Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

I shall put forward arguments against compulsory, such as the principle itself and the potentially negative results; and also the necessity of a system and whether or not it is the right solution to the problem. Firstly, the principle is fundamentally flawed. Voluntary participation is the cornerstone of democracy; society is based on the decisions made by free human beings in the context of how they interact with other members of their community and society. Forcing people to take part in democracy is something of a contradiction as a result of this. Similarly, a democratic society cannot and should not force people into trade unions or community organisations, despite the benefits to wider society they bring. A democratic society is about allowing people to be the masters of their own futures, both individually and collectively, and forcing democracy on people is not a way to foster democracy. The system would most likely have negative results. Think about the people that don't vote. They are either people who are of low intelligence and information, feel that the system is flawed and does not serve them as a voter, or cannot find a candidate that caters to their ideology. Forcing low-information voters to vote would create a whole new market for populist figures to pander to. In the UK, we have Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage, who are both far-right demagogues who sell themselves to the stupid, apathetic or credulous for personal gain. We also have George Galloway on the left, who does a similar thing with the South Asian community in his constituency, a demograph with a notably low turnout. Populism is a completely destructive force in politics that invariably results in either the tyranny of the majority; the rise of careerism among politicians; and/or the oversimplification of matters political or economic for the sake of political capital and vested interests. I'm not sure who the US equivalents are to Farage, Johnson and Galloway, but I imagine they exist; probably in the form of Ron Paul and his clique. The people, myself included, that believe voting to be a somewhat futile exercise, would not help if forced to vote. Although I do vote, it is more out of vitriol for the Conservative Party than to gain an advantage for the Green Party. Voting is, in the grand scheme of things, a very diluted form of democratic representation. A union that goes on strike can make far more of a difference than if those members voted. Voting encourages top-down reforms, which are half-baked concessions such as Obamacare, which cost the government more than full socialised healthcare, therefore resulting in a damaged society. Bottom-up reforms are gained through popular struggle and protest, such as socialised healthcare in Europe, workers' rights and social security. These were not won through votes, but through union action, popular demonstrations and movements that forced the elites to grant the reforms. The reforms would never have been passed with votes alone, since pressure comes not from the ballot box, but from the street outside. I also fall under the final category. I support the Green Party, since they are the closest to my views; but my libertarian socialist/anarcho-communist views are not accommodated by any politician in the UK. Any voting that is done would be a compromise rather than an expression, and would not represent my true views. The three main parties in the UK, as well as the two in the US, are neoliberal right-wing parties that have a cartel-like alignment match with each other, which means that essentially, democracy is non-existent in the form of voting. A vote for New Labour is a vote for the Conservatives wearing different coloured ties, as is a vote for the Liberal Democrats, and the Democrats and Republicans. It was voting that caused this mess to happen, where pro-establishment views are peddled b the political class and the media into the minds of the population, whose interests are harmed by them. Secondly, the system is unnecessary. If a person does not want to vote, the person should not be made to, and making them vote accomplishes nothing. Yes, the turnout in Colombia, Switzerland and the USA is very low, but compulsory voting would only paper over the cracks in the electoral system. The real problem is a lack of interest and connectivity with politics. In France, there is a consistently high turnout because it is genuinely a battle between left-wing and right-wing idologies. The same applies to other European countries such as Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Italy, Ireland and Austria, which all have high turnouts and non-compulsory voting. Conversely, countries such as Greece, Ecuador and Paraguay have compulsory voting, yet still have relatively low turnouts. Making voting compulsory is not the best way to increase democratic and social welfare. The best way to do it would be to make the younger generation interested in politics and to get them to understand how it affects them. This would motivate them to become more politically active both in the voting cubicle and out of it in the wider world.