August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Alchemist for suggesting this very interesting resolution, and 1harderthanyouthink for organizing this tournament. Increases voter turnout I doubt that my opponent would challenge this argument. Compulsory Voting (CV) would lead to a significant increase in Voter Turnout. When Australia implemented CV, the voter turnout increased from 57.99% in 1922 to close to 95% in every election afterwards [1][2]. In Belgium, the voter turnout is around 90% [3]. On the other hand, the voter turnout is much lower in countries that don't have CV,. For example, UK's turnout was 66.12% in 2015 and only 35.4% for elections regarding who would represent them in the EU parliament [4]. The United States doesn't fair much better when only 36.4% voted in the elections in 2014 [5]. Low voter turnout leads to unequal participation Arend Lijphart writes that "Political equality and political participation are both basic democratic ideals. […] In practice, however, as political scientists have known for a long time, participation is highly unequal. And unequal participation spells unequal influence–a major dilemma for representative democracy […] in which the "democratic responsiveness [of elected officials] depends on citizen participation", and a serious problem even if participation is not regarded mainly as a representational instrument but an intrinsic democratic good. " [6] In a democracy, we ought to strive for equal participation. As Compulsory Voting clearly increases voter turnout, it can be seen that it easily solves the dilemma of unequal participation. Unequal participation has dire effects on the less fortunate and less represented Georg Lutz and Michael Marsh write: "The standard view is that low turnout produces a class bias in electoral outcomes. Most studies of participation have found that socio-economic status (SES) is strongly correlated to participation. Education, income, age and sometimes gender are highly significant predictors of whether somebody voted. " [7]. For example, in Switzerland, class bias between the least and most highly educated citizens was 37 percentage points [6]. It's inherently less democratic when a class of people has more influence than another. Key explains the impact: "The blunt truth is that politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote. " [8] Democracy is about the "will of the people" and Compulsory Voting better achieves that will than voluntary voting. Low voter turnout leads to polarization It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that "Research and case studies show that when turnout is low, more-ideological candidates are chosen because the restricted voter pool allots disproportionate influence to more-ideological voters" [9]. Morris Fiorina writes that "But with the prospect of low turnouts, it is the most motivated—and militant—elements at the edges of the ideological spectrum who will receive the most attention. " In a democracy where everyone is inherently equal, we should strive for a system that would call for equal representation and equal attention to everyone. Compulsory Voting better achieves that goal. Also, polarization leads to legislative gridlock. David Jones writes: "party polarization, in conjunction with varying partisan seat arrangements, affects the relative inability of government to enact significant proposals on the policy agenda" [10]. He concludes that "Divided government per se does not cause gridlock. Instead, the results show that higher party polarization increases gridlock. […] On the other hand, divided government is just as productive as unified government when party polarization is low. " Less focus on getting the votes, and more focus on policy This argument is also a clear and a simple one. Joe Garecht writes: "Get out the vote operations (GOTV) can mean the difference between success and defeat on Election Day, especially for the local campaign. GOTV means those operations that your campaign performs to ensure that voters who plan to vote for your candidate go to the polls on Election Day" [11]. For example, in a provincial election in Alberta, Canada, a political scientist says that "the key to victory for the party that wins Tuesday's Alberta election will be its ability to get out the vote" [12]. In other words, the political party or candidate that is more efficient, and more organized has a better chance of representing the people than the other party, even if the people may otherwise prefer the other party. I argue that this is undemocratic. People look for representatives based on their policies and promises, and not based on their organizing skills and ability to get out the vote on election date. The pressure on candidates to Get out the vote significantly puts less funded politicians at a disadvantage as they may not have the capacity to get the vote out compared to other well funded candidates. Compulsory Voting would solve this problem. Educates and engages the public about the political process "Political parties in compulsory voting environments may expend more effort educating voters or countries with compulsory voting may also possess or develop a political culture which encourages greater engagement in politics, or compulsory voting may compel the media to place a greater effort on educating voters. There are, in other words, many plausible mechanisms by which compulsory voting may be associated with increased political engagement" [13]. A study shows that "electoral policies that increase incentives for participation […] will not only increase voter turnout; they will also motivate an increase in the types of political information that are necessary for making a good vote choice" [14]. Having a better understand of the political process suggests that people will make better informed decision when it comes to selecting who should represent them in an election. Thank you. Sources [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.idea.int... [3] . http://www.idea.int... [4] . http://www.idea.int... [5] . http://time.com... [6] . http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu... [7] . http://www.andreasladner.ch... [8] Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press [9] . http://cacs.org... [10] . http://www.baruch.cuny.edu... [11] . http://www.localvictory.com... [12] . http://www.cbc.ca... [13] . http://individual.utoronto.ca... [14] . http://cess.nyu.edu...