The Instigator
I_love_debate
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
adri33300
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

In a democracy voting ought to be compulsory

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 816 times Debate No: 39881
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

I_love_debate

Pro

Compulsory voting is better the the current way we vote today because we would be showing our way of loyalty to our country and making more valid results.
adri33300

Con

Lincoln Douglas Debate

John Adams once said "You will never know how much it cost the present generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it". For many generations, our ancestors have fought so that we may have a say in our government and vote. We fully achieved that right in 1870 with the ratification of the 15th Amendment. But the fight wasn't over yet. Although the law was passed, many southern states didn't enforce it. As you can see, being granted the right to vote was a huge accomplishment, and was enforced and publicly accepted a mere 48 years ago with the Voting Acts Right of 1965. Voting is an honor and should not be taken for granted.

As a result, I strongly negate the resolution that in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

I am going to clarify a few terms, for a full understanding of the resolution.

Democracy- Government by the people, exercised directly by the people or by elected agents.
Voting- Formal expression of opinion or choice; positive or negative
Compulsory- Required, mandatory, must be completed

My value for today is going to be autonomy, which is the right or condition of self-government and moral independence.
My measure is one of the Government getting dependable ballots, and citizens accurately expressing their opinion on who they want in office

Contention 1: Moral and technical flaws

Forcing someone without an opinion to vote is un-just. Aristotle once said that voluntary choice in relation to moral responsibility is based on freedom. He pointed out that we should on give praise to voluntary freedom. He also claimed that force or ignorance brings about involuntary action.

Sub Point A: Voters without an opinion

As we already established, about 50% of citizens have been voting in our past elections. So what about that other half? If these citizens wanted to vote, they would've. Some may have gotten too busy, some may not have an opinion, and some citizens may not keep up with political matters, therefore being uneducated and uninterested in the election. Say you just turned 16 and got your driver's license. Just because you CAN drive doesn't mean you HAVE to. It's your opinion- You may be uninterested in driving and rather take a bus, or bike to school. Voting is the same way- Just because you are legally able to vote doesn't mean you must. You might not know enough about the election; or maybe you just don't have time to vote. Compulsory voting sounds like a great idea until we factor in these citizens. Could forcing them to vote on these matters make them angry? Would they ignore it? What would really happen if compulsory voting was put into place?

Sub Point B: Random ballots

These voters are undecided and uninterested. Forcing them to vote may be just another thing they have to do. What if the voter Christmas trees the ballot? They are uneducated and don't know what's going on. And we aren't talking about a small percentage of people here. Yes, you would have a vote from everyone- but it wouldn't be an accurate measurement of their opinion. Is that what we're going for? Say you are making muffins- You're walking around the store with 3 dollars. You could buy 2 packs of cheap muffin mix with artificial ingredients, or you could purchase one mix with fresh fruits and all natural ingredients. Do you want more muffins of a lesser quality, or fewer muffins with a greater quality? Was compulsory voting proposed to achieve full participation of voters, or an accurate opinion of who they want in office? Random votes could totally throw off the election.

Contention 2: Reforming the voting system

As I have already stated, the lack of votes in our system is caused by inability to get to the polls, not enough time to go out and vote, or a lack of education about the election system. I believe there are other ways to increase the country's voting percentage. We should encourage them and tell them how important their vote is. The democracy could offer online ballots, rides to the polls, or even classes to better educate our citizens. But I believe that even before considering a compulsory voting system, we must educate our citizens.

Usually at this point I would continue to talk about my opponent's contentions, except in this case I am going first due to my partner's decision. So now I'm leaving it up to Kailee to comment/contradict my contentions :P
Debate Round No. 1
I_love_debate

Pro

John Stuart Mill believes that happiness is determined by the individual. In addition he argues that no individual can determine what will produce happiness for EVERY individual. Thus, he believes that a democracy is the best way to secure liberty and promote happiness, democracy is an avenue to provide individual happiness to the greatest number. I stand firmly resolved that in a democracy ought to be compulsory.
For clarity in today's debate I offer the following terms taken from Webster's Dictionary:
Democracy: Government by the people; a form of gov. in which the power is vested in the people.
Voting: A formal expression of opinion or choice, either positive or negative, made by a person or body of people.
Compulsory: A requirement; forced to do.

The affirmative will uphold the value of what is best for the country not "one" individual. As a democracy we get to choose the leader we would like to make decisions for our country. There are 123 democratic countries 35 are required to vote, these 35 countries have compulsory voting because they consider voting as a civic duty! Why don't we make it 36 countries, after all that those men ( and I don't say women because women weren't allowed to fight) fought for our freedom from Great Britian and spent months and Independence Hall debating about how are government should be ran the least we as citizens could do is vote and not everyone votes so by making voting compulsory we can show loyalty to our present day country and thank the people from the colonies too.

In order to determine which position in today's round (s) best provides opportunity for what is best for a country not one person, the affirmative proposes the criteria if utilitarianism. Utilitarianism focuses on the affects of an action. The moral action is that which produces the greatest good. In other words, the happiness and well-being of the majority should take priority over the individual.
I'm today's round the affirmative must prove that "in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory" by demonstrating that compulsory voting allow us to show are respect to our country ( past and pesent) and security of knowing that the right person is in charge of making decisions for our country correctly now that EVERYONE (with the exception of handicaps) will be boring making better results.
Contention one: Government legitimacy

If right now there are 60% voter turnout in the Western countries and we are struggling to even get to 60% then what does that say about our government? It says that ONLY 60% of showed to right on the ballots in that voting booth. Can our government be legit meant if only 60% of our countries citizens show up to vote? No, not now at least but if we switch to a compulsory voting system then our government could be legitiment. We can encourage civic participation while making it so our government was indeed chosen by the people. Like I stated earlier in my definitions a democrative government'a supreme power is vested in the people.
Contention two: voter obligation
Under social contract, because governments provide us with protection and security, we owe duties to the government. Our duties today as an American citizen include
-Serving on a jury
-going to school
-Obeying the laws
-Paying taxes
-Registering for the draft (boys)
Voting is NOT a duty obviously, as if right now voting is a right and a responsibility. Voting is extremely important because it we need right people to lead our country and make decisions for us. They also are the people that are providing security and protection for us. It is in our national interest that the majority voted for because like I stated earlier for my criterion (Utilitarianiasm) happiness and well-being of of the majority should take priority over the individual. In order to achieve national interest wee need to fulfill the right/ responsibility to vote and compulsory voting (meaning making it a civic duty now) and compulsory voting is best way to achieve that.

Do this in the order Mrs.Connelly listed
1ac then cross examination ( you ask me ?) 1nc, cross examination (I ask you ?) Arubuttel, Nrebuttel, Arebuttle
C u n class tomorrow
adri33300

Con

adri33300 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
I_love_debate

Pro

I_love_debate forfeited this round.
adri33300

Con

adri33300 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.