The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 7 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
The rules are:
1: The BoP is on Pro since he wants it to be mandatory.
2: I will waive the 1st round and my opponent will waive the last round. They must signify this in the round. Violation is an automatic loss of the conduct point.
3: A forfeit is an automatic loss unless apologized for in the comments.
We can think of democracy as a system of government with four key elements:
- A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.
- The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.
- Protection of the human rights of all citizens.
- A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens.
A significant strength of democracy as a form of government is that it makes political dissent less probable. An elected government will have been voted into power by a majority, meaning that a majority should be satisfied. This cannot compare to any other form of government: the only way to ensure majority approval is by hearing from the public, and shaping a government based on their expressed needs. Even if a dictatorship would be in the interest of the majority, this would only be an assumption, since elections are the best way to gauge what the public wants/needs. On the other hand, a democratic government leaves out the needs of minorities, which might leave them feeling unconsidered, resulting in dissatisfaction. However, there is no form of government that can appease all people, and only with democracy can majority satisfaction be assured.
1. To support dictatorship2. To support democracy and show that forcing people to vote (or at least proportionally fining them for not doing so relative to their income) is less democratic than the system of fully optional voting (or somehow to make an in-between system that I don't know of).
This is impossible to achieve and if you argue that voters are too ill-informed, the solution always is, has been and forevermore will be to inform them.
In direct support of what I suggest, a nation embracing mandatory voting, Switzerland, in its campaign to keep public broadcasting produced this to defend the need for it and to explain how well corruption happens without it:https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/society/funding-and-debates_how-the-world-s-countries-provide-public-media-/43880294As the nation is not just having mandatory voting but good standards all round (second in the world for Human Development Index 2017) http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/CHE.pdf it follows that the entire angle of 'dumb voters voting' is negated as likely since not just in Switzerland where the referendum where 71% voted “no” to public broadcasting being defunded (which is undeniably accurate as this was a referendum with voting on it being mandatory).
Just to be crystal clear I am not saying you have to actually fill out someone's name on the form. You can botch the thing if you want or preferably there'd be an 'abstain' box to tick instead.
There is no way to deny it now Con, you dug your own grave on this one.