Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

I will begin by asking a simple question: what is a government's one and only tool with which it can cater to the will of the people? Its legitimacy. Without a government having power, it can do nothing. Where does a democracy get its power? The people. The people are the source of a democracy's legitimacy. That being said, when the people fail to allow the government to hear their voices, the government can do very little to uphold societal welfare. My opponent attacked this by saying that we would essentially force politics on people, and that forcing people to vote would likely decrease the quality and purpose of voting. I am here to prove to you that compulsory voting can be done in a way that will minimalize liberty infringement and solve the issues associated with apolitical, apathetic, or low-information voters. Let's take a look at Australia. In Australia, people can either vote for their candidates, vote "none of the above," or even turn in a blank ballot. This still allows people to have their voices heard, but doesn't force the ignorant to vote. Further, this "none of the above" option further rebuts against my opponent's constructive because it could actually dissolve political extremism. If the majority of people disagree with the ideals of both political parties, then a "none of the above vote" could throw the candidates out and allow for the formation of new political parties that cater to the needs of the people. This can only happen if the voices of ALL the citizens are heard. Additionally, my opponent claims that voting causes almost no change in the long run. And, to a certain point, I agree. Countries that lack compulsory voting will also lack legitimacy, since they are basing political decisions off of the views of the minority (the 50-60% that vote in voluntary systems), as opposed to the majority (the 95% + that vote in compulsory systems). When the citizens of a democracy vote, we hear the voices of the entire country. When the popular sovereign speaks in a democracy, desirable change is an inevitability. But, once again, this can only be upheld when a democracy has its legitimacy! To summarize, compulsory voting is justified in principle because it increases the quality of politics, upholds the voice of the popular sovereign, upholds the legitimacy of a democracy, and paves the way to societal welfare. My opponent also talks about how futile a system of compulsory voting could be. While some countries have somewhat high voter turnouts with voluntary voting (my opponent cites Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Ireland, and Austria), compulsory voting could only increase the percentile. Additionally, I would like to point out that my opponent says "high turnouts" but fails to tell us how high. My opponent also talks about how Greece, Ecuador, and Paraguay have compulsory voting yet maintain low turnouts. Once again, my opponent generalizes, and fails to explain to what extent voter turnout is low. How is compulsory voting enforced in these countries? If compulsory voting is not enforced, then it is not compulsory. Some countries have compulsory voting, but do not enforce it, as could be the case in Greece, Ecuador, and Paraguay. That being said, the system is necessary. I would additionally like to point out that the debate was in LD format, and my opponent did not have a value or criterion. Therefore, we must accept my value of societal welfare and my criterion of popular sovereignty as the measures by which we shall judge the merit of the resolution. That being said, my opponents two arguments fall. Now move with me to my own case. My value was societal welfare, which is the well being of a society. A government needs its legitimacy to uphold societal welfare, and the only way to get its legitimacy is by popular sovereignty. Without an understanding of the needs of the people, a government cannot uphold societal welfare. My value/criterion pairing was not attacked in my opponent's rebuttal. My first contention was that low voter turnout is a crisis. My opponent attacked the relevancy of voting in general, which I addressed earlier in my rebuttal. Democracy is "rule by the people" and the only way a democracy can rule is if people's voices are heard. My second contention was that voting is a sovereign duty. This argument was not attacked in my opponent's rebuttal, therefore it stands. Let me conclude my rebuttal with what has been proven: 1) Once again, that societal welfare is the highest goal that either debater should aim for. The only way to achieve societal welfare is by popular sovereignty, which upholds legitimacy. Therefore, compulsory voting is a logical imperative of any democracy. 2) Low voter turnout is a crisis. It threatens a democracy's legitimacy. Voting may not be powerful now, but in a legitimate democracy where everyone's voices are heard, a government that caters to the needs of the people can be established, and desirable change can be achieved. With low voter turnout, however, we cannot attain either of these goals. 3) Voting is a sovereign duty, and failing to vote damages a democracy. And it is for these reasons and many more that I firmly, yet respectfully, urge a vote in affirmation on today's ballot.