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

Thanks, thett3.South ParkWhilst I do like South Park, I'm afraid its inclusion isn't helpful to the debate. Obviously, having compulsory voting does not entail that the punishment for not voting is to die. 'Vote or die' is therefore a hyperbolic strawman of my case.FrameworkCon postulates that individual rights and the common good are both important things to consider within a good democracy, and I agree to an extent. But I maintain that how democratic a democracy is remains an important factor that contributes to whether a democracy is good or bad.But I argue that compulsory voting is neither a violation of individual rights nor is it detrimental to the common good.CounterplanWhilst Con's plan would probably increase the voter turnout, which is a good thing, it would be extremely costly to implement. For the economic incentive to be compelling enough to increase the turnout, the tax credits would have to be in the region of at least $50 (even this value might not incentivize enough people). Considering that there are 218,959,000 eligible voters in the USA (1), and that we would want the voter turnout to increase to around 95%, that would cost the government $10.4 billion just for a single election! With that amount of money, around 5500 primary schools could be built (2) or 13 large teaching hospitals (3). Compulsory voting would cost far less - only requiring the law enforcement necessary to ensure that voting is indeed compulsory.In other words, Con's counterplan is worse than my plan because it fulfills the same role as my plan (increasing voter turnout) but costs far more. Considering how my plan doesn't involve any ethical problems either (I'll expand on this later), it is clear that Con's counterplan is inferior.Undemocratic?Con writes that, in the USA, the majority opposes compulsory voting and therefore it is supposedly undemocratic to enforce it. But this is incorrect, since it is possible for majority opinion to favour something that is undemocratic - the fact that the majority support or oppose X does not necessarily mean that X is either democratic or undemocratic respectively. For example, in the 18th century, it was probable (I cannot locate the exact statistics) that the majority of people supported denying women the right to vote. However, women's right to vote is democratic in principle, since it conforms to the democratic principle of all citizens being able to vote. The fact that in the 1700s the majority opposed it did not render it undemocratic.Regardless, Con's statistic only applies to the USA, I could easily respond by highlighting that the majority of Australians support compulsory voting (4). Why, I ask Con, should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?To summarise, just because something isn't supported by the majority, it doesn't mean it is undemocratic. Therefore I can maintain that compulsory voting is more democratic than optional voting despite it not garnering majority support.Con's second point is just fallacious. He presumes that, because I come from a first world country, I cannot argue in favour of changes in third world countries. Aside from this being a blatant ad hominem fallacy (whether I live in a first world or third world country is irrelevant to my arguments' veracity), it is a strawman argument. Just because I argue that compulsory voting ought to be the case in a democracy, that doesn't entail that I am 'dictating policy' - I am not advocating the forcible adoption of compulsory voting against a country's will, that would be ridiculous.Furthermore, advocating changes in other countries is often a justified stance. For example, I would advocate for the removal of the one-child policy in China; yet this stance isn't refuted by the accusation that it is 'blatantly neocolonialist' and that 'we don't get to decide for them', the only valid rebuttals would have to pertain to the moral status of the one child policy.Freedom of speech, religion and expressionCon states multiple concerns:1. There is a right not to speak2. People should be able to refrain from voting for moral reasons3. People should be able to express their disapproval of all candidates4. Jehovah's Witnesses have a religious obligation to remain politically neutralHowever, none of these are problematic. Why? Because one can still spoil their vote even if voting is compulsory. By spoiling one's vote, one has the ability to refrain from giving their opinion, express their moral opposition to voting, express their disapproval of all the candidates or, if one is a Jehovah's Witness, remain politically neutral.Therefore, none of Con's concerns harm my case for compulsory voting.On a side note, moral objections do not, by themselves, allow someone to be exempt from compulsory action. For example, someone may have a sincerely-held moral objection to paying tax, but this does not justify their tax evasion. Furthermore, someone may have a sincerely-held moral objection to acting as a juror, but this does not justify them avoiding jury duty. If Con's stance is to be consistent, then he would have to be against any policy that requires people to perform an action, since someone could have a sincerely held moral obligation against that action and, according to Con, such policies would therefore violate their rights. But clearly this logic would entail anarchy.Political educationThe principle of democracy is that every citizen is involved in the election of government, therefore the level of knowledge held by someone should have no affect on whether they should vote or not. Con imagines some arbitrary line between those who should vote and those who shouldn't vote (even if this line isn't enforced). But democracy is where all are involved in the political process, if we have a system where only the intelligent are voting, then this is an aristocracy, not a democracy - yet this debate pertains to democracy.It is an elitist notion that it is preferable for the less-educated to not voice their political stance, one that flies in the face of the egalitarian nature of democracy. It prompts us to ask: why should the more educated be given more political representation than the less educated?Anyhow, as I have argued in round 2, compulsory voting will most increase the amount of people who are politically educated - resolving the problem of political apathy and ignorance.ConclusionCompulsory voting is preferable to optional voting for the reasons detailed in round 2. Con says that this is undemocratic because the majority oppose it, but as demonstrated by the case of women's suffrage, something can still be democratic even if it isn't supported by the majority. Moreover, Con only gives a US statistic, but this debate isn't just about the US.Then Con proposes his counterplan, which turns out to be very expensive and has no advantages over compulsory voting.Next, he claims that compulsory voting would violate human rights, but I pointed out that one can still spoil their vote - avoiding all the problems raised by Con.Lastly, Con makes the elitist assertion that it is a preferable situation that the less-educated don't vote. But this is contrary to the principles of democracy (which make no mention of education). Secondly, making voting compulsory will actually help remedy the problem of political ignorance/apathy. (1) http://www.statisticbrain.com...(2) http://www.building.co.uk...(3) https://www.quora.com...