The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
3 Points

Compulsory Voting

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/5/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,154 times Debate No: 72966
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




Compulsory voting is a system in which voters are obligated to vote on election day. If the voter chooses not to vote they may be subject to small punitive measures, much like a speeding ticket. This system is used by 22 countries around the world and has various pros and cons.

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.

Debate Round No. 1


Con argues compulsory voting creates a "false democratic representation" and feels not voting is a valid option for citizens.

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.

*side note*
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.

Debate Round No. 2


Con argues not voting is a valid political choice and I agree.
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.


Thanks for conceding. In CV, even if there is a blank-vote option, it would still violate some fundamental freedoms.

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.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Atheism_Debater 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Good debate overall but I believe that Con won this one on the means of better arguments and rebuttals. Reason: Con made a very good point of it not being Democratic and forces people who are not interested in politics to the polls. Pro then concedes on this point. Pros rebuttal was alright, but was overall lacking because it was only an assertion without any backup. Pro then changes the conditions of the debate. Great debate though!

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.