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

IntroductionTo first know what ought to be the case in a democracy, we must know what is most democratic. It is an implicit assumption that, if one is to ask what a democracy ought to do, the correct answer would be that it ought to do what is most democratic. A good democracy is democratic, a bad democracy is undemocratic - any other properties a democracy may have are irrelevant to whether it is a good democracy, only whether it is democratic pertains to what it ought to be like.I presume thett3 accepts this observation, but if he disagrees, I would challenge him to provide an alternate criteria for a good democracy.So, the question of this debate is; would making voting compulsory to all eligible voters be something that is more democratic and better for the general welfare of this country? I will argue that the answer to this question is yes.Note that whenever I mention 'the people' or 'all the people' within the context of this debate, I extend the caveat that this does not mean those who are ineligible to vote, such as children or the mentally handicapped.A1 - Voter turnoutThe principle of a democratic government is that in which all the people are involved in either governing the country or voting for representatives to govern on their behalf. This is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines a democracy as:'Government by the people; esp. a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity (or, esp. formerly, a subset of them meeting particular conditions) are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly' (1)The emphasis is my own, and highlights the principle that democracy requires that all the people be involved in the governing process, either by voting or by actively developing legislature. In other words, it is more democratic if all the citizens of a country are democratically involved as opposed to only a certain amount of them. Of course this excludes children and the mentally handicapped, since these persons are, by their nature, unable to use sound judgement and hence would be unable to take responsibility for having a role in the governance of their country.Furthermore, a crucial principle of a legitimate democracy is that it must have a mandate. In other words, the government must be able to justify its authority. Yet if we have only around 50% of citizens actually voting, then it would usually follow that less than half of the population actually expressed their consent to be governed by the victorious political party. Let us say that a country has a 60% voter turnout and the winning party wins by a majority of 70%. This means that only 42% of the people actually voted for this government. But this raises the question of whether a government can legitimately have a mandate to rule if the majority do not explicitly support them. Democracy is defined as rule by the people, but if the majority of the people didn't actually choose to be governed by the goverment that now governs them, then this somewhat contradicts the definition of a democracy. Therefore, a strong mandate is necessary for a strong and valid democracy, and a strong mandate can only be achieved with a high voter turnout.Now, let us take two possible worlds:1. Our world, but voting is non-compulsory2. Our world, but voting is compulsoryWhich, then, would be more democratic? As I have elucidated above, the more democratic world is (all else being equal) that which has the most amount of its people involved. So which of the above worlds, 1 or 2, has the most amount of its people democratically involved?Many countries have systems in which voting is not compulsory, and in these countries the voter turnout is generally low. In the USA, the 2012 presidential election saw only 54.7% voter turnout (2)- meaning that nearly half of the voting age population were not involved in the democratic process. This phenomenon is very common in democratic countries with non-compulsory voting - rarely does it happen that the overwhelming majority of citizens decide to vote; the figure is commonly around 60% (3).Compare this to countries in which voting is compulsory, the prime example being Australia. Their voter turnout is consistently around 95% (4). In case anyone suspected that this was an anomaly, I only need to present the cases of Argentina and Brazil, which both have voter turnouts of around 80% (5)(6).The evidence lends strong credence to my hypothesis that making voting compulsory will improve voter turnout. Voter turnout is a valid analogy for political/democratic involvement because voting is the primary (and often only) manner in which the average citizen is able to express their political interest.Since making voting compulsory increases voter turnout, and a high voter turnout is more democratic than a lower one, then it follows that making voting compulsory is more conducive to a democratic society. In other words, democracies with compulsory voting are more democratic than countries without compulsory voting.A2 - Accessibility to votingIn systems where voting is not compulsory, the democratic process is skewed to give more political voice to those who are able bodied (7), those who haven't got strict employers and those with more spare time. These people are more likely to vote simply for logistical or convenience reasons, but there is no justification for a democracy to allow its system to be unfairly biased against groups of the population simply because of the state of their employment, where they live or their ability to get out the house.This problem would be solved by making voting compulsory, because people would have a significant motivation to vote (threat of punishment) regardless of convenience. Employers would also be obligated to make allowances for employees to vote. It is pertinent to mention that those in busy jobs are more likely to be unable to vote, simply due to the strains of living a busy life, whereas those who are unemployed will have plenty of time to vote. But surely it is the former that is contributing more to society by working hard? Therefore it is unjustified for the busy person to be less represented in parliament/congress than the person with lots of free time, since if anything it is a virtue to be busy and hard-working, certainly not something to be punished for.To summarise, a non-compulsory voting system allows for a biases to arise that arbitrarily discriminate against certain groups of people. Such a system is undemocratic when compared to a system in which these biases do not, or are less likely to, arise. It just so happens that the latter system requires that voting be compulsory.A3 - EducationMaking voting compulsory, as opposed to something that is optional, will most likely prompt more people to educate themselves and become more interested in politics. This is because, in a non-compulsory-voting system, it is very easy to ignore politics. One can easily live their lives paying no attention to politics, and this is made easy due to the fact that politics doesn't, at least explicitly, intrude on one's everyday life. It is very much a scenario of 'out of sight out of mind'.Yet if voting is compulsory, it is much harder to ignore politics because you are legally obligated to involve yourself. It stands to reason that this will create a demand for poltical education; after all, people are naturally curious and so it is natural that they would seek to learn more about what they could be voting for. Of course, this argument is theoretical, but nevertheless makes a lot of sense.But why should a democracy require voters to be educated? It all comes back to considerations of a government's mandate. If very few people were politically aware, then the government would have a weak mandate because it cannot be said with much confidence that the voters actually knew what they voted for. In contrast, an educated electorate gives the victorious government a strong mandate, because we can reasonably say that the majority of the voters did know who they were voting for.As explained earlier, a strong mandate is a requirement for a valid democracy. Hence because compulsory voting will incite the electorate to become more politically educated, and because an educated electorate is crucial for a valid democracy, compulsory voting is conducive to a valid democracy,A4 - ExtremismEvidence shows that those on the far-left and far-right of the politcal spectrum are more likely to vote than those with more moderate views (8). Regardless of the reasons for this fact, its truth is not conducive to a healthy democracy. This is because it means the composition of government is disproportionately controlled by non-moderates to a greater degree than moderates, despite the majority of people not identifying as non-moderate (9).The definition of a democracy is that which involves governance or representation of all people equally - if a democracy disproportionately represents non-moderates, a minority, then it cannot be said to be a good or valid democracy (given that a good democracy is loyal to its definition). If voting was compulsory, then moderates would be encouraged to vote - hence uprooting the disproportionate bias towards non-moderates and making the government more democratic.ConclusionI have presented four cogent arguments in favour of the resolution. All of them show why a compulsory voting system is more democratic than a non-compulsory voting system, and hence why the former ought to be the case in a democracy. This is because the criterion for the quality of a democracy is the degree to which it is democratic.___(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://pewrsr.ch...(4) http://bit.ly...(5) http://bit.ly...(6) http://bit.ly...(7) http://bit.ly...(8) http://bit.ly... figure 4(9) http://pewrsr.ch...