Question: Do Electronic Voting Systems Enhance the Electoral Process?

Electronic voting systems would result in a more economically efficient voting process. The implementation of electronic voting would significantly reduce the expenses currently incurred for employing vote counters and renting polling station venues. For instance, the UK's 2005 general election had an organization cost exceeding £80 million, Canada's 2008 election cost around $300 million, and the USA's 2008 presidential election was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion. Moreover, electronic voting offers the potential to enhance accessibility for individuals who currently face difficulties in casting their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who struggle with English. Previous trials have shown that this can lead to an increase in voter turnout among minority groups. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it challenging to operate the lever-operated ballots currently in use. Implementing electronic voting ensures that no demographic is excluded from the democratic process.

Sources: [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

"Note: Private messages between members is irrelevent to a debate. " I was simply stating the subject of this debate "In the second round of debate Con offers no argument of his own. He seems content to merely rebut my points without offering an alternative plan to the Electoral College. Offering an alternative is essential if Con hopes to be competitive in this debate and should offer one in the final round. " I realize my error in the last argument. My alternative is eliminating the "winner-take-all" aspect of the Electoral College. This means that states may divide their Electoral Vtes between different candidates. This means that smaller states still have representation and means that no votes are lost. I also believe all electors shoould be pledged to vote for the winner of the popular vote in their state. I think we should also eliminate the maximum number of seats in the house. By destroying this limit, it lets all states be equally represented. "1. The Election of 2008 provides evidence to the contrary. States that are supposedly firmly in Republican hands voted in favor of the Democratic candidate, Barack Obama. These include, but are not limited to North Carolina, Virginia, Colorado, and Indiana. These states not only did not go overlooked, but they ultimately voted against 'their' party. Obviously for this to occur, the democrats did not ignore the largely Republican states. Nor did the republicans, who scrambled to win back their support. " I realize this, but my point still stands. Neither of the candidates campaigned in wyoming ( a highly Republican state) or Washington D. C. (a highly Democratic city). Though the states you mention defied their historcal voting records, they did not defy the polls. "2. It is odd that Con would reverse course and support a "weighted popular vote" despite opposing the Electoral College because it gives the vote of some states more weight than others. Why complicate the electoral system if it is to be replaced with the very same concepts? The old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies in this case. " I didn't say I supported weighted Popular Vote, I said there are systems where states are adequetley represernted. "3. This would apply to the nation as a whole, even if there were a popular vote. Under either system there will necessarily be a losing side. By this logic, all people voting for the losing candidate have wasted their time and their vote was worthless. Clearly this is not a compelling reason to reform the system, because there is no plausible way to eliminate the existence of a losing candidate in a free election short of electing all candidates or instituting a one-party system. " The system I offered above makes a vote in any individual state count for something. This means that if you vote for the losing candidate in your state, they might still get Electoral Votes. "4. This is simply not true. There would be unintended effects on the Electoral College as a result of conducting the census more often, but the system would still remain the same. " I think we just agree on this issue. "5. Con has offered no sources and provides no evidence to support this claim. Until he does so we cannot suppose his claim to be true that representatives cannot be trusted to reflect their consituency. The same is true for bribery. I predict he will cite the 1824 election. However, historians have yet to produce enough evidence to prove there was bribery or any sort of "corrupt bargain. " I don't expect Con will be able to do what longtime historians have yet to be able to do. Without evidence that bribery and corrupt representatives is the norm, this is not a valid argument in favor of taking the tie breaking duty from the House of Representatives. " Although I do think there was corruption in the 1824 election, A better example of this is What might happen in the future. Already we see a bitter battle between Republicans and Democrats, if they decide the president, none of the votes will matter, and the representatives will not reflect the votes of the nation. For those who don't know, in 1824, No one recieved a majority of votes. So the election was decided by the House Of Representatives. Then after Speaker of the House Henry Clay supported John Quincy Adams, he easily became president, even after winning the Popular vote or the most Electoral Votes. Adams then Mae Clay the Secretary of State. The Electoral College was flawed, so with a minority of the popular and Electoral Vote. By pledging all the electors tie situations are less likely. 6. This point does not even make sense, and is a blatant attempt at reversing his original position. He originally said >>>"In Wyoming citizens have more inffluence on the Electoral College by a margain of 4 to 1 (. http://www.fairvote.org.........) this leads to cititzens in certain states have more "power" than others. "<<< Here he is saying that Wyoming citizens have a more powerful representation than other states. This point is clear by his source (which he misquoted) that says Wyoming citizens have four times more power than Texas citizens. This point I have addressed and Con has not rebutted. His new position makes even less sense. He claims that some citizens have more power within "THEIR STATE's popular vote. " This is simply untrue and unfounded. He offers no evidence or support for this point. I realize my wording was bad. I meant that Wyoming has an elector for every 165,000 people while Texas has an elector for every 652,000 people. This means they are exxtremely overrepresented. I know my wording was VERY bad and confusing.

Whenever there is an election, people are encouraged to vote. However, there are also people who think that voting is just a waste of time and that nothing good will come out of it, even how many times it has been done. It"s hard to imagine if majority of the populace thinks this way, because if that happen democracy has already failed.people should vote because it is a way for every citizen to show their loyalty and concern to the country that they are serving. If one thinks that voting is unimportant, others will do to, and eventually everybody will think that it is useless.People vote because each person"s opinion matters and get counted. It is a way for citizens to voice out their hopes and dreams for their country by choosing the leaders that shares the same political and social ideals with them.The reasons why should people vote are countless, may it be as a privilege, a right, or a duty. Jst think of the people who fought for country jst for us 4 our freedom shld we forget dem

Like every government system, democracy has positive and negative effects towards society. Throughout time, democracy has proven to be a defective way to run a country. In the world we live in, a democratic government is a potential danger to civilization and at any point in time it could lead to a disaster. Within many countries in past and present times, a representative democratic government puts an unneeded strain on the economy for funding where money could be used elsewhere. In the end, a democracy doesn't seek out what is best for all citizens but simply does what the majority wants. For a democratic government to work there are many changes that will need to be made for it to be the best form of government. First of all, because we don't live in a perfect world and we have realized that man is a fallen creature, a democracy could easily lead to disaster. In a democratic government, the majority has the power to destroy a minority. Throughout history there have been many examples where the majority has had the power and destroyed the minority. For instance, in Germany in 1933, Hitler and his National Socialist Party were voted in by the majority. From here, Hitler then incorporated his power into the Nazi dictatorship with his strong sense of racism and plans for world domination. During this time, Hitler produced a novel," Mein Kampf," dedicated to Thule Society member Dietrich Eckart. The novel was an autobiography and an exposition of his ideology about racial purity which also incorporated future plans Hitler had which any German citizen could have read and used against him. Although at first, German Jews assumed that Hitler would not last long due to the fact, the nazi movement was so much against basic German traditions of cultural and religious tolerance. In the end, if the democracy had not been seeking change, in the year 1939, the Holocaust wouldn't have occurred. Therefore, collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries wouldn't have systematically killed between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews, in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions. Secondly, in some countries, a democratic government seems to be increasingly about money. Throughout the past ten years, the United States of America are an obvious example where millions are spent on elections with big events and advertising campaigns. This is not what democracy is about and it discourages countries from moving along the path to democracy. In the United States, democracy plays a role of being a hypocrite itself as it undermines the very idea of democracy. Democracy isn't when money is involved to the extent that it is in the U.S.A. Therefore, when mass amounts of money are involved, it becomes elitist and corporatist because only the elite and rich businessmen can afford to fund the campaigns for congress let alone for the presidency. For example in 2009, the campaign for the White House cost $1.6 billion and the whole 2009 election overall including senate and House of Representatives races cost $5.3 billion. With large amounts of unneeded advertising being used, it leaves the question of, "couldn't that money be used somewhere else?" Although the United States of America is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, 13 percent of people living there, live in poverty. Of the other 87 percent of people living in the United States, 14.6 % of the households struggle to put enough food on the table. With such struggle to survive already, it doesn't help that in 2010, the unemployment rate in United States was 9.4 % .( Trading Economics, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic) Finally, in a study of international health care spending levels published in the health policy journal Health Affairs in the year 2000 found that the U.S. spends substantially more on health care than any other country in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and that the use of health care services in the U.S. is below the OECD median by most measures. The authors of the study conclude that the prices paid for health care services are much higher in the U.S and it will continue to rise. (Wikipedia) Furthermore, with the lack of education, unemployment and money, it becomes next to impossible to afford health care. Therefore in many minds, the millions of dollars used to advertise elections are a clear waste of money seeing as there are any other ways to run a country such as autocracies that avoid this immense expense by avoiding elections. Thirdly, in many points in history and today, countries have been led by representative democracies. In a representative democracy, an elected leader is chosen to run the country with the best interest of all citizens. With the world not being perfect, it's simply impossible for an elected leader to take into consideration every idea from every citizen. Therefore, the government doesn't seek out what is best for all citizens but simply does what the majority wants. For a democratic government to work successfully they have to listen to the majority while taking into account the feelings and lives of the minority. Every citizen would be involved in government, and would take a strong interest in the way that their government works. There would be elected citizens that would be monitored to make sure that no one part of government had more power then another. From here, all citizens would be heard and they'd have full satisfaction in the way there government was being run. For example, the comparison between the U.S democratic government and the Cuban Communist government leave many differences. In Cuba, a communist government has free education and health care which provides the citizens with a proper education which overtime helps provide money. With Cuba not being one of the wealthiest countries in the world it's hard to believe that it's 6th out of 108 countries for the lowest rate of poverty with 3.2%. Also with other facts in comparison to the United States, the U.S has an employment rate of 9.4% where Cuba only has a 1.4%. Finally, with over powering facts such as these, a communist government could have a better impact then a democratic government. Therefore, I believe that a democratic government isn't the best form of government. In conclusion, a democratic government has negative aspects and is a defective way to run a country. Democracy always leaves a potential danger of a poor elected leader such as Hitler to cause danger to society, unneeded economic strain by poor funding, and poor involvement of all citizens on ideas on how to run a country successfully. Throughout history and in our future, a democracy will never be permanent due to the fact every democratic system has there flaws and doesn't cover the demands for all citizens leaving then in a sense of poor security. Therefore, I believe that democracy isn't the best form of government.

#3 a. Not everybody has the $ to pay debate.org b. If you had to pay there would be less members who sign up #1&2 a. You didn't solve the problem of unfair voting

For voting instructions I'll ask voters to refer to http://www.apdaweb.org.... First Contention: If voters are asked to pay for these IDs it will constitute an unconstitutional poll tax. The 24th amendment requires that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote…shall not be denied or abridged by the Unites States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." The amendment was created to guarantee Americans' most sacred right. It is supposed to ensure that financial matters don't come between the voter and their vote. Even without a formal charge there are personal costs associated with acquiring a GIPID. Simple costs like $22 for a copy of ones birth certificate, travel expenses for reaching the DMV (a considerable barrier in many of our more rural states), and the cost of missed wages weigh most heavily on the poor. This discrimination based purely on financial resources disenfranchises Americans and constitutes a very real though not literal poll tax. Concerning the burdens the law would put on these people, Robert Wilkins, a District Court Judge reviewing the constitutionality of Texas' recently passed GID bill, asked ""How can we ask them to travel over 100 miles to get an ID?" For those in rural Texas without cars, asking them to travel even ten miles is considerably demanding. Voting shouldn't be a chore, voting ought to be a right that our government works hard to protect. "Judges ask tough questions about Texas voter ID law at trial" Chicago Tribune. July 13th 2012. Second Contention: Our safeguards against fraud are already good enough. In most states people are asked to present ID in the form of bills, Medicaid and Medicare cards, social security cards, or paychecks; this has served us well thus far. Voter fraud in the United States is practically non-existent. Less than one case in each state is prosecuted each year, and "from 2002 to 2005 only one person was found guilty of registration fraud. Twenty people were found guilty of voting while ineligible and five people were found guilty of voting more than once." You are statistically more likely to see someone get struck by lighting than see voter fraud. Simply put, the supposed benefit of these laws do not outweigh their significant costs. Lorraine C. Minnite, "An Analysis of Voter Fraud in The United States," Dēmos, Undated, (Adapted from the 2003 report Securing The Vote, by L. Minnite and D. Callahan, with updates.) Third Contention: These laws are not only burdensome to the disenfranchised, they are also unnecessarily burdensome for the states that implement them. In order to make a law requiring GIPID at the polls, ID's have to be made free for the public (otherwise it would constitute a poll tax). States then miss out on the revenue previously generated by charging people for these ID's. Even if the states decide to produce unique voter photo ID cards, they also have to eat the costs of producing these ID's "between 2007 and 2010 Indiana spent more than $10m providing voter IDs." States budgets have already been strained enough in recent years and cannot afford a costly program that provides dubious benefit. Fourth Contention: These laws are discriminatory. Of the 11% of Americans who currently don't have GPID, most are minorities. U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said earlier this week that some national studies showed as many as a quarter of African-American voting age adults lacked photo identification compared with 8 percent for whites. All Americans deserve the right to vote, and these laws unfairly target a group that has historically been disenfranchised. "Voting rights, voting wrongs" Economist. July 14th 2012. "Judges ask tough questions about Texas voter ID law at trial" Chicago Tribune. July 13th 2012.

I hope we will be able to have a very entertaining three round debate. First off, my opponent has given neither no definitions nor contentions. This makes this first round a bit difficult as my opponent failed to define Specialized Government Test. Now my opponent wants the US/State Gov't to create a specialized test that voters must pass every election cycle I assume in order to be able to vote. Now this test will essentially "test your political knowledge" according to my opponent. But I must first ask what is political knowledge in this case? To simply say political knowledge is the wide spectrum that is politics is a huge mistake. Is my opponent talking current events, 1700-1900's, Magna Carta days? My opponent also failed to state what kind of questions will be put on such a test. My opponent also fails to see the logic that they are intelligent racists out there who can pass such tests and still vote for McCain because Obama is half black. This solves nothing except making very busy and poor people unable to vote. My opponent also wants fifteen year olds have the right to vote, which is essentially another debate in itself. Now I will begin to point out the many flaws in my opponent proposal: 1. ) Everyone 18 or above should have the right to vote in this country. Just because Person A may be more intelligent then Person B does not mean that Person B should not be able to vote. Millions of women and minorities fought for years to get the 15th and 19th amendment. The 15th amendment: . http://en.wikipedia.org... The 19th amendment: . http://en.wikipedia.org... 2. ) Someone who is fifteen does not usually have the correct experience in order to vote. What my opponent is proposing here is highly flawed. Fifteen year olds should have the right to vote? When I was 15, I thought I was knowledgeable in politics but things have changed greatly from the age of fifteen to my current age of seventeen/almost eighteen. Not only that, but voting is a sign of being an adult in society and a sign that you have the right as a citizen to decide who in your opinion should run the country. Many if not most fifteen year olds also would just vote along with their parents. 3. ) My opponent does not obviously know the government. After watching the government screw up highly important thing after thing for years, my opponent now wants to put my right to vote in the government hands? I think the government response to Hurricane Katrina alone should put the scare of keeping your right to vote out of the government hands. 4. ) This leads me to my next point, abuse and corruption. Corruption and Abuse especially in election season is highly known through things like voter fraud. Making such tests would open the door for a political party or certain people abuse the system in order to disenfranchise millions of voters. For example, you took the test but the government never received it or it was incorrectly graded. Then what? Then you can't vote because of the government. 5. ) This leads me to my next point, human error. Who will correct such tests? This goes along with abuse and corruption. Not only that but if someone marks your paper wrong incorrectly and you can't vote because of them? There are no such machines to do such a thing my opponent is proposing. Human error is a reality, and will occur if such a plan is implemented. 6. ) Once again, my opponent did not even define "political knowledge. " What does a President Do? What does a Vice President Do? Who is the current President? If you make test questions like that, why bother making tests in the first place? People who watch the news or pick up a newspaper know such things. Now what if my opponent makes the questions even tougher. Say your put into a room when you take your SATs and your asked who was the 25th president and what was his middle name? Things like that? My opponent has failed to see the many flaws in his plans. 7. ) One other thing that bothered me with my opponent case. This line right here: "For example, a 42 year old may not pay attention to presidential debates, but feels since Obama is african-american that he will vote for John McCain. This man would simply not be allowed to vote (assuming he does not pass the exam due to his lack of political knowledge. )" The Presidential debates? You learn NOTHING new from the debates as they are basically a forum where the candidates can put their stump speeches into condensed forms. The debates also happen much later into the election cycle. By then, as long as you watch the TV (as the election coverage is 24/7 now) or pick up a newspaper then you know who is for what. I wouldn't want someone to vote for race as much as anyone but as a American that person has the right to make his vote against Obama because he is half black. Final Points: My opponent made no definitions or contentions. My opponent failed to define what such a test would include questions wise along with the definition of "political knowledge. " I have refuted all of my opponent points and pointed out the many flaws in his plan. . http://www.youtube.com... Watch the first video; the man speaking is John Lewis of Georgia who was a leader during the civil rights movement of the 1960's. John is speaking about the right to vote. This is more in depth information on the first video. . http://johnlewis.house.gov... The second video is Rep Rahm Emanuel of Chicago Illinois talking about the same thing. . http://www.youtube.com... What my opponent proposes is also a modern day literary test but in voter political knowledge that will disenfranchise many non-whites and the poor as I stated above. In closing, I just want to make it clear I am not trying to deflect from the objective of this debate by posting these videos or calling my opponent racist. I am not, I am just pointing out how the right to vote is one of the most precious things of all. Let us keep it that way and let us not pass this flawed plan. I'd like to thank everyone for taking the time to read my argument and hope you enjoyed reading it. Along with that, I strongly urge you to vote CON. Thank You

I absolutely loved some of your arguments, but surely all the people of the U.S. outside of the major population centers combined are, at the very least, the same amount as people inside the major population centers. Also, how does giving a set amount of votes to each state depending on the population ensure everyone has a fair say in how their lives are governed? If they got one vote for each person, everybody would have an equal say. Instead, in Utah for example, there are 6 electoral votes. Then, California has 55 votes. How can Utahns have an equal say in policies? Finally, electors (representatives of each state for the electoral college) can vote for whoever they choose; it doesn't have to be who the popular vote of their state technically chose. There is no way the electoral college ensures everyone has a fair say in how their lives are governed when all of these things are a part of it. Thanks again for debating with me!

MB17, your opening terms and conditions were that round 2 was to be about why or why not democracy is the most efficient and practical way to govern a nation. To that end, I compared democratic nations to ones practising other forms of government. Whilst this does not immediately address whether democracy is in itself efficient, it does address the purpose of round 2- and I believe I have shown that democracy is a more efficient form of government than the other options.We must also define efficiency in this case. Efficient in itself? Or efficient compared to other forms of government? Rounds 3 and 4 both look to compare democracy to other forms of government, so that is how I am weighing up democracy.Round 3 is of course, examples of what happens in a democracy vs other forms of government.You brought up the voting process. Whilst it can be argued that politicians are not elected on the basis of good policies but rather handouts, it can also be argued that not every democratic nation has such problems, and this is more the result of the country's cultural situation rather than the democratic system itself. In the US, the Republican party will play upon any prospect of socialist policies from the Democrats to create varying degrees of hysteria. The Democrats will offer handouts ad nauseam to win votes amonst minority groups. A lot of this is more to do with the specific situation in America (the Cold War fallout, the melting pot of cultures) than democracy itself.You could argue the voting process in North Korea is more efficient. However, only party can be voted for, regardless of history, policies or future plans. Actual governance of North Korea is clearly far worse than the US, as its record in feeding its people, maintenance of infrastructure, and political freedoms shows. Lets look at Qatar. Qatar is a hugely wealthy country (it has the highest per capita income in the world) and is an absolute monarchy. Despite their wealth, Qatar has the highest iliteracy rates of all Arab countries that took part in Literacy Arab Day (http://www.qsa.gov.qa...). England, recently rated 21st out of 24 countries evaluated for their literacy standards (http://www.bbc.com...), still ranks higher than Qatar overall.If you look at countries by life expectancy (one measure of the quality of health care), democractic countries dominate the top 40, with few other forms of government being represented in that list (http://en.wikipedia.org...)So, democracies score better at maintaining higher literacy and life expectancy than other forms of government. Typially, they have better freedom of expression too. The overall standard of a nation's infrastructure (power, roads, rail, and so forth) is usually better in a democracy (just look at South Korea and North Korea for a stark contrast in fortunes).So, hypothetically speaking, if both North Korea and South Korea declared tomorrow they were going to build 500 miles of new, high-speed railways, which country do you think would complete the work more quickly, more safely, and with better financial management? I know who I would bet on.

As the resolution asks if citezens united causes harm my only burden as con is to show how citezens united has no net harm. I argue that the three goals of the election process are to maxamize voter turnout, create informed voters and increase transperency. structure round 1- state position list arguements and defenitions round 2- post case with contetntions listed in round one round 3- rebutall round 4- summary speech(what are the most important issues and why are you winning on them) round 5-conclusion this is my first online debate so thnx to anyone who accepts this

=== Cost My opponent states that some states have stricter photo ID requirements, such as requiring the current home address to be accurate, etc. However, I am not here to argue that we require a photo ID with X, Y, an Z. I'm here to argue that we should simply require a photo ID. Therefore, I am not arguing for these stricter laws that go beyond simply requiring a photo ID. As far as I'm concerned, the only stipulations we should have is that the photo ID be verifiable. Whether or not the current home address is reflected on the ID is meaningless, since it does not affect the identity of the person voting. The system knows your current home address based on your identity, so requiring both is overkill. My opponent also suggests, once again, that some number of eligible voters will be unwilling to vote in the new system. My answer? Oh well. We already have a system where voting is not painless. We have to register to vote, we have to drive somewhere to vote, we have to spend our precious time voting. People are already being cut out of the picture with these stipulations. It's true that a few more people will be cut out of the picture with requiring a photo ID, but this number is quite small. The cost, as I've explained, is roughly 10 dollars and a trip to the DMV for most people. Anyone willing to go through the trouble of voting in the first place is almost certainly willing to do this. There will of course be a few who simply could not get around to doing it, but that is the reality of life. I believe I have shown that this is an acceptable loss. Let's talk about the elderly. They all have places to live. If they plan on voting, they have a way to get a ride somewhere. And very few elderly people who would vote tend to not have 10$ - this is covered in the 'poor' group. Now, students, another 'key' group my opponent brings up. Very few students don't have an ID. We need ID to smoke, drink, etc. Most of us voing age students, even if we don't have cars [metropolitan areas?] will have University-given ID's. And as I stated, these fit the bill already. Even so, hardly any students would be unable to scrounge up a ride to the DMV and 10 bucks. Even if we didn't almost all have ID's to begin with, we could easliy go get one. And now, finally, the poor. In a few cases, poor people do not have a place of residence, and may therefore not be able to go get an ID. In these cases, realize that vagrancy is in most places a crime already. We should not give ID's to people who are definitely actively committing crimes, nor should we allow such people to vote. However, most poor people at least have a place of residence. Are the poor willing, though, to give up 10 bucks and a trip to the DMV? Possibly not, depending on the extent of their poorness. This is a loss, but it is an acceptable one. The group "poor people who would have voted were it not for that 10 bucks and a trip to the DMV" is quite small. Most poor people already have ID's anyway, and most who are unwilling to waste that small amount of time and money getting an ID were already unwilling to spend that time and effort voting. === Effects My opponent says I mislead you all on the negative effects. He rewrites my 2 negative effects, while acknowledging the positive effects I listed [all 3 of them]: My old N1 and N2: N1. Some people who would have voted will not vote, due to it being too much trouble or costing too much for them to get a Photo ID. N2. People who have no ID will have to spend ~10 bucks and go to their DMV to get an ID. His re-written versions of these, eliminating my so-called trickery: N1. Poor, elderly, and rural and urban citizens will not be able to vote. N2. Illegals who want to vote still will be able to through fake ID's Since he disagrees with my old N1 and N2, we can dismiss those. Now I will rebut his new ones. ---N1 As his re-write reads now, my opponent would have you think entire voting groups are being blocked by this, when in reality it is only a very small minority of people in these groups who would be affected. I believe I have shown this round and last just how insignificant the affected portions of these groups are. Rather, I find my old N1 to be a superior explanation of the same thing, though I will modify it to indicate a slight bias towards affecting democratic groups. FINAL N1. Some people, consisting mostly of democrats, who would have voted will not vote, due to it being too much trouble or costing too much for them to get a Photo ID. ---N2 My opponent changed this to "Illegals who want to vote will still be able to vote through fake ID's" WHAT? Talk about contradicting yourself. My opponent's case so far has been that introducing a small amount of trouble, namely a trip to the DMV and ~10 bucks, will stop people from voting. However, let us realize something: getting a convincing fake ID is difficult, costly, dangerous, etc. Very few people have access to convincing fake ID's, and they no doubt have to pay quite a bit for them. If we concede that this will not hinder illegals from voting, we should also concede that a much smaller burden, getting a real ID at the DMV, will also not stop anyone from voting. So either my opponent's N2 or the rest of his case should be considered gone, since they directly contradict each other. My positive effects, which my opponent conceded to, are located in my 2nd round. Scroll up to read them again.


Question: Do E-Voting Machines Enhance the Voting Procedure?

Electronic voting systems can potentially enhance the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the electoral process. However, concerns have been raised that electronic voting might disproportionately inconvenience certain groups, such as the elderly and those with visual impairments. For instance, partially sighted individuals may struggle to discern the text on the screen, and the small buttons or touchscreens can be challenging for some to operate. Moreover, individuals with cognitive disabilities might find it difficult to remember a PIN required for vote authentication. In comparison, traditional paper ballots are often more universally accessible and straightforward. Financially, the initial setup and maintenance of electronic voting machines or software can be significantly more expensive than traditional voting methods. Additionally, the risk of lost votes due to technical glitches or malfunctions in electronic voting systems poses a significant threat to the integrity of the democratic process, outweighing any potential cost savings. These issues highlight the importance of ensuring that any technological advancement in voting does not compromise the fundamental right to vote for any citizen. Sources: [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11

Thanks Seagull!Concluding The Debate My opponent’s burden in this debate was to prove that in a democracy voting should be compulsory. His initial arguments were used as a means to defend this burden. He then, in his rebuttals and defense, insists that there would be a box for undecided or uncaring voters. This counterplan wasn’t initiated in his opening arguments and should be penalized as a result. My opponent opts in to actually defend his counterplan in his final round. He never actually defends the system that he proposes (with the option to tick undecided or uncaring) until the very last round. In the other rounds he defends the standard system of compulsory democracy in which you must vote for a candidate [1], his plan is NOT the same as the system that he originally defends which is why his counterplan is invalid and his defense should not be counted. In the final round Seagull states “someone voting for “none of the above” clearly articulates the voter’s dissatisfaction whereas not voting leaves ambiguity.” This is a new argument in the final round (which is generally frowned upon). He also defends his counterplan in the final round (when in reality he should have been defending this in the first round. This limits my opportunity for rebuttal. Furthermore, Con’s reason is not compelling. He argues that with the addition of an undecided vote box there will be less ambiguity regarding why people do not vote. This is simply not true and I’ve already offered a source which clearly shows the percentages regarding how many people are undecided, how many don’t care, etc. This cannot remove any ambiguity if there is none to begin with. I have stated this is the case and sourced it (in the previous rounds). My opponent merely asserts this argument and therefore voters should not buy it. My opponent dismisses my claims of his poor conduct as a means of avoiding his argument. This is untrue since I refuted his argument alongside making this claim, so this reason he presents cannot be true. Furthermore, it is poor conduct since a counterplan is a proposed change to your what you are affirming which ultimately keeps your burden the same. My opponent does this but does not include this in his arguments. He uses a counterplan (that he doesn’t previously introduce) to try and refute my arguments. I’m sure that anybody can agree that saying that you are going to make various changes in an attempt to distort your position so that it isn’t affected by your opponent’s argument is poor conduct and this is exactly what my opponent does. Pro does not do anything to refute the argument. Extend. Next my opponent attempts to spot out a contradiction in that I talk about the undecided voters and the uncaring voters and then I continue by talking about bandwagoning. The problem is that I never said that the sole issue is undecided and uncaring voters. Bandwagoning is an issue that takes place amongst some of the undecided and uncaring voters in the scenario in which they are forced to vote. So actually the vote becomes more distorted than accurate (as my opponent claims). I did concede that bandwagoning is a problem in both compulsory and optional voting systems but I also made it VERY clear that it occurs in higher quantity in systems of compulsory voting. My opponent drops this argument too. Extend. My opponent uses NO objective reasoning in an attempt to refute my arguments citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Right to choice. My opponent DROPS the rights separate from the UDHR (such as the right to choice). Extend. Regarding human rights, I cited specific, objective and indisputable violations. Whether or not the UN acknowledges them as major violations is irrelevant. The fact is that they ARE violations and the declaration of human rights makes this very clear. My opponent ignores this. My opponent states that I erroneously apply the argument regarding slavery however he merely states this. He offers no explanation. No source or citation. The argument stands. Extend this point. This is a clear and objective vote for the affirmative case. My opponent drops many arguments and the points that he does contest are contested weakly overall and I have successfully refuted them. I strongly urge vote to vote Pro! Sources [1] https://en.wikipedia.org...

Thanks to Bsh1 (Pro) for his opening argument!I will be utilizing this round to present my case, as well.I have no objections to any of Pro's definitions or observations.C1) Right to InactionWith any human right in a democracy comes the right to abstain from exercising that right. It is simply a matter of common sense that we have no obligation to do something just because someone has allowed us to do it. Having the right to free speech does not mean that we are obligated to speak out and publicly express our opinions whenever the opportunity presents itself. Having the right to own guns does not mean that we are obligated to own guns. In the same way, having the right to represent ourselves in our democratic government via voting does not mean that we are obligated to do so!The basic role of a government is to protect our individual rights, but to turn "right" into "obligation" goes beyond that, violating our freedom to deprive ourselves of a right if we wish to do so (i.e. violating our right to inaction). Even if Pro were to prove that making voting compulsory is "beneficial", that still wouldn't prove that compulsory voting is "justified", as the resolution states, because it would still be a violation of our right to inaction. The government cannot justifiably force us to exercise a right if we do not wish to.Thus, compulsory voting is inherently unjustifiable.C2) "Bad" VotingHere, I will attempt to show that, if anything, compulsory voting would only hurt a democracy. To do this we must look at the idea of motivation; If we allow people to vote voluntarily, then they will vote because they *want* to vote and actually care about having their opinions represented in politics; these people are more likely to be politically aware enough to make intelligent voting decisions. By making voting compulsory, however, we force voting upon even those who do not care about politics or the state of the nation; those people are more likely to be politically unaware, unable to make informed voting decisions and easily caving in to the empty political rhetoric of less qualified candidates. In that sense, compulsory voting is actually detrimental to democracy. It is much more logical to allow voting to be voluntary; the more motivated, more informed votes of the politically aware are bound to be more representative of what is in the best interest of the people.CONCLUSIONS1. Compulsory voting is inherently unjustifiable, as it violates our right to inaction (i.e. the right to refrain from exercising a right).2. Compulsory voting would be detrimental to democracy because it would force unmotivated/uninformed individuals to cast votes.And with that I hand the debate back over to Pro.Apologies for my brevity this round...

This will be a debate on the United States electoral college system, used in Presidential elections. I will be arguing that this system should be abolished and replaced with a system of direct popular vote. Burden of proof lies on me. First round is for acceptance only. Second round is for opening arguments. Third and Fourth rounds are for responses. Final round is for conclusions.

Thanks to Romanii for this debate! I will now present my case.DEFINITIONS [1, 2]Democracy - "a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free [and fair] electoral system." It may also be some combination of both the former and latter forms.Compulsory - "required by a law or rule: mandatory"Vote - "a usually formal expression of opinion or will in response to a proposed decision; esp.: one given as an indication of approval or disapproval of a proposal, motion, or candidate for office"Justified - "to provide or be a good reason for (something): to prove or show (something) to be just, right, or reasonable"OBSERVATIONS1. "On balance" implies an analysis of the wieght of the evidence. It is not my job to those that compulsory voting is always beneficial, nor is it my job to show that it would work in every democracy. Merely, it is my job to show that, in general, is is beneficial and justified.2. It is my job to show that compulsory voting (CV) is "justified." This can be done, as shown with my definition, in several ways, as long as I can show a good reason for having CV. The two main way in which this can be done are to show that CV is just or morally right, or to show that is reasonable given the circumstance.3. The resolution demands a discussion of what is best in democracies. Therefore, when analyzing CV, we must ascertain whether CV is beneficial within the context of a democracy--does it promote an effective nation-state, does it promote democratic ideals, does it comport with democratic rights, etc.ARGUMENTSContention One: TurnoutSub-point A: Low turnout is deterimental within a democracy"The essence of the argument for why high voter turnout matters starts with the premise that democracy depends on some level of self-determination and governmental legitimacy. High turnout is one legitimating factor...even after the state has removed improper or onerous barriers to voting, situational forces remain that depress turnout. These negative forces are particularly acute among socio-economically disadvantaged groups. Consistently lower voter participation among these groups has two effects: their preferences are not fully aggregated in elections and they have less influence after elections, as politicians tend to neglect the interests of non-voters. Higher turnout generally helps counteract these effects." [3] "Low turnout impugns a number of fundamental democratic values such as popular sovereignty, legitimacy, representativeness, political equality, and the minimization of elite power. Majority will is central to democratic rule, therefore lamenters of low turnout often argue that the more completely the preferences of the majority are registered, the more democratic the system will be. When a government's mandate is informed by incomplete information about the wishes of the electorate, the legitimacy of its decisions may be in doubt." [4]The conclusion we can draw is simple, democratic values such as egalitarianism and justice are circumvented when turnout is low. Moreover, democratic government is more likely to address the concerns of all constituent groups if all groups turn out to vote--thus, it makes government more willing to comprehensively and holistically tackle problems, rather than honing in on the issues on an elite few. Finally, I would reiterate the sentiment so aptly expressed by the American Revolutionaries: "No taxation without representation." If certain groups don't or are unable toget out to vote, how can we say they are represented? How can we be a government of the people?Sub-point B: CV solves for low turnout"Academic analysis shows that compulsory voting is likely to produce a high turnout of voters, wherever it is used. There is no doubt that the Australian arrangements produce a high figure, for Australia's is one of the most consistently high turnouts anywhere in the world--an average of 94.5 percent in the 24 elections since 1946. The Netherlands averaged a turnout of 94.7 percent before compulsory voting was abolished in 1971, and a turnout of 81.4 percent in the years since." [5] "One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law...The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws can raise voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points [or more]. The effects are likely to be even greater in a country such as the United States, which has a much lower baseline of voter turnout than many of the countries that have already adopted compulsory voting." [6]Sub-point C: CV solves for polarization and lack of representativeness"It is also possible that increasing turnout will increase the representativeness of the electorate in another way that might help put a dent in one of the major ills of the current political discourse in America: polarization. The electorate and the parties have become more polarized...by playing more and more to the extremes and crowding out the center. This has a negative impact on political discourse and can serve to diminish participation by those citizens who have less extreme views. Importantly, the citizens who are currently being left out of the mix in terms of political participation tend to be less connected to the two major political parties. Put another way, the citizens who are most engaged in politics and turn out to vote also tend to be the most extremist in terms of political outlook." [7]Contention Two: ViolenceSub-point A: Stability is necessary for effective governanceI would truly be surprised if Con contested this, but the argument is simple. A state requires relative stability in order to carry out day-to-day functions. Areas ravaged by violence, natural disasters, etc. tend to have fewer amenities and poorer governmental infrastructure. Therefore, stability is beneficial.Sub-point B: CV reduces violence, solving for a major cause of violence."State actors have an interest in high turnout because voting helps sustain a peaceful democratic government. When voting norms atrophy in democratic countries, their citizens may cease to view voting as an expedient form of participation and political expression. With citizens less conscious of voting as a desirable form of participation, they are more likely to resort to protests, violence, and unrest. A society 'in which a large proportion of the population is outside the political arena is potentially more explosive than one in which most citizens are regularly involved in activities which give them some sense of participation in decisions which affect their lives'." [3] "Unless public engagement with the democratic process improves, our leaders may well find themselves elected by precariously small proportions of the eligible population, which will cast doubt on the popular mandate behind their policy initiatives...the have-nots increasingly shun electoral means of addressing their concerns, they may resort to more disruptive forms of political action. Social unrest manifests itself as a quintessentially economic problem, but it is also closely linked to constitutional and political structures, as these structures define the options citizens have at their disposal for voicing dissent...Increasing the electoral participation rates of deprived and marginalised social groups is a key means of incentivising political parties to pay attention to their needs, and thereby of heading off destabilising forms of social unrest." [4]Contention Three: CitizenshipDemocracy is unique in that places the responsibility of governance in the hands of the people, and, to whom much power is given, much is expected. In this case, we, as the holders of authority, have a responsibility to vote and to make conscientious voting choices. Even if you buy none of my other utilitarian arguments, you can look to this one to vote Pro. "The rights-based defense of mandatory electoral participation starts from the premise that duties and obligations are intimately connected to rights. Voting is a necessary attribute of citizenship; it is a public trust, a moral obligation, a duty of citizenship. Democratic obligations thus follow directly from democratic rights. The obligation to participate in elections can be defended on the grounds of equality inherent in the definition of the democratic choice situation; all members of the community have a duty to contribute to collective decision-making if they are to enjoy its fruits, irrespective of any consequentialist arguments (considered below) as to the impact of such participation. " [4]SOURCES1 - http://www.merriam-webster.com...2 - http://dictionary.reference.com...3 - Jason Marisam, Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 1954 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-25 - http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...6 - Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-57 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920

A Final defense My opponent claims that I changed my advocacy and doing so costs me the debate. I am perplexed by this accusation. My initial argument was that compulsory voting increases voter turnout and ensures people’s votes are counted. This is still my argument. There is no shift in advocacy. It seems to me that my opponent is conflating compulsory voting with limiting who people can vote for. As I mentioned in my previous round; the purpose of compulsory voting is not to make people vote for someone they do not wish to vote for. Rather, it is to ensure that everyone’s vote is counted. Thus, as people have the ability in the status quo to write in whomever they want and do not have to select an option presented the same would be true under compulsory voting. Here Famous complains that this makes my proposed system all too similar to the status quo. Not so, as he mentioned in his opening argument there are many reasons why people currently don’t vote. Surely he does not view this list as comprehensive. Compulsory voting ensures that people’s votes are counted for so that we don’t have to guess as to why they did or did not vote. Even in the cases given, someone voting for “none of the above” clearly articulates the voter’s dissatisfaction whereas not voting leaves ambiguity. Con argues that placing an undecided or none of the above box on a ballot is poor conduct on my part as it is a late plan. Again, I find this perplexing, I am arguing for compulsory voting, not for limiting what can or cannot be voted for. These are entirely separate issues. What we have here seems to be a case where my opponent does not have a good response and seems to be rejecting my argument to technicality because he has no response to it otherwise. It seems to me that my opponent is trying to severely limit what I may or may not argue. If anything is poor conduct, I would say this is. My burden in this debate was to affirm that voting in a democracy ought to be compulsory. I have done this. Famous attempts to have his cake and eat it too. Consider he argued that people that are not interested in voting or undecided will simply check the box none of the above, only to later argue that bandwagoning is an issue. This should clearly demonstrate the lack of structure in my opponents’ criticisms. As my opponent concedes the point that bandwagoning is an issue with or without compulsory voting I will not address this further. This brings us to the asinine claim that compulsory voting is a violation of human rights. Here con misunderstands my objection. He claims that because the UN does not intervene in every violation of human rights that the UN’s lack of intervention on compulsory voting means nothing. First, I am not claiming that if compulsory voting was a violation (which it is not) that the U. N. would intervene. Rather, I argued that the U. N. does not view Compulsory voting as a violation. Take notice that my opponent has not cited an example contrary to this, he merely cites the U. N. website and erroneously applies a statement on slavery to compulsory voting. He claims this is a “minor violation. ” Again, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either compulsory voting is slavery and a severe violation of human rights or it is not. A Brief Summary My opponent’s argument’s are based on four key elements of a democracy. He argued that compulsory voting violates two of the four. First he argued that compulsory voting works contrary to the principle that “A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections;” I have shown this to be untrue and based on the semantics surrounding the word “free. ” Compulsory voting does not mean forcing people to vote for something they don’t want. Second he argued that Compulsory voting violates the key principle that A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens. ” He claims this because he views compulsory voting was a violation of human rights and a type of slavery. I have shown this to be a ridiculous accusation. The fact that he even claims it to be a “minor” violation demonstrates how off base this contention has been. I have presented a case for compulsory voting. This case demonstrated that low voter turnout is detrimental to democracy. Compulsory voting has the impact of increasing voter turnout, thus ensuring “The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life” which con claims is one of the key elements of a democracy. Thus we see the resolution is affirmed. Thanks for reading.

Excellent I'm glad this debate can continue! Since we're not discussing my alternative to the democratic system discussed I will focus round 3 on rebutting the statements promoting compulsory voting. My Rebuttals "In compulsory voting, the people would be more politically involved" This is simply not the case, the public isn't suddenly going to get more involved in politics just because voting has become a legal sanction. The public doesn't really know where their tax money goes but they pay the government anyway because it's a legal sanction the same can go for voting. A person may not know what the candidates stand for but they'll vote anyway because they legally have to. "Nobody is going to vote for someone named Bob Johnson if he stands for eradicating puppies and kittens, even if he has access to all the commercials and media" This is a flawed statement as candidates will often lie in order to win their elections and the media will just make it easier for them. The public generally depends on T. V. to get political information more so than anywhere else, you can't just expect people to look into every candidate running for office and then just vote for them. Not to mention some people are just fundamentally opposed to all politicians (myself included) so that will also be a problem in a system of compulsory voting. Compulsory voting simply will not change how people will be willing to gain information about candidates. In what possible way can violating a person's autonomous right not to vote have an affect on people being politically involved. "In a two party system, such as that of the United States" The U. S is a perfect example about how my previous statements are accurate. The U. S is not technically a two party system but the public only votes on two major parties because the media limits their coverage on those two political parties, this problem will not change with compulsory voting. "Also, what you said about them being funded by a lot of large corporations, what is bad with that? " These corporations are the special interests of the candidates, because they are funded by them they are more interested in doing their bidding than that of the working class or significantly smaller businesses with much less money. This is exactly why Capitalism is a major part of the problem, the structured inequity of it perpetuates the corruption that occurs within the state. "Not having compulsory voting won't fix this" A part of the solution to ending the status quo is to eliminate the business government power elite that inevitably comes from Capitalism and the state as well, and once you get rid of the state voting all together will become obsolete!

RE: "But with proper school monitoring and the correct filtration systems and the willingness of the school administration to enforce it, laptops in schools could be in the near future." What my opponent is insisting is by far easier said than done. If these problems with laptops usage in high schools could so easily be solved, it's clear the school administrations cited in my source would have simply taken the time to act upon my opponent's advice. Clearly, the sheer amount of EXTRA school monitoring, filtration systems (whatever that means) and school administration work needed to maintain control over student laptop usage would be a tremendous burden to adhere to. Ladies and gentleman, we must once again take into consideration the fact that our education system (which, may I remind you, is ranked poorly in comparison to other education systems around the world) is struggling to advance and that the necessity to improve upon the means by which students are actually educated is far greater than whatever benefit could be provided by allowing laptops. It is far more reasonable that the amount of effort which my opponent insist be placed towards laptops (which, incidentally, she has yet to provide even a single warrant for) be put towards student education. Furthermore, I would like to point out that my opponent has not responded to my alternative (which in no way deters student education or redirects administration resources AND allows students to reap the benefits of having computers) which is to simply adhere to the current system and allow students to simply use the school's computer labs. School owned computers are far easier to monitor/control than student laptops. RE:"but if school administrators were to enforce the rules laid down by the school the students are likely to follow them." Who says they weren't already enforcing the rules? I'm sure a student being exposed for hacking into the school' database wouldn't end well for said student. The problem is that it can often be discern the identity of these would-be hackers. If computer usage were simply limited to school owned computers, the process of catching trouble makers would be easier. ========= CONTENTION: Laptops have been shown not to improve academic achievements ========= I sort of alluded to this in the previous round, but never actually came out and stated it. Just to avoid confusion .. . To quote one of the key lines suggesting this: "After seven years, there was literally no evidence it had any impact on student achievement — none," said Mark Lawson, the school board president here in Liverpool, one of the first districts in New York State to experiment with putting technology directly into students' hands." BOTTOM LINE: We have good reason to believe that allowing laptops does not improve education, but only harms it. Keep in mind that PRO has provided us with no reason as to why laptops should be allowed.

I hereby state that the opinions stated below and the arguments presented do not necessarily dictate my personal opinions.As commonly proposed, democracy is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The basis of democracy depends on the effectiveness of the state to grant its citizens with the right to vote and the citizens to respect that right. Democracy exists on the notion that all the eligible citizens vote for a future that they would like to see. However, in many democracies, today, a decrease in this number of eligible citizens at the voting booths has been witnessed. This is why I call for voting to be compulsory in all effective democracies. I will first present a mechanism that will address the issues at hand. Then, I will refute the arguments presented by Con as I go through my first two arguments and get to any points of rebuttal left at the end. Mechanism: All registered voters will be asked to compulsorily cast a vote during the elections. However, for those who do not have a chosen candidate or do not wish to vote on the particular election, there will be an option to not vote which would say something on the lines of “I wish to abstain from voting”. Those citizens who are registered, but do not place a vote, will be withdrawn from the list of registered voters, until they register again. On the second time of registration, they will be fined a decently hefty amount. So, we are looking into a system where a onetime registered person will be expected to vote each election year. There will be an additional law added which will ask all employers to give a day off for each one of their employees such that workload does not become an issue of low turnout.Argument 1: A better distinction between the citizens. People who are registered voters have an interest in voting for the country. By mandating them to vote each year, we are keeping our responsible eligible voters active. The turnout rate has gone very low with unequal turnout also a big issue. However, what the status quo does not tell us is the real reason behind this low turnout. Once this distinction is made, the state will be more aware of their political institutions. This will then help them see if attention should be paid to improve the campaigning systems and the procedure of political election. If many people vote to abstain, then the state will have to make sure that the political leaders express themselves better and also will have to see that a diversity of principles are presented by the leading parties. Con argued that the registered voters not voting is mainly due to reason that they are “not particularly excited by any candidates, or because they are disenchanted by their favored political Party”. The best way to confirm this will be by asking these voters to show up at the polling stations and pick the option that says they would like to abstain. This practice will help us distinguish between the people who see the political parties of the particular year to be not legit from those who just do not want to make the effort to vote. There are many other reasons for which one may not like to vote. One, being diversion from the workload and other being laziness. To make sure that these reasons do not rule the low turnout, the proposed mechanism should be adopted. The lazy people will be ousted from the registered voters list and would have to pay a penalty if they want to vote the next time. However, some of these smart lazy people will be able to see that they could save a fine and the time spent on the process of registering by going to the polling station. And if they are just going there, why not have at least some information about the parties. This will increase the effectiveness of a democracy, which will be addressed in Argument 3. Argument 2: Unfairness abolished It is important to notice that politicians place a lot of focus on making sure that their supporters go to the polling stations and place their votes, without regards to those who would probably not vote. However, if the proposed mechanism is adopted and voting is made compulsory for all registered voters, politicians will now have to make sure that most of the registered voters vote for them. They will also have to focus on the hard labor workers who could sometimes not make it to the polling stations and those people who did believe that the parties were not any good this election period. Con argued that “the duties and rights of citizens are importantly different from those of their representatives, because the latter have powers and responsibilities that the former do not...Citizens do not owe their government electoral support or legitimacy.” This claim supports a system where democracy can never work effectively. Not only democracy, any institution cannot work without a mutual share of duties of the powerful and the ruled. The citizens do have a responsibility to vote, which in our system, could also be a vote of abstention. How can citizens expect to take advantage of a democratic institution without fulfilling their own job of placing a vote? Except those who have researched and did not get fascinated by a candidate, all the other citizens have a duty to keep tuned with the political parties and then make a decision. Secondly, Con emphasized that compulsory voting takes away the right of people to have a choice, which Con suggested was “the point of democracy”. I would like to also emphasize that in the proposed mechanism this choice of the people will be respected. They will be given a choice to vote or not and for whom to vote. The proposed mechanism will both support the rights of the people and ask them to perform their duties.Argument 3: Democratic Ideals promotedThis argument will be presented in the next round.Remaining rebuttals to Con’s case:Con was worried about the fines that will follow after people will not vote. Con was right to say that this would negatively affect the poor and may increase the number of criminals who owe fine debt. However, the mechanism clearly states that a fine will only have to be paid if one wishes to register again. This will work as an incentive for registered voters to not skip a voting period. And if for some reason they do, they will not have to worry about a fine until the next elections and will only have to worry if they wish to vote next time.None of the Con’s arguments so far have shown a downfall to the proposed mechanism for the motion at hand. The mechanism works really well to make a distinction between the citizens and find out the weaknesses of the political institutions of a state and also abolishes unfairness on many grounds. This is why I urge a strong Proposition vote.

How has this been a big help? Give me some evidence.

Voter SuppressionPhoto ID laws impose a cost to voting on those without state-issued IDs. My [7] puts the average cost of a state-issued ID around $14 to $58. [8] puts the cost for low-income voters even higher, at $75 to $175. Wylted doesn't argue these costs.When the costs of voting increase, turnout decreases. That’s "common sense," and Wylted doesn't argue that either. Instead, Wylted debates a different issue: "provisional ballots," "reasonable accommodations," and "absentee ballots." But neither of those reduce burdens on low-income individuals who lack both state-issued IDs and the required underlying documents.The "provisional ballots" argument fails for two reasons. First, you're still required to provide a photo ID. "If the voter does not come back to show ID, the provisional ballot is not counted." [Pro's 1] Second, they impose a greater cost via the time wasted waiting in line to vote, the effort to get a photo ID, and then having to return to the election office to present the ID. These costs matter so much that most provisional ballots are never counted, even after voters already invested time showing up on election day. [18] That means some interested voters don't get their votes counted.The "reasonable accommodations" argument fails because it's limited to a small group of voters with specific burdens like religious objections or victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault. The "reasonable accommodations" don't cover low-income nondrivers (mostly minorities), which is the main group that's disenfranchised by photo ID laws.The "absentee ballots" argument fails because some states require photo ID to request an absentee ballot. If they don't, they impose strict limits on who can vote absentee (i.e. must be absent from the district on election day, be ill, be older than 65, or scheduled to work during the entire 12-hour voting period). [19] Most low-income individuals without photo ID can't vote "absentee" without first getting a state-issued ID.Finally, if voter fraud is an "actual" rather than "invented" problem, as Wylted claims, then "absentee ballots" that don't require photo ID are a gap in Wylted's version of the law. In fact, the evidence shows "absentee ballots" are a much more common source of fraud than in-person voting. [6] [7] Wylted cannot advocate "absentee ballots" as a solution when his stated reason for having photo ID laws is to prevent voter fraud.--Wylted ignores my "voting is a low-reward activity" argument. Extend that argument. Even a small cost on voting can depress voter turnout.--Wylted cites a Reuters article for the idea that photo ID laws don't suppress voters. But this so-called “legitimate study” isn't "highly respected" (no academic, lawyer, judge, or policymaker has cited it), nor is it a “legitimate" study (it’s written by a journalist with no background in statistics). The article says voter turnout increased in Georgia and Indiana in the 2008 election. But that doesn't mean photo ID laws didn't suppress voters. There are two key flaws in the article's analysis. First, the article notes that 2008 was "an anomaly because many blacks were determined to vote for Obama." Of course, turnout increased across the entire country in 2008, so increased turnout alone doesn't prove that voters weren't suppressed. Second, the article fails to compare turnout in photo ID law states with turnout in non photo ID law states. When you compare states, the data shows that turnout increased more in states without photo ID laws. [7] The Government Accountability Office, an independent agency that prepares reports for members of Congress, analyzed three data sets to compare Kansas/Tennessee (photo ID law states) with Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, and Maine (non photo ID law). The study found 1.9 to 2.2 percent less voters in Kansas, and 2.2 to 3.2 percent less in Tennessee. That's 122,000 voters that photo ID laws suppressed. Moreover, unlike Wylted's source, the GAO report "applied criteria to ensure that the [considered] states did not have other factors present in their election environments that may have significantly affected turnout." This chart summarizes the results: Prefer my sources to Wylted's, as his source fails to consider relevant data and misapplies statistical reasoning. Also, apply "common sense": the idea that voter ID laws increase minority voting -- which is what Wylted's source suggests -- simply doesn't make sense. Obstacles to voting don't increase voter turnout. And if photo ID laws actually increase minority voting, liberals should rejoice in the laws and conservatives deplore them. Yet it’s conservatives who support them and liberals who oppose them. Unless conservatives and liberals are masochists, promoting laws that hurt them, Wylted's source is just bad journalism, and photo ID laws suppress minority voting, not increase it.Voter FraudWylted says the News 21 study is "trash." That's an unfair characterization. Yes, the study has limits, but so does every social science study. That doesn't mean the study is "trash." We do the best we can with the available data. The question is whether those limits significantly affect likelihood of the study's conclusion. They do not.The News 21 study analyzed 2,068 election fraud cases over 10 years and found that only 10 cases involved in-person voter fraud. However, 645 cases could not be "categorized as one kind of fraud or another." To be sure, that limits the completeness of the study. But it also means 10 out of 1423 cases were in-person voter fraud, or 0.7%. That result alone shows that in-person voter fraud doesn't threaten voting integrity. If we extrapolate that percentage to the uncategorized cases, you only get 4 more cases of in-person voter fraud. However you spin the News 21 study, it's results are clear: in-person voter fraud is exceedingly rare. And, of course, other studies (which Wylted has yet to address) confirm this result. [7] [11] [12] [13] [14] Even Fox news. [15]--Wylted ignores my argument about the costs, complexity and risks of orchestrating massive in-person voter fraud. Wylted also doesn't address the EAC study, which says "impersonation of voters" is the "least frequent type of fraud because it is the most likely type of fraud to be discovered" and it's "an inefficient method of influencing an election." [16] Extend this argument.Further note: If a photo ID law is necessary to deter voter-impersonation fraud, then such fraud would be common -- maybe even rampant -- in states that don’t require a photo ID. But there’s simply no evidence that in-person voter fraud is common in those states.Wylted says voter fraud is hard to detect. But there's no evidence of that. And even if it's hard to detect, in-person voter fraud is still so inefficient, risky, and costly that there's no reason politicians would pursue it over other forms of fraud. Especially since [16] says in-person voter fraud is the easiest to detect.--Wylted says photo ID laws stop multiple voting, noncitizen voting, people voting in the wrong precinct, and out-of-state voting. Not so. Photo ID requirements don't stop multiple voting (or at least I don't see how they would). State-issued IDs are available to noncitizens. And photo ID laws generally don't require that your voting address match your ID's address. [Pro's 1]Also, photo ID laws don’t work against other types of fraud, like vote buying, misleading or confusing ballot papers, ballot stuffing, misrecording of votes, misuse of proxy votes, destruction of ballots, tampering with voting machines, intimidation and threats of violence, legal threats, economic threats, and manipulation of demography.--Wylted should be held to his sources. [Pro's 2] states: “Data and numerous interviews by Reuters reporters also suggest there is little evidence to bolster Republican assertions that ID laws are needed to combat rampant voter fraud.” It continues: “Georgia officials could not point to a single documented instance of voter impersonation before or after the law took effect.” If you accept Wylted’s source, then you also have to accept that voter fraud isn’t a threat.Voting IntegrityWylted says photo ID laws increase the integrity of elections, or at least increase public perception of integrity. But there’s no evidence that photo ID laws promote public confidence in elections. In fact, “Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements,” an article by Stephen Ansolabehere & Nathaniel Persily, finds that perceptions of voter-impersonation fraud aren't affected by the strictness of a state's voter ID law. [20] That means photo ID laws don't increase voters' confidence in the honesty of elections. This, in turn, means that photo ID laws won't reduce voter-impersonation fraud, because if they did, one would expect perceptions of its prevalence to change.ConclusionWylted says we should apply common sense. But Wylted cannot win this debate via common sense. Common sense says voter turnout decreases when the cost of voting increases. And when it comes to voter fraud, common sense says in-person voter fraud is an invented problem, because politicians won't risk orchestrating a massive campaign of voter-impersonation fraud. The costs and risks are too high. I've cited multiple studies that support these common sense points with empirical data. When both common sense and the overwhelming force of empirical evidence says that photo ID laws depress voter turnout, and that voter-impersonation fraud isn't a threat to the integrity of elections, the conclusions aren't debatable. The net effect of these two facts is that photo ID laws depress voter turnout without justification.Sources:[18] http://lawreview.richmond.edu...[19] http://www.longdistancevoter.org...[20] http://cdn.harvardlawreview.org...