In the legal context, voting should be compulsory.

Many thanks to my opponent for beginning this debate. Pro's single argument is that because all of society would (allegedly) be affected by one's choice not to vote, society should be able to force voting obligations on the individual. Essentially, this argument rests on the fallacious standard of tyranny of the majority: that the desires of the majority of people morally trump the desires of the individual, and/or that the majority's standard should necessarily be enforced [1]. You'll also notice that Pro doesn't actually prove that someone not voting impacts everyone in a significant or meaningful way. Pro should have that burden in this debate - especially if that is the crux of her singular argument. This country supposedly values liberty and individual freedom. We have the freedom of expression and that expression includes freedom to exhibit lack of expression or lack of voting. Many minarchists, anti-federalists, voluntarists, or people disgusted with the entire system (including the very concept of voting in general) should not be forced to go against their views. Neither should people who truly dislike all candidates and/or the positions they take. Nobody should have to be forced to vote for the "lesser evil" if they believe that is still a vote for evil. Indeed many people make substantial arguments about how voting is unwarranted. Anti-electoralism is an ethical or ideological opposition to voting. People across political and religious ideologies believe that voting is coercive, unjust and ineffective [2]. Henry David Thoreau once said, "Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence. A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight." In other words, one can influence their life and political sphere through actions other than voting. The choices one makes in their every day lives, i.e. where to shop, where to divert their funds, what endeavors to support, etc. have more of a direct influence on their lives than casting a vote that can be negated by another person's vote. Anti-electoralists also propose alternative methods of political influence, including the spread of awareness; separatism; labor organizing; or even outright revolution [3]. Many movements have been successful through these processes without voting [4]. Alex Guerrero argues that in order for elections to be valid, they must be free, regular, competitive and fair. Without this perfect system, officials are likely to be able to avoid accountability mechanisms that should be built into the democratic system. Citizens' ability to monitor the behaviors of their representatives and therefore vote or protest in line with their own values is also diminished by conduct [5]. Voter fraud is another problem, but what about voter ignorance? It can be reasonably argued that the vast majority of society is completely ignorant on the very important topics that politicians influence, including but not limited to foreign policy and economics. Financial markets are notoriously complex, to the point where even the experts have an incredibly hard time understanding the ins and outs [6]. Yet Pro suggests that ignorant (and self-interested) voters ought to have a say on these very serious issues that affect us all, despite their limited knowledge and significant bias. I'll leave it at that for now. I look forward to my opponent's response. [1] http://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org... [2] http://rationalwiki.org... [3] http://rationalwiki.org... [4] http://thepublicschool.org... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org... [6] http://www.investopedia.com...