I. Interpretation ”In a democracy” The resolution appears vague at first glance with regards to an actor. As discussion below will expand upon, ought typically is used as a normative verb. Whose interest guides the ought To understand this question, we have to delve into who or what constitutes a democracy. To define a democracy is a difficult question in and of itself. At first glance, the resolution seems to address apolitical state whose system of government is democratic. While convenient, that definition isn’t specified in the resolution at all. Affirmatives will probably be more inclined to gear towards the state being the essence of democracy, so as to grant more plausible links for consequentialist frameworks. This can be justified as a most plausible interpretation through the following logic In the status quo, most democracies (whatever that terms means) do not currently deploy compulsory voting. The resolution therefore posits a question of change from the status quoin away that affects an entire nation. Generally, the state implements national change within democratic systems. However, negative definitions of democracy may emphasize a more “ground-up” definition of a democracy as being a collective noun limited to the constituents who formed such a democracy. This garners the negative a strategic advantage in framing the resolution. This framing 1 http://www.uiowa.edu/ c030142/DefinitionsOfDemocracy.html
