My friends, in this debate I will be showing you how my opponent's argument is self contradictory and undemocratic. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and while it is noble to try and make elections more representative in an era of historically low voter turnout, compulsory voting is a short-sighted solution that will worsen every problem it claims to fix.
Definitions
My opponent neglected to mention in what context voting would be mandatory, and while it may be contextually obvious (and was stated by the instigator in the comments), it's good to cover all your bases. This resolution specifically refers to voting in democratic elections for federal/provincial/regional/judicial/municipal office, though I'm sure we will largely focus on federal elections.
Rebuttals & Arguments
My opponent's argument falls apart when you recognize a few basic facts:
- You can express your opinion by not voting. If I decide to vote for nobody because I dislike all the options, that is my choice. If my opponent wants to say that I can just write "N/A" as a write-in candidate or something, then what the hell's the point of compulsory voting? It leads to people either voting for nobody (but with extra steps) or people voting for candidates they wouldn't have voted for if they weren't forced to vote for somebody.
- Forcing people to vote when they do not want to will lead to less representative results because people will be voting not based on the policies they want, but based on 'vibes' (or just straight-up choosing randomly).
- Forcing people to vote will disproportionately impact marginalized communities who will lose a day of income and potentially be forced to travel large distances to their nearest polling station. You cannot dodge this fact by saying "we will compensate workers for their time," as that was not defined anywhere in the description nor my opponent's first speech nor anywhere in the comments nor is it contextually implied by the resolution. In a two round debate, you do not get to add that critical distinction to the resolution after half the debate has already happened.
You can express your opinion by not voting
If I choose not to vote, that is an expression of my dissatisfaction with the political process and/or all of the candidates available to me. By choosing to not vote, I am expressing my right--my freedom as a citizen of a western country--to not spend the many hours required to understand the policy platform of each candidate from every level of government. If I choose to let the future be decided by those (ideally) more passionate, engaged, involved, and/or informed than I, then that is my personal choice. I am, in that case, deferring the decision to those who I believe are better capable. That is not only valid, but responsible.
If I go to vote and I write "N/A" as a write-in candidate or something, then what was the point of forcing me to vote in the first place? We end up in the same scenario, but now everyone's time has been wasted. We're in a situation so pointless that wasting the piece of paper I wrote my N/A vote on is genuinely the biggest factor at play in evaluating this scenario.
But let's say I am forced to vote for a real, non-joke candidate when I do not want to vote for anyone: You are then removing my ability to express my opinion. This resolution would thus make the political process less representative and less democratic because I am now forced to vote for an option that I do not want, because I do not want any of the options, and yet I must choose one.
Forcing people to vote will lead to less representative results
My opponent has this entire debate ass-backwards. Low turnout leads to disengaged citizens? On the contrary, disengaged citizens are the cause of low turnout, and forcing them to vote isn't going to make them any more engaged. If anything, they will further resent the political system for forcing them to participate.
Because I'm sure my opponent will reject this idea vehemently, I've linked four scholarly articles and scientific studies just to make sure we're on the same page.
Disengaged citizens are the cause of low turnout, and the reasons they are disengaged will not change AT ALL if they are forced to vote[
1][
2][
3][
4].
Citizens becoming disengaged is highly correlated to socioeconomic status and a feeling that their vote doesn't matter (i.e. all options are equally as good/bad). Forcing them to vote doesn't change this.
To quote the first source:
"I show that the right to vote can be valuable, even if it is not actually exercised. Leaving people to decide for themselves whether or not to vote is not only more liberal but democratic in so far as it respects their choices and makes it more likely that decisions are made by the relevant constituency." -Ben Saunders, 'The Democratic Turnout Problem'
Furthermore:
"...The experiment has shown that when a young person is made to vote in an election, his or her attentiveness to politics or knowledge about politics does not necessarily increase." -Henry Milner et al., '
The Paradox of Compulsory Voting'
And finally:
"...we suggest that switching to obligatory voting does not solve the problem of a socioeconomically unequal voice in politics. It merely transforms the problem from an unequal voice in low turnout, low-invalid-voting countries (in voluntary voting systems) to a similarly unequal voice in high turnout, high-invalid-voting countries (in compulsory voting systems)." -Stanislav Mysicka et al., '
Should and Does Compulsory Voting Reduce Inequality?'
As the quote from 'The Paradox of Compulsory Voting' shows (check the article for additional info), you can force a person to vote, but you can't force them to learn about what they're voting for. Compulsory voting does not lead to people learning more about politics.
You are then forcing those ignorant to politics to participate in politics whether they want to or not. They are not going to make their decisions based off of the policies they want. They are going to choose based on vibes, what they have heard in passing, and vague ideas about political parties. Compulsory voting doesn't lead to a government that is better indicative of the policies the citizenry wants, because the people you're forcing to vote largely don't know anything about the party they are voting for; what policies that party wants to enact; what those policies mean.
It's much more likely that a person who goes out to vote knows what policies they want to be enacted than a person who would choose to not vote if they could. Therefore, the group of people who voluntarily vote are a better representation of what policies the populace wants than the group of people who are forced to vote, as those forced to vote likely don't even know what they're voting for.
Forcing people to vote will disproportionately impact marginalized communities
Yes, we need more polling stations, but we do not live in a fantasy world where we can put polling stations within a fifteen minute walk of every adult.
A poor father with three jobs does not have the time to vote, and taking away his income by forcing him to take time away from work is unspeakably cruel.
A native American living on a sparsely populated reserve who cannot afford a car would be forced to go to a polling station that is multiple hours away to participate in the very same political process and government that facilitated the genocide of his people for over a century. I'm sure he will be very familiar with being forced multiple hours away from home by the government to act as the government deems necessary.
Like I said before, my opponent cannot retreat behind "workers will be compensated," but even if they could, my opponent would then need to prove that spending BILLIONS of extra dollars each election is worth the marginal benefits they have failed to establish.
Mail-in voting would not fix this problem. Even if we ignore every problem with using mail-in voting as a catch-all solution, my opponent faces a catch-22: Either a mail-in voter puts in the hours required to research and vote responsibly (and thus this argument inevitably applies), or a mail-in voter puts no time into research and casts their vote based on nothing (and thus my previous argument inevitably applies). This resolution fails either way.
Conclusion
Voting is a powerful tool to change the future as my opponent said. That is precisely why we shouldn't want to live in a world where the future is decided by apathetic voters choosing based on 'vibes.' I cannot imagine a worse idea than putting the fate of democracy in the hands of people who are only voting because they have to.
The future should be decided by passionate voters who go truly care about the choices they are making and the impacts they will lead to. If someone doesn't care to vote because of apathy or because of ability, then it's not hard to assume those voters don't care to learn about what they're voting for either.
The world would be a better place if more people went out to vote. Some people hear that fact and assume it means "the world would be better if we forced people to vote." As I have shown you in this debate, that idea is blatantly, provably false and will lead to a worse, less representative world.
My opponent agrees voting is a right that comes with responsibilities, and in the same breath argues that we should force the use of that right on the irresponsible; the apathetic; the ignorant. Telling people they do not have the right to abstain from voting isn't just a terrible idea, but it's undemocratic.
I cannot see how a responsible individual could vote for this resolution. With your ability to vote if you so choose, I ask you use it to vote CON. Unlike my opponent, I don't think it'd be better if you were forced to.
Thank you.
RFV 1/3
Pro Round 1
Alas, I am unable to access Pro's Links.
But I will Google some about South Africa.
What I googled is at bottum of my vote, but percent of people voting does 'seem to be dropping.
And some people are arguing infrastructure problems with voting polls.
Though I am still unsure about my information, but Pro arguement of the difficulty of voting, 'still works a 'bit against them in this debate.
As voting percents might be increased by ease of access, rather than compulsory voting.
Still, Pro makes arguements of how voting keeps citizens engaged in goverment,
And argues it to be a a freedom and responsibility.
I think they make a fair point about keeping the public engaged,
But there are legal responsibilities and non-mandated responsibilities,
Non-mandated responsibilities can still have consequences if ignored.
But Pro 'wants the non-mandated responsibility of voting to 'be legally mandated.
They still need further argument for why it 'must be legally mandated.
Con Round 1
Compulsion 'is a but contrary to Freedom, I suppose,
But many if not 'all governments have Laws/Compulsion.
Expressed Opinion
Pro might require the people vote for available candidates, no abstaining.
But Con makes a point that people's opinion is still expressed in not voting.
One might argue though, that compulsory voting makes sure everyone had the 'chance to vote.
Less Representative Results
'Not if there is an abstain vote.
But Con has a point that someone who knows nothing voting for Canidate A, does not mean the know nothing Voter wanted Canidate A's policies or vision.
RFV 2/3
Impact Marginalized
A fair point, and why not every citizen is a lawmaker, we set some people aside to take the time.
I think Pro 'might dodge it by compensating people, or assuming that voting and info is made easier.
I don't think X should be mandatory, assumes that X should be mandatory with 'current circumstances, I think it can mean X should be mandatory 'and circumstances should change that X being mandatory works well.
Since it wasn't stated one way or the other, I think circumstances changing can be argued either way.
Less Democratic
By removing peoples freedom to not vote, or vote for no one.
Backwards Cause Effect
Interesting argument,
Though Pro could argue by example of depression,
Depressed people sometimes do not get sun, food, socialization,
And so get stuck in viscous cycle, while they may initially be depressed for other reasons,
A lack of Sun, food, socialization are also causes in depression.
People 'having to vote, 'could engage them, though I think Pro has a point that much of the reason they are not voting, is they are disengaged.
Con first 3 sources did not 'say much, 4th source did, but suggested various causes.
I don't consider them to be strong sources.
Yes source 1 'says that, but I can't 'access the article, someone can say 'anything, but I like there being a bit more proof by the sayer, more explanation.
Source 5 is a bit better, but again a lot of information is lacking,
I'm leaning slightly towards Con for sources, but I still don't consider them strong.
It just seems common sense that if you force someone to participate in X, 'some of those forced will look into it. Like parents who half watch their kids cartoons.
In something relevant to themselves, there would be even more engagement.
Source 6 has a lot more info, but is a bit difficult to chew and digest,
But because of Pro source issues, and lack of round 2, sources most likely going to Con.
Source 6 'does give me a new thought,
I can imagine 'every user on DART being forced to vote, and if RFV is required 'many would be disqualified.
If RFV not required, be a lot of bad RFVs, lot of Troll votes, I imagine.
Con makes a strong argument of the difficulty of forcing people to know, understand, or care.
RFV 3/3
Fantasy World
I'm not sure that voting 'can't be easy.
In some countries there is a Starbucks or two on every block,
Most people have identification,
People talk about crypto, surely devices 'can be put in many places, there are ATMs many places.
Con Brings up Argument of Poor Father and Work
Does a good job of arguing Pro making voting compulsory, would at least need many exceptions.
Though. . . One might take that as granted, such as saying everyone needs to wear shoes in a restaurant, well, one might not demand that of a person with no feet, or a foot swelling disease.
Still, Con makes a case, also with the sparse spread out rural population. Freedom argument.
Preemptively argues against mail in voting,
Again arguing the time sink.
Presumably they might care to choose to vote if the issues were important. But such goes back around to their argument of people not voting shows their views.
Voter thinking on Pro sources,
I 'did look up South Africa 2024 election though.
"Voter turnout has declined since the end of apartheid, when 86% of eligible voters turned out.[33] For this election, 27 million people were eligible to vote.[34] Fifty-five percent of them were women, while voter registration was highest among those aged between 30 and 39 years old.[35] Only 58% of the country's registered voters voted in the election."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_South_African_general_election
One can see the turnout lower over time.
https://www.electionguide.org/countries/id/198/
"The IEC has come in for severe criticism as voters had hours-long waits at some polling stations, mostly in urban centres. Understaffing, overwhelmed and undertrained officials, and glitchy scanners were cited as some of the most common problems. But, in a testimony to how important people deemed this election, voters waited patiently, some for as long as five hours, to cast their ballots. Others, no doubt, quit the queues. The IEC said that poor internet connections were to blame at many polling stations as poll workers could not use their Voter Management Devices to confirm voters and had to resort to manual verification. The commission insisted problems were limited to a minority of its 23,293 voting stations and said polling station would remain open after the 21:00 cut-off time provided voters were already in line."
https://www.oxfordeconomics.com/resource/south-africa-elections-2024-counting-underway-after-calm-voting-day/
Dang,
Domain registration probably expiring,
And owner maybe moving.
That 'is chance of danger for the site.
I am indeed referring to the site itself and not this debate (posted as such because I haven't been active on this site in over a year, so I thought people might be surprised to see me accepting this debate)
Good luck, homie. I remember my times in debate club in highschool fondly. The experience I got from here helped me win a few tournaments a couple of years ago!
I was referring to the posts I had seen in the forum about the sites domain registration probably expiring in the next half year + the owner looking to move on from DART
The site in its current state is the same as always, I'm sure
Oh I didn't think you were.
I think the sites bones are still good, myself.
Doesn't have a massive bot problem like Debate.org had towards it's end.
And I like the 'functions of this site well enough,
A problem with pure forums for me, such as Reddit, is it's easy for someone to post a 'single comment and end the conversation there.
Debate setup on this site 'ideally forces a few rounds of well thought out answers and responses to one's own arguments.
I wasnt attacking anyone. Sorry if it was understood like that.
thank you I appreciate your concern
Don't worry about it,
Nyxified and Best.Korea were talking about wanting a higher population on DebateArt, not criticizing you. I'd think.
Though possible you didn't think they were criticizing you.
Don't worry about the motions much anyhow,
People on this site and the world vary a lot in quality,
I've only won 2 in 10 debates. (On 'this site)
I like to think most of us are just happy to engage with other people of different perspectives, people in different circumstances and points in life.
guys I'm a high school debater just trying to sharpen my skills and further gain experience .forgive me if my motions are bad
The site is very much dying in the debate section and member count. However, forum seems active enough, even though it too has lost many members.
I dont know why debate sites tend to die like this. Maybe too much competition drives people away, and most people consider debating as competition due to their incorrect mindset. Debating isnt a competition, but if people set wrong goals for themselves, then it is.
Seem's the site's future prospects are looking grim, eh? It's a shame to see a lot of community members no longer around.
I suppose I can take a DART debate for a spin one last time >:D
more like elections
Voting in what?
Not sure why there are so many people who hate freedom.