II. Affirmative Case Positions Rawls John Rawls’ philosophy is like butter. As long as you have something to start with, spread away and it’ll taste pretty good. Most —if not all—affirmative positions will be focusing on the fact that poor voting turnout disproportionately harms certain groups of society. Whether that portion of society proves to be youths and minorities or the socioeconomically disadvantaged, affirmative logic would dictate that compulsory voting proves effective at increasing voting turnout. With higher turnout across the board, these currently disadvantaged groups would have their exclusion remedied. The elimination of arbitrary factors such as minority status, income, and age (beyond 18) from the expression of one’s political will seems to mesh well with Rawls' theory of justice. I find this position, if explained well, viable for local debate as well as for national debate. State-based consequentialism Another affirmative strategy that seems viable is a case that simply expounds upon the many benefits of compulsory voting for the democratic state that implements such a measure. As addressed above, such a case would probably have to do a bit more work than usual to convince a judge that in a democracy unquestionably refers to a nation as the actor in the resolution. That being established, the link between state-based ethics and utilitarianism is natural and logical obviously not undisputed by some, but understandable. Literature exists to argue that compulsory voting increases political stability, minimizes extremism, and leads to more informed 2 http://www.brennancenter.org/analysis/testimony-house-hearing-restrictive-voting-laws
