All citizens should be required by law to vote.
Debate Rounds (3)
Imagine that you walk into the store during the winter, looking for a nice winter coat. But because of high demand, all of the coats are gone. There is only short sleeve shirts. Now imagine that the store has a rule, that once you enter the store, you MUST buy an item from the store. Forcing everyone to vote, is just like that. Someone might think that all candidates are not good options and that neither desrve a vote. Will you still make them vote?
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.
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.
That word that you used.I really dont like that word. Forced. If we are forced to vote, we might as well be back in the slave time. You said we should respect the way they use our money. According to a report by Senator Tom Coburn, in 2010 the governemnt gave the univrsity of California 3 million dollars to play video games, as part of research to, and I quote, "study how “emerging forms of communication, including multiplayer computer games and online virtual worlds such as World of Warcraft and Second Life can help organizations collaborate and compete more effectively in the global marketplace.” We should respect the way the government uses our money? Here is another example. In that same report, Senator TOm Coburn reports, that the VA donates 175 Million dollars every year to maintain hundreds of buldings tha they do not use. One including a monkey house in Dayton, Ohio.  So WE should respect the money? The definition of democracy, is "Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run." The word , MEANT, means that is is not mandatory. That is what it was SUPPOSED TO DO. That means it is optional. An obese individual is SUPPOSED to eat the right way. We always are SUPPOSED to do something. That does not mean that it is mandatory. In the end, it is all up to the individual, if he wants to eat healthy or not. In the end it is up to us if we want to partake in voting in politics, but no one can force people to vote. And you really think that forcing people to vote, will encourage people into action? If anything that will cause a rebellion. Like in Hunger Games. No I am just kidding, but not everyone likes to vote. If you force people to do something that they dont want to do, there will definetly be some rebellion. Protests in the streets. You know what you are right. Forcing people will encourage them to get into action. But not by voting. By Rebellion. And I am sure no governemnt wants that.
Definition of Supposed
[ səG2;p!3;zd, səG2;p!3;zid ]
generally assumed or believed to be the case, but not necessarily so:
"people admire their supposed industriousness"
Yes, that is what it was SUPPOSED to do. But as the definition of the word brings out, it is not necessarily so. So it should not be forced to vote. ALso what about religious people. There are religions that remain neutral from politics. Are you going to force it on them to? That takes away their freedom of religious expression, which therefore violates the 1st amendment. As I have stated earlier, forcing people to vote is not the way to go.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.