August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Rebuttal R1: Right to Abstain Con argues that "compulsory voting is inherently anti-democratic" because it denies people the right to abstain from voting. First of all, my opponent is simply wrong. CV doesn't deny people the right to abstain from voting. A voter has the right to spoil a ballot and in effect abstain from voting. This is called informal voting [1]. So Con's claim is simply untrue. Under CV, the people's only "duty is to show up at the polling station, receive a ballot and deposit it, marked or not, into the ballot box" [4]. To justify this, I remind my opponent that citizens have rights and duties, such as jury duty or duty to show in court as a witness if one was served a subpoena. I also remind my opponent that rights are not absolute and can be limited if "only if it can show that the limit is set out in a law; pursues an important goal which can be justified in a free and democratic society; and pursues that goal in a reasonable and proportionate manner. [5]" The simple duty of Compulsory Voting meets all these criteria which makes it justifiable and reasonable. What's the fine if someone doesn't vote in Australia? It's simply 20 Australian dollars [4]. That's it. And you'd be penalized only if you cannot provide a good reason for not voting. So it's a very lenient penalty and it's mainly meant as a wakeup call. I don't support heavier fines. Second, Con may be assuming that a large number of those who don't vote actually wanted to intentionally abstain from voting. But this is also untrue. CV has led to a significant increase in voter turnout (By more than 30 percentage points in Australia [2]), while the highest informal vote percentages in Australia were 6.34% in 1984 and 5.92% in 2013 [3]. What's important to note that CV led to an increase of at least 25% in turnout who wouldn't have voted otherwise in a voluntary system. That's about one quarter of eligible voters. Therefore CV is clearly a better system than voluntary voting. Finally, I argue that the protest vote for those who want to abstain from voting under CV is more superior that under a voluntary voting system. When people don't vote in a voluntary system, it's unclear how much was the protest vote. Are people not voting because they are protesting, or because they are lazy? It doesn't send the message to the politicians that protesters want to send. In Australia, you can easily see that roughly around 5.92% chose to abstain. But in the US, it's unsure how many of the 63.6% who didn't vote in 2014 elections actually chose to abstain. In summary, I showed that: 1. CV doesn't infringe on the right of citizens to abstain 2. CV is legally and constitutionally justified 3. CV better demonstrates the protest vote R2: The Apathetic Vote This contention is hardly any different than the previous one. Before I rebut this argument, I just wanted to remind my opponent that this debate doesn't only concern the US. Also, just because someone doesn't associate with the Democratic or Republican party, doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to vote in an election. In any case, I agree with Con that some people are not interested in the political process. Con then argues that "In order for a democracy to truly be democratic, it should be able to account for these people and allow them to express their voices by not voting for anyone." What Con is actually arguing for is the right for apathetic people to abstain from voting. Essentially, this is the same argument as the first contention. As I've explained earlier, apathetic voters can still maintain their rights not to vote under a Compulsory Voting system. So CV still allows them to express their voice by not voting for anyone. There is no unique benefit to voluntary voting, except to reward procrastination. Also, I've shown in my opening case that voting helps educate people and engages them in the political process. While I agree that some will remain apathetic, others may become more interested which makes CV more beneficial. R3: Rational Voters Con argues that "Successful theoretical models of democracy utilize the concept of the "rational voter", assuming that the voting population is made of well-informed & educated people who are committed to choosing the leader they believe will best govern the country". This is a bare assertion. Con didn't provide any sources to suggest that this is the case. Am I supposed to simply agree? In fact, Con is wrong. Democracy is about representing all the people [6]. It doesn't matter if the voters are more smart or not, educated or not, well-informed or not, literate or not. In India where about a quarter are illiterate, people were asked to "identify their choices by party symbols such as a hand, lotus, or elephant" [7]. Almost in every democratic country, there is support for assisted voting [8]. Ace Project writes that "access to opportunities to vote is a guiding principle for voting operations, and a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)." It also cites "the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 25, which mentions the steps that electoral administrators should take to allow everyone to exercise their right to vote" [8]. In summary, education or rationality is not a requirement for eligibility to vote. Also, Con assumes that those who vote are rational. This is not necessarily the case. A poll showed that many people are misinformed about the issues. James Agresti writes "poll provides evidence that voters are often ill-informed and may be casting their ballots based upon misconceptions" [9]. And finally, if democracy is best achieved by an increase of "rational voters", then there might be a case to allow only those with relatively good IQ's, educated and literate citizens to vote. But this is not an argument against a CV system. So in summary, I've demonstrated that: 1. Rationality is not a requirement for voting 2. Democracy is about representing all the people including the uneducated and the illiterate 3. If rationality is a requirement for voting, then maybe there's a case to only allow those who are intelligent and educated. But it's not an argument against CV. Counter Plan I thank my opponent for the Counter Plan. I think that election day should be a national holiday too or on a weekend. What Con essentially proved that Voter Turnout is very important for a democracy, and that's why he recommends reducing obstacles to help increase voter turnout. But what Con failed to show is how much of an increase in voter turnout will this yield. Will it increase the voter turnout to numbers close to those that a CV system yields? He doesn't provide any evidence. In fact Japan and France which hold holidays on Sundays [10], had voter turnouts of just 52.66% [11] and 55.4% [12] respectively. These are terrible numbers! Therefore, while I appreciate the proposal, there is no evidence that the proposal would yield the returns that my opponent is hoping for. The benefits from implementing CV are much greater and more evident. Thank you. Sources [1] http://www.aec.gov.au... [2] Round 2 – Pro's case [3] http://electionwatch.edu.au... [4] http://reviewcanada.ca... [5] http://www.justice.gc.ca... [6] http://www.lawanddemocracy.org... [7] http://www.economist.com... [8] http://aceproject.org... [9] http://www.theblaze.com... [10] https://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://www.idea.int... [12] http://www.idea.int...