I negate

I value democracy. Two warrants:

1. The resolution creates context by specifying In a democracy, so it's a question of what is
most consistent with the structures and ideals that comprise democracy. Otherwise in a
democracy would be meaningless - the resolution could say instead in nations or in political
elections. However, we assume the words of the res are in fact meaningful because the framers
deliberately put them there.

2. Democratic participation and deliberative democracy best account for moral disagreement and
take differing ethical views into account in a way thats appropriate for an imperfect world by
allowing individuals to talk through and deliberate about the different problems that affect them
all in different ways. In contrast, your framework makes broad hypothetical claims about what
individuals in an ideal world would want or agree to.

3. only possible actor is gov, then functional ought argument (MacIntyre)

I value morality

1. ought means moral obligations
2. morality is a more important kind of obligation than government obligation were all people
before were politicians
3. government obligation aims at moral obligation, but doesnt necessarily always reach it, so we
should just shortcut to the goal

The value criterion is respecting autonomy.

(democracy justifs)
1. Any attempt at democracy requires respect for individual freedom because democracies
aim at respecting the aggregation of personal preferences that we call the public will, but
personal preferences can neither be formed nor expressed, nor deliberated without
autonomy.

2. A democracys legitimacy and existence is derived from the autonomy of its citizens
because democracies are fundamentally chosen by the people, formed by a contract
wherein we voluntarily cede a portion of our rights and freedom, but we can neither
choose our government nor choose to cede our rights if we dont have the autonomy to do
so. That also mean you should prefer liberty to other democratic ideals since all democracies
presume the value and existence of human liberty as a precondition for individuals to
willingly enter into a social contract with the government making a respect for liberty
logically prior to other democratic goods.

3. Democracy is a government, and as such a system of rules which requires people be held
responsible for rule violations or else those rules become meaningless. a) But people must
have the ability to make actions freely before they can be responsible for their actions -
otherwise persons would be held responsible for actions they did not choose to take and
government would become inconsistent and useless as a guiding entity. b) Rules must
assume the subjects under those rules contain the ability to follow or disregard them,
which means government presumes agency or such rules would be aimless.

And, morality requires autonomy:
1. morality is a system of rules, so cross apply #3 above.
2. opposite of autonomy is oppression and we all think that is intuitively, morally bad
3. morality assumes value in people but we dont have value if we cant make our own
decisions and control our own actions

Compulsory voting violates the very autonomy that democracies rely on.

1. Refusing to vote attacks the foundation of a democratic government; abstention is a way
to challenge the legitimacy of a given system. The aff world forces indivs to act with in the
system in one way or another, so no matter what kinds of speech they allow for, they cant
account for the need to resist the system itself. That freedom to resist is especially key to
democracies because they are fundamentally a system chosen by the people a democracy
in which the people are forced to choose democracy is no longer a choice.

2. Not voting is more than a political expression; it is a political action that has effects that
compulsory voting can never account for. For example, when a voter chooses not to vote
she effectively lends weight to the ballots of those who do vote. Or, voters might sacrifice
their current votes to gain some political effect in the future, such as keeping their party
from moving towards the center. Or abstention can be used as a bargaining chip to keep a
party in line with the views of a group of voters. Not voting can even influence other
voters, or serve to check back against a tyranny of the majority.

3. CV interferes with an even more important kind of freedom. It doesnt just stifle the
expression of ideas, it allows for the stifling of their formation via brainwashing. Freeman
1
:
Padraic McGuinness presents his case against "compulsory voting", and in it he writes:
"The arguments for compulsory voting are, in essence, that it imposes a civic duty upon the citizens of a democracy, and that it serves to educate them
[citizens] by bringing them regularly to perform that civic duty."
A point that he doesn't address is: What exactly is the nature of this "education"? Are people learning something useful and beneficial,
such as a genuine education would be? Hardly! Here are some suggestions about the nature of this "education":
They are (indirectly) being "educated" that coercion is "good" - because "their
government" - politicians, bureaucrats, "police", etc., uses it all the time! You should read the article: On Coercion, for a detailed description of coercion.
(Is coercion something that "leaders" should be "teaching"? Would a true leader use, or advocate the use of, coercion? Could one reason for increasing crime-rates be that the pretended "leaders"
(misleaders) of these pretended "governments" are in fact "leading" by their examples?)
Many (most?) people perceive bureaucrats and politicians as farcical - nobodies or nothings trying to be somethings. So these bureaucrats and politicians wish to
"educate" everyone that "their government" is "very important" - and if you don't
think so, then you had better change your attitude and show some respect by voting the way you're told to - or else!
"Whoever makes two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow where only one grew before, does more essential services to his country than the whole race of politicians put together." - Jonathan Swift
It [Compulsory voting] assists in the process of brainwashing people. It is one of the many tools used by
"government" bureaucrats, politicians, etc., for this purpose. The more brainwashing tools they have, the longer and the more they can keep their "citizens" in subjection.
The above points may seem harsh/extreme to the general onlooker, but even when considered in small amounts, such a supposed "education" is certainly of no benefit to those being "educated".

1
David T. Freeman. What are the main reasons for "compulsory voting/enrolment 1997.
Downloaded from the Personal Empowerment Resources website.
The AEC and other "government" departments publish lots of "educational" (brainwashing)
materials (with more tens of millions of "taxpayer's" money, of course), especially for "schools", in an attempt to make sure that their
"education" is the first to be administered to innocent young children -- instead of
leaving them to form their own opinions on "politics", "voting", "government", etc., from their own experiences later in life, where their initial opinions would then be
reality-based, instead of subjective and highly biased [opinions] to what "government" bureaucrats want them to "know".
"Whoever thinks much is not suitable as a party member: he soon thinks himself right out of the party." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, all too Human, s.579, R.J. Hollingdale transl.
"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think." - Adolf Hitler
Here is Padraic McGuinness' article: "The case against compulsory voting".
Here is Chris Puplick's article: "The case for compulsory voting" - presented in the AEC magazine following Padraic's above. This is also recommended reading, because it gives a good example of the way
bureaucrats (don't) think. Overall, Chris' entire article is really one big fallacy - I have commented on many of his fallacies within his article. I also provide some important related information for your
consideration.
There is another reason why they have "compulsory voting". As demonstrated in Chris Puplick's article, "government" bureaucrats and politicians are very aware of what would happen without
"compulsory voting".
The way they operate is this: The more people they can get to "vote", the more they believe they can
"justify" what they do - regardless of whether what they do is good or bad. The "government" bureaucrats and politicians take great pride
in claiming things like: "The majority voted for me", "I represent the people", etc. In fact,
one of their major notions is that they are a "representative government".



Multiple studies in multiple countries prove turnout has little effect on elections
results.
Blais , Andre. What Affects Voter Turnout? Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2006.
Studies that compare voters and non-voters are usually based on survey analysis. For example, Heighton and Wolfinger (2001) use survey data from US
presidential elections in 1992 and 1996 to see how voters and non-voters differ. While they find that
non-voters are slightly more favorable toward liberal (social democratic) policies and, in 1996, expressed greater support for Bill Clinton, the differences in relation to
most other items are rather small. They conclude that non-voters do not form a homogeneous group and
that an increase in turnout would hardly make much of a difference. Simulating how Senate election results
would have changed had everyone voted, Citrin et al. (2003) also conclude that those who abstain are more likely to favor the democratic party but that few results would have
been different with higher turnout rates. In simulating which party non-voters would have chosen had
they voted in the European Parliament election of 2009, van der Eijk et al. (2010) also conclude that the
effects would have been negligible for the vast majority of parties. Finally, Kohler (2011) shows that
higher turnout would only have affected government formation in one German general
election (2005) with a reasonably high level of probability. Selb and Lachat (2010) take the opposite approach to most studies. Rather than calculating how
non-voters would behave as voters, they look at survey data from Belgium to understand how those voted who would have been the most likely abstainers without compulsory voting. Rejecting the
assumption that forcing people to vote induces political interest and creates an incentive to become informed, these authors find that potential non-voters in
Belgium basically voted unsystematically, if not randomly. Had these voters
abstained, the results would essentially have been the same.
To sum up, survey analyses find that voters and non-voters do not differ a great deal in their policy and party preferences. Low rates of
electoral participation do not impinge on the quality of democracy, and efforts to increase turnout, such as
compulsory voting, seem unfounded. Reviewing the literature Lutz and Marsh (2007: 544) therefore conclude that turnout does not matter a great deal, no matter what method, dataset
or period of time the authors apply.



1. Minorities dont Change Elections
Elections are decided by majority ethnic groups. Minority ones dont change
the elections.
Jolton Hajnal & Jessica Trounstine. University of California & Stanford University [Uneven Democracy: Turnout,
Minority Interests, and Local Government Spending.
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/dcc/documents/HajnalUnevenDemocracy.pdf] SD
Second, by looking at the national electorate as a whole one ignores
substantial variation in group size across geographic boundaries and
almost necessarily diminishes the role that small minority groups can play.
In national contests, only a few very large groups can have a significant
affect on the outcome of the vote. Asian Americans, for example, are the
third largest racial and ethnic minority group but they make up well under
4 percent of the total national population. Whether or not they vote is
almost immaterial to the outcomes of national contests.
2. Minorities and those with a low socio-economic status
disproportionately fill out blank ballots
Timothy J. Power and J. Timmons Roberts; Director of Brazilian Studies Programme and University
Lecturer in Brazilian Studies, Ittleson Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology at Brown
University [Compulsory Voting, Invalid Ballots, and Abstention in Brazil, Political Research Quarterly,
Vol. 48, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), pp. 795-826]garimasingh
Socioeconomic explanations: These political interpretations of the problem of invalid voting, which relied heavily on the concept of political protest voting
as an explanatory variable, were based largely on macro-level analyses. Analysts reviewed aggregate electoral data and related them to national politi-
cal trends. However, during the authoritarian regime the advance of voting behavior research in Brazil provided
more insight on electoral trends at the state and municipal level (Reis 1978; Cardoso and Lamounier 1978; Lamounier
1980; Fleischer 1981). A number of these new ecological studies raised the possibility that perhaps invalid voting was related to socioeconomic variables
such as wealth, urbanization, and education. For example, one study of the 1974 election in the state of Sao Paulo found that blank and
null voting was negatively associated with educational levels and participation of females
in the labor force (Faria 1978). Another study of neighborhood voting patterns in the city of Sao Paulo (which has an
electorate larger than that of several Latin American countries) showed a strong negative relationship
between S[ocio] E[conomic] S[tatus] and invalid votes. In all five plurality elections from 1966
to 1982, the number of invalid votes consistently increased as one moved from
the richest to the poorest neighborhoods in the city (Muszynski 1985: 87). These more sophisticated studies
called into question the political-protest interpretation of invalid voting, suggesting that the problem might be better explained by the variables of
education and status. If invalid balloting really is the "functional equivalent of abstention" in compulsory voting systems, then these SES
models would be thoroughly consistent with decades of voting research in
First World democracies. In most advanced democracies, educational levels are positively related to electoral participation
(Powell 1986).


Two implications:
a) It shows that minorities dont want to voteeven if CV increases equal
turnout youre going against the wills of who youre trying to help.
b) You dont solve for disproportionate turnouts based on social status and
class.
Also, prefer my evidence because its based on empirical facts and the
studies are consistent with decades of voting research.
3. Low socioeconomic status will still cause alienation even if
compulsory voting is implemented.
Timothy J. Power and J. Timmons Roberts 2; Director of Brazilian Studies Programme and
University Lecturer in Brazilian Studies, Ittleson Professor of Environmental Studies and Sociology at
Brown University [Compulsory Voting, Invalid Ballots, and Abstention in Brazil, Political Research
Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Dec., 1995), pp. 795-826]garimasingh
What causes alienation? In their classic study of political participation in the Third World, Huntington and Nelson tied individual-level alienation to [is] a lack of
perceived political efficacy and competence, arguing that "those who feel politically efficacious are much more likely to participate in politics than those who do not" (Huntington and
Nelson 1976: 81). If we assume, following Santos (1987) and Lima (1990), that the act of valid voting represents a self- perception of efficacy on the part of the voter, and that conversely, invalid voting reflects the lack of these
subjective evaluations, then the analytic task be- fore us is to discover what intervening
variables impact perceived efficacy. Huntington and Nelson provide some excellent clues in this regard. Reviewing
comparative evidence drawn from numerous developing countries, they argued that
perceived efficacy is largely conditioned by socioeconomic status.'2
Higher-status individuals, especially those with comparatively high
educational levels, are more inclined toward political participation: not only
are these individuals more likely to internalize a sense of civic duty, but
they are more likely to act on it in a consistent fashion.