Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

This is the Lincoln Douglas debate topic for this month, and I want to see how this case holds up. Negative Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Definitions Democracy: rule of the majority Voting: a formal expression of opinion Ought: used to express obligation Compulsory: mandatory, enforced Resolutional Analysis: Seeing as the resolution does not specify a certain country where voting ought to be made compulsory, it is the burden of the affirmative to provide an example from another country where compulsory voting has worked. It is the burden of the negative to provide an example from a country where compulsory voting has not worked. My value for today"s round will be one of autonomy, which is the right to govern oneself without outside interference. My value criterion will be one of ethical egoism, which is the theory that one should only act in a way that is morally good for him or herself. Contention One: Democracy in other Countries Sub-point A: Australia Australia is one of the 19 countries in the world that legally enforces the vote. For Australian citizens voting is not merely a right, but also a duty. First introduced in Queensland in 1915, extended to the whole country in 1924, compulsory voting is a salient feature of the Australian electoral system. But is it democratic? The main argument in defense of compulsory voting is the importance of raising citizens" participation in elections. Australia"s turn out rate has never fallen below 90% since 1924, in striking comparison with most Western countries that struggle to reach 60%. These are nevertheless, merely quantitative considerations: the fact that more people go to vote is not a better thing for democracy. In fact, it could be argued that compulsory voting is likely to do more damage than good, by reducing the quality of the electoral outcome. Contention 2: Moral and Technical Flaws No system is perfect of course, especially when it comes to electoral administration. Opponents of compulsory voting have identified several disadvantages of both a moral and technical nature. Starting with the political bias of such a reform and its anti-liberal nature, they continue with criticism of the technicalities of enforcement and its impact on the quality of the vote. It is true that, like most electoral reforms, the new system creates political advantages for certain political groups. When it was introduced in Belgium, the Catholic Party saw it as a tool to secure votes from its conservative grass roots, in order to defeat the more polarized socialists. Today, in the United Kingdom, as well as in Australia, the system is considered to be largely beneficial for the Labor parties (Mackerras and McAllister, 1999). Other opponents claim that compulsory voting is difficult and expensive to enforce. They draw on the existing state of the art, where half of the states with compulsory voting laws today do not have serious enforcement mechanisms. This happens because the judicial resources are not sufficient to deal with the thousands of cases (e.g. Argentina and elsewhere), or because the costs incurred by the administration for sanctioning non-voters is too high. A law that exists only in name but not in reality discredits the legal system.