query: Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?

positive: Efficiency Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11

positive: Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

positive: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion

positive: Alternative Vote should be adopted in the UK (over First Past the Post). Hi and thanks for taking part in the debate. I shall now deal with each of the points you raised. 1: AV is complicated. You first raised the argument that the Alternative Vote system is complicated, and that people would be less likely to vote with a complicated system. If you have a child, and you ask that child 'which chocolate bar would you like', the child might answer something like 'mmm I'll have a snickers but if they don't have a snickers I'll have a galaxy'. That child just understood the basic concept of Alternative Vote: preferences. It is not at all complicated. You also raised the point that AV is only used in 3 countries worldwide. What is often overlooked is that STV (single transferable vote) is a system that is exactly the same as Alternative Vote, but used in multi member constituencies. This system is used in a large number of countries worldwide, including some member states of the European Union. NO other European Union member state uses First Past the Post. 2: AV is not as proportionate as you think. Alternative Vote does not claim to be a proportional voting system. But neither is First Past the Post, so in trying to establish which of these two voting systems is better - there is no point entertaining any ideas of proportionality. Secondly, you raise the fear of endless coalition governments and put forward the idea that the 3rd party - the Liberal Democrats would always have the power to choose governments. This is actually what has just happened under First Past the Post. In truth, this fear of coalitions is unfounded and irrational. Many of our European neighbours 'endure' coalitions through most governments, and it becomes the political way. There is nothing to be afraid of. Examples of countries where successful coalitions dominate include much of Scandinavia (take a look at Norway, Finland etc) While you raise the issue of the results made by Alternative Vote as being 'undemocratic' you fail to defend First Past the Post itself as being 'democratic'. I would argue that if we had a democracy scale in front of us, Alternative Vote would far be considered 'more democratic' than First Past the Post. The fact of the matter is, that First Past the Post leads to minority rule. As I stated in my first posted argument, only on government in the last 100 years (in 1931) enjoyed an actual 'majority' ie. more than 50% of the vote. It is surely impossible to defend minority rule as being 'democratic' in nature. If we are comparing First Past the Post and Alternative Vote on a democratic level, I refer you to this study carried out recently at the London School of Economics: http://www2.lse.ac.uk... Here, 22 voting theory experts from around the world compared voting systems to see which one was most fitting for UK democracy. Every single one of them rejected First Past the Post. 10 of them chose the Alternative Vote. (the other 12 chose Approval Voting, but we are not debating that here). 3. Changing to AV would be costly. This is a lie (though it is not your lie). Firstly, you have included in your argument the sum of £91 million for the cost of the referendum. This figure is completely irrelevant seeming as this money has now been spent whether or not we implement AV. You go on to quote a figure of £130 million to be spent on electronic counting machines to be used with the new system. This is false. Electronic counting machines are unnecessary, and the Electoral Commission has already stated that they would be unnecessary. In Australia (where they use AV) they continue to count by hand, and do not use electronic counting at all. That cuts the cost from £250 million to £26 million, to be spent on informing the public on how Alternative Voting works. This is an absolutely minuscule figure in the grand scheme of things, especially when you consider that it is to enhance the quality of our democracy. Who can put a price tag on democracy? 4. AV is unfair. You use an example how someone who finishes first in the original count - ie, someone who wins under First Past the Post, can go on to lose to someone originally placed 3rd or 4th. Again, in Australia, where they use the system, only in less than 5% of cases do those who are placed 1st after the first round of counting, do those candidates fail to go on to win. First Past the Post is the system that is unfair. Here is (fake) example: ROUND ONE (FIRST PAST THE POST RESULTS ROUND) Conservatives: 35% Labour: 33% Liberal Democrats: 24% Green Party - 8% Ideologically, 65% of the voters above voted for a party either considered Liberal or Progressive. The majority (though not all, I concede) of these voters would be more likely to want a Progressive, or Liberal candidate & government, than a Conservative, right-wing one. Under AV, with the Greens eliminated a second round of voting might look like this: ROUND TWO Conservatives 36% Labour 37% Liberal Democrats 27% Still no winner, as no candidate has achieved 50% of the voter. Liberal Democrats are now eliminated and their votes redistributed. ROUND THREE Conservatives 43% Labour 57% ++++LABOUR WIN++++ Not only do we now have a winner, but we have a winner that over 50% of the electorate have specified a preference for. Over 50%of the population said they would prefer Labour to the Conservatives, and that's what we have. This is MAJORITY RULE. This is fair, and democratic. The only way it could be improved is if it was a proportional system. But neither is First Past the Post, so FPTP cannot criticise AV in this respect. First Past the Post would have simply produced a winner who only managed to achieve 35% of the popular vote, and 43% preferential overall. This candidate did not have broad appeal. Under First Past the Post he/she (not to be sexist) could potentially have contually been re-elected by a minority, despite a majority preferring someone else. I ask my debate partner the following: How can First Past the Post be defended as being democratic when it has been shown to produce minority rule 99% of the time. What price would be acceptable to pay for improving the quality of democracy in the country? What he fears from a coalition government, when they work so successfully in many other developed countries?

positive: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible

positive: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [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

positive: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [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

negative: Banned from voting.... I've been banned from voting on debates. I believe it is because I have not paid my Ivory Tower dues, as in debt to the establishment. You would ban my vote, college student. Argue in your acceptance speech, or win easily.

negative: Banned from voting.... I do not submit to the burden. I am too smart for that. Easy win! I am such a giver.

negative: Banned from voting.... It's all about style you say? Justify that. What is style? Kind of like a stupid supermodel I would say. And you? It's what is on the outside that counts? You make me sick.

negative: There should be no voting age I don't want to sound like a retard, but what did you just say up there?

negative: There should be no voting age I await my opponent's affirmation, definitions, and supporting information for her affirmation. Affirmation - an affirmation is a statement you are trying to debate for. Usually done in the "I affirm that _Topic___of___debate" format. In this case your affirmation would be I affirm that there should be no age restrictions when it comes to voting on our federal, state, and local officials. Definitions and Explanation: Here is where you should define any terms in either your affirmation or supporting information that may be unclear to readers and/or your opponent. You can also explain what you mean about points in your affirmation if they could possibly come across as unclear Supporting Information - This is where you would include reasons why there should be no voting age. This should include factual information (Please cite your sources), logical reasoning, and all the benefits such an action would cause. You can also refute any reasons you might think could be brought up as a con Thanks and good luck on the debate!

negative: Banned from voting.... You feel spoon fed by me? I don't even know what to say? Are you calling me mommy?

negative: Primaries in US elections Changing the US primary system will not improve voter turnout

negative: Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

negative: in a democracy voting ought to be compulsory I affirm the resolution Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Definitions Ought - "used to indicate duty or correctness." (Oxford Dictionaries Online) Compulsory Voting " A system of elections in which citizens who have the right and means to vote are required by law to vote. Nonvoters in this system face fines. Democracy " "government by the people; especially": rule of the majority" (Merriam-Webster online) Equality " "the state of being equal, especially in having the same rights, status,"and opportunities" (MacMillan Dictionary) My value"will be democracy, defined earlier as a government by the people. This value is appropriate because the resolution is a question of how to uphold democracy. It is important because a democratic government should uphold the principle of the "rule of the majority" as strongly as possible. My"criterion"will be equality. Equality is an important pillar of democracy that compulsory voting strengthens by ensuring that all individuals get a voice in government. Without it, democracy cannot exist because certain groups may face disenfranchisement as a result. Note: In this system, all ballots will have an option of "none of the above." This option is intended to protect the right not to vote. Checking this option is still meaningful to candidates because it shows that there are a number of votes that are still up for grabs, and if politicians address the needs of the groups who tend to pick this option, they can persuade those individuals to vote for them. Contention 1: Low Voter Turnout Threatens Democracy a."Low Turnout Threatens Majority Rule Low voter turnout is an issue in many democratic countries. Even worse is that with each passing generation, the average turnout is dropping steadily. The United States is a perfect example of this. Jason"Marisam, Post-Graduate Research Fellow-Harvard Law School, 2009, "Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation," St. Thomas Law Review, Winter, 21 St. Thomas L. Rev. 190, p. 192-3 First, I will present the facts."Voter turnout has fallen significantly during the past several decades."Most"estimates show a decline of ten to fifteen points for turnout in both presidential and non-presidential elections from the 1960s to today."The official numbers from the U.S. Census report turnout at 69.3% in 1964 and at 58.3% in 2004, which was up from the low of 54.2% in 1996. The drop in turnout looks better or worse depending on how one crunches the numbers, but the bottom line is that"turnout in the past several decades has declined in most advanced democracies with the United"States at the"bottom of the pack among this group in terms of overall turnout. Some may be satisfied with the fact that turnout is up so far this decade in comparison to the last decade. However, it is imprudent to depend on once-in-a-lifetime campaigns or political events to mobilize voters. If the goal is sustained, high turnout nationally among all demographic groups should increase. In a democracy, it is ultimately the will of the people that decide the outcomes of elections and influential policy decisions. If voter turnout is low, then it"s possible that the so-called majority could actually be a minority of the population making decisions for the entire population. This goes against the very definition of democracy as the rule of the people. Compulsory voting fixes this problem by increasing voter turnout. Australia is an example of how compulsory voting has been successful. Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 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. "A similar drop in Australia would amount to about 1.5 million fewer voters in a national election. In the older democracies that have voluntary voting, the turnout has usually been in the order of 70 to 80 percent, though in recent elections such countries have actually experienced a marked decline in turnout." "Compulsory voting solves this problem by giving individuals an equal say in their government. More people go out to vote, and as a result, the majority actually rules. As a result, the decisions of the democracy become more legitimate because the results are being decided by a majority of the entire population, not just the majority of the portion of the population that decided to vote. The equality in status that compulsory voting provides makes the decisions that people make for the democracy more legitimate, which thus upholds democracy. b."Low Voter Turnout Creates an Unrepresentative Democracy Sarah"Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 23 An election can be thought of as a political census in which near universal participation is required to generate political decisions that are an accurate reflection of what the population actually wants."When less than two-thirds of the electorate goes to the polls, the government that results from this election typically has the expressed support of well under a third of those eligible to vote."Democratic legitimacy concerns may not weigh heavily with the ordinary voter, but they certainly do trouble the collective minds of governments, and it is no wonder that falling turnout should have generated hand-wringing among the political elite."Compulsory turnout would ensure that virtually all voices are taken into account, and that the outputs of the electoral process thus have full democratic legitimacy. Unless a true majority of the population votes, an election is illegitimate because a minority of the population is masquerading itself as a majority. By giving all individuals equal access to ballots, this problem can be corrected because the voices of all individuals would be taken into account. This is the only way to ensure a legitimate democracy; a democracy cannot represent the people unless all voices are accounted for. Contention 2: The Status Quo Creates an Imbalance of Power Skewed Towards the Wealthy It has also been shown that there are large gaps in voter turnout between different socioeconomic groups. Studies have shown that wealthier individuals are much more likely to vote than those who are impoverished. Sarah"Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 22 The gap in turnout between socio-economic groups is"less pronounced, but still"alarmingly large: depending on the measure of socio-economic status employed, it ranges from 13 to 16 per cent between those at the lowest and those at the highest rungs of the ladder"(Keaney and Rogers 2006). These figures suggest that"there is a serious inclusivity problem associated with electoral politics. As long as the poor don"t vote, politicians will not spend much time addressing their needs because they are unlikely to vote. Instead, they will cater to the needs of the middle class and the wealthy because they will likely make up the majority of the people who vote. As a result, the status quo has a system of elections that is biased towards wealthier individuals. This leads to policies that are skewed towards these groups because the politicians are catering to them so that they can guarantee their vote in the future. If compulsory voting is instilled, this problem will be solved because now, everyone is voting. As a result, politicians will address to the needs of these disenfranchised groups, which leads to equality amongst all groups because policies will be passed which fairly benefit both the wealthy and those in poverty, which benefits democracy by taking into account the voices of all groups of people. Democracy is also enhanced when this happens because a key principle of democracy is that the government serves the people. In this case, compulsory voting serves the people by reducing income inequality. Because the will of the people dictates that the government should do whatever it can to help the people, the will of the people dictates that the government ought to enact compulsory voting. Contention 3: Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization Political polarization occurs when political attitudes diverge towards ideological extremes. Compulsory voting can solve this problem. Eric Liu. "Why Voting Should Be Mandatory." Times."August 21,"2012. http://ideas.time.com... Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues,"it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders,"who are"exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes."And"they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don"t currently vote. Even though the evidence specifically mentions the United States, it is easy to cross-apply this analysis to other democracies. Those that have multiple parties are bound to run into this problem because in the status quo, the first goal of the parties is to get their partisan bases to vote, and whichever base gets more votes wins the election. Moderates are left out in this system. Compulsory voting eliminates this strategy because now, individuals from varied views will be voting. This equality amongst all types of political views will mean that politics will become less polarized. This is because candidates must now focus on those with moderate views that were previously left out of campaign discourse. This improves democracy because the will of all people, not just those with partisan views, is represented. For this reason as well others stated throughout my case, I strongly urge an affirmative ballot in today"s debate.

negative: Primaries in US elections Primary elections give too much power to party "bosses"

negative: Turnout Another argument against lowering the voting age is the fact that at all previous general elections, the youngest age group tends to produce the lowest turnout. Allowing 16-year-olds the vote will further reduce turnouts at UK elections.

negative: The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Thanks for the quick response Mr. Voices. Let's look to my points and whether my opponent adequately refutes them. 1) IRV increases strategic voting My original argument was that ranking your preferred candidate as number 1 can make him/her lose and ranking your least preferred candidate last can help him/her to win. This makes no sense. People have to vote strategically under IRV as well to prevent their votes from being wasted or having a counterproductive result. My opponent says that you can just leave the box blank. But this doesn't answer the argument that "ranking a candidate higher can actually cause the candidate to lose, and ranking a candidate lower can cause the candidate to win." If you leave the box blank, that's equivalent to ranking the candidate last. It doesn't change the problems with IRV. 2) Extra candidates My argument was that IRV is stupid because it's possible that candidate A beats candidate B in a head-to-head election, but if candidate C enters the race, suddenly candidate B beats candidate A. That makes absolutely no sense. Parties will run fake candidates to split the vote of popular candidates so they don't make it to the final 2. My opponent just nitpicks an assumption I make in the scenario I gave, but that's the point of giving hypotheticals: it simplifies the issue so it's easier to understand. And it's not that far-fetched. Median voter theory states that voters will prefer candidates who are closer to them on the political spectrum. So if this is the political spectrum: Liberal Conservative Then it's not that far-fetched to believe that if candidate A loses, all of his supporters will instead vote for candidate B. This proves that fielding extra candidates DOES split the vote, potentially causing the winner in a head-to-head election to instead lose in the first round of vote counting. 3) The candidate with majority support can lose My opponent's response has something to do with doing a poll under the current system. However, the point of this objection is that under ALL voting systems, the person who is preferred by a majority should win (assuming you believe in democracy). However, if you remember the example of John, David, and Peter, the majority preferred John to David, but David wins because Peter knocks John out of the race in round 1. Yet 60% of voters preferred John to David. A "first past the post" system better upholds democratic values. 4) People won't research all the additional candidates. My opponent says that this happens now. However, NOW there are usually only two viable candidates. Under instant runoff, your choice of who to rank second or third could entirely sway the outcome of the election. This requires a level of research that people do not do. The two party system simplifies the electoral process for people. I wonder how the majority of voters will choose their rankings, given that few people do research on candidates. It's a double bind: either people rank third party candidates without researching them (which undermines democracy) OR they do the responsible thing and don't rank anyone but the Democrat and Republican, which is functionally the same as the current system. Best case, my opponent is advocating for the current system. Worst case, he is advocating for people making uninformed rankings that can completely alter the outcome of the election. 5) Ballot counting My opponent advocates hand counting. However, his source's speculative claim doesn't seem to be true. You have to pay people to count the ballots by hand. You also have to print a different type of ballot than the ones we currently use with machines. I would like my opponent to prove we can afford such a system. In addition, hand counting leads to its own problems. In Republican states, it is likely Republicans would be counting the ballots. When there are marginal ballots where it's unclear who someone voted for, Republican vote counters are going to be biased and award more marginal ballots to the Republican candidate. Bryan Pfaffenberger, a professor at the University of Virginia, points out, "By taking paper out of the voting process, mechanical voting machines make it impossible for anyone to invalidate a ballot. A complex interlocking system – a technological achievement – prevents overvoting, in which a voter casts votes for more candidates than the law permits. Above all, the voting machine's virtue was precisely that it left nothing for partisan election officials to haggle over." He continues, "Returning to [hand counting] might work well in areas with lots of oversight, but in contrast to other stable democracies, this movement has made little progress in the US. Throughout most of the country, today's election system has more in common with that of the 1890s: It's inadequately supervised, insufficiently professionalized, and all too often staffed with openly partisan officials. Under these circumstances, what voting machine backers believed a century ago still holds true: It just isn't wise to let people count ballots." http://www.csmonitor.com... My opponent also doesn't answer the following arguments: *Federalism: each State has the right to adopt its own system. The federal government cannot mandate how they apportion votes. *Electoral college: IRV doesn't work well with winner take all. In states that award electors proportionate to a candidate's share of the vote, you're not "throwing your vote away" if you vote third party. That person still gets electors. If all states adopted proportionate systems, that would be preferable to IRV. *Multi-party presidential systems are bad. The Kellogg School (at Northwestern) found that in all of history, there has only been ONE stable multi-party presidential system. Most presidential systems with successful third parties stagnate because the legislature can't get anything done. We can barely get anything done with two parties who always disagree. Imagine if we had 4 or 5 disagreeing. *The Guardian's analysis of the 2010 UK election shows that IRV does NOT increase the number of third party candidates that win. So IRV doesn't accomplish my opponent's goals anyways. *If you don't want to throw your vote away, vote for one of the two major parties. This solves. Even under IRV, Ross Perot would have still lost. The only way IRV could have possibly changed the outcome is that Bush might have beat Clinton because IRV might have screwed up the election. The lack of third parties has to do with our form of government (presidential vs. parliamentary), and NOT with the way the votes are counted.

negative: Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11

negative: Should voting be mandatory I'm not supporting this argument, I just think you need to learn how to spell "fair" in this context, and how to properly use the term "you're."

negative: A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel

negative: May/June Beginners Debate Tournament: Voting should be mandatory I thank Deonatus for an understandable lengthy rebuttal, but let us not be fooled with quantity. In this last round, I shall refute his assertions, expose his fallacious logic, and display what true quality is. I.The General Will This metaphysical argument stems from the ideology of Jean-Jacques Rosseau, the general will. My point remains unscathed as Con did not counter this philosophy with another, and by doing so the next violates the rules as I didn't stipulate new arguments in R4, but was available in R3. The contention still holds its might for flagging what the collective will is. Even with a mass of polarized ideas, the result will always be the general desire of the people. The philosophy states that the more diversed, the more genuine the general will is. With less people, more of special groups, and a voluntary voting system, the general will is not at its finest. Also, the sources here were bent images, inflated.Con did this many times and I shall expose this unacceptable behavior as we go on.Con said almost 1 in 5 people who did not vote said they're busy. The right figure was 18.9%, far from 20%, far from almost. There's absolutely nothing wrong with writing the exact but it was surely done for appeal. Moreover, the chance to vote shouldn't be dismissed with just an 18.9 or 3.9 figure. There are millions of us that could change the Congress and the future policies of our nation. The people's power to improve the government should be taken seriously. This strengthens our democracy and political will for change. Also, let me put an end to political pandering that had been such a problem. Pandering basically means to do what one demands even though it's not proper, good, or reasonable. When this occurs, people are sure who deserves the vote more since pandering sheds light upon the misdeeds of coercion and dishonesty. I shall refute more of their assertions herein as we go through where they are most suited. II.MV dismantles bad tactics Con asserts that my argument defeats itself because Jewish lobby groups are minorities themselves. However, Con attacks the objective and omits the subjective value, the real focal point that intrinsically links to whether they are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination. Therefore, the minority status is conditioned by questions of political power, not only in cold numerical. Ostensibly, in the context of my arguments, the minorities are the people who are politically weak, oppressed, unheard, and abused. The Jewish lobby groups are strong communities that have power to control running officials and influence votes. With MV, we undeniably level the playing field that constitutes equal opportunities for problematic communities. III.Voting is a civic duty Again, voting is a civic right. There are government tasks that infringe the right to freedom of speech, but is needed to support our democracy's health. One is jury duty, we are forced to do this even though it clearly violates the 5th amendment. We harm the potential condition of our nation when we leave it to the higher classes and ruling elites, Con says we don't, but we actually harm the rights of our brethren when sly tactics become available and oppressed minorities are unheard. Even one of Con's sources, the Brennan Center of Justice, states that the right to vote is the most fundamental right in an electoral democracy, which people are sometimes deprived of.[1] When we vote, we not only exercise our civic rights, but also fortify our democratic stability. IV.MV increases voters political knowledge Con attacks the CSES data because it helps political knowledge with just an "ever so slight" increase. This is false. The study concludes that political knowledge does accrue with age, and to deny this would deny simple, natural logic and reason. Also, the study showed that men tend to be more knowledgeable about women, but with MV enforced, the gap was fixed with the result of evenly distributed knowledge. This strongly supports the notion of General Will, women representation and equal opportunity. Moreover, Con has used my data wrongly and again proves to my favor since the study proved that strongly enforced and voluntary systems show the same correct answers, but weakly enforced systems show the leading points.[2] Still,enforcement is better than no enforcement. Moreover, MV highlights a progressive growth through time, it may be effective now, but it will be more effective then. Con failed to refute how habit grows out of tradition, which helps accrue knowledge, and is prospective in the long-run. When there's a presidential election, we are apt to get involved in social media and pour out our thoughts while acquiring some in the process. This is a natural societal stimuli during elections and is arguably hard to perturb and erase. Black propaganda will be there, but in today's time the media can easily provide what's true or not, especially when interviews are made and politicians can explain what is false or not. After the elections, things will go back to normal and the people have 6 years to know what was outrageous and remained precise; the next time there are elections, the people would know. Humans are rational beings.Once we vote, we do things rationally. Again, we may be less rational in voting now, but we will improve as we go on. ---- I.MV doesn't undermine liberty and democracy It strengthens the integrity of our government and its valued democracy. I have already explained why by not voting, we harm the future state of our nation, undermine integrity, and prolong the problems of our abused brothers and sisters. II.MV does incentivize political learning I have strongly refuted this. Accrual of knowledge will prospectively help higher voter turnout, enthusiasm, and representation. III.MV leads to better representation for the most affected MV levels the playing field no matter what happens, it eradicates targeting strategies, and pays equal opportunity for the unheard to rise up and represent themselves. This is the most heroic value of MV, its salvation. Other than that, activistic movements can be deployed with leaving the ballots blank and spoiling votes. This can be essential data for further research and study, which in turn would help better social programs and policies. Especially when it is the presidential elections, there are millions of us who can finally change the congress, the policies, and the nation's future. MV is a transformative tool, that when utilized again and again, becomes the best arsenal for political change and betterment. IV.MV doesn't punish the poor and disabled Previously in this section Con said of voters who failed to vote, about 1 in 3 said they couldn't afford to or couldn't get the day off work. The right figure was 31%, not 33.33%. Con failed to be exact and truthful, for '3 in 10' is a whole lot less from '1 in 3'. Con asserts I attack my own argument, however, it is their own argument that self-refutes.Con provides data from BPC's Democratic Project, which helps election administrators ensure that all voters who are eligible to vote can successfully participate in the democratic process.[3] Con's 14% data remains true, but it turns counter-intuitive for the source supports my argument by giving ways to assist voters with disabilities, from accessible voting machines, polling places, curbside voting options, web-interfaces for completing absentee ballots..they must incorporate available, workable solutions into the process to reduce the number of Americans who report that disability and illness keeps them away from the polls.[3] With the aforementioned, voting holidays, scheduled voting periods for the busiest businesses, and express agreements, voter turnout will increase. It is greatly essential that our people's voice is represented to ensure the uttermost integrity and honor. In conclusion, I have strongly refuted Con's fallacious and inconsiderate assertions, they remained negative and oblivious to the fact that MV helps in the most profound and sympathetic way. The metaphysics of the General Will remains powerful and unscathed, and is an infallible philosophy. We level the playing field for every eligible voter and dismantle bad tactics, uphold our civic duty, safeguard the future of nation, political knowledge and voter enthusiasm accrues with age, strengthen our integrity and democracy, represent marginalized minorities, and helps the lower class. I have successfully laid out information the most accurate way possible, while my opponent resorts to giving bent images of their statistics, and used sources that were absolutely counter-intuitive and counter-productive in their part. Thank you for a wonderful match, I hereby affirm the resolution. And may everyone cast their votes and voice in the future. [1]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [2]http://blogs.lse.ac.uk... [3]https://bipartisanpolicy.org...

negative: If cost was our priority we would never hold elections at all – ultimately we have to be willing to ... As well as being unnecessary and dangerous, recall elections are also expensive. Holding a special vote means taxpayers’ money has to be spent on preparing the ballots, hiring halls, taking public employees away from their other duties, sending out information, etc. – the 2003 California vote cost $50 million. And the very possibility of recall elections also requires a state permanently to maintain a larger electoral authority than would otherwise be necessary. In addition politicians will have to maintain permanent campaign funds in case they are challenged in a recall petition, leading them to spend time on unnecessary fund-raising rather than serving the public.

negative: Democratisation If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.

negative: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Engagement with democracy

negative: Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting I will begin by extending my thanks to tylergraham95 for engaging with me in this debate. In this round, I shall present my own case as to why voting ought to be compulsory. UNDERSTANDING THE RESOLUTION 1. Democracy - according to Encarta, is a democratic nation; a country with a government that has been freely elected by the eligible electorate. 2. Vote - according to American Heritage, is an opinion case in deciding a disputed question or in electing a person to office. 3. Compulsory - according to Merriam-Webster this means mandatory; obligatory Ought, according to Encarta, expresses desirability. For example, if someone says "you ought to fix the sink; it's been running for ages," that person is implying that it would be desirable to fix the sink. It may therefore be useful to define one more term: desirable, according to Merriam-Webster, denotes that something is advantageous or beneficial. Consequently, it is my burden in this round to show that compulsory voting is desirable (beneficial), whereas Con must show that it is not. PRO's CASE Now that we have a clearer understanding of the topic, I can present my arguments in support of compulsory voting. It is my thesis and main contention that compulsory voting (CV) is beneficial. If it is, then it is a desirable course of action that a democracy ought to take. Sub-point A: CV will boost 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." [1] "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." [2] Sub-point B: Low turnout is problematic; insofar as CV solves this, CV is beneficial. "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] Sub-point C: CV corrects against "free riders." "The key idea here is that a democratic electoral system is a public good, in that all citizens get to benefit from it, even if they do nothing to contribute to it. Because it is a public good, it is possible to free-ride, or to enjoy the benefits of that good, without contributing...Non-voters, therefore, can be seen as free-riders, selfishly and immorally exploiting voters. The moral force of this point is two-fold"it reinforces the idea that no morally significant liberties are threatened by compulsory turnout...It is selfish and exploitative to benefit from the efforts of other people without making any effort to contribute. So, far from compulsion being unjustified, or even morally neutral, it seems positively desirable, as a curb on selfish and exploitative behaviour." [5] Sub-point D: CV reduces polarization. "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--ome might say hyper-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." [6] Sub-point E: CV reduces 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] "The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate"noted that there is an inherent danger to the orderly process of democracy that results from a lack of participation by most voters. Voting promotes "the civility of the national dialogue and the habitual use of orderly and lawful processes to effect change..."An apathetic electorate"is a dangerous thing to a stable democracy. The possibility of unlawful conduct in order to create change becomes more likely." [7] "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] SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENTS The sources above detail how beneficial CV truly is. It has the capacity to boost voter turnout consistantly, which in turn helps bridge socio-economic gaps with tangible impacts for electoral fairness. Moreover, this type of high-turnout actually enhances governmental legitimacy. CV also combats free riders, who immoral glean benefits from a system in which they do not participate, and it decreases polarization by ensuring that it is not simply the more extreme elements of the electorate who are voting. This also has the potential to reduce sharp and jarring policy shifts as different extreme elements assume power. In addendum, CV has tangible benefits in that it promotes peaceable dialogues over violent clashes. Therefore, CV is beneficial, and I must urge a PRO VOTE! Thank you! SOURCES 1 - Scott Bennett, Parliament of Australia, 2005, Compulsory voting in Australian national elections, Parliamentary Library-Research Brief, October, No. 6, [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au...], p. 1 2 -Harvard Law Review, 2007, "The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States," 121 Harv. L. Rev. 591, p. 593-5 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. 195 4 - Sarah Birch, Reader in Politics-University of Essex, 2009, "The case for compulsory voting," Public Policy Research, March-May, p. 21-2 5 - Lever, Anabelle. Philosophy Professor-London School of Economic and Political Science, 2008, "Compulsory voting: a critical perspective," British Journal of Political Science, [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk...], p. 11 6 - Michael Pitts, Professor Indiana University School of Law, 2011, "Opt-Out Voting," Hofstra Law Review, Summer, 39 Hofstra L. Rev. 897, p. 920 7 - Christopher W. Carmichael, Law Clerk to US Circuit Judge Bauer, 2002, Adjunct Prof. of Law at DePaul University "Proposals for Reforming the American Electoral System After the 2000 Presidential Election," 23 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol'y 255, Spring, 2002, p. 284-6 I apologize in advance for any formatting errors--I am being forced to use a library computer as my own laptop in undergoing repair. Thanks to the judges and to tyler. I looked forward to a great debate!

negative: banned from voting I see disdain for 'sheeple' in the comment section of http://www.debate.org... and disdain for the top 1% of the democratic pyramid and disdain for the decision to curb your voting. Young man, I see a pattern of abuse.

negative: Compulsory Voting Con argues compulsory voting creates a "false democratic representation" and feels not voting is a valid option for citizens. I argue that, even though an uninformed vote could be damaging, the extremely low voter turnout of recent elections needs to be addressed. Low voter turnout creates to a very ineffective style of governing, where governments do not know the true needs of their citizens. Compulsory voting combined with an education of the political process for all citizens, would be a more effective form of government. *side note* Technology is extremely good at connecting people and allows data to be transferred from almost anywhere. The US possibly could create a secure form of mobile voting almost ensuring high voter turnout

negative: The World Should Become Vegetarian People crave meat because animal slaughter has been going on for hundreds of years and they have become used to it. However, that does not make it okay to do. The countries that you speak of could use all that land that houses animals as large gardens instead, which would produce more food, raise ethical citizens, and have a healthier society overall. The overpopulation of animals is occurring because of humans. They raise animals in large numbers, which quickly pushes the population way beyond it's natural number. If we stopped eating meat, the demand would go down and so would the overpopulation of animals.

negative: This House favours the use of referendums as a form of decision-making None of his substantives have any worth to this debate as they are criticisms, essentially, of democracy - the idea of rule by the will of the majority. Whilst my opponent deplores my plans to make politics more 'populist', he fails to mention or even recognise the fact that democracy is inherently populist, and this will form the basis of most of my substantives in this new speech. First, however, I would like to issue some rebuttal. Rebuttal I: "Decision-making by referendum does not guarantee the best or even the right cause of action. "This is true, but nor do elections. People can elect the wrong party in much the same way that they can choose the wrong outcome in a referendum. This is a criticism of allowing everyone a say in politics (which we already have via e-petitions, lobbying, and elections - i. e. democracy), therefore Proposition does not deem it to be a valid criticism of referendums. Rebuttal II: "By changing the constitution. .. "We don't propose to make any legal changes which would require the Government to hold referendums, this House would merely like to see them used more. Forcing the Government to hold a referendum would be wrong. Rebuttal III: "We would be undermining the importance of politics. .. "This side of the House would disagree. We think making politics more populist makes it more relevant to society. The biggest problem faced by politics is the idea that it is seen as out of touch and in general under the present system people elect an official and hear little more from them until they seek re-election 4 or 5 years later. By giving politics a larger presence in citizens' lives, we believe that would say that politics is incredibly important, it is relevant to you and we want to know what you think. In other words, we're in touch, and we care. Rebuttal IV: "Voter turnout is low. This suggests that the electorate at large do not want to be involved in politics. "This is a common view, and I understand why Opposition has cited it. Research at the University of York, however, says that the fall in voter turnout is due to two factors. People feel alienated by the political parties (partly brought on by events such as the MPs' expenses scandal, I grant you), and they also feel that the parties have become too similar to each other and there is no real choice. [1] Therefore, we believe that using referendums will appeal to those who are not currently voting. They are being presented with a clear choice which will lead to a very active decision - and the two possible consequences will be very different - and they will be being consulted by the parties without those parties wanting votes or re-election. Proposition feels that this point is knocked down. Rebuttal V: "How well-informed could they be come polling day? "With the advent of new opportunities presented by the Internet, apps and social media; we feel it would be very possible to run online campaigns regarding these referendums reasonably cheaply which would reach most citizens of the UK (alongside the continued use of Party Political Broadcasts). (This point stemmed from a point about apathy, see above. )Rebuttal VI: "There is no guarantee that that would increase voter turnout. "Opposition is right; we can't guarantee it. We feel that the use of referendums will appeal to those who are not currently voting in elections, however we can't guarantee they will. Proposition feels, however, that Parliament is morally obliged to create avenues of participation for those who have lost faith in the existing ones. Rebuttal VII: "People typically only have their own self-interest at heart. "Again, the same applies for voting. If you look at voting patterns in the UK, they are highly class-based: people vote for parties which offer tax policies (for example) which favour them over others. Of course the same would apply for referendums, but that's democracy. Rebuttal VIII: "They have far more insight into the consequences of policy changes than the average voter. "If we go down this road too far, we end up with voting rights only being given to those of a certain IQ. Just because someone isn't insightful, it doesn't mean that - from a democratic point of view - their opinion is invalid, or should be ignored. People with very little political insight still vote in general elections, stand for Parliament, and even become MPs. Rebuttal IX: "They simply have an overview that the Everyman doesn't possess. "To suggest that the electorate shouldn't be trusted to make a decision is a very dangerous move. I'd like you to clarify what you are implying in your next speech, but my last piece of rebuttal also applies here. Rebuttal X: "The Everyman has neither the time nor the inclination to research and analyse his voting decision. "Again, we believe that political apathy is much lower than our Opposition would have people believe. We think people do care, and our evidence would agree. It is discontent with the voting system which is the problem. And, as previously stated, we believe that in the 21st century it is easier than ever before to quickly and succinctly make the voter aware of the two campaigns. This point is knocked down. Rebuttal XI: "Give the majority what it wants - NO political participation at all. "Oh, so Opposition is socialist after all. Besides this point (do we really want to start debating democracy versus dictatorship? I only have 2,368 characters remaining and we don't have enough rounds), we don't believe that the majority want no participation at all; they just want it in different ways because they've lost faith in elected official. More and more people are protesting, pressure group membership is increasing, and more people than ever are standing for election. Rebuttal XII: "We could well see the death penalty brought back into the UK. "Whilst I agree with you that this would be catastrophic, if the public want it, then politicians are in no place to simply tell the public they're wrong. Politicians serve to enact the will of the public, not the other way round. Summary of RebuttalWe believe that we have knocked over both of Opposition's two substantives, both in their own right but also on the basis that they serve principally to point out potential flaws with democracy. Given that this debate assumes a democratic state, we believe they are not within the bounds of this debate. Substantive III: They resolve differences between parties and parliamentary deadlockIf we look at the example of the 1973 European Community referendum, the referendum was key for making a decision when the parties in Parliament were unsure what to do and could not come to an agreement as to whether or not the UK should be a part of the European Community. Likewise with electoral reform, leading to the referendum on the Alternative Vote in 2011 (although the Proposition would argue that, to give the voters more choice, multiple choices should have been presented to the electorate). When parties are divided on an issue, be it divided against each other, divided within each other or both, we believe that the best thing to do is to allow the public to have the casting vote, as opposed to simply having parliamentary deadlock. For this reason we would advocate the increased use of referendums. Summary of the Third Speech for the PropositionWe have demonstrated the problems with Opposition's arguments. We have shown that Opposition's arguments are more criticisms of democracy, and not of referendums. We have contributed a further substantive in favour of referendums. For all these reasons, we urge you to Vote Pro! Back to Opposition, for their next speech. [1] . http://www.york.ac.uk...

negative: Mandatory Voting I accept all definitions and rules my opponent placed. Best of luck to my opponent. May the best man win.

negative: SHould voting be mandatory for all US citizens Ok first of all I will fix your opening argument. "NO ALL CHiLDREN IS NOT MATURE ENOUGH AND MOST PPL WHO DO NOT VOTE DONT KNOW ABOUT THE ELECTION PROCESS." "The answer to the question is no voting should not be mandatory. Not all children are mature enough to cast a vote, and most of the people who choose to not to vote make the choice because they do not know enough about the election process. There we go much better, first of all I will point out I personally am 100% opposed to mandatory voting. In fact I think that we should issue a IQ test before voting but that would make it way to hard for Obama or Hillary or liberal nominees in general. Ok first thing is first "not all children are mature enough to cast a vote" according to the laws in this country in order to vote you must be 18 years of age. Eighteen is the point in time when a child is now legally and adult so your point about children not being mature enough is moronic children do not vote. "and most of the people who choose to not to vote make the choice because they do not know enough about the election process." Well, that in fact may be a true statement but that is the point of high school, generally speaking by the age eighteen you should be old enough to know where you stand as far as politics are concerned.

negative: Iowa and New Hampshire should not always be first in the primaries While it may be important to have a system in which some state are first in the primary election, is it necessary that it always be New Hampshire and Iowa? No. Why not have a rotating system in which different states are given the right to go first each year.

negative: Quiz before Vote Americans have a responsibility to know the topics or people that they are voting for. Also laws are confusing and people have voted incorrectly before because they misunderstood what they were voting for, or against. To make sure that Americans understand what/who they are voting for, they should be required to pass a short quiz on the issues before voting. If they fail then they can be given information written by both sides and if needed can have someone read them this information. Then they will be allowed to vote. It would be important to set up safeguards against people being swayed one way or another if they needed assistance understanding. It is important that each American have a voice and that there voice is accurately translated through our voting system.

negative: Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Thanks, Philo. =Pro case=FrameworkPro argues that the only concern that should govern policy is if that policy is "democratic". This is absurd--democracies are governments and as I articulated in my framework, governance is fundamentally a balancing act between individual rights and the common good. Good governments are ones which make acceptable trade offs on this scale. Pro never explains why we should care if a democracy is "good" or not. It's vastly preferable to be ruled by a just king than a tyrannical president. It's vastly preferable to disenfranchise the 51% that would vote to exterminate the 49% even though this would be less democratic. Good governance is more important. The question then becomes if the practical effects of compulsory voting outweigh its violations of individual autonomy and as we will see, the answer is clearly no.I. TurnoutI do not concede that high voter turnout is inherently good. In Weimar Germany I would've preferred the Jews had higher turnout than members of the Nazi party did, regardless of what the actual opinion of the broader electorate was. We should value good government, not necessarily whatever happens to be the most "democratic" policy. Ironically, Pro argues that democracy means "all" the people are involved in the governing process and then immediately contradicts himself by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule. This is a huge blow for Pro because it destroys his argument about how democracy is a joke is we don't involve everyone. I don't want people who can't name the vice president to decide elections. Pro argues that if everyone doesn't vote a government doesn't have a mandate. There's no evidence Pro cited of governments under compulsory voting regimes having greater legitimacy than governments who don't force their citizens at gunpoint to endorse the system. Outside of nations with compulsory voting it's incredibly rare for the outright majority of eligible voters to endorse the ruling party but this has no effect on the governments ability to rule. Pros argument here also assumes a two party system--in a multi party system it would be incredibly unlikely for the winning party to gain a majority even with compulsory voting. Are these governments any less legitimate? Pro certainly hasn't proven so. Considering that he brings it up later Pro clearly puts great stock in his mandate argument but I genuinely don't know how to reply because it's simply not warranted at all. Where are all challenges to sovereignty to these governments without mandates? The strongest language from Pro on this contention is that a plurality rather than a majority "somewhat" contradicts democracy. This timid, unassertive word choice is extremely telling--even Pro himself can't get himself to fully commit to this argument. Even if you buy that high turnout is good, state coercion is just not the best way to achieve this goal when we have options like tax credits. II. Accessibility to votingAbsolutely nothing in this contention is unique ad governments can easily pass laws that remove hindrances to voting. Making election days national holidays, extending early voting and same day registration are all discussed and worthy reforms, but compulsory voting is manufacturing a tornado to blow out a match. In fact, I can easily turn this argument: It IS hard to vote sometimes, but nothing in the resolution presumes that issue will be resolved. Pro only gets to assume that he succeeds in adding a legal obligation to vote, not that he makes it easier to vote. He's going to punish all of those hard working or disabled people he lauds. III. EducationPro has no evidence linking compulsory voting with a better educated electorate. Pro says that in a free society it's easy to ignore politics but thinks that forcing people to show up once every four years to randomly select candidates would turn us all into political junkies. In the United States, the election is all anybody hears about on the news for about two years before it even happens (this process has already begun). Social media, Internet access, and incessant news coverage make it almost impossible to not learn about politics through sheer osmosis. If people are tuning out, it's for a reason--probably because they realize that their vote doesn't matter in the slightest and have more important things to do in their lives than to listen to corporate shills lie. There's absolutely nothing in our modern world that stymies our natural curiosity, compulsory voting wouldn't make a difference. IV. ExtremismPros card on extremism refers specifically to primary elections[1]. Primary elections are the elections where party members select the slate of candidates for the general election--compulsory voting wouldn't solve for this because voting in primaries will *always* be voluntary unless Pro wants to argue that the government should force people to join political parties. The solutions suggested by the article, such as voting by mail and same day voter registration are far superior to Pros plan. I can't emphasize this enough, the article specifically lays the blame for polarization on primary elections so Pro gets no impact here--only solutions that increase *voluntary* turnout (like tax credits) would help here. Moreover, other than the weak democracy argument Pro doesn't explain why having politically motivated people voting more often is a bad thing, nor how having representatives with convictions ("extremists") is a bad thing. The article cites the example of Chris Murphy who won a low turnout primary and quickly became one of the most liberal senators and just assumes this is bad. Why is having one of the most liberal states in the country represented by a liberal a bad thing? Pro doesn't seem to understand that the moderates that are "unrepresented" voluntarily ceded their right to vote. They aren't underrepresented because they never seeked representation in the first place. The election of ideologues and extremists is often an act of protest. It's likely that compulsory voting would actually increase the probability of electing ideologues as leagues of potential voters who sit out elections out of disgust would now be forced to make a choice.=My case=CounterplanPro argues that my plan of tax credits would cost money. Actually it would grow the economy due to the multiplier effect. The multiplier effect is a phenomenon whereby investment in certain sectors yields returns that are higher than the initial investment. So if a multiplier was 1.1, an investment of 1 billion would yield 1.1 billion. A paper for the United States Conference of Mayors[2] explains that the Earned Income Tax Credit for low to moderate income earners, a payment similar to my voting tax credit proposal, has a multiplier somewhere between 1.5 and 2. Pro claims that a tax credit would cost a lot of money. On the contrary, the credit would grow the economy by something between 1.5 and 2 times the money put in. This is a completely independent reason to vote Con. Even if you don't see any ethical or practical issue with compulsory voting, Pro doesn't grow the economy. I do. I. UndemocraticPro cites a poll showing Australians favor mandatory voting. He asks "[Why] should the statistic from the USA take precedence over the statistic from Australia?" It shouldn't! That's exactly the point! Somehow Pro entirely missed the crux of my argument, which is that the resolution should be rejected as it's better to let nations decide their own policies for themselves. This is the democratic position. Australia is not mine to rule, and while I think I could make convincing arguments to them as to why compulsory voting is bad policy, ultimately the decision is up to them. Pro, on the other hand, believes that nations he has never heard of and knows nothing about have a moral imperative to implement this policy even if it would be disastrous for them. Pro totally missed the point of my neocolonialism argument. The problem with his position is its blanket assumption--the issue is with this concept that nations we couldn't identify on a map are ours to rule. This type of hubris, that we can legislate just as well for anybody as we can for our own nations and that our policies have to work for them is the type of thinking that led to colonialism. Reject colonialism. Reject the resolution. Let nations decide their own policies for themselves. Despite his emphasis on democratic ideals, this autonomy is by far the more democratic position. II/III RightsPro does not argue that these rights don't exist, he just argues that people can just spoil their ballots. This isn't always true--it's unlikely, for example, that one could spoil their vote in electronic voting machines that wouldn't allow you to select more than one candidate. Moreover, many people wouldn't know how to spoil their votes or would believe it to be illegal ("Is it illegal to spoil your vote?" brings 125,000 hits on Google). To make sure that none of these rights are violated would require a concerted effort by the government to bring to the voters attention their ability to spoil their ballots, which defeats the purpose of forcing them to vote when they could just allow them to abstain instead. Moreover spoiling your ballot is not a true act of political neutrality--spoilt ballots are typically viewed as protest ballots[3]. The only truly neutral act is to not vote. Pro does not dispute that we should use the Sherbert Test: forcing people to violate their religion and hoping that they'll know to spoil their ballots is not the *least intrusive* means of achieving high turnout. Allowing them to abstain and encouraging voluntary voting through tax credits is.Pro removes legitimitate means of political expression and forces us all to give consent to the system. I'll discuss the rest of my case and crystallize the debate in the next round. 1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...3. http://tinyurl.com...

negative: The right not to vote Better to register dissatisfaction with politics by actively registering a non-vote. Ballot papers could include an abstention box to properly register this message. Spoiling a ballot in order to show that one feels no candidate is suitable, or even that they are dissatisfied with the entire system, sends a message out much more clearly. If one simply did not attend the vote at all this could be for many reason - sickness, forgetfulness, pure laziness - and is not making any kind of political statement.

negative: Voter photo id laws. 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...

negative: Autumn Regular Tournament: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Thanks, thett3FrameworkWhether a government is democratic isn't the only criterion for whether it is a good democracy, yet it is a factor, largely because having a democratic system is linked to increased welfare of the populace (1). I agree that the protection of individual rights and the common good are also crucial when considering what ought to be the case in a democracy.Nevertheless, this concession in no way harms my case. This is because compulsory voting doesn't violate a single individual right and it also maximises the common good due to the apparent trend where democracy is linked to the general welfare of the populace (1) (hence a more democratic system - compulsory voting - would probably increase general welfare).TurnoutCon is entirely incorrect here; he claims that I 'immediately contradict [myself] by arguing that certain people are unfit to rule'. I never said anything of the sort.He also argues that a high voter turnout isn't inherently good. Maybe so, but it is inherently democratic, and therefore it will prima facie accord with the common good. Con does say that it would have been better for the Jews to have voted more than the Nazis, but it is uncontroversial to say this because we have the benefit of hindsight. In the present day, it would be extremely bigoted to say that one group of people is less worthy of political representation in Government.Democracy should involve everyone. Even if we view someone's views as extremist or stupid, it is still democratic and better for the common good to ensure that everyone is involved. Thus I would still advocate that a high voter turnout is, prima facie, a good thing - one that compulsory voting will actualize.Con says I don't provide evidence that low-turnout elected governments are less legitimate than high-turnout elected governments. This is wrong, I did provide evidence that in a low-turnout election, it is more likely to turn out that the majority of the population didn't support the victorious government. Conversely, this is less likely to happen if we have a high voter turnout.To illustrate, we have two elections:Election 1- 60% turnout- Labour party wins by 70% majorityElection 2- 90% turnout- Labour party wins by 70% majorityIn election 1, only 42% of the population actually supported the Labour party. In election 2, this figure is 63%.In which election is the Labour party more legitimate? Obviously the latter because in that one, the majority of the population support them.This proves my point that a higher turnout will increase the chances that the victorious government will be legitimate. Of course, the chances of a government having majority support are much lower in a multi-party system, and yes, because of this there will be a smaller chance that the government in a multi-party system will be as legitimate as the same party in a two-party system. Nevertheless, even in a multi-party system, the increased turnout resulting from compulsory voting will still increase the chances that the winning government will be more legitimate.Having a legitimate government is both more democratic and better for the common good, since people are more likely to trust in the government and be content with their authority if they are aware that the government's authority is legitimate. For example, in the UK earlier this year, the Conservative party won the General Election with only 36.9% of the vote (2), this caused bitterness and protests, in which a common complaint was that people felt the government was illegitimate (3). In other words, a less legitimate government is more likely to result in unrest, political apathy and anti-government feeling - all symptoms of a less happy society.Tax credits could work, but they are financially inferior to my plan. I'll expand on this later.AccessibilityWhilst there are many things that would help solve the problem of inaccessibility to voting, compulsory voting is the solution that would be the most effective. If voting was compulsory, then there would be a legal mandate to help everyone to vote - after all, nobody wants to see a disabled person punished simply because he couldn't get to a polling station by himself. Because nobody wants to see that, this would place a mandate on society to assist anyone who needs it to cast their vote. This is shown in the case of Australia, which has a plethora of help and assistance available for disabled/elderly voters (4).If voting is optional, then there is an attitude of, 'why should I help this person cast their vote? It's not as if they need to vote'.National holidays are all very well, but they do cost the economy a fair bit (5) and still wouldn't help those who don't work but still struggle to leave the house. The same applies to early voting and same-day registration; all these help solve the problem, but none moreso than compulsory voting.Con claims that, if voting is compulsory, it will end up punishing the hard-working and disabled people. This would be the case if my plan wasn't accompanied by policies that would give the disabled assistance in casting their vote, to the extent that nobody should fear being on the wrong side of the law because they were unable to reach a polling station. But I advocate such policies, as does Australia - the poster-child for compulsory voting.Furthermore, if voting is compulsory then there is a mandate for employers to permit their employees the chance to vote - hence there is no worry of a hard-working person being punished because they were kept at work during election day. If this did happen to be the case, then the punishment would fall on the employer. In contrast, if voting was optional then employers have no obligation to allow their employees time to vote - after all, it's not as if they need to vote if voting is merely optional.EducationWhilst there is no empirical evidence linking compulsory voting to an increase in political knowledge, the reasoning for such a link remains cogent.Compare a compulsory voting system and an optional voting system. All else being equal, the former is more likely to prompt people to educate themselves politically. This is because of the fact that one cannot choose to isolate themselves from political involvement if voting is compulsory, whereas someone can choose to isolate themselves if voting is optional. There might not be a large difference, but it is a difference nonetheless. If someone is required to vote, then this will create a demand for education - after all, if people are required to participate in something then they will naturally want to learn about what it is they are required to participate in. To give an example, if people are required to attend a football game every year, then this will increase the level of football-knowledge because the mandatory-participation prompts people to educate themselves.Con writes that the large amount of election coverage in the media is enough to educate anyone 'through sheer osmosis'. Yet this is passive education, where you inevitably absorb some information just by exposure to it. Compulsory voting would encourage people to take an active approach and seek out political information. The latter is preferable because it avoids many of the media biases that would be exacerbated by passive political education.ExtremismCon's rebuttal here exclusively refers to the American system of primary elections, yet this debate doesn't explicitly pertain to the USA. In countries such as the UK and Australia, voting is for members of an unlimited amount of different political parties, unlike the two party system in the US. Hence Con's rebuttal doesn't harm my case here.Just to clarify, I do not think that extremists voting is a bad thing - of course I don't. I think that disproportionate representation is a bad and undemocratic thing. Because extremists are more likely to vote than moderates, this means that extremists are given representation that their number does not warrant. The moderates may have consented by refraining from voting, but this doesn't resolve the issue. The principles of democracy require equal representation.Con's counterplanTax credits may grow the economy - any government spending does. But the issue is that if government spending is given through tax credits, that spending is being redirected from more worthy projects such as schools or hospitals. Tax credits for voting would needlessly use up money that could be spent on infrastructure and housing. Whilst the counterplan may grow the economy, my plan is superior because it frees up the money so it can be spent on more worthy investments. Therefore, my plan is more economically benefitial.Undemocratic?It may be best to let other countries decide their own policies, but that is irrelevant to this debate. We are supposed to be debating whether it is preferential to have compulsory voting in a democracy, not whether we should force countries to implement it. Con's talk of 'neocolonialism' is therefore a giant strawman.RightsAs part of my plan, I would advocate that all voting mediums allow for ballots to be spoilt. Hence avoiding the accusation of violating the right no to vote. Con writes that people may be dissuaded by fear of spoiling being illlegal, but the only evidence he gives is that '"Is it illegal to spoil your vote?" brings 125,000 hits on Google'. But Google hits are no reflection on whether a query is a common one; for example, a search of 'giant strawberry gorilla hybrid' brings 489,000 hits.I do accept the Sherbet test, but Con's counterplan is arguably more intrusive than my own. By financially rewarding those who vote, the Government is effectively punishing people for not voting. It's like if people were given tax credits to work on Sundays, this would feel like a punishment to those Christians who believe that we shouldn't violate the Sabbath._____(1) http://bit.ly...(2) http://bit.ly...(3) http://bit.ly...(4) http://bit.ly...(5) http://bit.ly...

negative: Compulsory Voting People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more ac...

negative: Open primaries Open primaries increase Independents' participation in general election.

negative: Ben Should Become a Vegetarian 1. I don't consume much red meat to begin with and that is creating the largest issue on your first graph. You still consume dairy products and that creates a much larger issue (if I'm understanding the chart correctly) than how much chicken I eat (which would be more than my consumption of red meat by far). You link to an article about the UN conducting a study on the environmental impacts of meat consumption, yet that is dated. The UN admitted to important flaws in the report (http://www.telegraph.co.uk...) and concludes instead: "efforts should be focused on "smarter farming, not less farming". There will likely always be more incentive to refine our farming techniques and invent new geo-engineering technologies than to change our meat eating habits and so as a culture pursuing the former rather than the latter is a better use of time and effort. 2. That study is commenting on the question of whether vegetarian diets are feasible and noting those health benefits. That doesn't invalidate every other kind of diet. 3A. This is just as much an argument for you to become an omnivore again, as it is for me to convert to your diet. Our culture simply has more meat options and the practical strain argument would seem to lean in my favor. 3B. There is reduced moral strain when we recognize the realistic limits of what we can do. We are not in a particularly potent position of pushing forward for new geo-engineering technologies or farming techniques that will have the most impact on issues like climate change and resource management. We can promote education as local activists instead and when politicians are running on the right issues we can vote them in as well as collectively pressure for those policies. 3C. This is your most tempting proposal, but I'm afraid there are still plenty of ways to make our friends suffer under the tyranny of our joint cuteness. ;)

negative: Online voting should replace traditional voting. I staunchly disagree! Online voting should NOT replace traditional voting. It holds far too many ways to fail than suceed. Idealy, yes, for convenience sake online voting would be far superior to traditional voting. However it makes the already problematic voter fraud even easier then it already is. While you have listed ways that you think will be able to prevent this, I shall now go through and show how each is inevitably able to fail to virus', hackers, and general vote bombers. c-1: Voting fraud on this site has not been unheard of, and debate.orgs 'fail safe' with cell phone identity is a speed bump at best. All one needs is a phone number that can recieve text messages, an viola, that account can vote. I do not have a phone that can recieve TM, and so am unable to confirm my identity, though I know I exist. This means I can't vote, which is very inconvenient. However, if I so chose to I could get one or convince a friend or even steal a phone and "confirm" my identity tot he satisfaction of debate.orgs fail safe, though as you can see there are more dishonest ways to pass this than the honest one. Now, for your example of what I am assuming are serious political elections, you say that a social security number will do the trick. Not so. Just as with the cell phone all one needs to do attain a SSN, and they are now that person whether they are or not. If you have contention with this then you are probably not aware of identity theft [http://www.ftc.gov...]. Now as you'll have surly noticed this site is not just about what identity theft (IT) is but how to fight it. I fully admit that there are ways to fight IT after it has happened, though they are often lengthy, inconvenient, and costly. In all cases, IT could be fought but not after the damage has been done. This means that in a serious election, the mere possibility of the damages of IT far outweight the benefit of convenience. An election where seemingly thousands have voted could just as well be 1 person, or group with a particular agenda. Even if 1 vote is not that of the legitimate holder of the SSN, your fail safe has failed. It is far more pssoible than not, and for this reason, online voting clearly fails. C-2: If we lived in a perfect world then you'd be right. An electronic voting system would be more relable in counting votes. That is, if those votes were real and reliable. As I've already shown, the reliablity of votes is already in question. But whether a real person in any degree cast those is also in question. A virus, especially a well designed one, could easily pass through a fail safe of any kind, and perform a simple operation of changing a 1 into a 2, or 3, etc. Hacks and viruses into what where thought to be secure systems is all too common, and a simple google search can reveal hundreds of stories of real life scenarios where such a thing happened. Here's on that happened just 2 years ago [http://www.crn.com...] and a famous story where the FBI's database was hacked into [http://www.computerworld.com...]. The moral of the story is that if there is a will, then there's a way, especially when it comes to computers. Vote bots exist, and are able to be purchased easily and effectively, as well as (obviously) designed [http://cheatingnetwork.net...]. So again here, electronic votes fail as they would only suceed if there were not people who would exploit them. C-3: Sure they do, but it isn't as easy to fraud those as it is from a computer. With absentiee votes there is an official form, that has to be filled out be hand. A very lengthy process and definetly not immune to the effects of fraud, but it would take more time and resources to produce anywhere near the amount of damage that can be caused by a few key strokes. I believe I've sufficently described how that can happen above. C-4: Undoubtably, but like I've shown, for every honest elderly shut in who could use the technology to vote, there are more who would use it exploit their own agendas dishonestly. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliabilty and accessibility that a hacker or virus could take advantage of over the web, online voting does more harm than good. With traditional voting, were one has to go into a set voting center, and show an ID that matches the person to it to another living person, the chance of fraud exists but is minimalized by the ability to verify the actual physical existence of a person right then and there. Opperations to commit fraud with traditional voting are far more costly, time consuming, and active (as in one has to get up and go do something) than it is with a computer. No system is perfect but a computerized voting system is far more so in the ease that it could be hacked. So while we are not in contention that a online system would do some good, I hold that it's far too easily penetrated by wrongdoers for it to become the mechanism that decides the course of an entire country, or even county.

negative: Prisoners right to vote Prisoners have a right to express interests through voting

negative: Open primaries lower turnout by eliminating clear choices "Why open primaries are a really bad idea." Next Left. May 26th, 2009: "here is good evidence that one of the reasons for things like falling electoral turnout in contemporary democracies is precisely that parties do not offer voters sufficient choice. The open primary, ostensibly a way of putting the political system more in touch with the voter, would be likely to accentuate this in the long-term and so actually risks worsening lack of interest and engagement in the political system."