This House would introduce compulsory voting

Thanks to my opponent for his speech. I shall now issue my rebuttal and then sum up, as no new substantives may be introduced in this round. In my rebuttal I shall issue a point of rebuttal against the point raised by the Opposition. P1: Not voting may well be a vote for apathy but this in no way guarantees an apathetic government. If a large proportion of the population do not vote it becomes easier for the minority to elect a government which is not apathetic and indeed seeks to enact policies that will take away the rights of certain individuals (such as right-wing parties). If these repressive parties come to power because they were chosen by the people, that's fine - but no government should be in power simply due to electoral boycott. P2: This statement is all well and true but if we follow through with this principle put forward by the Opposition none of us are bound to obey the law, as we did not choose to be bound by it. An anarchistic society that relies on the principles of "I didn't sign up to it so I'll ignore it" simply cannot work in practice. C1: My opponent is fundamentally wrong on this issue. Humans sign up to obey certain rules simply because it is necessary for the masses to do so in order for society to run smoothly. Take the issue of which side of the roads you drive on: if I'm on a road where I'm the only car, is it really important which side I drive on? Perhaps not, but it is necessary for everyone to drive on the same side of the road in order for the traffic system to work. My point is that many laws could be seen as "illegitimate" when applied to the individual but they are necessary for society. Compulsory voting follows the same principle. C2: Prisoners are not prevented from voting in all jurisdictions: the EU forces its member states to allow at least some prisoners to vote. It is within the rights of the prisoners to elect the Serial Killer Party if they so choose because politics is all about voting for your own interests. We do not forbid bankers from voting for parties which seek to please the city, therefore we should not forbid prisoners from voting for a party seeking their release. No voter can be seen as "irrational" as it opens the barriers to interpretation of what it is to be "rational" - and a party could take away the vote from those likely to vote against them. This is why universal suffrage prevails in developed societies. C3: Firstly, if my Opponent seriously believes that the ideal system is not one governed by the majority, then they are advocating the adoption of a system of government other than democracy. Since compulsory voting implies the vote and, by extension, democracy, this argument is irrelevant to the debate in hand. Secondly, my opponent seems to have contradicted himself with his argument about dictators having a cult of personality. If the dictator genuinely has the support of the majority (something I doubt, but we will run with this) then surely this is a better system than a system where people aren't in agreement with their rulers? Anyway, again, the issue of the merits of democracy is irrelevant as this debate presupposes the existence of a democracy. P1: This is nothing but cynicism. By saying "candidates always try to mislead the public" he is essentially resorting to the same "politicians are liars" rhetoric which has contributed to this democratic crisis coming about in the first place. Most politicians don't lie, and my Opponent has failed to give any real substance to this claim. Regardless, if my Opponent believes this, then that is an inherent failing of democracy. And a note on the Opposition's final comment: you did introduce the concept of rationality, but since you seem to have run with it anyway it"s sort of become irrelevant who introduced it because you are still wrong to back the idea of compartmentalising voters as I have already explained. In summary we believe there are two main points of clash between the Proposition and the Opposition in this debate and we will seek to demonstrate why we emerge victorious from each. The first point of clash is over the issue of whether this proposal violates the "right to liberty" cited by our opponent. We do not believe this violates this "right to liberty" as we do not believe it to be an absolute. We have used the example of compulsion to obey the law to demonstrate that the right to liberty can be overridden for the sake of preserving the greater good and the smooth running of society. Our Opponent has simply cited "right to liberty" and thrown Ayn Rand quotations at us (since when is Ayn Rand a respectable moral authority anyway?) whereas we have actually demonstrated why this is a reasonable denial of liberty. Hence we win this point. The second point of clash was over whether or not this proposal will make a desirable difference to the way democracy functions. Whilst our opponent was busy making cynical remarks about the suitability of democracy as a system of government (irrelevant to the debate, as we have explained) and talking about how politicians are all apparently liars anyway, we have demonstrated that this proposal will increase the accountability of elected governments, ensure that a small minority cannot elect a government that will be repressive (we believe only a government elected by a landslide proportion of the population will ever have a true mandate) and create a better political system. Opposition crumbles, we win this point. In summary, Proposition proposes a true solution to our participation crisis which is the first step towards a new, improved, BETTER politics. This isn"t an unreasonable denial of liberty, and we will gain a new perspective on democracy. I urge you to vote Proposition. I hand back to Opposition to offer rebuttal and sum up the debate; no new substantives are to be introduced at this stage.