Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting

I will use this round to clarify framework and to rebut Con's Case. FRAMEWORK Con agrees with my definitions for this round. Therefore, I have the burden of showing that CV yields a net benefit, and is thus a desirable course of action. Con has the burden of showing that CV does not yield a net benefit, and is thus an undesirable action to take. I will dispute Con's analysis of the framework in two respects, however. Firstly, Con may indeed support a voluntary system as an alternative to a compulsory one, but it is not my job to show that CV preserves the exact same benefits as voluntary voting (VV). It is only my job to show that, in the aggregate, CV is better than VV. So, there may be some tradeoffs we have to make, but the benefits of CV will--as I will show--outweigh those tradeoffs. Regardless, I don't expect this subtle point to become a major issues in this debate, so I shall move on to my second objection. Simply because VV is the status quo does not make it inherently desirable in a democracy. Voting is desirable, but Con has yet to prove that VOLUNTARY voting is desirable. To make the assumption that VV is inherently desirable is to assume that Con has already won the argument, when, in fact, he has not. Therefore, this is a poorly warranted presumption argument that we can easily dismiss in two ways: (1) it begs the question [1], and (2) simply because something is the status quo does not make it desirable. Slavery in the U. S. was the status quo for some time, and it met Constitutional criteria for legality as well, but few would argue that it was a desirable action. With those clarifications made, and with the burdens now firmly established, I will proceed to the arguments. CON's CASE Point 1: Right to Inaction I have four rebuttals to make here. (1) "Not all positive rights imply negative rights; we have a right to educate our children, but this does not mean that we have a right not to educate our children. We are required by the state to do many other things as well: to pay taxes, and to serve on juries, and to have our names included on the electoral roll. " [2] Therefore, one cannot say that "in all cases of basic human rights, every citizen is given the option to willingly forgo said rights. " This blanket statement is simply false. (2) Voting is an action used to achieve some greater right, and thus compulsion can be justified because the smaller right to vote does not outweigh the greater right that it seeks to achieve. For example, if Person A is charged with a crime, they have a right to a jury. If selected to serve on that jury, you have no legal right to object. In other words, you can be compelled by the state to serve on the jury. Similarly, if Person A has the right to an inclusive, fully representative government, than, if eligible to vote, you have no legal right to object. You can be compelled to vote. "If there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. Voting is often viewed as an individual privilege, but it is also true that there are collective benefits from the participation of citizens in elections. Because all Americans benefit from having representative democracy as a form of government, all Americans benefit when others exercise the right to vote. The individual act of voting is essential to the collective's ability to have democratic government, and as such should not be waivable. " [3] (3) CV does not violate basic human rights, as Con contends. In ECHR in X v. Austria, the European Court on Human Rights ruled that CV did not violate the human rights and freedoms of citizens. [2] Additionally, I would argue that CV does not violate rights because it is a duty of citizens. This line of reasoning can be supported by the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which asserts that fundamental "rights and freedoms" are checked by "duties to the community. " [4] "The rights-based defense of mandatory electoral participation starts from the premise that duties and obligations are intimately connected to rights. Voting is a necessary attribute of citizenship; it is a public trust, a moral obligation, a duty of citizenship. Democratic obligations thus follow directly from democratic rights. The obligation to participate in elections can be defended on the grounds of equality inherent in the definition of the democratic choice situation; all members of the community have a duty to contribute to collective decision-making if they are to enjoy its fruits. " [2] (4) CV is desirable despite some conflicts with religion. For example, if summoned for jury duty, you must still report regardless of religious beliefs. In some federal judicial districts, there is no allowable religious exemption to service. [5] Also, cross-apply the ECHR's ruling here--CV does not violate human rights. Moreover, since this resolution is being analyzed from a cost-benefit viewpoint, CV, might still be net beneficial (and thus desirable) even if some rights are infringed. Point Two: Uneducated Voters There are two attacks I'll make here. (1) This problem is non-unique, meaning even in a voluntary system there will be uneducated voters. In fact, in places like Liberia, huge portions of the electorate are illiterate (40% of people age 15 and above are illiterate) and uneducated. [6] In nations like this, vast numbers of votes could be cast by uneducated people. Unless Con is willing to argue that such people be banned from voting, he cannot claim that CV is the only system that brings in large numbers of ill-informed voters; VV does as well. (2) CV promotes education in the electorate for two reasons: (a) people become more motivated to inform themselves, and (b) parties and politicians will use resources to educate voters. A: "Participation breeds participation. .. people who take part in politics in one way tend to do so in another. Participation in the political process may bring about an interest in participation in other civic engagements, which in turn has a positive impact on the political competence among citizens. .. compulsory voting could serve as a tool for civic education and political stimulation. The act of voting may also indirectly affect civic engagement by increasing the level of awareness of and interest in politics. Mandatory voting may spur people to gather information about politics and societal affairs in order to make a reasonable vote choice. .. compulsory voting should have a mobilizing and educating influence on citizens, also increasing the levels of political engagement more generally. " [7] Two: "Firstly, if conversion replaces mobilization as the main aim of parties during a campaign, they have an incentive to focus on policy rather than on 'hype', which should in theory lead to an better-informed electorate. .. Secondly, if voters know in advance that they will be voting on election day and that they will have to choose from among the options on offer, they have greater reason to pay attention to the campaign than is the case when they can toy with the idea of not voting only to change their minds shortly before the election. The third reason is related to the impact of the universality of electoral campaigns under compulsory voting; if the assumption can be made that everyone will be voting, the election is more likely to become a topic of conversation among friends, relatives and colleagues, which should serve to inform people of relevant issues. "" [2] Point Three: Quality vs. Quantity Firstly, cross-apply my rebuttal arguments against Con's Point Two here. Education is key to casting "quality" votes. However, I will further assert that "low quality" votes are rare--few people cast poorly made-out ballots. I will also assert that placing an emphasis on "quality" is a slippery slope that should be avoided. (1) CV does not increase arbitrary, or "bad" votes. "In Australia, donkey votes account for only around 1 per cent of total votes cast. More importantly, this figure is actually lower than in many systems where voting is voluntary. It is also worth noting that"there tend to be about as many deliberately spoiled and blank ballots as there are donkey votes; therefore at least half of random votes are deliberately nullified by their authors. This renders them incapable of distorting outcomes. .. the vast majority cast--or sincerely attempt to cast--valid votes. Given that compulsory voting can increase turnout by as much as 30+ percentage points, one percentage point of intentionally invalid votes and no discernible increase in donkey votes seems to be a tolerable cost of enfranchising the disadvantaged. " [8] (2) The emphasis on "quality" voting is risky. As a self-proclaimed liberal, I would argue that all votes cast for G. W. were not "quality" votes. On the contrary, I might argue that they were terrible votes. Therefore, if I wanted only quality votes to be counted, I might only allow card-carrying liberals to cast ballots, thereby ensuring G. W. 's loss. What I am pointing out here is that "quality" is an inherently subjective term and that everyone's opinions matter, even if they are uneducated ones. To start saying, "your opinion isn't quality enough" is to begin down a road to dictatorship. SOURCES 1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2 - Sarah Birch (previously cited: Round Two) 3 - Harvard law Review (previously cited: Round Two) 4 - . http://www.un.org... 5 - . http://www.uscourts.gov... 6 - . https://www.cia.gov... 7 - Lundell, Krister, Abo Akademi University, 2012, "Civic Participation and Political Trust" Representation, Vol. 48:2, p. 221 8 - Hill, Lisa. University of Adelaide, 2001, "Increasing Turnout Using Compulsory Voting," Politics, Vol. 31(1), p. 31 Thank you!