Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be mandatory

Looking forward to this debate, Magoroth.

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.

1. Voters would be required to either cast a mail-in ballot or appear in person to cast a vote for national elections, noting that protest votes of all kinds (blank and spoiled ballots) are allowed
2. There would be necessary exemptions for injury, illness, infirmity or emergency
3. To address obligations like work and school, countries would make voting day a federal holiday
4. Similarly, voters would be automatically registered to vote upon reaching the appropriate age
5. Failure to vote would result in a minor fine

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.

1. Since planks 3 and 4 are not exclusive to a mandatory voting system, my case will not derive any impact from them. Con is welcome to argue against them if he wishes, or he can permute either or both of them for the purposes of this debate, since voluntary voting systems could employ the same measures. My model includes these planks to comport with the requirements implied by requiring people to vote, since a government would necessarily have to address built-in impediments that prevent people from voting in a system where voting is mandatory.

1. Regarding plank 5, I am not ascribing a specific monetary figure to this and countries would necessarily be able to decide how enforcement is carried out. Fines aren’t the only means of penalizing non-voters in countries with compulsory voting, with “nonmonetary sanctions for abstention, such as ineligibility for passport services or state-sponsored qualification exams” being possible alternatives. My focus from here on will be on the fine, but my case isn’t reliant on the fine as a means of enforcement.

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.

Thank you Con for providing your detailed position!

I’ll start by consolidating my points and then get into some rebuttals.

Con works with my democratic legitimacy framework and he doesn’t challenge my framing of it: that democracy is legitimized by a wider swath of the population voting in elections, and that only by maximizing the number of people who vote is trust vested in the results of those elections. He does present impacts that are tangentially related to democracy (e.g. freedom), but no way to weigh them.

I’ve also established and Con has conceded my solvency. The federal Election Day holiday (14% of the US electorate report being too busy or having a conflicting schedule) and automatic voter registration (in the US alone this would add up to 50 million people to the voter rolls) dovetail with the fine to increase voter turnout, which improves representation, which legitimizes democracy. Only compulsory voting can ”assure higher turnout virtually by itself”.

And the impacts of increased representation, specifically ensuring an equitable distribution of the population (as opposed to the differential turnout seen under voluntary voting), are substantial. In the US alone, “of the 63 million poor and low-income Americans who are eligible to vote, 34 million did not cast a ballot in the 2016 presidential election.” Preventing democratic breakdown addresses an even greater risk, since reduced voter turnout in many countries can and has resulted in authoritarian takeovers.

Onto Con’s arguments.

1. “The wrong vote[rs]”

Con puts two types of voters in this group: those who are uninformed and/or disinterested, and those who are easily swayed. Con argues that when these groups vote, theirs are “100%, objectively, the wrong vote to cast.”

A few responses.

First, whether it is a protest vote, a vote for an implausible candidate, or a vote for a major candidate, and for whatever reason, I’ll argue that none are objectively “wrong.” More legal participation in the democratic process is what makes that process healthy and legitimate, full stop. It is up to Con to demonstrate what “wrongness” is in this context, distinguish it from what is “right” or “correct,” and explain how it negatively impacts democratic legitimacy.

Second, all voters are variably informed, variably interested, and variably manipulable. People generally aren’t quizzed at polling stations on knowledge of or bias towards the candidates, nor on who informed your selection. These are nonunique to both voluntary and mandatory voting systems. Con claims that there will be “unfavorable consequences for society” (unclear what those are) resulting from “forcing those who shouldn’t be voting into casting a vote.” At best, this indicates that voluntary voting systems restrict these issues to a smaller population of voters who exhibit buy-in. Con will have to demonstrate that that population is less prone to “wrong” voting. At worst, voluntary voting systems are built to exclude voters, telling them as Con has that they “shouldn’t be voting", thus validating their apathy. This combined with reducing opportunities to vote and erecting roadblocks like registration is the antithesis of democratic legitimacy by discouraging participation in the democratic process. Con will have to justify how society benefits from these exclusionary practices.

Third, a mandatory system addresses these issues. Eligible voters are required to bear the responsibility of voting, they can no longer act as bystanders. The system demands buy-in. Mandatory voting also increases participation of uniquely disadvantaged groups, whose concerns are so thoroughly dismissed in voluntary voting systems that they feel disaffected and disengaged. Adding so many of their voices at once empowers them to make changes and shift representation to include them.

2. Mandatory voting is a “dire solution”

I’ll concede that shifting from a voluntary system to a mandatory one takes away an eligible voter’s right to choose whether to cast a ballot. That is a given.

Con frames this as a “dire solution,” defining that as “forcing the individual to do something against their will,” and that no one should be forced to do anything “except when that directly infringes” on the rights of others.

The word “dire” implies an unprecedented or at least unwarranted breach of rights, yet as I previously mentioned, we are compelled to pay taxes, which demand that individuals surrender both freedom and property. Freedoms can be and are abridged to ensure proper function of the government in democracies the world over. Ensuring democratic legitimacy is just as if not more important than keeping the lights on, and is only sufficiently achieved via mandate. Con will have to show that mandate harms democratic legitimacy or argue that there is some competing value that is more important, not just insinuate that it is nebulously “immoral” because it goes against "a liberal system," especially when that liberal system is contingent on democratic legitimacy.

Con also argues that to protest vote is functionally identical to not voting.

A protest vote is still participation, tangible evidence that the existing government and electoral system have fallen short. These can and do have dramatic effects on elections, shaping political narratives and highlighting lacking representation. Nonvoters, by contrast, represent an amalgamation of many reasons why one might choose not to vote. Only in a mandatory voting system are politicians consistently confronted with an engaged and diverse voting electorate that can support or reject them.

3. Mainly helps “main or dominant parties the most”

Con concludes that mandatory voting benefits only established parties because they are best known among the public.

This is false. A more equitable distribution of voters would necessarily change the demographics and policy focus of those voters. These are all voters who otherwise wouldn’t vote for anyone despite widespread knowledge of these candidates, so it doesn’t follow that they would all default to candidates who have upheld the very system that made them disaffected. If anything, the voluntary voting system ensures the dominance of these parties, as evidenced by the fact that those who volunteer continue to elect them. It is only through a seismic shift in the voting base (see: mandatory voting) that these parties could have to face meaningful competition.

4. Counterplan: just be more representative

Con argues that political parties should just become more representative of their constituents. This isn’t a competing model, it’s blue sky thinking without any explanation of the “how.” Political parties will change in unknown ways and/or add new parties in a wide range of democracies worldwide, becoming more representative. This is just solvency by fiat. The counterplan Con is proposing is too unclear to judge whether it would be effective. What changes would they make? How would those changes result in more representation? What prevents future changes that shift away from these measures?

Any system of voting would be improved by better representation, but mandatory voting creates an environment where those changes happen and stick around. “[C]ompulsion means that the battle is not, any more, to make sure that your supporters actually get to the polls, or to deter those of your opponents from doing so… but to ensure that of those who turn out, as many vote for you as possible.” It places the onus on parties to represent their constituents in their platforms first and foremost, and those same voters will hold political parties to task with their votes, whereas disaffected groups and minority interests would only become more vanishingly small in systems with voluntary voting.

Back over to you, Con.

So I'm just going to go ahead and pass this round, leaving it up to Con to round things out. Voters, please treat this debate as a two-round debate and do not vote on the basis of Con's forfeit.