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.
Undemocratic means do not justify democratic ends
Pro did not present any argument at all, just an assertion. His points were unsupported (see his last paragraph)
Arguments against compulsory voting:
1. Not voting is a valid political choice. Voting involves a person’s freedom of choice, movement, and association. By forcing people to the polling station on the Election Day violates these freedoms because if people don’t want to exercise their right to vote for the reason that they don’t want any candidates, it is their choice.
2.This would create false democratic representation as the "ignorant" and those with little interest in politics are forced to the polls. For this reason, compulsory voting would not serve any purpose at all.
I argue that, even though an uninformed vote could be damaging, the extremely low voter turnout of recent elections needs to be addressed. Low voter turnout creates to a very ineffective style of governing, where governments do not know the true needs of their citizens. Compulsory voting combined with an education of the political process for all citizens, would be a more effective form of government.
Technology is extremely good at connecting people and allows data to be transferred from almost anywhere. The US possibly could create a secure form of mobile voting almost ensuring high voter turnout
Thanks for admitting that CV could be damaging.
Low voter turnout should be addressed but not through compulsory voting because not voting is a valid political choice; and exercise of freedom of choice, movement, and association. Also, compulsory voting will create false democracy.
Pro cannot just add conditions now, he should have stated his conditions like ‘educating voters,’ in round 1. This is a basic rule in debate. But granted it counts, still his so-called ‘educating voters’ is very vague and not in harmony with compulsory voting.
We can increase voter’s turnout by informing and educating people about election, without necessarily forcing people to go to the polling stations because it violates their fundamental freedoms.
In compulsory voting countries the ballot usually has an option to represent a non-vote for voters who are not sure.
I argue CV would secure every citizen a vote, ensuring proper representation from their government. There are also a few other logical benefits from CV. We know that discouraged and poor aren't voting in non-CV countries. Why not put in place a system where these underrepresented groups are assured a vote. Australia, a CV-Country, votes on Sundays and even accepts doctors notes to ensure fairness. The right not to vote shouldn't be mistaken as "your vote doesn't matter".
CV may infringe on a persons fundamental freedom a little, maybe its worth it.
Now, you are contradicting yourself. You said you want the government to be representative of majority, but at the same time you are okay with blank-vote which won't guarantee any majority vote or representation.
Clearly, I rebutted your arguments and you failed to rebut mine. Also, you kept adding and changing the parameters of this debate.
|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:||0||3|