I’ll start by clarifying what this debate is about. As it says in the description, this debate is pretty generalized, focusing on “whether or not all democracies ought to adopt the same framework where every citizen is compelled to vote.” This isn’t a question of specific policies, though I will present the uniting features such policies should entail, nor is it about any single country or region. It’s a topic that covers democracies as a whole with explicit recognition of the variety therein. I recognize that not all democracies are built identically and, especially given that they are democracies and thus systems of government built by the people for the people, the specifics of how voting mandates are designed and implemented should be laid out by elected representatives. To that end, while these elements do need some clarification, the inherent barriers to implementing mandatory voting are not. This is an “ought” resolution, so the focus is on whether the outcomes of implementing mandatory voting is better than the outcomes of voluntary voting systems.
Also of note is the shared burdens in this debate. Both mandatory and voluntary voting systems exist in democracies in the world today. Both my opponent’s and my positions are equal and opposite: we must show that, on balance, either the mandatory (me) or voluntary (Magoroth) voting system are better for democracies worldwide.
With that, I’ll move into my model.
There’s a lot here, but this is meant to specify a very simple case: democracies should implement compulsory voting with clear enforcement mechanisms and remove impediments to voting.
A couple of important notes.
My framework is democratic legitimacy.
Democracies are granted legitimacy by the whole population - not a subset thereof, not a sliver of the voting public, but by the entirety of it. The government of any democracy is, by definition, meant to represent the interests of the entire population, not just the most outspoken and invested. A more representative democracy is inherently more healthy and legitimate, recognizing the will of the whole electorate and not just a more vocal, often fringe minority.
That legitimacy is essential to how democracies function: citizens accept that the government they elect has authority, which fosters stability and compliance with laws. It’s the reason we submit to paying taxes and the reason most of us aren’t out in the streets with torches and pitchforks (I can’t speak for Steve). By casting ballots and going through the laborious and time-consuming process of counting them and tallying the results, citizens vest trust in their government to make difficult choices. Lower participation reduces that trust and thus results in a democracy that functionally doesn’t represent nor earn the recognition of the people.
With that established, my case breaks down to three interconnected points.
1. Mandatory voting increases turnout
Voter turnout in elections has declined substantially over the course of previous decades, leading to disengagement and apathy with the political system. Ironically, “as democracy has expanded across countries, electoral participation has declined… The poorest are least likely to participate in the democratic process, and this is particularly true when overall participation is low. Low and unequal turnout then leads to ever more excluded communities with politicians engaging with the groups they perceive to be their active supporters.”
A fine is a strong incentive for people to cast their ballots, ergo more people in democracies will do so. “A few studies in countries as diverse as Switzerland, Brazil, and Australia have shown that even with small fines for non-voting or low enforcement of penalties, electoral participation is significantly higher under compulsory voting.” Voter turnout per country is often higher than those with entirely voluntary voting, with outliers like Greece showcasing the effects of unenforced penalties.
2. Increased turnout improves representation
Politicians need to get elected, and the more voters there are from a broader swath of the population, the more people those same politicians have to court and subsequently represent in office. A mandatory voting system means they can no longer rely on “likely voters” to buoy them into office. Those representatives should have to court disaffected and apathetic voters and find ways to make them care enough to vote for them.
Mandatory voting would also bolster voters. “[The requirement to vote] sends a clear message that there are rights and responsibilities. You have an obligation as a member of society: we’re all in this thing, and you can’t be a bystander.” Voting is active participation in the process of building and re-tooling the makeup of a government, and just as we are all compelled to pay taxes for the purpose of funding essential government functions, voters should be compelled to vote to ensure that the same government is at its most democratic. This would especially benefit disadvantaged groups that often don’t show up for elections, including women, minorities, and working-class citizens.
3. Improved representation legitimizes democracy
By adhering to the social contract inherent to all democracies and emphasizing the importance of every eligible voter playing an active role in the outcome of an election, we create a system that engenders more citizen buy-in since the outcomes (e.g. laws and policies of that government) comport better with a larger subset of the electorate. That yields a more stable government representing a more equal distribution of the population. That stability is crucial, since a government that fails to represent the people leads to more disaffection, resulting in lower turnout as apathy spreads. And this effect is worse among the poor, with the vast majority of the drop in voter turnout attributed to them, engendering huge rifts between socioeconomic classes and further weakening social connections.
This can also lead to the collapse of democratic institutions and lead to the erosion of democracies. This is particularly bad for fledgling democracies like those in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, which have seen the steepest declines in voter turnout. Many of these countries have effectively ceased to be democracies, falling to authoritarianism. As such, younger democracies would benefit most from mandatory voting, which sets the standard for engagement and establishes the legitimacy of their elected representatives early.
I welcome my opponent's case.
A. Some people abstain for reasons other than apathy, though apathy is a good enough reason, especially if the prospective candidates deserve apathy.
B. Mandatory voting is tyranny.
C. Spoil your ballot paper by drawing an image of a huge penis.
D. So let the enthusiastic voters vote and let the apathetic abstainers stay at home.
I welcome my opponent and I too look forward to this debate. An interesting topic.
I’ll begin by briefly stating that Pro addressed one of the issues I was thinking about prior to them posting their argument; namely, that of protest votes. I think it would be both fundamentally immoral and in a weird way also undemocratic for someone to be forced to vote for a candidate (any candidate, even), under certain circunstances. Imagine having to pick between Hitler and Stalin. Who do I pick? In a mandatory voting system that disallowed non-votes, people would be forced to break the law to vote with their conscience; in addition, those who wouldn’t go as far as breaking the law (which would likely be a substantial proportion of those who would otherwise have stayed home on election day), would have to legitimise either one of two (or more) absolutely terrible choices, and would undermine Pro’s point about mandatory voting strengthening democratic representation. I think Pro has proven that at minimum, mandatory voting should allow citizens not to vote.
However, I do not necessarily agree with the rest of my opponent’s points. I will address the points which I believe are at the heart of my opponent’s disagreement.
Firstly, Pro states that mandatory voting increases turnout. This is evidently true, but is this a good thing? Consider the type of person who is now being forced to vote. I argue that forcing turnouts will not induce people into doing more research before casting their vote. Many people who aren’t voting are likely politically disinterested and probably don’t pay much attention to politics.
Take the average teenager, for instance. Who will they vote for? Depending on if their parents are politically inclined or not, they may vote on nothing more than parental influence. Some will vote for a candidate just because their parents support that candidate, some for the opposite reason (as a rebellion sort of thing). This undermines democratic legitimacy because a vote will be cast which will be based on nothing but someone’s whims, and could easily be “the wrong” vote so to speak (I have not done this and I will not unless my opponent asks me clarify, but my position is that certain votes are 100%, objectively, the wrong vote to cast. I assume my opponent also holds this position so I won’t go any further into proving this).
I do not necessarily believe that just teenagers would be doing this. It is probable that this would happen regardless of age, it would simply be more pronounced in that group.
So in short my position here is that mandatory voting would force those who shouldn’t be voting into casting a vote, with unfavourable consequences for society.
Secondly, I’d like to point out that voting turnouts have been decreasing worldwide for several decades. Take Quebec for instance. It is now 60% where in the past it was much higher. This point I am trying to make is about the current situation, although it should apply in most relevant cases because mandatory voting is a (rather dire) solution that is proposed only when turnouts are low; if turnouts were high there would be minimal effect and there would be little reason to propose them, except for moral reasons (society viewing voting and/or political participation as a moral obligation, for instance).
I will first briefly state why I consider the solution to be dire; namely, it is because it is tantamount to forcing the individual to do something against their will, using the state apparatus. I argue that any society that does this is immoral. This is not the basis of a liberal sysem; in a liberal system, people are mostly free to do as they please, except when that directly infringes on someone else’s ability to do as they please in a way that the victim is unable to defend themselves against (think murder, robbery, etc). My opponent suggests fines for not going to vote. Okay, all well and good. But… if I don’t actually want to vote for anyone, why do I have to go to the ballot or even submit a mail-in ballot that says “hey politicians, go fuck yourselves”? It makes no difference in the end since I am doing the same thing; not voting. So why not skip the middlework and just let me stay home?
Back to a more relevant point, since this previous point was somewhat more nebulous and harder to argue against. My second main point is that instead of requiring mandatory voting - which, I have argued would simply muddy the waters of which party is most preferred, in addition to adding a bunch of voters who will cast their vote for stupid reasons (which could easily be abused by the most rhetorical or charming speakers rather than the best candidate - something which is already an issue with normal voting but would become an even larger one with mandatory voting), that political parties just get better at representing people’s wants and needs.
This is a rather complicated issue that is hard to debate since I can see many reasons why they aren’t representing interests properly; first, parties have started talking about either extreme, abstract, or irrelevant things, the people in the general populace who could represent issues that the average person actually cares about (I do not define average person to be working class; I am talking here about shit like climate change, which if you disbelieve climate change to be real, as I do, then to you that topic is completely irrelevant and talking about effectively nothing).
But, in brief, parties should just get better at representing the populace, or there need to be new parties. This would solve the turnout issue without forcing people to do anything.
Having to force people to do something is, in general, a sign that your solution is really last resort and you can’t do anything else.
One last main point I would add, which follows from my second point, is that mandatory voting benefits the main or dominant parties the most, since they are old and they have been in the public’s mind for years, and, as I said before, it is their failure that makes us even consider mandatory voting. It benefits their turnouts, not the hypothetical turnout of a hypothetically better party or group of parties. It may even serve as a screen for how much dissatisfaction there is with the current establishment; which would disincentivise people from establishing new ones; why try if you think there’s no chance?
I await my opponent’s case.
