Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting

Framework I would argue that VV is indeed inherently desirable, but victory for the Con cannot be assumed because of this. Pro must prove that CV is MORE desirable than VV in order to win this debate. I would also argue that since VV is the status quo in the majority of democratic countries throughout the world that it can also be assumed to be a system that is to some degree desirable. The pro must therefore thoroughly prove CV to be of a higher degree of desirability. Furthermore I did not mean to contend that in order for CV to be more desirable that is must also contain all the benefits of VV. Rebuttal "Sub-point A: CV will boost turnout. " Cross examine with my points regarding Vote Quality. "Sub-point B: Low turnout is problematic; insofar as CV solves this, CV is beneficial. " "Forcing everyone to vote means that the voice of those with no interest in politics will influence the decision about who rules the country. This generates what author Jason Brennan calls pollution of the polls in his book The ethics of voting,1 and is one of the main causes of the actual crisis of democracy worldwide: incompetent politicians winning elections through media control (the recent case of Italy under Silvio Berlusconi epitomises this phenomenon). By the same token, compulsory voting cannot be defended by arguing that a governments legitimacy of a majority formed by a low turn-out is questionable, for numbers alone do not add credibility in this regard. "(6) This is also referenced in my previous argument. I contend that those who are voting and their information/opinion/passion regarding elections is what legitimizes government, not the mere fact that every single person has voted. Sub-point C: CV corrects against "free riders. " Non-voting does not qualify one as a "free-rider. " One can still contribute to society greatly and even to the political system of a democracy without voting. Just because one doesn't vote and the election goes in such a way that the person is "riding the benefits of others work. " Non-voters who are ill informed may reap the benefits of better informed voters, but can also be harmed by this as well. Non-voters hardly qualify as "free-riders" because they do not vote because they believe their vote might harm the electoral system, and with good reason. Sub-point D: CV reduces polarization. Cross examine with my point regarding "Vote Quality. " Polarization is not necessarily fixed by CV. Uneducated voters will not serve to centralize American Politics, as non-voters will not necessarily vote moderate (they may fall prey to sensationalism and vote for a polarized candidate) and because in countries like the US, non-voters do not comprise the majority. Sub-point E: CV reduces violence. This point addresses the idea that VV leads to higher rate of protest, but in a democracy, protesting is a guaranteed basic human right and should not be suppressed. The idea that VV leads directly to higher rate of violent protest in Pros source is employing slippery slope fallacy. Defense Rebuttal 1 My opponents point regarding mandatory jury duty is indeed interesting. But the reason jury duty is mandatory is different than the reasons for mandatory voting. In the case of voting, one is granted the right to vote, but in the cases of jury duty and taxes, one is not given the right to pay taxes or the right to serve on a jury, one is compelled to do so as civic duties. Pro may make the argument that voting is a civic duty, but this is not true. The civic duty of the members of a democracy is to take action, or inaction, in whatever way they see best in their political system. Some people may believe that they don't like any choices in a vote, or that they aren't educated enough on the choices to make a proper decision. Some people may rather start protest rather than vote. Electoral rolls are mandatory for logistical purposes, and to prevent fraud. A further point regarding the difference between CV and other Compelling civic services. "Jury trials and elections serve different purposes in the American system of government. Juries act as a check on the power of the state, by shifting some of the judicial decision-making power to private citizens. Voting, by contrast, is the process by which citizens delegate power to government. "(1) CV is also a restriction of freedom. Restrictions of freedom, in most cases, ought to be avoided. Rebuttal 2 "In nations like this, vast numbers of votes could be cast by uneducated people. " (talking about VV states) This point is only a speculation on the actual education of actual voters. The difference between VV and CV is that those who may be perceived as politically uneducated probably won't vote voluntarily, as ignorance breeds apathy. In a CV system, it is guaranteed that the uneducated will vote. Educated voting is also logically associated with VV as in this system one would logically only voted with incentive . One who is totally uneducated on the matter being voted upon would have no incentive to vote. One who is educated on the matter would likely have an opinion, and therefore, and incentive. Regarding my opponents point on political education. "The idea that high voter turnout based on compulsory voting translates into a politically engaged electorate is nonsensical. " -Paula Matthewson, Australian Political Insider. "Australians seem to be no more politically educated (and are perhaps less so) than citizens of comparable countries (for example, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom) that use voluntary voting. " (2) The sources cited by my opponent only provide un-substantiated speculation that CV would increase political awareness. Just because one is forced to attend polls doesn't mean that they will necessarily want to become more informed on politics. Just as one might attend a history class daily but still have no interest in learning more about history, or have any interest in talking about history. Rebuttal 3 My opponents first point regarding "donkey votes is interesting,. A similar source comments "the so-called donkey vote may account for 1-2% of votes in these systems, which may affect the electoral process"(3). Although only 1-2% of votes are donkey votes, these votes do still affect the electoral process in a negative way. ". .. turnout of only 92%, of whom 6% lodged either informal or blank ballot papers"(3). "High voter turnout is a myth when you consider that 10% of Australians are not even registered. When that myth is debunked, I think you'll see a dramatic shift in public perception of compulsory voting,"(4). Finally I would state that the quality of a vote can be objectively recognized. My use of the term "Quality vote" was meant to be defined as a premeditated decision, with some form of non-obligatory incentive. Therefore, a quality vote can be objectively recognized. In a VV a quality vote would simply be the vote of anyone who is driven enough to vote. In a CV, a quality vote can be recognized as a vote that is premeditated, informed, or would have been cast even without compulsion to do so. "Voluntary response bias" is a result of "self selecting" in surveys and is a well known statistical principle (5). The idea behind voluntary response bias being that the people taking the survey (or in this case, voting), when only participating through volunteering are more likely to hold strong opinions. One with a strong opinion on a subject is likely to know something about said subject that spurs their opinion. Summary My opponents arguments in favor of CV are interesting, but I believe I have sufficiently proved that the benefits of VV outweigh those of CV, especially when the downsides of CV are taken into proper account. CV reduces vote quality, limits freedom, and provides no significant benefits. I ask that you vote Con. 1. . http://spectator.org... 2. . http://www.legalanswers.sl.nsw.gov.au... 3. . http://en.wikipedia.org... 4. . http://www.bbc.co.uk... 5. . http://stattrek.com... 6. . http://www.ethics.org.au...