That voting ought to be compulsory

Kohai (PRO)
0 points

admin (CON)
WINNER!
0 points

Debate
Comments (1)
Rules
Judging (0)

Kohai (PRO)

Thank you admin for accepting my debate. This is my first debate on edeb8 and I wish you the best of luck. Note that my opening arguments are taken and slightly modified from a debate that I did on DDO.

1. Voting is the principle way in which a Democratic government functions.

P1: In democratic countries, voting is the primary way in which the government functions.
P2: It is therefore our moral and civic duty to ensure that the government runs properly.
C: Therefore, the government ought to make voting mandatory.

When we vote, we make a conscious decision that will effect the entire nation. Often times, our choices will have consequences, whether good or bad, that could last for generations. In his book, The Ethics of Voting, Princeton philosopher Jason Brennan writes¹:

"Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone."
...
"Voting is the principal way that citizens influence the quality of government. No activity is more emblematic of democracy. Some call voting a civic sacrament. Many people approach democracy, and voting especially, with a quasi-religious reverence."

In his debate, edeb8 use whiteflame writes².

"[Democracy is] the basis for how our country continues to function, and an essential component in determining who represents the country. As such, voting is necessary to keep the country functioning for the benefit of the people. It's beneficial for all eligible voters to understand that necessity, and to be aware that their duty as citizens is to be involved in the composition of their government, and thus to be involved in the laws it passes. This is the same reason why jury duty is compulsory, as it ensures that the courts can function properly."

2. The consent of the Governed

P1: Democracy is based on the consent of the people
P2: Citizens show consent by voting.
C2: Therefore, voting ought to be mandatory.

Defense of P1: Democracy is based on the consent of the people

By definition, democracy is based on the consent of the governed, but what does the phrase "consent of the governed" mean? The phrase, according to DailyKos writer Avaya Shamair means³:

"It is only when the people come together and make decisions as a whole, with the decision of the majority taking precedence, that the "consent of the governed," has been obtained. And this process of decision making by the majority is the basic principle that is indispensable to the establishment of a nation based on equal rights."

The Universal Declaration of Human Writes states⁴:

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.
(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Defense of P2: Citizens show consent by voting

Once again, by definition, voting is the way in which we can alter or abolish our form of government. When we have anemic turnout, like we do in the United States, the result is that the government functions without the governed's consent.

Conclusion: Therefore, voting ought to be mandatory.

From 1 and 2.

3. Compulsory voting reduces polarization

Among the issues with voter turnout is the high polarization in the United States. Justin Valasek in his research for Duke University noted⁵:

"When turnout is strategic and citizens have decreasing intensity of political preferences, I show that an incentive to maximize turnout among the base can cause candidates to take partisan positions, in contrast to the median voter result under full turnout. I then study how the results of this model change with the introduction of measures to increase turnout. In contrast to previous literature on turnout and mandatory voting, which takes candidate positions as fixed, I analyze the effect on both who wins the election and the candidates’ political positions.I show that at high enough levels, measures to increase turnout result in convergence at the median citizen’s ideal point. As voting is made cheaper, or strictly beneficial (through subsidies), the strategic effect of turnout on candidates disappears, returning the median voter result."

So, if we made voting mandatory, the results will be that the candidates will largely take political positions that represent a broader aspect of the said population, thus creating a more centrist government as Eric Liu writes⁶.

"In today’s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don’t currently vote."

Conclusion

Voting ought to be mandatory because it is the primary way to ensure that the government functions with the consent of the people. Mandatory voting will also help to reduce the high levels of polarization seen in the United States.

Over to con!

Sources

1. Brennan, Jason. The Ethics of Voting. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2011. Print

2. Used by permission of Whiteflame http://www.edeb8.com/debate/That+voting+should+be+compulsory

3. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/3/29/1374180/-Mandatory-Voting-Majority-Rule-not-Majority-of-Minority-Rule%C2%A0

4. http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

5. http://econ.duke.edu/uploads/assets/ValasekJMP1811.pdf

6. http://ideas.time.com/2012/08/21/should-voting-be-mandatory/

Return To Top | Posted:

2016-07-19 14:52:38

| Speak Round

admin (CON)
First of all, I'd like to thank my opponent for offering me this challenge. This is my 100th proper debate on edeb8 and one that I think will be very special to me. Further, I welcome Kohai to the site, and hope he enjoys it here. Without too much ado, let's jump right into the case.

Democracy

It's good to start this debate with some common ground. The resolution, and pro's interpretation of it, is set within a democratic framework. We're talking about modern, western, liberal governments that function, at least ostensibly, through regular, free and fair elections for officials to some sort of governmental position or set of positions. Importantly what distinguishes the democratic perspective is in its intention - democracy seeks to ensure some degree of popular representation in decision-making, what the UNDHR (cited by pro) calls the "will of the people".

This common principle to both our cases does differ in one slight respect. There is nothing in absolute representative democracy that ensures that the options on the ballot papers represent the will of every person, yet this is fundamental to the functioning of a democracy. The democratic option would have people select those to power who most accurately represent their own views. Should nobody represent their views, and for whatever reason they are unable to be on the ballot themselves, then forcing them to vote for somebody they do not like is undemocratic. Put another way, the only way that you can ensure popular representation is if the candidates are representative. When North Korea's elections come around, for example, those aren't very democratic because there's only one candidate you can realistically vote for.

In this debate, I will push two key contentions. First, that voters are not justified selecting representatives they fundamentally disagree with. Second I will tell you how this better undermines existing power classes and better achieves political dialogue. In my second round I will expand that by showing that many modern democracies are quite representative and non-polarized under the status quo without voting being compulsory, going over the real factors that have significant impacts on these ends. Having dealt with all this, you can expect to see both integrative and substantive rebuttals to my opponent's contentions as part of my case here.

Representation

First of all, it is important to remember that representation is what distinguishes the democratic system of government. As such it's not something that a democracy can afford to get wrong - if you have a non-representative democracy, then that would be more properly called an oligarchy.

We note that for various reasons, governments restrict who appears on the ballot paper. First of all it's because governments have it in their interest to shut out competitors to their leadership, so they can continue to press their own ideological vision on policy decisions for cabinets to come. Second, most governments want to prevent frivolous or joke candidates from detracting from the important and formal process of government. Third, people themselves don't want to go through potentially hundreds of names to find the ones they most support. And fourth, it is not practical to count or distribute votes when there are too many names on ballots, making the election process slower and more painful for everyone.

The mainstream solution to this problem has been to limit ballot papers to a smaller number of the most popular choices, sometimes adding a "write-in" option for those who do want to present a really alternative candidate (although this somewhat defeats the purpose). This provides people with several choices: they can vote for the popular person everyone likes, and if there's a write-in option, they can follow their heart and try to put Princess Celestia into power. This will be important going forward - those candidates who represent the most common interest are already the ones who are most likely to appear as options in elections.

Nonetheless there will be people who are dissatisfied with the policies of any candidate. This can happen even if there is a write-in option, because for example, people might not know anyone else who shares their particular political opinion (and for whatever reason they are unable to stand for office themselves), or perhaps because nobody actually does share their views. Certainly it is possible for such people to cast a protest vote for the candidate they hate the least, but this brings with it a number of harms - principally, that it undermines the very purpose of democracy, that each vote cast represents a positive belief by one person in another representative. If you employ a doctor or a teacher for your child, you should hope that's because you trust that person, just like you trust politicians when you employ them (via elections) to make laws for you - and if there's nobody on that ballot paper you trust, casting a vote anyway is fundamentally the same as what every single North Korean goes through come election time.

This effect is really happening in many democracies today. That's why, for example, a recent Princeton study found that the USA more closely resembles an oligarchy than a democracy. Ballots are not representative of the overall will of the people, rather, people are elected from an elite class. In such real circumstances, pro would have people unwillingly voting for candidates they don't want, from a narrow selection of ostensibly popular viewpoints, on the basis that they hate them the least. And somehow, that's supposed to add up to legitimacy?

The only way you can have legitimate government is if you allow people to say: we don't support the government. That's why elections exist in the first place. For exactly the same reason, you can't have legitimate elections unless you allow people to say they don't support any of the candidates. That's why we should allow people to refuse to take part in an election.

Existing Classes

Let's acknowledge that those who would choose not to cast votes, are probably the people who fall outside of the mainstream political spectrum. Some might be apathetic, some might be anarchist, some might hold fringe beliefs that no major party would dare to align themselves with. Perhaps these ideas might be dangerous in some cases, and perhaps they are not.

Why would people not vote, then? Because the existing parties or mainstream political philosophies do not engage them and their particular views. Nonetheless those views may be perfectly legitimate political expressions within the context of a free democratic marketplace of ideas. Having the turnout rate be less than 100% impacts this in several ways.

First, it means that such viewpoints are accepted as legitimate political expressions. When you exclude those views from the realm of acceptable discussion, you exclude the people subscribing to those views from the democratic process, effectively disenfranchising them. Democracy is about the right of every person to express their political opinion, including undemocratic opinions. That's why communist parties are generally permitted to exist in otherwise democratic countries. Since there is no candidate espousing apathy for example (if somebody did try to run on a platform of apathy that would itself be ironic), forcing those people to vote takes away their outlet for their political opinion. This directly contravenes all the equal access to government principles that pro wanted to bring to this debate. It is simply impossible to have political dialogue in a strictly centrist government, because there's nobody of a genuinely different opinion to dialogue with.

Second, low turnout rates are a signal to current and prospective politicians about potential holes in the marketplace of ideas, for voter groups who are not currently being reached out to by mainstream political attention. That's a helpful warning sign that there is more those politicians could do to sway otherwise undecided voters. Such a lack of confidence in the political spectrum as a whole could influence policymakers, for example, to hold off on policy implementation that they know will not win them much overall backing. For that reason, persistently low turnout rates are uncommon in nations with free elections.

Third, in the longer term, non-votes break down barriers to entry for the political establishment, because it normalizes the idea that non-mainstream opinions are legitimate. While pro wants to normalize political expression to the point where everybody is basically saying the same thing (this is what "less polarization" means), I personally believe the very spirit of democracy is to allow every idea to be debated, every political viewpoint (however extreme) to be heard, and ultimately, every view tested, to be heard and judged in the open forum of the election cycle. Like a diversity of cultures, a diversity of politics makes the political system as a whole more resilient and inclusive, breaking down barriers for any ordinary man or woman to lead the great nations of the world. That's the democratic way - break down those power hierarchies and family dynasties, and open the government up for future generations.

Existing classes are benefited most when they don't need to differentiate themselves, and are the only options on the ballot anyway. Again think of any non-functioning democracy - Zimbabwe, North Korea etc - and you will see those two things in practice. That's why outsiders did so well in the current US presidential cycle - they offered an alternative voice to mainstream political opinion. And I would say there should be more of that, because the best way to include more people in the political process is not to force them to participate, but to excite them, with policies they WANT to see passed, and candidates they WANT to see put in office. Diversity (or "polarization" as pro demagogues it) achieves that, while centralization of political philosophy does not.

Rebuttals

Just a few substantive remarks on my opponent's case to close my opening round.

Rather than justifying the moral and civic obligations to vote, pro decided to copy-paste two arguments by others on the topic. That's fine and I hope he extends it with some analysis of his own in rounds to come.

First, Jason Brennan claims voting is morally significant. I agree, but that does not logically mean it should be compulsory. If you had the option to kill any race of people in the world that also would be a morally significant choice, but perhaps the most moral option might be not to commit genocide. The option to refuse any choice from a set cannot be automatically dismissed as amoral, just because some of the options in the set have moral consequences. Rather morality works in a circumstantial way - the decision to vote or not to vote has moral consequences for the country as a whole. In not every case will everybody subjectively evaluate the moral outcome of that decision the same way based on their own political persuasions.

That voting is a civic sacrament to some does not mean it should be imposed on all. Some people go to church every Sunday to receive a sacrament, and that's their right, but the days when governments would enforce those things on populations is far behind us. We now accept that people have freedom of expression and freedom of conscience as basic human rights. And while neither are absolutes, the same is true of voting. We vote because we want a government that represents us, the people of our respective nations. Some might do it out of quasi-religious conviction - but the reality is that its purpose is far from metaphysical. If somebody manifests that purpose by sending a message that they have no confidence in the options offered, that's good for them as it means they are not denied their personal sacrament.

Before I address the points of my old pal whiteflame, let me preface this by saying that while I have a healthy respect for the guy, we disagree on many aspects of civil rights. He made almost exactly the same argument in our vaccination debate, substituting voting and vaccines, and democracy with healthcare. I think everyone agrees that both government and healthcare are good things in isolation. The question is whether this warrants forcing people to tick a bit of paper, or to stick a needle in their arm. Yes, voting is necessary to a democracy, because it makes it representative. But if you FORCE people to vote, then it's not representative anymore. Then it's just self-congratulating all those lucky enough to make it to the ballot sheet by whatever standard exists at the time. Worse yet, it's making a political decision FOR people, the decision to vote, taking that away from them. Opting not to vote does not imply somebody is not making an informed political decision, just like opting not to vaccinate does not mean somebody hasn't made an informed medical decision.

Addressing consent, the conclusion clearly does not follow. The logical conclusion from those premises is that "democracy is based on voting", which I agree with. People's consent to democracy does not follow from their consent to be governed by a particular leader. I don't like New Zealand's prime minister a lot, but I really like our system of government. Those views are not incompatible. Many Americans would never consent to be governed by Obama while thoroughly supporting the process that put him in office. Both are acceptable. Furthermore, there is an implicit premise, that consent to democracy should be mandatory. This in and of itself is an undemocratic premise. Finally, if you make showing consent compulsory, is it still consent? That's like saying rape is OK if I have a gun. Of course consent is not so absolute a standard! People's choice to not vote is their own personal way of expressing their political opinion.

Finally, recognize that less polarization means that everyone basically has the same opinion. Some people are centrist. I used to be when I was younger. Should centrism be imposed on the entire population? Should people be forced to consent to a centrist state, and if so, what is it at the center of? If you don't have far left and right viewpoints represented then centrism itself ceases to make sense. It is on pro to justify why everybody, from every political persuasion, should vote for a more centrist candidate. I'll be paying especially close attention to how he will claim this is going to be actually representative of people's views, which remember, is ultimately what democracy is all about.

The resolution is negated.

Return To Top | Posted:

2016-07-20 00:58:05

| Speak Round

View As PDF