Democracy AFF

Of course voting is useful... Voting is about as essential as washing yourself. It's something you're supposed to do.

Because I agree with the American Rapper Chuck D, I affirm, Resolved: In a Democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Definitions:
Before I begin, I would like to define a few words. Democracy: That form of government in which the sovereign power resides in and is exercised by the whole body of free citizens Blacks Law Ought: An obligation Merriam Websters Voting: a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision
Merriam Websters Compulsory: mandatory jurisdiction that a state has agreed to accept in certain prescribed

matters. - Merriam Websters Observation 1: The Resolution states In a democracy, which restrains arguments to adhering to state of Democracy itself, rather than any particular country. Rather than debating the effects of compulsory voting on different countries, we must evaluate this round by how compulsory voting will affect the fundamental ideals of democracy itself.

I value, Democratic Legitimacy,

My Criterion, is ensuring citizens become more representative under a democratic government. Contention 1: COMPULSORY VOTING LAWS INCREASE REPRESENTATIVE
LEGITIMACY OF DEMOCRACY
Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, Full Participation: A Comparative Study of Compulsory Voting, p. 45
Closely linked to the argument about rights versus duties is that about legitimacy.

If, has happened in Belgium in 1843, only a small

percent of the eligible electorate present themselves at the polls, it is debatable whether one can consider the resulting assembly to have the same legitimacy as it would have if the entire eligible electorate had taken part in the process. This argument is perhaps the one which most troubles the political classes in polities with low turnout; politicians wonder if they have sufficient legitimacy to govern if they have been elected on the basis of only a small minority of eligible voters. This situation can be exacerbated when it is combined with an electoral system that grants a premium
to the strongest parties. In this context, mandatory

voting laws can be seen as a necessary (if insufficient) means of

achieving true and accurate representation (and in this sense as a natural corollary of proportional representation, along side which
it was commonly debated in Europe at the time of the franchise expansions that took place at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries.)

When we have a low voter turnout with elections, we create a misrepresentation of the citizens of a democratic nation. With compulsory voting, we increase the voter turnout and thus re-establish and legitimize the role of Democracy. This is not present in the Negative world, which is a world without compulsory voting and in order for the negative to win, my opponent must find a way to solve for low voter turnout, a major issue in a representative government.

Contention 2: COMPULSORY VOTING CAN SPUR CHANGES TO ADDRESS ROOT

CAUSES OF APATHY
Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 597-8

Compulsory voting thus has the potential over time to alleviate some of the very causes of the current low levels of voter turnout. By triggering a shift in political discourse, compulsory voting would create a virtuous cycle that would alleviate the underlying causes of voter apathy. First , as already mentioned, compulsory voting will reduce the negative tone of campaigns that discourages some potential voters. Second, compulsory voting can make politics less partisan and divisive, since currently the voting population is much more partisan than the electorate at large. If the entire population votes, there will be a more balanced representation of the political spectrum. Finally, compulsory voting can lead to increased government relevance . By bringing in groups that are underrepresented among those who are currently likely to vote, compulsory voting will force politicians to shift their focus to different sets of issues. People who are brought into the democratic process will increasingly find that the government agenda addresses their interests, and this recognition could lead to a greater appreciation of the importance of democratic government . This may increase the utility people get from fulfilling
their civic duty to vote, which would in turn lead more people to see their rational choice as voting, rather than staying at home on Election Day.

Contention 3: LOW VOTER TURNOUT UNDERMINES DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY--DISCOUNTS

VOICE OF THE POOR AND RACIAL MINORITIES Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5
The presidential election of 2000 led to an unusual situation in which the results of the election in Florida were subject to a recount that would determine who won the presidency. The difference in the number of votes won by the two major candidates was only 537, which meant that the margin of error of the machines used to count the ballots exceeded the margin of victory. Recounts by hand were inconclusive. In other words, the victory of President Bush in 2000 was not statistically significant. This illustrates that American elections may be little more than expensive, official polls of U.S. citizens . Unlike polls conducted by social scientists, however, U.S. elections are not even particularly well-designed polls because they are not

based on a representative sample of eligible voters. Rather, they rely on a racially and socioeconomically

skewed sample. Because of this, America could actually achieve a more representative government by doing away with the current election system, and instead polling a large, representative sample of eligible voters,
despite the fact that such a mechanism for selecting government leaders seems inherently unfair and might violate the Equal Protection Clause. Given how limited the franchise was until the twentieth century, and the low rates of voter turnout in recent decades, it is likely that no U.S. President has ever received a majority of the votes of the American adult population . In the 1984 election, for example, Ronald Reagan won a "landslide" victory, but received the votes of only 32.9% of the potential electorate. The preferences of the other 67.1% of eligible voters were either for a different candidate or simply left unaccounted for.

There are serious questions about how legitimate a government is when the vast majority of citizens have not elected it. This concern goes beyond the question of whether or not low voter turnout affects substantive policy outcomes (which is unclear). More fundamentally, there is a serious tension with the understanding "that within our constitutional
tradition, democracy is prized because of the value of collective self-governance," which is as much about procedure as it is about substance. Indeed, the level of voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters in many recent elections would not even be sufficient to constitute a quorum for some of the most important American political institutions . But the most serious questions arise not from the sheer number of citizens whose voices are not counted, but from the fact that certain groups are underrepresented. Partly because of disparities in turnout rates by demographic categories, the center of political

gravity has shifted toward the wealthiest white Americans. Government may not be giving adequate consideration to the priorities of the poor or of racial minorities.

Thus Judge, in order to have a legitimate form of democracy, or even adhere to the fundamental ideals of democracy, you must vote AFF because having compulsory voting leads to a more representative government and also Negative must solve for the harms that are caused by the lack of compulsory voting, such as less representative governments, less voter apathy, and limiting the skew of elections toward the rich. Thus I urge an affirmative ballot.