Part A: Text: Democratic states ought to use tax incentives instead of compulsory voting

to increase voter turnout and reduce informal voting.

Part B is Competition-By the negative saying that we should have voting voluntarily, it
already is competitive against the Affirmative. Also, the Affirmative will not have access to
the Net benefits.
Compulsory Voting isn't working
Hicks, Bruce, Forget mandatory voting. Canada should be paying people to go to the polls,
2011, A former political strategist, journalist and publisher and expert in Canadian politics
"When turnout dipped...of the above"
From the Second World War until the end of the 20th century, roughly 75 percent of eligible voters consistently cast ballots in federal elections. During the Jean Chrtien era,
however, that number began to drop and has been declining ever since. There are many theories as to why this is the case: the increased frequency of elections, less civic
obligation, increased skepticism about governments efficiency, proliferation of negative campaign advertisements, decline in socialization, and administrative changes, like
the move from voter enumeration to a permanent electors list. Each exhibits empirical validity, but none entirely explains the downward trend. Its not just Canadavoter
turnout has declined around the world, and it has been declining steadily by generation. This is particularly troubling because we know that voting is a life skill which needs to

Disengaged youth today become disenchanted taxpayers tomorrow.

Changing voting rules to allow multiple ballots, transferable ballots, or proportional
representation are frequently advanced as improvements Canada should consider. Each
has merits and each would improve voter turnout, but only modestly. Its time to consider
a more drastic move: making voting mandatory. Lets be friends! During the 2000 election, when turnout dipped to 61.2 percent,
be learned early.

the chief electoral officer was asked if he would consider proposing to Parliament that voting be made compulsory, as it is in several jurisdictions around the world. He said at
the time that he did not support the idea, but if voting dropped below 60 percent he would reconsider his position. In the last federal election the turnout was 58.8 percent. Its
time for a public debate on the idea. Voting is compulsory in a number of countries, including Australia, which shares our basic political system, constitutional framework, and
colonial history. We already make a large number of civic duties obligatory, such as jury duty. So why not voting? There is no reasonable argument that a few minutes out of a
citizens day every four years or so to make them visit a local polling station is an unfair burden for living in a democracy. It needs to be clear that what is compulsory is not
voting; only spending a few minutes at a polling station. Voters are free to destroy their ballot. In fact, in most countries with compulsory voting, there is a box one can check to
state none of the above. With the introduction of compulsory voting in Australia, the turnout went from less than 60 percent to over 91 percent overnight. Public opinion polls
suggest Canadians do not currently support the idea of making voting compulsory (though there is evidence that resistance to the idea is lessening), but the majority of
Australians also said they were opposed prior to its introduction. Now, a majority of Australians say they strongly support the law. Nevertheless, Canadian politicians may be
reluctant to lead public opinion. That is why, in 2002, I suggested an alternative: offering a tax credit for voting. Use a carrot instead of the stick. This is a very Canadian
approach, as we have a long history of using taxation to encourage behaviour, including the funding of political parties. A tax credit would provide an incentive to vote. More
importantly, it would offset some of the costs associated with voting that disproportionately affect lower-income Canadians. It could be means-tested, and thus paid only to
those whose income level is likely to be a barrier to civic participation. Working people used to be paid to vote by their employers, who were obligated by law to give time off
work on election day, but this obligation has been lessened due to the staggering of hours for polling stations. Even when it was provided, paid time off to vote never helped
people whose employment was piecemeal, shift work, temporary, or casualthe least affluent members of our society. There are tangible costs associated with voting, such
as transportation, hiring a babysitter, and time spent collecting information and following the issues. These costs affect people differently based on their socio-economic
circumstances. In the U.S. mid-term elections in November, for example, it was found that the economic situation had deterred a large number of low-income AfricanAmericans from voting simply because of the administrative costs associated with registration. To date, the Liberal party of Alberta is the only political party to adopt my idea of

no political party in Canada has endorsed compulsory voting. It is probably a

safe bet that the Conservative party of Canada will not introduce compulsory voting on
its own, given its fear of all things compulsory (like the long-gun registry and the long-form census), or support
a voter tax credit because it will be afraid it might benefit another political party. But there
is no evidence that compulsory voting benefits either side of the ideological spectrum. A
higher turnout lends the elected political leaders legitimacy. Low turnout leads to divisive elections and a dissatisfied
a voter tax credit, and

populace. The turnout in U.S. mid-term elections is usually around 40 percent, one of the lowest for an industrialized democracy. The disproportionate impact of the rightwing Tea Party movement is only possible because of this low turnout. In ancient Athens, voting was compulsory and people were financially compensated for taking time off
to participate. This became the largest item in the governments budget, but it was a new experiment in government in which they believed stronglyclearly more strongly
than we do 2,000 years later.c

Tax incentives solve better

Hicks 2
"an alternative to...the idological spectrum"
From the Second World War until the end of the 20th century, roughly 75 percent of eligible voters consistently cast ballots in federal elections. During the Jean Chrtien era,
however, that number began to drop and has been declining ever since. There are many theories as to why this is the case: the increased frequency of elections, less civic
obligation, increased skepticism about governments efficiency, proliferation of negative campaign advertisements, decline in socialization, and administrative changes, like
the move from voter enumeration to a permanent electors list. Each exhibits empirical validity, but none entirely explains the downward trend. Its not just Canadavoter
turnout has declined around the world, and it has been declining steadily by generation. This is particularly troubling because we know that voting is a life skill which needs to
be learned early. Disengaged youth today become disenchanted taxpayers tomorrow. Changing voting rules to allow multiple ballots, transferable ballots, or proportional
representation are frequently advanced as improvements Canada should consider. Each has merits and each would improve voter turnout, but only modestly. Its time to

consider a more drastic move: making voting mandatory. Lets be friends! During the 2000 election, when turnout dipped to 61.2 percent, the chief electoral officer was asked
if he would consider proposing to Parliament that voting be made compulsory, as it is in several jurisdictions around the world. He said at the time that he did not support the
idea, but if voting dropped below 60 percent he would reconsider his position. In the last federal election the turnout was 58.8 percent. Its time for a public debate on the idea.
Voting is compulsory in a number of countries, including Australia, which shares our basic political system, constitutional framework, and colonial history. We already make a
large number of civic duties obligatory, such as jury duty. So why not voting? There is no reasonable argument that a few minutes out of a citizens day every four years or so
to make them visit a local polling station is an unfair burden for living in a democracy. It needs to be clear that what is compulsory is not voting; only spending a few minutes at
a polling station. Voters are free to destroy their ballot. In fact, in most countries with compulsory voting, there is a box one can check to state none of the above. With the

Public opinion polls suggest

Canadians do not currently support the idea of making voting compulsory (though there
is evidence that resistance to the idea is lessening), but the majority of Australians also said they were opposed prior to its
introduction. Now, a majority of Australians say they strongly support the law. Nevertheless, Canadian politicians may be reluctant to lead public opinion. That is
why, in 2002, I suggested an alternative: offering a tax credit for voting. Use a carrot instead of the
stick. This is a very Canadian approach, as we have a long history of using taxation to
encourage behaviour, including the funding of political parties. A tax credit would provide
an incentive to vote. More importantly, it would offset some of the costs associated with
voting that disproportionately affect lower-income Canadians. It could be means-tested,
and thus paid only to those whose income level is likely to be a barrier to civic
participation. Working people used to be paid to vote by their employers, who were
obligated by law to give time off work on election day, but this obligation has been
lessened due to the staggering of hours for polling stations. Even when it was provided,
paid time off to vote never helped people whose employment was piecemeal, shift work,
temporary, or casualthe least affluent members of our society. There are tangible costs associated with voting,
such as transportation, hiring a babysitter, and time spent collecting information and following the issues. These costs affect people
differently based on their socio-economic circumstances. In the U.S. mid-term elections
in November, for example, it was found that the economic situation had deterred a large
number of low-income African-Americans from voting simply because of the
administrative costs associated with registration. To date, the Liberal party of Alberta is the only political party to adopt my idea
introduction of compulsory voting in Australia, the turnout went from less than 60 percent to over 91 percent overnight.

of a voter tax credit, and no political party in Canada has endorsed compulsory voting. It is probably a safe bet that the Conservative party of Canada will not introduce
compulsory voting on its own, given its fear of all things compulsory (like the long-gun registry and the long-form census), or support a voter tax credit because it will be afraid
it might benefit another political party. But there is no evidence that compulsory voting benefits either side of the ideological spectrum. A higher turnout lends the elected
political leaders legitimacy. Low turnout leads to divisive elections and a dissatisfied populace. The turnout in U.S. mid-term elections is usually around 40 percent, one of the
lowest for an industrialized democracy. The disproportionate impact of the right-wing Tea Party movement is only possible because of this low turnout. In ancient Athens,
voting was compulsory and people were financially compensated for taking time off to participate. This became the largest item in the governments budget, but it was a new
experiment in government in which they believed stronglyclearly more strongly than we do 2,000 years later.

Part D is the net benefits:

DISAD:
A: As of right now, countries without compulsory voting respect the autonomy of
the citizens.
B: By affirming, we are breaking the autonomy of the citizens because they are
voting not of their free choice, but because they are merely forced to, causing
negative impacts.
The affirmative's attempt to fix society will only encroach upon autonomy in a process that will either
destroy freedom to perpetuate the system or collapse upon itself leading to totalitarianism.
Kaczynski Assistant Professor at University of California, Berkeley and expert in USPS security '95
[Theodore, Industial Society and Its Future, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Industrial_Society_and_Its_Future]

. The social disruption that we see today is certainly not the result of mere chance. It can only be a
result of the conditions of life that the system imposes on people. (We have argued that the most
important of these conditions is disruption of the power process.) If the systems succeeds in imposing
sufficient control over human behavior to assure its own survival, a new watershed in human history will
have passed. Whereas formerly the limits of human endurance have imposed limits on the development of
societies (as we explained in paragraphs 143, 144), industrial-technological society will be able to pass those
limits by modifying human beings, whether by psychological methods or biological methods or both. In the future,
social systems will not be adjusted to suit the needs of human beings. Instead, human being will be adjusted to
suit the needs of the system.
[27] 152. Generally speaking, technological control over human behavior will probably not be introduced
with a totalitarian intention or even through a conscious desire to restrict human freedom. [28] Each new
step in the assertion of control over the human mind will be taken as a rational response to a problem
that faces society, such as curing alcoholism, reducing the crime rate or inducing young people to study
science and engineering. In many cases, there will be humanitarian justification. For example, when a
psychiatrist prescribes an anti-depressant for a depressed patient, he is clearly doing that individual a favor. It
would be inhumane to withhold the drug from someone who needs it. When parents send their children to Sylvan
Learning Centers to have them manipulated into becoming enthusiastic about their studies, they do so from
concern for their children's welfare. It may be that some of these parents wish that one didn't have to have
specialized training to get a job and that their kid didn't have to be brainwashed into becoming a computer nerd.
But what can they do? They can't change society, and their child may be unemployable if he doesn't have certain
skills. So they send him to Sylvan.
153. Thus control over human behavior will be introduced not by a calculated decision of the authorities
but through a process of social evolution (RAPID evolution, however). The process will be impossible to
resist, because each advance, considered by itself, will appear to be beneficial ,or at least the evil involved
in making the advance will appear to be beneficial, or at least the evil involved in making the advance will seem
to be less than that which would result from not making it (see paragraph 127). Propaganda for example is used
for many good purposes, such as discouraging child abuse or race hatred. [14] Sex education is obviously
useful, yet the effect of sex education (to the extent that it is successful) is to take the shaping of sexual attitudes
away from the family and put it into the hands of the state as represented by the public school system.

Violation of individual rights is an internal link to totalitarianism. Totalitarianism

outweighs any of the affirmative's arguments. Totalitarianism is the end of nature and
history, leaving only a perpetual cycle of death.
Arendt Professor at Princeton University, University of Chicago, and the New School University
(HEY I WENT TO THE NEW SCHOOL - Coach Freeman) '73[Hannah, Origins of
Totalitarianism, 1973, page 464]
Totalitarian politics which proceeded to follow the recipes of ideologies has unmasked the
true nature of these movements insofar as it clearly showed that there could be no end to
this process. If it is the law of nature to eliminate everything that is harmful and unfit to
live, it would mean the end of nature itself if new categories of the harmful and unfit-to-live
could not be found; if it is the law of history that in a class struggle certain classes wither away,it would mean the end of human history itself if rudimentary new classes did
not form, so that they in turn could wither away under the hands of totalitarian rulers. In others words, the law of killing by which totalitarian
movements seize and exercise power would remain a law of the movement even if they ever
succeeded in making all of humanity subject to their rule.