voting should be compulsary

Thank you for your response. First, I'd like to clear up a very, very stupid mistake I made in my last round- namely that people have no choice in the right to be innocent until proven guilty. Obviously, they can plea guilty. Note, however, that my opponent did not point this out, and has dropped my other rebuttals - even if they were terrible, they still stand. Instead, I'd like to argue that voting is in fact a civil duty, not a civil right and as such should not be compulsory. -- Arguments -- 1. Countries that vote are, obviously, democracies. This means they are founded on the principle that they are run by the people, for the people. This entails certain responsibilities. It means that every citizen who can should take an active interest in the well being of the country and this entails, among other things, that they should vote. 2. By making everyone vote, we can select an individual (or individuals) who reflect the core values of the democracy in question. If only a proportion of the population does this, the country is less likely to get the candidate (Or candidates) that it actually wants. -- Rebuttals -- *Thank you for your response! Sorry about the confussion - i put it under politics but did not specify in the debate title! =/* Don't worry. My blatant misrepresentation of your argument has probably lost me the conduct point anyway. I didn't even know there were countries where voting is civil duty. Sorry for claiming you were putting me in an unreasonable position :/ *now the 'donkey vote' especially in Australia* A: This is problem, but could be solved. For instance, by putting a 'no suitable candidate' box at the top. This would mean truly uninterested voters, or people who feel there is no candidate that represents them would not poison the results by voting for the candidate at the top of the list. Note this is not the same as not voting-by selecting that box, you are still making a statement about the candidates. The next five arguments my opponent presents appear to have been copied piece meal, then altered subtly from the 'Arguments used against compulsory voting' article shown here- http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk... - just thought I should point that out. She should have at least referenced it. *It is a limit on freedom. The right to vote contains the right to not vote* However, I have already argued that it is a civil duty, not a right. *A higher voter turnout cannot be said to heighten the legitimacy of a government when the voters have been forced into giving their support* I'm not saying they should be forced into giving their support. As I said, there should be a 'no suitable candidate' box. Those who vote for the government will have done so legitimately. *Making voting compulsory hides the problem rather than solving it* Whatever measures the government takes, there will still be substantial portion of the population that does not vote. * People forced to vote will vote against the people making them vote* Even the site you got this from admits this isn't much of a problem- 'This isn't such a problem, however, as incumbency has enough advantages of its own' *It would be unfair for minor - new parties and independents* This is unfortunate. However, the fact remains that the end result would better reflect the thoughts of the country as a whole. I await my opponent's response.