Foundation Briefs Advanced Level Sept/Oct 2013 Brief
as the guiding criterion for this debate
Download 0.95 Mb. View original pdf
|
- Navigate this page:
- Contention One Compulsory voting addresses the unfairness of socioeconomic divides effects on voting patterns
| as the guiding criterion for this debate. And because a voluntary vote system can be one conducive to an unfair apportionment of voting power between individuals, and potentially with more consequences an unfair apportionment of voting power between groups of people, I affirm the resolution that resolved Ina democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Contention One Compulsory voting addresses the unfairness of socioeconomic divides effects on voting patterns The framework through which to view voting equality is that of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Social Contract, given both the presence of universal suffrage and the potential for representative democracy in his postulations (thus echoing the modern landscape. What Rousseau considered the general will was just that—the will of all the people, with legislative implications for this, although this was different from the government, which deals with actual particular matters. The implication of Rousseau’s political contract is that when the general will is acting on the direction of a state, it is general—it includes everyone, and can be considered general inherently due to its inclusivity; it is a fair representation of the governed. Contrast this with the realities of modern political processes. As noted by Annabelle Lever, the British have seen a 13% gap between manual and non-manual workers voter turnout by 2005; Arend Lijphart, in 1997, found this disparity to cross most other socioeconomic lines, with those of lower class generally voting less. The propensity to vote also decreases with youth. This is a problem. Even if these findings were reversed, it would still be a problem. Even under a values-centered debate, this is a problem. The reason for this is that the system itself—a voluntary voting system—allows such gaps to exist to begin with. Under the eye of any democratic government, the vote of someone wealthy does not hold more weight than the vote of a disadvantaged individual. The government represents both individuals equally. The government has jurisdiction over both individuals, and both groups to which those individuals belong. Thus, the problem with a voluntary voting system is that while the aforementioned assertions remain true, about individuals, they cannot any longer apply to groups. The difference between individual voter participation across socioeconomic groups equates to a difference in representation and governance across those socioeconomic groups (and across ages as well as just about any other demographics. This is indirect conflict with the idea of fairness in democratic governance, wherein a just government allows for every group to be both represented and governed in a proportionally |