Expert Tier Tournament: Compulsory Voting

Thanks, Romanii! I will defend my case.C1: TURNOUTPro concedes that CV solves for low turnout and representativeness. Therefore, all I need to do is win that concerns re: turnout outweigh Pro's concerns about rights violations, and I am winning this contention hands-down. We should also observe that Con never disputed that for a democracy to be or appear legitimate, it had to have representative elections. Extend all of these points.Con critiques my argument for being ideological, yet, I would assert that my train of though in this contention and in others is the exact opposite. It is a pragmatic affirmation of what a government needs to be effective. If a non-authoritarian government is not seen as legitimate, then it is hard for it to enforce those actions it needs to enforce. It is often undermined by those it seeks to govern. Excellent examples of this would include the recent government in Iraq, where Sunnis viewed the government as Shia-biased (unrepresentative) and therefore are engaging in open rebellion against the state. A milder example would be Greece, where the government's tough austerity measures led to myriad protests. The underlying conclusion that can be drawn from this is that if a democratic government is not seen to represent the country and all its people, it is often hard for that very government to function. If a government is not seen as legitimate, its efficacy is undermined; it is pragmatic, therefore, for a government to garner as much legitimacy as it can.Con then juxtaposes the right to inaction against the need for democratic legitimacy. Remember that, as per my Observation Three, all arguments should be evaluated by how well they link to and achieve democracy. Con agreed to this Observation. Therefore, to determine which of these two things is more impactful in the round, we must ascertain which is more important to "democracy."Firstly, there are such things as benevolent dictatorships (e.g. Bhutan) where human rights are very well respected, yet there is no such thing as a democracy without elections. Voting is the quintessence of what makes a democracy and democracy, and therefore goes more to the heart of the concept than rights protection. This is not to say that rights are not vital, but merely I am asserting that voting and the legitimacy of the outcome of elections is more intrinsically important to a democracy than perhaps anything else. When weighing the legitimacy of the government against a supposed right to abstain from voting, the former outweighs.Secondly, it is by no means established that a right to inaction actually exists. If doesn't, this whole dichotomy is moot, and my contention stands.Thirdly, even if you don't buy my first argument and even if Con establishes a right to inaction, we can still buy this contention. Consider, a government must act pragmatically. Prof. Gary Woller writes: "Appeals to a priori moral principles...often fail to acknowledge that public policies inevitably entail trade-offs among competing values. Thus since policymakers cannot justify inherent value conflicts to the public in any philosophical sense...the policymakers' duty to the public interest requires them to demonstrate that...their policies are somehow to the overall advantage of society." I have already show, re: my priori discussion of pragmatism, how CV, by promoting government legitimacy and representativeness and by reducing polarization, actually is to the overall advantage of society. CV should thus be pursued by governments. Also consider that the rights violations caused by civil strife, conflict, and neglect of disadvantaged groups are more severe than violating peoples' rights to inaction; therefore, we should prioritize preventing the former even at the expense of the latter. Con summarizes by saying that the CV solves one problem (low turnout) by creating another (violating the right to inaction.) Ultimately, this is incorrect. At most, CV solves one problem without violating rights, simply because that right doesn't exist. At least, CV solves one severe problem by creating a minor one; it's like trading a gushing aorta for a paper cut--it's a trade that is reasonable and justified, if not morally right. Certainly, minimizing ill effect is desirable, both morally and pragmatically.Con then cross-applies his "bad voting" arguments here. I rebutted these arguments thoroughly at an earlier juncture. As for the idea of alternatives, Con provides none, and it would be unfair for him to do so later as I'd have limited time to respond. But, I would wager that CV is the best alternative, as it can increase turnout anywhere from 7 to 30 points; these substantial increases would be hard to replicate through none obligatory means. And, unless extremely high turnout is attained, legitimacy will always be in jeopardy.C2: VIOLENCECon writes, "I do not deny that having a large portion of the population to be unrepresented is dangerous." I could not have said it more succinctly myself. Firstly, Con suggests that it is "illogical to believe that people who choose not to vote would be causing turmoil over a lack of representation." In fact, this is untrue. In many democracies, particularly those that are burgeoning or are located in the emerging world, people do not see voting as an effective means of bringing about change. This can occur for many reasons, including the idea that certain ethnic groups will always get their candidates elected. What people don't realize is that when everyone participates, elections are more representative than if people stay at home. "When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest." [1] CV revivifies those norms, injecting life into previously unused mechanisms of social change by forcing people to use them. Eventually, this reduces voter apathy (esp. as regards the voting system) and restores confidence in the voting booth as a means of expressing oneself. This, in turn, reduces violence."The quality of a modern representative democracy, especially among the emerging democracies, depends substantially on the extent of voter participation not only during the elections, but also during the intervening period between one election and another. The act of voting provides all citizens with an opportunity to show an interest--perhaps a direct interest--in the policies and performance of the government and also reveals their expectations for the future. This being so, the declining percentage of voter turnout is indeed a cause for concern." [2]But, even if you buy none of what I just said, Con does seem to agree that disadvantaged groups might resort to violence. Since Con concedes that violence is a bad thing, I can still garner impacts by reducing the violence caused by these groups. Also, Con drops that CV reduces violence. Extend these three points.All that I need to do now is weigh preventing violence against the supposed violation of the right to inaction. I don't really think this requires much analysis. Take Iraq for instance, or, let's just use imaginary Country X. Country X has one bloc of people that consistently turn out to vote, while others don't. Those who don't vote, feels as if they're not being heard, and so resort to violence as a means of expressing themselves. People die in the ensuing tumult.Con cannot tell me that people lives outweigh the right to inaction. A few hours of my time vs. the lives of human beings. I would choose the latter any day, as would any responsible democracy. The right to life has to be paramount, as without it, no other rights have meaning.C3: CITIZENSHIPCon's only argument here is that there is no obligation to actually use the power citizens have to govern.Firstly, I already explored this very concept with my earlier arguments about the social contract. This bridges the gap between my premise and my conclusion.Secondly, we can explore this concept more in depth. Let us take a hypothetical: Suppose that Nation Z is made up of 10 citizens. Each has the option to abstain from voting if they so desire. The election comes around, and each of the 10 citizens fails to vote. The state of nature resumes, as, without an election, no government can be formed to run the nation.Consider that a government's duty is to prevent anarchy; that is, ostensibly, the justification for its existence. It can therefore compel people to vote in order to ensure it's existence and continuance. So, let's say that Nation Z compelled 1 person to vote; how could this be fair? It imposes an obligation on one person that no one else has. Faced with this dilemma, it compels everyone to vote, thus maintaining fairness, but ensuring it will endure into the future.This may not be a realistic application of the idea--as democracies always have at least some people vote--but it does provide a theoretical justification for the idea of CV as it relates to the social contract. But, I will next attempt to provide a more convincing justification.Thirdly, the social contract, notably is a contract, implying that both parties make promises and incur responsibilities. Consider, that a government demands certain things of the people--things without which it could not perform its job. People are required to respect its laws, pay taxes, and so forth. If people did not do such things then a government could not do its job. Voting is one such civic duty that citizens agree to do when entering into a democracy.SOURCES1 - Source 3, R22 - Murthy, T. S. K., 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. 344Over to Con...