voting in a democracy, not whether we should force countries to implement it. Con's talk of 'neocolonialism' is therefore a giant strawman.RightsAs part of my plan, I would advocate that all voting mediums allow for ballots to be spoilt. Hence avoiding the accusation of violating the right no to vote. Con writes that people may be dissuaded by fear of spoiling being illlegal, but the only evidence he gives is that '"Is it illegal to spoil your vote?" brings 125,000 hits on Google'. But Google hits are no reflection on whether a query is a common one; for example, a search of 'giant strawberry gorilla hybrid' brings 489,000 hits.I do accept the Sherbet test, but Con's counterplan is arguably more intrusive than my own. By financially rewarding those who vote, the Government is effectively punishing people for not voting. It's like if people were given tax credits to work on Sundays, this would feel like a punishment to those Christians who believe that we shouldn't violate the Sabbath._____(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://bit.ly...(4) http://bit.ly...(5) http://bit.ly...