The Instigator
Lexus
Pro (for)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
YourAverageAnCom
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

This House Would Make Voting 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 2 votes the winner is...
Lexus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,127 times Debate No: 67688
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (10)
Votes (2)

 

Lexus

Pro

Thanks to whoever accepts this debate, it is going to be on [RESOLVED: THIS HOUSE WOULD MAKE VOTING COMPULSORY]. There are going to be three rounds and they are going to be as follows, failure to follow these rounds (unless amended in the round) will result in a full seven point forfeiture
  1. constructive cases (no rebuttals, but you can make points that you expect to hear from the opponent)
  2. rebuttals/new points
  3. answers to rebuttals/answering new points/telling judge why they win/crystalization of points/no new points

-----
DEFINITIONS:

  1. "this house would" - just a fancy term that means that the house (the judges) would vote in favor of the resolution at hand
  2. voting - give or register a vote; used to express a wish to follow a particular course of action
  3. compulsory - required by law or a rule; obligatory
-----
CONSTRUCTIVE CASE:
Compulsory voting leads to a better representation of minorities. Oftentimes people that are of the upper class, either by economical, educational, or social gains, vote more than people that are not in these upper classes do. Because they vote more often, this leads to a recurring circle that leads to the disenfranchisement of the lower class, and the disrepresentation of them. The rich will have higher amounts of representation in their local legislatures and public offices, and that means that minority groups that do not vote often do not have someone that is able to listen to their needs. This can all be solved with compulsory voting. How? you might ask, and here's the answer: it forces the lower class (socially lower, economically lower, or educationally lower) to vote, and thus have more representation. Doesn't that lead to the minority holding the majority of public office? you may very well ask again, and the answer is no! Here's an example: there are 5% of people that usually do not vote due to lack of monetary resources, and they align with the ideology of xXx_NoScope_xXx. Under the compulsory voting enactment, they will have to vote for whose ideology they believe in, and lo and behold: xXx_NoScope_xXx is the man for the job! Because compulsory voting leads to a better representation, the party of xXx_NoScope_xXx will hold office 5% of the time, and everyone wins! Compulsory voting leads to less gridlock, as shown in some of my sources down below.
Compulsory voting has been implemented successfully before. This is pretty standard knowledge, but I think that this is important to bring up. In Australia, most notably, compulsory voting has been implemented well and has had more fair elections due to it. If this was implemented in the United States or other parts of the western world, it would not be very hard to implement. It has a strong success rate, and thus we can see that it would most likely follow the trend line that has been set by Australia.
Compulsory voting will demolish special-interest groups' power. By implementing compulsory voting, it would make it much more difficult for special interest groups to elect themselves into power, since everyone (including the lower class) would have to vote, and thus take away the power that is obviously in the hands of upper-class special interest groups. How? you may ask, and here's the answer: it focuses the power away from the top class and redirects it to the main population of the country. This leads to a more just society, a more fair society, a society that bends to the will of the people. If we had compulsory voting, we often would not have corrupt politicians, since special interest groups often elect these kind of people into office. (Corrupt as how to the politicians do not vote in the ways that their state/community would vote, rather in the way that their special interest groups would vote, thus corrupting and eroding the very representative democracy that we have)
Compulsory voting makes more people interested in politics. By making every able-bodied adult vote, we would make them seriously consider who they are voting for, and research more and more about their choices. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves about bad policies, and take them out of the government. Compulsory voting, thus, leads to better legislation that is passed in the community, and because of that, makes a positive impact on society and the world around it. It would also open the door to more foreign trade, since more and more people would research foreign trade and see that the benefits outweigh the harms, which would lead to an evermore expanding economy.

[1]: http://www.money.cnn.com...;
[2]: http://www.aec.gov.au...
[3]: http://www.usnews.com...
[4]: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...
[5]: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au...

again thanks to whoever that accepts this
YourAverageAnCom

Con

I accept this debate; first argument goes to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
Lexus

Pro

"There are going to be three rounds and they are going to be as follows, failure to follow these rounds (unless amended in the round) will result in a full seven point forfeiture:
constructive cases (no rebuttals but you can make pints that you expect to hear from the opponent)
rebuttals/new points
answers to rebuttals/answering new points/telling judges why they win/crystalization of points/no new points"

my opponent has broken structure and thus forfeits the debate. I was actually looking forward to this debate :/
YourAverageAnCom

Con

I apologize for misunderstanding the structure of the debate (my first debate on this site) however I would still like to make a case if that's okay with you.

My Constructive Case

Compulsory voting is not the right solution to the problem of politicians focussed on special interests. In many cases the success of political candidates depend on the amount of money that they're campaign has as they will gain media attention, access to primary debates, and thus the attention of average voters because they don't have perfect information this will not prevent the business elites from getting their way and continuing the status quo. Another problem is these candidates are funded by a lot of large corporations, too many for everyone to know the business practices of each and everyone of the corporations. The continuation of Capitalism or the state regardless will continue the status quo that comes with it.

My solution to the business government power elite interfering with Democracy is a more realistic system that will more accurately represent the will of the masses and that is Direct Consensus Democracy. Suppose a group of people are voting on a proposal; 51% are in favour and 49% are opposed, unlike mob rule the 49% would not be forced the comply with the 51% instead the 49% would be free to explain why they object to the proposal. If they disagree but are willing to let the proposal go into action then they can can stand aside and let it pass, or if they want to reach a consensus more quickly they can modify the proposal and see if that works, but if they're totally unhappy with it they can block the proposal and suggest something completely different. There are numerous reasons why this model of consensus decision making is clearly preferable to Representative Democracy.

#1. Again as I said earlier it's a more accurate reflection of the public will. This is because in Direct Consensus Democracy you represent your own views yourself.

#2. It fosters critical thinking. Because the goal is to create as large a consensus as possible there's always going to be room for improvement, it runs on dissent!

#3. It fosters solidarity. Through a constant process of looking for more and more common ground it unifies people and strengthens their solidarity. When practiced on a large scale this would reduce anti-social behaviour by some margin.

#4. It's the default way for humans to interact with one another. If you go out with a group of friends you'll make decisions as a group discussing and evaluating the possibilities until you arrive at something that everybody's happy with. Consensus decision making is something we are all naturally accustomed to do because it makes for healthy relationships between people.

#5. People are actually free in this system! It's the freedom to pursue your own creative needs and desires alongside your fellow human beings.
Debate Round No. 2
Lexus

Pro

That's alright :) Round three will just be rebuttals and answering rebuttals, sorry if there was a miscommunication on my part. I urge the judges to dismiss what I said about breaking conduct will result in a 7-point loss, since there was a miscommunication on the structure of the debate, I ask you vote on the cases as they stand. Welcome to the site as well! (Just a formatting tip, con, you can get formatting by pressing on "rich text" on the top left part of the box where you type in your arguments! Pretty nifty)
-----
REBUTTALS:
"In many cases the success of political candidates depend on the amount of money that they're campaign has as they will gain media attention, access to primary debates, and thus the attention of average voters"
In compulsory voting, the people would be more politically involved, and thus vote more for the people that fit their own ideologies. Nobody is going to vote for someone named Bob Johnson if he stands for eradicating puppies and baby kittens, even if he has access to all of the commercials and media, because people will stand by people that support their own views, and would research into people that support their own views.
"Another problem is these candidates are funded by a lot of large corporations, too many for everyone to know the business practices of each and everyone of the corporations."
In a two-party system, such as that of the United States, this is not a big problem. People do not have to look into 500 different candidates, instead they only have to look into 2 major candidates, and then a few small-party ones that reinforce their own ideologies. Also, what you said about them being funded by a lot of large corporations, what is bad with that? If there is a giant corporation named "Puppy-Killers, LLC.", and they have the slogan "We like to support candidates that support the eradication of puppies", who is to say that they cannot support them on a monetary level? The corporation supports the views of Bob Johnson, so they should have the right to put money into his cause. (I just used these examples as a joke, but change the names and slogans to something to the effect of "Democrats 4 Peace" and "we love peace and we like to vote for those that achieve peace/strive to achieve peace").
"The continuation of Capitalism or the state regardless will continue the status quo that comes with it."
Not
having compulsory voting won't fix this, so you are not fulfilling your BoP to say that we should not make voting compulsory.
"[second paragraph of constructive case]"
That's an interesting idea that you have, and I'd really like to have a debate about that kind of government when this debate is over, but that does not really fit the resolution at hand, and thus we cannot say that you are fulfilling your BoP to say that we should not enact voting compulsiority.
-----
Thanks to my opponent for not allowing himself to just forfeit, instead make a case when he did not know if it was allowed, I admire that.
YourAverageAnCom

Con

Excellent I'm glad this debate can continue!

Since we're not discussing my alternative to the democratic system discussed I will focus round 3 on rebutting the statements promoting compulsory voting.

My Rebuttals

"In compulsory voting, the people would be more politically involved"

This is simply not the case, the public isn't suddenly going to get more involved in politics just because voting has become a legal sanction. The public doesn't really know where their tax money goes but they pay the government anyway because it's a legal sanction the same can go for voting. A person may not know what the candidates stand for but they'll vote anyway because they legally have to.

"Nobody is going to vote for someone named Bob Johnson if he stands for eradicating puppies and kittens, even if he has access to all the commercials and media"

This is a flawed statement as candidates will often lie in order to win their elections and the media will just make it easier for them. The public generally depends on T.V. to get political information more so than anywhere else, you can't just expect people to look into every candidate running for office and then just vote for them. Not to mention some people are just fundamentally opposed to all politicians (myself included) so that will also be a problem in a system of compulsory voting. Compulsory voting simply will not change how people will be willing to gain information about candidates. In what possible way can violating a person's autonomous right not to vote have an affect on people being politically involved.

"In a two party system, such as that of the United States"

The U.S is a perfect example about how my previous statements are accurate. The U.S is not technically a two party system but the public only votes on two major parties because the media limits their coverage on those two political parties, this problem will not change with compulsory voting.

"Also, what you said about them being funded by a lot of large corporations, what is bad with that?"

These corporations are the special interests of the candidates, because they are funded by them they are more interested in doing their bidding than that of the working class or significantly smaller businesses with much less money. This is exactly why Capitalism is a major part of the problem, the structured inequity of it perpetuates the corruption that occurs within the state.

"Not having compulsory voting won't fix this"

A part of the solution to ending the status quo is to eliminate the business government power elite that inevitably comes from Capitalism and the state as well, and once you get rid of the state voting all together will become obsolete!

I want to thank my opponent for the understanding, and would like to wish her luck in the voting process.
Debate Round No. 3
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by YourAverageAnCom 2 years ago
YourAverageAnCom
Hopefully I have just redeemed myself.
Posted by SebUK 2 years ago
SebUK
Pro you can always start another debate and just copy and paste your arguments.
Posted by YourAverageAnCom 2 years ago
YourAverageAnCom
Should have said second argument but whatever.
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
thanks for the interest in the debate
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
Noted. I shall simply observe then
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
*Platonic, as relating to the philosophy of Plato
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
concrete debate would make more sense in the given resolution
Posted by aburk903 2 years ago
aburk903
Do you want a concrete debate, or would you like to debate the Platonic ideal against democracy?
Posted by Lexus 2 years ago
Lexus
I just used them throughout. Pieces of each throughout, some apply to more than one contention
Posted by Wylted 2 years ago
Wylted
You just have a bunch of links at the end without citing them in the debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by awr700 2 years ago
awr700
LexusYourAverageAnComTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Very good arguments on both sides, but Pro's arguments were more convincing.
Vote Placed by danhep 2 years ago
danhep
LexusYourAverageAnComTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I didn't buy the Con's counterplan idea, the Pro better refuted and used more warrants/sources