Question: Should election day be a national holiday?

The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Opponent>>> First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. >+>+> This is true. However, MOST JOBS DO NOT GET ELECTION DAY BREAKS. Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters. >+>+> Almost everybody has Saturday off. This will increase voter turn out, if it is more conveinent for voters to vote. Opponent>>> In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. >+>+> This is an untrue assumption. Many workers do not get this time off so will never expreience this guilt trip and just never vote. >+>+> Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else. >+>+> This extended break or entire day off severely reduces productivity. This lowers revenue for the company. In our failing economy, we cannot afford reduction in revenue. Congress just passed a stimulus plan that would try to increase revenue in the country to help the economy. If there is less revenue being generated in the economy, the economy suffers tremendously. And if this break happens as often as you say it does, this break or extra vacation day really takes a toll on our failing economy. >+>+> Also, guilt trips should not be looked up to as a good thing. Guilt trips are bad psychologically and could damage work productivity, therefore, danaging the economy. Also, it will reduce the happiness of Americans. It will also hurt the judgment of Americans when they are psychologically damaged in this way: temporarily or permanently. If Americans judgment is hurt, then they are more likely to drink and drive. Drinking and driving kills innocent civilians. One of these civilians could be a day away from revealing the cure for AIDS. If this potential person is killed, millions of unnecessary people will die. But it is not just this person, but rather any important person. The probability is great and so is the impact. Opponent>>> Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? >+>+> People do not just not feel like voting. There are reasons behind it like political ignorance or most commonly inconvenence. People will express the truth and even if you feel this legitimate source to be illegitimate, you will have to admit that increasing conveinence for voting will get more people to vote. It is common sense. Opponent>>> Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. >+>+> No matter why, these people claimed that work conflicted with their voting. If they did not have that conflict, the problem would be solved. It is inevitable logic. If you have a conflict of two things and remove one of those things, you no longer have a conflict. Opponent>>> This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. >+>+> Most people do not even receive this day off. >+>+> The greater good is for Election Day to be more conveinent. This will increase voter turnout, especially among working class voters. Increased voting turnout is good because it will be closer to the voice of the people, rather than the voices of a few. Election Day is inconveinent. This is evident in the fact that my opponent's main argument was that 'It is inconveinent, but the inconveinence is good, because it presents a guilt trip to vote and a day off. ' Everybody here agrees that Election Day is inconveinent, and the census data shows that the inconveinence is the main reason why people do not vote. If it were more conveinent to vote, common sense tells us, more people would vote.

The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. The original reasoning behind choosing Tuesday for election day no longer applies. That you have clearly demonstrated in your opening argument. However, this should not lead one to conclude changing election day to a Saturday. Although the original reasons for a Tuesday election are outdated, this does not mean that other reasons have not also come into play as times have changed. First off, many jobs give either an entire day off for election day, or extended lunch breaks on election day in order to allow employees to vote. Typically, civil service jobs and other jobs working for either the city, state, or federal government get the entire day off to vote. Corporations very rarely give workers an entire day off, but there are a great many that still give extended lunch hours to workers in order to vote. In both of these situations, the extra time that such people are given specifically to vote can definitely cause a guilt trip. I have heard plenty of people say in the past that they felt compelled to vote as a result of having the day off or having a much longer lunch break. This cannot happen if election day is a Saturday. Most people have Saturday as a regular day off anyway. This may seem like it would lead to more voting, but this is probably not true. Census data can only show what people claim are reasons for not voting. When a person doing a survey asks a non-voter why they did not go to the polls, how many of those people would be honest enough to answer that they just didn't feel like it? Those that claim that work conflicted with them being able to vote are probably looking for time from their jobs to vote. I don't think they are really trying to move election day to Saturday. That is always a problem with that type of poll. The honest answer is not given. In this census, what percentage said they simply didn't feel like voting? I'm sure the number is extremely small if that answer even appears in the data. Yet common sense and experience would tell us that the number of people that simply don't feel like voting is very high. This is something that has a lot more to do with personality than with the particular day of the week. I believe that most people that refrain from voting would do so regardless of the day of the week chosen. And as a civil servant, I'm glad to have an extra day off. I'm sure that many teachers and students also appreciate the day off when the school is used for voting. And as I mentioned earlier, when a person is given extra time to vote (and a Saturday would not fit this category since it is not extra), it can cause a guilt trip and make that person more likely to vote. But this reason is actually a minor one. There is a much bigger problem with your idea that I will present in the next round.

The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. History: In 1845, Congress had to decide when to let Americans vote. It took a very long time to travel. Farmers needed a day to get to the county seat, a day to vote, and a day to get back, without interfering with the time of worship. So they chose Tuesday. Because Wednesday was market day. In 1875 Congress extended the Tuesday date for national House elections and in 1914 for federal Senate elections. This no longer applies to American society because travel is a lot easier and nobody would travel three days to vote. Election day should be moved to the first Saturday in November. This keeps the date close to the other date and does not hurt schedules now too much. It is so inconvenient to leave work on Tuesdays or to generally get around. It would be a lot more convenient for Americans if Election Day was moved to a Saturday. Census data shows that many Americans do not vote due to the fact that it is so inconvenient or unlikely that they will be able to leave work.

All Citizens should be required to vote We live in a democracy, Our government has been chosen to present the viewpoints of the American people. But, The majority of Americans claim their views are not represented, This is a problem, Presidency-The voting day for the presidency should be a holiday, This is a huge day for many important reasons, The president holds power over which bill is passed, The president is the commander of the military. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected into the white house. Trump has an unfavorable rating of 55%. 55% of Americans dislike the president, A democracy would not theoretically function if 55% of the population disapproved of the president's job. Senate and House- The senate and house are the most democratic institutions in America. They are meant to represent the will of the American people. 75% of Americans disapprove of congress. The will of the American people should be at utmost priority. If Congress only represents the will of the people, Than this country would turn into an oligarchy.

The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. Opponent>>> Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Rebuttal>+>+> This seems like a nice point at a glance, but it is really turned in my favor. Your argument is destroyed. I do not think that Americans are sent into a guilt trip. I think Americans want to vote, but the reason they are not voting is because of the inconveinence as surveys and Census data suggests. If voting was more conveinent for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more conveinent time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests. Opponent>>> Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Rebuttal>+>+> When Americans work they are making money for their boss. The company is also more likely to do well if it is open more often, because it is more time the employees get practice, more money is being generated, and the company name is getting out. A day off hurts that company and if as many companies as you suggest get this day off, millions of company suffer each Election Day. Even if there is a very small probability as you suggest, which there is not, it's only common sense, there is no reason to put our economy at risk, even a small one, when it can all be avoided. You wouldn't take a nap in the middle of the road, because there is a small probabilty a car would come. There is no sense in taking unnecessary risks. Especially, not with our fragile, internationally influential economy. Opponent>>> Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. Rebuttal>+>+> A break may make them more productive, but a guilt trip will not. Guilt will make people sad or angry and cloud their judgment, which is bad for them and bad for society. Guilt makes people feel unhappy. Why would you send people through this guilt trip and make them sad or angry when it can be avoided by simply rescheduling Election Day. Opponent>>> The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Rebuttal>+>+> The probability is very high of this happening. Really think about it. Guilt trips will make people think of their guilt. It will make them sad or angry. This will cloud their judgment. (www. nlm. nih. gov/medlineplus/tutorials/depression/mh019101. pdf; www. signonsandiego. com/uniontrib/20080208/news_lz1n8read. html) If their judgment is harmed, they may do something stupid or ease the pain with drugs or alcohol. However, they still have to drive back to work later or sometimes they just drive anyway. This leads to drinking and driving, which kills people. No sensible person would risk lives when they could simply be saved. And if you don't think that they will ease the pain with drugs or alcohol, it is still true that they will have clouded judgment, because they have guilt. This clouded judgment can lead to very bad decisions and definitely bad work, reducing economic productivity. There is no reason to cloud people's judgment unnecessarily when it can simply be avoided. Opponent>>> The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U. S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. .. " If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? Seventh Day Adventists and some Jews worship on Saturday. Rebuttal>+>+> Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really reeaching. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws. Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day. Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote. The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work. If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting. These voters if they will stay at church all day after service is over for some reason, can use an absentee or mail-in ballot to vote. It does not stop them from voting, and is therefore not unconstitutional. Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional. Opponent>>> But the polls open up at 7:00 A. M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P. M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. Rebuttal>+>+> The point is convenience. And your statement is untrue. Many lower class voters work mulitple jobs. And ride public transportation, which in most places takes a very long time and will not allow them to get to a polling place and work in time. Why would you deny certain people with tight working schedules and/or less tranportation accessibilty the ability to vote when they could have a chance on a day when most Americans are not working? My case proves to be better. I proved advantages to my plan, which includes much higher voter turnout. I responded to all his arguments. He has no reason as to why Tuesday is a more advantageous day to have an Election Day. The Saturday Plan is much more beneficial than the Tuesday Plan. The Saturday Plan is also more fair to working voters. It gives everybody a chance to participate in the process. Thank you for reading.

The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. In the previous round I did mention that the jobs that get days off or extra time can cause a guilt trip, but I also stated that it was only a minor objection to your notion. In this round I will go over some of the arguments you mentioned in your rebuttal, but I will also get to the heart of the problem. In response to my mentioning of time off, you claim that most people will not give in to the guilt trip. You stated in the last round "Many workers who do get this break do not give into the guilt trip, but instead use the time for something else." Now I'm not sure if this is true or not. However, if we assume that it is true, then your argument suffers much more than mine. For if people that are given extra time choose to do something with that time other than voting, then Saturday elections would be meaningless. The people would use that extra time for something else. That statement has not been thought through to its proper conclusion. Your inferences on the economic disasters that occur due to some extra time off or one extra day a year are rather far fetched. First of all, the economy falling apart because of a single day off or a slightly longer lunch break is a ridiculous notion. Psychologically, breaks and days off can make a worker more productive. Never allowing such breaks decreases productivity much more and is far more devastating to the company. The direction that you have gone with as far as the guilt trip is highly creative and amusing. But realistically, it is also quite ridiculous. You go from a guilt trip causing psychological damage to a person drinking and driving. Then that person apparently kills someone who was one day away from curing AIDS. Was that serious? This is even more far fetched than your economic example. Nevertheless, the days off and the guilt trips were only a minor point to reveal in Round 1. Now I will get to the true problem with your idea. The United States is a country that was founded on the idea of freedom. The Bill of Rights is often used as an example of the rights and freedoms that U.S. citizens should have. The first amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." If there are to be no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then how can you justify making election day a Saturday? A denomination of Protestant Christians known as Seventh-day Adventists celebrate their Sabbath on Saturday. Changing the day of the election to a day that prevents followers of a religion from voting is clearly wrong. Furthermore, religious Jews also celebrate the Sabbath on Saturday. So now we have two separate religions that you wish to eliminate from the election process simply because it is more convenient for you! Well this is not how America works. You cannot place people with a decision between following their religion or voting. In the last round you stated "Lower class voters often do not get breaks for Election Day. This is unfair to lower class voters." But the polls open up at 7:00 A.M. and close at 8:00 or 9:00 P.M. The lower class will still have time to go to the polls either before or after work. This is not the case with the religious denominations mentioned. With them it is not a mere inconvenience to get up earlier, or to go vote after work before heading home. They cannot both practice their religion and vote if the elections were changed to a Saturday. I know of no religious denominations that celebrate their Sabbath on a Tuesday, and therefore it is culturally fair to leave election day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November. It is true that most people have work that day, but there is time for both voting and going to work. You ended your last round with the statement "Vote PRO for the better debater and better position!" But in light of the fact that a Saturday election is clearly biased, I don't believe you have the right to claim the better position.

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day 1. "I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor". Response: with all the avenues available on a single day vote (Internet at library, shelters, could provide other government locations) voting would not only be available to all Americans but it could be convenient. 2. "...Those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Response: currently all states have a form of absentee voting (vote via mail, early, etc...). Here is a link to every state"s absentee voting policy: http://www.ncsl.org.... Additionally, if the single day voting were a national holiday, that modification would eliminate work issues. Either way, every state in the country currently allows citizens to provide their work excuse and vote early. 3. "Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to." Response: with so much difficulty passing voter ID policies, logging fingerprints would prove implausible for two reasons. First, one argument against voter ID is that some have difficulty finding their birth certificate or other forms of ID. Second, many feel it is an invasion of their privacy and denies them their right to vote. Although I support voter ID laws, the fingerprint policy would be a step up in both categories. 4. "Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well." Response: if the vote were done over a period of weeks, the spectacle and drama would be dragged out and exacerbated even more than it is now. For example, television shows such as The Bachelorette rely on this type of drama to generate ratings. Presidential elections that only occur once every four years would play right into this type of sensationalism. Additionally, the voting could not occur during the transition period between November and January. During this time, the president-elect needs to conduct business related to a smooth transition between leaders. Therefore, the vote needs to be finalized by early November, it cannot drag on for months. Although the Electoral College process does not officially elect the president until much later, there has never been a President-elect who was not officially elected by the Electoral College. 5. "For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both." Response: displaying an ID in order to vote but maintaining total privacy on the actual person the voter selected is completely possible. The ID provides the voter the ballot, the voter then votes privately. 6. "Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen.(I agree both are duties, but like I argued in Round 1, apathy is the problem)" Response: The IRS is currently backlogged as it is (see link below), so involving them in the voting process would provide an even more significant delay. Additionally, the IRS experiences tax evasion fraud as well as their own surveillance scandals (see link below), so convincing Americans to provide fingerprints would be next to impossible. Lastly, you mentioned single day voting being a burden on the poor. Surely attaching a financial requirement to the vote (albeit a legally assessed tax) could provide a disincentive to conduct both actions (paying taxes and voting) and could also create discrimination similar to post-Civil War poll taxes used to deny African Americans their right to vote. It also could provide the undue burden on the poor that you refer to at the start of your argument. IRS backlog link: http://www.cchgroup.com... IRS scandal link: http://news.investors.com... 7. "EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for" Response: every state has a policy to allow citizens to vote on a day that is not the national voting day: http://www.ncsl.org.... I think our common ground is, however, to make voting day a national holiday. 8. "Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less" Response: As I stated in Round 1, the reasons people provide currently are many times just excuses since there are plenty of avenues for citizens to vote under our current system. It would also be easier for people to intimidate voters since the government would have a tough time manning polling locations for weeks or months instead of for just one day. I had fun with my first debate, thanks for posting, this is a great topic.

The USA Should Have A One Day Primary and Election Instead Of A Whole Campaign Round 1: Pro R2 : Cross Examination R3: Con R4: Cross Examination R5: Rebuttals/Summary/Final Focuses I am aware the rounds are a bit off from a real debate. That's because debate.org only allows so many rounds. I apologize for that. ---------------------------------------------- Be it resolved that, the United States should convert over to a one day primary campaign when it comes to electing a new president. I firmly stand in affirmation for this claim for the following contentions. *Contention 1* The idea of a one day Primary essentially means there would be one day for campaigning and the next day would be the actual election. There would most definitely be a better change in private policy. Even if the representations were to go up, that doesn't mean everyone will benefit. A one day Primary would easily boost political participation. In 2012's Primary, had a 17% turn out. Why? Well according to the University of Mexico, the voters in the outside states rarely vote because they feel their votes don't matter. This is because they are lead to believe the primary states have already decided the election, when in reality this isn't true. Every vote should count! There is a belief that the most votes from the more wealthy and educated citizens, causing the less wealthy and educated to feel below them. Even some Congressmen state, "A one day Primary could close the gap in voter turn out and prevent both political parties from becoming victims to polarization. *Contention 2* At the moment, our current state of election is full of media madness. This takes away from the real idea of voting; electing a new leader to guide the nation. We get so caught up in the, "he said she said" aspect of it that we seem to forget about how much really is at stake here. The media seems to focus on "Horse Race" journalism. This means they only cover, "Who's winning in the delegates?" or "Who's higher in the polls this week? Will it change next week?" You wouldn't see any of that in a one day Primary! Patrick Whithers explains in 2012, "Staggered elections reduce turn out by fatiguing the voters' pattern of the constant political he said, she said mess." The media crowds the main focus on policy and discussion. Out of 63% percent of journalists, only 16% focus on policy positions and records. *Contention 3* Many voters seem to give up their votes because their candidate drops out. The candidates the usually drop out are the less known and wealthy ones. Why? These candidates believe they don't have a chance half way through because the media makes it much harder for them to become recognized whereas Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were widely recognized because of their status in the media! A one day Primary would easily wipe this out, allowing more candidates to enter the race and more voters participating because they have the chance to vote for their candidate of choice. Statistics show that the earlier states were 5x more influential than the outside states causing them to be nearly unrepresentative. This past election, is was very hard to determine the voter turn out and neither state nor candidate could completely balance out their influence to give others a fighting chance. This creates an unbalance of power and harms democracy. This can lead to a division of the democratic ideal of "One person, one vote." Earlier states seem to earn more federal money after the election than outside states, leaving them in the dust. This is why I firmly stand in affirmation for the resolution.

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day This is my first debate, so forgive me if I"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don"t follow politics so they don"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?

Weekend voting would be a more sensible solution If the purpose is to increase turnout, weekend voting would be the more sensible option. It gives people more free time in which to vote, and doesn't have the problems that coercion brings with it. It doesn't address the wider problem of apathy, but treats the non-voting problem more acceptably than compulsory voting does. Better yet, introduce a public holiday on election days and provide free public transport to and from polling stations.

Being part of the process is a requirement in a democracy. Citizens identify themselves more closely with the government policies when they are allowed to cast votes. Only when they do so is the government a "government by the people, of the people and for the people." This is not a privilege for citizens. It is a responsibility.

Potato day should be a national holiday for all places I love potatoes so potatoe day should be a national holiday if anyone disagrees give valid information why it should't

U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. Unfortunately, my opponent never provided us with any original arguments, so I am without anything to refute. Having said that, I am still able to make my own argument: Argument: Having the primaries in every state is something we should employ. We should do this because it would increase voter turnout. As it stands now, as it becomes obvious as to whom is going to win each party's respective nomination, people in states that vote later will be less likely to vote because they see it as a waste of time. On the other hand, if each state were to vote on the same day, the future of the nomination would be more in doubt, making it more likely for turnout being higher. Higher turnout ensures that our system of government remains strong, keeping us out of chaos.

The American federal government should move its general election day to November's first Saturday. In previous rounds you stated that when given extra time to vote, most people use it for other purposes. I rightly pointed out that this hurts your argument, since Saturdays grant extra time and if people use extra time for something else, they would not vote. You say it is a nice point at a glance, but turned in your favor and my argument is destroyed. You did not show how that actually happens. You then state "If voting was more convenient for Americans, they would vote, because it makes people feel responsible and helps them express themselves. People like voting. They do not like going way out of their way to vote on a Tuesday. When Americans have a much more convenient time voting, they vote. This is what all relevant data suggests." What data could this possibly be? The Tuesday election days have been around for a long time. We cannot possibly have data that show people voting more on alternate days. As far as your economics point, we both disagree. You feel that one extra day off per year, or even a slightly longer lunch break during election day will severely damage the economy due to lack of productivity on that one day. Now I am well aware of the fact that our economy is not very good at the moment. But if it is so fragile that an extended hour on election day sends us into a downward spiral, then we are in much more trouble than even the economists claim. Furthermore, I would like to point out that the day off for teachers, civil servants, et cetera has been in effect for quite some time. If such things damaged the economy in the way you claim, then we would not have had such economically prosperous years in the past as these days off and extended lunch breaks were still around back then. Your other claim was that guilt trips can lead to psychological damage which in turn can lead to drinking and driving. The drinking and driving can in turn lead to someone getting behind the wheel and killing a person that is one day away from curing AIDS. Despite your attempts to show that guilt can cause psychological damage, I still stick to my claim that your scenario is far-fetched and a bit ridiculous. I suppose the voters will decide that. Then I point out the main flaw in your argument (i.e. that the Sabbath occurs on Saturday for some religions). To this you reply "Wow. This is pretty funny that you would actually post that. This is really [reaching]. It shows how desperate you are to find flaws." I'm sorry that you feel that excluding entire religious sects from voting is inconsequential. But I, for one, disagree. You also state "Well, the Eastern Orthodox Church celebrates Saint John the Baptist and has special services dedicated to him. So then it should be moved from Tuesday. The fact is that there is going to be a religious service each day, but Election Day has to be some day." You seem to have a huge misconception about Sabbath observers. The Sabbath is not a mere religious service. Followers are forbidden from taking part in any secular activity on that day. That includes voting! They are not merely skipping out on a religious service. You are downplaying the importance of the Sabbath to the followers of Judaism and the Seventh Day Adventists. You also state "Also, Seventh Day Adventists and Jews do not worship all day. They can find time to vote." You are clearly unfamiliar with the customs of such people. They happen to worship from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. This means that they may not be allowed to leave home until after the polls close. Maybe a few years ago you would've had a point that they can vote at night. But on August 8, 2005 as per the Energy Policy Act, Daylight Saving Time was extended into November. Since many polls close by 8:00 P.M. this means that it may still be light out. You cannot select a day for voting that discriminates against entire religious groups. You also state "The vast majority of the population are not Seventh Day Adventists or Jewish. My case outweighs your case. More voters are likely to vote, if the day is Saturday, because it will be more convenient and not conflict with work." This is a dangerous mindset. The fact that the majority of people do not follow these religions does not imply that it is acceptable to eliminate them from the voting process. This notion that you are implying falls in line with a concept known as Tyranny of the Majority. This concept was mentioned by John Stuart Mill in his work On Liberty. The philosophy regarding the rights of citizens took this concept into account and using things like a bill of rights, constitutional limits and electoral colleges has tried to prevent such a thing from occurring. Just because the majority of citizens do not practice those religions, that is not cause to say that we have a right to make election day fall on their Sabbath. You state "If a church service that lasts only a few hours hinders a person from voting, then work on a Tuesday must significantly hinder a person from voting." Once again you show your complete ignorance by this statement. It is not a few hours. It is from sundown on Friday until sundown on Saturday. The absentee ballots, as you claim, could be used for these people. But I still see a huge problem with having everyone of a certain faith apply for an absentee ballot while everyone else can simply vote in person. You also state "Also, the people have the right to exercise their religion still. It does not prohibit them and is obviously not unconstitutional." It doesn't prohibit them from following their religion, but it does prohibit them from both voting and following their religion. They should not be forced to choose. It seems to me that you view a mild inconvenience of the majority more severe than extreme bias and discrimination towards people of certain faiths. I highly disagree.

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less

Compulsory Voting Compulsory voting is a system in which voters are obligated to vote on election day. If the voter chooses not to vote they may be subject to small punitive measures, much like a speeding ticket. This system is used by 22 countries around the world and has various pros and cons. Voter turnout in the United States is currently at a alarming low rate. The last general election in 2014 has a turnout of 36.4% of eligible voters. In a time where technology is able to connect so many people, 64.6% of the US population wasn't represented in the 2014 general election. I argue that increasing voter turnout in the United States through compulsory voting would increase productivity of the government, and in term benefit many other areas of life.

Persuasion is more effective than coercion Forcing people into voting when they are disengaged from the politic process will exacerbate this problem; no one likes doing something simply because they have to. Election results may be skewed, particularly in marginal seats, by voters who vote at random because they still don't bother to find out about the candidates, parties and policies involved. Rather than forcing people to vote, more should be done to engage the public in political life. Westminster is a distant body, detached from real life, and should be made more relevant and more deserving of the public's trust, for example by releasing full details of MPs' expenses. Citizenship classes should teach the importance of the electoral process, and the history of the suffragette movement, the reform bills of the 19th century and the responsibilities of living in a democracy.

The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states The primaries are simply the device by which parties select their candidates. They are part of the internal affairs of America’s independent political organisations and do not require the legitimacy of the election itself. Moving everything to one day could end up exacerbating the problems of inclusiveness and democratic deficit identified by side proposition, as the campaigns and messages of smaller candidates would be drowned out by larger, wealthier rivals and those with pre-existing contacts in the news media.  Further, under the system that the resolution would bring about, donors are more likely to provide funding to ‘safe’ candidates. However, with a protracted campaign it is possible for a surprise result to emerge, as has happened on several occasions – for example when incumbents have failed to win key states. Relatively unknown candidates can take advantage of the extended duration of the current primary system to build a public profile and to court the attention of the media. This allows “outsiders” and individuals with a significant political reputation, but no public profile, to establish themselves within popular discourse and to begin building a relationship with swing voters. Staggered primaries also minimize the power of the central parties. A national primary would turn campaigns into entirely national events, run by the national party conventions, marginalising the role of the states and focussing on the large cities, rather than the diffuse populations of rural states.

People forced to vote are unlikely to vote intelligently. Knowing that turnout would be substantially increased would lead to far more active campaigning by all political parties. This in general would raise political awareness and negate the problem proposed. Furthermore, an option to 'abstain' on the ballot paper would accommodate anyone who truly does not wish to have a say in the running of their country.

Voting is not only a right, but a responsibility. The whole point of freedom is that everyone has a say and has a responsibility to voice their opinion, otherwise the system doesn't work. non-compulsory voting encourages entire classes of people to not bother with voting, since it is demanding, having to stand in long queues all day. People should exercise their right and responsibility to vote.

August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Rebuttal R1: Right to Abstain Con argues that "compulsory voting is inherently anti-democratic" because it denies people the right to abstain from voting. First of all, my opponent is simply wrong. CV doesn't deny people the right to abstain from voting. A voter has the right to spoil a ballot and in effect abstain from voting. This is called informal voting [1]. So Con's claim is simply untrue. Under CV, the people's only "duty is to show up at the polling station, receive a ballot and deposit it, marked or not, into the ballot box" [4]. To justify this, I remind my opponent that citizens have rights and duties, such as jury duty or duty to show in court as a witness if one was served a subpoena. I also remind my opponent that rights are not absolute and can be limited if "only if it can show that the limit is set out in a law; pursues an important goal which can be justified in a free and democratic society; and pursues that goal in a reasonable and proportionate manner. [5]" The simple duty of Compulsory Voting meets all these criteria which makes it justifiable and reasonable. What's the fine if someone doesn't vote in Australia? It's simply 20 Australian dollars [4]. That's it. And you'd be penalized only if you cannot provide a good reason for not voting. So it's a very lenient penalty and it's mainly meant as a wakeup call. I don't support heavier fines. Second, Con may be assuming that a large number of those who don't vote actually wanted to intentionally abstain from voting. But this is also untrue. CV has led to a significant increase in voter turnout (By more than 30 percentage points in Australia [2]), while the highest informal vote percentages in Australia were 6.34% in 1984 and 5.92% in 2013 [3]. What's important to note that CV led to an increase of at least 25% in turnout who wouldn't have voted otherwise in a voluntary system. That's about one quarter of eligible voters. Therefore CV is clearly a better system than voluntary voting. Finally, I argue that the protest vote for those who want to abstain from voting under CV is more superior that under a voluntary voting system. When people don't vote in a voluntary system, it's unclear how much was the protest vote. Are people not voting because they are protesting, or because they are lazy? It doesn't send the message to the politicians that protesters want to send. In Australia, you can easily see that roughly around 5.92% chose to abstain. But in the US, it's unsure how many of the 63.6% who didn't vote in 2014 elections actually chose to abstain. In summary, I showed that: 1. CV doesn't infringe on the right of citizens to abstain 2. CV is legally and constitutionally justified 3. CV better demonstrates the protest vote R2: The Apathetic Vote This contention is hardly any different than the previous one. Before I rebut this argument, I just wanted to remind my opponent that this debate doesn't only concern the US. Also, just because someone doesn't associate with the Democratic or Republican party, doesn't mean that they wouldn't want to vote in an election. In any case, I agree with Con that some people are not interested in the political process. Con then argues that "In order for a democracy to truly be democratic, it should be able to account for these people and allow them to express their voices by not voting for anyone." What Con is actually arguing for is the right for apathetic people to abstain from voting. Essentially, this is the same argument as the first contention. As I've explained earlier, apathetic voters can still maintain their rights not to vote under a Compulsory Voting system. So CV still allows them to express their voice by not voting for anyone. There is no unique benefit to voluntary voting, except to reward procrastination. Also, I've shown in my opening case that voting helps educate people and engages them in the political process. While I agree that some will remain apathetic, others may become more interested which makes CV more beneficial. R3: Rational Voters Con argues that "Successful theoretical models of democracy utilize the concept of the "rational voter", assuming that the voting population is made of well-informed & educated people who are committed to choosing the leader they believe will best govern the country". This is a bare assertion. Con didn't provide any sources to suggest that this is the case. Am I supposed to simply agree? In fact, Con is wrong. Democracy is about representing all the people [6]. It doesn't matter if the voters are more smart or not, educated or not, well-informed or not, literate or not. In India where about a quarter are illiterate, people were asked to "identify their choices by party symbols such as a hand, lotus, or elephant" [7]. Almost in every democratic country, there is support for assisted voting [8]. Ace Project writes that "access to opportunities to vote is a guiding principle for voting operations, and a cornerstone of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)." It also cites "the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 25, which mentions the steps that electoral administrators should take to allow everyone to exercise their right to vote" [8]. In summary, education or rationality is not a requirement for eligibility to vote. Also, Con assumes that those who vote are rational. This is not necessarily the case. A poll showed that many people are misinformed about the issues. James Agresti writes "poll provides evidence that voters are often ill-informed and may be casting their ballots based upon misconceptions" [9]. And finally, if democracy is best achieved by an increase of "rational voters", then there might be a case to allow only those with relatively good IQ's, educated and literate citizens to vote. But this is not an argument against a CV system. So in summary, I've demonstrated that: 1. Rationality is not a requirement for voting 2. Democracy is about representing all the people including the uneducated and the illiterate 3. If rationality is a requirement for voting, then maybe there's a case to only allow those who are intelligent and educated. But it's not an argument against CV. Counter Plan I thank my opponent for the Counter Plan. I think that election day should be a national holiday too or on a weekend. What Con essentially proved that Voter Turnout is very important for a democracy, and that's why he recommends reducing obstacles to help increase voter turnout. But what Con failed to show is how much of an increase in voter turnout will this yield. Will it increase the voter turnout to numbers close to those that a CV system yields? He doesn't provide any evidence. In fact Japan and France which hold holidays on Sundays [10], had voter turnouts of just 52.66% [11] and 55.4% [12] respectively. These are terrible numbers! Therefore, while I appreciate the proposal, there is no evidence that the proposal would yield the returns that my opponent is hoping for. The benefits from implementing CV are much greater and more evident. Thank you. Sources [1] http://www.aec.gov.au... [2] Round 2 – Pro's case [3] http://electionwatch.edu.au... [4] http://reviewcanada.ca... [5] http://www.justice.gc.ca... [6] http://www.lawanddemocracy.org... [7] http://www.economist.com... [8] http://aceproject.org... [9] http://www.theblaze.com... [10] https://en.wikipedia.org... [11] http://www.idea.int... [12] http://www.idea.int...

The current system is undemocratic as it gives undue influence to the early states As most primaries only serve to decide the number of delegates who will be bound to vote for a particular candidate at a party’s national convention, a presidential hopeful will be able to ignore contests later in the election cycle if he has already secured a majority of delegates. The staggered nature of primaries under the status quo allows candidates to determine when their lead has become unassailable. As a consequence, candidates will refrain from mounting campaigns in states that poll later in the election cycle. The later a state votes, the less chance it has of influencing the size of a candidate’s majority. In 2000 and 2004, by the time New York – the third most populous state in the union – voted, both main parties had, in effect, selected their candidate. If that isn’t the perfect example of an undemocratic system, then it would be difficult to think of what might be. The current system discriminates against lesser known candidates who are already at a disadvantage. The advantage of running all primaries during a single day in February is that it would allow lesser known candidates the time to introduce themselves to the nation. A promising but little known candidate can easily be taken out of contention during the Iowa, New Hampshire or South Carolina primaries. Running a single primary in February or March would give unknown candidates a full three months to mount their own media campaigns and to build up the press contacts and public profile that established candidates already enjoy. A single primary election would also do a great deal to help with a more even distribution of donations between the candidates. The primaries effectively function as part of the general election campaign; they are certainly central to selecting the two people from whom the eventual winner will emerge. It is therefore damaging and deceptive to continue to treat them as a purely party-political issue that has no relevance for voters who are not closely involved with the republican and democrat campaign machines. A final argument concerns the role of political capital and states’ influence over candidates’ activities. Campaigning compels candidates to offer party members and voters in states incentives in return for their endorsement. These may take the form of pledges to address local issues, to provide funding to public projects or to pursue policies at a national level that are beneficial to certain states. However, states that are excluded from the primary process when a candidate secures a majority of delegates will be unable to win promises or concessions from a presidential hopeful. This creates inequalities in the ability of individual states to influence federal policy and governance, reducing the cohesiveness of the union as a whole.

Civic duty Voting is a civic duty, just as paying taxes and jury service. As a citizen of your nation it is your duty to take thirty minutes out of your day every few years to go and vote in an election. This duty is not a very onerous one but it is an important one because the foundation of our government is that it is democratic, and how can it be democratic if the people won’t vote? If the government is to represent the people the people must vote for it. Some civic duties such as taxes are compulsory and while it is not the case that voting is compulsory in the UK and USA it is elsewhere for example Australia and Belgium.[1] That it is not compulsory is consistent with our freedoms so there is the possibility of making the active choice not to vote. With the right to vote comes the responsibility to use it. [1] ‘Compulsory Voting’, Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, updated 21 March 2012 also see our debate on compulsory voting

In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory I hereby state that the opinions stated below and the arguments presented do not necessarily dictate my personal opinions.As commonly proposed, democracy is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The basis of democracy depends on the effectiveness of the state to grant its citizens with the right to vote and the citizens to respect that right. Democracy exists on the notion that all the eligible citizens vote for a future that they would like to see. However, in many democracies, today, a decrease in this number of eligible citizens at the voting booths has been witnessed. This is why I call for voting to be compulsory in all effective democracies. I will first present a mechanism that will address the issues at hand. Then, I will refute the arguments presented by Con as I go through my first two arguments and get to any points of rebuttal left at the end. Mechanism: All registered voters will be asked to compulsorily cast a vote during the elections. However, for those who do not have a chosen candidate or do not wish to vote on the particular election, there will be an option to not vote which would say something on the lines of “I wish to abstain from voting”. Those citizens who are registered, but do not place a vote, will be withdrawn from the list of registered voters, until they register again. On the second time of registration, they will be fined a decently hefty amount. So, we are looking into a system where a onetime registered person will be expected to vote each election year. There will be an additional law added which will ask all employers to give a day off for each one of their employees such that workload does not become an issue of low turnout.Argument 1: A better distinction between the citizens. People who are registered voters have an interest in voting for the country. By mandating them to vote each year, we are keeping our responsible eligible voters active. The turnout rate has gone very low with unequal turnout also a big issue. However, what the status quo does not tell us is the real reason behind this low turnout. Once this distinction is made, the state will be more aware of their political institutions. This will then help them see if attention should be paid to improve the campaigning systems and the procedure of political election. If many people vote to abstain, then the state will have to make sure that the political leaders express themselves better and also will have to see that a diversity of principles are presented by the leading parties. Con argued that the registered voters not voting is mainly due to reason that they are “not particularly excited by any candidates, or because they are disenchanted by their favored political Party”. The best way to confirm this will be by asking these voters to show up at the polling stations and pick the option that says they would like to abstain. This practice will help us distinguish between the people who see the political parties of the particular year to be not legit from those who just do not want to make the effort to vote. There are many other reasons for which one may not like to vote. One, being diversion from the workload and other being laziness. To make sure that these reasons do not rule the low turnout, the proposed mechanism should be adopted. The lazy people will be ousted from the registered voters list and would have to pay a penalty if they want to vote the next time. However, some of these smart lazy people will be able to see that they could save a fine and the time spent on the process of registering by going to the polling station. And if they are just going there, why not have at least some information about the parties. This will increase the effectiveness of a democracy, which will be addressed in Argument 3. Argument 2: Unfairness abolished It is important to notice that politicians place a lot of focus on making sure that their supporters go to the polling stations and place their votes, without regards to those who would probably not vote. However, if the proposed mechanism is adopted and voting is made compulsory for all registered voters, politicians will now have to make sure that most of the registered voters vote for them. They will also have to focus on the hard labor workers who could sometimes not make it to the polling stations and those people who did believe that the parties were not any good this election period. Con argued that “the duties and rights of citizens are importantly different from those of their representatives, because the latter have powers and responsibilities that the former do not...Citizens do not owe their government electoral support or legitimacy.” This claim supports a system where democracy can never work effectively. Not only democracy, any institution cannot work without a mutual share of duties of the powerful and the ruled. The citizens do have a responsibility to vote, which in our system, could also be a vote of abstention. How can citizens expect to take advantage of a democratic institution without fulfilling their own job of placing a vote? Except those who have researched and did not get fascinated by a candidate, all the other citizens have a duty to keep tuned with the political parties and then make a decision. Secondly, Con emphasized that compulsory voting takes away the right of people to have a choice, which Con suggested was “the point of democracy”. I would like to also emphasize that in the proposed mechanism this choice of the people will be respected. They will be given a choice to vote or not and for whom to vote. The proposed mechanism will both support the rights of the people and ask them to perform their duties.Argument 3: Democratic Ideals promotedThis argument will be presented in the next round.Remaining rebuttals to Con’s case:Con was worried about the fines that will follow after people will not vote. Con was right to say that this would negatively affect the poor and may increase the number of criminals who owe fine debt. However, the mechanism clearly states that a fine will only have to be paid if one wishes to register again. This will work as an incentive for registered voters to not skip a voting period. And if for some reason they do, they will not have to worry about a fine until the next elections and will only have to worry if they wish to vote next time.None of the Con’s arguments so far have shown a downfall to the proposed mechanism for the motion at hand. The mechanism works really well to make a distinction between the citizens and find out the weaknesses of the political institutions of a state and also abolishes unfairness on many grounds. This is why I urge a strong Proposition vote.

Compulsory Voting With voter turnout at all-time lows, I believe that the government should enact what several other countries around the world have already done, Compulsory Voting. I think voting should be mandatory, or you face a fine. This system was implemented in Australia fairly recently and voter turnout doubled. In order for our government to be truly representative, we should have heard the opinion of more than 30% of the population. I don't think we can call ourselves a democracy when a candidate wins by a million votes, but 100 million people didn't cast theirs. As for complications, we can make exceptions so that no one is fined unjustly. Polls are open for twelve hours on most occassions and early, satellite, and absentee voting are easier than ever. Some would argue that it is just as much a right to not vote as it is to vote. This is true. However, there is an abstain box (where there isn't we would make one), which would allow those who do not want to cast either way to avoid the fine. Compulsory voting would ensure that the democratic spirit is invigorated. Something America in particular deperately needs.

Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday We have holiday 4 teachers. but what about the students? Without us they wouldn't have jobs.

The United States should establish a national primary. I am going to first establish the criterion and then bring up my own points. The criterion for this debate is democracy. Democracy is the best criterion for this debate because of topic relevancy, meaning that since this debate is about a presidential election system, and America's presidential system was built on democracy, democracy is the best criterion available. My first point is that implementing a national primary would make every voter count. We are a vast nation, and every voter deserves a chance to express his or her opinion on as many potential presidential candidates as possible, without an agenda being frozen in place by major, early victories in states that are only vaguely representative of the broad mass of the American people. Even the Washington Post has an article named "13 states that matter". If we implement national primary, we can fix this unfair voting system and make everyone's voice have an impact, not just a certain few. The New York Times states a problem with our current system, saying that the schedule has worked very nicely for early-voting states, which have had a steady stream of would-be presidents knocking on their doors, making commitments on issues like the Iowa full-employment program, also known as the ethanol subsidy. The losers have been states like New York and California, which have often gotten to vote only when the contests were all but decided. Issues that matter to them, like mass transportation, have suffered. This means that huge cities are getting tossed to the side because of our current system. Judge, we need everyone to have a chance at getting their problems fixed, instead of just a couple. With a new campaign season upon us, our presidential primaries don"t seem to meet anyone"s standards for popular rule. Tiny, unrepresentative states have outsized power. Billionaires and their money are often the most important factors in the contests. Media coverage rewards extremist rhetoric and partisanship, and only a tiny fraction of American voters end up having a say in the presidential nomination process. (Zocalo Public Square, an affiliate of the Arizona State University) My second point is that implementing a national primary would help the candidates as well. The way things are structured today, many candidates are forced out after losses in the small, earlier primaries, as their war chests dry up before they can ever reach the larger states on Super Tuesday (for those that don"t know, Super Tuesday is the day of February and March where many states are allowed to vote). This means candidates can already be put out of the game, just because the states that are first allowed to vote don"t vote for them (forbes). This can lead to candidates that could have been amazing losing the chance to get support from all people instead of just a few states at first -- a chance they need and deserve.

May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory I thank Deonatus for an understandable lengthy rebuttal, but let us not be fooled with quantity. In this last round, I shall refute his assertions, expose his fallacious logic, and display what true quality is. I.The General Will This metaphysical argument stems from the ideology of Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the general will. My point remains unscathed as Con did not counter this philosophy with another, and by doing so the next violates the rules as I didn't stipulate new arguments in R4, but was available in R3. The contention still holds its might for flagging what the collective will is. Even with a mass of polarized ideas, the result will always be the general desire of the people. The philosophy states that the more diversed, the more genuine the general will is. With less people, more of special groups, and a voluntary voting system, the general will is not at its finest. Also, the sources here were bent images, inflated.Con did this many times and I shall expose this unacceptable behavior as we go on.Con said almost 1 in 5 people who did not vote said they're busy. The right figure was 18.9%, far from 20%, far from almost. There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing the exact but it was surely done for appeal. Moreover, the chance to vote shouldn't be dismissed with just an 18.9 or 3.9 figure. There are millions of us that could change the Congress and the future policies of our nation. The people's power to improve the government should be taken seriously. This strengthens our democracy and political will for change. Also, let me put an end to political pandering that had been such a problem. Pandering basically means to do what one demands even though it's not proper, good, or reasonable. When this occurs, people are sure who deserves the vote more since pandering sheds light upon the misdeeds of coercion and dishonesty. I shall refute more of their assertions herein as we go through where they are most suited. II.MV dismantles bad tactics Con asserts that my argument defeats itself because Jewish lobby groups are minorities themselves. However, Con attacks the objective and omits the subjective value, the real focal point that intrinsically links to whether they are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. Therefore, the minority status is conditioned by questions of political power, not only in cold numerical. Ostensibly, in the context of my arguments, the minorities are the people who are politically weak, oppressed, unheard, and abused. The Jewish lobby groups are strong communities that have power to control running officials and influence votes. With MV, we undeniably level the playing field that constitutes equal opportunities for problematic communities. III.Voting is a civic duty Again, voting is a civic right. There are government tasks that infringe the right to freedom of speech, but is needed to support our democracy's health. One is jury duty, we are forced to do this even though it clearly violates the 5th amendment. We harm the potential condition of our nation when we leave it to the higher classes and ruling elites, Con says we don't, but we actually harm the rights of our brethren when sly tactics become available and oppressed minorities are unheard. Even one of Con's sources, the Brennan Center of Justice, states that the right to vote is the most fundamental right in an electoral democracy, which people are sometimes deprived of.[1] When we vote, we not only exercise our civic rights, but also fortify our democratic stability. IV.MV increases voters political knowledge Con attacks the CSES data because it helps political knowledge with just an "ever so slight" increase. This is false. The study concludes that political knowledge does accrue with age, and to deny this would deny simple, natural logic and reason. Also, the study showed that men tend to be more knowledgeable about women, but with MV enforced, the gap was fixed with the result of evenly distributed knowledge. This strongly supports the notion of General Will, women representation and equal opportunity. Moreover, Con has used my data wrongly and again proves to my favor since the study proved that strongly enforced and voluntary systems show the same correct answers, but weakly enforced systems show the leading points.[2] Still,enforcement is better than no enforcement. Moreover, MV highlights a progressive growth through time, it may be effective now, but it will be more effective then. Con failed to refute how habit grows out of tradition, which helps accrue knowledge, and is prospective in the long-run. When there's a presidential election, we are apt to get involved in social media and pour out our thoughts while acquiring some in the process. This is a natural societal stimuli during elections and is arguably hard to perturb and erase. Black propaganda will be there, but in today's time the media can easily provide what's true or not, especially when interviews are made and politicians can explain what is false or not. After the elections, things will go back to normal and the people have 6 years to know what was outrageous and remained precise; the next time there are elections, the people would know. Humans are rational beings.Once we vote, we do things rationally. Again, we may be less rational in voting now, but we will improve as we go on. ---- I.MV doesn't undermine liberty and democracy It strengthens the integrity of our government and its valued democracy. I have already explained why by not voting, we harm the future state of our nation, undermine integrity, and prolong the problems of our abused brothers and sisters. II.MV does incentivize political learning I have strongly refuted this. Accrual of knowledge will prospectively help higher voter turnout, enthusiasm, and representation. III.MV leads to better representation for the most affected MV levels the playing field no matter what happens, it eradicates targeting strategies, and pays equal opportunity for the unheard to rise up and represent themselves. This is the most heroic value of MV, its salvation. Other than that, activistic movements can be deployed with leaving the ballots blank and spoiling votes. This can be essential data for further research and study, which in turn would help better social programs and policies. Especially when it is the presidential elections, there are millions of us who can finally change the congress, the policies, and the nation's future. MV is a transformative tool, that when utilized again and again, becomes the best arsenal for political change and betterment. IV.MV doesn't punish the poor and disabled Previously in this section Con said of voters who failed to vote, about 1 in 3 said they couldn't afford to or couldn't get the day off work. The right figure was 31%, not 33.33%. Con failed to be exact and truthful, for '3 in 10' is a whole lot less from '1 in 3'. Con asserts I attack my own argument, however, it is their own argument that self-refutes.Con provides data from BPC's Democratic Project, which helps election administrators ensure that all voters who are eligible to vote can successfully participate in the democratic process.[3] Con's 14% data remains true, but it turns counter-intuitive for the source supports my argument by giving ways to assist voters with disabilities, from accessible voting machines, polling places, curbside voting options, web-interfaces for completing absentee ballots..they must incorporate available, workable solutions into the process to reduce the number of Americans who report that disability and illness keeps them away from the polls.[3] With the aforementioned, voting holidays, scheduled voting periods for the busiest businesses, and express agreements, voter turnout will increase. It is greatly essential that our people's voice is represented to ensure the uttermost integrity and honor. In conclusion, I have strongly refuted Con's fallacious and inconsiderate assertions, they remained negative and oblivious to the fact that MV helps in the most profound and sympathetic way. The metaphysics of the General Will remains powerful and unscathed, and is an infallible philosophy. We level the playing field for every eligible voter and dismantle bad tactics, uphold our civic duty, safeguard the future of nation, political knowledge and voter enthusiasm accrues with age, strengthen our integrity and democracy, represent marginalized minorities, and helps the lower class. I have successfully laid out information the most accurate way possible, while my opponent resorts to giving bent images of their statistics, and used sources that were absolutely counter-intuitive and counter-productive in their part. Thank you for a wonderful match, I hereby affirm the resolution. And may everyone cast their votes and voice in the future. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]http://blogs.lse.ac.uk... [3]https://bipartisanpolicy.org...

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments

The right not to vote Voting holds a special place in a democracy; it is the very foundation of the mandate our elected representatives hold. To turn it into something everyone over the age of 18 must do would take away something from that. A non-vote (i.e. staying at home) sends a more powerful signal of apathy than does a spoilt ballot or abstention vote; a non-vote says that the citizen is dissatisfied with the entire process, that politics do not address any concern she has. A spoilt ballot or abstention vote in a compulsory election, however, merely expresses dissatisfaction with the particular candidates in the constituency, and hides the deeper malaise that may be there. Compulsory voting merely sweeps under the carpet the legitimate dissatisfaction many people feel with politics, and will not lead to the regeneration of politics that its proponents suggest. Many people will merely vote at random, because 'they have to', rather than expressing their apathy. A person who conciously elects, in their own mind, that they do not wish to participate in an election process, for whatever reason(s) they may have, should not be legally obliged to vote or in any way participate if they choose not to do so.

May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory I thank Deonatus for a comprehensive and well-written introduction. I hope we can both maintain this level of intelligent exchange throughout the match. Without further ado, I shall advance my rebuttals. I. MV doesn't undermine liberty and democracy The liberty and well-being of the members of the state remains intact under the implementation of MV. There is absolutely no reason to think otherwise. We must understand that when we vote, we choose not just an ordinary individual, but the future leader of the nation, the grandest of all positions. Once we support our government and vote accordingly, we strengthen our democracy, for there exists a reciprocal manifestation of trust, pride, and benefits. The results of the elections are materializations of our civic service that soon evolves into a democratic cycle of voting the servants of state and serving the state's voters. Con, in their attempt to use the first amendment to support their position, had unequivocally failed. Under their logic, MV abridges the freedom of speech. But, would jury duty be abridging the freedom of speech as well, given that flawed ratiocination? Governments force people numerous tasks such as jury duty, paying taxes, etc. But, that is because civic duties strengthen the democratic mutuality. And, voting is a civic duty. II. MV does incentivize political learning MV does motivate people to pursue needed knowledge about the upcoming election period. Let me reassert what I have said the last round; MV's implementation displays a prospective growth as the years go by. Since it is imposed that citizens are to duly report to precincts and cast a ballot, the natural reaction will be reading and talking about candidates and exercising it traditionally, making it a force of habit. Again, according to the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) project, in which data came from 133 election studies, held in 47 countries between 1996 and 2013 states, it is strongly proven that political knowledge accrues with age.[1] Con stated that it is better to teach people about the effects of specific laws and everything that comes along with it. This may be a fair start on educating people, but it is not apropos to the political context of elections. Also, the issue of misinformation will also cease once the people are accustomed to fake news and black propaganda brought by MV. The surest way to educate a massive population about politics is to lead them to it, hands-on, and the effect will be nearly as big as the numbers. For an ounce of practice is worth a pound of theory. III. MV does lead to better representation for those most affected In this section, Con had remarked the perceived frivolity of voting to the apathetic, such as himself in the context of the example. However, his transient character is not the right analogue for the permanent figures of the state. These cases are special. But, nine times out of ten, people are permanently staying in a town, also adding the fact that it may be a poor and oppressed community. In that case, the people should vote. And, MV's a divine blessing for their curse since it strengthens representation and broadens the chances of a better life. Spoiled votes, with undertones of pandering and dishonesty, which Con truly despises, are strong political messages that the ruling government should take note. These actually imply an activistic movement against the incumbent and can be taken as essential data for further study and research. Also, pandering is not that big an issue since the right not to vote still remains intact. Ballots can be left blank. This would also banner a significant message of change and people power. IV. MV helps the lower class Even without MV, higher social classes tend to vote more than the lower classes. However, this is a meager problem. Longer periods for voting can be imposed along with MV, thus making it more convenient to people who have a hard time traversing from provinces or wherever they are settled. Also, express agreements made between subordinates and bosses are effective measures in dealing natural voting delays. The government can also schedule a later voting session for the busiest businesses or even declare a holiday. Time management can be dealt with, but managing the woes of the people is a different height. Again, MV broadens representation, especially for the poor, abused, unheard, forgotten, and oppressed. MV increases the chances of their burdens finally or insidiously resolved. With that being all said, I shall wait for the rebuttal. [1]blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/compulsory-voting-results-in-more-evenly-distributed-political-knowledge/

Compelling employers to close for a day is the only way to ensure that marginalised groups are not forced to work a seven day week Unions consistently argue that vulnerable workers – migrants, part-time workers, the young and other groups – are simply unable to choose their leisure time at their own preference. It is unlikely that all members of a family all of whom are in such employment would be likely to have leisure time to share. It is simply a democratic principle that the right to an active family life and access to shared leisure should not be the preserve of the wealthy. This divide can only be met by enforcing a day shared by all members of society.

A high turnout is important for a proper democratic mandate and the functioning of democracy. In th... A high turnout is important for a proper democratic mandate and the functioning of democracy. In this sense voting is a civic duty like Jury service. Jury service is compulsory in order that the courts can function properly and is a strong precedent for making voting compulsory.

Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday Teachers have holidays for us students to show our appreciation towards them being hard-working and patient in teaching us. Students Appreciation Day shouldn't be a National Holiday because of the following reasons. 1. Students still hadn't prove much of themselves yet. They are still in the process of learning. 2. Students go to school to study and some are even forced to go to school because they do not want to or too lazy to attend. They do not work hard that much unlike teachers. According to Deno Machino "Every day you go to school, you have the chance to learn something that will change your life forever.You are rewarded with knowledge. " Are you so self centered that you need acknowledgement for making a better life for your self? Most of your teachers had the chance to be anything in this world, but they chose to pursue a career that helps you. While most professions help society, none are quite like a teacher. While a doctor may save your life once you become ill, a teacher saves your life by giving you the knowledge to be able to live. Without teachers, you could not afford a house, car, or the doctor. Without a teacher, this doctor would not have the knowledge to save your life. (Source: http://www.smallworlds.com...) And besides, without teachers, we wouldn't even learn a lot of things.

Should Student Appreciation Day Be A National Holiday You got solid facts, but logically there are alternatives. One, if students were that lazy they wouldn't getup period. Even, if mom and dad threaten them they wouldn't get up. REBELLION! Two, all students can skip school and hang-out somewhere random. TBH I actually thought about because I getup very early in the mourning, but because I really care don't do that. Technically, you're right students hadn't proved themselves yet, but the point is that they are going through the process of proving themselves. Plus, we work-hard and we have put-up with a couple of those teachers who hit our last nerve. I'm a straight A student, but at some point in my life a had teacher who sat at her desk all-day, literally. According to a couple teacher confessions they don't care, they only want the decent money. True story.

I need voting privilege please don"t forfeit rounds it messes up the website Get me voting privledge and I guess prove why I shouldn"t Why I should: The freedom to vote is America"s most important political right outside of the original Bill of Rights, and it is also the most hard-won right. In the early years of our republic, only white landowners could vote. Slowly, the franchise was expanded in the states to incorporate white male laborers, and women gained full or partial suffrage in most states before winning the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution in 1920, which federalized full and equal voting rights for women. In the hardest voting rights struggle, Black Americans, whose right to vote was recognized in the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution, continued to face official and unofficial restrictions and suppression in Southern states and cities until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 established strong federal protections for the freedom to vote by banning or limiting many of the discriminatory election policies and practices of the Jim Crow South. The Voting Rights Act"combined with subsequent legislation such as the National Voter Registration Act, which requires state agencies to provide opportunities for voter registration"has helped us make significant progress in boosting voting by Black Americans and other historically marginalized groups. At the same time, the overall voting rate fell to historic lows in this period, and, today, some American citizens are still without voting rights while many more face new restrictions or unnecessary challenges in exercising their right to vote. Millions of incarcerated persons, who are disproportionately people of color, cannot vote while serving their time, and millions more face limits on voting even when they are released.1 So too, enfranchised Americans" freedom to vote continues to be restricted by policies and practices that circumvent or violate the spirit of the Voting Rights Act, which was itself severely curtailed in the Supreme Court"s alarming Shelby decision in 2013. In Southern states and elsewhere, eligible voters often face restrictive policies such as strict registration deadlines, photo identification requirements, and racially-motivated redistricting. Many of these same states are also antagonistic toward making it easier to vote, by limiting early voting and other easier-access alternatives to the traditional voting booth. Reflecting an ongoing legacy of institutional racism in our election systems, this new generation of election policies and rules are targeted at certain groups and disproportionately affect people of color, people who are poor, and young people.2 One important consequence of this legacy and continuing evolution of voting restrictions is unequal voter turnout in elections, with white Americans, and particularly affluent white Americans, out-participating people of color, low-income people, and young people by significant-to-wide margins. As a result, large numbers of lesser-advantaged Americans are left out of the democratic process: in 2012, 26 million eligible voters of color did not vote, and, among eligible voters earning less than $50,000, 47 million did not vote. In 2014, 44 million eligible voters of color did not vote, and 66 million eligible voters earning less than $50,000 did not vote. These voter "turnout gaps" or voting inequalities are well-known among experts who study American democracy, but, in the following explainer, we argue that such voting inequality is underestimated in its social impact and in the larger policy debates about the direction of our country. More specifically, while it is obvious to many why the turnout gaps matter for democracy, it is less obvious why closing the turnout gaps and creating a more fully inclusive democracy matters for the policy decisions and social outcomes that should be the fruit of our democracy. We aim to help clarify one important reason why this is so by examining how the turnout gaps reflect not only differences in power and privilege but also striking differences in policy views and ideology. At the core of this problem, we see that people in the under-voting groups tend to be more or substantially more in favor of progressive economic policies and government intervention in the economy compared to more affluent voters and particularly more affluent white voters. While money in politics is increasingly a focal point for explaining why the US policy landscape leans so heavily to the right compared to those of other wealthy democracies, the data we look at here suggest that our country"s cumulative voter turnout gaps"historic and contemporary"are also an important factor in the growing misalignment of public policy with the concerns and needs of working-class and low-income people, particularly in communities of color.

in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory Hello, I am here to state that compulsory voting SHOULD be compulsory. Please debate and give advise. Here is by affirmative constructive: " One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by you inferiors." This is a famous quote from the philosopher, Plato. Because I agree with Plato, I support the resolution. Please note that my value premise, democracy, is the most important value because democracy, in this case, is a duty of citizenship. According to the Harvard Law Review in 2007 called, " The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," in volume 121 page 591, " Individuals who live in a democracy benefit from the fact that the country they live in is democratic. Given the benefits, citizens have a duty to vote, which is an essential part of that democracy." My value criterion is civic duty. Christine Pelosi, who is an American Democratic Party Political strategist, states that " voting is a civic sacrament-the highest responsibility we have as Americans." Contention 1- Self- Responsibility. A- Compulsory voting improves life and political decisions. Citizens will most likely pay attention to candidates and their speeches and make a more informed choice; according to Stephan Bauschard, who is from Harvard University. B- Accurate vote results for polls. Since more people would vote based on watching the candidates speeches, there would be more accurate votes. If there wasn't compulsory voting, citizens would just guess which one is better and there would be inaccurate results. Contention 2- Reduces the burden on citizens A- Compulsory voting reduces access barriers to citizens. Voting is difficult because of work and long distances from a voting booth, and lack of transportation. The society will work to reduce barriers. The government knows that there are houses and families that are miles away from a barrier, but having barriers closer to most citizens is better than having the barriers far away from all of the citizens. For example, voting usually happens on weekends where countries have mandatory voting. Those who do not turn out due to access barriers are often minorities and poor individuals, Failure to account for these perspectives in politics undermines the legitimacy of democracy itself. B- With mandatory voting, more opportunities will have to exist for citizens. Compulsory voting would create more opportunities for citizens to show responsibility, to truly express your opinion, and to have a more friendly environment of politics. Also, the voter isn't that pressured because voting is still by a secret ballot. Conclusion- Without compulsory voting, we wouldn't be as civilized to participate in America It is our duty to vote; the government has done so much for Americans that it would be disgraceful if we didn't pay them back by voting. Also, gas would be spared because of the closer access barriers and we all know how much of a pain gas can be. Compulsory voting makes us whole.

A high turnout is important for a proper democratic mandate and the functioning of democracy. In th... Just as fundamental as the right to vote in a democracy is the right not to vote. Every individual should be able to choose whether or not they want to vote. Some people are just not interested in politics and they should have the right to abstain from the political process. It can also be argued that it is right that voices of those who care enough about key issues to go and vote deserve to be heard above those who do not care so strongly. Any given election will function without an 100% turnout; a much smaller turnout will suffice. The same is not true of juries which do require an 100% turnout all of the time! However, we can take a more general view by noting that even in a healthy democracy it is not surprising people should not want to do jury service because of time it takes, therefore it is made compulsory. However, in a healthy democracy people should want to vote. If they are not voting it indicates there is a fundamental problem with that democracy; forcing people to vote cannot solve such a problem. It merely causes resentment.

Being a part of the process is an important requirement in any democracy. The citizens identify themselves more closely with the EU when they are allowed to cast votes. Only when they do so is the government a government by the people, of the people and for the people.

Compulsory voting helps protect voter access. In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. Compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Similarly, mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens, and postal voting may be provided for people who are away from their electorate on election day.

In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Contention 1: compulsory voting implys that all forms of low and unequal turnout are ethically troubling, though this is not obviously so. There is no reason to suppose that people should be equally interested in politics at all times, or that all people should find voting equally satisfactory.(stoker,2006) Above all, it is morally and politically important to distinguish amongst different types of non-voters. There may be reasons to be troubled by those who do not vote because they are not particularly excited by any candidates, or because they are disenchanted by their favored political Party " as the failure to vote may point to deep-seated weaknesses in the competitive party system, and in the organization and ideology of the main political parties. But these problems, real as they are, seem far less urgent than those of the people who do not vote because voting and political participation of any form seem as alien and remote as university education, stable, well-paid work, decent housing, safe streets, and respect from other members of society. The difficulty in such cases is to see how compulsory voting will address, rather than exacerbate, the alienation of these non-voters, who are typically the objects, not the subjects, of political debate and policy, and who typically constitute the "problems" that politicians are competing to solve. (Irwin and holsteyn, 2005). In this situation compulsory voting would impact the results negatively. Contention 2: compulsory voting takes away rights . 30 The right to abstain, or to refrain from political selfidentification and participation is an important one, symbolically and practically. It captures two ideas that are central to democracy. The first is that government is there for the benefit of the governed, not the other way round. The second is that the duties and rights of citizens are importantly different from those of their representatives, because the latter have powers and responsibilities that the former do not. Citizens do not owe their government electoral support or legitimacy. This is one reason to doubt that citizens have a duty to vote even though, as Rawls claims, people have a natural duty to support just, or nearly just, institutions.(Rawls, 1971) 31 In some circumstances this natural duty might place citizens under a moral obligation to vote and, even, to vote one way rather than another. The point of democracy is to give people choice and compulsory voting takes that right away. Contention 3:penalties for not voting and enforcement. Proponents of compulsory voting tend to say that the penalties for non-voting are, typically, no higher than a relatively low fine. According to Ballinger, "High penalties are often thought not to be appropriate: such penalties disproportionately affect the poor, and can lead to heavy costs on an electoral commission". (11) But even where that is true, it is important to realise that people can, and do, go to prison for failing to pay fines, and that this is the case, as well, for those who fail to pay fines for nonvoting. For example, in 1999 Melissa Manson was sentenced to one day in prison for failing to pay the fines incurred by her failure to vote in the 1993 and 1996 Federal elections. Manson, apparently, believed that there were no candidates worth voting for, and therefore objected both to voting, and to paying the resulting fine, on principle.(Hill, 6 " 7 and 17) Before holding that compulsory voting is justified, therefore, we need to be prepared to make criminals of people who do not pay their fines for not voting " and need to be confident that doing so is consistent with the democratic values and objectives that animate this case for compulsion. If compulsory voting is instituted the aff agrees to inforce laws that infringe on peoples rights. It is for all these reasons that I must negate todays resolution.

Civic duty to vote We already hold various functions important to the running of the country as duties in this country, such as the payment of various taxes. Voting is arguably the most important civic function because it ensures our democracy continues; there would be enormous outcry if a government were elected by a small turn-out, which is the way the trend is heading. We also cannot be seen to be exporting democratic values around the world (e.g. the Middle East) when not enforcing those values at home. It would be hypocritical to say that voting in your leaders is important abroad, while not caring domestically.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate! FDR once declared: "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves and the only way they could do this is by not voting." Because I agree, I affirm the resolution. Definitions: " Democracy - democratic nation: a country with a government that has been elected freely and equally by all its citizens (Encarta) " Vote " an opinion cast in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office (American Heritage) " Ought " expresses desirability (Encarta) " Compulsory " mandatory; obligatory (Merriam Webster) I Value Societal Welfare, defined as the functionality and health of a society and the wellbeing of its inhabitants. When discussing a democracy and its decision-making process, we are discussing things that will affect the entire nation, requiring an analysis of the impacts on society. I offer the Criterion of Evaluative Consequentialism, defined as "that which maximizes the desired value to be best." In this case, the desired value is democracy, as implied by the resolution. The resolution revolves squarely around the notion of compulsory voting and its impact on and legitimacy with democratic governance. Thus, what is most likely to maximize democracy is best. Democracy also has a direct link with my value, as explained by Prof. Michael McFaul: "'democracy provides the best institutional arrangement for holding rulers accountable to the people. If leaders must compete for popular support to stay in power, they will respond to their citizens" preferences. Rulers who do not need popular support to gain or maintain power will likely be more responsive to whatever group " the family, the military, the mullahs, or the communist party " controls their fate. The larger the number of people needed to elect a leader, the more inclined that leader will be to pursue public policies that benefit the majority. Not surprisingly, therefore, democracies "have consistently generated superior levels of social welfare" compared to autocracies at similar income levels. Second, the institutions of democracy prevent abusive rule, constrain bad government, and provide a mechanism for getting rid of corrupt or ineffective leaders. Truly oppressive leaders cannot remain in power for long if they must seek the electoral mandate of those being oppressed. Autocrats face no such constraints. Mass terror and genocide occur in autocracies, not democracies. Democracies do not prevent all abusive behavior, but over the centuries, democratic leaders have unquestionably inflicted less pain and suffering on their people than have autocratic leaders." It is my sole contention that compulsory voting is beneficial for the democratic process. Sub-point A: Compulsory voting will boost turnout. "Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world -- an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since." [1] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law. Approximately twenty-four nations have some kind of compulsory voting law, representing 17% of the world's democratic nations. The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. 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 than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [2] Sub-point B: Compulsory voting reduces polarization. "It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized - some might say hyper-polarized - by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [3] Sub-point C: Compulsory voting reduces violence. "State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting 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. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society "in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives"." [4] "The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes "the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change ..."An apathetic electorate"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely." [5] "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, 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"the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent"Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [6] Sub-point D: A fairer campaign process would arise. "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, but not all of it. A significant amount of spending on getting out the vote comes from groups known as 527s"nonpartisan groups that are not subject to campaign finance laws. These groups are limited in their abilities to campaign expressly in favor of candidates"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." [2] Sub-point E: Special interests will be reduced. "The existence of compulsory voting reduces the potential for fiscal spillovers between voters and non-voters and consequently reduces pressure groups" incentives to expend resources on lobbying"interest groups have more incentive to organize and spend lobbying resources advocating policies than taxpayers have to organize against these policies. Unorganized individual voters have little incentive to become informed or participate in the political process given the costs of voting relative to the small expected benefit. As more voters are coerced into the process, voting by the cost-bearing group will rise more than proportionately, simply because it is larger in size than the benefit-receiving group." [7] Thus, I affirm. [1] Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 [2] Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 [3] Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 [4] Jason Marisam, Post-Graduate Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 195 [5] Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 [6] Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 [7] Alberto Chong & Mauricio Olivera, Inter-American Development Bank & George Mason University, 2006, "On Compulsory Voting and Income Inequality in a Cross-Section of Countries," Inter-American Development Bank Working Paper #533, May, [http://www.iadb.org...], p.9

Voting should be compulsory. Voting in local, state and national elections should be compulsory for all who are eligible to vote because it is the best way to judge the will of the people and achieve the fairest or most democratic outcome. Leaving voting up to the most motivated or the most able will only skew the results and give a false perspective on the wishes of the electorate. Voluntary voting also leads to dirty tactics for candidates and campaigners including, for example, legislating rules that would unfairly affect poorer people as suggested in certain states of the USA in their last federal election. The second best method would be to randomly select voters, however this can still lead to skewed results especially in smaller electorates.

all d people should vote its not so fare for those who dont feel that no one should win the ballot has option. to choose nun but if u think there is no transportation nd sick .etc den u forget that people get their name in the near voting place nd it even doent take much time nd old citizens , disabled people have different line so it becomes easy for them to go and vote and they dont need to wait for a long time. even transportation has become available even in rural places , nd if not able to pay for it dey can go walking , if we wont give them proper idea about it . we need to make our country more prosperous nd free from all misconceptions and old belief for that a good government is essential . only if we vote than only we will get a proper government .We need to take part in voting and choose a reliable , loyal nd honest candidate bcz it will help us in future . Our future depends upon them .its our reponsibilty to find a proper candidate nd this will happen if we all vote ..

May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory I. Mandatory voting (MV) surfaces the general will through wider representation. Democracy's core value is upholding the right of every member of a sovereign state to voice out their individual will. Once individual wills are concatenated, the general will of the collective, even amidst an intermixture of conflicting ideas, emerges beyond the friction. This philosophy aims to not only allow people to banner their individual interests but also to seek out what the collective thought truly is. Instituting mandatory voting induces a broader voter representation that boldly strengthens this democratic philosophy. It allows every qualifying citizens to cast a ballot, making the results deserving of stature. Outside metaphysics, a larger turnout would find the legitimacy of the elected politicians far from being underminable because of stronger political participation. II. MV dismantles bad tactics. Possessing the broadest range of voter representation cancels political strategies to target special interests groups. When politicians see that they could rake votes in this particular group more than the other, fiercer campaign efforts are showered towards that particular group. This, in turn, would make minority groups hopeless to have their needs finally catered, their woes symphatetically resolved. A strong example of this is how Israel pulls liberals and democrats to its favor. "One person who has spoken candidly about this is Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, who was awarded the 1984 Nobel Peace Prize. Addressing an audience in Boston, he said: "But you know as well as I do that, somehow, the Israeli government is placed on a pedestal [in the US], and to criticize it is to be immediately dubbed anti-Semitic ... People are scared in this country, to say wrong is wrong because the Jewish lobby is powerful -- very powerful."[1] "Two well-known Jewish writers, Seymour Lipset and Earl Raab, point"ed out in their book, Jews and the New American Scene: "During the last three decades Jews [in the United States] have made up 50 percent of the top two hundred intellectu"als... 20 percent of professors at the leading universities ... 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington ... 59 percent of the directors, writ"ers, and producers of the 50 top-grossing motion pictures from 1965 to 1982, and 58 percent of directors, writers, and producers in two or more primetime television series."[1] This article tells how compelling Jewish lobby groups and political elites are in getting their concerns catered and desires favored due to their numerical superiority, in which are sourced from being the most influential and powerful people collectively. This is why mandatory voting's impact is needed. The impact of this policy is to seismically level the playing field when it comes to magnetizing votes. Since, the policy renders any sly and unfair tactics undeployable, saving the marginalized groups of political inequalities. III. Voting is a civic duty. Voting is more than just a right. It is a civic duty that should be exercised every election. It is a duty for the people to erect a new government with which a reciprocated benefit takes place, citizens vote, elected officials serve. This beneficial mutuality is analogous to taxes. We pay taxes to experience the privileges the government provides. Once we fail to, are we still deserving of its services? I think not. And, that would certainly speak the same for voting the future ruling government. Moreover, MV as a duty is also a tool that when utilized, strengthens yet again, the democracy of the nation. Abiding a civic responsibility constitutes firm discipline, undebased reverence, and trust, that our government will reciprocate what we put forth for its legitimacy and power. IV. MV increases voter's political knowledge. Political engagement encourages political knowledge. The curiosity and call to rationalization moves the voter to explore the depths of political knowledge. There may be less knowledgeable and savvy voters, but people will be forced to think rationally the minute they fill up the ballot. And, most of the time, adults get to hear anecodotes and personal experiences regarding the candidate's attitude and track history. So, to deny the onset of disseminating news, and divulged political views, is to deny the intrinsic societal stimuli during a period of election. In the majority of cases, political knowledge doesn't pose a grave threat to the end results. But, implementing MV would pose a threat to social biases ever-present in countries that follow a voluntary voting system. According to the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) project, in which data came from 133 election studies, held in 47 countries between 1996 and 2013 states: "Finally, previous research shows political knowledge, like other forms of knowledge, accrues with age. Here, the interaction of compulsory voting and age has no discernable effect, even with the large number of respondents. If anything, it has an almost invisibly small positive effect on political knowledge. This may reflect the accrual of knowledge over the lifecycle, as citizens in compulsory systems will have voted on average more times than those in voluntary systems and we expect participation in elections has some informative effects. "In conclusion, compulsory voting " particularly where it is enforced with sanctions or fines " does appear to result in more evenly distributed political knowledge than voluntary systems."[2] The key findings here was that voters' political knowledge increases gradually over the course of time. So, it may be true that when it is implemented now, the voters will be forced to know facts, but it will be truer then, when the people would finally learn to look at the political spectrum with enthusiasm and maybe out of practice, and have accrued knowledge of what political context genuinely entails. In conclusion, let me summarize my points. First, the democratic philosophy of the general will as an essential value that perpetually strengthens the newly elected government's legitimacy is unassailable through mandatory voting. Second, through this policy, social bias and marginalization will be dismantled while cultivating political equality. Third, a civic duty such as voting is imperative to abide and helps strengthen our democracy. Lastly, political engagement through voting increases political knowledge ceaselessly and is proven prospective in the long run. With that, I temporarily end my speech. [1]www.ihr.org/leaflets/jewishlobby.shtml [2]blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/compulsory-voting-results-in-more-evenly-distributed-political-knowledge/

Voting should be compulsory. The goal of an election is to choose the democratically most preferred candidate. Different election types measure preference differently and with varying accuracy but having only a smaller sample of the population vote, and especially by having the sample selected with many biases, leads to unnecessary inaccuracies. This is a fundamental of statistics. If donkey voting can throw off 6% of the result, how much of an effect can having a voter turnout of less than 60% cause? Compulsory voting has other democratic benefits, too, including motivating public interest in political and societal affairs, requiring the government to make sure every person has a chance to vote and motivating politicians to be concerned for every demographic equally.

It is simply unfair to force low-paid workers to lose a day’s work if they do not choose to do so Many people work long hours not out of greed or obsession but out of simple necessity. To deny people the right to work when they need to is unfair and, potentially, financially crippling. In an ideal world everybody would have a good work-life balance but that is not the reality faced by millions of workers, even in developed economies. Obliging workers to lose a day’s pay when that may impoverish then and their families is unlikely to enhance their family life, their level of relaxation, their spiritual experience or their access to leisure services.

NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY I agree that the electoral process needs reforms so that people get a chance to vote without bother we need participative democracies so that better governance emerges and the system truly reflects 'by the people, for the people and of the people' I am worried about the citizens lack of interest in the voting and remaining in the sidelines and fume over the leaders who govern us. What I want to emphasize is that many voters are not doing their sacred once in 4/5 years duty of voting and electing leaders. In democracy we should realize the value of vote is the essence of my argument. Penal provisions for Not Voting in my view are to remind the voters that they have a duty too to fulfill so that their democracy flourishes . Countries are dragged into warlike situations by the leaders many a time and the worst sufferers are the citizens. If the elected candidate gets less than the majority of the eligible votes, it is difficult to justify that he represents the will of the people.

Voting is more of a duty than a right. William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "Mandatory voting would loosen partisan gridlock." US News and World Report. July 8th, 2010: "There probably are a lot of people who believe that not serving on juries is a right. But that's not how we see it in this country—it's a duty. So, the issue that my proposal puts on the table is: What are the responsibilities of American citizenship? That's a matter that we can decide collectively." Just like paying taxes, voting is essential and can be seen as a duty of each and every individual because of its great importance for the harmonious functioning of a society.

An informed electorate is the key to a strong democracy. A democracy allows for all people to have one equal vote in who should lead, or who should represent a constituency. One's vote must be based on an understanding or perceived knowledge of policies across candidates. In a country such as Australia with compulsory voting, one must invent reasons for voting for a certain candidate. This simply isn't a democracy. If we allow deception or media representation to sway our voting habits, then our votes do not truly belong to us, for we have not considered our own, independent opinions in voting. Any survey of registered voters, young or old, shows a large sense of apathy and political misinformation. This is dangerous in a democracy where while these people are kept uninformed and are often lied to, the media is free to be adulterated by whatever biases their CEOs choose, and more often than not, as is the case in Australia, those media companies own a huge share of the national media. Including a strong understanding of politics into school curricula would ensure that all graduates have some understanding of the political, social and economic world, which can only mean a stronger democracy.

Students should have school off for Veterans day. People should have work/school off because it is a day where we can celebrate, by doing parades, having cookouts, and many other things. Your argument is that we should celebrate them every day, although I agree, I do not believe that we should have parades, cookouts, and other celebratory activities. My father is 5th group 1st battalion in the united stated special forces, so I know about respect.

There are many reasons for not participating in elections. Balaji Chithra Ganesan. "The Case against Compulsory Voting." Musings. January 16th, 2010: "People have genuine reasons not to vote. They could be working away from home and cannot afford to go home for voting. Daily labourers cannot miss a day's work. People might be sick, old and dying. People might be travelling for causes that are much more important like ... family. In the ridiculously staggered elections we have, people can have a holiday when their place of work goes to polls and not when their hometown goes to polls. Now how incredibly arrogant and perverted should someone be, to ask the above people to come, stand before a babu and explain their conduct? Or else face punishment! Really? How arrogant? How can citizens be treated with such disdain?"

Voting is a civic duty Other civic duties also exist “which are recognised as necessary in order to live in a better, more cohesive, stable society” 1 like paying taxes, attending school, obeying road rules and, in some countries, military conscription and jury duty. All of these obligatory activities require far more time and effort than voting does, thus compulsory voting can be seen as constituting a much smaller intrusion of freedom than any of these other activities. The right to vote in a democracy has been fought for throughout modern history . In the last century alone the soldiers of numerous wars and the suffragettes of many countries fought and died for enfranchisement. It is our duty to respect their sacrifice by voting. 1.Liberal Democrat Voice, 2006 improve this

hold all U.S. presidential primaries on the same day. The current system is hugely expensive; a national primary would control the scale of spending in campaigns

Presidential elections should be decided by a popularvote instead of the electoral college. Regarding United States presidential elections, the electoral college should be replaced by a country-wide popular vote because the electoral college is both unfair and un-American. The United States is a country grounded on equal rights, as shown by the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence. The electoral college gives US citizens of heavily populated states more voting power than US citizens of lightly populated states, and therefore Americans are not equal in this manner. It is also an unfair way of determining US presidency because there have been elections that have gone out of favor of the popular vote, and therefore goes against the interests of most American citizens. With a simple country-wide popular vote, all citizens of the United States would bear equal voting rights as well as a fair election.

All Pastafarians should be allowed to take a day off on International Talk like a Pirate Day Since no evidence or reason was given as to why "talk like a pirate day" should a national holiday. I have nothing to refute.

Persuasion is more effective than coercion As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of people spoiling the ballot. Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust". Citizenship classes don't negate the need for compulsory voting but should be used in conjunction to compulsory voting. If people are genuinely not interested in voting or politics, educating them in school would not change that fact. The education is likely to vary from school to school and is only likely to have an impact if the student likes the subject. Compulsory voting would force those parts of the population who are usually disinterested to voice some form of opinion- created a more balanced democracy.  Besides, who pays for the education? Taxpayers. Who often don't want to vote.     improve this

Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday Re-doing this debate because the last one got accepted by an idiot who doesnt know what a f*ckin troll debate is THIS IS INDEED A TROLL DEBATE. That means if you take it seriously then youre a dumba**. The point of troll debates is to use semantical and humorous arguments to make a case just for sh*ts and giggles. I am arguing that 'Vagina Day' (A day that would celebrate women, honor all the accomplishments of famous women, and honor all women in society today of hanging in there despite all the crap they take from both men and nature) should become a national holiday where businesses and schools take the day off and everything Con is against this resolution - First round is acceptance only. - 4000 characters - No pictures of Vaginas are to be posted. Feel free to make as many Vagina jokes as you want though If you want the debate leave a comment and ill decide who will get it.

August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory My thanks as well to 1harderthankyouthink for organizing this tournament, and to salam.morcos for taking me up on this debate.As stated, this round will be to write opening arguments.A1: Right to AbstainIn a democracy, the supreme power is vested in 'the people' through the right to vote, and one of the defining characteristics of a 'right' is that we are free to *not* exercise it. The right to bear arms cannot require us to buy a gun, just as the right to free speech cannot obligate us to speak our minds. All rights, by definition, come with a right to abstain from exercising them, so the fact that voting is a right makes the idea of a compulsory voting policy paradoxical. The key phrase in the definition of democracy is "free electoral system", which further supports that 'the people' should have the freedom to choose whether or not they want to exercise the power granted to them. In other words, compulsory voting is inherently anti-democratic, making the resolution impossible to affirm.A2: The Apathetic VoteAccording to Gallup Polling, 81% of Americans are dissatisfied with the way the federal government is run in general, and only 39% of them align themselves with either the Democrat or Republican political parties [1][2]. Pew Research Center agreed with these results, placing the number of Americans who generally trust the government at just 24% [3]. The point is that even in stable and relatively prosperous democracies like the United States, political apathy and antiestablishmentarianism are rampant, and it can be assumed that a significant portion of people who abstain from voting do so because they actively desire not to participate in politics [4]. In order for a democracy to truly be democratic, it should be able to account for these people and allow them to express their voices by not voting for anyone. Compulsory voting denies them this, which, again, renders it to be an anti-democratic policy.A3: Rational VotersSuccessful theoretical models of democracy utilize the concept of the "rational voter", assuming that the voting population is made of well-informed & educated people who are committed to choosing the leader they believe will best govern the country. In a voluntary democracy, the voters actually want to vote (obviously, since they are taking the time to do so), and are therefore likely to be "rational voters". However, by making voting compulsory, the government is forcing hoards of new people to vote - new people who would otherwise not have voted. The fact that they would not have voted without being forced to probably means that they have not done their 'homework' as voters (i.e. following politics, learning about 'big issues', informing themselves about various candidates' platforms, etc), and don't care enough about voting to bother putting much thought into casting their ballot; in other words, they are highly unlikely to be "rational voters". Compulsory voting can only reduce the proportion of "rational voters" in the voting population, thus rendering it to be detrimental to the well-being of any democracy.~ Counter Plan ~I propose that instead of making voting compulsory, the government should make "Election Day" a National Holiday and take measures to simplify the voter registration process. According to survey data from various sources, the two biggest reasons for not voting (after political apathy) are a lack of time and the registration process being too long and difficult [4][5][6]. It is fairly obvious how the counter-plan would solve for both of those voting impediments... This plan is superior to a compulsory voting policy because it still significantly increases voter-turnout while avoiding all the harms of CV:(1) avoids introducing too many non-rational voters into the voting population (because it's still voluntary)(2) allows politically apathetic people to express their voice by abstaining from voting, and (3) respects the autonomy of 'the people' by letting them choose whether or not to exercise their democratic power Thank you. 1. http://www.gallup.com...2. http://www.gallup.com...3. http://www.people-press.org...4. http://www.theatlantic.com...5. http://usgovinfo.about.com...6. http://www.zencollegelife.com...

In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. This is also my first debate so this should be interesting. Voting should not be compulsory because it reduces the quality of the election, does not take into account the possibility of a voter not being able to choose between candidates, and actually contrasts the idea that in a democratic nation the voters are free to choose how want to vote, a choice that includes not voting at all.

Persuasion is more effective than coercion As noted elsewhere, forced attendance would lead to increased political awareness, and an abstention option would offer a 'none of the above'/'I don't mind or care' choice instead of forcing people to choose a candidate randomly. Because the number of voters would increase, politicians would have to be active in engaging with the public and therefore become "more deserving of the public's trust" as you suggest. Citizenship classes are irrelevant here; having them doesn't negate the need for compulsory voting.

U.S. presidential primaries should be held on the same day in every state. Argument 1: Underfunded Campaigns of Small Candidates A national primary would give a huge advantage to better-known, better-funded candidates since only they would be able to finance the expensive advertising and large campaign operation needed to run a national "get out the vote" effort in all states. Lesser-known candidates without extensive campaign operations would not have an opportunity to reach out to voters in retail-style fashion and build support. Moreover, densely populated states with higher delegate counts would become the dominant focus of the campaigns and the media. In addition, political parties would have little control over the selection of their eventual nominee, and state party leaders would no longer have the flexibility to set their primary or caucus dates according to state-specific considerations, such as redistricting issues, state holidays, or other state and local elections. In 2008, at least 24 states held a primary on February 5, resulting in what was essentially a de facto national primary. Super Tuesday became Tsunami Tuesday. The situation was so bad for overwhelmed campaigns, party leaders, and election officials that the two parties worked together to ensure their rules for 2012 would help avoid a repeat.

A true democratic mandate for the government Low election turn-outs result in a government that does not truly have the democratic mandate of the population. Compulsory voting would ensure the governing party has the majority of the country on its side, and better reflect the wishes of the people. In my ever so humble opinion voting should be compulsory because I believe (perhaps somewhat niavely) that if an individual is forced to vote they would/should make an effort to become more informed on the issues that the various parties are campaigning about, and the issues that affect themselves and their local electorate. In Australia (yes I am Australian but live in the UK) voting is compulsory. That being said, the only compulsory part of the process is showing up and getting your name ticked of the roll. What you do in the privacy of the booth is entirely up to you. If you dont agree with any of the politicians or parties you vote incorrectly which makes you vote invalid and therefore doesnt count. (stupid but legal)

Voting Should Be Compulsory Seeing that you have forfeited "Round Three", I will take my time to add a few more points to why Voting should be compulsory. Compulsory voting seeks to help the people live in a better democratic society, seeing that ALL OF THEM make a difference and have their say. It would significantly lower the amount of people complaining about how their say does not make a difference, as they will believe , since everyone is voting, all says are of the same importance. Non less than another. I wish to hold my argument here.

NON VOTING IN ELECTIONS MUST BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY Democracy to thrive impose serious responsibility on the citizens to participate in the sacred duty of Voting to elect leaders,who govern them. In many leading democracies the percentage of eligible voter participation is declining with the result that the winning candidates get away with a minority of the total vote percentage. This is the result of citizens in democracies not doing their sacred duty which may in turn result in bad governance. I feel that penal provisions for violation of this fundamental duty by citizens must be made punishable,though freedom is the essence of democracy. Freedom does not mean remaining passive spectator and being lethargic to go to the polling stations and vote. To protect his freedom, the voter has to pay a price by doing his duty of Voting for his choice candidate.

all d people should vote if people wont vote their will be imbalance in the democracy . All the people have the right to vote and they should use the right given to them . People should be made aware of the candidates if we wont tell them then they wont get to know abt it ever we shld help our country to become an socialized place . If we wont our country to be at the top we need to bring all of them together .Bring unity among people. voting shld be made compulsary so ppl get to know abt it

In a deomcracy, voting ought to be compulsory. On the Validity of Voting: Right or Duty? The opponent has stated that voting is a right, not a duty, because you earned a voting status. However, as explained before, many effective democracies hold that voting is a duty. The United States, ironically, holds that a duty of a US Citizen is to “participate in the democratic process” while Athenians held that voting was compulsory in a democracy because citizens of a democratic society must work together as a people rather than persons (in terms of society) for the society to progress. Voting is an ethical issue; we cannot and will never agree on compulsory voting. However, the matter of it being enacted must be looked upon. Let us look at an analogy for a second; if you decide to order, say a salad, at a restaurant and you are alone, your individual decisions does not a affect anyone else. However, say you are the Food Czar, and you have to order food for the whole table. Henceforth, you are forced to make decisions based on the needs of the whole. You wouldn’t order steak, for fear that a Halal-dietary follower would be present. This analogy also applies for an entire electorate and all; every vote counts. Your decisions effect the whole community. Every vote counts. A true democratic society is a society where everyone gathers and makes decisions. Athens is a perfect example of this; its people were educated, very philosophical, and engaged in many public debates (In fact, Gorgias and Republic by Plato were dominated by intense debates). Athens required every person to vote. Singapore is also a highly effective democracy; voting is compulsory there. As we can see, the number of compulsory voting-states that have a highly efficient democratic state correlate, because voters here understand that voting is a civic duty. Henceforth: P1. All definitions of democracy states that democracy is a government elected by the people P2. In many democracies, it is a duty (because of democracy’s definitions) to make decisions C1. Not implementing compulsory voting is undemocratic Australia and Compulsory Voting The opponent has stated that 500,000 Australian voters chose to submit "blank votes" However, this is only 5% of the population we are talking about. The minority. Australia has a very effective democracy when compared with other nations; are we to ignore the efficiency of Australia's democracy just because the minority of the Australian people chose to submit blank votes? Apart from this, voting will create a more educated electorate. Let us take this analogy for example: A student has to study for a test, then he has to study all the resources that are provided to him. If he doesn't do this, then he fails the test and get bad marks. He does not want this; he wants his grades to progress. This makes him study harder and harder until he finally understands all his material. Coming back to the voting issue, the test in this case is voting. The resources in this case are the political parties. Failing the test means that the nation/the people do not progress forward. As state before, Australia has created a highly efficient democracy through the enacting of compulsory voting. Athens also did this; Athenians proved that compulsory voting creates more informed and more philosophical people. As stated before, Athenians loved debating and following their views. Therefore, we can conclude with the syllogism: P1. All countries in which compulsory voting is enforced have a highly educated electorate P2. All countries in which compulsory is enforced have highly efficient democratic institutions P3. Compulsory voting creates this by the want for progress and prosperity C1. Compulsory voting creates a highly-educated electorate and highly efficient democratic institutions The Act of Voting: Follows Democracy Let us look at the two definitions of democracy that I have provided. Abraham Lincoln said that democracy was the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. By saying that compulsory voting shouldn't be enacted is like saying that capitalism should function without money; a democratic society represents the people, of all classes, all races and all sexes. What good is a democracy without the proper representation of the people? This returns to my point on duty and voting; a democratic society was created upon the assumption that democratic states were elected by the people. By the people doesn't mean the "educated voters" but the "voters" Voters run the same ship; the ship of the nation. If voting turnout is low, then the nation fails to gather a politically legitimate government. Class Barriers: Must be broken Many poor people simply do not vote because they are too scared to do so. For example, a poor person wants change, but he does not know how he could change. Compulsory Voting, when enacted, makes the poor seem as if their voices are wanted; the poor want to become rich, or at least achieve a better life than what they have now. They would use their newfound voice to voice change; let us look at Singapore for example. Singapore is not a case of wanting change, but a case of wanting to preserve the status quo; they wanted to keep the PAP in action. In the first elections, the PAP won a huge majority because of the work they had done for the Singaporean people and how the Singaporean people wanted to keep this. A huge majority of the voters voting for the PAP were middle-class and lower-working class workers; quite easily, the lower classes! If voting were not compulsory, they would have thought that they had no voice anyway, so what is the point? Democracy is not a bourgeoisie concept, but many people are anti-democratic because they think so. Time restrictions have deluded the quality of my arguments. I would like to apologize to the opponent for that. I hope this is enough for him to rebut.

Voting is a civic duty A democracy is based on the principle of respecting basic human rights, such as free choice. This principle is directly violated by compulsory voting. With many civil rights there is a choice to choose to engage in the activity or not. Voting has carries that option, citizens of a democracy have the choice to either vote or not, despite being encouraged to vote. It does not matter why a person chooses to vote or not, it is the fact of principle that they have the right to choose. Compulsory voting goes against such ideas of the freedom of choice, and on that grounds should not be compulsory. The proposition speaks of those who died for the right to vote, and respecting their sacrifice by voting. Unfortunately the proposition misconstrued the point of their sacrifice- to give us the freedom of choice. That right of choice must be upheld, as it is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Compulsory voting would be infringing upon that.    improve this

People have fought hard for the vote so it should be law to vote People may not have interest in how the country is run however as long as they live in the country it should be their duty to help decide who runs it as they are citizens of the country and are part of the system. As for people not able to go to polling stations there is the option to vote via mail which is widely available for those who have limited mobility which means it is not inconvenient for the less able to vote due to the government schemes that money has been invested in so that everyone is able to vote

People have fought hard for the vote so it should be law to vote Why is it their duty to decide who runs the country? If they have no desire to choose their country's leaders, then they should not be forced to make that decision. Do you like being told you have to do something you don't want to? This law would just charge residents unnecessary amount of money or do some community service if they don't conform to vote for the leader of their country. Voting by mail is an option, but is flawed as votes could be lost in the mail.

Cause more people to become interested in politics In todays times a vast majority of people don't relly care about what's happening in politics, or simply don't care enough to vote thinking that their one vote won't change anything. If there was compulsory voting I believe that more people would take an interest in politics and make their vote count for something.

Compulsory voting reduces power of lobbying groups. A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. The outcome of the election reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Popular Vote In the U.S popular vote should be put into affect for voting for a U.S president rather than the electoral college. For the electoral college caused great unbalance for many of these presidential nominees focus on these swinging states for voting while the other states are not campaigned as much or not at all thus causing a decrease in voter turnout out. As stated by the U.S election Atlas " which may give citizens the feeling that their vote does not matter, encouraging them to stay home instead of visiting the ballot box on election days". Making people outside of the swing states feel as if they are not to be represented with all the power going to the swinging states.

in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory Hello, Storm. I accept your challenge and look forward to a great debate. I will begin by offering my own arguments first and then move on to addressing your contentions later in my post. Compulsory voting should not be law in a democracy, especially certain democracies like the United States. First, compulsory laws violate the spirit of a democracy, which cherishes freedom of expression. To act is to speak, and in the United States, we cherish freedom of speech because we believe that progress happens through multiple perspectives working vigorously for a common good. A prohibition on criticism inhibits our political goals. Compulsory voting would be problematic, especially in the United States, because a non-act (not voting), would also be protected under freedom of expression. Some religious practices too, which are protected in the United States, include non-voting, so ostensibly, compulsory voting laws inhibit freedom of religious expression as well. Second, enforcement would be financially catastrophic. There are only a few countries in the world that have "enforceable" (Australia, Argentina, Brazil, etc.) voting laws, and few of these actually live up to the enforceability their laws claim. These countries, however, have much smaller population than the United States and still see voter turnouts well below 100%. In a country of over 300 million people, with far more rural living space than many other democracies, keeping track of who votes requires a whole new federal department, not to mention that individual states" frequent state and municipal elections would require smaller departments below the newly created federal one. This means thousands of new employees on the government bankroll at least, not to mention billions in funding when the United States" national debt has already surpassed $ 16 trillion. Third, compulsory voting laws at best add no advantage to democracies and at worse, create bad policies. To prove that compulsory voting laws have actually strengthened the democracies in which they are current applied, you need to show a cause and effect relationship, specifically demonstrating that the voters who would not have voted normally without the laws have in fact positively changed policies. I will admit that this is a high burden to meet. At the very same time, you must also realize that the reason why many people don"t vote is because they simply are not interested. In the United States where capitalism and lax campaign finance laws have negatively impacted elections, you can bet that compulsory voting will result in bad policies, as people who remain mostly apathetic to politics are very easily influenced through the media, by the loudest, most virulent voices. We are already seeing this today as Tea Party extremists have been pushed by financiers and pundits to implement terrible ideas, like the government shutdown. Compulsory laws do nothing to change dedication to or interest in politics. The last thing we need are millions of impressionable, disinterested people herded to the polls to decide an election. Now, regarding your offense, First, your Contention 1- Self-Responsibility A. Stefan Bauschard is a debate coach from Harvard, not a political scientist or sociologist, so I do not think he really qualified to be making predictions about how people would react to compulsory voting laws. Unless you post his reasoning, I cannot identify the fallacies. B. I"m not really sure about the value of the "accurate poll" argument. Besides, research a little into the sub-science of polling, and you will realize that there are many mechanisms dedicated to accurate predictions and identifying the likely voters from unlikely voters. On realclearpolitics, for example, the polls can be identified by LV (likely voters), RV (registered voters), and A (anyone). LV, of course, produces the most accurate prediction while A is the least accurate. Second, your Contention 2- Reduces the burden on citizens A. You overestimate the burden and you don"t solve this problem: 1. No-excuse early voting is possible for most states. And, absentee voting is possible in all states if you are surely unable to make it to the polling station on Election Day. 2. Your plan doesn"t provide any kind of additional infrastructure to solve this problem. Simply making it illegal not to vote will not help those who have trouble voting already because of geographical location or disability; in this case, you are putting a greater burden on citizens because of the legal penalties. B. I don"t call being forced to vote having more "opportunities," as it sounds like you are taking opportunities away. For clarification, see my offense above.

Voting as duty makes people take it more seriously. "On Voting as a Duty Versus Voting as a Right" Naked Capitalism. November 2nd, 2010: "So I’ve now become a believer in seeing voting as a duty on the theory that regarding it as obligatory, as opposed to elective, forces one to take it a tad more seriously."

Mandatory Voting I have read your previous debates and am delighted to be debating someone who is well articulated and experienced. Arguments- 1. Voting is a moral and civic duty2. Mandatory voting will increase representation3. Mandatory voting will reduce polarization4. Mandatory voting will increase voter participation and knowledge When we vote, we make a conscious decision that will effect the entire nation. Often times, our choices will have consequences, whether good or bad, that could last for generations. In his book, The Ethics of Voting, Princeton philosopher Jason Brennan writes: "Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone. " [1] Brennan further writes: "Voting is the principal way that citizens influence the quality of government. No activity is more emblematic of democracy. Some call voting a civic sacrament. Many people approach democracy, and voting especially, with a quasi-religious reverence. " [2] In his debate, debate. org use whiteflame writes: "[Democracy is] the basis for how our country continues to function, and an essential component in determining who represents the country. As such, voting is necessary to keep the country functioning for the benefit of the people. It's beneficial for all eligible voters to understand that necessity, and to be aware that their duty as citizens is to be involved in the composition of their government, and thus to be involved in the laws it passes. This is the same reason why jury duty is compulsory, as it ensures that the courts can function properly. " [3] So in conclusion, we get this: P1: In democratic countries, voting is the primary way in which the government functions. P2: It is therefore our moral and civic duty to ensure that the government runs properly. C: Therefore, the government ought to make voting mandatory. Among the mantras of democracy is the concept of the consent of the governed. One of the many problems in the United States is the anemic voter turnout. This, in turn, creates a situation in which the vast majority of eligible voters do not consent to the current form of government, nor the leaders in charge. For example, in the State of Maine, the gubernatorial election in 2014 had three candidates. Paul LePage, the highly unpopular governor, won re-election with only 48 percent of the vote. (4) This means that for those who actually voted, 51 per cent did not consent to him being the next governor. How would mandatory voting increase representation? Whiteflame further notes (3): "Part of the reason that voting is so important is because it ensures that your views play a role in how your part of the country, and the country as a whole, are represented. Representation is enhanced by having a larger voting bloc, but that's a basic hazard of democracy in any case. What changes in a voluntary voting system? Those sectors of the public that turn out to vote. Who turns out to vote? Those with higher incomes. Voter apathy is inversely correlated with wealth, as those with more wealth tend to vote more often. This means that these groups receive less representation, as the leadership of our political parties has little reason to see to their needs over those of the rich. Compulsory voting ameliorates this problem, making voting blocs the size of their populations, and, perhaps, even reducing the gridlock that we currently see between political parties. This is what we've seen in studies conducted in Australia, a country that employs compulsory voting. In the end, this ensures that special interest groups and extremist subsets of the population have less control, and over the way U. S. policy is conducted, and have to convince broader subsets of the population that their intentions are for a larger overall benefit than simply for themselves. " Thus to conclude: P1: Democracy is based on the consent of the peopleP2: Citizens show consent by voting. P3: Mandatory voting increases representation and consent of the people. C1: Therefore, a democracy without high electoral turnout rules without consent. C2: Therefore, voting ought to be mandatory. Among the issues with voter turnout is the high polarization in the United States. Justin Valasek in his research for Duke University noted: "When turnout is strategic and citizens have decreasing intensity of political preferences, I show that an incentive to maximize turnout among the base can cause candidates to take partisan positions, in contrast to the median voter result under full turnout. I then study how the results of this model change with the introduction of measures to increase turnout. In contrast to previous literature on turnout and mandatory voting, which takes candidate positions as fixed, I analyze the effect on both who wins the election and the candidates’ political positions. R32;R32;I show that at high enough levels, measures to increase turnout result in convergence at the median citizen’s ideal point. As voting is made cheaper, or strictly beneficial (through subsidies), the strategic effect of turnout on candidates disappears, returning the median voter result. " So, if we made voting mandatory, the results will be that the candidates will largely take political positions that represent a broader aspect of the said population, thus creating a more centrist government as Eric Liu writes (6): "In today’s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don’t currently vote. " One of the main arguments used by those who do not support mandatory voting is the issue of low-informed voters; however, by making voting mandatory, we will prompt more voters to pay attention to politics. Eric Liu further notes (6): "Third, mandatory voting would prompt more Americans to pay attention to the choices. Those of us who lament the decline of civic knowledge generally focus on the supply side of the equation: more civics education. A mandate would stimulate the demand side, motivating more voters to learn what they were voting on (just as a draft makes the drafted motivated to learn what they’d fight for). There are many arguments against mandatory voting; each reflects a lack of faith in democracy itself. One says that increasing the number of uninformed voters will lead to worse policymaking. That presumes, however, that policymaking today sets a high-water mark of enlightenment. It also sets up a viciously antidemocratic circle: if you don’t vote you must be stupid and if you are stupid you must not vote. " | Conclusion | In democratic society mandatory voting is necessary for the government to be able to properly function. Voting will also help to reduce polarization, and increase knowledge and awareness of the government. I affirm the resolution. Over to con! _______ Sources 1. Brennan, Jason. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print.2. Ibid3. Used with permission of whiteflame. . http://www.edeb8.com...;4. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;5. . http://econ.duke.edu...;6. . http://ideas.time.com...;

People have fought hard for the vote so it should be law to vote All of this may be true, but there are people out there that have no interest in how our country is run. These people aren't affected by the decisions that are made in far off places by unknown people. Their simple lives don't need to be interrupted in order for the leaders of our country to be elected. In addition, there are people, usually extremes in the age bracket, that cannot physically go to the polling stations to vote and the penalties for not voting if this was enacted by law would punish these people for simply being unavailable at a specific time.

Foreign workers should be given the right to vote in local elections where they work Economic Benefits – A Win-Win Proposal

People should want to and vote in US elections I am arguing that Americans should not be against voting in US elections because voting does matter and people should be involved in the political process more.

You choose the topic International Waffle Day should be a federally recognized holiday? *** Yes it should http://www.youtube.com... 1) Tastiness deserves to be a nationally sanctified- Who doesn't remember going to waffle house at 2am to eat because nowhere else was open where you could sit down? It's a magical experience, wolfing down that tennis-racket looking goodness. If you're staying at a Hotel in the great state of Texas, the waffles even come in the shape of the state! It's not even an option thing where you *can* get them in that shape, the griddle is shaped like Texas. Why isn't this something we should recognize on a federal level? 2) It would unite a divided legislature- In order to become a federally recognized holiday, a piece of legislation would have to pass through both the house and Senate. Particularly during an election season, this would be non-contentious and provide a much-needed sense of unity to help restore the US population's faith in government. 3) Waffles are fun, and wildly underrated- While Eggo had it's heyday back in the day, we don't really give the waffle the proper credit it deserves today. If we were to federally recognize national waffle day, Eggo would be primed to come back into the spotlight swinging. That would mean we would see the return of Eggo's hilarious marketing team b) If Eggo would come back to prominence the way it was in the late 90s and Early 2000s, it would pave the way for other snacks that got left behind. Conclusion- Waffles are the bomb dot com, and there is absolutely no reason not to affirm. Federally recognizing National Waffle day would be good for our taste buds, government and soul.

Resolved: Vagina Day should be a national holiday My opponent highlights the supposed plight of women but we should ask ourselves why we perceive that women suffer so much. The answer is that they never stop complaining. Whinge, whinge, whine, whine, moan, moan: they never get tired of carping on about how hard they're lives supposedly are. "A woman's work is never done" they grumble, but if that's true who are all those women's shows on daytime TV aimed at then? The advertisers wouldn't fund them if nobody was watching them. The fact is, these days, housewives have it even easier than ever what with modern appliances such as vacuum cleaners, microwave ovens, washer/dryers, dishwashers, food processors, they hardly have to lift a finger around the house. Furthermore, with the wide availability of ready-prepared meals and affordable clothing housewives no longer have to cook or sew. So, instead of doing something useful they lounge about all day watching TV or go out and spend their husbands' hard-earned cash on clothes, shoes and make-up. It wouldn't be so bad if husbands had nice sexy wives to come home to but most don"t because the majority of women - 62% inAmerica- are overweight, just because they have so little physical work to do. No wonder strip clubs are booming these days. Now, to address my opponent's specific points in turn. "Why should women get a holiday when others dont?" This is positive discrimination gone mad. True, blacks get a public holiday in America, but women already have Mother's Day, and although it's not a public holiday, they still get cards, presents and breakfast in bed. That should be more than enough I would have thought. "Why does it have to be called vagina day? why cant it be called women's day or something?" "Vagina Day" sounds a bit clinical, don"t you think? Why not something a little more poetic like Lady Garden Day, Hairy Clam Day, Gates of Heaven Day or Map of Tasmania Day? "When would Vagina Day be?" A week before Valentine"s Day is just about the worst possible day: think about all the time, effort and expense men will be expected to go to in order to appease their womenfolk on Vagina Day only to have to waste even more time and money buying chocolates and flowers a week later. "Why cancel work on that day?" People would always welcome a free day off work and, therefore, might vote for my opponent"s plan for that reason alone. My opponent might as well have proposed a "Cowboys and Indians Day" or "Hamburger Day" or "Raccoon Day" or "Atom Bomb Day" or "NASA Day" or "College Shooting Day" or "Soda Pop Day" or "Tornado Alley Trailer Park Day" or "Hollywood Day" or "Wall Street Greed and Incompetence Day" or anything else all-American. "How is it celebrated?" Giant balloon vaginas? My opponent hasn't thought this through. The last vagina I checked had a gash right down the middle of it and, clearly, this feature would not aid buoyancy in a balloon. And, while there have been some great women through the years but there have been some rotten ones too: let's remember Elizabeth Bathory, the Blood Countess, who tortured and killed hundreds of young girls so that she could bathe in the blood of virgins in order to keep her younger, or the 'Bitch of Buchenwald' who was the wife of Karl Koch, a Nazi concentration camp commandant, and who reveled in torture and obscenity, or the evil tyrant Margaret Thatcher who brought misery and despair to millions of decent, hard-working British people through her vile political campaigns against the working classes in the 1980"s and 90"s. These women all had vaginas and, as such, would be celebrated, but to do so would be an insult to the memories of their victims. Finally, fireworks would be wholly inappropriate: as a feminist studies graduate once expalained to me, fireworks are phallic symbols which rape the sky and pollute the air that women have to breathe. Thank you.

Students should have school off for Veterans day. Students should have school off for veterans day because they should be able to honor their veterans, and they should be able to know about what their soldiers have done to protect and serve their country, the veterans deserve a day where their children/friends/family can congratulate them on helping keep us all safe.

In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Since Con has not provided any rebuttals, I will provide my third argument:Democratic Ideals PromotedTaking on this action of making voting compulsory would be only asking those who take advantage of the democracy to put in their work for the same democracy. We will be asking those citizens who wish not to go to a polling station to complete their duty. Additionally, the fact that the registered voters would have an incentive to go to vote in the election year, they will be forced to keep up with the parties and the leaders. If they have to go to the polling station, they will think, why not just vote for someone. This thought will increase the number of people who would place a legit vote and would be voting for what they believe.I would like to extend this argument, but seeing that Con has yet not provided rebuttals to my last two and has not strengthened Con's own arguments, I will delay the extension of this argument.

The Electoral College Changing the presidential election would be a small change in the fact that it would not affect the way our government functions as a whole. It would still run as a representative democracy. The only change is that everyone's opinion would be shown in the election. And I do feel that my freedom is being violated if my views aren't being portrayed in such an important decision to our country.

There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement.   States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate.     improve this

The United States should establish a national primary. I would like to start by refuting your case on my hypocrisy. My democracy far outweighs your democracy argument. You say that some voters don't have their vote count because they live in an area that is focused on the opposite party, but in total, the states have an equal amount of support for each candidate, please refer to this picture, which is of the states voting in the Romney, v Obama run. https://www.google.com... i would also like to refute that by saying that majority simply rules. If you are in a room, and asked to choose a candidate among 19 others, and 11 of those people choose democratic, but you chose republican, that isn't a failing in democracy but simply majority ruling. Also, the plan is to replace this electoral college system, as I will state in my third point, which is The U.S. needs this new system for voting. National primary is a new and good way of voting, and has proven to be much better than what we have now. National primary is even more popular with the public than our current system. A CBS News/NY Times poll in 2000 showed 75% of adults favoring a national primary and only 19% favoring the current system. And if that seems outdated, a more recent national telephone survey of respondents in 41 states voting on Super Tuesday or later found that 73% of Americans are in favor of a national primary. This proves that national primary is much, much more favored than what we currently have. A national primary may even bring in more voters because more people are content with the system and think that their vote is actually going to count. Speaking of, when people don"t vote, it destroys democracy, especially when people aren"t happy with the system and are voting because of that. This happens because people who would have had a vote instead don"t vote because they know it won"t count. As USC Professor Geoffrey Cowan in the Los Angeles Times points out that critics have identified countless problems with the current process including campaign finance laws that give inordinate influence to big donors; limits on voter registration and participation; and the power granted to Iowa and New Hampshire as the first states to cast votes. The rules, which differ from party to party, election to election and state to state, are dizzyingly confusing. Moreover, in a country where roughly 40% of the electorate is not affiliated with either party, does it really make sense for some states to have "closed primaries" where only party members can vote?

all d people should vote Having the majority of people involved in elections would be ideal. People need to be inspired to learn about the issues and support someone who they trust in making positive changes. I think this can best be done by eliminating and reprimanding the many corrupt officials that make people distrust the government, and then for the public to commend candidates for their education and experience in public affairs, rather than their charisma and money to promote themselves. None of this can be achieved by making voting compulsory, but by making it appealing and fixing the social problem that lies at its core.

Quality of decisions matters more than access to vote. The important thing is that informed citizens are electing the best possible candidates to lead communities, states, and an entire country. Access to vote is also important, but it is somewhat secondary to the ultimate question of quality leadership.

Mandatory voting broadens representation and legitimacy. Such a system guarantees that the government represents a majority of the population, not only a minority of individuals who vote. This helps ensure that governments do not neglect sections of society that are less active politically, and victorious political leaders of compulsory systems may potentially claim greater political legitimacy than those of non-compulsory systems with lower voter turnout.

All citizens should be required by law to vote. Clash: You said: Some people might not like the options I (Prop) say: Whether some people don't like the options, doesn't change whether they vote. Even if you don't like all the options, the person can just vote for the best out of the options. And your example about a store isn't like this case. In a store you have to pay money. In a voting station it is free. Arguments: 1. Ballots cost money. Take for example one slip of paper. It doesn't cost much, right? Now take the cost of a specialized piece of paper. The cost is more then the regular slip of paper. Now imagine that cost multiplied by the amount of citizens, say in the USA. You get a staggering amount. People should respect the amount of money the government put into the election, by voting. 2. We are given democracy so we should respect democracy. We have been given this right to have democracy so we should respect it. Enough said. 3. Encourages people to get into action. Once people are forced to vote, they would have to learn about the candidates, which provides education. Also, when people are forced to vote, when the election results come out, more people will agree with the results, and more people would be happy, which is what democracy is about. Thank you.

Should we change the electoral college from Population to number of actual voters I certainly won"t contest reasons given on why people don"t vote other than adding apathy and loss of faith in the system. I do argue that political outcomes do affect ALL citizens' lives. For example, budget spending, the increase or decrease of dollars allotted to social programs. In 2013 the food stamp budget was cut from $75 billion to $39 billion. Taking into account 47.8 million people were on some sort of food assistance during an economic depression; 14.5% of the population was affected. The federal government also makes policy pertaining to criminal justice with penalties and guidelines, which also includes the ATF. Civil Rights, pertaining to discrimination, gender issues, and same sex marriage, to point out a recent issue. Taxation affects every family, and well, as education policies, environmental regulations, Medicare, Social Security, as well as foreign affairs. At some junction the government does impact on every citizen young, old, voter or non-voter, even green card holders who can"t vote at the Federal level. On the point of a single vote reflecting an outcome, "minuscule to even count," in certain elections that is true. Some presidents came to office not by the popular vote, but by Electoral College votes. George W. Bush for example when Al Gore received the popular vote; as well as Benjamin Harrison and John Quincy Adams. Enacting your premise that the Electoral College be based on actual voters, here are projections. Using the last Presidential 2012 election as basis for the argument, there was an estimation of 57.5% of the registered voting population turning out. 222 Million people were eligible to vote (VEP). Of this number, 52 million were not registered. 170 million actual voters cast a ballot representing 56.5% of the total population of 313 million. It is projected that there will be a further decrees in voter participation in the next Presidential election due to new eligibility requirements; example: Photo IDs. These have become very contentious in some states and are more frequently enacted in the Republican held South Eastern and South Central States. The premise is to prevent voter fraud (.00000013% of voters convicted in fraud cases). On the flip side, it is argued ID requirements are being used to disenfranchise the voting poor, as well as black and Latin populations that are more prevalent in these states and who"s rates of casting ballots are as high as 70% (scratch your chin for a moment on this one) Let"s assume with this data that actual voters decline just by a conservative estimate of 2%; it still represents just slightly more than half of the total US population; that includes children (24% of the total) that are considered on what affects their lives. 45% of the remaining people need to have representation, whether they vote or not. The Electoral College facilitates this end being based on population. To enact an electoral college based on actual voters would further the divide of true representation, especially along party lines. Many have reason and want to vote, but can"t. Though apathy may loom large, in southern states as well as rural population areas; being considered as a part of a citizenry is a must. Addressing your point with Oregon, Maine and Minnesota; they are voter friendly states. Oregon has a vote by mail system. Maine and Minnesota has same day voter registration with no voter ID requirements. Texas has one of the strictest voter ID laws which continues to be contested in the Supreme Court. And yes, we are in agreement that voter incentives are needed to produce a higher turnout. But as the tide turns, it appears that the ability to vote is being skewed to the other majority, whites over 30 with incomes greater than the national average. A day off work holiday to vote would be a nice start, but registration, ID and other voter friendly policies need to be addressed, not a change in the Electoral College. https://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.usatoday.com... http://www.usimmigrationblog.com... http://www.enchantedlearning.com... http://www.loc.gov... http://americanhistory.about.com... http://www.diffen.com... http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov... http://ballotpedia.org... http://abcnews.go.com... http://www.cnn.com...

Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory IntroductionTo first know what ought to be the case in a democracy, we must know what is most democratic. It is an implicit assumption that, if one is to ask what a democracy ought to do, the correct answer would be that it ought to do what is most democratic. A good democracy is democratic, a bad democracy is undemocratic - any other properties a democracy may have are irrelevant to whether it is a good democracy, only whether it is democratic pertains to what it ought to be like.I presume thett3 accepts this observation, but if he disagrees, I would challenge him to provide an alternate criteria for a good democracy.So, the question of this debate is; would making voting compulsory to all eligible voters be something that is more democratic and better for the general welfare of this country? I will argue that the answer to this question is yes.Note that whenever I mention 'the people' or 'all the people' within the context of this debate, I extend the caveat that this does not mean those who are ineligible to vote, such as children or the mentally handicapped.A1 - Voter turnoutThe principle of a democratic government is that in which all the people are involved in either governing the country or voting for representatives to govern on their behalf. This is supported by the Oxford English Dictionary, which defines a democracy as:'Government by the people; esp. a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity (or, esp. formerly, a subset of them meeting particular conditions) are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly' (1)The emphasis is my own, and highlights the principle that democracy requires that all the people be involved in the governing process, either by voting or by actively developing legislature. In other words, it is more democratic if all the citizens of a country are democratically involved as opposed to only a certain amount of them. Of course this excludes children and the mentally handicapped, since these persons are, by their nature, unable to use sound judgement and hence would be unable to take responsibility for having a role in the governance of their country.Furthermore, a crucial principle of a legitimate democracy is that it must have a mandate. In other words, the government must be able to justify its authority. Yet if we have only around 50% of citizens actually voting, then it would usually follow that less than half of the population actually expressed their consent to be governed by the victorious political party. Let us say that a country has a 60% voter turnout and the winning party wins by a majority of 70%. This means that only 42% of the people actually voted for this government. But this raises the question of whether a government can legitimately have a mandate to rule if the majority do not explicitly support them. Democracy is defined as rule by the people, but if the majority of the people didn't actually choose to be governed by the goverment that now governs them, then this somewhat contradicts the definition of a democracy. Therefore, a strong mandate is necessary for a strong and valid democracy, and a strong mandate can only be achieved with a high voter turnout.Now, let us take two possible worlds:1. Our world, but voting is non-compulsory2. Our world, but voting is compulsoryWhich, then, would be more democratic? As I have elucidated above, the more democratic world is (all else being equal) that which has the most amount of its people involved. So which of the above worlds, 1 or 2, has the most amount of its people democratically involved?Many countries have systems in which voting is not compulsory, and in these countries the voter turnout is generally low. In the USA, the 2012 presidential election saw only 54.7% voter turnout (2)- meaning that nearly half of the voting age population were not involved in the democratic process. This phenomenon is very common in democratic countries with non-compulsory voting - rarely does it happen that the overwhelming majority of citizens decide to vote; the figure is commonly around 60% (3).Compare this to countries in which voting is compulsory, the prime example being Australia. Their voter turnout is consistently around 95% (4). In case anyone suspected that this was an anomaly, I only need to present the cases of Argentina and Brazil, which both have voter turnouts of around 80% (5)(6).The evidence lends strong credence to my hypothesis that making voting compulsory will improve voter turnout. Voter turnout is a valid analogy for political/democratic involvement because voting is the primary (and often only) manner in which the average citizen is able to express their political interest.Since making voting compulsory increases voter turnout, and a high voter turnout is more democratic than a lower one, then it follows that making voting compulsory is more conducive to a democratic society. In other words, democracies with compulsory voting are more democratic than countries without compulsory voting.A2 - Accessibility to votingIn systems where voting is not compulsory, the democratic process is skewed to give more political voice to those who are able bodied (7), those who haven't got strict employers and those with more spare time. These people are more likely to vote simply for logistical or convenience reasons, but there is no justification for a democracy to allow its system to be unfairly biased against groups of the population simply because of the state of their employment, where they live or their ability to get out the house.This problem would be solved by making voting compulsory, because people would have a significant motivation to vote (threat of punishment) regardless of convenience. Employers would also be obligated to make allowances for employees to vote. It is pertinent to mention that those in busy jobs are more likely to be unable to vote, simply due to the strains of living a busy life, whereas those who are unemployed will have plenty of time to vote. But surely it is the former that is contributing more to society by working hard? Therefore it is unjustified for the busy person to be less represented in parliament/congress than the person with lots of free time, since if anything it is a virtue to be busy and hard-working, certainly not something to be punished for.To summarise, a non-compulsory voting system allows for a biases to arise that arbitrarily discriminate against certain groups of people. Such a system is undemocratic when compared to a system in which these biases do not, or are less likely to, arise. It just so happens that the latter system requires that voting be compulsory.A3 - EducationMaking voting compulsory, as opposed to something that is optional, will most likely prompt more people to educate themselves and become more interested in politics. This is because, in a non-compulsory-voting system, it is very easy to ignore politics. One can easily live their lives paying no attention to politics, and this is made easy due to the fact that politics doesn't, at least explicitly, intrude on one's everyday life. It is very much a scenario of 'out of sight out of mind'.Yet if voting is compulsory, it is much harder to ignore politics because you are legally obligated to involve yourself. It stands to reason that this will create a demand for poltical education; after all, people are naturally curious and so it is natural that they would seek to learn more about what they could be voting for. Of course, this argument is theoretical, but nevertheless makes a lot of sense.But why should a democracy require voters to be educated? It all comes back to considerations of a government's mandate. If very few people were politically aware, then the government would have a weak mandate because it cannot be said with much confidence that the voters actually knew what they voted for. In contrast, an educated electorate gives the victorious government a strong mandate, because we can reasonably say that the majority of the voters did know who they were voting for.As explained earlier, a strong mandate is a requirement for a valid democracy. Hence because compulsory voting will incite the electorate to become more politically educated, and because an educated electorate is crucial for a valid democracy, compulsory voting is conducive to a valid democracy,A4 - ExtremismEvidence shows that those on the far-left and far-right of the politcal spectrum are more likely to vote than those with more moderate views (8). Regardless of the reasons for this fact, its truth is not conducive to a healthy democracy. This is because it means the composition of government is disproportionately controlled by non-moderates to a greater degree than moderates, despite the majority of people not identifying as non-moderate (9).The definition of a democracy is that which involves governance or representation of all people equally - if a democracy disproportionately represents non-moderates, a minority, then it cannot be said to be a good or valid democracy (given that a good democracy is loyal to its definition). If voting was compulsory, then moderates would be encouraged to vote - hence uprooting the disproportionate bias towards non-moderates and making the government more democratic.ConclusionI have presented four cogent arguments in favour of the resolution. All of them show why a compulsory voting system is more democratic than a non-compulsory voting system, and hence why the former ought to be the case in a democracy. This is because the criterion for the quality of a democracy is the degree to which it is democratic.___(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://pewrsr.ch...(4) http://bit.ly...(5) http://bit.ly...(6) http://bit.ly...(7) http://bit.ly...(8) http://bit.ly... figure 4(9) http://pewrsr.ch...

United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out. The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily. Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time. Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time. I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.

The United States should replace the Electoral College with direct elections The United States is democracy, and it is absolutely unacceptable to deny people the right to a fair vote. Under the 14th amendment, people will have an equal say in the vote. In the United Sates, the breakup of the Nation into the electoral college unfairly harms those who live in republican or democrats dominated States. Besides, there is always the issue of gerrymandering. It is impossible to gerrymander a system in which everyone is put into the same voting area. This means in order to succeed in popular elections in the United States, candidates must appeal to National issues, not just the issues of a small collection of states. Let's take a hypothetical election in the United States. There are only three sates left. California, Texas, and Florida. Texas and California are guaranteed to vote on party lines, but Florida is a swing state. Both politicians will then base their policies and arguments on Florida issues, as those are the only ones that matter in this election. Therefore an electoral college gives to much power to the a small minority of political diverse states. The recount is almost absolutely unnecessary to worry about. We live in a modern age with (potentially) internet voting, digital transaction, and methods. As a programmer, i can tell you that f we embraced slightly newer technology, we could remove any potential of a recount.

Immigration Issue Opposition would like to submit 'immigration' as point which cannot be ignored in the present context of the debate as foreign nationals who come without legal work permit and stay in the country and work there, hamoer the interest of the citizens of the country in terms of job employment. And then they want voting rights to have a better say in the community! Clearly if we follow the proposition's proposal, the already increasing problem of immigration which has literally plagued the developed and semi-developed countries would then become a full fledged problem. If we grant them a path to citizenship and hence ensuring that right to vote is also guaranteed, following problems are bound to arise: a) it grants amnesty to criminals b) it disrespects all the legal immigrants who are still waiting for a legitimate citizenship c) legalized aliens are unlikely to be patriotic Therefore giving right to vote whether it be local election or national elections to foreign nationals specially in case of immigrants is disrespect to all the citizens of that particular country who have actually earned their citizenship rather than illegal immigrants who seek a short cut to land of opportunity. By providing them right to vote it will hamper national interest as they will misuse their votes and create a state of political turmoil in the country.

Voting Should Be Compulsory Although I understand that point of view by " The Freedom Of Expression" I believe that, in this case, there should be an exception. "The character of every act depends upon the circumstance in which it is done." 1.Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary. 2. Making voting an obligation would increase the amount of voter in a significant manner, broadening the representation of smaller/disadvantaged groups. Democracy is usually overruled and misrepresented by the larger parties, making it an unfair judgement. If everyone voted it would mean that there would be more truthful opinions based on the party leaders attitude. More people voting means more fair democracy. 3.People don"t vote for reasons that are somewhat related to apathy such as; they think their vote won"t count, apathy, lines are too long or cannot get to polling area. We Are In The 21st Century. 3.1 Apathy is a lack of interest, concern or enthusiasm. http://survation.com... This survey shows that a great number of people with apathy towards democracy feel more or less the same about it as non-voters. The only reason behind they don"t vote is really just the reason behind their apathy, so lets see that. 3.2 Reasons for Voter Apathy http://www.zencollegelife.com... This article explains EXACTLY what I am trying to explain to you. We Are In The 21st Century. There is no REAL reason for people NOT to vote. Simply not wanting to is not right, unacceptable. They do not know how important their vote is to any government candidate. Compulsory voting would make voters/people incline to know more about Democracy, increasing their interest in it and helping them realize how important their vote is to the government and all political party.~ Votes make a difference, America wants a difference. More Votes, more differences.

All citizens should be required by law to vote. To make it all better, why not make what is supposed to be forced? The model works in Australia, so why not make it here?

In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Thanks you for accepting the challenge! I would like to begin by presenting evidence supporting my views previously stated in R1. 1. Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization and Solves for Disenfranchisement of Voters According to Eric Liu, (Former Policy Adviser to President Bill Clinton), TIME, Aug. 21, 2012. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2013 from http://ideas.time.com.... Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here"s why. Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. "Protecting the integrity of our elections" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they"ve enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters. Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don"t currently vote. What we see is in a voluntary system the views of the partisan people are heard but the moderate middle go unheard. Through compulsory voting we would see moderate voters receive legitimate representation. 2. CV Increases Political Participation Margaret Kelly, (Prof., Law, Macquerie U., Australia), THE ADVERTISER, Oct. 22, 2007, 18. The turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90 per cent since the introduction of compulsory voting. This compares favorably to the situation in the U.S. and Britain. In 2001, the turnout for the federal election for the House of Representatives was 94.85 per cent. In the same year, the turnout for the general election in Britain was 59.4 per cent. With such a large percentage of the electorate voting, the Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the electorate, the silent majority, not just the noisy minority. Parties must consider the total electorate in policy formulation not just those inclined to go to the polls. Not only does it increase political participation, but it also increases the political process as a whole. Politicians will have to appeal to a new range of voters rather than campaigns just go get there base out to vote. ------------------------------------- A few points I would like to address before my opponent presents his evidence supporting his position. 1. All CV does is force you to fill out a ballot (none is an option). CV does not force you to chose the lesser of two evils since you can always vote for none of the below (or above). 2. The Quality of Elections will increase because politicians will now have to represent the whole voter base rather than the few hardcore partisan voters that come out and vote. 3. All laws require citizens to do things they don't want to do. Jury duty is a good example of this, taxes, and much more. CV is no different than our other day to day civic duties. Forcing someone to vote is not undemocratic.

Children are citizens like everyone else and voting does not have a qualification prerequisite. Not all parents have the time to work with children in this exercise. Childen may feel like they are under a lot of pressure and they might also get so excited about getting to vote that their school work will suffer. Parents will get their kids to vote for the party of their choice.