Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

The order will be NC, then AC. CON's CASE Compulsory voting poses a risk to the foundations of effective democracy. Thus, I negate. Observation One: This resolution, by its own terminology, is not U.S.-specific; thus, this topic must be debated globally. I Value Democracy, as it is the ultimate good implied by the resolution. Democracy is defined by American Heritage Dictionary as a "majority rule" government that embodies "principles of...respect for the citizens within a community." I offer the Criterion of Reducing Illiberal Democracies. Fareed Zakaria defines illiberal democracies as one in which the people have a voice in government but lack the necessary sub-culture to make informed decisions. Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, writes, "democracy rests on an informed and educated populace. Education enables people to know their rights and how to exercise them." Therefore, it is important to ensure that the vast majority of the electorate is educated prior to making voting compulsory, because compulsory voting would naturally bring people who are ill-informed and unable to cast an educated vote to the ballot box. Contention One: Illiberal Democracies are extremely dangerous, and undermine the principles of equality and respect necessary for true democracy. Prof. Amy Chua of Yale notes that, within illiberal democracies "increasing the political voice and power of the majority has fostered the emergence of demagogues"like Zimbabwe"s Mugabe, Serbia"s Milosevic, Russia"s Zyuganov, Bolivia"s Great Condor, and Rwanda"s Hutu Power leaders"who opportunistically whip up mass hatred against the resented minority, demanding that the country"s wealth be returned to the "true owners of the nation."" Professors Dye and Ziegler contend that, "despite a superficial commitment to the symbols of democracy, the masses have surprisingly weak commitments to the principles of individual liberty, toleration of diversity, and freedom of expression when required to apply these principles for obnoxious groups or individuals"Masses are dangerously vulnerable to demagogic appeals to intolerance, racial hatred, anti-intellectualism, class anatagonisms, anti-Semitism, and violence"demagogues, are mass-oriented leaders who express hostility toward the established"are extremists and intolerant, impatient with due process, contemptuous of individual rights, anxious to impose their views by sweeping measures, and often willing to use violence and intimidation to do so"These tactics appeal to mass desire for simplistic solutions to societal problems." Contention Two: Compulsory voting will bring in uneducated and ill-equipped voters; it will also increase irresponsible voting practices in the voting booth, thus increasing the chances of forming an illiberal democracy. Sub-point A: Compulsory voting brings in uniformed voters. Prof. Michael Pitts claims, "empirical research lends support to the argument that higher turnout at elections may just lead to additional voters casting uninformed votes"A study of compulsory voting compared voters who were compelled to vote with voters who would not have voted absent the compulsory voting regime. That study determined that those forced to cast ballots by compulsory voting were "less inclined to make their decisions in a way that coherently reflects their issue preferences" and that this increases the likelihood that an election outcome "will not accurately reflect the distribution of voter preferences" In addition, less informed voters might be more likely to cast ballots in favor of incumbents merely because of name recognition, or might be more likely to cast a ballot based solely upon the racial identity of the candidates. In essence, there are some plausible reasons to think that higher turnout could result in a less informed electorate and less accurate elections." Sub-point B: Compulsory voting will not makes voters more likely to get informed. Prof. Sarah Birch notes, "compulsory voting fails to raise levels of political knowledge. Those who vote due to compulsion may have little incentive to inform themselves, and some may actively resist the acquisition of relevant information as a form of protest...one of the main objections that opponents of compulsory voting have to the institution: that it brings uninformed voters to the polls, and that voting on a random basis by the uniformed can, under certain circumstances, have a substantive impact on the outcome which could well be construed as being undemocratic." Sub-point C: Compulsory voting promotes random voting. Prof. Mark Wattenberg observes, "People with limited political knowledge might deal with a compulsory situation by making dozens of decisions the same way they choose lottery numbers. In Australia, this is known as the "donkey vote," for people who approach voting like the game of "Pin the Tail on the Donkey."" In other words, people will vote for the person who appears first in the list, or whose name they like best, or some other equally arbitrary factor. These votes dilute the pool of votes that are cast by responsible voters, and therefore, this "randomizing" effect can impact the results in a negative way. Sarah Birch furthers, writing, "random voting could alter electoral outcomes, and that the larger the number of random votes, the greater the likelihood that electoral results would resemble a coin-toss. Enhancement of the stochastic element of the electoral process would lead to a deterioration in the democratic validity of the results, and it would impair the ability of elections to provide an accurate tool for translating popular opinion into political outcomes." In conclusion, compulsory voting leads to uneducated and random voting practices; as a result, illiberal democracies become more likely. Because illiberal democracies are antithetical to the notions of equality and respect inherent in true democracy, it is vital that we negate. PRO's CASE: V: Equality - Pro fails do define equality, so I will offer a definition from Merriam-Webster: "the state of being equal" where "equal" means "same as another." Therefore, equality would necessary imply that all individuals should be placed into a state wherein they are as much the same as they can get. This could lead to ethically questionable practices such as resource redistribution, and could deprive those individuals who work harder to their just due, in order to ensure that everyone is treated "the same." Thus, equality is not necessarily intrinsically valuable. C: Governmental Legitimacy - cross apply my case here. Clearly, if a democracy becomes illiberal, it loses its claim to legitimacy. But, moreover, Pro's definition of his criterion is unable to achieve his value. He defines his criterion as implementing the desires of the majority. Let's say that the majority of people in Nation X decide to pass a law that would outlaw being brunette on pain of death. Brunettes would be subjugated to persecution, and thus would be treated unequally. So, her own criterion, as she defines it, could undermine rather than support her value. C1: Pro's own card admits that Pro would have to include the uneducated in the process. Furthermore, in all of the examples Pro cites, many of the first leaders elected were voted into power by the poor and vulnerable. Mugabe in Zimbabwe was elected because he won the black, impoverished vote. He was a demagogue, they were his sheep, and thus arose an illiberal democracy. Finally, the viability of poor candidates is more so an issue of campaign finance laws then it is compulsory voting. C2: Apply the following: Prof. Sarah Birch notes, "compulsory voting fails to raise levels of political knowledge. Those who vote due to compulsion may have little incentive to inform themselves, and some may actively resist the acquisition of relevant information as a form of protest..." Pro's source talks about "suggestions" and "hopes," not likelihoods. Many will just see compulsory voting as a burden that they just have to deal with, not as a valuable means of participation, and so will continue to do the bear minimum. Finally, the Halperin evidence is not only U.S-restrictive, but it ignores the threats that illiberal democracies pose. C3: There are three attacks I will make here: (1) that we have a right to choose not to vote, (2) there is not duty to vote, (30 abstention is important for political expression. 1. Prof. Sarah Birch writes, "the analogy is frequently made between electoral compulsion and the styles of political persuasion employed in authoritarian or totalitarian states""a totalitarian view of political life easily involves an obligation not only to vote, but to do much more--and to do it all moreover, in the 'right' direction.' "When the people are forced to choose democracy, it is no longer a choice." 2. Prof. Anabelle Lever writes, "voting is at best, only one form of democratic political participation, and from some perspectives not an especially important or attractive one. So, from the fact that political participation is valuable, it remains to be seen what importance we should attach to electoral participation. The second difficulty is that people who value self-government can have moral as well as pragmatic reasons not to vote." 3. Lever writes, "Rights to abstain, to withhold assent, to refrain from making a statement or from participating may not be very glamorous, but can be nonetheless important for all that. Rights to abstain, no less than rights of anonymous participation, enable the weak, timid and unpopular to protest in ways that feel safe, and that require little coordination and few resources. These rights are necessary if politics is to protect people"s freedom and equality, and therefore to reflect their duties as well as their interests." My citations will be posted in the "comments" section. With that, I firmly negate the resolution. Over to Pro.