In the legal context, voting should be compulsory.

I appreciate Pro's well thought out reply, and I look forward to continuing this interesting discussion. As a reminder, my opponent's singular argument is that because all of society would (allegedly) be affected by one's choice not to vote, society should force voting obligations on the individual. My response 1. The desires of the majority of people do not necessarily dictate what is righteous 2. Compulsory voting ignores the values of liberty and freedom 3. Anti-electoralists are morally opposed to voting 4. We can influence politics in ways besides voting 5. Voting is problematic and therefore its benefits are exaggerated 6. Ignorant voters should not be trusted to make the best decisions that affect all And finally, I pointed out that Pro must prove voting impacts all of society in a meaningful way. Point 1 - My opponent claims that tyranny of the majority is a perfectly valid standard of morality. While s/he cites the definition of fallacious, the philosophical and legal application describes a breach in logic. A logical fallacy is a pattern of reasoning rendered invalid by a flaw in its logical structure that can neatly be expressed in a standard logic system, for example propositional logic. An argument that is formally fallacious is always considered wrong [1]. Tyranny of the majority is considered a logical fallacy. It involves a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression [2]. A few centuries ago, the majority of American citizens believed that slavery was moral. However just because the majority supported this oppression does not mean the oppression was just. Points 2 and 3 - In many cases a disliked ethnic, religious, political, or racial group is deliberately penalized by the majority element acting through the democratic process [3]. This means their individual liberties and freedoms are ignored, freedoms that this country is supposedly founded on and values. Pro claims that "This debate is not about what some sectors of society believe, but rather, what should be imposed by the law." But what people believe is absolutely important, because people should be able to express their beliefs (or express their beliefs through inaction, i.e. not voting). That is our fundamental human right. Meanwhile, compulsory voting mandates unpaid labor. It compels people to take time - which is a valuable resource - and transportation to vote against their will. People are not slaves; the government should not have the ability to impose on our personal freedoms. Pro claims that the law should be able to trump our individual liberty if it is in the best interest of society. Ignoring the fact that this perpetuates tyranny of the majority, the fact is Pro hasn't proven that the benefit to society is great enough to warrant the government's breach in personal freedoms. "Most economists agree that voting is one of the best methods for the general public to transmit information to political authorities on the value of government services. But there are costs and benefits associated with voting. Becoming politically informed is costly, as is taking the time to register and go to the polls to vote. These costs are not large, but they are much larger than any private benefits realized by shifting political decisions in the direction the voter prefers. A benefit of that sort is effectively zero given the miniscule probability that any one vote will decide the outcome of an election, particularly a state or national election" [4]. Point 4 - Pro claims, "It matters not what other variables influences one's lives, the question is whether this variable (not voting) influences society as a whole." I'll begin by clarifying that Pro does not win the debate if s/he proves that voting affects society. Instead Pro must prove that voting affects society so much to the point where the government should take legal action and compel people to act against their will by force. I've argued that people can influence their society directly whereas voting is indirect. I've also highlighted other problems with voting (more about that later). But the point here is that even if we accept that individuals have a moral obligation to benefit their society, I don't believe that voting once in awhile would be as effective as other forced contributions. For example forced volunteer work would be more useful if we truly did have an obligation to benefit other people's lives (which we don't, and Pro has not proven as much). Point 5 - In the last round, I highlighted Alex Guerrero's argument that in order for elections to be valid, they must be free, regular, competitive and fair. Without this perfect system, officials are likely to be able to avoid accountability mechanisms that should be built into the democratic system. Citizens' ability to monitor the behaviors of their representatives and therefore vote or protest in line with their own values is also diminished by conduct. Therefore, voting is problematic and the benefits of voting are exaggerated. I mentioned this because if Pro cannot prove that voting is really significant (and I don't believe s/he has) then we have no reason to accept that it should be compulsory. Indeed, many point out that our votes are statistically USELESS. Reasons your vote might not even count include lack of accuracy; the fact that where you live probably makes your vote useless (gerrymandering is another story); and most significantly the Electoral College, who might not even vote on your behalf or even care what your opinion is [5]. Point 6 - Pro claims that not forcing people to vote promotes voter ignorance. However Pro has not proven that compulsory voting will promote knowledge and information seeking. On the contrary, we can assume that if people don't care enough to vote, they won't care enough to research the votes that they don't care enough to cast in the first place. Compulsory voting therefore encourages more uninformed voting. Not only is voter ignorance already a problem -- and Pro hasn't argued the fact that the vast majority of the population is not knowledgeable enough to affect important policy -- but compulsory voting suggests that everyone, regardless of how little they know or don't know, should put their two-cents in. What about the mentally challenged? What about the illiterate, uneducated or those with learning/psychological disorders? We should not create more work and regulation than necessary. If people want to vote, okay, but if they don't (or do not think they should or are capable) then that should be their choice. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org... [3] https://publius2013.wordpress.com... [4] http://www.econedlink.org... [5] http://hubpages.com...