Voting should be compulsory.
Debate Rounds (3)
Voluntary voting also leads to dirty tactics for candidates and campaigners including, for example, legislating rules that would unfairly affect poorer people as suggested in certain states of the USA in their last federal election.
The second best method would be to randomly select voters, however this can still lead to skewed results especially in smaller electorates.
I accept, thanks for bringing up a new topic!
I don't want my opening round to be very long, so I will bring up one point and let you present your opening arguments.
Forcing people to vote (assuming if you don't, you are punished in some kind of way) is both immoral and can lead to donkey votes. The majority people who don't want to vote will vote to get it over with and not put any thought into it, giving the candidate an unfair advantage or disadvantage based really on luck, with no actual thought going into the vote. More candidates will be elected due to luck rather than what the general public really wants.
Thanks, looking forward to a good argument!
However, I do concede that some donkey voting occurs. I argue that the amount that it occurs is negligible compared to the great majority of thoughtful voters. Furthermore, donkey voting occurs anyway in voluntary voting since the strong incentives for people to vote include the social incentive of merely being seen to vote.
The amount of donkey votes in non-mandatory (or compulsory) situations are very low compared to a system that requires you to vote by law.
I just did twenty minutes of research trying to find anything that says the amount of donkey votes or informal votes in America and Canada, and nothing showed up. In fact, more negativity showed up regarding donkey/informal votes in Australia when I typed in "informal (and then donkey) votes in America." About 6% of votes were informal in Australia  last year, and with nothing coming up regarding informal or donkey votes in America, it's safe to assume that the amount of informal or donkey votes is relatively low there.
Compulsory voting has other democratic benefits, too, including motivating public interest in political and societal affairs, requiring the government to make sure every person has a chance to vote and motivating politicians to be concerned for every demographic equally.
The sample isn't selected though, the people who want to vote do, and the people who don't want to vote don't. Currently, nobody is saying "you cannot vote if _."
Your real argument is it might not be very detrimental to the general public's idea as to who a good president/whatever would be. That's like saying "legalize all guns, not THAT many more people will die."
The main thing that motivates people to vote is if they're given the option. I can tell you if someone says it's mandatory to do something that I don't want to do, I won't want to do it. But if they can present good arguments as to why I should, I would be more inclined to.
A "forced demographic" is not a variable anymore.
Well, thanks for a good debate! Enjoy the rest of your stay!
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 2 years 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:||0||5|
Reasons for voting decision: BoP not satisfied. negatives and positives held no net gain to satisfy BoP.
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.