May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory

I will start by briefly addressing the false claims and conclusions my opponent has presented. I will then explain how the Con arguments have outweighed those given by the Pro side in this debate. I General Will My opponent presents a philosophical argument that while potentially alluded to was not explicitly stated. After reading and rereading the closest statement to this argument was done in round 2 when my opponent said in his conclusion, "First, the democratic philosophy of the general will as an essential value that perpetually strengthens the newly elected government's legitimacy is unassailable through mandatory voting. " Whether or not my opponent is violating debate rules by including an argument that was not stated with any clarity and was not extended through round 3, I will leave to judges. I believe that I adequately responded to this with my arguments (Con I and Con III) which I will elaborate on when I extend my arguments. The accusations my opponent makes about the supposed abusive misrepresentation of statistics in my argument is, to be frank, absurd. 18.9% vs 20% is not a substantial difference and is within the margin of error for the statistic anyways. Beyond that I wished to illustrate the statistic with a simple, real-world illustration. 1 in 5 people is more accurate than saying 1 in 6. The rounding was insignificant, more accurate for illustration, and it certainly wasn't abusive. Pro claims 1.1% was significant error on my part ironically, Pro then states that 18.9% and 3.9% are an insignificant portion of non-voters. It is not insignificant, 18.9% makes up the second largest reason for people not voting. He also ignored the 15.7% that said they were not interested. As I stated in my actual argument, together that makes up almost 40% of non voters who were generally apathetic. II MV dismantled bad tactics Pro misrepresents my criticism of the Jewish lobby argument. I was pointing out how interest groups can give a louder voice to a minority (by which I mean small group) who are significantly more knowledgeable of their interest because of their investment in a given policy. I was not simply saying Jewish people are oppressed and therefore deserve a louder voice. III Voting is a civic duty As I already addressed, this argument falls with his comparison to taxes and jury duty. I have already pointed out that unlike those two duties (which are necessary for government to function) the decision to not vote is an exercise of of free speech that only limits the voice of the individual deciding to not vote. If I decide not to vote, I might not be as represented in government though if anything this gives greater power to the right to vote for others so the only "victim" would be oneself. If I decide to not do jury duty, I am undermining the right of others to a fair trial. If I do not pay taxes, I undermine the right to government protection guaranteed to all Americans under the Constitution. IV MV increases political knowledge Pro seeks to prove that the accruing of knowledge with age by a factor of 0.2 (with a .1 margin of error and only when strictly enforced) is significant. It really isn't because as I pointed out MV is linked to lower overall political knowledge unless the MV was weakly enforced. Pro didn't specify what level of enforcement they support but it seems that Pro will need to choose between lower political knowledge (strict) or no accruing knowledge with age (weak). As I stated before the evidence is far from conclusive that MV has any significant effect on political knowledge as evidenced by the inconsistencies between levels of enforcement and the small sample size (particularly in the weakly enforced sample group of 2 countries). Pro focuses again on how MV seems to close the gender gap in political knowledge but totally ignored that it increases the political knowledge gap between rich and poor. Regardless, overall political knowledge is more important than decreasing gaps between social groups. Averaging out the political knowledge of all countries with implemented MV laws shows that they have equal or even slightly less overall political knowledge than those with voluntary voting systems. Pro then suggests that the longer MV is implemented the more effectively knowledge will accrue with age. Their is no evidence of this not does Pro present any. Instead, he talks about how people who voluntarily (though he doesn't acknowledge that as a factor) engage in voting tend to be interested and research more. This ignores that almost 40% of non-voters are apathetic to the process and force does not make someone suddenly care about anything other than avoiding the potential punishment. I will now move on to my arguments and why Con should win this debate. I) MV undermines liberty and democracy Pro's argument against this ignores liberty and focuses on how democracy will be strengthened but fails to prove this in their arguments. We should not force people to vote when there is no candidate they feel they can vote for in good conscience. This infringes on constitutional rights of free thought and speech without any cause except to force them to do what Pro believes is in their best interest. Government shouldn't make life decisions for people, it should preserve peoples rights and Pro did not explain why that should not be the case. II) MV doesn't incentivise political learning Pro's only attempt to substantiate his claim against this was an inconclusive study that I already refuted and used against him. Pro does not successfully refute the point that apathetic people do not become engaged with force, especially if they have the option (as Pro asserts) to leave ballots blank. In my arguments I have suggested other methods to increase voter turnout that do not infringe on constitutional rights and that would be more effective such as investing in better civics education and political activism which educate and motivate apathetic voters far more than threats. Pro has neglected to explain why these methods would not prove effective while being more moral in its preservation of constitutional freedoms. III) MV doesn't lead to better representation for those most affected MV does not eradicate targeting strategies, those always exist in elections. Furthermore, Pro suggests that leaving ballots blank under MV is virtuous even though it destroys the whole point of MV by giving an easy cop out for the apathetic (almost 40% of non-voters) that results in them being inconvenienced and their rights infringed upon without their voice being heard anyway. Not voting says the exact same thing as a mandatory blank ballot but without restricing freedoms. I would also add that this is where propaganda, pandering, and political dishonesty come into play. People who don't vote tend to be significantly less educated on current and historical politics. This means they are far more susceptible to political dishonesty and media dishonesty/bias. The politically ignorant are politically ignorant because of greater apathy to politics which means they are less likely to verify the validity of claims made by media or politicians. They will instead sway in favor of empty political promises (or pandering) rather than doing the research to better represent their values. This is where Pro's "General will" argument fails as well. Uneducated and apathetic voting does not lead to greater representation or a stronger democracy. I'm not sure why Pro doesn't recognize that the arguments I've made throughout the debate under this contention as well as my first contention (MV undermines democracy) are sufficient response to his "metaphysics of the general will" argument. I suppose I will simply trust the judges to see his claim for what it is, empty. People will be more represented when they care enough to represent themselves. My personal anecdote about not voting shows this. When it affected me (federal, state, county elections) I educated myself because I knew it mattered. When the special election occurred I looked at the measures and knew they did not affect me so it was unimportant for me to educate myself on those issues and I decided not to vote. Had I been forced to vote I would not have researched because I was not going to be affected. Therefore my voice would have potential to stand against others who were more invested in and educated on the issues. IV) MV punishes the poor and incapable Once again, instead of addressing the actual argument, Pro chooses to nitpick my rounding of a statistic by 2%. Again, I rounded because 1 in 3 was more accurate than 1 in 4 and I wanted readers to be able to picture actual people rather than unillustriative percentages. My argument stands that many were unable to vote due to financial obligations and MV would simply increase that burden thus punishing the poor. To refute my argument about those that couldn't vote due to illness or disability, Pro provides many solutions to the problem. I would like to thank Pro, because in doing so they perfectly illustrate that the problem of voter turnout can be cured by other means. If those people will now vote because their reasons for not doing so have been satisfied then there is no need to bully them into doing so. Voter turnout can be addressed without threatening our most vulnerable (poor and disabled). That was the whole point of this argument and Pro proved me right. Pro solved the problem MV aims to fix with things other than MV and in doing so substantially removes any benefit from MV policies, leaving only the threats and restrictions of freedom. Conclusion- Pro failed to substantiate claims of stronger democracy and greater political knowledge under MV. Pro failed to justify infringements on freedom. Con has promoted more moral and effective alternatives which Pro acknowledges. MV is immoral and ineffective.