Instigator / Pro
14
1417
rating
158
debates
32.59%
won
Topic
#2541

On Balance Voting Should be Compulsory in US

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
2
1

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

seldiora
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
4
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
10,000
Voting period
One month
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
10
1687
rating
555
debates
68.11%
won
Description

The punishment for not voting is merely a small fine. Voters may submit a ballot with "null vote" to make it clear they are unwilling to vote any of the candidates.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con's choice to effectively skip three out of four rounds, distracted from the arguments and effectively rendered the debate a foregone conclusion.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro's Arguments: 
- Less than 50% of people vote so it is not true representative democracy
- Compulsory laws will increase voter turnout 
- Candidates are appealing to most likely voters, not the majorities' best interest 
- Sometimes best governing practices require doing things you might resent, i.e. paying taxes
- True objectors may conscientiously abstain to protect their first amendment rights 

Con's Arguments: 
- Elections are costly
- Forcing people to vote creates resentment 
- Non voting  =/= disinterest
- Some people have good reason for not voting (anxiety, jobs) 
- People will vote for candidates for flimsy or poor reasons (anger, fear) 

Pro says "As we move to more advanced electric machines, blank or empty votes will be easier to count, refuting most of Con's arguments." That is not true. This at best addresses only one of Con's arguments which has to do with cost.  In response, Con says "I find that nothing Pro said rebuked what I said and that I have successfully poked all holes in Pro's case that are open." This is also not true. He did not respond to Pro's arguments at all.
 
Neither one of these debaters came close to addressing the other's arguments. In the end, we're forced to compare the weight of each debater's claims. While Con says elections are costly and foster resentment, Pro negated that preemptively by pointing out Congress often does things citizens might resent or find costly (i.e. paying taxes). Further Pro did at least respond to one of Con's points (cost) whereas all of Pro's were left open.