Resolved: in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory

I agree with the definitions posited by the Negative, with one slight exception. The Negative defines "ought" as "expressing obligation." I would suggest that "ought" expresses moral desirability, particularly as "ought" implies a value judgment. For example, the statements "you ought not to steal the cookies" and "you ought to go and see your grandmother" are statements that connote what is the most morally desirable course of action. The statement is obligation you to go and see your grandmother, but it is implying that it is the moral thing to do. I will now present the AC: FDR once declared, "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves, and the only way they could do this is by not voting." Because I agree, I affirm the resolution. I Value Governmental Legitimacy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy notes, "legitimacy is negative: it offers an account of when effective authority ceases to be legitimate." Stanford goes on to claim that a government ceases to be legitimate when it no longer respects the rights of its citizenry, specifically those rights enumerated in UDHR. Prefer this debate as the resolution is essentially questioning whether voting needs to be universal for a democratic government to remain legitimate. I propose the Criterion of Promoting Electoral Equality, as ensuring that no one group dominates at the polls, and thus holds undue sway over the government. For example, if group A votes more than group B, elected officials will favor group A, maybe even to the point of impinging on group B's rights. My thesis is that compulsory voting is key to promoting electoral equality. Contention One: Low voter turnout threatens democracy and governmental legitimacy. "In a modern democracy, it is ultimately the will of the people expressed through periodic elections that decide the fate of the people. In practical terms, modern democracy has come to mean government based on majority rule. The leaders acquire political power and strength because the people's power is vested in them through elections--If voter turnout is very poor and if votes are split by too many candidates contesting a seat, the government ceases to be majority rule. In such situations, it is the minority of voters who run the government. This goes counter to the principle of majority rule, which is an important ingredient of democracy. An effective remedy to meet this deficiency is to find an alternative to the first-past-the-post system." [1] "U.S. elections are not even particularly well-designed polls because they are not based on a representative sample of eligible voters. Rather, they rely on a racially and socioeconomically skewed sample. Because of this, America could actually achieve a more representative government by doing away with the current election system, and instead polling a large, representative sample of eligible voters, despite the fact that such a mechanism for selecting government leaders seems inherently unfair and might violate the Equal Protection Clause. Given how limited the franchise was until the twentieth century, and the low rates of voter turnout in recent decades, it is likely that no U.S. President has ever received a majority of the votes of the American adult population. In the 1984 election, for example, Ronald Reagan won a "landslide" victory, but received the votes of only 32.9% of the potential electorate. The preferences of the other 67.1% of eligible voters were either for a different candidate or simply left unaccounted for...fundamentally, there is a serious tension with the understanding "that within our constitutional tradition, democracy is prized because of the value of collective self-governance," which is as much about procedure as it is about substance. Indeed, the level of voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters in many recent elections would not even be sufficient to constitute a quorum for some of the most important American political institutions...Partly because of disparities in turnout rates by demographic categories, the center of political gravity has shifted toward the wealthiest white Americans." [2] Contention Two: Compulsory voting will help alleviate these problems. Sub-point A: Turnout will likely go up: "Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946." [3] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law. Approximately twenty-four nations have some kind of compulsory voting law, representing 17% of the world's democratic nations. The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [2] Higher vote turn out will combat the problems named in Contention One. Sub-point B: Reduced Polarization: "It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized - some might say hyper-polarized - by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [4] Sub-point C: More inclusive: "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent--Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [5 Thus, I stand in firm affirmation of the resolution. I shall rebut the NC more in-depth in my next speech, but just a few quick notes: C1: Firstly, voting is a civic responsibility; everyone should do it. It is not some onerous imposition upon your freedom, rather, mandatory voting is simply formalizing the responsibility that you should have been meeting before. Additionally, autonomy is too often used as an excuse to ignore that civic duty. Secondly, your actually increase your autonomy by voting. Voting is a check against government becoming too intrusive; voting protects minority rights; and permits you to freely express your choice and your voice in governmental decision-making. C2: Neg gives no evidence regarding how much his reforms will actually boost turnout. Even if we educate people, that doesn't mean that they'll vote more. But education of voters isn't unqiue to the Neg, it's permutation of my advocacy. In the Aff world people can be educated and mandated to vote, ensuring high poll turnout and informed voters. And who says compulsory voting has to be hard; all of my opponent's suggestions could be incorporated into my own case. How about online compulsory voting, or house-to-house aid, or rides to polling places for those in need. My point is that everything Neg has suggested is non-unique; I can do it too. Coupled with complusions on voting, these measures would cause turnout to be even higher and would make voters far more educated. V/C: Autonomy is important, but the impact on society as a whole is also key. Gov. Legit. would maximize both. The criterion is circular logic. Aristotle says we shouldn't be forced to do things. Autonomy is self-direction. Basically, Neg is supporting autonomy with autonomy. Plus, I can link, as voting promotes freedom. Sources: [1] T. S. Krishna Murthy, Chief Election Commissioner of India, 2012, "The Relevance of Voting Rights in Modern Democracy," Wake Forest Journal of Law & Policy, 2 Wake Forest J. L. & Pol'y 337, p. 347 [2] Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 [3] Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 [4] Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 [5] Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 [6] Dean Machin, University of Warwick, 2011, "Compulsory Turnout: A Compelling (and Contingent) Case," Politics, Vol. 31 (2), p.1