Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting

Thanks to tylergraham95! In this round, I will address framework, the Pro case, the Pro Con, and provide some reasons to vote Pro. FRAMEWORKSimply because VV is the status quo does not make it inherently desirable; yet, my example of slavery goes un-rebutted. By extending my argument, we can see that we cannot blindly accept VV as inherently desirable. Con is "begging the question. " Voting is desirable in a democracy, but what type of voting is most desirable is up for debate. Con must prove the desirability of his voluntary system just as much as I must prove the desirability of my compulsory system. PROs CASESub-point A: CV boosts TurnoutCon does not deny that CV boosts turnout. His only argument here is that boosting turnout decrease voting quality--I will address this assertion later in this round--but for now, Con DROPS that CV will increase turnout, and we can extend this point. Sub-point B: Low Turnout BadI made three assertions here: (1) that high turnout was "one legitimating factor" of a government, particularly as it regards the need for a mandate; (2) low turnout harms the socio-economically disadvantaged; (3) there should be a "minimization of elite power. "Con also makes three arguments: (1) that forcing everyone to votes pollute the polls with low quality votes; (2) that turnout alone does not boost credibility; and (3) that having people vote who want to vote legitimizes government more so than compulsion does. First of all, none of Con's points address my 2nd and 3rd arguments--they're DROPPED. Extend that low turnout harms the disadvantaged and that elite power should be reduced. These two points on their own are enough to show that low turnout is bad, even if you don't believe that compulsion is necessary for legitimacy. Now, let's take a look at Con's three claims. Firstly, Con repeats his "quality of votes" assertion, which I will address later. But, I will make one point here of importance. Italy does not enforce its CV laws. [1] Therefore, Silvio Berlusconi was elected VOLUNTARILY. Con makes a huge deal about how uneducated voters pollute the polls; yet we can turn his own example against him and say that this SAME phenomenon occurs in a voluntary system. I made this same argument in my last speech when I pointed out that this was a non-unique claim. Secondly, I stated that "high turnout is one legitimating factor," which is not the same as saying that "numbers ALONE do not add credibility. " Never did I claim that high turnout was the ONLY metric, but it is nonetheless an important one, for legitimacy. Thirdly, if only a small group of people vote, they are the ones molding the government and the ones elected officials will focus on. Politicians wanted to get reelected, and so will make policies favorable to those who are likely to vote, and this means that leaders will pay less attention to other groups. This only entrenches socio-economic disparities and leads to elitism. When only a handful of people control the government it seems more oligarchic than democratic. So, low turnout is also bad for legitimacy too. Sub-point C: Free RidersCon's big claim here is that nonvoting is not free riding because people can still contribute without voting. Thus, nonvoters are not exploiting the system. This is wrong largely because of Con's interpretation of the social good that nonvoters are exploiting. The actual people who make up the government is the social good--not the community at large. Nonvoters may contribute to the community, they may protest against bad legislation, they may do community service, and so on, but they don't actually participate in electing the members of the government. Con argues, throughout this debate, that we want good, competent leaders. If good, competent, non-demagogic leaders are a social good, then when 10 of us vote for them, but some else doesn't vote, that person is enjoying that social good, i. e. those leaders, without having done the act of electing them; they are free-riding. Extend my argument. Sub-point D: PolarizationI argued that people who are more likely to vote tend to be more extreme (extremes have higher enthusiasm, loyalty to a cause, etc. ). The corollary is that moderates tend to vote less. Therefore, by instituting CV, we force moderates to vote, checking against polarization. Con DROPS this argument that nonvoters tend to be moderates. Extend it. Con's only attack here is his "quality of votes" point, which I will address later. Con also asserts that nonvoters do not comprise the majority in the U. S. However, there are many other democracies in which nonvoters aren't just the majority, but the vast majority. Even in the U. S. , non-presidential elections tend to hover around 40% turnout (60% don't vote), and even in 2012, around 43% of registered voters did not participate. [2] That is still a MASSIVE margin. Sub-point E: CV reduces violenceI am asserted that when voting norms atrophy the system is seen as being controlled by elites, and that the leaders cater to that group. This leads people to seeing the system as corrupt, and to use violence to express themselves. for example, the miners in South Africa who felt that they weren't being heard, the protests in Afghanistan when Karzai was reelected, the violence in Nigeria when Goodluck Jonathan was reelected, etc. . It's not a slippery slope fallacy when it's actually happened. Groups that lose at the polls and who simultaneously see the system as skewed or corrupt often resort to violence. When the GOP lost to Obama, there wasn't nationwide violence because the average Romney voter had a higher level of confidence in the physical polling system itself than people elsewhere. CV, inasmuch as it promotes good voting norms and reduces elite influence, does reduce violence. CON's CASEPoint 1: Right to Inaction(1) Con DROPS this argument that not all positive rights imply negative rights. We have the right to educate our kids, but we don't have the right not to educate our kids. Extend this point. (2) Con misinterprets my use of the jury example. I was arguing that some rights that take precedence over others. So, my right to due process is more important than your right to your free time; therefore, I can compel you to serve on the jury. Apply this to voting. My right to a representative government trumps your alleged right to not vote; thus I can compel voting. As Con misconstrues my point, we can extend it. The impact is that if I can show the CV benefits democracy, than your right to not vote is not enough to stop me from compelling you to do so. As my sources said, "If there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. " [3](3) Con DROPS my point that CV is not a violation of human rights. Extend it. (4) Con DROPS my arguments against his religious objections. He loses this. Point Two: Uneducated Voters(1) This is non-unique. As Con's own example of Italy shows, even with VV twits can be elected. So again, unless Con is willing to ban every single uneducated person from voting he cannot claim that I am the only person who might include uneducated voters in the system. And, if Con did ban those people, he would be infringing on freedom, which he says is a bad thing to do. (2) Con states, "the idea that. .. CV translates into a politically engaged electorate is nonsensical. " Con says that I have no warrants, yet this quote has no warrants. Saying that something's nonsensical is not SHOWING that it is nonsensical. Con's second source offers no citation for the numbers it gives, nor does it provide any methodology by which it attained those numbers. This source is questionable too. Furthermore, Con only addresses my point A argument, that people will educate themselves. He never addressed my point B that parties will educate voters. It's DROPPED, extend it. Point 3: QualityCross-apply my point B re: educating voters here. (1) Con agrees that only 1-2% of voters cast bad votes. Half of these, my source notes, will be spoiled or invalidated by their authors, so they won't be counted. So few donkey votes are counted then, that with an increase in voting of between 15-30 points on average, the effect of bad votes is negligible. They are "incapable of distorting outcomes. " And, regardless of how many actually turnout, CV still boosts turnout by large margins. (2) Con defines a "quality" vote as one that "would have been cast without compulsion. " This would mean that all compelled votes lack quality--which isn't true. When voting was first introduced in Australia (1925), turnout increased by nearly 33%. [4] So, 1-2% of poorly cast votes is a drop in the bucket. So clearly many votes cast only because voters are compelled to cast them are quality votes, judging by Con's own source and judging by the fact that people made a premeditated effort to vote well, as Lisa Hill describes. CV does not endanger quality. VOTING ISSUES1. Low turnout is bad: it hardens socio-economic divides and elitism. Con dropped these points. CV boosts turnout (Con dropped this) and so it solves for this.2. CV reduces free riding and violence; it brings moderates to the polls.3. Voting can be compelled insofar as the benefits to society outweigh the objections. con misinterpreted and dropped this point.4. CV promotes education as I show in point B, which was dropped.5. Con uses his quality claim against all my sub-points. Yet, the impacts of bad votes are negligible and non-unique. Thus, we can dismiss MOST of Con's attacks on my case just by taking out this claim. SOURCES1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - . http://www.statisticbrain.com...3 - Harvard (previously cited)4 - . http://www.aec.gov.au...Thank you to Subutai, Tyler, and the Judges!