Automatic Voter Registration
Debate Rounds (5)
Round 1: Acceptance
Round 2: Opening Arguments
Round 3: Main Arguments
Round 4: Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing Arguments
I look forward to debating this topic, and welcome anyone willing to accept my debate challenge.
My argument will focus on how democracy cannot survive with AVR. I will expound on this idea of mine in the round ahead when we are able to give arguments.
Now, as of November 2014, there are approximately 219 million citizens of the United States that are eligible to vote, however, out of those people eligible to vote, approximately 142 million of those people are officially registered to vote, constituting roughly fifty-nine percent of the total US voting-age population, leaving roughly seventy-eight million Americans unregistered to vote.  What I would like to argue is for a system that makes it easier for any of these unregistered voters to register, and I believe that automatic voter registration would solve this problem.
Automatic voter registration, also known as universal voter registration, is a system in which the central government automatically registers any and all citizens once they reach the age at which they can vote. This would be accomplished by utilizing existing government databases to keep track of which citizens have become eligible to vote, and then automatically register those citizens to vote. Meanwhile, any citizens who do not want to register to vote would have the option to opt out of the voting registration process. 
Right now, the state of Oregon has adopted an automatic voter registration measure that would automatically register anyone in the state who is eligible to vote, and who currently has a driver's license in the state, and, California is considering adopting a similar measure. I believe that having the United State as a whole adopt automatic voter registration, then not only will more citizens be eligible to vote, but more citizens will turn out to vote simply based on the fact that they are registered to vote.
Thank you pro. In this round I will attack a fundamental assumption in the resolution - that democracy is something that we should strive for.
The affirmative is reinforcing the negative idea that democracy is something that should be celebrated and growing in the modern world; they are aiming for a more representative form of democracy and they are entrenching the evils of democracy that exist. They are affirming the notion that everyone ought to have a voice when their voice is not something beneficial to the world.
The impact of reinforcing democracy is devilish at all points that can be considered.
C1. Negative impact on economic growth
Democracy has been found to have a moderate yet negative impact on economic growth because, as Tavares et al finds in 2001 in their paper "How democracy affects growth":
Democracies have more human capital at any time than they can use because there is little physical capital investment (for example, factories). This means that more democracy leads to more unemployment and more suffering. As Raphael et al finds in 1998:
This means that violent crime increases as unemployment does; and in a democracy there is going to be higher unemployment. Increasing the amount of democracy increases violent crime - and that means that democracy leads to lives lost.
Instead of trying to exacerbate democracy and make it more prevalent within the world, we need to restrict it as much as we possibly can. I propose that instead of advocating for democracy, we advocate for monarchy; the polar opposite of all of the people getting the say in the government. There is less crime being committed, and thus, more lives being saved.
In order to save the US, we need to save the peoples' lives - and the only way we can do that is to eliminate democracy at all costs.
Thus, I negate.
In comparison to traditional voter registration, automatic voter registration would be able to save time for voters by eliminating the need for any voter to fill out any forms needed to officially register to vote, while at the same time, it would also save the state time by eliminating the need to process any such forms needed to register said voter. This would be accomplished by tying voter registration to existing government databases, such as tax information, employment information, address information, or other information that is not available to the state, but to the federal government, which state governments could easily request.  For example, the state already knows where each resident living within it's boundaries resides, and the state already knows the boundaries of its voting precincts, so automatic voter registration would simplify changing a voter's voting precinct by tying it to a voter's change of address. Furthermore, this would allow for a simpler change in state voter registration, where if a voting-age American moves to a different state, that voter's new address would be given to both the voter's previous state of residence, and his or her current state of residence, allowing for simpler additions to the current state's registered voter population, and simpler removal from the previous state's registered voter population. 
As for automatically registering new voters, there is plenty of information available to the state that can be used to register those voters. Employment information, for example, is already available to the state since employers have to give an employee's information to the state so taxes can be deducted from that employee's paycheck. Also, states have access to social security information, and each citizen of the United States is given a social security number at birth. States could use this information available to monitor when a resident of the state becomes eligible to vote, and thus is able to be registered. 
Now, apart from streamlining the voter registration process, there is another benefit to having automatic voter registration in place, and that benefit is increased voter turnout. as of November 2014, there were approximately 219 million eligible voters in the United States. In the 2014 midterm elections, approximately 92 million of those eligible voters voted in the 2014 elections, constituting a voter turnout of roughly thirty-nine percent of the total voting eligible population. However, when taking into account the number of eligible voters that were registered as of November 2014, which stands at 142 million, or roughly sixty-five percent of the total US voting eligible population, then the voter turnout jumps to sixty-five percent of total registered voters. If all eligible voters in the US were registered to vote, and if they turn out at roughly the same rate as registered voters did in 2014, then there would be an additional fifty million votes counted during that election.
In short, automatic voter registration simplifies voter registration, and manages to boost voter turnout by getting more people registered to vote, allowing for elections to more accurately reflect the total voting eligible population.
Since round 3 is just another round for arguments and not rebuttals, I extend the arguments made in the last round.
My case says that democracy is bad and we should not affirm the resolution. The alternative to advocating for democracy is to advocate for monarchy - attacking the root assumption in the resolution.
Pro's arguments have no weights *at all* attatched to them. We can take them at the full value that they are provided and still negate because there is no real-life impact of having higher numbers of voters - that's just a fact.
Having more voters doesn't have any impact on the world - at least, my opponent isn't saying that it does.
Even if you don't buy my case it's obvious you should vote con because pro has no impacts with their arguments.
Even if you don't believe what I said (that democracy is bad), you still have to negate becuase pro doesn't prove why automatic voter registration is a good thing. He brings up stats saying that it'd increase voter turnout - okay, but there is no actual impact.
We can accept everything the pro said and just one thing that I've said (anything at all) and still vote con because of pro's lacking arugments.
My argument attacked the notion fundamental in the resolution - democracy is good. My opponent advocated for democracy throughout their arguments, something that should be considered irrelevant because he didn't even rebut what I said, he left it at its full value.
Easily vote con - whether or not you like my argument is irrelevant since pro didn't meet the BoP that was shared.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by V5RED 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
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.