In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

The order will be AC, NC. PRO/AC: I Value Democracy on strength of link. When referencing democracy, we must not only value those systems that make a nation democratic, but also the ability of those systems to provide for the general welfare, as that is the core goal of just government. I offer the Criterion of Reducing Polarization. Dr. Philip Keefer and Prof. Stephen Knack note, "Increasing polarization reduces the stability of government decisions, and in particular increases the possibility of future extreme deviations from current government policies." Contention One: Polarization is a threat to democracy. Sub-point A: Polarization hinders government"s ability to act. Keefer and Knack Two observes, "One problem identi@257;ed by researchers is the contribution of polarization to government delay in responding to crisis"two groups must agree to policy change; their preferences over the policy differ. Each group has imperfect knowledge about the cost that the other group bears in the event that a particular policy change is delayed, or about the likelihood that the other group will behave cooperatively. The greater the differences between the two groups"the larger are the gains to stubbornness"polarization impedes the formation of consensus to change policy." Sub-point B: Extreme Wings threaten the economy, jeopardizing democratic stability. Keefer and Knack Three states: "economic actors react to this uncertainty by reducing the scope of their activities, arranging their businesses so they are less exposed to risk...polarization slows growth because it makes the policy environment less secure. We test this claim by reexamining the impact of inequality--one type of polarization--on growth. Several recent cross-country empirical studies have found that inequality reduces economic growth"inequality reduces access to credit markets; reduces opportunities to achieve economics of scale; increases redistribution through government budgets; and increases political violence. Each of these reduces growth." Sub-point C: Factionalism leads to violence. Compulsory voting will fix this. Jason Marisam of Harvard asserts, "high turnout...helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression"[citizens] are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest." Prof. Sarah Birch, concludes, "our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives"as the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action".Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalized social groups is a key means of incentivizing political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilizing forms of social unrest." Contention Two: Compulsory voting will address the problems posed by polarization. Sub-point A: Compulsory voting will make the campaign process fairer and more inclusive. The Harvard Law Review writes, "In addition to the direct effect of compulsory voting on turnout, there are also several indirect benefits. First, compulsory voting would reduce the role of money in politics"get-out-the-vote money could be shifted to other forms of campaign spending"With this implicit limit on spending, politicians and parties might focus somewhat less on fundraising and be less beholden to donors"Compulsory voting would bring a new population into play, and would force political actors to make changes in their campaign methods in order to take these new voters into account." Sub-point B: Compulsory voting boosts turnout. MP Scott Bennett claims, "Compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used"Australia is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world"an average of 94.5 percent"" The Harvard Law Review asserts, "Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout." CON/NC: I agree with Con's definitions bar one. Ought connotes "desirability" (Encarta.) For example, if I say "you ought not be late," I am saying that it's desirable that you not be late, but that is not an obligation--it's a courtesy. V: The resolution is about democracy, but Con's value is only a small subset of this idea. The value of Democracy better balances the wide array of rights and concerns within a society. Also, if we pursued Con's value to its logical conclusion, there would be no restrictions on speech. I could shout "fire" in any theatre, crowded or not. C: Con's criterion has several problems. (1) It's circular logic. Con is protecting the right of freedom of speech by protecting rights. More simply, she's protecting rights by protecting rights. What Con's criterion should be doing is explaining HOW we should protect her value, not just that we SHOULD protect her value. (2) The right to free speech is not an absolute. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has said that there are valid restrictions on speech. Therefore, the debate should be less about "protecting rights," but more so about "determining legitimate restrictions." This requires a cost-benefit analysis. (3) Rights also entail responsibilities. If I vote, but you don't, and we both get the same rights, you are unfairly free riding on the democratic system. You have a "duty" to respect the system and me and vote. C1: There is no right not to vote. Prof. Sarah Birch claims, "Not all positive rights imply negative rights; we have a right to educate our children, but this does not mean that we have a right not to educate our children. We are required by the state to do many other things as well: to pay taxes, and to serve on juries, and to have our names included on the electoral roll." Additionally, your evidence is a U.S. court case, but this resolution pertains to "democracies" in general, and is not limited to the U.S. C2: CV is beneficial as my case shows. Her Aussie example fails too. Prof. Lisa Hill, "Australia, donkey votes account for only around 1 per cent of total votes cast. More importantly, this figure is actually lower than in many systems where voting is voluntary. It is also worth noting that"there tend to be about as many deliberately spoiled and blank ballots as there are donkey votes; therefore at least half of random votes are deliberately nullified by their authors. This renders them incapable of distorting outcomes"the vast majority cast"or sincerely attempt to cast"valid votes. Given that compulsory voting can increase turnout"one percentage point of intentionally invalid votes and no discernible increase in donkey votes seems to be a tolerable cost of enfranchising the disadvantaged." Finally, idiots can still vote in a voluntary system. SOURCES: 1. Bennett: http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au... 2. Birch: 2009, University of Essex, Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting, p. 42 3. Harvard: 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 592 4. Hill: 2001, University of Adelaide, "Increasing Turnout Using Compulsory Voting," Politics, Vol. 31(1), p. 31 5. Marisam: 2009, Research Fellow-Harvard Law, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 192-3 6. K&K: http://download.springer.com...