:

Copyright 2020 by Champion Briefs, LLC

All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or

transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical,
including photocopying, recording, or by an information storage or
retrieval system, without the prior written permission of the
copyright owner and the publisher.

The Evidence Standard Sept/Oct 2020

The Evidence Standard

Speech and Debate provides a meaningful and educational experience to all who are involved.
We, as educators in the community, believe that it is our responsibility to provide resources
that uphold the foundation of the Speech and Debate activity. Champion Briefs, its employees,
managers, and associates take an oath to uphold the following Evidence Standard:

1. We will never falsify facts, opinions, dissents, or any other information.

2. We will never knowingly distribute information that has been proven to be inaccurate,
even if the source of the information is legitimate.
3. We will actively fight the dissemination of false information and will provide the
community with clarity if we learn that a third-party has attempted to commit
deception.
4. We will never knowingly support or distribute studies, news articles, or other
materials that use inaccurate methodologies to reach a conclusion or prove a point.
5. We will provide meaningful clarification to any who question the legitimacy of
information that we distribute.
6. We will actively contribute to students’ understanding of the world by using evidence
from a multitude of perspectives and schools of thought.
7. We will, within our power, assist the community as a whole in its mission to achieve
the goals and vision of this activity.

These seven statements, while simple, represent the complex notion of what it means to
advance students’ understanding of the world around them, as is the purpose of educators.

Champion Briefs 5
Letter from the Editor Sept/Oct 2020

Letter from the Editor

The 2020-2021 debate season has begun and while we are adjusting to debating on
virtual platforms, we should embrace the exciting rush of a new topic to maintain some sense
of normalcy. This year’s first topic is one that not only has fantastic ground but also happens to
be very timely: Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Our writers tried to
take a balanced approach to the topic providing multiple traditional, policy, and critical
strategies.
This resolution is interesting as a Lincoln-Douglas topic because it presents philosophical
issues that can be easily applied to current events. Voter turnout is always a question during
major election years. Many countries around the world have systems in place that mandate
voters cast a ballot. Is it moral for democratic societies to coerce citizens to vote? Will increased
turnout create a better representation of the people? Will it improve democratic ideals? There
are so many questions and ways to approach this topic that no matter your preferred style of
debate you’ll be able to find supportive literature.
In this new and unfamiliar year, I hope each of you will find your own success. This may
require you to redefine how you view winning. During the time of COVID-19, regaining a sense
of normalcy by participating in debate is a win. Working with teammates, talking with friends
and prepping for tournaments are wins. Learning something new, stretching your abilities and
growing as a person are all wins that will never be reflected in post tournament schematics but
will stay with you post your debate career. This year especially, let’s look for those ways to win.
Good luck to you all!

Daniel Shatzkin
Editor-in-Chief

Champion Briefs 6
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

Table of Contents

The Evidence Standard ....................................................................... 5

Letter from the Editor ........................................................................ 6

Table of Contents ............................................................................... 7

Topic Analyses.................................................................................. 19
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek ......................................................................................... 20
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin ............................................................................................. 29
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher ............................................................................................ 39
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage ........................................................................................ 48
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi .................................................................................... 57

Affirmative Cases with Negative Responses ..................................... 65

AFF: Democracy AC .......................................................................... 66
Democratic participation widens the gap between the rich and the poor. .......................................... 68
Citizen participation is expanding – we don’t need compulsory voting................................................ 69
Voter turnout is currently low. .............................................................................................................. 70
Democracy will always prevail – it’s the best option for governing. ..................................................... 71
Elections are necessary to the functioning of a democracy – proven by US efforts to establish
elections in nations that are being democratized. ................................................................................ 72
Voting is key to addressing issues in governance and resolving inequalities. ....................................... 73
Compulsory voting works – multiple democracies prove. .................................................................... 74
Compulsory voting ensures that a democracy benefits all citizens. ..................................................... 75
Compelling younger citizens to vote allows for them to engage in democracy in meaningful ways –
this is key to building lifelong participation. ......................................................................................... 76
Democracies are better at handling outbreaks. .................................................................................... 78
Collaboration between democracies is necessary to solve COVID. ...................................................... 80
COVID has exposed the flaws of authoritarianism and illustrated the importance of democracy. ...... 81
Voter participation is necessary to keeping a democracy legitimate.................................................... 83
Compelling citizens to vote isn’t undemocratic. ................................................................................... 85

AFF: Ripstein AC ............................................................................... 87
Compulsory voting is essential to political equality, by recognizing that all citizens should share in self-
government. .......................................................................................................................................... 88
Compulsory voting ends voter suppression and ensures equal political participation. ........................ 89
Compulsory voting necessitates other changes to the law that facilitate participation, and end voter
suppression. .......................................................................................................................................... 91
Low turnout disproportionately excludes poor Americans. .................................................................. 92

Champion Briefs 7
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting reduces the influence of money in politics. ........................................................... 93

[Paired with “CV solves big money”] Big money in politics, which disproportionately elevates the
voices of business above ordinary people, undermines equal representation..................................... 94
The libertarian notion of absolute freedom, such as that posited by the “right not to vote,” makes
democracy impossible. .......................................................................................................................... 95
Equality under the law requires equal democratic participation via compulsory voting...................... 96
From the perspective of freedom as non-domination, compulsory voting is necessary to achieve
political equality. ................................................................................................................................... 97
Equal freedom depends upon independence in a community of political equals, where no individual
or group has arbitrary influence over the other. .................................................................................. 98
Compulsory voting is necessary to coordinate a political community rooted in democratic equality.
This is not paternalistic........................................................................................................................ 100
Compulsory voting achieves high turnout while respecting the individual right to abstain. .............. 101
Only mandatory voting can evenly distribute the burdens of maintaining democracy. ..................... 102
Elections only have democratic legitimacy when virtually all of the population turns out. ............... 103
All citizens, for the sake of equal freedom, must be legally obligated to maintain the democratic
system. Compulsory voting does not violate rights, because the state is acting to create the conditions
in which rights themselves are possible. ............................................................................................. 104
Equal opportunity to vote is insufficient for equal freedom. The citizenry at large must actually
register their opinions in the system................................................................................................... 105
Only compulsory voting enables the poor and marginalized to form 'attentive publics' that political
leaders have to listen to. This is empirically verified by more robust public goods in countries with
compulsory voting. .............................................................................................................................. 106
Compulsory voting stimulates effective political contestation outside of elections---relying on that
resistance alone cedes the political to elites who will crush movements........................................... 107

AFF: Social Contract AC .................................................................. 108
Voting is key to preventing material violence. .................................................................................... 110
Under the social contract, citizens have an obligation to ensure the government isn’t corrupt. Voting
is the best way to do this. ................................................................................................................... 111
Elections are key to preserving many aspects of a successful society, including checking illegitimate
government and preserving constitutional rights. .............................................................................. 112
Participating in democracy is the best way to overcome challenges to democracy. .......................... 113
Citizens that consistently participate are necessary to preserve democracy. .................................... 114
Democracy promotes liberty. .............................................................................................................. 115
Democratic governments use less violence against their citizens. ..................................................... 117
Democratic nations experience better economic outcomes. ............................................................. 118
The spread of democracy promotes international peace. .................................................................. 120
Compulsory voting keeps politics focused on the needs of everyone and not the fringe minority –
Australia proves................................................................................................................................... 121
Compulsory voting will force politicians to address broader concerns and won’t skew votes to the left
or right. ................................................................................................................................................ 122
Compulsory voting decreases political apathy and increases focus on issues impacting young people.
............................................................................................................................................................. 123

Champion Briefs 8
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Structural Violence AC ............................................................ 124

Compulsory voting ensures that wealthy elites don’t control politics. ............................................... 125
Voter turnout affects the ideals upheld by democratic principles. ..................................................... 126
Compulsory voting encourages higher voting turnout and greater representation in democracy. ... 127
Compulsory voting has worked in other democracies, thus proving a positive case in the affirmative
world. .................................................................................................................................................. 128
Absent majority of the population voting- democracies appear less legitimate. ............................... 129
Compulsory voting decreases the roll of money within politics which allows other communities to
attain political influence. ..................................................................................................................... 130
Democratic political discourse will shift in a direction that aims at the communities that have lacked
political influence- more directed campaigns and shift in focus. ........................................................ 131
Shift in political discourse moots previous goals of exclusionary democratic practices. .................... 132
Compulsory voting is:. ......................................................................................................................... 133
Absent an equal voice in politics- abusive propaganda will continue to flood the media. ................. 134
Because the resolution is questioning the integrity of compulsory voting the value should be justice,
Definition of Justice:. ........................................................................................................................... 136
The value criterion thus shall be mitigating structural violence, defined as;. ..................................... 137
Low-income communities lack equal political participation when it comes to elections. .................. 138
Studies prove compulsory voting would dismantle the class-bias. ..................................................... 139
CV affects the candidates and other political personnel that are involved in the election. ............... 140
CV affects the goals of the political during election season. ............................................................... 141

AFF: Equal Justice AC ...................................................................... 142
Income Inequality is at an all time high right now. ............................................................................. 143
And in the United States, it’s especially bad. ...................................................................................... 144
Across the US, income inequality is WORSE in small and medium cities. ........................................... 145
Income inequality stifles the growth of a nation’s economy. ............................................................. 146
Economic growth is key to sustainability. ........................................................................................... 147
Income inequality increases the crime rate across the board. ........................................................... 149
Crime impedes on the economy—high medical and incarceration costs. .......................................... 150
Income Inequality decreases the quality of public health................................................................... 151
Income inequality increases political inequality. ................................................................................ 153
Political equality is key to democracy, which is necessary to avoiding every existential threat. ........ 154
Income inequality lowers the quality of education. ............................................................................ 156
Increasing education leads to economic growth, increased US modeling, and US competitiveness. 157
Compulsory voting is shown to reduce income inequality, especially in developing nations............. 158
Empirically, compulsory voting laws work to increase turnout – Australia proves............................. 159
Experts agree that compulsory voting is the best way to increase turnout, especially in the US. ...... 160

AFF: Local Elections AC ................................................................... 161
Local election turnout is historically low, even though municipal elections are integral to daily life. 162
Mandatory voting increases turnout – experts agree – ESPECIALLY at the local level. ...................... 163
Local elections are integral – two reasons. ......................................................................................... 164
They matter even more in 2020 amidst the coronavirus. ................................................................... 165
School board elections are still largely determined by white voters. ................................................. 166

Champion Briefs 9
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is the best way to enfranchise voters of color. .................................................... 167
The best way to raise the achievement of students of color is to improve curriculum in schools – only
local school boards can solve. ............................................................................................................. 168
Education reform is key to future innovation. .................................................................................... 169
Education key to state economy- equals more educated workforce, more jobs, more tax money. .. 171
Education key to preventing Climate Change – providing students facts, skills, and motivation to take
action................................................................................................................................................... 173

AFF: Climate AC .............................................................................. 175
Compulsory voting reduces polarization--that increases the viability of climate action. ................... 176
Compulsory voting is key to youth turnout---that ensures older voters can't dominate elections--
youth votes are key to climate action. ................................................................................................ 177
Compulsory voting is key to mobilization against climate change. Even if right-wing governments can
still win, activating the entire polity will give climate activists a wider audience. .............................. 179
Compulsory voting generally benefits the political left by increasing turnout among working class and
poor people. ........................................................................................................................................ 180
Polarization undermines American climate action now---compulsory voting solves, because it would
ensure that the majority of people who care about climate change are showing up to elections. .... 181
Compulsory voting is key to youth turnout, which makes climate action politically viable. ............... 182
Compulsory voting reduces polarization. ............................................................................................ 184
Political polarization undermines concern for climate change in politics. .......................................... 185
Global warming causes ecosystem collapse and threatens human extinction. .................................. 187
We have a moral obligation to protect future generations from environmental destruction---this is a
litmus test for any moral theory. ........................................................................................................ 188
Structural changes are needed but acknowledging the necessity of everyone’s vote is a key
prerequisite. ........................................................................................................................................ 190
Compulsory attendance does not make voting compulsory. “Compulsory voting” as the aff defines it
is a misnomer. ..................................................................................................................................... 192
Freedom means that although we have a right to vote, we aren't required to exercise it. This
acknowledges that the vote is important, but turnout itself is not a proxy for democratic legitimacy.
............................................................................................................................................................. 193

AFF: Intersectionality AC ................................................................ 194
Democracy becomes illegitimate based on the absence of high voter turnout. ................................ 195
Compulsory voting makes politicians and policymakers more accountable-reaches untapped
population. .......................................................................................................................................... 196
Incorporating gender into discussions of politics reveal underlying issues that basic discussions not
rooted in IR would not account for. .................................................................................................... 197
Increase in feminine discourse is key. ................................................................................................. 199
Incorporating a gender lens into politics increases representation. ................................................... 201
Hearing from those who experience issues firsthand help guide academia and the future generations.
............................................................................................................................................................. 203
Legal discourse oppresses voices within democracy. ......................................................................... 204
Media is turning the marginalized populations away from electorate politics- decreases
representation unless enforce compulsory voting.............................................................................. 206

Champion Briefs 10
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

Voting amongst adult female-identifying people is steadily increasing already- compulsory voting
would increase that number. .............................................................................................................. 207
The younger voters are more impressionable- the aff would require campaigns to target the younger
generations in order to close the gender gap. .................................................................................... 208
CV has benefited Australian politics- data proves. .............................................................................. 209
CV avoids fringe politics- better to avoid polarization. ....................................................................... 210
CV changes who runs for election. ...................................................................................................... 212
CV encourages the expansion of voices in politics. ............................................................................. 213
Different policy approaches are adopted as a result of CV. ................................................................ 214

Affirmative Responses to Negative Arguments ............................... 215

A/2: Kant NC .................................................................................. 216
There are many compulsory civic duties in a democracy, and that's because we need to address
collective action problems. The same logic justifies compulsory voting. ............................................ 216
The negative generously assumes that most abstainers are protesting the system, when many
disadvantaged people would participate if the political system actively sought out their voices. ..... 217
The people who supposedly benefit from the right to abstain in fact benefit far more by voting and
getting letters to pay attention to their interests. .............................................................................. 218
Compulsory voting does not restrict freedom of speech or the right to silence. ............................... 219
Compulsory voting does not violate individual rights. There are many opportunities for freedom of
expression against the system, even if people are required to vote. ................................................. 220
Abstention isn't effective, and offering conscientious objector status solves. ................................... 221
Blank and spoiled ballots are better than abstention for registering discontent with the system.
Freedom of conscience is also not a blanket immunity from legal sanction. ..................................... 222

A/2: Punishment NC ....................................................................... 223
Citizens are in favor of compulsory voting. ......................................................................................... 223
In the literature, compulsory voting is really just compulsory turnout. The resolution should be
understood to reflect the literature. ................................................................................................... 224
Mandatory voting isn’t undemocratic, and it yields positive results. ................................................. 225
Voluntary voting nations have lower voter turnout rates than compulsory voting nations. .............. 226
The effectiveness of compulsory voting isn’t about enforcement, it’s about the presence or absence
of voting laws. ..................................................................................................................................... 227

A/2: Libertarianism NC: .................................................................. 228
A2 Violates Rights-Compulsory voting doesn't force voters to express a viewpoint shared by the
government. ........................................................................................................................................ 228
A2 CV doesn't work- Australia proves CV solves. ................................................................................ 229
A2 CV won't change the outcome- It's a question of changing who runs in the election, results will
depend on that change. ...................................................................................................................... 230
A2 Voluntary elections are better- Trump era proves false. ............................................................... 231
A2 CV forces them to violate individual freedoms- CV doesn't force one to submit a ballot. ............ 232

Champion Briefs 11
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Politics DA .............................................................................. 233

Trump has already secured a second term. This means the aff doesn’t cause the DA impacts. ........ 233
There are multiple ways that Trump could win – mandatory voting doesn’t make a difference. ...... 234
Democrats are favored to take back the Senate – that’s terminal defense on the DA. ...................... 237
Democrats can win the Senate and keep it for a while – senators like Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson
are vulnerable. .................................................................................................................................... 238
COVID means Trump loses – compulsory voting isn’t even a factor. .................................................. 239

A/2: Accessibility CP ....................................................................... 243
A2 Accessibility first- No, relying on states to make modifications prevents the government from
being held accountable. ...................................................................................................................... 243
A2 CV doesn't fix accessibility- AUS proves, plus makes voices heard. ............................................... 245
A2 CV doesn't solve for those who feel violated at polling places- CV doesn't require any additional
intervention, justifies a permutation. ................................................................................................. 246

A/2: Topicality: Must cast ballot ..................................................... 247
There are many different ways to implement compulsory voting. In Australia, you have to show up to
the polling place but can decline to vote once you're there. .............................................................. 247
Because democracies have a secret ballot, compulsory voting can only mean compulsory turnout. The
affirmative is topical because the intention of compulsory turnout is to compel voting. .................. 248
Compulsory voting refers in practice to mandatory attendance, where citizens are free to cast blank
or invalid votes. ................................................................................................................................... 249
”Compulsory voting” means compulsory attendance, without the need to choose a candidate. This is
what many countries mean by “compulsory voting” in their respective languages. .......................... 250
The neg's interpretation mixes the burden of solvency with being topical. Although not everyone will
cast a valid vote, “compulsory voting” is not misleading because the aim of compulsory turnout is to
get people to vote. .............................................................................................................................. 251
All compulsory voting advocates agree with the recognition of opt outs. Their interpretation is
inconsistent with the literature. .......................................................................................................... 252
If the aff had to require that every person cast a valid vote, Australia's law wouldn't be topical either,
because it allows for exceptions. ........................................................................................................ 253

A/2: Baudrillard K........................................................................... 254
Baudrillard is so misogynist that he literally advocates for sacrificing women to death. ................... 254
The negative creates an epistemic disregard for material violence. ................................................... 255
Baudrillard’s alternative fails to confront real world politics. ............................................................. 256
Fatal strategies are political acquiescence—they should be rejected. ............................................... 257
Baudrillard’s theory is necessarily self-defeating – they could win every argument and it still doesn’t
justify a ballot. ..................................................................................................................................... 259

A/2: Democracy K .......................................................................... 261
US democracy is key to international collective action on multiple existential threats and to prevent
war---backsliding causes those systems to unravel. ........................................................................... 261
Democracy checks state repression. ................................................................................................... 264

Champion Briefs 12
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

Democracies check political violence. ................................................................................................. 265

Democracies are more effective in hard power situations. ................................................................ 266
Democracy upholds international law, especially for human rights. .................................................. 267

Negative Cases ............................................................................... 268

NEG: Kant NC ................................................................................. 269
The affirmative is correct that everyone should have an equal opportunity to participate in politics,
but that alone does not justify coercing the vote. .............................................................................. 270
The ability to cast a blank or spoiled ballot is insufficient for freedom of conscience, and it also casts
doubt on the democratic benefits of compulsory voting. ................................................................... 271
Rights are side-constraints. The right not to vote, if the negative proves that it exists, cannot be
sacrificed for the benefit of the democratic system. .......................................................................... 273
Even if there is a duty to vote, the right not to vote is essentially the “right to do wrong,” which all
rational agents with freedom of conscience have. ............................................................................. 274
Even if the affirmative's position is only a small violation of freedom, all violations of freedom are
important. Rights are not subject to a cost-benefit analysis............................................................... 276
Citizens in a democracy have an inalienable right to abstain from the political process, which
compulsory voting violates. ................................................................................................................ 277
The right to abstain from the political process is essential to freedom of conscience, whether people
are conscientious objectors to the slate of candidates or question the legitimacy of democracy itself.
............................................................................................................................................................. 278

NEG: Punishment NC ...................................................................... 280
Forcing nonvoters to pay a fine is unconstitutional – it creates the same scenario as a poll tax. ...... 282
Many nonvoters abstain in order to send a message. ........................................................................ 283
The right not to vote is as important as the right to vote – the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
agrees. ................................................................................................................................................. 284
Fines levied on nonvoters have created inequality between districts. ............................................... 285
Voters will illegally manipulate their address to receive lower fines for nonvoting. .......................... 286
Monetary penalties lead to actions from citizens such as address misreporting. This will create
misrepresentation and inequality. ...................................................................................................... 287
Compulsory voting leads to low engagement in other areas of democracy. ...................................... 288
Citizens who don’t vote face fines and job ineligibility. ...................................................................... 289
Legislating that nonvoters ought to be punished will lead to instances of disproportionate coercion.
............................................................................................................................................................. 290
Threatening punishment compels uninformed voters to cast ballots that dampen the voices of the
informed majority. .............................................................................................................................. 291
If one has the right to vote, one must also have the ability to give up that right. If not, voting becomes
a matter of undemocratic coercion..................................................................................................... 292
Compulsory voting becomes a tax on those who are less able to engage in the electoral process. .. 293

NEG: Libertarianism NC .................................................................. 294
The value criterion is preserving individual liberties-.......................................................................... 295
CV prevents the individual from making their own informed decision. .............................................. 296

Champion Briefs 13
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

People have access to their free will, forcing a vote destroys that concept. ...................................... 297
Voting is a right, heavily related to the freedom of speech. ............................................................... 299
There are multiple reasons many individuals choose not to participate in the election process. ...... 300
CV doesn't promote a positive outcome- leads to blank ballots and wont effect many elections. .... 301
Voting is a right- not just an obligation. .............................................................................................. 302
Voting is a way of executing a decision of a mode of thought- thus a part of the first amendment
protections. ......................................................................................................................................... 303
First Amendment freedoms aren't clear but the courts have been modifying the exceptions- voting is
still an act of expression within democratic processes. ...................................................................... 304
Further justification for voting being covered under the First Amendment. ...................................... 305
The American electoral system needs to change before CV is enacted- won't hold politicians
accountable. ........................................................................................................................................ 306
US Census Bureau data about reasons why some don't vote. ............................................................ 307

NEG: Politics Disadvantage ............................................................. 308
Voters without college education are more likely to vote for Trump. ................................................ 310
This diploma divide is likely to continue. ............................................................................................ 311
Less-educated white voters elected Trump. ....................................................................................... 312
The aff forces everyone to vote. This mobilizes the 459,000 non-voting white men in Wisconsin – this
turns Wisconsin red and keeps Trump in the White House. ............................................................... 313
Four more years of Trump will push us toward irreversible climate change. ..................................... 315
Climate change is an existential threat. .............................................................................................. 316
Climate change hurts the poorest. ...................................................................................................... 318
Trump would continue to tear apart the global nonproliferation regime – a new nuclear arms race is
likely. ................................................................................................................................................... 319
Nuclear war would lead to nuclear winter. ......................................................................................... 321
Indigenous people pay the price for nuclear weapons. ...................................................................... 322
Trump’s Supreme Court appointees would jeopardize affordable healthcare and care for gender
minorities. ........................................................................................................................................... 323
The Affordable Care Act saves lives. ................................................................................................... 325
Abortion is essential for self-determination and to ensure safety during COVID. .............................. 327
Trump’s reelection would be a threat to liberal democracy everywhere. .......................................... 329

NEG: Accessibility Counterplan ....................................................... 331
Increasing accessibility is a prior question to CV- addressing smaller instances is the step in the right
direction. ............................................................................................................................................. 332
Even though accessibility is supposed to be mandated at every polling place- still a lack of resources
for those who require such assistance. ............................................................................................... 333
Lack of the discussion about accessibility means that sub-par and hazardous areas will go unchecked.
............................................................................................................................................................. 334
People with disabilities have some of the lowest voting rates because of lacks in polling access. .... 335
Accessibility isn't just physical, it also means having better training for polling employees. ............. 337
States can also adopt state-based accessibility models depending on their setting and demographic,
CV is too universal. .............................................................................................................................. 338
Many voters with a need for accessibility are blocked from the ballot box. ...................................... 339

Champion Briefs 14
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

Any voting assistance to compensate for a lack of cooperation steals the idea of an independent
ballot from many. ................................................................................................................................ 341
Colorado proves- rates of voting increased when booths became more accessible. ......................... 342
The CP doesn't infringe on rights like the affirmative world does. ..................................................... 344
CV doesn't address core problems with a lack of voting. .................................................................... 345

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot ................................................... 346
Compulsory ballot casting is not compulsory voting -- the latter phrase is a misnomer, when the
resolution asks if voting should be required. ...................................................................................... 347
Compulsory voting means requiring all eligible voters to vote by law................................................ 348
Compulsory voting only requires that voters cast ballots, not that they have to choose a candidate.
............................................................................................................................................................. 349
”Vote” means express one's views...................................................................................................... 350
Compulsory voting means you have to choose a candidate or party---the option for blank ballots
makes the aff not topical..................................................................................................................... 351
To be topical, the aff has to establish a law that makes a valid vote compulsory. The secret ballot
means this can't be fully enforced, but that doesn't let the aff argue strictly for compulsory turnout.
............................................................................................................................................................. 352
The resolution says “voting ought to be compulsory,” not “compulsory voting.” In other words, they
cannot rely on the term of art where compulsory voting “really means” compulsory turnout. They
must require a valid vote, even if it can't always be enforced because of the secret ballot. ............. 353
Compulsory turnout is relevantly different from compulsory voting. ................................................ 354
Compulsory turnout is not compulsory voting. ................................................................................... 355
Compulsory voting means everyone has to cast a vote. ..................................................................... 356
In the literature, Australia's model is understood to have “made voting compulsory.”. .................... 357
Compulsory turnout is not compulsory voting --- blank ballots aren't topical because they weaken the
requirement that citizens vote. ........................................................................................................... 358

NEG: Baudrillard Kritik ................................................................... 359
They attempt to simulate politics with their symbolic representation but their simulated model
actually precedes reality – the lie of the aff is the same as lie of Disneyland – the representation
pretends that there is even a real world that it is the representation of when, in reality, the world
outside and Disneyland itself are mirror illusions caused by the same simulation – the aff assumes
that political communication is good, instead we should learn to shut up about it and stop
participating in the endless reality TV talk show. ................................................................................ 360
This debate round is decay upon which the cultural Left attempts to reinject meaning onto an already
dying institution under the pretense that democratic deliberation and participation are still possible.
............................................................................................................................................................. 363
They are like Watergate, a façade that attempts to reinject morality into the political in order to
conceal the fact that the political is irredeemably corrupt. The system manufactures opposition to
simulate deliberative democracy and progressivism, like a cop masquerading as a Marxist
revolutionary. ...................................................................................................................................... 365
The legal education they create is utterly ineffectual and reinvests fidelity in the Law – only a prior
rejection of that faith can resolve their impacts. ................................................................................ 367

Champion Briefs 15
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy is nothing other than the right everything has to its own special place within a museum
that’s already dead. This is a violence of neutralization; a plastic surgery of the political; an inclusion
unto death where all conflict is cryogenically frozen. ......................................................................... 369
Their attempt to unite us together in a collective celebration of the state is one that overlooks the
death of democracy and simulates enemies resulting in escalatory violence to preempt threats to
Western identity. ................................................................................................................................ 371
The affirmative made Disneyland – the endless desire for a simulacra of a cryogenic utopia that
renders life valueless. .......................................................................................................................... 374
Their recourse to illusions like “responsibility” is a symptom of the inability to confront hyperreality.
There is no free will - politics is already over-coded—their impacts are terminally insignificant and the
introduction of their plan does not change the flow of the status quo. ............................................. 376
The Affirmatives attempt to exploit global economic and political values on the rest of the world
creates a potlatch of indifference and removes all radical alterity that can be found in absolute
Otherness. ........................................................................................................................................... 378
Democracy is dead and we’re all playing in its cemetery. Our political participation is a symptom of
the body’s decay and only seeks to masquerade the hyperreal carnival of carnage. ......................... 380
Those flows of information produce an energetic investment in simulation, which enables the political
gamesmanship that sustains conditions of permanent war, violent lash out, and the precarious and
depressing global existence. ............................................................................................................... 383
Fascism is the logical result of hyperreality- in a world without value or political referentials, the
masses may turn to the extreme valorization of race, nationality, etc. .............................................. 385
The impact is symbolic apocalypse. The Affirmative’s attempt to reduce meaning to hyper
functionality and programmatic dissection produces a form of virtual cloning by which we sacrifice
the Real for the artificial simulacra, destroying our genuine purchase on reality. ............................. 386
We advocate a strategy of implosion rather than curtailment. Drastic times call for drastic measures,
the only option left is to push the system to its extremes so that it implodes under its own weight. 388
Embracing catastrophe is key to bringing us back to the real. ............................................................ 390

NEG: Democracy Kritik ................................................................... 391
This isn’t your middle school civics class – American democracy has been flipped on its head and
become the aristocracy that we’ve all been taught to fear. ............................................................... 392
Democracy is meaningless – it’s an arbitrary set of rules that fluctuates in and out of fashion......... 394
Voting is INTEGRAL to prop up the façade of democracy. .................................................................. 396
The affirmative is an exercise in re-empowering the democratic process – vote negative to abandon
hope in the false promises of the aff. ................................................................................................. 397
Fascism is the inevitable outcome of the American project. .............................................................. 398
It's the very same system of democratic “choice” of voting that allowed Radical Americanism to
flourish under Trump. ......................................................................................................................... 400
White supremacy is a necessary component of American fascism – capitalism locks it in and prevents
change. ................................................................................................................................................ 402
Democracy promotion creates permanent instability. ....................................................................... 404
Democracy unsustainable and causes war - 2500 years of history prove. .......................................... 405
Democracy ensures a multitude of human rights issues..................................................................... 408
And before you say, “Democrats win,” you’d better believe they’re in on this too. .......................... 410
The alternative is to embrace an anarchist anti-politics. .................................................................... 411
The system of the United States not only survives Trump, but is enhanced by him. ......................... 413

Champion Briefs 16
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

The alt solves right now, uniquely – liberalism has degraded enough to the point where people will
join the resistance. .............................................................................................................................. 418
Democrats can’t solve the impacts of the K. ....................................................................................... 419

Negative Answers to Affirmative Cases .......................................... 420

A/2: Democracy AC ........................................................................ 421
Pro-voter policies take away the need for mandatory voting. ............................................................ 421
Voting at home is possible and increases voter turnout – this solves for COVID risks. ...................... 423
Democracy and gender equality work together.................................................................................. 426
Compulsory voting doesn’t solve all the problems that it appears to. ............................................... 427
Compulsory voting is incompatible with individual freedom, and therefore incompatible with
democracy. .......................................................................................................................................... 429

A/2: Ripstein AC ............................................................................. 430
While some forms of coercion are justified for the public good, such as taxation or traffic laws,
compulsory voting does not have the same apparent benefits as those measures. .......................... 430
Appealing directly to marginalized groups solves their offense. ........................................................ 431
Citizens can and do contribute to the maintenance of democracy in other ways besides voting, so
compulsory voting is not necessary to equalize participation. ........................................................... 432
The right to abstain is essential because of the fundamental principle of self-government -- even if
citizens generally should contribute to the maintenance of a democracy, that does not require voting.
............................................................................................................................................................. 433
Compulsory voting leads to anti-democratic sentiments, which turns political participation............ 434

A/2: Social Contract AC .................................................................. 435
Random selection of citizens as political representatives conveys the needs of the citizenry better
than voting for professional politicians. .............................................................................................. 435
American democracy is built on the idea of rule by the elites. ........................................................... 436
The current party system has turned into majority rule without minority rights – compulsory voting
won’t fix this. ....................................................................................................................................... 437
There are structural barriers to minority voting – making them vote doesn’t make voting more
accessible. ........................................................................................................................................... 439
Compulsory voting hurts democracy by encouraging irresponsible and ignorant voting. .................. 441

A/2: Structural Violence AC ............................................................ 443
A2 Compulsory voting can be easily implemented- No, it would take years for the public to agree and
accurately execute this type of voting. ............................................................................................... 443
A2 Other Democracies Successfully enforce CV- No, Latin America is a prime example of CV failing
with older populations, lack of enforcement. ..................................................................................... 444
A2 Both Parties benefit from CV- Far right has the upper hand with CV rather than the left. ........... 445
A2 Increase better and more accurate results- CV doesn't have a drastic effect on the results. ....... 446
A2 Wont infringe- Leads to other rights being censored or monitored by the government. ............. 447
A2 We solve voter turnout- The aff doesn't account for American voter ignorance. ......................... 448

Champion Briefs 17
Table of Contents Sept/Oct 2020

A2 Data proves CV solves- US Census Bureau data about reasons why some don't vote. ................. 449

A/2: Equal Justice AC ...................................................................... 450
Democratic Peace Theory is wrong and fails. ...................................................................................... 450
Education not key to global economic competitiveness- research flaws prove no link between
economic decline and poor education. ............................................................................................... 452
Experts agree that income inequality is decreasing in the status quo. ............................................... 453
Economic growth provides the rationale for initiation of conflict. ..................................................... 454
Competitiveness is resilient and has no impact. ................................................................................. 455

A/2: Local Elections AC ................................................................... 456
Schooling kills creativity - stopping progressive innovation. ............................................................... 456
Motivation to solve climate change has nothing to do with education—relies solely on pre-conceived
values and relationships. ..................................................................................................................... 458
Mandatory voting guarantees lazy votes - kills solvency. ................................................................... 460
Mandatory voting could lead to uninformed votes – ruins solvency. ................................................. 461

A/2: Climate AC .............................................................................. 462
Australia proves that compulsory voting doesn't guarantee victories for leaders that will fight climate
change. ................................................................................................................................................ 462
Compulsory voting won't change which party wins more often, and it won't have any effect on
government spending decisions.......................................................................................................... 464
Australia proves that even with compulsory voting, young people will feel disaffected in politics.
Candidates won't always try to appeal to young people, even in discussions of climate change. ..... 465
Voluntary voting compels candidates to appeal to the most engaged, interested voters--compulsory
voting means that disinterested voters change governments. ........................................................... 467
Economic dependence on fossil fuels is an alt cause---Australia proves. ........................................... 468
Compulsory voting alone can't solve youth turnout. .......................................................................... 469
Compulsory voting doesn't reduce polarization. ................................................................................ 470
Compulsory voting increases polarization. ......................................................................................... 471
Young people who are already passionate about climate change will already turn out to vote. ....... 472
With compulsory voting, candidates have no reason to prioritize climate change in particular, and
they can just as easily convince voters of the supposed “injustices” of carbon pricing. .................... 473
The plan forces nonvoters to vote – they lean red in key battleground states. ................................. 475

A/2: Intersectionality AC ................................................................ 476
A2 Compulsory voting can be easily implemented- No, it would take years for the public to agree and
accurately execute this type of voting. ............................................................................................... 476
A2 CV will change voting outcomes- studies prove otherwise............................................................ 477
A2 Don't Violate rights- Voting is a right, a way to express oneself. ................................................... 478
A2 We solve all voting issues- The aff glazes over other structural or personal issues that could
prevent voting. .................................................................................................................................... 479

Champion Briefs 18
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Welcome to the first topic of the 2020-2021 school year. I believe I can honestly say that

it will be a year like no other. Whether your school is starting ALL in-person, ALL remote or

something in between, it is going to be a year of ongoing challenges. One thing I can assure you

of, however, is that Online Debate is better prepared to face our complicated future than most

other parts of American life. This does not mean the season will be bump free, but unlike lots of

things, online tournaments can happen, and actually have, and perhaps online events can

provide opportunities competitors would not enjoy in the physical world.

That being said, what are we to make of the shortest of our three topic choices for

September-October? It is focused, and concise, and really asks one essential question. Should

voters be required to vote, specifically if they live in democracies? Voters are often required to

vote in non-democracies, assuming such governments want to claim that they rule at the

consent of the governed, even if there is only one candidate per position on the ballot, but in at

least some democracies, the decision to vote is left to each potential voter. Dictionary.com

defines compulsory as “required; mandatory; obligatory,” which does not really leave space for

choosing NOT to vote, although nothing in that definition requires a particular type of voting,

nor does it require someone to vote for the candidates listed on an official ballot. The

Highlander tells us in November of 2019 that: “Voting is compulsory in many countries

Champion Briefs 20
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

including Belgium, Brazil, Singapore and 19 other countries.”

[https://www.highlandernews.org/36607/voting-is-not-a-privilege-america-must-expand-the-

vote-to-become-a-true-democracy/] I suspect it will be worth tracking down the names of

those other 19 countries (and I have seen numbers other than the total of 22 referenced here),

both to determine whether they count as democracies, and then, for those that do, what the

benefits and drawbacks of compulsory voting actually are.

Now, the person on the street, who might be the judge in the back of your electronic

room, may have thoughts on this subject that will either help or complicate your path to the

ballot. They may believe that voting is time consuming and inconvenient, that their vote

doesn’t matter anyhow, that they don’t know enough about most of the candidates on the

ballot (except maybe a presidential candidate or a senator) to make reasonable decisions or

that taking off from work to vote is not something they can afford to do. Add that to all of the

conversation in recent months about alleged fraudulent voting, the potential delays caused by

mail in voting, the inability of the postal service to handle mail-in ballots, and you can see that if

you are talking about compulsory voting, at least in the United States, you may face an uphill

battle to make the case that attempting to require voting is worthwhile, let alone necessary. In

some ways, it might be easier for the negative to play to these commonly held beliefs (or

excuses) for the failure to vote, but, in fact, many of these points can be answered by a

properly organized system of compulsory voting, such as some democracies already have (for

folks who debate with plans) or by claims of equality, preservation of democracy or civic duty

(for folks who don’t debate with plans).

Champion Briefs 21
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

Also, it is important to point out that the topic is NOT US specific, so once you know

which democracies already have compulsory voting, and how it is working for them, you will

likely be in a better position to defend it for every democracy, or cherry-pick your favorite one,

if your circuit allows that, and also be better prepared to attack it if you can show that it is not

working. Before we look at reasons why compulsory voting “works” or “doesn’t work” however,

or whether there ought to even be an obligation to vote, we should briefly contemplate the

connection between voting and democracy. In the most simplistic of all interpretations,

Dictionary.com defines a democracy as “government by the people; a form of government in

which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their

elected agents under a free electoral system.” In other words, the people either directly vote

for the laws, which is what happened (at least for some people in ancient Athens) or people

vote for other people who make the laws, what is often referred to as a representative

democracy today.

Assuming all, or that nearly all, adults in a particular society have the right to vote, the

expectation is that the people will enjoy the most control and the best representation if

everyone exercises that right. Of course, even in ancient Athens, voting was actually rather

limited, with neither women nor slaves being allowed to vote, and likely other exclusions as

well, and the history of practically any democracy is filled with “milestones” when certain

segments of the population – women, former slaves, black people 100 years after slavery, etc. –

finally gained the right to vote. Also, voting is limited to citizens (or at least I am unaware of a

Champion Briefs 22
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

democracy where non-citizens are allowed to vote) and persons over a certain age, which

means that it has never really been ALL of the inhabitants in any democracy with the power of

the ballot. Given the discussions of voter suppression in the United States, and almost certainly

elsewhere, even the total number of voters (already a limited number) ends up being smaller

than it probably should be.

One of the most persuasive augments, at least to me, for why voting ought to be

compulsory is that then, presumably, governments would have a more difficult time

suppressing votes by putting up barriers (no mail in ballots, photo IDs with home addresses for

in-person voting, long lines with insufficient poll workers, poll monitors in police/military

uniforms etc.) that make it harder for people to vote. Individual politicians, or parties, that

would prefer certain groups not vote, could not legally stop people from doing so if voting were

a legal requirement. I would not want to have to prove that malfeasance would not still exist,

but I have to believe it would be harder to block voters. Interestingly enough, this is not a

reason that is often mentioned on the numerous lists of Pro-Con arguments I encountered

when I Goggled. Perhaps I have been reading too many stories about voter suppression in the

lead up to the 2020 US Presidential Election, but it is also likely that the usual lists of reasons for

and against compulsory voting have not been updated for the Covid-19 era, and it also appears

to be true that many of these lists have not been produced by political scientists, college

professors or even politicians.

Champion Briefs 23
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

Oddly enough, I would say that the article “14 Largest Compulsory Voting Pros and

Cons” [https://www.ablison.com/compulsory-voting-pros-and-cons/] from January of 2020 is a

pretty good place to start researching, at least for the ideas it suggests, although the website

itself is an energy website. I would NOT cut cards directly from this article, or ANY of the Pro-

Con articles, because lists of this sort are short on warrants and not especially authoritative,

and because the authors are clearly NOT taking a position, so saying an author argues one side

or the other is true is a misuse of evidence. However, knowing what you are looking for,

potentially with some more specific search terms, is always a good thing. Rather than repeating

the Ablison list, or any other here, what I am going to do instead is choose a much smaller

number of arguments and look at the “works” and “doesn’t work” sides of those arguments

simultaneously, as a way of previewing topic specific debate.

One big question is whether compulsory voting actually generates “better” election

results – results that are more representative, more capable of identifying superior candidates

or perceptually more legitimate. On the affirmative side, it is pretty easy to prove that more

people will cast ballots if it is against the law not to participate, since people will feel compelled

to follow the law, which theoretically means they will prepare before they vote, and will given

some thought to how competing individuals could make their lives better or worse. However,

just because someone casts a ballot, that does not mean they have done prior research. I

should think the negative could fairly easily argue that nothing stops disinterested persons from

casting ballots without having studied the candidates, examined their positions on key issues or

even given thought to the election before voting. In fact, compulsory voting does not even

Champion Briefs 24
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

guarantee that voters make choices at all because taking a ballot and handing it back blank is

perfectly permissible (and since the ballots are supposed to be secret no one would even know

who did that). Furthermore, people could just mark names randomly or write in the names of

superheroes. Compulsory voting is also supposed to mean that money matters less because it

would not need to be spent on “get out the vote” efforts, but I fear it might matter more if

what campaigns did was either smear the opposition or get their names out there so often

because they could afford to, that apathetic voters would cast votes, more or less because of

subliminal persuasion.

Quality of participation questions alone make compulsory voting a great topic for the

beginning of this season. There are empirics, but they conflict, and there is speculation, with

some decent reasoning to back several sides. Besides, discussing compulsory voting gives us the

chance to get into the spirit of the 2020 election without debating something so time, or news

cycle, sensitive that it becomes un-debatable. I will try one more argument cluster before

looking at the question of obligations – the issue of rights – although that does at least require

us to accept that voting could be a right, or an obligation, or maybe both.

If we accept the assumption that voting is a right (probably an assumption the negative

would want to argue more than the affirmative), then, the right NOT to vote should also be a

right. Compulsory voting would prevent people from exercising their right not to vote, and it

might actually force certain religious groups to violate their principles, which say they should

not vote. (This religious freedom issue was new to me, but it appeared on several of the Pro-

Champion Briefs 25
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

Con lists, so it is probably worth thinking about.) Of course, the affirmative can answer that

voting is an obligation, not a right (more on that later), and can argue that no one is forced to

vote for a particular candidate or to vote for anyone on the ballot. All they are really forced to

do it take a ballot into their hands and in some way cast it. (I don’t think it would be legal to

burn or shred it). On the other hand, the negative could argue that there would actually be

worse results if people were forced to vote when they do not want to, or even that voters could

sabotage elections by voting for obviously fringe or inferior candidates, or write-in non-

candidates, in protest. Before anyone suggests that this would not happen, I will point to the

politicization of mask wearing in the United States (more than in other places). Some folks see

mask wearing as such a severe violation of their personal freedom that they will literally injure

or kill someone who tries to force the issue.

Ultimately the rights vs. obligations question is actually at the core of this topic, at least

in places which still practice values based LD. Given that the 1964 law mentioned frequently in

the past few weeks is called the Voting Rights Act, here in the United States, it would be

tempting to think of voting as a right, and to reject all attempts to deprive people of the ability

to exercise that right. Alternatively, if you think of it as an obligation, like the obligation to pay

taxes or provide national service, if required, then it does appear easier to support compulsory

voting. Demos.org describes the essential nature of voting this way:

“We see voting as a civic responsibility no less important than jury duty. If every

American citizen is required to participate as a matter of civic duty, the

Champion Briefs 26
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

representativeness of our elections would increase significantly, and those responsible

for organizing elections will be required to resist all efforts at voter suppression and

remove barriers to the ballot box. Civic duty voting would necessarily be accompanied

by a variety of legislative and administrative changes aimed at making it easier for

citizens to meet their obligation to participate in the enterprise of self-rule.”

[https://www.demos.org/research/lift-every-voice-urgency-universal-civic-duty-voting]

While I doubt whether an affirmative debater will be able to get away with using the

definition of compulsory as obligatory as a way of dismissing all of the negative’s rights based

objections to compulsory voting, I do think this is an argument to be had. There is definitely a

difference between a right and an obligation. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines a right

as “something to which one has a just claim” and an obligation as “something one is bound to

do: DUTY, RESPONSIBILITY.” If I were the affirmative, I would be holding on to that distinction

and arguing that what the resolution demands is proof that voting is something people are

bound to do, not something that people can claim as a right from their government.

In the final analysis, I think this topic makes it possible for debaters to operate within a

traditional LD framework, which analyzes rights vs. obligations, as a way of determining

whether voting should be compulsory or not. I believe the topic also allows debaters to discuss

the advantages and disadvantages of making voting compulsory. Furthermore, the topic allows

debaters to focus on the ways in which democracies, can, and should, operate, and opens up

ground to discuss the disenfranchised and how they could better access voting, either by

Champion Briefs 27
Topic Analysis by Sheryl Kaczmarek Sept/Oct 2020

enshrining voting as an even better supported right than the now somewhat diminished Voting

Rights Act ensures (at least for the United States), or whether seeing voting as an obligation

would make it harder to deprive individuals or groups of their ability to vote. What should NOT

happen, however, is that debaters waste their time talking about whether democracies exist, or

whether representative democracies count as “real” democracies. Debates of that nature are

missing the point, and ignore the opportunity to dig into fundamental questions regarding how

governments are chosen, and how representative and informed the folks who make the choices

actually are. The implications could not be more serious – there are plenty of arguments

suggesting that democracies are sliding towards illiberalism, or even authoritarianism, around

the world, so whatever approach to voting most stems that trend should be the option that a

judge should support, which ultimately makes this a balanced topic.

About Sheryl Kaczmarek

Sheryl is starting her 36th year 35th year of coaching speech & debate. Her career began

at Brookfield Central High School in Wisconsin in the 1982-83 school year, coaching exclusively

policy debate (and speech) since LD had not yet spread across the country, and no one had

even dreamed of PF. She spent 10 years at Brookfield Central, before spending one year at

Glenbrook North, then moved east to Newburgh Free Academy in New York, where she

coached Policy, LD and PF for 21 years. She is now in her third year at Lexington High SChool in

MA, teaching advanced classes in PF, LD, and Policy, in addition to novice classes and managing

a team of 130 students. She is also the Lincoln-Douglas Curriculum Coordinator for the

Champion Briefs Institute.

Champion Briefs 28
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Author Hunter S. Thomson once said in an interview: “All the blood is drained out of

democracy — it dies — when only half the population votes.” While Thomson is convinced the

democracy relies upon voting the NSDA asks us to come to our own conclusions with our

newest resolution. Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. This Topic

Analysis will first analyze the meaning of the resolution before looking at a few different

affirmative and negative strategies that debaters will find useful in their preparation for the

September-October 2020 topic. The proximity to the 2020 United States Presidential Election is

sure to bring many arguments that focus on American elections but it should be noted before

going forward that the topic is generic towards all democracies. With that in mind this TA will

include arguments that discuss the topic both in a generic approach as well as a few US specific

strategies.

Definitions

When looking at the resolution the first word that needs to be defined is democracy.

When looking to many definitions the common theme is that a democracy is a form of

government that relies upon the input of the people. Merriam-Webster’s definition of “a

government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly

or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free

Champion Briefs 29
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

elections”1 describes the two basic forms of democratic governance. Direct democracy occurs

when governmental decisions are made directly by citizens and representative democracy is

when citizens vote for representatives who then vote on behalf of their constituents. The

resolution does distinguish between either model of democracy which means affirmatives may

have to defend compulsory voting under both models. The more important implication from

this definition though is that in representative democracy peoples voices are expressed through

elections.

How people express themselves in a democracy is through voting. Looking again to

Merriam-Webster; to Vote is defined as “to express one's views in response to a poll

especially : to exercise a political franchise.”2 Using America as an example there are over

500,000 elected officials spread over 87,000 elective bodies.3 There are elections to hold

positions in the federal government and state government. Local elections may have multiple

different bodies in which a person may seek election: Municipal and town governments like

mayors and city commissioners, county wide officials like sheriff, school board members and in

many places water management and environmental officials and elected in special districts.

Each of those over 500,000 positions require elections that are held throughout the year. Does

the topic really cover all of these issues too? Probably, but the good news is there’s literature

about compulsory voting on all levels of electoral politics.

1
Merriam-Webster, No Date, "Definition of DEMOCRACY," Meriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
2
Merriam-Webster, No Date, "Definition of VOTE," Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/vote
3
Aysha Qamar 03-29-2015, "Just how many elected officials are there in the United States? The answer is mind-
blowing," Daily Kos, https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/3/29/1372225/-Just-how-many-elected-officials-are-
there-in-the-United-States-The-answer-is-mind-blowing

Champion Briefs 30
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

Looking further, many of our elected officials are elected to legislative bodies. From the

United States Senate down to the School Board officials are oftentimes asked to vote for

legislation or policy proposals. It is at the center of their job that they be the voice of their

constituents on the issues placed before them. Should they have to vote on every piece of

legislation? Many can simply vote as present which increases the number of votes needed for

the majority but not actually take a stand on a piece of legislation. In much the same way

people may vote in an election but may not vote for every office or issue that is on the ballot.

Which raises the question what will meet the minimum requirements for a compulsory vote?

In order to answer that question we need to first define compulsory. Merriam-Webster

defines compulsory as something “mandatory, enforced” or “coercive, compelling”4. This is

important because the core of the topic will be figuring out whether or not a coercive act is

consistent with democratic norms. The interpretation also gives grounds to negatives which

may argue that punishment for a form of free expression is actually undemocratic.

Based upon the definition of compulsory, voting under the resolution is done via a

coercive act. Affirmatives, will have to defend some method enforcement or else they are not

defending compulsory voting by definition. Affirmatives who merely defend that all citizens

should vote are defending at best a concept of universal suffrage or the idea that all citizens

have the ability to vote and not actually making it mandatory that they do. This constraint will

be important for most negative strategies.

4
Merriam-Webster, No Date, "Definition of COMPULSORY," Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary,
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsory

Champion Briefs 31
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

If voting is the expression of political opinion is it right for representatives to not vote?

Or citizens? Should punishment exist for remaining silent? Or is remaining silent and not voting

a form political expression consistent with democracy? These are the questions we are left to

answer once the scope of the resolution is made clearer. Looking at the topic through three

different frameworks this topic analysis will answer those questions.

Valuing Morality

Using the classic LD interpretation of the word to imply some sort of moral obligation

the first value I want to look at is a value of morality. Both affirmatives and negatives have

access to ground under this value making it fair for both sides. Looking first at the affirmative

then the negative you’ll see that valuing morality can be strategic on both sides of debate.

There are many moral justifications for citizens to vote but this TA will look at two. First,

is the complicity argument. This moral justification claims that non-voters are functionally

complicit in any immoral government act if they don’t participate in the electoral or decision

making process5. In some ways this makes logical sense. Silence is oftentimes viewed as at the

very least being ambivalent to the issues but as recent events have indicated when it comes to

moral issues, apathy is no excuse. The concept of the innocent bystander can’t exist when a

person has an opportunity to minimize harm. While not every instance of voting is an example

of good vs evil there are instances in which not voting essentially allows bad actors to win.

Another avenue available to affirmatives is based on the concept of freeriding. This is

probably less strategic because it’s hard to prove the value of 1 vote in large elections but as

5
Brennan, Jason, 7-28-2016, "The Ethics and Rationality of Voting”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#3

Champion Briefs 32
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

the voting population gets smaller the magnitude of a non-vote grows larger. Affirmatives

would have to defend an interpretation of the resolution that expands to various forms of

voting first before being able to really discuss freeriding. Non-voters benefit from good

governments without participating in the process, freeriding off the democratic. Though this is

still not the most strategic way to run this strategy because people who vote against the

government in power still have the ability to benefit off the government’s success6. The best

way to use this strategy would be to look for candidates who strategically did not vote on

certain issues while trying to claim them as part of their platform later on. This form of

freeriding is prominent in politics as people try to claim credit all the time for legislation that

they may not have supported but also were not on the record of voting against it if the

legislation becomes popular.

Negatives debating with a value of morality will have a fairly straight forward argument

to rely upon. Because of the constraint that was defined above dealing with enforcement

negatives have a direct link to the argument that coercive acts are immoral. But what’s the

harm in forcing someone to vote? There are two way to answer this question:

First, one can use the Kantian concept of universalization of ethics. The circumstances

that separate coercing someone to vote vs say coercing someone to commit genocidal acts are

merely forms of conditional logic. The purpose of logical reasoning, according to Kantian

philosophers, is to judge something based off its unconditioned purpose therefore compulsory

voting can be separated logically from other coercive acts.

6
Hardin, Russell, 5-21-2003, "The Free Rider Problem,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-rider/#Dem

Champion Briefs 33
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

Coercive acts would be deemed immoral under a Kantian framework. Individual

freedom represents the most important maxim to protect under Kantianism. While some

coercion like punishments to prevent theft or other crime are acceptable under Kantianism

they represent a hinderance to a hinderance or put simply they’re limitations on freedoms that

society deems immoral. While punishing someone who doesn’t vote represents a hinderance

on their freewill to abstain from voting it’s unclear how not voting would function as a

hinderance on someone’s freedom if they’re afforded every opportunity to vote but willingly

choose not to.

The second way negatives could approach the topic under a lens of morality deals with

conflicts of interests. Because the topic does not set a clear limit on the type of voting dealt

with by the topic all forms of voting may be topical ground. When looking to decisions made by

both the legislative and judicial branches of state and federal government individuals abstain

from voting regularly for many reasons. Conflicts of interest represent a special place though in

terms of government ethics. The National Conference of State Legislatures has compiled a list

of state codes that outline why legislators might have to recuse themselves from voting with

most including phrases similar to Ohio’s:

“A legislator shall not vote on any legislation that the legislator knows to be actively

advocated by a legislative agent or employer who has a qualifying relationship with the

legislator. Qualifying relationships include employees, business associates, and persons

Champion Briefs 34
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

hired to perform services involving a substantial and material exercise of administrative

discretion in the formulation of public policy.”7

Affirming the topic leaves no room for recusal therefore legislators will regularly be voting on

issues on which they may directly profit. This means they may not be representing the publics

good but rather their own self interest. Which is not only unethical but also potentially

undemocratic. This strategy is therefore effective against Democracy frameworks as well.

Value of Democracy

Democracy based frameworks will be very effective on this topic because after the

moral aspect of the resolution the next largest question we’re left with is whether a compulsory

voting is consistent with democratic ideals. Both the aff and neg side of the debate will be able

to discuss the topic under this lens with multiple strategies but we’ll take a look at one each for

the aff and the neg.

Like the Hunter S. Thompson quote which opened this TA the primary argument using a

democracy based framework would be the voter participation is the key to democracy. In the

United States approximately 55% of the voting age population turned out to vote in 20168. In

elections that are often decided by 1-2% it means that elections are functionally decided by the

support of about a quarter of the country. This would indicate that elections are not actually a

statement that represents a majority of the people. Therefore on face compulsory voting at

7 Nicholas Birdsong, 8-6-2020, "Voting Recusal Provisions," National Conference. Of State

Legislatures, https://www.ncsl.org/research/ethics/50-state-table-voting-recusal-
provisions.aspx
8
The American Presidency Project -, No Date, "Voter Turnout in Presidential Elections," University of California-
Santa Barbara, https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections

Champion Briefs 35
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

least promotes democratic participation which should affirm the resolution or as the Center for

Civic Engagement at Antioch University puts it:

“Active political participation and civic engagement are at the heart of a healthy

democracy. The level of civic participation and engagement in a society are an effective

gauge of social and political inclusion and an indicator of how well a democracy is

performing in relation to the needs and priorities of the people.”9

According to this approach debaters would argue that because all citizens would vote, citizens

would be engaged in their government and there the government would better reflect the

population and meet their needs.

Negatives on the other can use a democracy framework to support the concept of not

voting. First and foremost as outlined above there are times when mandating a vote would

create a conflict of interest that violate democratic ideals. They also though can argue that not

voting is equally democratic even in absence of a conflict of interest as it’s an expression of

dissatisfaction with political systems. In response to increasing positive representation; there’s

no reason why a politician is any more beholden to public opinion no matter the size of the

voter pool it’s merely an assumption that a larger turnout will increase good governance10.

Moreover, increasing the voter turnout does nothing to increase voter education. Uninformed

voters may vote off name recognition alone demagogues who can control the news can capture

9
The Center for Civic Engagement, 04-2016, “Democracy Depends on Voter Participation: An Issue Guide for
Community Dialogue" Antioch University, https://www.antioch.edu/new-england/wp-
content/uploads/sites/6/2017/07/Forum1_Voter_IssueGuide.pdf
10
Brennan, Jason, 7-28-2016, "The Ethics and Rationality of Voting”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/voting/#4

Champion Briefs 36
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

public sentiment while having no real leadership experience, antidemocratic views11. Because

the resolution gives no mechanism for voter education the likelihood that compulsory voting

leads to antidemocratic results is high and therefore could justify a negative ballot.

Util/Plan approach

The final approach would be a policy or util style. Using polls and predictions debaters

can make a variety of scenarios for the 2020 election that can be argued on both sides. The

effects of a Trump or Biden victory is supported by a lot of predictive literature and as the

election draws nearer more and more will be written about the pros and cons of 4 more years

of Trump or a new Biden administration. Issues such as the environment, civil rights,

immigration reform, criminal justice reform and more can be discussed as advantages or

disadvantages of making voting mandatory and thus increasing the total votes.

Another approach that negatives might want to take is voter education and voter access

counterplans. Many issues that affirmatives will say they solve for or achieve can also be done

through increasing access to the ballot by voters and having a more politically engaged citizenry

while still avoiding the coercive enforcement that affirmatives must maintain.

Conclusions

This might be one of the best topics the NSDA has had in a while. There is a significant

amount of literature discussing the issues surrounding elections, democracy and coercion. This

TA represents a starting point for your research and a way to jumpstart your brainstorming on

11
Yascha Mounk, Jordan Kyle, 10-28-2018, "What Populists Do to Democracies," Atlantic,
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/hard-data-populism-bolsonaro-trump/578878/

Champion Briefs 37
Topic Analysis by Daniel Shatzkin Sept/Oct 2020

the topic. There are many ways in which debaters can approach their case writing and these are

just some examples. Good luck with your research and I hope you find success on this topic and

during this year!

Champion Briefs 38
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Hello everyone! I hope that your summers went well and that you are staying safe. The

end of the last competitive season definitely was unexpected, but hopefully this season can be

a bit more predictable and tamable – even if debate is still largely online. The topic that the

Lincoln-Douglas community has been presented with for September and October is, “Resolved:

In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.” Right off the bat, an acute reading of this

resolution will indicate that it is reminiscent of the roots of Lincoln-Douglas debate – this is

because it lacks a specific actor and posits something that ought to be the case in an ideal

situation. As such, debaters are charged with debating the subject – that is, compulsory voting

– in the abstract; instead of winning that compulsory voting is a good idea in some particular

democracy, the affirmative’s job – as per a direct reading of the resolution – is to defend that

compulsory voting is a policy that any democracy ought to pursue by virtue of it being

consistent with the spirit, values, or goals of a democracy. Overall, I think that the phrasing of

this topic has thrown the community a curveball – which is a good thing. I also think that the

subject that the resolution is about – compulsory voting – is an important and timely discussion

that we should be having. With the U.S. Presidential election mere months away, it is a good

time to engage in scholarly discourse about election policy and practice.

September and October are always exciting months for Lincoln-Douglas debate. As

students return from camp and summer learning, they are excited to use newly learned

strategies and also innovate original ones to start off the season. I think that since this topic

Champion Briefs 39
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

appeals to every style of debate, we will see a lot of original and unique argumentation

throughout the next couple of months. While the community is entering a new era of “e-

debate,” I am confident that this will not hamper the ability of students to have educational

and fun rounds.

Before getting into the substance of this analysis, I’d like to share some of my thoughts

regarding the best practices for “e-Debate.” After having judged several tournaments through

Zoom and other online platforms, I have found that there are some things that competitors can

do to maximize their success online. First, ensuring that you are speaking clearly over the

internet is essential. Debaters that spread might feel inclined to go their full speed, but I always

encourage them not to. I have found that interrupting debaters over Zoom to yell “slow” or

“clear” ends up harming their speech more than their unclear spreading does because it stops

their momentum. Ultimately, I have told debaters to preemptively be slower and clearer in

online formats so that they don’t have to encounter this issue in the first place. Finally, I highly

suggest picking up a headset or external microphone (even if it’s an inexpensive one!), as they

have made a world of difference for my comprehension and following of debaters.

As always, it is important for you to prepare to debate both progressive and traditional

strategies. This topic is fortunately flexible enough for in-depth debates with both styles, but all

too often I find that debaters will only prepare progressive strategies.

In this topic analysis, I will go through four positions – two affirmative and two negative

– that I think will be strategic and popular on this topic. I hope you find my thoughts helpful and

I wish you the best of luck during the season!

Champion Briefs 40
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

Rousseau 1AC

Whether it’s because you watched Lost as a kid or because you learned about him in

your civics class, it is more than likely that you have heard of the philosopher Jean-Jacques

Rousseau before. Rousseau lived and worked in the 18th century and was a foundational author

for a field of thought that is generally referred to as social contract theory. Other authors such

as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke also developed their own version of the social contract, but

today we will examine Rosseau’s specifically and understand how it applies to this topic.

The key part of Rosseau’s social contract that is a departure from that of Hobbes and

Locke is that Rousseau believed that the social contract could be fulfilled by the sovereign –

that is, the government or the state – satisfying a general will that is agreed upon by the

population at large. We can think about this in our everyday life: while we don’t necessarily

meet with every other citizen of our country every day to decide what we demand from the

government, there are general expectations that everyone reasonably has for the government.

These include things like decent public infrastructure, schooling, rule of law, and more.

Rousseau believed that a respect by the sovereign for this general will is the key to fulfilling the

social contract. Without it, there would be no coherent relationship between subjects of the

sovereign and the sovereign itself because there would be no legitimacy in the sovereign’s

power and control. From here, we can take a turn with the help of the German philosopher

Jürgen Habermas. Habermas (who is the titular author of another LD framework) argues that

ethics are decided upon and mediated by the public sphere. Without consistent dialogue

amongst the citizenry, there won’t be development or expression of common beliefs that are

agreed upon. It’s thus easy to understand that Rousseau – who believed in a general will both

Champion Briefs 41
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

existing and being important – would agree that a healthy public sphere is important and

necessary for a stable social contract to exist.

To address the topic, there are a number of ways that Rousseau would say that

compulsory voting is beneficial for the social contract and the general will. Chiefly, one could

see why compulsory voting is key to getting out the most amount of opinions and viewpoints.

People that are otherwise not engaged with government will have no choice but to engage with

the political process and let their opinion be known via the ballot box. This will help widen and

sharpen the general will, as it would bring more people into the fold. Beyond this, citizens that

are currently not allowed to be in the political process at all – namely felons that have lose their

right to vote – would presumably be able to vote in a world with compulsory voting. These

broadenings of the blanket of democracy would benefit both the general will’s accuracy and

democracy itself – making Rousseau a useful and interesting author to use for this topic.

United States 1AC

The next affirmative position that I will focus on is the United States aff. This affirmative

would use a specified plan text to defend that the United States, as a democracy, should

implement a program of compulsory voting. While this doesn’t conform with the literal reading

of the resolution, progressive and circuit debaters might choose to run this position so long as

they are comfortable with answering topicality arguments. I think that the relevance and

substance of this affirmative is self-evident: the presidential general election is coming up in a

few months and the stakes are incredibly high. On the right, the GOP has suffered major

credibility losses and is trailing the Democrats in the polls. On the left, the DNC has nominated

Champion Briefs 42
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

and selected a candidate that doesn’t have too wide of an appeal amongst left-leaning folks.

Overall, both parties believe that this election is consequential and importance – however, they

would think that about any and every election, I suppose. This affirmative would thus use this

political context to craft an argument about why compulsory voting is a good idea ahead of the

2020 elections.

As you may have guessed, the most relevant framework to this affirmative is that of

utilitarianism. It is very common in policy-style debates for debaters to extrapolate their

advocacy to the solvency of far-fetched impact scenarios. However, in the world of “tech over

truth” debating, anything goes – which means that whoever has the largest and most probable

impact will in. If you know anything about the Politics Disadvantage from Policy (or even from

LD, usually during election seasons), you know that debaters are able to extend the possible

election of certain candidates into large-scale scenarios. This year is perhaps the ripest year for

this to unfold. The reelection of Donald Trump is seen by many analysts to be a danger to both

domestic progress and international stability. This article12 forwards a convincing argument

about how four more years of Trump’s leadership will solidify the collapse of the western

alliance and climate change efforts. Given that these two issues are cornerstones to

international collaboration and progress, there are plenty of “impact scenarios” that you might

choose to derive from them. I recommend checking out the Politics DA from previous topics

(Policy backfiles and websites will be useful in this!) for inspiration about how you might choose

to go about crafting this position.

12
Wolf, M. (2020). Trump’s re-election would be dangerous for the world. Retrieved 18 August
2020, from https://www.ft.com/content/3749175a-4c17-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5

Champion Briefs 43
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

Looking back to the topic, the linkage is simple. There is ample dialogue in the status

quo about what a compulsory voting policy would do to impact the election. As a side note,

since there is contention in the topic literature about this exact point, I think that a strategic

way to answer this position is by arguing that compulsory voting would help Trump get

reelected rather than solidify his loss. This article13 makes a general argument that compulsory

voting would reinstate a trust and engagement in government that would allow citizens to not

be swayed by far-right populism, thus avoiding the conditions that allowed Trump to get

elected in the first place. However, it is important that we also look to empirical examples

about this upcoming election specifically. Researchers14 modeled the results of the 2016

presidential election in the hypothetical scenario of voting being mandatory. They found, as you

will see in the chart in the article, that Clinton would have defeated (albeit marginally) Trump.

This is a convincing argument for the affirmative, because it indicates that liberals have more to

gain from compulsory voting than conservatives do. I recommend staying up to date with the

literature because I am sure that there will be an even greater quantity of research and

speculation about compulsory voting as the election approaches. After all, the pandemic will

likely cause some impact on voter turnout since people might not feel comfortable waiting in

long lines at the polls and mail-in ballots won’t exactly be reliable if the USPS is gutted ahead of

the election.

13 Alcorn, G. (2020). How Australia's compulsory voting saved it from Trumpism. Retrieved 18 August
2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/mar/08/how-australias-compulsory-voting-
saved-it-from-trumpism
14 Morris, G. (2020). Would Donald Trump be president if all Americans actually voted?. Retrieved 18
August 2020, from https://medium.economist.com/would-donald-trump-be-president-if-all-americans-
actually-voted-95c4f960798

Champion Briefs 44
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

Capitalism Kritik

The Cap K is always one of my favorite positions, no matter what the topic. It is usually

pretty straightforward to find a way that a topic, advocacy, or position links into a problem or

cause of capitalism, and thus construct an argument in opposition to the affirmative’s

epistemology or practice. However, this topic allows debaters to engage with the capitalism

kritik at a level of depth like no other! Compulsory voting – and voting itself – is a hot topic

amongst leftists and those critical of capitalism. Historically, revolutionary parties and

individuals have rejected voting systems as means to achieve liberation from the current

political economy.15 This article16 is an absolute must-read if you choose to run this position.

The beginning of it might make it seem counterintuitive, but the ending of it makes the

argument that elections are counterintuitive to the socialist cause. Thus, it can be argued that

the affirmative’s political project of reforming the election system is a tentacle of capitalism

that only works to keep the working class complacent in its struggle against capitalism.

In answering the Cap K, I recommend contending that compulsory voting is actually

beneficial to the leftist cause. In this17 study, it was found that compulsory voting can have

positive implications for the electoral success of left-leaning policies and politicians. This,

coupled with argumentation about why putting tangible impacts ahead of abstract appeals to

positionality, can be a highly effective strategy against the Cap K on this topic.

15 Icl-fi.org.
2007. Class Struggle And Bourgeois Parliament. [online] Available at: <https://www.icl-
fi.org/english/asp/200/parliament.html> [Accessed 18 August 2020].
16 D'Amato, P., 2020. Elections And The Marxist Tradition. [online] SocialistWorker.org. Available at:
<https://socialistworker.org/2016/04/26/elections-and-the-marxist-tradition> [Accessed 18 August 2020].
17 Bechtel, M., Hangartner, D., & Schmid, L. (2015). Does Compulsory Voting Increase Support for Leftist
Policy?. American Journal Of Political Science, 60(3), 752-767. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12224

Champion Briefs 45
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

Liberty NC

This part of my analysis is going to be a composite of several ways that you can

implement many of the common objections to compulsory voting. Some political thinkers

contend that making voting mandatory is a violation of individual liberties. While it might seem

that voting is an expression of one’s democratic agency, the coercion that is intrinsic to the act

of forcing someone to vote is inherently bad. This line of thinking, which there is plenty of

literature about, can be applied to negative strategies in a couple ways. I will outline two of

those here, but I honestly think that there are several other philosophical and legal traditions

that you will be able to tap into with this basic set of arguments.

First, you can read the Constitutionality NC against affirmatives that specifically defend

the United States. This article18 outlines the basic case for why such a policy would violate the

First Amendment right to free speech (essentially, the author argues that this right entails the

right to not speak, which can be expressed by not voting). The Constitutionality framework

would contend that abidance by the Constitution in domestic decision-making should be of the

utmost priority to lawmakers. You can find resources for this framework on online framework

repositories as well as through original research. You might also choose to defend the word

“ought” in the resolution with a legal definition instead of a moral one.

The second way that this set of arguments can be applied is through the Kant NC. As you

might know, the Kant framework argues that individuals should not be used as means to an

end, but rather ends in themselves – this means giving individual autonomy and liberty in every

18 Spakovsky, H. (2015). Compulsory Voting is Unconstitutional. Retrieved 18 August 2020, from
https://www.heritage.org/political-process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional

Champion Briefs 46
Topic Analysis by Charles Karcher Sept/Oct 2020

way possible, so long as it remains consistent with universality (which is the idea that the

practice can logically be applied in all instances without creating contradictions). Compulsory

voting can be seen as a method of using individuals for certain political ends, which is a bad

thing under a Kantian framework. The benefit of this NC compared to the Constitutionality NC

is that it can be read universally (pun not intended!) against any topical affirmative – not just

those that defend only the United States.

Conclusion

All in all, I think that this topic is a great start to the season. There are a plethora of

positions that are strategic and educational on this topic and I’m confident that debaters of any

and all styles will be able to enjoy researching and debating compulsory voting. Here, I’ve

outlined four positions that I think serve as a good introduction to the topic and are also strong

and interesting positions to debate with. On top of this, compulsory voting is a timely issue that

allows us to stay informed about the election while cutting cards at the same time. As I’ve

mentioned, it will be useful to stay up to date with your research in case particularly good

articles or research are published between now and competition dates (something that I think

is likely). I know that the rise of online debating is pushing our current epistemic and practical

boundaries, but I’m confident that the community will be able to retain the robust value of LD,

so don’t be discouraged. Wishing you a safe and healthy season, and happy debating!

Champion Briefs 47
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

As I prepare for the most unique school year that I’ve ever experienced, there are quite

a few uncertainties. However, one thing has remained constant: the frantic dash toward my

computer on the morning of August 8th. The September-October topic for Lincoln-Douglas

debate signals the long-awaited start of a new season. First, let’s begin with a breakdown of the

resolution. Resolved: in a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. This resolution hasn’t

clearly specified that an action must be taken. This leaves the door open for debaters to

interpret the resolution as they wish. There are a few interpretations that I anticipate seeing a

lot. First is the more traditional route: students choose not to defend that any country creates

or enforces compulsory voting. Instead, they choose the morality-based route of proving that in

general, compulsory voting is good for democratic nations. This route, like all approaches to the

topic, has both benefits and disadvantages. The largest benefit is that this affirmative is able to

no-link any disadvantages that the negative tries to read by simply stating that the affirmative

doesn’t have to defend implementation on this resolution, merely that they must prove that

compulsory voting is something that is morally desirable in a democracy. Another benefit to

this approach is that it appeals very well to more traditional judges who will quote the classic

line “policy should be kept separate from LD.” For these judges, a values-based approach to the

resolution will be received quite well. The disadvantages to reading an affirmative like this are

mainly related to national circuit competition and more policy-oriented judges. On the national

circuit, debaters will be likely to face theoretical arguments about how they must defend

Champion Briefs 48
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

implementation of a policy action. Similarly, debaters will also struggle to weigh their impacts

against negative positions that claim tangible net benefits to a negative argument or counter

advocacy. As such, I primarily recommend this affirmative strategy for traditional rounds. I

recommend that every national circuit debater prepare an affirmative of this style so that they

are able to appeal to traditional judges who are present on the national circuit. However, I only

recommend that this type of affirmative be the main strategy for debaters who intend to

compete mainly or entirely in traditional tournaments.

The next major theme I anticipate seeing with affirmatives is plan-based or policy-

oriented cases that read a plan text specifying which democracy a debater believes ought to

implement compulsory voting. The most common of these affirmatives will likely be an

affirmative that states that the United States ought to implement a system of compulsory

voting. This affirmative is especially competitive this year since it is an election year. We will see

debaters trying to garner offense off of the presidential race as well as upcoming senate races.

Everyone should prepare to negate some version of the arguments “compulsory voting means

X candidate wins the presidential race, that’s good” and “compulsory voting flips the

senate/keeps the senate red.” These arguments will likely be impacted to things such as climate

policy, healthcare policy, the coronavirus, and immigration policy: all hot-button issues that are

under scrutiny as we move toward November. The United States specific affirmative is very

flexible in that the impact scenarios can be changed based on the round, opponent, and judge.

There are both big-stick utilitarian impacts available as well as smaller structural violence

impacts. This makes this case very strategic. Any debater wanting to read a plan specific to the

Champion Briefs 49
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

US should prepare versions of the case that contain both impact scenarios. This will ensure that

they are well-prepared to affirm against both policy-oriented and kritik-oriented debaters.

In addition to the US-specific affirmative, there will also be affirmative cases that will

specify another democracy as the nation that ought to enforce compulsory voting. Each nation

has its own strategic advantages, and as such, create a diverse list of affirmatives that are

available on this resolution. This topic analysis would be too long to be considered a reasonable

read if I were to include every scenario that could be in these affirmatives. This sentiment is

likely echoed by many debaters who are feeling overwhelmed by the amount of negative prep

that they are going to be required to do in order to effectively negate these cases. It will be vital

that everyone creates generic negative positions that are able to negate each of these

affirmatives. Similarly, there will likely be a popular negative topicality argument that states

that debaters may not specify which democracy implements compulsory voting. Affirmatives

who intend to read a case that specifies should prepare to debate this topicality argument,

especially early in the season, since it will be one of the negative’s greatest weapons in a world

of specific affirmatives that they have never interacted with.

There is one more major affirmative area that I want to highlight: non-topical and anti-

topical affirmatives. On every resolution, we see debaters who prefer not to defend the

resolution. However, on this particular topic, we will see that there are reasons not only to not

defend the resolution, but to advocate against engagement in this resolution in general. Many

debaters, especially of minority identities will feel that defending electoral politics is something

that is contrary to their identity or their position in this country. I anticipate seeing many

positions that use feminism, queer theory, and arguments about race, Blackness, and

Champion Briefs 50
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

immigration status as reasons to reject the idea of topical debate. It is worth noting that the

community as a whole has expressed quite a bit of disdain toward these positions without truly

considering them on their merits. I encourage all debaters to use the prevalence of these

arguments on this topic as an opportunity to truly understand how to debate against non-

topical and identity-based cases without being rude, offensive, or exclusionary. Preparing

counter-methodologies and kritiks on the negative will allow for more nuanced debates than a

1NC constructed purely out of procedurals and will give the negative the added advantage of

not being as predictable.

The next major note about the resolution is that there is no limit on what type of

democracy the resolution addresses. This opens the door for arguments regarding illiberal and

flawed democracies. This is an area of the topic that will likely be under-explored, so I advise

the students who are reading this to look into illiberal democracies. There are many reasons

why democracies that are struggling to maintain democratic ideals should implement

compulsory voting. From governmental accountability to international norm-setting, there are

many impacts, both utilitarian and structural violence based that will be interesting and unique.

Next, there is the issue of the word compulsory. At its core, this word implies that

something must be done in order to compel someone to vote. This raises questions of

punishment and enforcement. How will states be enforcing this voting mandate? Will it be

fees? Jail time? Removal of privileges? The resolution doesn’t provide any direction in that

regard, so this is a question that is left entirely up to the debaters. All affirmatives that intend

to defend an implementation of the resolution should think about this question. Even if the

method is not explicitly included in the plan text, debaters should think about how they will

Champion Briefs 51
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

answer questions (and negative positions) about how their plan will be enforced. Affirmatives

are put in a bit of a double bind here. Either they defend the fines-based approach and risk

hitting the argument that their affirmative doesn’t do enough to compel people, or they defend

the more punitive incarceration-based approach and face negative kritiks about the prison

system and about who has access to rights. Whatever route your affirmative takes, you should

prepare answers to negative arguments against your method of enforcement. Similarly, the

negative should prepare arguments that indict the affirmative’s enforcement mechanisms on

multiple layers. This is to say that the negative should prepare topicality and theory arguments,

disadvantages and counterplans that link to the enforcement mechanism, and kritiks of the

method or the system that they endorse. Against affirmatives that are more punitive, the

prison abolition kritik and kritiks of punitive legal systems will be very strategic. Against more

monetary sanctions-based affirmatives, disadvantages that make the claim that the aff doesn’t

encourage voting will be compelling, especially when paired with a counterplan that suggests a

different method of enforcement. In general, negative kritiks of citizenship and what it means

to be able to vote will be strategic. These kritiks will indict the fundamental principles that the

affirmative assumes are good, but likely doesn’t justify. Thus, these kritiks will allow the

negative debater to shift the ground that the debate is happening on more in their favor.

Now, let’s address some negative arguments. The affirmative sections of this topic

analysis cover some negative arguments that will be strategic against certain affirmatives.

However, there are also some good generic negative arguments that debaters can prepare. For

traditional debates, a philosophical approach is likely best. A libertarianism NC that focuses

mainly on individual rights and freedoms will allow debaters to focus on the philosophical

Champion Briefs 52
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

implications of compulsion without having to negate the inevitable set of arguments that the

affirmative makes about how everyone should have equal access to the vote. Many traditional

affirmatives on this topic will lean very heavily on the “equality is good, judge” 2AR and a

negative case that doesn’t negate equality, but instead, negates the idea of compulsion will be

far more strategic.

I think that the negative’s best friend will be the politics disadvantage. Against

affirmatives that defend that the United States ought to implement compulsory voting, the

negative has many options for which direction they want to take their disadvantage. I advise all

debaters to have at least two politics disadvantages: one that outlines that a President Biden

would be disadvantageous and one that outlines that a second term for Trump would be

disadvantageous. There are also many good debates to be had about close senate races and the

implications of a Republican majority or a Democrat majority in regard to what the president,

regardless of who they are, can and can’t do. These politics disadvantages have the added

benefit of being very flexible. No matter what impact you are looking to read or debate against,

it can be fit into a politics disadvantage. Healthcare policy, COVID relief packages, COVID

testing, and gender equality are all structural violence impacts. Climate change, international

relations, and nuclearism are impacts that can be extrapolated to have as large of a magnitude

as you want. The key with these politics disadvantages will be to make sure that the internal

link scenario is precise and up to date. Given the constant Coronavirus updates, changing

political climate, and barrage of information about what Donald Trump has done now, it is safe

to say that politics disadvantage scenarios should be updated, or at least looked over, before

each major tournament.

Champion Briefs 53
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

The negative also has a lot more kritikal ground on this topic than usual. The resolution

asks questions of democracy which inevitably raise questions of citizenship, national identity,

belonging, immigration, Blackness, indigeneity, and more. There will be ample opportunity for

debaters to discuss their own identities in the context of the resolution, as well as for debaters

to read kritiks that have been very successful in the past.

I’ll first highlight Lauren Berlant, a personal favorite. Her arguments about cruel

optimism are almost exclusively read in debate against kritikal affirmatives. However, a large

portion of her theorizing is based in capitalism and the idea of having a salient national identity.

I think that there are very good debates to be had regarding whether voting retrenches cruel

optimism. This kritik is, at its core, a kritik of capitalism and how it structures government. As

such, it’s not based in any one identity. It can be structured to be specific to an identity, but

also can be read as a kritik of capitalism and cruel optimism. This makes cruel optimism a great

kritikal option for debaters who are uncomfortable or unable to talk about their identities.

Another kritik that is underrecognized in debate that deserves its moment in the

spotlight is sick woman theory. This kritik originates in an article written by Johanna Hedva in

Mask Magazine where they outline their experiences as a person with disabilities and how their

disabilities impact their ability to engage in what is traditionally seen as political. This kritik,

along with other supporting literature can be used to initiate a discussion of what it truly means

to be political and how compulsory voting contributes to harmful views of what it means to be

political. This is a kritik that is very experientially based, so debaters ought to consider whether

they identify with the identity of a sick woman prior to reading this kritik. Hedva has an

Champion Briefs 54
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

articulation in their article about what it means to be a sick woman. While the identity is very

inclusive, debaters should be careful not to co-opt struggles that aren’t theirs.

There is also room on this topic for kritiks that have been historically successful in

debate. On the last major national circuit topic (Resolved: states ought to eliminate their

nuclear arsenals), there was a kritik of settler colonialism that was widely read both on the

affirmative and negative. This topic presents a good opportunity for debaters to continue

advocating against settler colonialism. Indigenous people have been historically disenfranchised

in many democracies (including Australia, one of the biggest examples in favor of compulsory

voting). Debaters will be able to make arguments about how settler colonial institutions

structure indigenous life, how voting is often used to harm indigenous peoples, and how many

indigenous communities are making other demands that ought to be addressed first. When

reading this kritik, non-indigenous debaters ought to center indigenous authors and

experiences.

When reading these kritiks, it is important that debaters who are not of the identity the

kritik discusses are respectful when reading the kritk. While there are certain instances in which

debaters are able to read arguments that are not regarding their personal identity, debaters

should always be seeking to uplift marginalized voices from the literature base that they are

reading from. Similarly, debaters should be careful not to homogenize identities, erase certain

viewpoints, or insert their own privileges into the literature.

Lastly, when preparing for this topic, debaters ought to consider their tournament schedule.

Due to the shift toward online debate, many tournaments will not have the judging pools of years past.

While there will still be a core group of judges affiliated with each tournament, there will also be

Champion Briefs 55
Topic Analysis by Nethmin Liyanage Sept/Oct 2020

schools, debaters, and coaches that are now able to access tournaments that they previously couldn’t.

Therefore, debaters shouldn’t count on a tournament being “a K tournament” or “a LARP tournament,”

and should focus on building a diverse set of strategies that can appeal to all judges. This approach will

yield more ballots, more education, and more fun. This is a topic that will allow for exploration of

literature that isn’t often brought into debate – take advantage of it! But most importantly, don’t forget

to be a good person.

Champion Briefs 56
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi Sept/Oct 2020

Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi

Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory.

Editor’s Note: This year, we are adding a new type of original analysis to our LD Briefs: the

Frameworks Analysis. Our goal is to present the basics of different philosophical frameworks

that can be applied to the topic. Through this, we hope that novice and experienced students

alike will gain a deeper understanding of how to frame their arguments through values to

create a cohesive advocacy.

Philosophy arguments on this topic are highly effective, especially arguments from the

field of political philosophy, because the resolution asks us to consider the obligations of a

democracy. The resolution is neither about a subject that’s more Policy-esque, nor a debate

that lends itself more to utilitarian arguments. Utilitarianism is also a philosophy, to be clear,

but the topic is certainly not one that favors plan/disadvantage debates. Util arguments will be

included in this topic analysis because this essay will explain how you can justify utilitarianism

from a democratic lens. There are three types of ethical frameworks that appear in LD –

consequentialist theories, deontological theories, and character-based/virtue-ethical theories.

Each of these philosophies can be justified from the standpoint of what should be done “in a

democracy,” and the best frameworks will start from political philosophy (i.e., what is good

governance? When is state authority just, and what are the duties of citizenship?). When you

write a framework, you should consider why your framework is not only correct for the typical

Champion Briefs 57
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi Sept/Oct 2020

reasons, but also why it supports democracy (and, in turn, best guides a democracy’s decision-

making).

Utilitarianism is often criticized for justifying violations of minority rights (the rights of

anyone in the minority on a certain matter), such that, for instance, an authoritarian

government could be acting ethically if its repressive laws happen to reduce pollution. The ends

justify the means, in other words. This characterization of utilitarianism is a mistake, because

“the ends justify the means” is actually far more Machiavellian (rulers should act by any means

necessary to pursue their interests or maintain their power). A real utilitarian would conduct a

cost-benefit analysis to determine whether the good outweighs the bad, and achieving a “net

good” typically requires adopting the least harmful means. The costs of authoritarianism (fear,

terror, distrust) might outweigh the happiness gained from reduced pollution (and undermine

the efficacy of a heavy-handed approach). Leaders might act on an extremely warped

assessment of the greater good, and that’s typically why we oppose their restrictions (no one

thinks speed limits are an authoritarian nightmare). Democracy typically leads to a more

satisfied public, especially because decisions on critically important issues will ideally represent

public opinion. We also expect democracies to make utilitarian decisions based on expertise,

even if coercion is required to achieve a desirable result; mask mandates, which are coercive

but absolutely needed to contain COVID-19, are an excellent, contemporary example.

Democracies are not strictly concerned with rights and freedom; the United States

Constitution says that the first responsibility of the federal government is to “promote the

General Welfare,” and the amendments of the Bill of Rights are not absolute (e.g. legally

speaking, free expression can be curtailed in exceptional circumstances, such as when speech

Champion Briefs 58
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi Sept/Oct 2020

incites violence). Along this vein, the affirmative can argue that compulsory voting produces

beneficial or harmful outcomes for society depending on the ramifications of higher turnout.

Because compulsory voting could lead to Democrats winning more often (non-voters may tend

to lean more toward Democratic candidates), the United States will finally commit to broad-

based mitigation and adaptation against climate change. The negative can argue that

compulsory voting will increase polarization in a society already splitting at the seams, and that

this has a litany of bad consequences (including for climate legislation).

Deontological frameworks, such as Kantianism, are typically associated with the robust

individual rights provided under a democracy. For Kantians, who believe in the Categorical

Imperative (act only according to plans of action that could be adopted universally; do not treat

human beings as a mere means, or a tool/object for your own purposes), rights are side-

constraints that cannot be sacrificed for an apparent greater good. This can be criticized for

inflexibility that fails to reflect actual policymaking, but democracy is unique in its emphasis on

protecting more absolute human rights than other governments. Freedom may not be

unlimited in any political system, but that does not mean all freedoms ought to be curtailed,

even for the sake of benefitting democracy. We would not expect a democracy to suspend

elections indefinitely because it believes the present government has maximized the general

welfare; voters deserve the free choice to determine the direction of their political community,

even if that ends up being the right to make the wrong choice. Along this vein, the negative can

argue that compulsory voting violates the right to freedom of conscience, or the ability to

engage or abstain from politics based upon one’s personal convictions.

Champion Briefs 59
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi Sept/Oct 2020

This freedom could also involve refusal of electoral politics in favor of more radical

confrontations with the system. Henry David Thoreau, in “Civil Disobedience,” argued for the

freedom of conscience so described in an essay he wrote from jail (he committed civil

disobedience by refusing to pay taxes, because his tax dollars were funding the Mexican War

which he opposed). Civil disobedience examples are the best articulation of freedom of

consciousness, but they may benefit the aff for one reason: compulsory voting, by creating new

grounds for legal punishment, provides a new opportunity for civil disobedience. Abstainers or

radicals could willingly get fined, or go to jail (if the aff agrees with stricter punishments for

non-voting), and draw attention to the illegitimacy of the so-called democracy we live in. This is

a compelling link turn, but the neg has a ready-made rebuttal from the framework. Violating

people’s freedom in order to enable them to protest that violation of freedom treats

democratic citizens as a mere means to the state’s ends. This does not suggest that all Kant

cases are defending radical libertarianism; the Ripstein AC in this brief is about the state’s duty

to establish requirements which, despite restricting choice, are fair and equal in their

application to all, and produce a system of equal freedom by resolving disparities in turnout.

The conflict between utilitarianism and deontology/Kantianism is conventionally

understood as one of means and ends, but it can also be understood as one about how to

evaluate actions themselves. To clarify, the theories tend to disagree on the issue of an “action-

omission distinction,” which posits that people are only morally responsible for the results of

their actions, not the consequences of their failure to act. The distinction can get more

complicated if you also consider intentions (deontologists would agree that an intentional

omission carries moral weight, though not as much responsibility as an intentional action). The

Champion Briefs 60
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi Sept/Oct 2020

act-omission distinction may have implications for the ethics of not voting, either

unintentionally (lack of knowledge/lack of time, or because voting isn’t required) or

intentionally (rejecting the choices of candidates, abstaining from politics entirely). A util aff

could argue that potential voters have a moral responsibility to participate in elections in order

to maximize the good; sitting out an election could mean that a candidate who would

materially improve people’s lives could narrowly lose to a terrible candidate, and elections have

come down to a handful of votes before. From a deontological perspective, the non-voter

sitting out is not responsible for the outcome of an election, because they did not influence it

either way (in theory); the people who voted for the terrible candidate that will harm people

are the only responsible parties. This essay cannot settle the act-omission distinction debate,

especially in the context of voting, but it invites stimulating questions around the efficacy of

elections and the value of a single vote. Many people question whether their own vote is really

meaningful, and truthfully a single person’s vote will almost never determine the outcome. But

many people vote because of what that says about their character: they are civic-minded, and

vote because they think other people should vote. The phrase that “if you don’t vote, you can’t

complain” lacks nuance, but it speaks to an important argument that the essay will return to in

the character-based ethics section: while voting should not be the only way to act politically, it

still conveys to ourselves and others that we are serious about belonging to, and improving, our

political community.

Remember that some affs can avoid the act-omission question entirely; the Climate AC

can say that even if non-voters aren’t morally responsible per se, forcing them to turn out will

mitigate extinction-level climate change, and addressing that is the state’s moral responsibility.

Champion Briefs 61
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi Sept/Oct 2020

The Ripstein AC can say that what matters is not that non-voters are violating other people’s

freedom, but that non-voters are free-riding on a system that makes their freedom possible,

and free-riding is inherently unfair to other democratic citizens.

Character-based frameworks, such as virtue ethics, are conducive to arguments about

the duties of citizenship. Aristotle was one of virtue ethics’ earliest proponents in the world of

Western philosophy, and he argued that people have an ethical duty to act according to the

virtues (traits like benevolence or courage). Virtues do not arise from our intuition about what

is right or wrong, but rather from the character patterns which spring from human nature, and

hence promote our flourishing. Aside from the question of which virtues we should adopt, this

framework is strategic because of its difference from util and deontology in this respect:

instead of ends or means, virtue ethics focuses on mindset. It is important for the virtue ethical

philosopher that we do not do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Aristotle famously argued that humans (though he meant men, a problem with his

thought) are “political animals.” Human beings are naturally political because, through speech,

we communicate with others to form societies and act in concert. The affirmative could argue

that participating in politics by voting is an extension of good character, deriving from our

human nature as belonging to a political community. Making voting mandatory is the only way

to get almost every democratic citizen to practice political virtue, just like compulsory jury duty.

The negative could argue, apropos of the freedom of conscience case, that the state should not

be mandating virtuous behavior, and that virtue is only meaningful when people freely act on

other people’s example. If I’m forced to vote, I’m not voting for the right reasons, compared to

Champion Briefs 62
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi Sept/Oct 2020

if I am inspired to vote by a candidate that motivates me to change the nation, or compared to

if I vote because of preexisting virtues (like wisdom or justice) that compel regular participation.

Philosophy arguments on this topic can often overlap, as many frameworks will share

assumptions about equality, autonomy, or rights under a democracy. The best strategy for an

effective framework debate, especially when you are neg, is to create a clear contrast between

the assumptions of the frameworks. Aff frameworks will certainly argue that the good of the

democratic community, and the shared duty to maintain it, outweighs the individual’s freedom

of conscience. As the neg, it would be worthwhile to argue that there are limits to how benefits

and burdens should be distributed in a democracy, and that compulsory voting happens to

breach one or more of those limits. Conversely, the aff should explain why the neg’s framework

collapses into the aff’s framework (that is, voting is an excellent way to practice the individual

rights so described; human beings have a duty to carry themselves as free and independent

beings, a duty which Kant called “rightful honor”). Util has the clearest contrast with a choice-

based framework (such as libertarianism), but with deontological and virtue-based frameworks

you need to explain why your notion of freedom or ethical conduct is more sophisticated than

the neg’s.

Final note: just as they say in sports that “the best defense is a good offense,”

sometimes the best way to beat a philosophical case is to attack the contentions. The aff might

have solid reasons why higher turnout is key to electoral legitimacy and promotes civic-

mindedness, or why higher turnout achieves equal freedom, but you can read great evidence

that compulsory voting is ineffective at raising turnout or changing voters’ attitudes. There are

even cards that compulsory voting has no effect on which party wins or how spending decisions

Champion Briefs 63
Frameworks Analysis by Adam Tomasi Sept/Oct 2020

are made, which responds to a core assumption of the util aff. The neg might have a great

argument for why democracies should never curtail the freedom to abstain from politics (or the

freedom to reject the system and protest outside it), but you can read great evidence that

compulsory voting doesn’t restrict that freedom in the first place.

Champion Briefs 64
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Democracy AC

This resolution is asks fundamental questions about democracies and what they should
require of their citizens. As such, an affirmative that presents a strong defense of democracy is
one that will resonate with many judges. While this affirmative’s primary applications are
traditional, the evidence that is in this affirmative can be used to create a version of the
affirmative that is competitive on the national circuit.
The thesis of this affirmative is that voting is a key tenet of democracy, and that
compelling citizens to vote is how we ensure equal representation and maximize a democracy’s
ability to serve all the people living within it. This affirmative’s impact scenario is quite diverse.
From impacts about marginalized populations to arguments about larger scale impacts,
debaters can make any argument they want. They just have to win the thesis claim of the case:
that democracy is upheld by compulsory voting. One method of doing this could be reading
impacts about minority groups. Debaters can make the claim that a democracy must protect
minority rights as much as it protects majority rule, and the only way to protect minority rights
is to enforce voting such that everyone’s interests are represented, not just those of the
privileged few who are able to access the vote. Debaters can also make claims about how
voting is key to larger scale changes, such as ensuring a proper response to the Coronavirus
pandemic or maintaining liberal democracy. Whatever the impact is, there is space for it in the
Democracy AC.
When preparing against potential negatives, debaters should prepare a defense of
democracy. There will be negative debaters that attempt to make claims about how democracy
is undesirable. Therefore, affirmative debaters should not assume that democracy is an intrinsic
good, they should prepare justifications for why it is materially beneficial. They can do this by
citing examples of democracies being more peaceful, preserving more rights, and having better
outcomes for citizens in terms of quality of life.
Negative debaters can prepare to debate against this affirmative by criticizing
democratic ideals and suggesting that an alternate form of government will yield better impacts
for the groups that the affirmative is trying to protect. The negative can also make arguments

Champion Briefs 66
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

about how the benefits of voting don’t justify compelling people to vote. When negating this
affirmative, debaters should press the affirmative on why compulsory voting is necessary to
garner the benefits of voting.
In order to win this affirmative, debaters must win that compelling voting is net
beneficial to democratic principles. In order to win against this affirmative, negatives have
multiple options, but they must somehow disprove the thesis claim of this affirmative. Whether
they decide to make arguments about how democracy is bad or about how compelling voting is
undemocratic, the negative should make sure that they are doing good weighing between the
affirmative and the negative.

Champion Briefs 67
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democratic participation widens the gap between the rich and the
poor.
Dalton, Russell. “Is Citizen Participation Actually Good For Democracy?.” Democratic Audit UK.
August 22, 2017. Web. August 15, 2020.
<https://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/08/22/is-citizen-participation-actually-good-
for-democracy/>.
It is not all good news, however. While participation opportunities have broadly expanded, the
skills and resources to utilise these new entryways are unevenly spread throughout the public. I
describe a sizeable socio-economic status (SES) participation gap across all types of political
action. A person’s education and other social status traits are very strong predictors of who
participates. The expanding repertoire of political action widens this participation gap.
Participation research often focuses on voting turnout, but this is where the social status gap is
generally smallest. Labour unions, citizen groups, and political parties can mobilise lower status
voters on election day. However, as citizens become more active in non-electoral forms of
participation, skills and resources are even more important in facilitating these activities. To
write a letter, work with a community group, post a political blog or boycott environmentally
damaging products requires more than just showing up on election day to mark a ballot and
leave. So the expanding repertoire of political activity widens the SES participation gap. The
participation gap is also widening over time. Evidence from several nations shows that the
decline in voting turnout is concentrated among lower-status citizens, while the better off
continue to vote at roughly the same levels as the past. Given the centrality of elections in
selecting the officials who govern, this widening participation gap in turnout implies unequal
representation with all the implications that this signifies. For non-electoral participation, the
increase in activity has come disproportionately from better-educated and higher income
citizens who possess politically valuable skills and resources. Protest activities often display the
widest social status participation gap. And while there is a one-person/one-vote limit on voting
that moderates inequality, no such ceiling exists for writing emails, working with public interest
groups, protesting, and other non-voting forms of action. The sum result is a widening in the
SES participation gap in overall terms. Thus, democracy’s dilemma is that the expansion of
participation in old and new forms comes at the cost of a widening gap between the politically
rich and the politically poor. This runs counter to democratic ideals, and it runs counter to
democracy’s goal of effectively reaching the best policy outcomes for society by involving all of
the public in the process.

Champion Briefs 68
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Citizen participation is expanding – we don’t need compulsory voting.

Dalton, Russell. “Is Citizen Participation Actually Good For Democracy?.” Democratic Audit UK.
August 22, 2017. Web. August 15, 2020.
<https://www.democraticaudit.com/2017/08/22/is-citizen-participation-actually-good-
for-democracy/>.
The Participation Gap primarily examines evidence from the International Social Survey
Program that measured citizen participation in established democracies in 2004 and 2014. The
decline in voting turnout is obvious and a very troubling trend. However, the good news is that
democratic institutional reforms and citizen innovation have increased the number and variety
of access points that people can use to influence political outcomes. The expansion in citizen
skills and resources also enables more people to engage in these more demanding forms of
participation. Direct contact with political leaders has increased. More people are joining public
interest groups, civic associations, Bürgerinitiativen, and other collective forms of action.
People have developed new methods of political action, such as political consumerism, new
forms of contentious action and creative activism. The internet enables new methods of peer-
to-peer involvement among citizens who share political views and want to be active. The ISSP
surveys thus describe an interested and involved citizenry, more engaged than their parents’ or
grandparents’ generation. Many of these activities also offer greater policy content and policy
focus than the simple act of voting.

Champion Briefs 69
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Voter turnout is currently low.

Danielle, Root. “Increasing Voter Participation In America.” Center For American Progress. July
11, 2018. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/07/11/453319/in
creasing-voter-participation-america/>.
Millions of eligible Americans today are either choosing not to vote or are prevented from
participating in the electoral process. Voter participation remains low by historical measures.
Since 2000, voter participation for U.S. citizens has hovered between 54 and 64 percent during
presidential elections and between 41 and 48 percent during midterm elections.28 In 2016,
falling participation defined the election, as swing states such as Wisconsin and Ohio saw voter
participation drop by approximately 3 percent and 4 percent, respectively, compared with
2012.29 Voter participation rates are particularly low during primary and local elections. During
the 2016 primaries, only 28.5 percent of eligible voters cast votes for party candidates, while a
mere 14.5 percent participated in the 2012 primaries.30 For local mayoral elections,
participation falls below 20 percent in 15 of the country’s 30 most populous cities.31 America’s
representative government is warped by low voter participation, and, of those who do vote, the
group is not representative of the broader population of eligible American citizens. Research
shows that communities of color, young people, and low-income Americans are
disproportionately burdened by registration barriers, inflexible voting hours, and polling place
closures, making it more difficult for these groups to vote. Participation gaps persist along
racial, educational, and income-level differences. (see Figure 1)

Champion Briefs 70
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy will always prevail – it’s the best option for governing.
Stavridis, James. “Democracy Isn't Perfect, But It Will Still Prevail.” TIME. July 12, 2018. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://time.com/5336615/democracy-will-prevail/>.
But for every example of democracy fading out or finding itself under attack, there are
counterexamples of democracy and democratic activists moving forward and finding solutions.
Under this U.S. Administration, there is little leadership on global human rights or democratic
norms. But other leaders, from Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron of Europe to Shinzo Abe
of Japan to Justin Trudeau of Canada, have been outspoken in defense of democratic values.
Change is happening in smaller nations as well. And democracy will prevail not because of
individual leaders but because it is better than authoritarianism at meeting the challenges of
governing. Human nature abhors a boss, and politically, democracy serves as a safety valve.
Look to America, even in its current rage. We cannot imagine our own nation without the
ability to switch from George W. Bush, a Republican fighting unpopular wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, to Barack Obama. Or, for that matter, to move from Obama to President Trump.
Those shifts may look like stark division on the surface. But they also represent democracy’s
ability to allow dissenting, frustrated views an outlet. Dictators may impose order, but
mounting unrest as often as not turns them out, frequently with disastrous results. Some of the
worst massacres in modern history have followed the ouster of strongmen. Sometimes
democracy will not resolve complex events, or most effectively use technology, or respond
speedily. But it peacefully holds accountable leaders who don’t fulfill their promises or better
our lives, and rewards those who do. That has proved more valuable in the long run than more
immediate urges. Two hundred years ago, there was a mere handful of pseudo democracies in
the world. At the turn of the 20th century, a couple of dozen democracies existed. Today,
despite the continuation of Chinese and Russian authoritarian regimes, there are well over a
hundred. Hundreds of millions have transitioned from fully authoritarian monarchies
(throughout Europe, Central Asia and parts of East Asia) and pure dictatorships (Latin America,
the Balkans, the Levant and parts of Africa). History has run from male-dominated tribes in the
Paleolithic era through dictatorial city-states to early modern monarchies and today’s
democracies. We can all hope that the battle to defend democracy will be less costly in the 21st
century than in the previous one. We can enhance our chances of winning by empowering
women, boosting programs that fight economic inequality and teaching our children the critical
thinking skills they need to separate truth from lies. Democracy’s defenders can work to be
clear what our cause is, why it matters and what is at stake. Sometimes people say to me that
America is in a “war of ideas.” Not quite. We remain in a marketplace of ideas. That is what has
made us most adaptable to new threats and resilient in the face of challenges. It is also why we
must articulate our vision of the values that, while we execute them imperfectly, are right and
true.

Champion Briefs 71
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Elections are necessary to the functioning of a democracy – proven by

US efforts to establish elections in nations that are being
democratized.
Sahley, Carol. “SUPPORTING FREE AND FAIR ELECTIONS.” USAID.gov. March 04, 2020. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://www.usaid.gov/what-we-do/democracy-human-rights-and-
governance/supporting-free-and-fair-elections>.
Elections and other political processes are pivotal to the quality of a country’s governance and
can either greatly advance or set back a country’s long-term democratic development, as well
as USG country, regional, and global foreign policy priorities. The most fundamental principle
defining credible elections is that they must reflect the free expression of the will of the people.
To achieve this, elections should be transparent, inclusive, and accountable, and there must be
equitable opportunities to compete in the elections. These broad principles are buttressed by
several electoral process-related obligations, as well as a number of key rights and freedoms,
each of which derive from public international law. The electoral cycle approach depicts
elections as a continuous, integrated process made up of building blocks that interact with and
influence each other, rather than as a series of isolated events. In designing and prioritizing its
support for credible elections, USAID takes into account the degree to which the host country
upholds democratic principles and standards for elections. The Agency also analyzes the
country’s political dynamics and assesses the key electoral stakeholders’ level of commitment
and capacities in order to promote electoral integrity. Below are some examples of USAID
support to elections and political processes: Burma: USAID fostered democratic reforms
through programming in four main areas: election administration, political party support,
parliamentary strengthening, and civil society engagement, including citizen election
observation. USAID also supported international observation of Burma’s 2015 general elections.
The Gambia: USAID and its partners supported the Gambia’s democratic transition by deploying
a team of election experts ahead of 2017 parliamentary elections to assist the electoral
commission. Later, USAID followed-up with a delegation of governance experts to initiate
capacity building of the President’s executive team. Tunisia: For Tunisia’s 2019 historic
elections, USAID and implementing partners deployed nearly 4,000 local observers and over
250 international observers, and supported a parallel vote tabulation (PVT). Prior to election
day, USAID funded a series of voter education and registration activities, with a particular
emphasis on targeting women, youth, and people with disabilities. Ukraine: USAID supported
nationwide voter information, education and mobilization campaigns, which included targeting
youth, first-time voters, internally displaced persons, and persons with disabilities and during
the 2019 presidential and parliamentary election cycle. USAID also supported short term
observer training for party poll watchers and political party youth wing debates.

Champion Briefs 72
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Voting is key to addressing issues in governance and resolving

inequalities.
Satz, Debra. “Voting Is A Civic Duty.” The Stanford Daily. September 19, 2019. Web. August 17,
2020. <https://www.stanforddaily.com/2018/09/19/op-ed-voting-is-a-civic-duty/>.
Our right to vote is hard-won. It took centuries of struggle to establish this right — for property-
less men, for women, for African Americans, and, in 1971, for all US citizens over the age of 18.
The right to vote is fundamental to protecting, asserting and defining many of our other rights.
Almost all of the social and economic rights Americans enjoy today — from Medicare and
Medicaid, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, and the Clean Air Act — exist because citizens elected public officials who voted to
enact them. But low numbers of American citizens exercise their right to vote, and,
unfortunately, Stanford students are no exception. According to the National Study of Learning,
Voting and Engagement (NSLVE), only 48.1% of eligible Stanford undergraduates, graduates and
post-doctoral fellows voted in the 2016 Presidential election. NSLVE calculated that less than
20% voted in the 2014 mid-term elections. As the three deans responsible for overseeing the
education of the largest number of Stanford’s students, including all of its undergraduates, we
write to urge you, regardless of your political affiliation, to register and to exercise your right to
vote. Here, we offer 5 main reasons for voting: We build our democracy with votes. Through
our votes, we express what we as citizens think is in our collective interests; we empower
officials to act in our name to promote those interests. It’s the power of the vote that keeps our
elected officials accountable. If only some people vote, elected officials are likely to give less
weight to the interests and views of non-participants. Studies show that young voters, along
with citizens with lower levels of income and education, are less likely to vote. It is sometimes
said that no one’s vote makes a decisive difference. But each person’s vote makes our
democracy more representative of the will of its citizens. In close local elections, small numbers
of votes can be decisive. Our country (and our world) face significant challenges that require
the action of government: climate change, inequality, global conflict, terrorism and poverty.
Individual action, however well motivated, cannot compare to what can be accomplished by
the actions of large state institutions. As a citizen it is essential for you to vote on the basis of
your informed views about those candidates who offer the best public policy responses to
these challenges.

Champion Briefs 73
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting works – multiple democracies prove.

Polimedio, Chayenne. “Is Voting A Civic Right Or A Civic Duty?.” Vox. November 06, 2018. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/11/6/18068484/voting-civic-
right-civic-duty>.
In Belgium, compulsory voting was introduced alongside universal suffrage as a way to avoid
vote-buying. Today, every citizen above the age of 18 must vote. Although citizens who fail to
turn out on Election Day can be fined and precluded from voting for 10 years or from applying
for appointments or promotions in the civil service, legal constraints are rarely applied. “In
other words, compulsory voting in Belgium is more a moral than a legal obligation. Yet, the vast
majority of voters do turn out on Election Day,” writes researcher Jean-Benoit Pilet. In 2014,
89.4 percent of registered voters in Belgium voted in the parliamentary elections for the federal
Chamber of Representatives. Australia made voting compulsory after a decline in turnout from
more than 71 percent at the 1919 election to less than 60 percent at the 1922 election. Today,
enrollment and voting are compulsory for Aussies aged 18 or older, and those who fail to “show
up” and are unable to provide sufficient reason are required to pay a $15 fine. As of September
30, 2018, 16,176,487 Australians were enrolled to vote. In 2016, the most recent election, 86.5
percent of voters cast a ballot. Brazil is the largest democracy in the world with compulsory
voting. It dates back to 1932, with the enactment of that year’s Electoral Code. There, voters
also have to pay a fine if they fail to show up at the polling station without providing reasonable
justification. That fine varies from $0.96 to $9.53. Other penalties for not voting include being
denied a Brazilian passport or ID, a federal loan, or access to public universities. Brazilians are
also summoned to work at polling stations, and those who forsake that obligation must pay a
fine. In the most recent elections, where Brazilians voted for executive and legislative offices,
turnout was 104.8 million people, out of 147.3 million eligible voters.

Champion Briefs 74
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting ensures that a democracy benefits all citizens.

Polimedio, Chayenne. “Is Voting A Civic Right Or A Civic Duty?.” Vox. November 06, 2018. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/11/6/18068484/voting-civic-
right-civic-duty>.
Today in the U.S., 38 states offer online voter registration; 16 allow voters to register on
Election Day; and 37 have some form of early voting. And yet, large swaths of Americans don’t
vote. But not all nonvoters are the same: Nonwhite and Hispanic Americans were more likely to
stay home than white voters. Age and income are also determinants of who stays home. This
turnout gap often manifests itself into voting inequalities. The thinking goes: Politicians and
elected officials are always trying to appeal to their base. That is, the voters they know they can
count on, or the small numbers of voters who will definitely vote but aren’t the base — the
swing voters. So proposals and policies are likely to reflect the preferences of those people.
Essentially, that turnout gap means that white, wealthy, and college-educated Americans get to
speak louder than their fellow compatriots when it comes to whose priorities and preferences
are considered in the policy process. In turning voting not only into a civic right, but also into a
civic requirement, proponents of mandatory voting see it as the most straightforward solution
to increasing turnout numbers and making elections and, consequently, policies, more equal
and inclusive. Not only that, some argue compulsory voting has spillover effects such as better-
informed voters, a more even distribution of political knowledge throughout the electorate,
and cheaper campaigns (since turnout is guaranteed). Others also argue that it encourages
politicians to engage with larger swaths of the electorate and thus be more moderate.

Champion Briefs 75
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compelling younger citizens to vote allows for them to engage in

democracy in meaningful ways – this is key to building lifelong
participation.
Masback, Grace. “8 Reasons Why Youth Should Vote.” Huffington Post. December 02, 2015.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.huffpost.com/entry/8-reasons-why-youth-
shoul_b_8693178>.
The U.S. was founded on the principles of democratic participation that guaranteed the right of
all citizens to have a roll in shaping government and the rule of law. It took almost two
centuries to deliver on the guarantees in our Constitution, especially to women and people of
color, but now we face a new challenge - the majority of young people don’t vote. Why is youth
voting important? Read on to find eight (of many reasons) that teens should register to vote
when they are 17 and vote when they are 18 - your vote matters! 1. You can be in charge How
many times have you wished your parents couldn’t tell you what to do? That you could choose
what you studied in school? That you could stay out as late as you wanted to? Voting gives you
the power to make important choices. You get to decide what you like and don’t like and let
your voice be heard. 2. You should be the one to shape your future On a similar point, you guys
should be the ones to shape your futures. Most adults don’t understand the teen perspective.
They are confused by our high tech era, our fashion, our interests. If you fail to vote, you are
yielding the ultimate power to adults to make decisions about the leaders and laws that will
shape and lead society for decades, and you can be sure that those decisions won’t be
congruent with the teen psyche and perspective. 3. Voting is an important right Think about all
the countries in the world that don’t have democratic political institutions - countries like Syria,
the Congo, and Cuba. In such countries, citizens are denied the right to vote and have their
voice heard, and they don’t even have the option to shape their government and their future.
We are immensely lucky to live in a country that was founded on democratic values and it’s an
insult to our Founding Fathers to forgo our voting rights. You don’t want to insult our Founding
Fathers, do you? 4. If you don’t vote, you lose your right to complain If you don’t vote, you
could end up with a potted plant elected President, or even worse, Donald Trump. If you
choose not to vote, you automatically waive your right to complain. Voting demonstrates your
good faith attempt to get the political outcome you desire, and gives you every right to
complain if things don’t go your way on a key ballot measure. If you don’t vote - shut it! 5.
Don’t be a voting slacker Democracy doesn’t work without citizen participation, yet about 40%
of Americans don’t exercise their right to vote in the general election. Even fewer vote in in
primary and local elections. It’s up to Gen Z to change this. We must revitalize the American
democracy and show the older generations the importance of voting by casting our own votes.
6. It’s an important skill to learn You’ll be voting for the rest of your life. Casting well-considered
votes is something you will want to teach to your friends, family, and children, so why not start
now? It’s not very hard! Master the skills now so that you can begin to perfect and share this

Champion Briefs 76
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

important practice in the future. No more hanging chads. 7. It helps you stay engaged with
politics and current events How many times have you wished you were more in tune with
politics and current events for your history class, SAT essay, or family discussion? Committing to
voting is a shortcut to greater engagement in the political world around you. It will keep you
connected with the news as you follow politicians and key policy initiatives. 8. You just should!
Don’t waive your right to vote. Register. Follow the news. And, when election day comes
around, cast your ballot. Now, more than ever, it is essential that young people take advantage
of their right to vote, creating a future that aligns with their fundamental beliefs and setting a
precedent for future generations.

Champion Briefs 77
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democracies are better at handling outbreaks.

Berengaut , Ariana. “Democracies Are Better At Fighting Outbreaks.” The Atlantic. February 24,
2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/why-democracies-are-better-
fighting-outbreaks/606976/>.
A decade into a global backlash against liberal democracy, that question is urgent. Aspiring
autocrats, from Hungary’s Viktor Orbán to Uganda’s Yoweri Museveni, cherry-pick from a menu
of repressive tactics and technologies—from building surveillance systems to banning
independent media outlets—to exert control and retain power. The “China model” is alluring to
democracy’s critics, for whom China’s firm handling of the COVID-19 outbreak looks like
another proof point for authoritarianism. Yet good public-health practice doesn’t just require
control. It also requires transparency, public trust, and collaboration—habits of mind that allow
free societies to better respond to pandemics. Democracies’ ability to cope with COVID-19 will
soon be tested; after a proliferation of cases in South Korea, Japan, and Italy in recent days,
officials are weighing how to respond. But citizens of democratic nations can reasonably expect
a higher level of candor and accountability from their governments. American citizens, for
example, can count on the objectivity and accuracy of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, whose weekly morbidity and mortality report has been a fixture of critical
communication between the government and the public in one form or another since the late
1800s. Reliable reporting enables epidemiologists to predict a disease’s trajectory, researchers
to develop treatments and vaccines, responders to trace transmission, and the public to protect
itself. In contrast, China actively hid the 2003 SARS outbreak from the international community,
and, especially in the initial stages of COVID-19, it appears to have done so again. Local
authorities deliberately suppressed early reports of the unknown virus, missing an early
window responders had to stop the infectious disease before it spread. Although researchers
released the virus’s genetic sequence in record time, local officials underreported cases,
downplayed the risk of human-to-human transmission, and detained doctors who discussed the
disease. When one of those doctors, Li Wenliang, tried to warn friends on the social-media
service WeChat, he was summoned before authorities and required to disavow his concerns. He
later died of complications from COVID-19. When asked during a BBC interview about Li’s
treatment, the Chinese diplomat Liu Ziaoming shrugged it off as the handiwork of overzealous
local officials. But that is precisely the point. China’s cover-up of the virus was not the result of
a system malfunction. In an authoritarian state, cover-ups happen by design. The language of
authoritarianism—the language of fear and force—is one that every low-ranked apparatchik
from Pripyat to Wuhan understands when acting on his or her own initiative to bury bad news.
Two months into the crisis, international researchers continue to warn of missing information
from China. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases, diplomatically referred to this gap recently as the difference between “numbers that
are given to you in a press conference as opposed to numbers [where] you can actually look at
the data.” Full transparency is impossible without public trust, something authoritarian regimes

Champion Briefs 78
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

have a steady deficit of. China’s Communist Party now says it wants to hear the truth. But
public trust—the freedom citizens enjoy to think critically, the safety they feel to speak out, the
confidence they require to overcome fearful or difficult circumstances—is not a resource a
government can turn on and off like tap water. It is a habit forged over time.

Champion Briefs 79
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Collaboration between democracies is necessary to solve COVID.

Berengaut , Ariana. “Democracies Are Better At Fighting Outbreaks.” The Atlantic. February 24,
2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/why-democracies-are-better-
fighting-outbreaks/606976/>.
The ease with which an infectious disease spreads around the world demands international
collaboration to contain it, and democracies cooperate more than non-democracies. (The
popular board game Pandemic, in which players must work together in order to win, isn’t far
from the truth.) Historically, from the United Nations charter to the Paris climate accords, the
nations that have had the wherewithal to identify shared problems and build partnerships
behind common solutions have been democracies. In 2014, the United States led 62 countries
to stop a major Ebola outbreak. Although nations like China and Cuba contributed to the
response, it was the United States that also led the effort to prevent the next disaster. (At the
time, I was working on the Ebola crisis response at the U.S. Agency for International
Development.) At the height of the Ebola crisis, President Barack Obama convened 44 nations
in Washington to advance the Global Health Security Agenda, a community that now includes
67 nations. Unsurprisingly, China’s political system is incompatible with this approach. Recently,
after weeks of negotiating, China finally agreed to allow in a senior WHO team, which includes
two Americans. But Beijing continues to ignore the CDC’s offers to send its own expert team.
Even in a public-health crisis, the Communist Party comes first. As cases of the virus first
popped up around the world and nations started suspending flights, Taiwan—which Beijing
views as a breakaway province—was excluded from fast-moving discussions. Barred from
international organizations at Beijing’s behest, Taiwan struggled to gain access to timely
information and technical meetings of the WHO and the International Civil Aviation
Organization. Members of the global community cannot stop new outbreaks, but they can work
together to build systems that quickly detect and effectively respond to them, especially by
protecting the most vulnerable. Democratic societies tend to have better health and human
development indicators, and not just because democratic societies are wealthier. A study
published in The Lancet in April 2019 found that a government responsive to voters is more
likely to invest in durable health-care systems and asserted that policy makers concerned with
health outcomes, particularly chronic conditions, “should also be concerned with democratic
experience.

Champion Briefs 80
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

COVID has exposed the flaws of authoritarianism and illustrated the

importance of democracy.
Benedikt Frey, Carl. “Democracies Have Proven They Have The Edge In Coping With This Crisis.”
Financial Times. May 26, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.ft.com/content/5d08522e-99b2-11ea-871b-edeb99a20c6e>.
Throughout the centuries, competitors of the prevailing system have known that disaster
presents them with an opportunity. Writing about the Black Death, which culled more than 40
per cent of Europe’s population, the historian David Herlihy notes that the plague, “discredited
the leaders of society, its governors, priests, and intellectuals, and the laws and theories
supported by them”. The current pandemic is not just challenging individual leaders, but
democracy itself — or so the story goes. What is certainly true is that democracy is already in
decline: more countries have lost than gained civil and political rights each year for over a
decade. On the surface it might look as if Covid-19 has already turned a democratic recession
into a depression. In the Philippines, President Rodrigo Duterte has seized even greater powers,
while the Hungarian parliament has granted Viktor Orban’s government indefinite emergency
powers. Perhaps more worrying still, China and some of its allies are pointing to Beijing’s
success in clamping down on the pandemic as a strong case for authoritarianism. Even the
World Health Organization has called China’s forceful lockdown “perhaps the most ambitious,
agile and aggressive disease containment in history”. Meanwhile America, the leader of the free
world, is struggling to come to grips with the pandemic, after years of polarisation and gridlock.
However, if political regimes are judged by how they have responded to the pandemic, a
democratic depression seems unlikely: Covid-19 has exposed the flaws of authoritarianism
while showing the strengths of democracy. First, the lack of transparency in authoritarian
regimes is undisputable and its consequences for fighting the pandemic catastrophic. In
Turkmenistan, doctors are banned from diagnosing Covid-19 and people are not allowed to
discuss the outbreak in public. And while China mobilised a strong national response when
President Xi Jinping finally took action, in Wuhan local officials first tried to hush it up. This
delayed decisive measures to curb the virus before its global spread. Second, democracies have
responded more effectively to contain the contagion. My own research, with Chinchih Chen
and Giorgio Presidente, shows that authoritarian regimes introduced more stringent lockdowns
and rely more on intrusive contact tracing. But across 111 countries, we found that
democracies’ lockdown measures were more effective in reducing movement and travel, which
risks spreading the virus. Citizens in democracies, it seems, are more likely to abide by the rules
set by their governments. This is in line with studies showing that political repression reduces
co-operation. While autocrats often seek to capitalise on perceived threats, their handling of
the pandemic will not look appealing to the outside world. China’s strict lockdown has received
the most attention, but flourishing democracies such as South Korea and Taiwan handled
Covid-19 better by just about any measure. As our research shows, the countries that have
responded most effectively are democracies that also have collectivist cultural traits. It is

Champion Briefs 81
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

evident from the World Value Survey that South Korea, Taiwan, and China are all highly
collectivistic — as is reflected in their longstanding habit of wearing masks to protect fellow
citizens. Collectivism, which emphasises group loyalty, conformity and obedience towards
superiors, also makes collective action easier, such as mounting a co-ordinated response to a
pandemic. Individualism, on the other hand, is associated with greater suspicion of government
interventions. Harvard’s Joseph Henrich and collaborators have found that western Europeans
— and their cultural descendants in North America and Australia — stand out as particularly
individualistic. This has given them an advantage as they tend to reward nonconformism, which
is essential for innovation. Studies show that individualistic cultures, like those of the US,
Sweden and the UK, produce more radical innovations. But they have all fared badly during
Covid-19, with among the highest death rates per head. When disasters take on catastrophic
dimensions, people feel that governments have failed their main social function: defence of the
common welfare. So far, democracies with more collectivist cultural traits have responded
better to the pandemic. There is reason to believe that collectivist values will spread after
coronavirus: a recent study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society found that collectivist versus
individualistic attitudes vary with pathogen risk, suggesting that increases in disease exposure
might make countries more collectivist. But winning against Covid-19 will require more people
to abide by government rules. It will also require innovation to find treatments and vaccines.
Dynamism flourishes in free and open societies. Recognising that democracies have managed
the pandemic better is a first essential step towards the preservation of democratic
government.

Champion Briefs 82
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Voter participation is necessary to keeping a democracy legitimate.

Engelen, Bart. “Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy.” Acta Politica. March, 2007.
Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248874800_Why_Compulsory_Voting_Can
_Enhance_Democracy>.
To show that low turnout is among the most serious threats democracies face today, I want to
argue that it affects basic democratic values. The most fundamental premise of democratic
thinking holds that those affected by a decision should be able to participate in the process
which brings it about. To ensure that public policy is about the public – as it ought to be – one
has to give the public a say in it. As Dahl argues, all members of a democracy ‘must have equal
and effective opportunities for making their views known to the other members as to what the
policy should be’ (Dahl, 1998, 37).As direct participation is practically impossible in large
societies, one has to resort to some type of representation and insist that policy decisions
should be made by a publicly elected government. This makes an election the pre-eminent
occasion to participate in public life. As voting is the most important form of political
participation (IDEA, 2004, 23), turnout is often used as a ‘measure of citizen participation’
(Verba et al., 1978, 8). When casting their votes, people express their opinions and preferences
of the politicians, policies and politics of their country, region or town. In line with Dahl, one
can argue that all citizens must have equal and effective opportunities for making their views
known as to who should govern the country. In fact, this is why every defender of democracy
considers universal suffrage to be a necessary requirement for any democratic regime.
However, if one truly values this hard-won right to vote, one cannot remain neutral if only half
of the potential voters actually exercise it. Departing from Dahl, I want to argue that universal
suffrage (having the opportunity to vote)ought to be extended to universal participation
(making use of the opportunity to vote). Indeed, ‘where few take part in decisions there is little
democracy; the more participation there is in decisions, the more democracy there is’
(Verbaand Nie, 1972, 1). To stress the importance of effective participation, I want to show how
important democratic values are affected if electoral participation is low. The more citizens
abstain, the less representative the electoral result becomes. This problem is aggravated by the
fact that ‘low voter turnout means unequal and socio-economically biased turnout’ (Lijphart,
1997, 2). As Keaney and Rogers (2006, 10) aptly summarize, ‘international evidence shows that
turnout and inequality are closely linked, and that as turnout falls so it becomes more unequal’.
While universal suffrage equalizes the opportunities for participation in elections (every citizen
has exactly one vote), inequalities between privileged and less privileged citizens persist in the
way citizens exercise such opportunities (Lijphart, 1998, 1–2; Verba, Nie and Kim, 1978,1–6).
This forms a problem because governments normally respond to the opinions expressed by
citizens in elections: ‘if you don’t vote, you don’t count’ (Burnham, 1987, 99). This assumption
has been empirically confirmed. In their cross-country comparison, Mueller and Stratmann
(2003, 2151) found that political participation has a positive impact on income equality. The
more citizens abstain, the greater income inequality will become. The logic behind this is clear

Champion Briefs 83
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

enough. As turnout declines, less privileged citizens tend to abstain more than others. As a
result, they will have less representatives looking after their concerns and will therefore exert
less influence on policy decisions. As low turnout means unequal influence, it violates the value
of political equality, which lies at the heart of any notion of democracy. I thus want to argue
that a purely formal equality of opportunity has to be extended to a more substantial equality
of participation and influence. Political participation is also crucial for guaranteeing the
legitimacy of a democratic regime. The more citizens abstain, the more the elected bodies lose
their accountability. To illustrate the problem one can refer to elections where only a minority
of the electorate determines the electoral result. In elections to the European Parliament, for
example, average turnout has declined systematically from 63% of all registered voters in 1979
to a record low of 45.6% in2004 (EP, 2004). As more than half of the electorate abstains in 18 of
the 25member states, one can hardly speak of popular or majority will (Watson and Tami,
2001). As democracy cannot imply that laws are enacted by legislators representing a minority
of eligible voters, one has to conclude that high turnout levels are necessary for any democracy
claiming legitimacy.

Champion Briefs 84
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compelling citizens to vote isn’t undemocratic.

Engelen, Bart. “Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy.” Acta Politica. March, 2007.
Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248874800_Why_Compulsory_Voting_Can
_Enhance_Democracy>.
Most opponents of compulsory voting argue that it is principally illegitimate and undemocratic,
because ‘freedom of choice in a democracy must include the freedom not to choose’ (Sear and
Strickland, 2003, 8). This libertarian argument holds that compulsory voting infringes on
individual freedom, something all proponents of democracy (should) value highly. The fact that
it enhances participation, equality and representativeness does not justify the implied violation
of liberty (Lijphart, 1998, 10). The argument basically boils down to the claim that a government
should not compel its citizens to do something they do not freely want to do. A first way of
countering this is to show that absolute freedom of choice is in fact illusory. The fact that less
educated citizens abstain systematically more than others reveals that they encounter greater
obstacles, preventing them from participating. As someone’s knowledge of and interest in
politics is influenced by structural factors such as his received education, his decision whether
or not to vote cannot be wholly ascribed to ‘freedom of choice’, which can therefore not be
used to justify freedom of participation through voluntary voting. Second, there is nothing
inherently undemocratic about compelling citizens to do something, which not all of them want
to do voluntarily. Any democratic regime can legitimately enforce laws, even if these are not
agreed upon by all of its subjects. Indeed, no democracy can or should be expected to
completely free its citizens from obligations and duties. Also, according to the European
Commission for Human Rights and contrary to what opponents often claim, compulsory voting
does not violate any human right (Vanmaercke, 1993, 73).Third, it is not voting that is
compulsory, but attendance at the polling station. As shown above, the secrecy of the ballot
guarantees that citizens always have the possibility of leaving their ballots blank or spoiling
them (Keaney and Rogers, 2006, 30). This forms an institutional answer to so-called
‘conscientious objectors’ and to those who are and want to remainindifferent.12However,
opponents of compulsory voting are not so easily fobbed off and claim that no government may
oblige its citizens to attend elections. This argument functions as some kind of rock-bottom: I
oppose compulsory voting because it infringes on my freedom by which I may well prefer to
stay at home. One can doubt whether the resistance of opponents who prefer to stay at home
is really based on libertarian conscientious objections. Against those who abstain because of
pragmatic considerations, one can argue that attending the polling station every two or three
years is not too much to ask, especially compared to governmental obligations such as
compulsory education and tax duties, which are much more time-consuming (Keaney and
Rogers, 2006, 7, 30,35). Given the importance of democracy, I believe a government has every
right and reason to demand this much from its citizens. Abstention is a form of free-riding
behavior: although there are benefits if everybody votes, the individual abstainer gives in to the
incentive to abstain. However, this is not universalizable: if everybody reasons this way, nobody

Champion Briefs 85
AFF: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

will participate and the democratic system will lose its legitimacy and ultimately disappear.
Compelling citizens to participate makes voting more rational for the individual, thereby
preventing free-riding and securing the valuable existence of the democratic state. This is true
for several other duties, all of which contribute to upholding the three branches of a modern
state. Citizens have to pay taxes to preserve the continuity of the state as a whole, including the
executive power. They have to respect the law and serve in juries to preserve the continuity of
the judicial power. Analogously, they have to participate in elections to preserve the continuity
of the legislative power. totalitarian tendency of solving all free-rider problems by means of
state compulsion, I have emphasized the importance of democracy and its values. I t is
important to examine more thoroughly the phenomenon of abstention. According to a first
interpretation, abstainers are giving a powerful signal of protest that they consider none of the
candidates worthy of their vote or that they do not want to be a part of the electoral process
that gives the government an artificially created democratic facade. A second interpretation
states that the reverse is true: abstainers tacitly consent to the regime and do not take the
trouble to vote, because they think all is well the way it is (Jackman, 1987, 418).This
interpretation, however, has been empirically refuted by the finding that abstainers are
generally more discontent with the regime than voters(Wattenberg, 1998, 43). A third
interpretation states that abstainers tacitly consent to the opinion of those who do vote. This
plurality of interpretations shows that abstaining is a bad strategy to express one’s opinion in
public life or to send a message to the politicians. Abstainers stay at home for different reasons.
As ‘silence is at best ambiguous’ (Hill, 2002b, 85), actively casting a protest vote in a system
with compulsory voting is easier to interpret. Such votes are a clear sign that politics is getting
out of touch with the public. While low turnout indicates that there is something wrong with
democracy, it cannot pinpoint what the exact problem is, lumping together those who are
discontent about, uninterested in and unable to participate in politics. By motivating people to
express their voice, compulsory voting involves those most likely to become alienated from
politics. This way, politicians have to listen to their voices, which would otherwise never be
heard.

Champion Briefs 86
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Ripstein AC

This affirmative is based on the political philosophy of Arthur Ripstein, specifically his
book Force and Freedom (2009). This book is an adaptation of Immanuel Kant’s ethics, such as
the Categorical Imperative (act only on what you can will universally for all, don’t treat humans
as a mere means to your ends), to the decisions of government. Ripstein argues for the social
contract position, that only with a state, where people give up some freedoms in exchange for
protection, can rights to life, liberty, and property be secure. But unlike Hobbes, who believed
in a monarch with absolute power to create security, Ripstein argues that the state must always
act according to the general will of reasoning beings (which is very similar to Jean-Jacques
Rousseau’s thought). In order to do this, the state has to act in ways that create conditions for
equal freedom, or mutual respect for one another’s rights.
This affirmative case argues that creating a system of equal freedom justifies
compulsory voting in a democracy. The system that best creates equal freedom is a democracy,
where all citizens are represented and thereby have their voices respected. But in democracies
like the United States, where barely more than half of registered voters show up, the state’s
decisions are not made with truly democratic input. Low turnout disproportionately benefits
elites (the old, the rich, white people, corporations), who get their way in politics not only
because of money, but also because marginalized people do not vote often enough. With
compulsory voting, the ‘turnout gap’ is rectified and democracy becomes more representative,
hence freer.
The main weakness of this position is the studies arguing compulsory voting doesn’t
reduce inequalities in practice, even with greater turnout. Because non-voters tend to hold the
same preferences as the average voter, systemic change that could produce freedom is not
guaranteed.

Champion Briefs 87
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is essential to political equality, by recognizing that

all citizens should share in self-government.
Bishop, Michelle. “Lift Every Voice: The Urgency Of Universal Civic Duty Voting.” Brookings
Institution. 2020. Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Br_LIFT_Every_Voice_final.pdf>.
In calling for what has been known as mandatory attendance at the polls (the phrase makes
clear that no citizen would be forced to vote for anyone against his or her will), and might now,
with the spread of mail voting, be called mandatory participation in elections, we hope to
underscore that rights and duties are intimately related. During Reconstruction and the Civil
Rights eras, few reforms were more important or more empowering than the right of Black
Americans to sit on juries. They demanded that they be included in the pool of those who might
be required to sit through trials because their own liberties depended upon being included in
the process of judging whether a fellow citizen would be jailed, fined, or set free. In the case of
jury service, the right and the duty are one in the same. The same can be said of voting. The
franchise, said a voting rights advocate of the Reconstruction era, is “an essential and
inseparable part of self-government, and therefore natural and inalienable.” W. E. B. Du Bois
saw voting as central to the larger aspiration of being treated as an equal, “a co-worker in the
kingdom of culture.”3

Champion Briefs 88
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting ends voter suppression and ensures equal political

participation.
Bishop, Michelle. “Lift Every Voice: The Urgency Of Universal Civic Duty Voting.” Brookings
Institution. 2020. Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.brookings.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/07/Br_LIFT_Every_Voice_final.pdf>.
Our emphasis is not on imposing sanctions but on sending a strong message that voting is a
legitimate expectation of citizenship. Nations that have embraced carefully implemented
versions of universal civic duty voting have enjoyed dramatic increases in participation.
“Compulsory voting makes democracy work better,” concluded Lisa Hill of the University of
Adelaide, “enabling it to function as a social activity engaged in by all affected interests, not just
a privileged elite.”4 The country’s politics typically places the interests of older Americans over
the interests of the younger generations—which, by definition, makes our system less forward-
looking. This problem is aggravated by the under-representation of the young in the voting
process. Their participation is held down by rules and requirements that are easier for older
and more geographically settled Americans to follow and to meet. As part of our proposal to
declare that all adults are required to vote, we propose many ideas, beginning with election day
registration and an expansion of voting opportunities, that would welcome the young into full
participation. Since the economic fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic is placing particular
burdens on young Americans, especially those just entering the workforce, their engagement in
the democratic project is more vital than ever. Universal civic duty voting would also help
ensure increased political participation in communities of color that have long confronted
exclusion from our democracy. With the reforms that would necessarily accompany it, civic
duty voting would permanently block voter suppression measures. The reprehensible police
killing of George Floyd shocked the conscience of the nation and forced its attention to
entrenched racial injustice. Floyd’s death, and those of Rayshard Brooks and Breonna Taylor,
called forth large-scale protests around the country against police violence that has long been
an enraging fact-of-life in Black neighborhoods. The new movement is demanding a
thoroughgoing overhaul of policing but also a larger confrontation with racism. The demand for
equal treatment has been reinforced by unequal suffering during a pandemic whose costs to
health, life, and economic well-being have been borne disproportionately by communities of
color. Voting rights, equal participation, and an end to exclusion from the tables of power are
essential not only for securing reform, but also for creating the democratic conditions that
would make social change durable. Police brutality, as an expression of systemic racism, is not
merely about how Americans are policed but whose voices are heard on policing. Universal
voting could amplify long-suppressed voices so that long-denied solutions to systemic racism
are represented in the voting booth and enacted in legislatures. “Give us the ballot,” Martin
Luther King Jr. declared in 1957, “and we will transform the salient misdeeds of bloodthirsty
mobs into the calculated good deeds of orderly citizens.”5 As our nation opens its mind and its
heart to forms of social reconstruction that were far removed from the public agenda only

Champion Briefs 89
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

months ago, we believe that transformative adjustments to our voting system are now in order.
The new activism points to the need for a renewed civic life, and universal voting would assist
in its rebirth. Citizens, political campaigns, and civil rights and community organizations could
move resources now spent on protecting the right to vote and increasing voter turnout to the
task of persuading and educating citizens. Media consultants would no longer have an incentive
to drive down the other side’s turnout, which only increases the already powerful forces
working to make our campaigns highly negative in character. Candidates would be pushed to
appeal beyond their own voter bases. This imperative would raise the political costs of invoking
divisive rhetoric and vilifying particular groups. Low turnout is aggravated by the hyper-
polarization in our political life that is so widely and routinely denounced. Intense partisans are
drawn to the polls while those who are less ideologically committed and less fervent about
specific issues are more likely to stay away. Of course, democratic politics will always involve
clashes of interests and battles between competing, deeply held worldviews. But by magnifying
the importance of persuasion, universal voting could begin to alter the tenor of our campaigns
and encourage a politics that places greater stress on dialogue, empathy, and the common
good.6 And some citizens, initially empowered by their votes, would be drawn to deepen their
participation in other aspects of civic life. To say that everyone should vote is the surest
guarantee that everyone will be enabled to vote. Stressing the obligation to participate will, we
believe, expand the freedom to participate. As we will detail in these pages, civic duty voting
must be accompanied by other voting reforms. They include automatic voter registration at
state agencies; restoration of voting rights for citizens with felony convictions; early voting;
expanded mail-in voting; and no-excuse absentee voting.

Champion Briefs 90
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting necessitates other changes to the law that

facilitate participation, and end voter suppression.
Birch, Sarah. “Full Participation: A Comparative Study Of Compulsory Voting.” United Nations
University Press. 2009. Web. August 17, 2020.
<http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/sample-chapters/full_participation_web.pdf>.
Compulsory voting is necessarily embedded in a complex set of regulations governing the
conduct of elections, and these regulations shape each other. States where there is a legal
obligation to attend the polls have reason to make voting as easy as possible for the citizenry,
as this will lessen the costs of enforcement, and it will enhance the popular acceptability and
legitimacy of the institution. It is therefore not surprising that mandatory voting is typically
linked to an array of institutional mechanisms that facilitate electoral participation (though, as
noted above, such mechanisms are not exclusive to states where electoral participation is
required by law).

Champion Briefs 91
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Low turnout disproportionately excludes poor Americans.

, Harvard Law Review. “The Case For Compulsory Voting In The United States.” Harvard Law
Review Notes, vol. 121. 2007. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
There are serious questions about how legitimate a government is when the vast majority of
citizens have not elected it.23 This concern goes beyond the question of whether or not low
voter turnout affects substantive policy outcomes (which is unclear24). More fundamentally,
there is a serious tension with the understanding “that within our constitutional tradition,
democracy is prized because of the value of collective self-governance,”25 which is as much
about procedure as it is about substance.26 Indeed, the level of voter turnout as a percentage
of eligible voters in many recent elections would not even be sufficient to constitute a quorum
for some of the most important American political institutions.27 But the most serious
questions arise not from the sheer number of citizens whose voices are not counted,28 but
from the fact that certain groups are uriderrepresented.29 Partly because of disparities in
turnout rates by demographic categories, the center of political gravity has shifted toward the
wealthiest white Americans.30 Government may not be giving adequate consideration to the
priorities of the poor or of racial minorities.31 Many would dismiss these concerns about
underrepresentation by pointing out that no one is denying the rights of nonwhites or the poor
to vote; rather, individuals in those demographic groups are simply choosing not to exercise
their rights. If they were sufficiently dissatisfied with the government, then presumably they
would change their minds and vote. Given the rational basis for nonvoting discussed above,
however, individual dissatisfaction is hardly guaranteed to encourage voting. Even a dissatisfied
individual will be unlikely to vote if she realizes that her vote has a negligible chance of affecting
the outcome of an election. Thus, even among relatively distinct demographic groups, a
majority of whose members may be seriously dissatisfied with the national political leadership,
collective action problems pose a substantial obstacle to any attempts to increase voter
turnout.

Champion Briefs 92
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting reduces the influence of money in politics.

, Harvard Law Review. “The Case For Compulsory Voting In The United States.” Harvard Law
Review Notes, vol. 121. 2007. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
In addition to the direct effect of compulsory voting on turnout, there are also several indirect
benefits. First, compulsory voting would reduce the role of money in politics.35 Political parties
would not spend as much money on their get-out-the-vote efforts since high turnout would
already be ensured and would be fairly inelastic.36 Some of the get-out-the-vote money could
be shifted to other forms of campaign spending, but not all of it. A significant amount of
spending on getting out the vote comes from groups known as 527s (a reference to the tax
code) and nonpartisan groups that are not subject to campaign finance laws.37 These groups
are limited in their abilities to campaign expressly in favor of candidates.38 Presumably, these
organizations would shift some funds from getting out the vote to issue ads (which are
permissible), but the diminishing marginal effectiveness of those ads would limit this. With this
implicit limit on spending, politicians and parties might focus somewhat less on fundraising and
be less beholden to donors.39

Champion Briefs 93
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

[Paired with “CV solves big money”] Big money in politics, which
disproportionately elevates the voices of business above ordinary
people, undermines equal representation.
Pettit, Philip. “Republicanism: A Theory Of Freedom And Government.” Oxford University Press.
1999. Web. August 17, 2020.
Before leaving this discussion of what inclusive democracy requires, there is one last and very
important point to make. Perhaps the greatest problem with making any democratic system of
government truly inclusive comes of the fact that politicians need funds in order to win
election, and that they and the parties they form have to depend on certain individuals and
companies to finance their activities. Such dependency is bound to leave the politicians
particularly alert to the interests of their financial supporters, and it means that, however
formally satisfactory, the parliament and the government are going to cease to be substantively
inclusive. Those who fund politicians and political parties can expect to have a greater voice in
government than those who do not; those who do not contribute, or who have nothing to
contribute, do not have the same chance of having their interests and ideas properly
represented in the corridors of power. What to do in order to guard against this problem?
There is no easy solution, but it is clear where policy researchers should be looking. The
questions that have to be investigated are issues like the following. Is there a way of limiting
private campaign contributions and of making allowable contributions effectively public? Is
there a way of publicly funding political candidates, say on the basis of their past performance,
the performance of their party, or the degree of community support that they can
demonstrate? Is there a way of enabling citizens to direct a limited portion of the tax they pay,
or of a state allowance due them, to the party of their choice? And finally, is there a means of
banning or limiting political advertising, given that such advertising is particularly costly and not
particularly desirable: as we well know, it easily reduces political debate to a Punch and Judy
farce (Sunstein 1993£)? The problem of controlling the influence of the economically powerful
on politicians, and more generally on government, is at once an age-old issue — it led some
traditional republicans to propose severe limits on individual wealth — and a pressing
contemporary problem. It comes up most strikingly in relation to campaign funds, but of course
it also has a presence elsewhere. Economically powerful individuals and corporations can gain a
special voice in the halls of government, for example, not just as a result of providing party
funds, but also by virtue of the fact that their initiatives — say, initiatives in the location of
industry — can have a dramatic effect on the fortunes of government. One of the greatest
challenges for republican research must be to identify measures for effectively separating the
worlds of government and business.

Champion Briefs 94
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

The libertarian notion of absolute freedom, such as that posited by

the “right not to vote,” makes democracy impossible.
Engelen, Bart. “Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy.” Acta Politica 42:23-39. 2007.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://limo.libis.be/primo-
explore/fulldisplay?docid=LIRIAS1891179&context=L&vid=Lirias&search_scope=Lirias&t
ab=default_tab&lang=en_US&fromSitemap=1>.
Libertarian opponents of compulsory voting emphasize that ‘in a free society everyone has the
right not to vote if they so choose’ (IDEA, 2004, 23). I have argued that compulsory voting does
not violate anyone’s liberties, since it allows for a whole range of alternatives and does not
entail an all too onerous burden. One can further undermine this objection by making explicit
and challenging its underlying conception of freedom and democracy. According to libertarians,
the legal-political system ought to protect individual liberties from outside interference. In their
view, compulsory voting is an unallowable intrusion into the private sphere of the sovereign
individual, his natural rights and inalienable liberties. However, the idea that every citizen has
an absolute freedom of choice amounts to a strange notion of democracy, because it assumes
that only unanimous decisions can be democratic. In contrast, it is widely held to be an
advantage of democratic decision-making procedures ‘that they can settle matters despite
disagreement. Hence, it is hard to see how any political decision-making method can respect
everyone’s liberty’ (Christiano, 2001, 3415). Such libertarian views on man, society and state
are highly problematic, because they tend to consider almost every government intervention as
an illegitimate demand on its citizens. Allowing citizens to freely choose to exercise their rights,
no strings attached, makes political decision-making practically impossible.

Champion Briefs 95
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Equality under the law requires equal democratic participation via

compulsory voting.
Hanisch, Christoph. “Kant On Democracy.” Kant-Studien 107:1: 64-88. 2016. Web. August 17,
2020. <https://www.degruyter.com/view/journals/kant/107/1/article-p64.xml>.
The point of the above argument was to show that the idea of the original contract (in its role
as incorporating the demands that the innate right imposes on any rightful political
organization) identifies a purely modal standard of possible authorization, unchecked by
reference to the people who might in fact off er such consent. Conceptualizing the standards of
republican legitimacy in this way gets us an incomplete yardstick for testing the rightfulness of
public norms and their execution. Indeed, it has turned out that the idea of the Kantian original
contract itself is not sufficiently honored, even if a law is such that “it is only possible that a
people could agree to it, […], even if the people is at present in such as situation or frame of
mind that, if consulted about it, it would probably refuse its consent.”⁵⁷ While satisfying that
standard remains necessary for the law, policy, or decision in question to be legitimate, and
while this aspect of the innate right and of the original contract indeed puts limits on what laws
are possibly given and executed in a legitimate way, asserting one’s equal legal personality
requires, in addition to all that, one’s normatively relevant act of participating in the law’s
enactment and execution within the setting of democratic procedures and institutions.⁵⁸, ⁵⁹
[FOOTNOTE 58 BEGINS] Unfortunately, I cannot develop this argument one last further step.
Not only do I believe that a defense of democratic sovereignty falls out of Kant’s innate right,
but I think this argument must go one step further, namely into the direction of compulsory
democratic participation (e.g., compulsory voting like in Australia). That some (maybe many)
individuals do not put much value on democratic participation and would prefer to spend their
time and resources doing something else is ultimately incompatible with Kant’s “postulate of
public law, which commands us to move to a juridical state, where individual rights are
secured.” Byrd, Sharon B. & Hruschka, Joachim, op. cit., 77. Much more would have to be said,
of course, to fully develop this step from the universal obligation to leave the state of nature to
an equally universal obligation to co-structure and co-rule the normatively inescapable rightful
condition. For a related argument, though in a non-Kantian context, see Hanisch, Christoph:
Why the Law Matters to You. Berlin. 2013. [FOOTNOTE 58 ENDS]

Champion Briefs 96
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

From the perspective of freedom as non-domination, compulsory

voting is necessary to achieve political equality.
Schafer, Armin. “Republican Liberty And Compulsory Voting.” MPlfG Discussion Paper. 2011.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp11-17.pdf>.
In this article, I have shown that arguments against compulsory voting, implicitly or explicitly,
draw on premises from liberal political theory. Opponents to mandatory voting conceive of the
decision to abstain from voting as a purely individual choice. They see the right to vote as a
protective right that does not entail a duty to vote. Legally obliging citizens to vote infringes on
their liberty and is unjustified. In launching these objections, critics of compulsory voting allude
to a liberal notion of liberty which defines it in terms of non-interference. To maximize
freedom, interference and governmental authority have to be minimized. If we accept these
premises, compulsory voting seems hard to justify (but see Lacroix 2007). However, the
republican revival has rediscovered a different political tradition that builds on alternative
concepts of freedom. Neo-Roman republicans define freedom as non-domination while, from a
neo-Athenian point of view, individual liberty consists of sharing in self-government. Despite
many differences, both strands of neo-republicanism can offer normative justifications for
introducing compulsory voting. The main effect of compulsory voting is to equalize turnout
across social groups. Quite likely, higher voter turnout over time would also lead to more
egalitarian policies. Yet, the justification of compulsory voting does not depend on its potential
effects on policy outcomes but rather on its capacity to realize the democratic ideal of political
equality. The aim is to level the playing field – if this subsequently leads to changes in income
distribution, it is the result of a legitimate democratic procedure. In contrast, policies that result
from unequal participation of social groups seem much more difficult to justify. Clearly, voting
rules are not purely technical matters, but this would seem to be a greater problem for those
who defend voluntary voting than for those who favor compulsion.

Champion Briefs 97
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Equal freedom depends upon independence in a community of

political equals, where no individual or group has arbitrary influence
over the other.
Ripstein, Arthur. “Force And Freedom: Kant’s Legal And Political Philosophy.” Harvard
University Press. 2009. Web. August 17, 2020.
The right to freedom as independence provides a model of interaction that reconciles the
ability of separate persons to use their powers to pursue their own purposes. In so doing, it also
provides a distinctive concepttion of the wrongs that interfere with this independence.
Wrongdoing takes the form of domination. Both your right to independence and the violations
of it can only be explicated by reference to the actions of others. Wrongs against your person
are not outcomes that are bad for you which other people happen to cause. Unlike the familiar
“harm principle” put forward by Mill, which focuses exclusively on out comes that can be
characterized without reference to the acts that bring them about, the right to freedom focuses
exclusively on the acts of others. It is not that somebody does something that causes something
bad to happen to you; it is that somebody does something to you. The idea of freedom as
nondomination has a distinguished history in political philosophy. Recent scholars have pointed
out that Berlin’s dichotomy between negative and positive liberty leaves out a prominent idea
of liberty, sometimes referred to as the “republican” or neo-Roman conception of liberty,
according to which liberty consists in independence from others. These scholars argue that this
conception was central to the political thought of the civic republicans of the Renaissance, who
were centrally concerned with the dangers of despotism. On this reading, the early modern
republicans did not object to despotism because it interfered with their negative or positive
liberty (to use anachronistic terms they would not have recognized). A despot who was
benevolent, or even prudent, might allow people, especially potentially powerful ones,
opportunity to do what they wanted or be true to themselves. The objection was to the fact
that it was up to the despot to decide, to his having the power, quite apart from the possibility
that he would use it badly. Unless someone has a power, there is no danger of it being used
badly, but the core concern of the civic republicans was the despot’s entitlement to use it, and
the subjugation of his subjects that followed regardless of how it was used.18 [Footnote 18. See
generally Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1997), and Quentin Skinner, Liberty Before Liberalism (Cam- bridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1998). In “A Third Concept of Liberty,” Proceedings of the British
Academy 117 (2002): 239, Skinner points out that Berlin’s idea of positive liberty is not an idea
of self-mastery but of mastering yourself.] Berlin is aware of this difference when he writes, “It
is perfectly conceivable that a liberal-minded despot would allow his subjects a large measure
of personal freedom.”19 Freedom as independence carries this same idea of independence
further, to relations among citizens. It insists that everything that is wrong with being subject to
the choice of a powerful ruler is also wrong with being subject to the choice of another private
person. As a result, it can explain the nature of wrongdoing even when no harm ensues. One

Champion Briefs 98
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

person is subject to another person’s choice; I use your means to advance purposes you have
not set for yourself. Most familiar crimes are examples of one person interfering with the
freedom of another by interfering with either her exercise of her powers or her ability to
exercise them. They are small- scale versions of despotism or abuse of office.

Champion Briefs 99
AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is necessary to coordinate a political community

rooted in democratic equality. This is not paternalistic.
Hill, Lisa. “On The Justifiability Of Compulsory Voting: Reply To Lever.” British Journal of Political
Science 40:4, 917-923. October, 2010. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/40930592?seq=1>.
But there are still 'harm' grounds for resorting to compulsory voting. The harm of government
policies that distribute costs and benefits unequally may not give grounds for a duty to vote
(though I am not even sure about this); it does, however, create objective grounds or reasons
why I will want to vote in order to prevent further harm. There is a problem though: I am
inhibited by the fact that I know that others like me will probably not vote, and therefore my
vote will have little effect. Therefore, to regard compulsory voting as a paternalistic imposition
on people may be the wrong way of looking at it. Instead, it may be better understood as a co-
ordinating mechanism for reversing the norm of non- voting that exists among certain (usually
low-status) social groups and that is perpetuated by the irrationality of their voting under a
voluntary regime. In this light, rather than representing an unjustifiable burden imposed by a
paternalistic state, compulsory voting is more of a benign co-ordinating mechanism for the joint
enterprise of political community and democratic equality; in other words, it is a legitimate
response to a collective action problem caused by informational uncertainty and maladaptive
norms.

Champion Briefs 100

AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting achieves high turnout while respecting the

individual right to abstain.
Umbers, Lachlan. “Compulsory Voting: A Defence.” British Journal of Political Science. 2018.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/content/view/5D87DA25169FBC95C00468F51E40EBF7/S0007123418000303a.pdf/
compulsory_voting_a_defence.pdf>.
It is crucial to get clear immediately over the model of compulsory voting I wish to defend.
Most importantly, I do not favour systems in which citizens are subject to coercible
requirements to cast a valid ballot.1 Enforcing such requirements would require some
mechanism to check that citizens had voted correctly, undermining the secret ballot.2 Instead, I
favour systems in which (as is typical in the real world) citizens are required to either cast an
absentee ballot, or attend a polling station on election day. Citizens, as such, remain free to
abstain under compulsory voting. They can simply leave once their attendance has been
registered, or submit a spoiled ballot. I also favour regimes in which penalties for abstention are
light, but effectively enforced. In Australia, for instance, abstention is (initially) punishable by a
fine of $20 (Hill 2014, 115). Severe punishments are both disproportionate, and probably
unnecessary. While evidence indicates that effective enforcement is necessary for compulsory
voting to impact turnout, most effective regimes do not impose heavy penalties for abstention
(Birch 2009b, 8–11, 89–95).

Champion Briefs 101

AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Only mandatory voting can evenly distribute the burdens of

maintaining democracy.
Birch, Sarah. “The Case For Compulsory Voting.” Public Policy Research. March, 2009. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-
540X.2009.00550.x>.
A somewhat different but nevertheless relevant aspect of fairness is what might be termed
procedural fairness: the extent to which the burden of democracy is borne equally by all. Given
that we all are meant to benefit equally from democratic institutions, it stands to reason that
we should all have to contribute equally to their supply and maintenance. Requiring everyone
to vote effectively distributes the cost of democracy equally. This is an argument that is useful
in justifying the perceived imposition of a turnout requirement.

Champion Briefs 102

AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Elections only have democratic legitimacy when virtually all of the

population turns out.
Birch, Sarah. “The Case For Compulsory Voting.” Public Policy Research. March, 2009. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1744-
540X.2009.00550.x>.
The link between political fairness and full electoral participation is perhaps the most intuitively
obvious. In a democracy, political fairness is understood largely in terms of political equality, for
it is on the principle of ‘equal voice’ that our entire democratic system rests. Yet current
electoral events fail to grant everyone equal voice, because they fail to record all voices. And
without a record of everyone’s view, it is not possible to formulate a collective view that
reflects the perspectives of all citizens. 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.

Champion Briefs 103

AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

All citizens, for the sake of equal freedom, must be legally obligated to
maintain the democratic system. Compulsory voting does not violate
rights, because the state is acting to create the conditions in which
rights themselves are possible.
Umbers, Lachlan. “Compulsory Voting: A Defence.” British Journal of Political Science. 2018.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/content/view/5D87DA25169FBC95C00468F51E40EBF7/S0007123418000303a.pdf/
compulsory_voting_a_defence.pdf>.
Finally, it might be argued that compulsory voting violates liberal neutrality.26 Reasonable
disagreement abounds over the value of political participation. It might be argued, then, that
compelling citizens to vote violates citizens’ rights against having reasonably contested
conceptions of the good imposed upon them. This, however, misunderstands the requirements
of liberal neutrality. Compulsory voting certainly has effects that adherents of certain
conceptions of the good will find unwelcome. Yet liberal neutrality is not ultimately concerned
with ensuring neutrality in the effects of policies. If neutrality requires anything at all, it surely
requires religious tolerance, which disadvantages adherents of intolerant religions, for example.
Rather, liberal neutrality requires that policies not be justified solely by appeal to reasonably
contested conceptions of the good (Rawls 1988, 260–5). Proponents of compulsory voting do
not typically appeal to such conceptions but, rather, to values all citizens might reasonably be
expected to share (e.g. equality, [and] fairness).27 It is hard to see, then, quite how compulsory
voting is supposed to be objectionable on this score. Some more compelling argument showing
that compulsory voting is rights-violating might, perhaps, be available. Yet this seems doubtful.
Even if there were a plausible argument for a right not to vote, it would still need to be shown
that compulsory voting – wherein citizens retain their ability to abstain – would violate that
right. More generally, compulsory voting is neither particularly demanding, nor particularly
coercive. Elections come around only occasionally, and punishments under defensible regimes
of compulsory voting are light. If laws compelling citizens to pay tax or obey the speed limit are
not rights-violating, it seems unlikely that compulsory voting is rights-violating either. In the
absence of such an argument, we can safely dismiss this final line of objection.

Champion Briefs 104

AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Equal opportunity to vote is insufficient for equal freedom. The

citizenry at large must actually register their opinions in the system.
Hill, Lisa. “Republican Democracy And Compulsory Voting.” Critical Review of International
Social and Political Philosophy 18:6, 652-660. 2015. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283564947_Republican_democracy_and_c
ompulsory_voting>.
Although it does not ameliorate the problem of sticky minorities, one other very powerful way
of making people’s controlling power more individualised is compulsory voting which can
address the problem of unequal voting power that besets most electoral systems. It also has a
number of other positive effects from which the republican constitution could profit. While this
might seem like a sensible suggestion to me, I wonder why Pettit doesn’t embrace it.1 Instead
he seems to be advocating a voluntary system. After posing the question ‘what does equality in
the exercise of influence require?’ he concludes that ‘[i]t cannot require that everyone should
participate equally in the system of popular influence, since some individuals may choose not to
play their part in the system or be happy to go along with what others decide’ (Pettit 2012, p.
169, my emphasis). Pettit argues that ‘equally shared influence’ does not require that all
participate, only that there is ‘equal access to the system of popular influence’ and that so long
as everyone has ‘an opportunity for participation … with equal ease’ then the institutional
arrangements are adequate (Pettit 2012, p. 169, my emphases). I don’t think Pettit’s position
here is strong enough: equality of opportunity to participate electorally is not sufficient to
ensure individualisation, unconditionality and efficaciousness of citizen control. Rather people
must actually vote. Pettit seems inclined to the view that a lot of the time the mere threat of
electoral retaliation will be sufficient to rein governments in and that the power of the people
consists just as much in their ‘actual electoral and contestatory inputs’ as in their ‘dispositions
to make such inputs should government take a line they do not like’ (Pettit 2012, p. 306, my
emphases). I return to this point below: for the moment I want to explore why compelling
people to vote is compatible with republicanism.

Champion Briefs 105

AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Only compulsory voting enables the poor and marginalized to form

'attentive publics' that political leaders have to listen to. This is
empirically verified by more robust public goods in countries with
compulsory voting.
Hill, Lisa. “Republican Democracy And Compulsory Voting.” Critical Review of International
Social and Political Philosophy 18:6, 652-660. 2015. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283564947_Republican_democracy_and_c
ompulsory_voting>.
But in places where voting is compulsory, voting rates are both high and socially even. Of
course, there are some voluntary voting settings where turnout is also both high and therefore
socially even. But such cases are very rare: the only really reliable means by which to maintain
high turnout is to make voting mandatory (Louth and Hill 2005). From an outputs perspective,
high and socially even turnout matters because governments are more attentive to the
demands of habitual voting groups at the expense of those who abstain. Because voting is
concentrated among the more prosperous members of society, it tends to help people who are
already better off. It turns out that voter’s preferences count more. As Burnham (1987, p. 99)
once put it: ‘if you don’t vote, you don’t count’. There are many studies that have detected a
strong relationship between electoral participation rates and the implementation of public
policies that affect spending in important areas like health services, education and public
amenities (see Brennan and Hill 2014, Ch. 6). This relationship is particularly true of
redistribution that affects those on lower incomes (Mahler 2008, pp. 161, 178). In electoral
constituencies where the participation of the disadvantaged is greater, welfare policies are
more generous and the state tends to be more redistributionist. Not surprisingly, then, settings
with compulsory voting have less income inequality than voluntary systems (Birch 2009, p.
131). Concentrations of consistent voters are known as ‘attentive publics’ and attentive publics,
in turn, bask in the attention of politicians (Martin 2003, p. 112). Therefore, the kind of high and
socially even turnout that only compulsory voting can deliver makes a difference to our ability
to control governments. Full voting participation offers citizens real influence insofar as it
results in a desired and designed pattern of government behaviour that serves the objective
interests of those seeking influence. So, the mere opportunity to vote is not enough to make a
system as responsive to the attempted control of the people as it could be. An opportunity to
vote is not the same as actually voting. The opportunity to vote is certainly a necessary
condition of republican elections, but whether it is a sufficient one is debatable. Potential
electoral sanctions do not get the job done. Governments must know for sure that the people –
especially those most affected by government decisions (the poor and marginalised) – will
strike against them.

Champion Briefs 106

AFF: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting stimulates effective political contestation outside

of elections---relying on that resistance alone cedes the political to
elites who will crush movements.
Hill, Lisa. “Republican Democracy And Compulsory Voting.” Critical Review of International
Social and Political Philosophy 18:6, 652-660. 2015. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283564947_Republican_democracy_and_c
ompulsory_voting>.
3. Compulsory voting helps to stimulate contestation Finally, compulsory voting can ease the
challenges of mobilising a resistance prone citizenry. Since escalating civic withdrawal
(particularly among the young and disadvantaged) is a major problem facing advanced
democracies everywhere, finding ways to mobilise Pettit’s contestatory citizenry would likely be
the greatest practical obstacle his republic’s realisation. Ensuring near-universal electoral
participation can be helpful here both directly and indirectly. In terms of direct effects, we
know that compulsory voting has a positive impact on the ‘propensity to participate in protests
and demonstrations’ and on political participation in general (Birch 2009) therefore it works to
stimulate active citizenship not only at elections but between elections. Indirectly, the near-
complete voting participation it can guarantee helps to protect the contestatory framework
within which citizens are supposed to agitate. It is surely vital to elect assemblies that are not
tyrannical or biased towards the interests of those who might not welcome contestation; that
do not seek to erode the spheres of resistance (civil society) upon which the republic depends.
Representative assemblies are central to determining the breadth and legality of democratic
resistance. It is the legislature that often determines the democratic framework, that is,
whether the spheres of contestation will be allowed to exist at all. It can constrain free speech
and the right to protest; it can outlaw certain interest groups and make striking illegal. Once
these abridgements happen, the dangers of overreliance on resistance between elections
become apparent. Participating in the selection of those who make decisions about the
existence and extent of the spheres of contestation is therefore central to the moderation of
domination. We are more likely to avoid a dominating government when everyone – not just
elites – votes. Voting for our democratic representatives is a special activity, not just one of the
many ways in which we can participate politically. Given the relatively low costs involved, it is
reasonable to conscript voters so that they can enjoy the freedom of living in a properly
functioning republic with multiple access points for resistance. In sum, contestation between
elections is not ‘the only hope’ for republican vitality: elections themselves can be great aids if
the will is there to make them work better.

Champion Briefs 107

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Social Contract AC

The social contract affirmative is one of the hallmarks of traditional debate. At every
traditional tournament, it is almost guaranteed that this strategy will be employed. This
resolution has a particularly good link to social contract: it questions what a citizen’s obligations
are as part of a democratic nation.
When reading this affirmative, debaters are not bound to a specific impact or set of
impacts. The thesis claim of this affirmative is that citizens agree to engage in the democratic
process of voting when they enter into the social contract of a democracy. The core burden of
the affirmative is to prove that people have this ethical, contractual obligation to their nation.
After proving this obligation, debaters are free to add in any impacts they’d like. This means
that debaters can structure their affirmatives to be strong against any type of negative case.
The impacts that we’ve included relate to material violence, preservation of democracy,
violence, economic outcomes, inclusion, and accessibility. These impacts can be leveraged
against utilitarian, equality-based, and liberty-based negatives. The most important thing that
affirmative debaters need to do when reading this affirmative is to prove that there is a
contractual obligation to vote. Debaters can do this by appealing to democratic ideals, the
democratic benefits of voting, and the obligations that citizens have to other people living in
their nation.
When preparing blocks, affirmative debaters should be prepared to answer negative
arguments that state that people do not have an obligation to vote. In order to do this, the
affirmative can look past and current instances of compulsory voting and articulate how these
policies are necessary for people to fulfill their side of the social contract.
In order to answer this case, negative debaters have to win one core claim: that
compulsory voting is not necessary for people to uphold their end of the social contract. To do
this, negative debaters can appeal to past instances of oppressive compulsory voting policies,
structural problems with compulsory voting, and inequalities that would be created by
compulsory voting.

Champion Briefs 108

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

At its core, this affirmative is won or lost on the link to a citizen’s contractual
obligations. When choosing which impacts to read for the affirmative or which impacts to read
against the affirmative, debaters should remain aware of how these impacts can be used to
justify this link to the social contract. For example, when reading an argument about how
voting prevents oppression, the affirmative should be aware that they will be able to use this
oppression-based argument to state that protection of oppressed members of society is one of
the obligations of a democratic citizenry. While this affirmative allows for a broad variety of
impacts, it is important to remember that the impacts must be linked to the framework.

Champion Briefs 109

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Voting is key to preventing material violence.

Brennan, Jason. “The Ethics Of Voting.” Princeton University Press. April 29, 2012. Web. August
13, 2020. <http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9464.pdf>.
When we vote, we can make government better or worse. In turn, our votes can make people’s
lives better or worse. If we make bad choices at the polls, we get racist, sexist, and homophobic
laws. Economic opportunities vanish or fail to materialize. We fight unjust and unnecessary
wars. We spend trillions on ill-conceived stimulus plans and entitlement programs that do little
to stimulate economies or alleviate poverty. We fail to spend money on programs that would
work better. We get overregulation in some places, underregulation in others, and lots of
regulation whose sole effect is to secure unfair economic advantages for special interests. We
inflict and perpetuate injustice. We leave the poor behind. We wage drug wars that ghettoize
inner cities. We throw too many people in jail. We base our immigration and trade policies on
xenophobia and defunct economic theories. Voting is morally significant. Voting changes the
quality, scope, and kind of government. The way we vote can help or harm people. Electoral
outcomes can be harmful or beneficial, just or unjust. They can exploit the minority for the
benefit of the majority. They can do widespread harm with little benefit for anyone. So, in this
book, I argue that we have moral obligations concerning how we should vote. Not just any vote
is morally acceptable.

Champion Briefs 110

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Under the social contract, citizens have an obligation to ensure the

government isn’t corrupt. Voting is the best way to do this.
Brennan, Jason. “The Ethics Of Voting.” Princeton University Press. April 29, 2012. Web. August
13, 2020. <http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/i9464.pdf>.
From a moral point of view, voting is not like ordering food off of a menu. When you order
salad at a restaurant, you alone bear the consequences of your decision. No one else gets stuck
with a salad. If you make a bad choice, at least you are hurting only yourself. For the most part,
you internalize all of the costs and benefits of your decision. Voting is not like that. If anything,
when we vote, we are imposing one meal on everybody. [1] If you were appointed the Dinner
Czar—who must decide what everyone will have for dinner each night—your decisions would
be of obvious moral consequence. As Dinner Czar, you would externalize most of the costs and
benefits of your decisions. It would be a big responsibility. You better not force diabetics to eat
too much sugar, make vegans eat meat, or make Muslims eat pork. Or, if you did do these
things, you better have good reasons. Now, in voting, nobody chooses by herself. Each vote
counts, but it does not count much. We decide electoral outcomes together. How we vote has
consequences; how you vote does not. However, there are moral principles governing how
people ought to behave when participating in collective activities. Even though individual votes
almost never have a significant impact on election results in any large-scale election, I argue
that this does not let individuals off the hook. Individual voters have moral obligations
concerning how they vote. Obviously, the good and bad that governments do are not entirely
attributable to how we vote. Our voting behavior is just one of many factors affecting political
outcomes. Despite steadfast and sure democratic oversight, a bad policy might be implemented
out of bureaucratic caprice or a politician’s corruption. For my purposes, what matters is that
votes, on the whole, do make a difference. Political parties have policy bents— dispositions to
implement certain kinds of policies rather than others. When voters vote for members of a
party with a particular policy bent, this greatly increases the probability that those kinds of
policies will be implemented. [2] Other factors besides voting also determine policy outcomes.
This means that we cannot solve all political problems just by getting voters to vote better. That
said, better voting would tend to lead to better government.

Champion Briefs 111

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Elections are key to preserving many aspects of a successful society,

including checking illegitimate government and preserving
constitutional rights.
Victor, Jennifer. “What Good Are Elections, Anyway?.” Vox. October 30, 2018. Web. August 13,
2020. <https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/10/30/18032808/what-good-
are-elections>.
1) Elections help us generate community and feel connected to people who are like us. There is
nothing more natural in human instinct and behavior than to establish ourselves as a part of
some group. We endlessly identify ourselves as parts of groups we value or see as like us. We
publicly signal our gender, our team loyalty, our occupation, our income status, and even our
political party, to those seeking to figure out how to categorize us. By participating in elections,
we can be a part of a community. We can participate in an event that our neighbors are
participating in. We can identify ourselves as part of a group that we value (whether that’s
voters, Democrats, Republicans, or people who like donuts on Tuesdays). Elections give us a
way to be a part of something, and this is an essential part of being human. 2) Elections help us
participate in civic culture. Civic culture includes any activity that goes on in the place where
you live that affects how you live. Whether you are skeptical of the civics around you and seek
to change them, or you value the civics around you and want to encourage them, the
institutions that make up your community are a part of your civics. Elections are a way to
engage with those institutions and participate in key aspects of your well-being. Midterm
elections are not one election, but 10,000 local elections held by every community in the
country at the same time. This is a powerful opportunity to connect to the people around us. 3)
Elections are a means of individual and group expression. The right to express oneself is deeply
embedded in American culture. The First Amendment to the Constitution talks about a right to
individual speech and expression, and it’s one of the most valued rights Americans have. When
one cannot freely express themselves, they are restricted, restrained, or censored in a way that
is antithetical to a free society. Expression comes in many forms, and whether it’s truly a
function of individual agency or not, it’s an important component of human experience.
Elections are the key mechanism we have to express ourselves. Even if those feelings are
misguided, based on falsehoods, fickle, or fleeting, the opportunity to be counted is strongly
valued and has a revered place in America. This is not enough, you say? Then consider not
voting, and everyone you know not voting. Imagine what it would feel like to try to accept the
results of an election or policy change in the absence of any opportunity to have expressed a
preference. The result would lack authority or legitimacy. Voting does not create legitimacy, but
not voting guarantees illegitimacy.

Champion Briefs 112

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Participating in democracy is the best way to overcome challenges to

democracy.
Gregorian, Vartan. “American Voters Are Responsible For Protecting Democracy.” TIME.
November 02, 2016. Web. August 13, 2020. <https://time.com/4554937/citizen-
responsibility-democracy-tocqueville/>.
We as Americans cannot abdicate our responsibilities and claim our rights at the same time. He
did recognize, though, that democracy constantly faces great risks and challenges. As a
supporter of both the free press and the open discussion of ideas as critical to the vitality of
democracy, he may himself have been musing on the possibility of even a free and progressive
society degenerating into “Orwellian” conditions when he wrote, “I am aware that, at a time
like our own, when the love and respect which formerly clung to authority are seen gradually to
decline, it may appear necessary to those in power to lay a closer hold on every man by his own
interest, and it may seem convenient to use his own passions to keep him in order and in
silence.” So far, as Americans, we have thankfully managed to avoid allowing ourselves to be
manacled by all-powerful overlords or permitting the strength of our democracy to be leeched
away by the fear of what the future may bring. That does not mean, however, that we must not
constantly be mindful of the importance of preserving our democratic principles and defending
the individual freedoms that are the legacy of our founders’ trust in the nation they established
and in the descendants to whom they bequeathed the guardianship of their great “experiment
in liberty.” Tocqueville believed that true democracy stands for and promotes the equal right of
all citizens to the advantages of this world, yet at the same time causes anxiety in our quest to
attain these advantages. Frustrated by the apparent tension between liberty and equality, the
individual is often pressured to choose between the two. And that pressure may come from the
same democratic government that citizens have put in place to protect their freedoms.
Tocqueville writes: “The true friends of the liberty and the greatness of man ought constantly to
be on the alert, to prevent the power of government from lightly sacrificing the private rights of
individuals to the general execution of its designs. At such times, no citizen is so obscure that it
is not very dangerous to allow him to be oppressed; no private rights are so important that they
can be surrendered with impunity to the caprices of a government.” Nevertheless, referring to
the push and pull between equality and freedom that are endemic to both the American
character and the American political process, Tocqueville went on to say, “I firmly believe that
these dangers are the most formidable… but I do not think they are insurmountable.” I would
add that it is only possible to confront these challenges with the participation of a committed
citizenry.

Champion Briefs 113

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Citizens that consistently participate are necessary to preserve

democracy.
Gregorian, Vartan. “American Voters Are Responsible For Protecting Democracy.” TIME.
November 02, 2016. Web. August 13, 2020. <https://time.com/4554937/citizen-
responsibility-democracy-tocqueville/>.
As in the past, if America is to continue its course of progress, one thing is clear: not only do we
need exceptional captains of our ship of state, but committed citizens, too. We as Americans
cannot abdicate our responsibilities and claim our rights at the same time. After all, a
committed citizenry—assisted by a responsive free press—is the best watchdog of democracy.
To paraphrase one of my illustrious predecessors at Carnegie Corporation, John W. Gardner,
when it comes to our democracy, we must be loving critics and critical lovers, but never
indifferent. Our challenges today are different than those faced during Tocqueville’s time—
whether ensuring the universal right to high-quality education, fighting against economic
inequality, or preserving freedom of speech. As citizens, we are all responsible for preserving
liberties while rectifying inequities. We are, each and every one of us, the guardians of our
democracy. Indeed, as Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Alan Taylor reminds us in the cover story
of the most recent issue of the American Scholar, the founders warned that uneducated voters
make us vulnerable to reckless demagogues. Today we as Americans still strive to safeguard our
democracy while taking great care to balance our quest for social and economic justice for all
with our foundational commitment to individual freedom. Liberty, as the history of our nation
and many others has shown, is an irreplaceable prize that, without vigilance, is easily lost.

Champion Briefs 114

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy promotes liberty.

Lynn-Jones, Sean. “Why The United States Should Spread Democracy.” Harvard Kennedy School
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. March, 1998. Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-
democracy>.
The first way in which the spread of democracy enhances the lives of those who live in
democracies is by promoting individual liberty, including freedom of expression, freedom of
conscience, and freedom to own private property.22 Respect for the liberty of individuals is an
inherent feature of democratic politics. As Samuel Huntington has written, liberty is “the
peculiar virtue of democracy.”23 A democratic political process based on electoral competition
depends on freedom of expression of political views and freedom to make electoral choices.
Moreover, governments that are accountable to the public are less likely to deprive their
citizens of human rights. The global spread of democracy is likely to bring greater individual
liberty to more and more people. Even imperfect and illiberal democracies tend to offer more
liberty than autocracies, and liberal democracies are very likely to promote liberty. Freedom
House's 1997 survey of “Freedom in the World” found that 79 out of 118 democracies could be
classified as “free” and 39 were “partly free” and, of those, 29 qualified as “high partly free.” In
contrast, only 20 of the world's 73 nondemocracies were “partly free” and 53 were “not
free.”24 The case for the maximum possible amount of individual freedom can be made on the
basis of utilitarian calculations or in terms of natural rights. The utilitarian case for increasing
the amount of individual liberty rests on the belief that increased liberty will enable more
people to realize their full human potential, which will benefit not only themselves but all of
humankind. This view holds that greater liberty will allow the human spirit to flourish, thereby
unleashing greater intellectual, artistic, and productive energies that will ultimately benefit all
of humankind. The rights-based case for liberty, on the other hand, does not focus on the
consequences of increased liberty, but instead argues that all men and women, by virtue of
their common humanity, have a right to freedom. This argument is most memorably expressed
in the American Declaration of Independence: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all
Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness ELLIPSIS” The virtues of greater
individual liberty are not self-evident. Various political ideologies argue against making liberty
the paramount goal of any political system. Some do not deny that individual liberty is an
important goal, but call for limiting it so that other goals may be achieved. Others place greater
emphasis on obligations to the community. The British Fabian Socialist Sidney Webb, for
example, articulated this view clearly: “The perfect and fitting development of each individual is
not necessarily the utmost and highest cultivation of his own personality, but the filling, in the
best possible way, of his humble function in the great social machine.”25 To debate these
issues thoroughly would require a paper far longer than this one.26 The short response to most
critiques of liberty is that there appears to be a universal demand for liberty among human
beings. Particularly as socioeconomic development elevates societies above subsistence levels,

Champion Briefs 115

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

individuals desire more choice and autonomy in their lives. More important, most political
systems that have been founded on principles explicitly opposed to liberty have tended to
devolve into tyrannies or to suffer economic, political, or social collapse.

Champion Briefs 116

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democratic governments use less violence against their citizens.

Lynn-Jones, Sean. “Why The United States Should Spread Democracy.” Harvard Kennedy School
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. March, 1998. Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-
democracy>.
Second, America should spread liberal democracy because the citizens of liberal democracies
are less likely to suffer violent death in civil unrest or at the hands of their governments.27
These two findings are supported by many studies, but particularly by the work of R.J. Rummel.
Rummel finds that democracies-by which he means liberal democracies-between 1900 and
1987 saw only 0.14% of their populations (on average) die annually in internal violence. The
corresponding figure for authoritarian regimes was 0.59% and for totalitarian regimes 1.48%.28
Rummel also finds that citizens of liberal democracies are far less likely to die at the hands of
their governments. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes have been responsible for the
overwhelming majority of genocides and mass murders of civilians in the twentieth century.
The states that have killed millions of their citizens all have been authoritarian or totalitarian:
the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, Nazi Germany, Nationalist China, Imperial
Japan, and Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Democracies have virtually never massacred
their own citizens on a large scale, although they have killed foreign civilians during wartime.
The American and British bombing campaigns against Germany and Japan, U.S. atrocities in
Vietnam, massacres of Filipinos during the guerrilla war that followed U.S. colonization of the
Philippines after 1898, and French killings of Algerians during the Algerian War are some
prominent examples.29 There are two reasons for the relative absence of civil violence in
democracies: (1) Democratic political systems-especially those of liberal democracies constrain
the power of governments, reducing their ability to commit mass murders of their own
populations. As Rummel concludes, “Power kills, absolute power kills absolutely ... The more
freely a political elite can control the power of the state apparatus, the more thoroughly it can
repress and murder its subjects.”30 (2) Democratic polities allow opposition to be expressed
openly and have regular processes for the peaceful transfer of power. If all participants in the
political process remain committed to democratic principles, critics of the government need not
stage violent revolutions and governments will not use violence to repress opponents.31

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 117

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democratic nations experience better economic outcomes.

Lynn-Jones, Sean. “Why The United States Should Spread Democracy.” Harvard Kennedy School
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. March, 1998. Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-
democracy>.
A third reason for promoting democracy is that democracies tend to enjoy greater prosperity
over long periods of time. As democracy spreads, more individuals are likely to enjoy greater
economic benefits. Democracy does not necessarily usher in prosperity, although some
observers claim that “a close correlation with prosperity” is one of the “overwhelming
advantages” of democracy.32 Some democracies, including India and the Philippines, have
languished economically, at least until the last few years. Others are among the most
prosperous societies on earth. Nevertheless, over the long haul democracies generally prosper.
As Mancur Olson points out: “It is no accident that the countries that have reached the highest
level of economic performance across generations are all stable democracies.”33 Authoritarian
regimes often compile impressive short-run economic records. For several decades, the Soviet
Union's annual growth in gross national product (GNP) exceeded that of the United States,
leading Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev to pronounce “we will bury you.” China has posted
double-digit annual GNP increases in recent years. But autocratic countries rarely can sustain
these rates of growth for long. As Mancur Olson notes, “experience shows that relatively poor
countries can grow extraordinarily rapidly when they have a strong dictator who happens to
have unusually good economic policies, such growth lasts only for the ruling span of one or two
dictators.”34 The Soviet Union was unable to sustain its rapid growth; its economic failings
ultimately caused the country to disintegrate in the throes of political and economic turmoil.
Most experts doubt that China will continue its rapid economic expansion. Economist Jagdish
Bhagwati argues that “no one can maintain these growth rates in the long term. Sooner or later
China will have to rejoin the human race.”35 Some observers predict that the stresses of high
rates of economic growth will cause political fragmentation in China.36 Why do democracies
perform better than autocracies over the long run? Two reasons are particularly persuasive
explanations. First, democracies-especially liberal democracies-are more likely to have market
economies, and market economies tend to produce economic growth over the long run. Most
of the world's leading economies thus tend to be market economies, including the United
States, Japan, the “tiger” economies of Southeast Asia, and the members of the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development. Two recent studies suggest that there is a direct
connection between economic liberalization and economic performance. Freedom House
conducted a World Survey of Economic Freedom for 1995-96, which evaluated 80 countries
that account for 90% of the world's population and 99% of the world's wealth on the basis of
criteria such as the right to own property, operate a business, or belong to a trade union. It
found that the countries rated “free” generated 81% of the world's output even though they
had only 17% of the world's population.37 A second recent study confirms the connection
between economic freedom and economic growth. The Heritage Foundation has constructed

Champion Briefs 118

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

an Index of Economic Freedom that looks at 10 key areas: trade policy, taxation, government
intervention, monetary policy, capital flows and foreign investment, banking policy, wage and
price controls, property rights, regulation, and black market activity. It has found that countries
classified as “free” had annual 1980-1993 real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP)
(expressed in terms of purchasing power parities) growth rates of 2.88%. In “mostly free”
countries the rate was 0.97%, in “mostly not free” ones -0.32%, and in “repressed” countries -
1.44%.38 Of course, some democracies do not adopt market economies and some autocracies
do, but liberal democracies generally are more likely to pursue liberal economic policies.
Second, democracies that embrace liberal principles of government are likely to create a stable
foundation for long-term economic growth. Individuals will only make long-term investments
when they are confident that their investments will not be expropriated. These and other
economic decisions require assurances that private property will be respected and that
contracts will be enforced. These conditions are likely to be met when an impartial court
system exists and can require individuals to enforce contracts. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan
Greenspan has argued that: “The guiding mechanism of a free market economy ... is a bill of
rights, enforced by an impartial judiciary.”39 These conditions also happen to be those that are
necessary to maintain a stable system of free and fair elections and to uphold liberal principles
of individual rights. Mancur Olson thus points out that “the conditions that are needed to have
the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same
conditions that are needed to have a lasting democracy. ... the same court system, independent
judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are
also required for security of property and contract rights.”40 Thus liberal democracy is the basis
for long-term economic growth. A third reason may operate in some circumstances: democratic
governments are more likely to have the political legitimacy necessary to embark on difficult
and painful economic reforms.41 This factor is particularly likely to be important in former
communist countries, but it also appears to have played a role in the decisions India and the
Philippines have taken in recent years to pursue difficult economic reforms.42

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 119

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

The spread of democracy promotes international peace.

Lynn-Jones, Sean. “Why The United States Should Spread Democracy.” Harvard Kennedy School
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. March, 1998. Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.belfercenter.org/publication/why-united-states-should-spread-
democracy>.
In addition to improving the lives of individual citizens in new democracies, the spread of
democracy will benefit the international system by reducing the likelihood of war. Democracies
do not wage war on other democracies. This absence-or near absence, depending on the
definitions of “war” and “democracy” used-has been called “one of the strongest nontrivial and
nontautological generalizations that can be made about international relations.”51 One scholar
argues that “the absence of war between democracies comes as close as anything we have to
an empirical law in international relations.”52 If the number of democracies in the international
system continues to grow, the number of potential conflicts that might escalate to war will
diminish. Although wars between democracies and nondemocracies would persist in the short
run, in the long run an international system composed of democracies would be a peaceful
world. At the very least, adding to the number of democracies would gradually enlarge the
democratic “zone of peace.” 1. The Evidence for the Democratic Peace Many studies have
found that there are virtually no historical cases of democracies going to war with one another.
In an important two-part article published in 1983, Michael Doyle compares all international
wars between 1816 and 1980 and a list of liberal states.53 Doyle concludes that
“constitutionally secure liberal states have yet to engage in war with one another.”54
Subsequent statistical studies have found that this absence of war between democracies is
statistically significant and is not the result of random chance.55 Other analyses have concluded
that the influence of other variables, including geographical proximity and wealth, do not
detract from the significance of the finding that democracies rarely, if ever, go to war with one
another.56 Most studies of the democratic-peace proposition have argued that democracies
only enjoy a state of peace with other democracies; they are just as likely as other states to go
to war with nondemocracies.57 There are, however, several scholars who argue that
democracies are inherently less likely to go to war than other types of states.58 The evidence
for this claim remains in dispute, however, so it would be premature to claim that spreading
democracy will do more than to enlarge the democratic zone of peace.

Champion Briefs 120

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting keeps politics focused on the needs of everyone

and not the fringe minority – Australia proves.
Alcorn, Gay. “How Australia's Compulsory Voting Saved It From Trumpism.” The Guardian.
March 07, 2019. Web. August 13, 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2019/mar/08/how-australias-compulsory-voting-saved-it-from-trumpism>.
While Australia was not the first country to have compulsory voting – that was Belgium – it
happened early, with Queensland the first state in 1914 (for whites only). Federally, it has been
compulsory to vote in elections since 1924. From Secret Ballot To Democracy Sausage: How
Australia got Compulsory Voting, by Judith Brett. The idea that the uninterested or the ignorant
should not be forced to vote never took serious hold, with modern surveys showing more than
70% support for compulsory voting. The most common argument in favour when it was
introduced, writes Brett, was that “the elected government should represent not just the
majority of those who vote but the majority of those eligible to vote. This would increase the
government’s legitimacy and make sure it paid attention to the interest of all the people”.
Today, more than 90% of those on the roll turn up. You don’t actually have to vote, but you
have to attend a polling booth, even if you stuff a blank or spoiled ballot in the box. Australia
was an electoral innovator in many ways, but the historic disenfranchisement of Indigenous
people is a “shameful story”, Brett says. When the 1902 federal Franchise Act came to be
debated, the proposed law would have given “all adult persons” the right to vote in a national
election, including Indigenous Australians as well as women – but the new government
compromised to get the bill passed. The West Australian senator Alexander Matheson moved
the amendment denying the vote to Indigenous people, saying, “Surely it is absolutely
repugnant to the greater number of the people of the commonwealth that an Aboriginal man,
or Aboriginal lubra or gin – a horrible, dirty, degraded creature – should have the same rights,
simply by virtue of being 21 years of age, that we have, after some debate today, decided to
give to your wives and daughters.” It took until 1962 for Indigenous Australians in all states to
get the right to vote in federal elections, and it was only after the election of the Hawke
government in 1983 that they were required to enrol. The Franchise Act, Brett says, became
another of the “infamous stepping stones of cruelty and shame” in the treatment of First
Australians. Compulsory voting keeps politics focused on the centre rather than the fringe of
politics. To win elections, political parties have to appeal not just to their base but to the
majority of people. Australia is also one of only a few countries with preferential voting, which
means a voter ranks candidates in order of preference, compared with most countries where
the candidate with the most votes wins. It ensures that those elected have the support of the
majority of voters. “It keeps the emotional temper of the conflict down,” says Brett. “That’s
become more evident recently with the way politics has gone in the United States, where
you’ve had issues around sexuality and race being used to motivate voters. If you need to get
out the vote, you need to have things that people are going to feel passionate about, and that’s
not necessarily such a good thing.”

Champion Briefs 121

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting will force politicians to address broader concerns

and won’t skew votes to the left or right.
Greenblatt, Alan. “What Would Happen If America Made Voting Mandatory?.” Governing.com.
February, 2016. Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-compulsory-voting-
switzerland.html>.
There’s already one thing we can say for sure about this year’s elections: Not enough people
are going to vote. Turnout in 2012 was 55 percent, down from the presidential election held
four years earlier. In the midterm elections of 2014, only 36 percent of Americans voted -- the
worst showing in more than 70 years. Such anemic results have resuscitated an idea that’s been
put into practice in about 30 other countries: making voting a civic requirement. “It would be
transformative if everybody voted,” President Obama said last year. But even supporters of
compulsory voting don’t think it’s going to happen in the U.S. The very idea of forcing people to
vote seems, well, anti-democratic. What’s more, it’s a partisan issue. As Obama himself
suggests, the people who tend not to vote often look like Democrats -- the poor, the young,
members of minority groups. One recent study of ballot measures in Switzerland found that
compulsory voting boosted the progressive position by up to 20 percentage points. Most
academic research, however, has found that mandatory voting does not move the average
voter to the left, according to Jason Brennan, a professor at Georgetown University and co-
author of Compulsory Voting: For and Against. “There’s a widespread belief among Democrats
that compulsory voting would deliver more states to Democrats,” he says. “It turns out that’s
not true. The people who vote and the people who don’t vote are roughly the same in terms of
their partisan preferences.” That doesn’t mean the population of actual voters perfectly reflects
the nation as a whole. The biggest difference between voters and nonvoters is not partisan
ideology but information, suggests Brennan. “The crop of people who are not voting are less
informed than the people who are voting right now.” That alone leads to conflicting opinions,
even among members of the same party. Martin Gilens, a political scientist at Princeton
University, says so-called “low-information members” of the Democratic Party hold views on
issues such as gay rights, military force and free trade that are the opposite of Democrats who
follow policy debates more closely. So even if partisan outcomes wouldn’t change appreciably
under a mandated voting system, the political system itself would change. Supporters of
compulsory voting say that would force politicians to address broader concerns, rather than
appealing to narrow bases. “Ideally, a democracy will take into account the interests and views
of all citizens so that its decisions represent the will of the entire people,” concludes a recent
Brookings Institution paper promoting mandatory voting. “If some regularly vote while others
do not, elected officials are likely to give less weight to the interests and views of
nonparticipants.” Georgetown’s Brennan is dubious that appealing to the masses will be all
good, though. “Compulsory voting probably reduces the quality of government by some small
amount,” he says, “because you are reducing the knowledge of the median voter.”

Champion Briefs 122

AFF: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting decreases political apathy and increases focus on

issues impacting young people.
Iovenko, Chris. “These Countries Make Voting Mandatory. Could It Work In The United States?.”
Huffington Post. June 01, 2020. Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.huffpost.com/entry/countries-voting-mandatory-united-
states_n_5ed1301ec5b6658234cf8796>.
Chapman thinks compulsory voting could be “an important tool for combating political apathy”
in the United States. Proponents of compulsory voting argue that requiring underrepresented
groups to come out and vote would force politicians to take their concerns seriously, which in
turn makes people feel empowered and gives them hope their voices will be heard. “If you
want people to care about the political system, it surely helps to show that the political system
cares about them and won’t make decisions without hearing from every citizen,” she said.
Some 70% of nonvoters in the U.S. are under the age of 50, and roughly one-third are under 30
years old. Low voter turnout among younger people provides little incentive for politicians to
support policies that benefit them, which in turn disincentivizes those voters even further. For
example, according to polls, 80% of 18- to 29-year-olds feel that climate change is a “major
threat” to human survival. However, the issue isn’t a top concern to more conservative high-
turnout voters, so even minor action on climate change continues to face entrenched political
opposition in Washington, year after year. It stands to reason that if younger people voted at
the same level as older citizens, issues like student loan debt, gun control and climate change
would get more serious attention and political traction at both the state and national levels.

Champion Briefs 123

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Structural Violence AC

This topic was a huge shock to me once I discovered the wide array of available
literature for so many types of arguments. I am very excited that I get to share this concept
within the brief as there are very strong links to structural violence framing within this topic.
The argument I present is centered around a focus on socio-economic issues as well as issues
regarding marginalized communities.
The framework prioritizes the need for an inclusive method that listens to all lived
experiences in order to dictate the best ethical method to solve a problem. This is very similar
to the way feminist frameworks function, however, you need to be able to make a firm
distinction that this focuses on everyone having a voice within the process and being able to
use all of these lived experiences to make a change that will benefit all individuals. This also
directly focuses on institutional violence from the political and dominant populations, but
analyzes the key role marginalized populations play in politics.
The offense here is very unique because there are several authors that make a very
clear and warranted argument that those who identify as part of the marginalized seem to lack
access to the political. The argument furthers such claims by exacerbating the problems
between polling and democratic participation. A similar claim can be made to those who
experience certain socio-economic disadvantages that prevent them from being able to have
equal representation when it comes to freedom of expression in the elections. There is so much
offense within the topic on the affirmative so even if you choose not to read this you still should
definitely read the articles just as a form of out-of-round education.
This argument does explain really well why those who struggle socio-economically are
less likely to have a voice in policy making while also explaining why our relations require
diverse perspectives. I think being able to debate issues like these can allow for some really cool
discussions, again even if you aren’t interested in reading this as a position I would definitely
take the time to read over some of the arguments just so you can be aware of situations that
are currently taking place within our economy.

Champion Briefs 124

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting ensures that wealthy elites don’t control politics.

Weller, Chris. “There's A Proven Way To Get More People To Vote, But The US Won't Do It.”
Business Insider. October 30, 2016. Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.businessinsider.com/compulsory-voting-what-if-americans-have-to-vote-
2016-10>.
For such an advanced democracy, many Americans just don't vote. In recent elections, turnout
has ranged from about 50% to 60% of the voting-age population. But there's a simple change
that the US could make to boost turnout dramatically, something that has worked in at least 26
other democracies. We could make Americans vote. President Barack Obama has endorsed the
idea, and yet it has never taken hold in the US, for a variety of reasons. But many experts think
it's a good idea. Benefits of mandatory voting The two countries leading in voter turnout are
Belgium and Turkey, according to Pew Research data. In their most recent elections, those
countries saw 87% and 84% turnout, respectively. The last US presidential election saw just 55%
of people rocking the vote. Political scientists worry about this because older and wealthier
Americans vote more often than anyone else. This means leaders' policies are more likely to
favor their interests over other groups. It's called “class bias.” Compulsory voting is a fairly old
solution. Belgium first enacted its law in 1892, and Argentina in 1914, both as ways to keep the
general population invested politically. It doesn't take much to get results. In Australia, where
voting has been mandatory since 1924, the fine for not voting once is $20. After that, each fine
is $50. If you never pay up you could lose your driver's license. In Belgium, after racking up
penalties, chronic vote avoiders risk losing the ability to vote for 10 years. In the US,
compulsory voting has barely entered mainstream conversation. In May of last year, President
Obama publicly endorsed compulsory voting for the first time, telling a crowd in Cleveland that
“it would be transformative if everybody voted” specifically because of the class-bias effect.
“The people who tend not to vote are young, they're lower income, they're skewed more
heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups,” Obama said. “There's a reason why
some folks try to keep them away from the polls.” One 2013 study found Australia's turnout
rate was like a lot of advanced democracies before it switched, in 1924, at which point the law
forced working-class people — many of whom were otherwise disengaged from the political
process — to learn about politics out of necessity

Champion Briefs 125

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Voter turnout affects the ideals upheld by democratic principles.

Moyo, Dambisa. “Make Voting Mandatory In The U.S.” New York Times. October 15, 2019.
Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/opinion/united-states-
voting-mandatory.html>.
Around the world, citizens appear to be re-engaging with democracy. In May, voter turnout at
the European parliamentary elections reached a 20-year high, and in 2018 turnout for the
United States midterm elections was the highest in a hundred years. Yet in each instance, voter
turnout reached just a feeble 50 percent. In the context of recent history, that was a surge. In
the 2014 United States midterms, only 37 percent of the electorate voted, rising to 50 percent
in 2018. In Europe, this year’s turnout was 50 percent — up from 42 percent in 2014. While
turnouts are higher in United States presidential elections — 60 percent in 2016 — can we say
that democracy is thriving when 40 to 50 percent of voters still opt to stay at home? The United
States is generally near the bottom of the list of well-off countries in its rate of voter
participation. Shortly after the 2014 elections, Senator Bernie Sanders admonished the country,
saying “Americans should be embarrassed.” The low voter turnout, he wrote in The Guardian,
“was an international disgrace.” Low voter turnout encourages politicians to design policies
that cater to the interests of the few over the many. This, in turn, promotes societal division
and harms the economy. In the United States, nearly half the people who don’t vote have
family incomes below $30,000, and just 19 percent of likely voters come from low-income
families. So it’s hardly surprising that the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index
downgraded the United States from a “full democracy” to a “flawed democracy” in 2017, based
on diminished voter engagement and confidence in the democratic process. This long-term
apathy puts the political system at risk. The government’s credibility is threatened when so few
people participate. In the interest of preserving democracy, we need engaged citizens to go to
the polls.

Champion Briefs 126

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting encourages higher voting turnout and greater

representation in democracy.
Moyo, Dambisa. “Make Voting Mandatory In The U.S.” New York Times. October 15, 2019.
Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/15/opinion/united-states-
voting-mandatory.html>.
In 1893 Belgium became the first democracy to institute compulsory voting by parliamentary
act. Backers saw it as a way to empower the working classes. Australia introduced compulsory
voting through an amendment to its Electoral Act in 1924, in response to declining voter
numbers. Turnout in 1922 had fallen below 60 percent from more than 70 percent in 1919. The
impact of legislation was swift: In 1925, 91 percent of the electorate voted. What’s more, a
century later, compulsory voting still works. The bigger the voter pool, the stronger the contract
is between citizens and leaders. In this year’s European parliamentary elections, mandatory
voting in Belgium and Luxembourg led respectively to turnouts of about 90 percent and 86
percent. By comparison, turnout in France was 50 percent, and in the Netherlands it was 42
percent. If the United States had mandatory voting, there likely would be a greater turnout
among lower-income groups and minorities, which could lead to a change in the types of
politicians elected. One might think this would favor Democratic candidates, but that’s not
necessarily the case. While compulsory voting has been assumed to help Australia’s Labor
Party, for example, it has not prevented right-of-center parties from holding power.

Champion Briefs 127

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting has worked in other democracies, thus proving a

positive case in the affirmative world.
Dews, Fred. “Is Compulsory Voting A Solution To America’s Low Voter Turnout And Political
Polarization?.” Brookings. December 04, 2014. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2014/12/04/is-compulsory-voting-a-
solution-to-americas-low-voter-turnout-and-political-polarization/>.
According to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, over 20
countries worldwide have compulsory voting, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Luxembourg, and Singapore. In Australia, for example, which has had compulsory voting in
federal elections since 1924, eligible citizens must mark a ballot (they don’t have to choose a
candidate) or pay a small fine, about US$17. Voter turnout is over 95 percent. Senior Fellow
Thomas Mann, the W. Averell Harriman Chair in American Governance, called mandatory
voting “the most promising” of a range of reforms designed to increase the size of the
electorate and make the parties less polarized. “It means,” he said in a recent Brookings
Cafeteria podcast, that “political parties and candidates have no incentive to spend huge
amounts of money trying to turn out their voters and to demobilize the opposition’s voters.”
And yet, Mann recognizes, such a system is “in conflict with our values of political freedom.”
Listen below and visit the podcast for his discussion of U.S. political dysfunction, possible
remedies beyond compulsory voting, and his thoughts on the 2016 presidential election. Mann
and co-author Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute went into more detail
about mandatory voting and other reform ideas in their recent book, It’s Even Worse Than It
Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided With the New Politics of Extremism
(Basic Books, 2012). In contrast to the old Soviet Union, which boasted a turnout of 99 percent,
Mann and Ornstein observed that “The Australian system has also elevated the political
dialogue.” Still, they note that most Americans oppose mandatory voting. “But they may
change their opinions,” write the authors, “after another lengthy period of dominance by
political extremes and the divisive discourse, agenda, and outcomes that follow.” In a 2011 New
York Times piece, Galston laid out three arguments in favor of mandatory voting: it would
reinforce and strengthen citizenship; it would strengthen our democracy by leveling disparities
among citizens based on education, income, and other factors; and it would diminish political
polarization. Recognizing, like Mann, the barriers to enacting such a system in the United
States, Galston proposed an experiment in which “a half-dozen states from parts of the country
with different civic traditions should experiment with the practice, and observers—journalists,
social scientists, citizens’ groups and elected officials—would monitor the consequences.” “We
don’t know what the outcome would be,” Galston concluded. “But one thing is clear: If we do
nothing and allow a politics of passion to define the bounds of the electorate, as it has for much
of the last four decades, the prospect for a less polarized, more effective political system that
enjoys the trust and confidence of the people is not bright.”

Champion Briefs 128

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Absent majority of the population voting- democracies appear less

legitimate.
, Harvard Law Review. “THE CASE FOR COMPULSORY VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.” Harvard
Law Review. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
The presidential election of 2000 led to an unusual situation in which the results of the election
in Florida were subject to a recount that would determine who won the presidency.13 The
difference in the number of votes won by the two major candidates was only 537, 14 which
meant that the margin of error of the machines used to count the ballots exceeded the margin
of victory.15 Recounts by hand were inconclusive.16 In other words, the victory of President
Bush in 2000 was not statistically significant. This illustrates that American elections may be
little more than expensive, official polls of U.S. citizens.17 Unlike polls conducted by social
scientists, however, U.S. elections are not even particularly well designed polls because they
are not based on a representative sample of eligible voters. Rather, they rely on a racially and
socioeconomically skewed sample.18 Because of this, America could actually achieve a more
representative government by doing away with the current election system, and instead polling
a large, representative sample of eligible voters,19 despite the fact that such a mechanism for
selecting government leaders seems inherently unfair and might violate the Equal Protection
Clause.20 Given how limited the franchise was until the twentieth century, and the low rates of
voter turnout in recent decades, it is likely that no U.S. President has ever received a majority of
the votes of the American adult population.21 In the 1984 election, for example, Ronald Reagan
won a “landslide” victory, but received the votes of only 32.9% of the potential electorate.22
The preferences of the other 67.1% of eligible voters were either for a different candidate or
simply left unaccounted for. There are serious questions about how legitimate a government is
when the vast majority of citizens have not elected it.23 This concern goes beyond the question
of whether or not low voter turnout affects substantive policy outcomes (which is unclear24).
More fundamentally, there is a serious tension with the understanding “that within our
constitutional tradition, democracy is prized because of the value of collective self-
governance,”25 which is as much about procedure as it is about substance.

Champion Briefs 129

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting decreases the roll of money within politics which

allows other communities to attain political influence.
, Harvard Law Review. “THE CASE FOR COMPULSORY VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.” Harvard
Law Review. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
The most obvious benefit of compulsory voting is that it would lead to higher voter turnout.
The increase in voter turnout from compulsory voting laws has been established consistently.32
Because of the important ideal of self-governance in American political culture,33 increasing
voter turnout is a benefit in its own right. It is also possible that higher voter turnout, and an
electorate that is more representative of the American population, would actually change
electoral and policy outcomes in ways that better reflect aggregate preferences.34 In addition
to the direct effect of compulsory voting on turnout, there are also several indirect benefits.
First, compulsory voting would reduce the role of money in politics.35 Political parties would
not spend as much money on their get-out-the-vote efforts since high turnout would already be
ensured and would be fairly inelastic.36 Some of the get-out-the-vote money could be shifted
to other forms of campaign spending, but not all of it. A significant amount of spending on
getting out the vote comes from groups known as 527s (a reference to the tax code) and
nonpartisan groups that are not subject to campaign finance laws.37 These groups are limited
in their abilities to campaign expressly in favor of candidates.38 Presumably, these
organizations would shift some funds from getting out the vote to issue ads (which are
permissible), but the diminishing marginal effectiveness of those ads would limit this. With this
implicit limit on spending, politicians and parties might focus somewhat less on fundraising and
be less beholden to donors.39

Champion Briefs 130

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democratic political discourse will shift in a direction that aims at the

communities that have lacked political influence- more directed
campaigns and shift in focus.
, Harvard Law Review. “THE CASE FOR COMPULSORY VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.” Harvard
Law Review. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
Another indirect benefit of compulsory voting is that it might lead to the kinds of changes in
American political culture that could increase political awareness and engagement. A
compulsory voting regime would change the ways in which candidates, political parties, and
other political groups develop campaign strategies. For example, compulsory voting might lead
to fewer negative campaigns featuring attack ads because such ads generally succeed by
selectively lowering turnout among targeted groups.40 Once the prospect of significantly lower
voter turnout is removed, candidates would presumably reduce or eliminate the use of this
tactic and focus on different, perhaps qualitatively superior, tactics.41 More generally, the
current political discourse has developed in a system in which relatively few people vote and
those who do have relatively homogeneous demographic characteristics. Political organizations
have developed campaign messages and strategies that are successful at appealing to those
voters. Compulsory voting would bring a new population into play, and would force political
actors to make changes in their campaign methods in order to take these new voters into
account — whether those changes involve their substantive policy positions or the means of
communicating those positions.

Champion Briefs 131

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Shift in political discourse moots previous goals of exclusionary

democratic practices.
, Harvard Law Review. “THE CASE FOR COMPULSORY VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.” Harvard
Law Review. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
Compulsory voting thus has the potential over time to alleviate some of the very causes of the
current low levels of voter turnout. By triggering a shift in political discourse, compulsory voting
would create a virtuous cycle that would alleviate the underlying causes of voter apathy. First,
as already mentioned, compulsory voting will reduce the negative tone of campaigns that
discourages some potential voters.42 Second, compulsory voting can make politics less partisan
and divisive, since currently the voting population is much more partisan than the electorate at
large.43 If the entire population votes, there will be a more balanced representation of the
political spectrum. Finally, compulsory voting can lead to increased government relevance. By
bringing in groups that are underrepresented among those who are currently likely to vote,
compulsory voting will force politicians to shift their focus to different sets of issues. People
who are brought into the democratic process will increasingly find that the government agenda
addresses their interests, and this recognition could lead to a greater appreciation of the
importance of democratic government. This may increase the utility people get from fulfilling
their civic duty to vote, which would in turn lead more people to see their rational choice as
voting, rather than staying at home on Election Day.44

Champion Briefs 132

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is:.

, Harvard Law Review. “THE CASE FOR COMPULSORY VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.” Harvard
Law Review. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
A compulsory voting regime differs from a prohibition on write-in votes, however, because it
does more than just limit choice — compulsory voting literally compels a choice of some kind.
The Supreme Court recognized an individual right not to be compelled by the government to
express an idea that one does not agree with in West Virginia State Board of Education v.
Barnette. 68 Requiring someone to vote for a particular cause or candidate would clearly
violate the First Amendment, but requiring someone to vote for the candidate of his or her
choosing is viewpoint neutral.69 A person is not being forced to express any particular
viewpoint when a law requires him to cast a vote for someone of his own choosing — anyone
really, given the opportunity to vote for a write-in candidate, which exists in most states.70

Champion Briefs 133

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Absent an equal voice in politics- abusive propaganda will continue to

flood the media.
Lichfield, Gideon. ““21st-Century Propaganda: A Guide To Interpreting And Confronting The
Dark Arts Of Persuasion.” Quartz. May, 2017. Web. August 18, 2020.
<qz.com/978548/introducing-our-obsession-with-propaganda/.>.
The dictators of the early 20th century knew all about repetition, distraction, antagonism, and
so on, even if they didn’t know the science behind them. That’s why, as we saw at the start,
Huxley’s description of non-rational propaganda so neatly matches Trump’s verbal tics. As the
historian Timothy Snyder observes in his recent book On Tyranny, Trump’s methods for
undermining truth are very similar to those identified by Victor Klemperer, a scholar and diarist
who lived through Hitler’s Germany and the Soviet aftermath. What’s changed since then is, of
course, the internet, and the many new ways it creates for falsehoods to reach us. The power
of populism today lies in its ability to combine 20th-century propaganda techniques with 21st-
century technology, putting propaganda on steroids. Here are the main ways that happens:
Echo chambers. Social media and the explosion of choice in news sources has exacerbated our
tendency to clump into like-minded groups. We see far more messages that reinforce our
beliefs than challenge them. That’s because the platforms through which we find most of what
we see online—social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, and Weibo and search engines such
as Google, Yandex, and Baidu—have business models that require them to maximize the time
we spend on them. Alternative news sources. Whether it’s Breitbart for the alt-right or RT for
the Kremlin, it’s now possible to create large, well-financed operations that pump out news
with a strong agenda and can reach people across the world. (Russian TV is particularly good at
appealing to heuristic thinking, argues Maxim Alyukov, a Russian sociologist.) In fact, just one
person can become an alternative news source—look at Trump’s Twitter account. This
proliferation of sources doesn’t just have the effect of overloading people with competing
versions of the truth. They can also change the news cycle, determining what gets attention
and what doesn’t, forcing other media to chase stories they might otherwise ignore and neglect
those they should be paying attention to. Fake news. Even the most tendentious news sources
tend to stop shy of outright falsehood, but some—such as those notorious Macedonian
teenagers who spread made-up pro-Trump stories during the US election campaign—deal in
nothing else. Whereas sites like Breitbart and RT have a political agenda, these are essentially
commercial parasites on politics, creating low-cost, sensational content to draw clicks and make
money off ads. But by adding to the distraction and confusion, they contribute to further
undermining the consensus on truth. Online swarms. If you have a fiercely loyal base of
supporters (Trump, Yiannopolous) or can pay them (Russia, China) you can mobilize vast groups
of people to troll opponents and flood the digital airwaves with your desired message,
amplifying it and making it hard to tell how much support it really has. Bots. Automated social
media accounts are also being pressed into service to both amplify messages and quash them.
As technology improves they’ll become ever harder to distinguish from real people.

Champion Briefs 134

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Psychological profiling and targeted advertising. In its by-now infamous “emotional contagion”
study of 2014, Facebook showed that it’s possible to influence people’s moods in precise,
predictable ways by putting certain words into the posts they see on Facebook. In an only
slightly less controversial study the company showed that it could change people’s likelihood of
voting. Companies such as Cambridge Analytica claim to be able to sway voters’ preferences en
masse, using publicly available data skimmed from people’s social-media accounts to build
detailed psychological profiles and crafted messages for each person. “Weaponized AI
propaganda,” as Scout.ai calls it.

Champion Briefs 135

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Because the resolution is questioning the integrity of compulsory

voting the value should be justice, Definition of Justice:.
, Oxford Dictionary. “.” Oxford Dictionary. Web. August 18, 2020.
<en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/justice>.
“The quality of being fair and reasonable.”

Champion Briefs 136

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

The value criterion thus shall be mitigating structural violence,

defined as;.
Chopra , Anayika. “Structural Violence.” International Journal of Multidisciplinary Approach and
Studies, vol. 1, no. 4,. 2014. Web. August 18, 2020. <oaji.net/articles/2015/887-
1427175626.pdf>.
Despite its invisibility , structural violence is shaped by identifiable institutions, relationships,
force fields, and ideologies, such as unequal market-based terms of trade between
industrialized and non-industrialized nations, discriminatory laws , gender inequity and racism
(Bourgois 2010 : 19). Structural violence occurs in a variety of ways that affect people
throughout the social order. It is not to deny the fact that the effects of this kind of violence are
more brutal on the poor people but the violent consequences of social power also affect other
social groups in ways that are often not so visible because they are not so direct and also are
not labeled as “violent acts” or considered as “normalized conditions of existence”. The term
structural violence has also been used to designate people who experience violence owing to
extreme poverty. Violence which includes the highest rate of disease and death,
unemployment, homelessness, lack of education, powerlessness and shared fate of miseries
(Klein man 2000:227).The examples of structural violence are myriad. Hence by examining the
said cases, this paper makes an earnest attempt to work on the various avenues by which
various social , economic institutions carry out strategies that tend to legitimize acts of violence
against individuals and groups.

Champion Briefs 137

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Low-income communities lack equal political participation when it

comes to elections.
Weller, Chris. “Half Of Americans Probably Won't Vote — But Requiring Them To Would Change
That.” Business Insider. November 07, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.businessinsider.com/compulsory-voting-what-if-americans-have-to-vote-
2016-11>.
Even in such a bitter, unusual election, roughly half of eligible Americans probably won't vote
by the end of Election Day. In recent elections, turnout has ranged from about 50% to 60% of
the voting-age population. But there is a simple change the US could make to boost turnout
dramatically, something that has worked in at least 26 other democracies. The government
could make Americans vote. President Barack Obama has endorsed the idea, and yet it has
never taken hold in the US, for a variety of reasons. But many experts think it's a good idea. The
two countries leading in voter turnout are Belgium and Turkey, according to Pew Research
data. In their most recent elections, those countries saw turnouts of 87% and 84%. The 2012 US
presidential election saw just 55% of people rocking the vote. Political scientists worry about
this because older and wealthier Americans vote more often than anyone else. This means
leaders' policies are more likely to favor their interests over other groups'. It's called “class
bias.” Compulsory voting is a fairly old solution. Belgium first enacted its law in 1892, and
Argentina in 1914, both as ways to keep the general population invested politically. It doesn't
take much to get results. In Australia, where voting has been mandatory since 1924, the fine for
not voting once is $20. After that, each fine is $50. Those who never pay up could lose their
driver's license. In Belgium, after racking up penalties, chronic vote-avoiders risk losing the
ability to vote for 10 years. In the US, compulsory voting has started to enter the mainstream
conversation. In May of last year, Obama publicly endorsed compulsory voting for the first
time, telling a crowd in Cleveland that “it would be transformative if everybody voted”
specifically because of the class-bias effect. “The people who tend not to vote are young,
they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority
groups,” Obama said. “There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls.”

Champion Briefs 138

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

Studies prove compulsory voting would dismantle the class-bias.

Weller, Chris. “Half Of Americans Probably Won't Vote — But Requiring Them To Would Change
That.” Business Insider. November 07, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.businessinsider.com/compulsory-voting-what-if-americans-have-to-vote-
2016-11>.
Political scientists worry about this because older and wealthier Americans vote more often
than anyone else. This means leaders' policies are more likely to favor their interests over other
groups'. It's called “class bias.” Compulsory voting is a fairly old solution. Belgium first enacted
its law in 1892, and Argentina in 1914, both as ways to keep the general population invested
politically. It doesn't take much to get results. In Australia, where voting has been mandatory
since 1924, the fine for not voting once is $20. After that, each fine is $50. Those who never pay
up could lose their driver's license. In Belgium, after racking up penalties, chronic vote-avoiders
risk losing the ability to vote for 10 years. In the US, compulsory voting has started to enter the
mainstream conversation. In May of last year, Obama publicly endorsed compulsory voting for
the first time, telling a crowd in Cleveland that “it would be transformative if everybody voted”
specifically because of the class-bias effect. “The people who tend not to vote are young,
they're lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority
groups,” Obama said. “There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls.”
A handful of studies suggest Obama may be right. One 2013 study found Australia's turnout
rate was like that of a lot of advanced democracies before it switched, in 1924, at which point
the law encouraged working-class people — many of whom were otherwise disengaged from
the political process — to learn about politics out of necessity. That phenomenon has been
validated in follow-up experiments using smaller-scale incentives: People tend to take an
interest in things when there's something specific in it for them. Some have even suggested
paying people to vote, rather than fining the apathetic. “When Australia passed compulsory
voting, the Labor Party did better and you saw more progressive policies in line with what the
working class was advocating for,” Anthony Fowler, the study's author and a public-policy
researcher at the University of Chicago, told Business Insider. “Compulsory voting would have
large political consequences that would benefit the poor and working class.” Other researchers
have challenged the idea that voters start to lean left when voting is mandatory. Jason Brennan,
a Georgetown University professor who is a coauthor of “Compulsory Voting: For and Against,”
said Australia may be an anomaly. “The people who vote and the people who don't vote are
roughly the same in terms of their partisan preferences,” Brennan said in a recent interview
with the politics magazine Governing. Doug Chapin, an election expert at the University of
Minnesota, disagreed. He said candidates would have an incentive to campaign to everyone,
not just the wealthier, older people who disproportionately vote today.

Champion Briefs 139

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

CV affects the candidates and other political personnel that are

involved in the election.
Aly, Waleed. “Voting Should Be Mandatory.” The New York Times. January 19, 2017. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-
mandatory.html>.
The evidence is mixed on whether compulsory voting favors parties of the right or the left, and
some studies suggest that most United States federal election results would be unchanged. But
all that misses the point because it overlooks that compulsory voting changes more than the
number of voters: It changes who runs for office and the policy proposals they support. In a
compulsory election, it does not pay to energize your base to the exclusion of all other voters.
Since elections cannot be determined by turnout, they are decided by swing voters and won in
the center. Australia has its share of xenophobic politicians, but they tend to dwell in minor
parties that do not even pretend they can form a government. That is one reason Australia’s
version of the far right lacks anything like the power of its European or American counterparts.
Australia has had some bad governments, but it hasn’t had any truly extreme ones and it isn’t
nearly as vulnerable to demagogues. Even today, as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces an
insurgency from the right wing of his conservative party, the principal threat is that these
politicians will form a breakaway party — not that they will take over. They can’t, and even if
they could, they would quickly face electoral oblivion unless they moderated. That’s more or
less the story of the government of Mr. Turnbull’s predecessor, Tony Abbott, which indulged in
too many ideological frolics and crashed after only two years.

Champion Briefs 140

AFF: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

CV affects the goals of the political during election season.

Hoffman, Mitchell. “Compulsory Voting, Turnout, And Government Spending: Evidence From
Austria.” Vox EU. October 30, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://voxeu.org/article/compulsory-voting-turnout-and-government-spending>.
Governments have different policy tools at their disposal to increase turnout, including
increasing the number of polling stations and implementing proxy or mail voting, among others.
One popular way to overcome the decline in electoral participation is to make voting
mandatory. Currently, 18 countries around the world have some sort of compulsory voting laws
(see Figure 2), with a higher number having had CV at some point in the last fifty years (see
International Idea). Even President Barack Obama, in March 2015 proposed the possibility of
compulsory voting in the US, arguing: “It would be transformative if everybody voted, that
would counteract money more than anything. If everyone voted, then it would completely
change the political map of the country. The people who tend not to vote are young, they're
lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority
groups...There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls” (CNN 2015). A
few studies in countries as diverse as Switzerland, Brazil, and Australia have shown that even
with small fines for non-voting or low enforcement of penalties, electoral participation is
significantly higher under compulsory voting (Funk 2007, De Leon and Rizzi 2014, Fowler 2013.)
However, unlike the policies analysed in the work of Miller (2008) and Fujiwara (2015), there
are no a priori reasons to believe that the preferences of voters induced to participate in
elections due to compulsory voting are significantly different from those of the average voter
who participates when voting is voluntary. Hence, it is unclear if increasing turnout using
compulsory voting would translate into changes in public policies.
*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 141

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Equal Justice AC

This entire argument hinges on the Chong evidence. It is both the solvency and internal
link evidence. It describes the effect that compulsory voting laws have on income differentials
in democracies. This gives debaters access to a variety of impacts which are all introduced by
the different pieces of Birdsong evidence. Coupled with them are various impact explanations.
With this affirmative, debaters should mostly stick to utilitarian frameworks, especially
ones that focus on the economy. Most of the impacts already link back towards the economy,
so everything can be kept succinct. If debaters wanted to take the affirmative a step further,
they could also have a civil rights/structural violence framework that focuses more on the
democracy impacts, especially the democratic modeling explanation from the Kasparov
evidence.
The most strategic form of this affirmative is not to just read every card included, rather,
debaters should research more on their own to fully flesh out impact link chains and create
different scenarios specific to other democratic countries. The Kasparov evidence is unique to
the United States, but there are likely more authors that write about different primarily
democratic nations that model their democracies. It is encouraged to pick one or two scenarios
and run with them instead of using everything and hoping something hits.
There are three main places to attack this affirmative. The first, and likely easiest, is to
just answer each impact read. If this affirmative is read with democracy impacts, debaters can
read the Democracy K included with this brief as an impact turn. The second is to dispute the
thesis of the affirmative, which is that compulsory voting reduces income differentials. The
third is to disrupt the inherency claims made by the 1AC, namely that income inequality is a
large issue around the world in the status quo.
This is a case that should be kept simple and easy to follow, but also very detailed. It is
very highly encouraged to pick the impacts that debaters feel most comfortable going for if
they choose to read this argument.

Champion Briefs 142

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Income Inequality is at an all time high right now.

Delvin, Kat. “Many Around The World Were Pessimistic About Inequality Even Before
Pandemic.” FactTank: News in the Numbers. August 06, 2020. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/06/many-around-the-world-were-
pessimistic-about-inequality-even-before-pandemic/>.
The coronavirus outbreak stopped much of the world in its tracks in early 2020 and continues
to cast doubt on the well-being of households and communities around the globe. But even
before the pandemic, many people around the world felt pessimistic about income inequality,
governance and job opportunities, according to a survey conducted by Pew Research Center in
spring 2019. Across 34 countries surveyed, a median of 65% of adults said they felt generally
pessimistic about reducing the gap between the rich and the poor in their country. Many also
held doubts about the way their political system works (median of 54%) and the availability of
well-paying jobs in their country (53%). When it comes to their country’s education system,
however, more people expressed optimism than pessimism (53% vs. 41%).

Champion Briefs 143

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

And in the United States, it’s especially bad.

Siripurapu, Anshu. “The US Inequality Debate.” The Council on Foreign Relations. July 15, 2020.
Web. August 16, 2020. <https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/us-inequality-debate>.
According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office [PDF], income inequality in the
United States has been rising for decades, with the incomes of the top echelon rapidly
outpacing the rest of the population. The average household income (after taxes and
government benefits, and adjusted for inflation) of the top 1 percent rose 226 percent from
1979 to 2016. Meanwhile, income for the rest of the top 20 percent grew 79 percent. The
average income of the bottom 20 percent rose by 85 percent, while income for the majority of
the population—in the middle of the income distribution—grew just 47 percent over the same
period. Furthermore, in 1965, a typical corporate CEO earned over twenty times more than a
typical worker. By 2018, that ratio was 278:1, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a
progressive think tank. Between 1978 and 2018, CEO compensation increased by more than
900 percent, while worker compensation increased by just 11.9 percent. The picture is much
the same when looking at wealth—that is, total net worth rather than yearly income. From
1989 to 2016, the share of wealth in the United States held by the top 10 percent of Americans
increased from 67 percent to 77 percent. The bottom 50 percent, roughly sixty-three million
families, owned just 1 percent of total U.S. wealth in 2016. However, some experts argue that
the rise in inequality is being overstated. The libertarian Cato Institute, for instance, argues that
inequality has not increased as much as some economists claim, and that it makes more sense
to focus on poverty because inequality does not matter so long as everyone is doing better. The
overall poverty rate in the United States fell sharply, by more than 10 percent, between 1959
and 1969, but it has since fluctuated around 12.5 percent [PDF]. Jason Furman, a former chair
of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, has argued that inequality is not the primary
driver of stagnating wages and that the United States should boost productivity by investing in
infrastructure, research, and education, among other policies. “We should want to live in a
society with a reasonable degree of mobility rather than one where people are born into
relative economic positions they can never leave. But so long as those conditions are met, the
ratio of the incomes of the top 1 percent to the median worker should be fairly low on our list
of concerns,” conservative analyst Ramesh Ponnuru wrote in 2015. Still, inequality in the United
States outpaces that of other rich nations. This is captured by the steady rise in the U.S. Gini
coefficient, a measure of a country’s economic inequality that ranges from zero (completely
equal) to one hundred (completely unequal). The United States’ Gini coefficient was 39 in 2017,
according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a group of
advanced economies—higher than all other members except Chile, Mexico, and Turkey.

Champion Briefs 144

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Across the US, income inequality is WORSE in small and medium

cities.
Gourevitch, Marc. “New Report Finds Many U.S. Small & Midsize Cities Face Increased Rent
Burden & Income Inequality.” NYU Langone Health NewsHub. August 05, 2020. Web.
August 16, 2020. <https://nyulangone.org/news/new-report-finds-many-us-small-
midsize-cities-face-increased-rent-burden-income-inequality>.
Small and midsize cities are home to twice as many Americans as large cities and face many of
the same health disparities. However, they often do not receive the same attention or
resources. A new report by researchers in the Department of Population Health at NYU
Langone and NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service examining 719 small and midsize
cities across the United States paints a picture of uneven economic growth and recovery,
growing income inequality and poverty, and excessively high rent burden in nearly every city
examined. To better understand the health and equity trends in small and midsize cities
specifically, researchers created a first-of-its-kind, health-focused typology for the 719 U.S.
cities with populations of 50,000 to 500,000. This new “City Types” framework groups cities
into 10 unique types based on changes in population, household poverty, life expectancy,
manufacturing sector employment, income inequality, and other factors that drive health—
using data from 2000 to 2017—and tracked changes over time. The City Types research builds
on the health data for cities available on the City Health Dashboard, a free, online resource
created by the NYU Grossman School of Medicine and NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public
Service team, and supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, that provides
community-level health, social, and economic data for more than 750 cities across the United
States. Careful examination of these new City Types shows that race and poverty affect the
opportunities for health for residents in small and midsize cities. And as racial and economic
disparities widened over time, so have health disparities. “The fact that poverty, rent burden,
and income inequality grew over time across all City Types underscores the urgency with which
city leaders must address the drivers of inequity,” says Marc N. Gourevitch, MD, MPH, the
Muriel G. and George W. Singer Professor and chair of the Department of Population Health at
NYU Langone, and principal architect of the City Health Dashboard. “Bold policy action is
needed to overcome the legacy of disinvestment and structural racism that is reflected in this
report.”

Champion Briefs 145

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Income inequality stifles the growth of a nation’s economy.

Birdsong, Nicholas. “The Consequences Of Economic Inequality.” Seven Pillars Institute.
February 05, 2015. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/consequences-economic-inequality/>.
A degree of inequality can act as a positive influence on economic growth in the short term.[24]
However, some economists find empirical evidence of a negative correlation of about 0.5-0.8
percentage points between long-term growth rates and sustained economic inequality.[25] A
variety of explanations have been proposed to explain how inequality can work to stifle growth.
A high level of economic inequality means a higher level of poverty. Poverty is associated with
increased crime and poor public health, which places burdens on the economy. In the face of
increasing food prices and lower incomes, support for pro-growth government policies
declines.[26] Wealthy citizens maintain disproportionate political power compared to poorer
citizens,[27] which encourages the development of inefficient tax structures skewed in favor of
the wealthy. Unequal income distribution increases political instability, which threatens
property rights, increases the risk of state repudiated contracts, and discourages capital
accumulation.[28] A widening rich-poor gap tends to increase the rate of rent-seeking and
predatory market behaviors that hinder economic growth.[29] According to one theory, growth
is suppressed in economically unequal societies, after a phase of increased growth, by the
decreasing availability of investments for human capital. Physical capital becomes increasingly
scarce, as fewer individuals have funds to invest in training and education.[30] As a result,
demands for human capital are difficult or impossible to meet, and economic growth stalls.[31]
As an additional consequence, market demands increase for risky unsecured loans, which
increase lenders’ risk exposure to the borrower’s default. More risks in the markets increase
market volatility and the possibility of cascading defaults such as the 2008 subprime mortgage
crisis.[32]

Champion Briefs 146

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Economic growth is key to sustainability.

Di Marzio, Dominique. “Can Economic Growth And Stability Coexist?.” Journal of Diplomacy.
April 20, 2016. Web. August 16, 2020.
<http://blogs.shu.edu/journalofdiplomacy/2016/04/can-economic-growth-and-
sustainability-coexist/>.
The World Economic Forum makes the claim that climate change is one of the ten biggest
challenges facing the globe. As more nations develop, our global carbon footprint increases as
well. However, new economies and growing markets need not contribute to carbon emissions
as they once did. With today’s tools and technologies, it has become possible to enable and
sustain economic growth without an increase in CO2 emissions. Unfortunately, developing
economies are not as concerned with the environment and consumption of natural resources
as they face environmental problems directly related to poverty. Due to inadequate sewage
systems, lack of clean drinking water, and living in unsanitary conditions, conservation
measures tend to be the last of their worries. One wonders how we can raise the standard of
living in developing countries while still being concerned for the environment as well. Perhaps
the answer lies in last year’s announcement by the International Energy Agency (IEA). The IEA
showed there has “been a decoupling of economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions in
2014.” This was “the first time in 40 years in which there was a halt or reduction in emissions of
the greenhouse gas that was not tied to an economic downturn.” This is important because
previously there was a tight link between economic growth and the consumption of more
energy. This argument was also often used by many developed countries and economies to
justify their large emissions rates. This was the case that some economists claimed that
economic growth was “incompatible with environmental protections, leaving others hopeless
that conservation was possible while further industrializing under-developed countries. The IEA
reports that several factors were involved in creating this change: China shifting to more to
renewable sources of energy; OECD countries utilizing advanced renewable energy, combined
with more energy efficiency; and a decline in United States energy usage (more energy efficient
cars, refrigerators, electricity, etc.). This shows that though countries may be highly developed,
they can reduce their energy consumption and remain successful. Add this to the fact that
many countries in Scandinavia are over-achieving and emitting far below their allotted emission
levels. Sweden, for example, has committed more than half of it’s national energy supply to
renewables, and less than 1% of Sweden’s trash ends up in landfills, though they produce the
same amount of waste as other European countries. Many underdeveloped countries are
heavily in debt, and any “attempt at conservation and environmental protection must be linked
to economic development and debt relief.” If developed nations created incentives and
subsidized environmental programs to improve living conditions, then developing nations
would be able to focus more on environmental sustainability. As Global Digital Central states,
“Unless richer countries are willing to subsidize poorer countries to carry out environmental
programs, the situation will deteriorate even further and the environment will suffer.” The old
argument of “we’re big so we use more energy” is no longer a viable excuse, and our world will

Champion Briefs 147

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

not be able to sustain this mentality. There are now proven means to reduce energy
consumption. We now see the beginning of a decrease of carbon dioxide emissions as
economies grow, thus, we know that it is possible to conserve and develop. Developed
countries can invest in better technology for themselves as well as invest in under-developed
nations to improve their quality of life; thus focusing all nations towards a more sustainable
future. While no small task, there are means to develop and become competitive while also
using alternative, more effective, and more sustainable forms of energy, leaving hope for there
to be less poverty and less pollution.

Champion Briefs 148

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Income inequality increases the crime rate across the board.

Birdsong, Nicholas. “The Consequences Of Economic Inequality.” Seven Pillars Institute.
February 05, 2015. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/consequences-economic-inequality/>.
Studies establish a positive relationship between income inequality and crime. According to a
survey of research conducted between 1968 and 2000, most researchers point to evidence
economically unequal societies have higher crime rates.[33] That survey concludes that
inequality is “the single factor most closely and consistently related to crime.”[34] Researchers
propose several possible explanations for the inequality-crime correlation. First, disadvantaged
members of a society may be more likely to suffer from resentment and hostility as a result of
their economic position or competition over scarce jobs or resources, resulting in a higher
propensity for criminal behavior.[35] Second, inequality increases the incentive to commit
crimes. Fewer methods of lawfully obtaining resources are available for the increasing number
of poor who live in an unequal society. Even when risks of punishments are taken into account,
illegal methods of gaining assets may provide better returns than legal means of obtaining
resources.[36] Third, a wide gap between rich and poor tends to increase crime by reducing law
enforcement spending in low-income areas. Wealthy members of a society tend to concentrate
in secluded communities, especially as the disparity between the rich and poor increase.[37]
Rich neighborhoods or countries have more funds for the police than their poorer counterparts,
resulting in a less effective police force or a higher number of officers susceptible to bribes in an
increasing number of poor areas. Increasingly concentrated wealth leads to higher crime rates
in poor areas which are prevalent in economically unbalanced societies. In societies with a
sufficiently high degree of economic inequality, state investments in reducing economic
inequality is vastly more effective at reducing crime than increasing spending law
enforcement.[38]

Champion Briefs 149

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Crime impedes on the economy—high medical and incarceration

costs.
Shapiro, Robert. “The Economic Benefits Of Reducing Violent Crime.” Center for American
Progress. June 19, 2012. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/06/19/11755/the-
economic-benefits-of-reducing-violent-crime/>.
By most measures, violent crime continues to impose significant costs on Americans and their
communities. The costs borne by the American public for this level of criminal activity are
significant. Medical care for assault victims, for example, costs an estimated $4.3 billion per
year. We spend $74 billion per year on incarcerating 2.3 million criminals, including some
930,000 violent criminals. In today’s tight fiscal and economic environment, the mayors and city
councils of every city—along with state and the federal governments—are searching for ways
to reduce their spending and expand their revenues. The common challenge is to achieve
sustainable fiscal conditions without hobbling government’s ability to provide the vital goods
and services that most Americans expect, all without burdening businesses and families with
onerous new taxes. This analysis provides another way available to many American
municipalities: Secure budget savings, higher revenues, and personal income and wealth gains
by reducing violent crime rates. To calculate the extent of those savings and benefits, we
analyze a broad range of direct costs associated with the violent crime in the eight cities
sampled here. These direct costs start with local spending on policing, prosecuting, and
incarcerating the perpetrators of those crimes. These costs also encompass out-of-pocket
medical expenses borne by surviving victims of violent crime as well as the income those
victims must forgo as a result of the crimes. These costs also include the lost incomes that
would otherwise be earned by the perpetrators of violent crimes had they not been
apprehended—as distasteful as it is to calculate the foregone income of rapists or armed
robbers who are arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. These direct, annual costs range from
$90 million per year in Seattle to around $200 million per year in Boston, Jacksonville, and
Milwaukee, to more than $700 million in Philadelphia and nearly $1.1 billion for Chicago.

Champion Briefs 150

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Income Inequality decreases the quality of public health.

Birdsong, Nicholas. “The Consequences Of Economic Inequality.” Seven Pillars Institute.
February 05, 2015. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/consequences-economic-inequality/>.
The impoverished members of society are subject to disproportionate occurrence rates of
certain kinds of illnesses. Access to quality health care and healthy food is sometimes limited or
unavailable for poor individuals. The result of a substantial poor population, a defining feature
of economic inequality, is a less effective lower-income work force, higher disease and
mortality rates, higher health care costs, and progressively deepening poverty for afflicted
groups. Food deserts are a unique characteristic of economically unequal societies,
characterized by the lack of readily accessible healthy and affordable food. Food deserts occur
in several heavily industrialized Western nations, including the United Kingdom, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand.[39] The term “food desert” originated in Scotland during the early
1990s in the context of a public sector housing report.[40] Although the term originated in
Scotland, its prevalence steadily increased since the 1990s in the United Kingdom, eventually
becoming a common topic of research affecting public policy internationally.[41] In 2009, 2.2
percent of all households in the United States were located in food deserts.[42] In the United
States and other industrialized Western nations, the lack of access to fresh foods is associated
with disproportionate obesity and diet-related disease rates among low-income households.
There is an growing interest in food deserts as obesity rates and other diet-related illnesses
increase. Obesity rates in the United States began to increase at alarming rates during the late
1970s and early 1980s. Currently, more than 1 in 3 American adults are obese and 2 out of 3 are
overweight or obese.[43] Increases in the number of new diabetes diagnoses accompany the
trend of increasing weight. The number of individuals suffering from high cholesterol has
decreased, although the trend may be attributed to increasing consumption of cholesterol-
lowering medications.[44] Health care costs in the United States were $75 billion in 1970, $2.6
trillion in 2010, and are expected to reach $4.8 trillion in 2021.[45] While not attributed solely
to diet, unhealthy lifestyles account for a substantial portion of the rising expenditures on
health care.[46] Obesity increases health care costs by $147 billion every year in the United
States, or $1,429 more per person than a normally weighted person.[47] Obesity and diet-
related diseases contribute to about 10 percent of all health care costs in the United States.[48]
Poor diets are a cause of conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, osteoarthritis, some
cancers, and other diseases.[49] Impoverished Americans have been especially affected by the
nation’s deteriorating average quality of health. Americans living in the poorest neighborhoods
are more likely to be obese than Americans living above the poverty line.[50] Additionally,
individuals living below the federal poverty level are two times more likely to die from
diabetes.[51] Considerable inconvenience and time constraints create barriers to cheap
groceries for citizens living in food deserts. The incentive is increased for residents to purchase
processed sugary and fatty items from gas stations, convenience stores, fast food restaurants,
or other sources of unhealthy food.[52] Residents who are elderly, disabled, or have children

Champion Briefs 151

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

are often less mobile, and the incentive to rely on convenient yet unhealthy foods is even
greater. As a result, residents living in the food desert are more prone to obesity and other diet
related diseases. Beyond the direct health care costs of food deserts, poor health impacts the
prosperity of a society. Poor health forces communities to cope with a less effective workforce,
higher mortality rates, higher life insurance premiums, and a less prosperous economy.[53] A
poorer economy may result in fewer taxable resources, and subsequently either higher overall
tax rates or inferior public services. Food deserts also reinforce wealth disparities. Lower-
income persons live in food deserts and face higher costs as a result. The poor are
disproportionately burdened with higher health care costs, a disadvantaged ability to work, and
a higher percentage of time spent on obtaining food.

Champion Briefs 152

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Income inequality increases political inequality.

Birdsong, Nicholas. “The Consequences Of Economic Inequality.” Seven Pillars Institute.
February 05, 2015. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/consequences-economic-inequality/>.
When wealth distribution becomes concentrated in a small number of hands, political power
tends to become skewed in favor of that small wealthy group. High-income groups are able and
incentivized to manipulate government in their favor through both legal processes and through
corrupt practices. Impoverished or working class groups are simultaneously less able to become
educated or participate in the political process as economic means become increasingly scarce.
Wealthy groups receive political advantages in several different ways. In democratic societies
that lack public financing of campaigns such as the United States, political figures require
private financial backing in order to run effective campaigns. Federal candidates during the
2010 elections cycle spent around six billion dollars altogether.[54] Successful candidates in
Senate races spent an average of $10.3 million on their elections, while winning Congressional
candidates spent an average of $1.6 million.[55] While more money spent does not always
result in more votes, campaign expenditures correlate so closely with votes that researchers
have been able to reliably predict that for every $5 spent, a candidate will receive
approximately one vote.[56] Political figures are required to court potential wealthy donors in
order to fund successful campaigns. Half or more of the average Congressperson’s time is spent
speaking with potential donors and raising money.[57] According to one report, “It is
considered poor form in Congress — borderline self-indulgent — for a freshman [legislator] to
sit at length in congressional hearings when the time could instead be spent raising
money.”[58] Wealthy donors are given extreme access to elected officials. Politicians are likely
to be reluctant to support policies that are not in the interests of their wealthy backers for fear
of loosing vital financial support and subsequently the next election. Low-income groups are
less able to influence elected officials. Political interest and involvement is substantially
depressed in economically unequal societies. According to one survey, individuals living in the
most economically equal societies are four times more likely to be actively involved in politics
and 2.7 times more likely to vote compared to the most economically unequal society.[59]
Poorer groups are politically disadvantaged by the inability to dedicate time for political
activities. Lower income groups tend to spend more time at work or securing basic needs.
Consequently, they are less able to invest time or money to obtain political knowledge or
participate in the political process. Additionally, economic inequality decreases participation by
the poor because the poor are less able to influence outcomes.[60] The apparent futility of low-
income groups’ efforts to influence policy discourages subsequent attempts to affect policies.
Wealth concentration further concentrates political power by the increased ability of wealthy
groups to corrupt political processes. Some government officials may be especially susceptible
to bribes if the officials are subject to the increased economic pressures present in an
economically unequal society. Further, extremely wealthy community members are more able
to afford to pay bribes in a relatively unequal economic state.

Champion Briefs 153

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Political equality is key to democracy, which is necessary to avoiding

every existential threat.
Kasparov, Garry. “Democracy And Human Rights: The Case For US Leadership.” February 16,
2017. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/021617_Kasparov_%20Testimony.pd
f>.
As one of the countless millions of people who were freed or protected from totalitarianism by
the United States of America, it is easy for me to talk about the past. To talk about the belief of
the American people and their leaders that this country was exceptional, and had special
responsibilities to match its tremendous power. That a nation founded on freedom was bound
to defend freedom everywhere. I could talk about the bipartisan legacy of this most American
principle, from the Founding Fathers, to Democrats like Harry Truman, to Republicans like
Ronald Reagan. I could talk about how the American people used to care deeply about human
rights and dissidents in far-off places, and how this is what made America a beacon of hope, a
shining city on a hill. America led by example and set a high standard, a standard that exposed
the hypocrisy and cruelty of dictatorships around the world. But there is no time for nostalgia.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the end of the Cold War,
Americans, and America, have retreated from those principles, and the world has become
much worse off as a result. American skepticism about America’s role in the world deepened in
the long, painful wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and their aftermaths. Instead of applying the
lessons learned about how to do better, lessons about faulty intelligence and working with
native populations, the main outcome was to stop trying. This result has been a tragedy for the
billions of people still living under authoritarian regimes around the world, and it is based on
faulty analysis. You can never guarantee a positive outcome— not in chess, not in war, and
certainly not in politics. The best you can do is to do what you know is right and to try your
best. I speak from experience when I say that the citizens of unfree states do not expect
guarantees. They want a reason to hope and a fighting chance. People living under
dictatorships want the opportunity for freedom, the opportunity to live in peace and to follow
their dreams. From the Iraq War to the Arab Spring to the current battles for liberty from
Venezuela to Eastern Ukraine, people are fighting for that opportunity, giving up their lives for
freedom. The United States must not abandon them. The United States and the rest of the free
world has an unprecedented advantage in economic and military strength today. What is
lacking is the will. The will to make the case to the American people, the will to take risks and
invest in the long-term security of the country, and the world. This will require investments in
aid, in education, in security that allow countries to attain the stability their people so badly
need. Such investment is far more moral and far cheaper than the cycle of terror, war,
refugees, and military intervention that results when America leaves a vacuum of power. The
best way to help refugees is to prevent them from becoming refugees in the first place. The
Soviet Union was an existential threat, and this focused the attention of the world, and the

Champion Briefs 154

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

American people. There existential threat today is not found on a map, but it is very real. The
forces of the past are making steady progress against the modern world order. Terrorist
movements in the Middle East, extremist parties across Europe, a paranoid tyrant in North
Korea threatening nuclear blackmail, and, at the center of the web, an aggressive KGB dictator
in Russia. They all want to turn the world back to a dark past because their survival is
threatened by the values of the free world, epitomized by the United States. And they are
thriving as the U.S. has retreated. The global freedom index has declined for ten consecutive
years. No one like to talk about the United States as a global policeman, but this is what
happens when there is no cop on the beat. American leadership begins at home, right here.
America cannot lead the world on democracy and human rights if there is no unity on the
meaning and importance of these things. Leadership is required to make that case clearly and
powerfully. Right now, Americans are engaged in politics at a level not seen in decades. It is an
opportunity for them to rediscover that making America great begins with believing America
can be great. The Cold War was won on American values that were shared by both parties and
nearly every American. Institutions that were created by a Democrat, Truman, were triumphant
forty years later thanks to the courage of a Republican, Reagan. This bipartisan consistency
created the decades of strategic stability that is the great strength of democracies. Strong
institutions that outlast politicians allow for long-range planning. In contrast, dictators can
operate only tactically, not strategically, because they are not constrained by the balance of
powers, but cannot afford to think beyond their own survival. This is why a dictator like Putin
has an advantage in chaos, the ability to move quickly. This can only be met by strategy, by
long-term goals that are based on shared values, not on polls and cable news. The fear of
making things worse has paralyzed the United States from trying to make things better. There
will always be setbacks, but the United States cannot quit. The spread of democracy is the only
proven remedy for nearly every crisis that plagues the world today. War, famine, poverty,
terrorism–all are generated and exacerbated by authoritarian regimes. A policy of America First
inevitably puts American security last. American leadership is required because there is no one
else, and because it is good for America. There is no weapon or wall that is more powerful for
security than America being envied, imitated, and admired around the world. Admired not for
being perfect, but for having the exceptional courage to always try to be better. Thank you.

Champion Briefs 155

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Income inequality lowers the quality of education.

Birdsong, Nicholas. “The Consequences Of Economic Inequality.” Seven Pillars Institute.
February 05, 2015. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/consequences-economic-inequality/>.
Substantial empirical research reveal link education and poverty. Nations with a high degree of
economic equality and a relatively small low-income population tend to have a substantially
higher level of education. [61] A one-point increase in the Gini coefficient (a measurement of
income inequality) translates into a 10% decrease in high school graduation rates and a 40%
increase in college graduation.[62] In an economically unequal society, the society-wide
average level of education decreases while the number of educational elites increases. One
proposed causal connection between education and inequality is unequal societies tend to
underinvest in education. Absent private or public scholarship programs, the poor are unable to
afford to pay for education or spend the time in school that could have otherwise been spent
working. Sweatshops in countries like Bangladesh provide an example of poverty’s effect on
education. Sweatshops in Bangladesh employ young children, which give destitute families
much needed economic support.[63] However, the children who work in the sweatshops are
unable to attend schools or obtain an education because of their economic needs. The
children’s future earning potential decline and the likelihood increases the child and the family
continue to live in poverty.[64] In unequal societies, government support tends to decline for
public education programs. As the rich become increasingly wealthy, public policies become
increasingly favorable to the policy goals of the economic elites.[65] Public education programs
tend to be unpopular with the wealthy because they involve taking public funds, which often
primarily consist of taxes imposed on the rich, and redistributing those resources to the
poor.[66]

Champion Briefs 156

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Increasing education leads to economic growth, increased US

modeling, and US competitiveness.
Joel, Klein. “US Education Reform And National Security.” Council on Foreign Relations. March,
2012. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/TFR68_Education_National_Se
curity.pdf>.
The U.S. education system is not adequately preparing Americans to meet the demands of the
global workforce. When the U.S. government first measured educational attainment in 1947,
only about half of Americans graduated from high school, compared to about 75 percent
today.6 In the mid-twentieth century, it was possible to build a meaningful career without
completing high school. Today, this is not the case: the gaps in income and achievement
between those with and those without college degrees are large and growing (see Figure 1), as
are the educational opportunities available to the children of parents with and without
education.7 Economists and employers predict that in the coming years, a growing number of
U.S. citizens will face unemployment because of disparities between the workforce’s education
and skills and those needed by employers. Nobel Prize–winning economist Michael Spence
recently explained that globalization is causing “growing disparities in income and employment
across the U.S. economy, with highly educated workers enjoying more opportunities and
workers with less education facing declining employment prospects and stagnant incomes.”8
International competition and the globalization of labor markets and trade require much higher
education and skills if Americans are to keep pace. Poorly educated and semi-skilled Americans
cannot expect to effectively compete for jobs against fellow U.S. citizens or global peers, and
are left unable to fully participate in and contribute to society. This is particularly true as
educational attainment and skills advance rapidly in emerging nations. A highly educated
workforce increases economic productivity and growth. This growth is necessary to finance
everything else that makes the United States a desired place to live and a model for other
countries. The opportunity of obtaining a top-rate education has historically attracted many
immigrants to the United States from around the world. In turn, immigrant populations have
contributed greatly to economic and social development in the United States. As a 2009 CFR-
sponsored Independent Task Force report on U.S. Immigration Policy noted, “One of the central
reasons the United States achieved and has been able to retain its position of global leadership
is that it is constantly replenishing its pool of talent, not just with the ablest and hardest
working from inside its borders, but with the best from around the world.” Too many schools
have failed to provide young citizens with the tools they need to contribute to U.S.
competitiveness. This, coupled with an immigration system in need of reform, poses real
threats to the prospects of citizens, constrains the growth of the U.S. talent pool, and limits
innovation and economic competitiveness.

Champion Briefs 157

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is shown to reduce income inequality, especially in

developing nations.
Chong, Alberto. “On Compulsory Voting And Income Inequality In A Cross-Section Of
Countries.” Inter-American Development Bank. May, 2005. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://publications.iadb.org/publications/english/document/On-Compulsory-Voting-
and-Income-Inequality-in-a-Cross-Section-of-Countries.pdf >.
This analysis suggests that the effect of compulsory voting on income distribution is strong if
the law is strictly enforced. In short, enforceable compulsory voting laws compel the bottom
income quintiles of the population to vote. In this scenario, the median voter would be the
population that prefers higher transfers and redistribution programs. If the law is enforced, the
effect is an improved distribution of income. From a policy perspective, the findings in this
paper give credence to the idea that compulsory voting rules are sensible schemes that may be
applied in developing countries, where the distribution of wealth and income is dramatically
skewed against the poor. In fact, this may be particularly relevant in Latin America, a region in
which many countries have weak compulsory voting schemes but only one, Uruguay, has a
strict mandatory voting rule. Perhaps not coincidentally, this country is the one that has the
most equal distribution of income in the region.

Champion Briefs 158

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Empirically, compulsory voting laws work to increase turnout –

Australia proves.
Rychter, Tacey. “How Compulsory Voting Works: Australians Explain.” The New York Times.
October 22, 2018. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/22/world/australia/compulsory-voting.html >.
The dirty work of democracy is often compared to the making of sausages, but Australians
almost take that maxim literally — turning Election Day into a countrywide barbecue, in which
the grilling of hot dogs is optional but voting is compulsory. More than 96 percent of eligible
Australians are enrolled to vote. Of those, more than 90 percent typically turn out to cast
ballots for a federal election, far more than the 55 percent of eligible Americans who
participated in the 2016 presidential election. Australians are induced to vote with both sticks
and carrots. Shirkers can be fined up to nearly 80 Australian dollars if they fail to show at the
polls. But voting, which always takes place on a Saturday, is also made easy and efficient, and is
often accompanied by a community barbecue that includes eating what locals affectionately
call “democracy sausages.” As Americans prepare to vote in the midterm elections on Nov. 6,
we asked our readers in Australia to share their experiences and feelings about compulsory
voting and explain the ins and outs of the process. Since 1924, Australian citizens over the age
of 18 have been required to vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums. (It was
only in 1984, however, that voting became compulsory for Indigenous Australians.) In the
decades since, overall voter turnout has never dipped below 90 percent, although there has
been a slight downward trend in recent years.

Champion Briefs 159

AFF: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Experts agree that compulsory voting is the best way to increase

turnout, especially in the US.
Dews, Fred. “Is Compulsory Voting A Solution To America's Low Voter Turnout.” Brookings.
December 04, 2014. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brookings-now/2014/12/04/is-compulsory-voting-a-
solution-to-americas-low-voter-turnout-and-political-polarization/ >.
Eligible voter turnout in the recent 2014 midterm elections has been estimated at 36.2 percent,
the lowest since 1942. Voter participation in non-presidential election years is traditionally low,
with the most partisan members of the electorate most likely to cast ballots. Voter turnout in
U.S. presidential elections generally comes in at between 50 and 60 percent of the voting-age
population. Some observers of U.S. politics make the case that low voter turnout results in
more polarization and less legislative compromise. Is compulsory, or mandatory, voting the
answer? Senior Fellow William Galston, the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies, imagines
a “future in which Americans must vote, or face a penalty.” In that hypothetical future, Galston
sees campaigns appealing to more moderate, swing voters who “preferred compromise to
confrontation and civil discourse to scorched-earth rhetoric.” He sees the House and Senate
“doing serious legislative work” and congressional leaders returning power to the committees,
“where members relearned the art of compromise across party lines.” According to the
International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, over 20 countries worldwide
have compulsory voting, including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Luxembourg, and Singapore. In
Australia, for example, which has had compulsory voting in federal elections since 1924, eligible
citizens must mark a ballot (they don’t have to choose a candidate) or pay a small fine, about
US$17. Voter turnout is over 95 percent. Senior Fellow Thomas Mann, the W. Averell Harriman
Chair in American Governance, called mandatory voting “the most promising” of a range of
reforms designed to increase the size of the electorate and make the parties less polarized. “It
means,” he said in a recent Brookings Cafeteria podcast, that “political parties and candidates
have no incentive to spend huge amounts of money trying to turn out their voters and to
demobilize the opposition’s voters.” And yet, Mann recognizes, such a system is “in conflict
with our values of political freedom.” Listen below and visit the podcast for his discussion of
U.S. political dysfunction, possible remedies beyond compulsory voting, and his thoughts on the
2016 presidential election.

Champion Briefs 160

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Local Elections AC

This affirmative will be very, very good at traditional-style tournaments, especially if

debaters contextualize it to counties and regions that they are competing in. The crux of this
argument is that, while local elections are incredibly important, they receive low voter turnout,
year after year. There are a few speculations as to why this is, but the most likely is that Federal
elections such as the presidential race get far more publicity.
Frameworks will be flexible with this aff, but debaters should focus on utilitarian
frameworks, as most of the included impacts boil down to utilitarianism. Other options may
include a structural violence framework focusing on education.
The best way to read this aff is to contextualize it to a community that debaters are a
part of or where they are debating. This affirmative should be made to be as relatable as
possible to the people judging and debating. The school board impacts will be especially potent
in front of judges that are teachers because it is extremely relatable to them.
The two best ways to answer this aff is to make the argument that because it is likely
that there will be a “None of the above” option, electoral process will remain this same. This is
particularly damning especially regarding the curriculum arguments, because it means that
curriculum will stay the same, which eliminates aff solvency. The second is to dispute impact
claims, as always. Debaters can make impact turns, or just answer the arguments logically.
This case should be kept simple and relatable to win judges over, rather than to
overload your opponent.

Champion Briefs 161

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Local election turnout is historically low, even though municipal

elections are integral to daily life.
Crossley, Callie. “Why Is Voter Turnout In Local Elections So Low?.” September 16, 2019. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2019/09/16/why-is-
voter-turnout-in-local-elections-so-low>.
I probably don’t need to recount the sad reality of municipal voter turnouts. Low is an
understatement. In a story that ran on election day 2017, The Boston Globe’s Meghan Irons and
Milton Valencia reported voters asking, “What campaign?” and noted election officials
“predicted a dim turnout of 23 percent.” Although it actually ended up being slightly better —
28 percent — that was still pathetic, especially for an otherwise politics mad electorate. Of
course, low voter turnout for local elections is not unique to Boston or the state’s other cities
and towns. Multiple surveys reveal that it is the norm across the country unless there is a hotly
contested race — all the better if it’s steeped in a juicy controversy. But, otherwise, it seems
even some supervoters don’t know or seek to know the candidates vying to be their city
councilors, maybe because they are already deeply engaged in the 2020 presidential race. A
recent study called “States of Change” predicts a huge voter turnout for that race next year. I,
too, am intensely interested in campaign 2020, but I still plan to sit down with my pal and
review the experience and policy plans of Cambridge City Council candidates. And I continue to
be confused by the same voters who are so passionate about national elections and national
candidates, yet disconnected from their local government, even though it’s local government
policies that often have more impact on their daily lives.

Champion Briefs 162

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Mandatory voting increases turnout – experts agree – ESPECIALLY at

the local level.
Gibson, Brittany. “How To Boost Voter Turnout: Require It.” The American Prospect. July 21,
2020. Web. August 17, 2020. <https://prospect.org/civil-rights/how-to-boost-voter-
turnout-require-it/>.
A new report proposes changing American voting culture by making civic participation
mandatory. Universal civic participation would in practice require all eligible voters to
participate in every election by either choosing their preferred candidate or returning a blank
ballot. It could be a way to stamp out voter suppression, according to the report’s authors, a
group led by columnist E.J. Dionne of the Brookings Institution, and Miles Rapoport of the Ash
Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation at the Harvard Kennedy School. Were the
report’s proposals adopted, voting participation rates wouldn’t soar overnight. As members of
the working group explained, the change would likely begin at the local level, but the impact
there could build momentum. “There is the potential to have a race to the top here,” said
Brenda Wright, of Demos, in the report’s presentation on Zoom. “Let’s say you’re Philadelphia,
and you propose universal civic duty, and the rest of the state doesn’t do so. People in
Philadelphia will end up turning out in much greater numbers [and] have a bigger effect on
state elections. Other jurisdictions in the state look at that and say, ‘Wait, if we don’t get our
people to the polls in the same numbers, we’re going to be left out.’ And the same thing you
could even conceive of happening at the national level.”

Champion Briefs 163

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Local elections are integral – two reasons.

Wyatt, Melissa. “Why Local Elections Matter.” Medium. March 07, 2017. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://medium.com/@RockTheVote/why-local-elections-matter-6e7ba4545c00>.
Now, let’s go over why local elections matter: 1. Local government manages a lot of different
things — and their decisions will directly affect your life. There is no level of government that is
more directly responsible for serving your community than your local elected officials. Local
government can affect almost every aspect of your daily life. Here’s just a few of the things
they’re responsible for: Local school quality Deciding sanctuary jurisdiction status Policing and
public safety (and holding police accountable) Rent costs and affordable housing Public transit
Alcohol and marijuana ordinances City colleges and job training programs ... the list goes on and
on, all the way down to your recycling options and collection. To sum it up: your local
government has a lot of money and influence to decide what your community’s priorities are
and how it will be run. 2. State and local governments lead the way when the federal
government isn’t. For many of us, the 2016 election was a rough one. Like, really rough. More
than any other voting bloc, our chosen candidates ultimately didn’t win. But there’s still a way
to harness your passions and make a real difference, and that’s by getting involved in municipal
elections. Did you know that many landmark federal policies first originated at the local level?
It’s true — local politics have a long history of shaping change in our country from the ground
up. Policies such as women’s suffrage, minimum wage, environmental protection, and marriage
equality all began at the local and state level. By voting in local elections and holding your
officials accountable, you can help create the change you want to see in our country. If nothing
is moving forward at the federal level (or your federal representatives aren’t making progress in
areas that you care about), it’s the responsibility of local governments to take action.
*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 164

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

They matter even more in 2020 amidst the coronavirus.

Harris, Adam. “It's Not Just The Presidential Race Adjusting To The Coronavirus.” The Atlantic.
March 26, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/03/coronavirus-
campaign/608713/>.
Even as it’s made running for office harder, the coronavirus crisis has highlighted the
importance of state and local governments. When Americans have sought steady leadership,
they have more often found it in those officials than the federal government. As my colleagues
Robinson Meyer and Alexis C. Madrigal wrote this weekend, federal officials “took only illogical,
inadequate actions to stop the virus’s spread” when it was ravaging the Wuhan province in
China, and botched the development of tests that could have helped the nation understand the
severity of the problem. Many people running for local and state office, such as Feagan, are not
full-time candidates. Many of them are parents whose lives are now in flux because of school
closures or job losses, said Amanda Litman, a co-founder of Run for Something, which helps
recruit young people to run for elected office. “Many of them work in jobs that might be
considered first responders right now,” she told me. “That means they are now balancing
working from home or really high-stress jobs with taking care of their kids [and] with
campaigning. That was hard enough when campaigning meant going to events at night and
knocking doors all weekend. It’s 10 times harder now.” For incumbents, the best thing they can
do for constituents is carry out their job. Challengers don’t necessarily have that built-in outlet
for demonstrating leadership, though. They’ll have to use television and digital advertising to
get their messages out. But the down-ballot races where that advertising is most needed in lieu
of in-person campaigning are the ones with the least money to get on the air. That’s less of a
problem in congressional races—where donors target large sums of money—than local and
some state contests. “We know that a lot of voting and congressional races [are] nationalized,”
Sides told me. In those races, candidates may be more likely to tether themselves to national
issues such as health care or tax reform—issues that are intimately linked to the commander in
chief. “So it’s really people’s feelings about conditions in the country as a whole, and especially
their feelings about the president, driving some of these [election] outcomes.” From the
beginning, President Donald Trump undersold the severity of the virus to the American people
and made promises about the government’s ability to contain it that he could not keep.
Republican legislators uniformly held the party line on his messaging. And by slow-walking the
crisis, a bad situation has become exponentially worse.

Champion Briefs 165

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

School board elections are still largely determined by white voters.

Barnum, Matt. “As Public Schools Grow More Diverse, School Board Elections Are Largely
Determined By White Voters.” Chalkbeat. January 29, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.chalkbeat.org/2020/1/29/21121108/as-public-schools-grow-more-
diverse-school-board-elections-are-largely-determined-by-white-voters>.
It’s well known that America’s teachers don’t look much like the country’s students. It turns out
that the voters who elect America’s school boards don’t, either. A new study appears to be the
first of its kind to quantify the demographic mismatch, and it’s sizable. Across four states,
including California, researchers estimate that school board voters are much whiter and more
affluent than the public school student body. In districts serving mostly students of color, like
San Diego and San Francisco, the disparities are particularly striking, nearly 50 percentage
points. “These voters do not resemble the students who attend the public schools,” wrote
researchers Vladimir Kogan, Stéphane Lavertu, and Zachary Peskowitz. “At least two-thirds of
the majority nonwhite districts in our sample are nevertheless governed by school boards
chosen by majority-white electorates.” This is partially a result of demographic realities, as
voting-age Americans are whiter than the country’s children. But the way school board
elections are often set up — in off-cycle years where voter turnout is lower, and the electorate
skews older and whiter — exacerbates the issue. It’s a notable finding, said Domingo Morel, an
education professor at Rutgers University. “In a representative democracy, the whole idea is
that the bodies that govern us are representative of us,” he said. Who decides who governs
school districts serving mostly students of color? The researchers examined who voted in
school board elections between 2008 and 2016 in California, Illinois, Ohio, and Oklahoma. In
each state, there was a sharp demographic divide: the share of voters that were white was
consistently much higher than the share of white students. Voters also tended to be more
affluent.

Champion Briefs 166

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is the best way to enfranchise voters of color.

Wolf, Stephen. “Why Is The US Electorate So White? Because Our Voting System Is Broken.
Here's How To Fix It.” The New Republic. December 23, 2014. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://newrepublic.com/article/120635/mandatory-voting-killing-electoral-college-
would-diversify-electorate>.
Rescheduling local and state elections, ending the disenfranchisement of felons, and
abandoning the Electoral College—even if we could achieve all these changes, we'd still have an
electorate that disproportionately represents white voters. The current gap is simply that wide.
In 2012, total turnout was 72 percent white compared to a 2010 Census voting-age population
that was just 67 percent white. And nearly five years after that Census, with whites an even
smaller share of Americans at large, the 2014 midterm electorate was 75 percent white. We
need also to do more to get eligible voters to the polls. One radical approach would be to
simply mandate that everyone vote. Australia, for one, has a system of compulsory voting in
which citizens are required to vote under penalty of a modest fine (of course, secret ballots do
allow for blank votes). Participation increased enormously when it was implemented in 1924.
This reform would likely require a constitutional amendment, but the outcome is an electorate
almost exactly aligned with the composition of the citizenry. Many would chafe at the idea of
compelling the exercise of a fundamental right. But consider how unresponsive our government
becomes when turnout is low as it was in Ferguson’s city elections or 2014’s midterms.
Americans say they don't vote largely because they lack the availability. The structural
impediments to voting—Tuesday elections, long lines, lack of easy transportation access—
suggest our system evolved to place the heaviest burden on the working class, who are
disproportionately non-white. By making Election Day a national holiday, expanding early
voting hours, and providing vote-by-mail options, we could significantly shrink obstacles for
those who cannot afford a car or take off from work.

Champion Briefs 167

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

The best way to raise the achievement of students of color is to

improve curriculum in schools – only local school boards can solve.
, LearnZillion. “Trying To Raise Student Achievement? Start With Curriculum.” LearnZillion.
November 07, 2000. Web. August 17, 2020. <https://blog.learnzillion.com/blog/trying-
to-raise-student-achievement-start-with-curriculum>.
Research points to curriculum as the most affordable and powerful change a district can make
to improve student outcomes and address achievement gaps. One study found that switching
curriculum to boost achievement was, on average, nearly 40 times more cost-effective than
reducing class size to bolster student outcomes. This is in part due to curriculum’s power to
affect meaningful student growth, rivaling even the impact that teacher effectiveness has on
student performance. In a recent study, Chiefs for Change states that “the most extensive study
to date found that a comprehensive, content-rich curriculum was the salient feature in nine of
the world’s highest-performing school systems.” Too often, district-provided curricula isn’t able
to fully meet the specific needs of teachers and students, so much so that teachers often need
to hunt down instructional materials from various print and online resources themselves. As a
result, many students are learning from idiosyncratic curricula, making it nearly impossible to
guarantee that they receive the significant cumulative impact that high-quality curriculum
provides among classrooms and over time. But there are states and districts innovating to
ensure that their teachers have access to and are motivated to use high-quality curriculum.
After the Louisiana Department of Education evaluated ELA curricula and couldn’t find an
option that met all of their state’s needs, they built their own. But teachers struggled to use the
first iteration of the curriculum, built in PDF form, which prompted the state to transform its
curriculum into an easier-to-use, dynamic digital resource. A study from the RAND Corporation
found that Louisiana teachers are now teaching and thinking about their work in ways that align
more closely with state standards than teachers in other states are.

Champion Briefs 168

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Education reform is key to future innovation.

, Organization For Economic Co-operation A. “Innovating Education And Educating For
Innovation.” Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. 2016. Web. August 17,
2020. <http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/GEIS2016-Background-document.pdf>.
The problem education is facing is mainly one of productivity and efficiency. Here, efficiency
means the balance between resources invested and the outcomes in terms of students’
performance and equity. Over the past decades ever more resources have been invested in
education. Looking just at school education, the average expenditure per student across OECD
countries increased by no less than 17% between 2005 and 2013 in constant prices (OECD,
2016). But over roughly the same period, the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) data from the 2003 and 2012 surveys show no significant improvement in test scores.
Instead, in most countries the percentage of top performers has declined. And, while the PISA
data show some progress in equity, huge gaps remain in equality of opportunity and education
outcomes between various social groups (OECD, 2013). The problem of productivity and
efficiency in education is even more striking when education is compared with other public
policy sectors, which have realised enormous productivity gains in past decades. In sectors such
as health, technology has been a major driver of increased productivity and efficiency with
much improved outcomes even if the cost has also gone up. Many observers wonder why
enormous advances in technology has not yet led to similar improvements in education.
Governments have invested a lot in bringing technology, mainly information and
communications technology (ICT), to schools. But, as the analysis of PISA data discussed in
Chapter 3 will show, it has not yet been possible to 13 1. The innovation imperative in
education Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The power of digital technologies
and skills © OECD 2016 associate increased availability and use of computers in schools with
improvements in learning outcomes. This book argues that innovation in education – as in all
sectors of the economy and society – is imperative to bring about qualitative changes, in
contrast to the mere quantitative expansion that we have seen so far. This will lead to more
efficiency and improved outcomes in quality and equity of learning opportunities. Innovation in
education as part of innovation in economies and societies In the last few decades, innovation
in general has been increasingly regarded as a crucial factor in maintaining competitiveness in a
globalised economy. Innovation can breathe new life into slowing stagnant markets, and act as
a mechanism to enhance any organisation’s ability to adapt to changing environments
(Damanpour and Gopalakrishnan, 1998; Hargadon and Sutton, 2000). Both policies and theories
on innovation have mainly focused on the business sector (Lekhi, 2007). Businesses need to
innovate in order to keep up with their competition by introducing new products or services,
improving the efficiency of their production processes and organisational arrangements, or
enhancing the marketing of their activities in order to guarantee their survival. Much more
recently, policy interest has extended this “innovation imperative” from private organisations
to the provision of public services. Although public services, including education, tend neither
to operate within competitive markets nor have the same incentives to innovate as businesses

Champion Briefs 169

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

do (Lekhi, 2007), there are important arguments to push for innovation in education to
maximise the value of public investment (Box 1.1). Several recent national innovation strategies
include provisions for more innovation in the public sector (such as Australia, Finland, the
Netherlands, Norway and the United Kingdom). Demographic pressures, burgeoning demand
for government services, higher public expectations and ever-tighter fiscal constraints mean
that the public sector needs innovative solutions to enhance productivity, contain costs and
boost public satisfaction. Innovation in the public sector in general, and in education in
particular, could be a major driver for significant welfare gains. Governments provide a large
number of services in OECD countries and these services account for a considerable share of
national income. Government expenditure in OECD countries represents about 48% of gross
domestic product (GDP) on average, and in some cases corresponds to more than half of
national GDP. Education is a major component of government services: in 2012, public
expenditure on educational institutions accounted for 5.3% of national income on average for
OECD countries (OECD, 2015b). Innovations to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of such
a large area of government spending could yield important benefits. Why innovation in
education matters How could innovation add value in the case of education? First of all,
educational innovations can improve learning outcomes and the quality of education provision.
For example, changes in the educational system or in teaching methods can help customise the
educational process. New trends in personalised learning rely heavily on new ways of
organising schools and the use of ICT. Second, education is perceived in most countries as a
means of enhancing equity and equality. Innovations could help enhance equity in the access to
and use of education, as well as equality in learning outcomes. 1. The innovation imperative in
education 14 Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation: The power of digital
technologies and skills © OECD 2016 Third, public organisations are often under as much
pressure as businesses to improve efficiency, minimise costs and maximise the “bang for the
buck”. Mulgan and Albury (2003) argue that there has been a tendency for costs in all public
services to rise faster than those in the rest of the economy, and education is no exception.
While this could be attributed to Baumol’s “cost disease” (see Chapter 6), inherent to any
public-service provision which faces ever-rising labour costs and limited scope for
transformative productivity gains, this may also be due to a lack of innovation, (Foray and Raffo,
2012). Innovation, then, could stimulate more efficient provision of these services. Finally,
education should remain relevant in the face of rapid changes to society and the national
economy (Barrett, 1998: 288). The education sector should therefore introduce the changes it
needs to adapt to societal needs. For example, education systems need to adopt teaching,
learning or organisational practices that have been identified as helping 1. The innovation
imperative in education Innovating Education and Educating for Innovation : The power of
digital technologies and skills © OECD 2016 to foster “skills for innovation” (Dumont et al.,
2010; Schleicher, 2012; Winner et al., 2013). The results from PISA, as well as the Trends in
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Progress in International Reading
Literacy Study (PIRLS) and the OECD Survey on Adult Skills point to the need for innovation to
improve results in literacy, numeracy or scientific literacy in many countries.

Champion Briefs 170

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Education key to state economy- equals more educated workforce,

more jobs, more tax money.
Berger, Noah. “A Well-Educated Workforce Is Key To State Prosperity.” Economic Policy
Institute. August 22, 2013. Web. August 17, 2020.
<http://www.epi.org/publication/states-education-productivity-growth-foundations/>.
Does the correlation between education and earnings necessarily mean that states can
strengthen their economies in the long run by adopting policies that increase the number of
well-educated workers? Recent academic work suggests that the answer is, “Yes.” A study by
Federal Reserve economists examined the factors contributing to greater state prosperity over
a 65-year period and found that a state’s high school and college attainment rates were
important factors in explaining its per capita income growth relative to other states between
1939 and 2004 (Bauer, Schweitzer, and Shane 2006).Increasing educational attainment can be
achieved by a variety of policies and programs, including those that increase access to
postsecondary education by restraining tuition growth or increasing financial aid, reduce high-
school drop-out rates, move people without high school degrees through GED and associate
degree programs, increase the quality of K-12 education to improve success of high school
graduates in postsecondary education, and offer preschool programs that lead to long-term
improvements in educational outcomes. An evaluation of the effectiveness of alternative
education strategies is beyond the scope of this report. But there is evidence that state
expenditures on primary and secondary education improve school performance and raise state
per capita income. For example, investments in school facilities led to improvements in student
test scores (Cellini, Ferreira, and Rothstein 2010). And over a 34-year period, states that
improved their position relative to other states on real per-capita education spending improved
their relative position in real per-capita income, and the direction of causality was from
education spending to income (Bensi, Black, and Dowd 2004). Also, the long-term benefits of
early childhood education programs have been well documented (Lynch 2007). Some state
officials may be tempted to ask, “What good would it do to produce more college graduates if
better-paying jobs for college graduates are not available?” “Shouldn’t the state focus on
attracting higher-skilled jobs instead of creating more skilled workers who have to leave the
state to find work?” But in this instance, if not in most others in economic policymaking,
increased supply can actually help create its own demand. As Bartik has put it, “An increase in
the labor supply probably stimulates labor demand by at least two-thirds the supply increase.
This is because additional labor attracts employers, and additional higher-skilled labor attracts
employers with more skilled jobs” (Bartik 2009). To a degree then, the answer to these
concerns is, “If you educate them, jobs will come,” though national strategies to increase the
demand for skilled workers may also be needed. Education investments are good not only for a
state’s economy and residents, but also for a state’s budget in the long run. This may seem
counterintuitive since education is a large share of state-financed expenditure—typically over
half if including postsecondary education and state aid to K-12 school systems.4 But education

Champion Briefs 171

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

investments can pay off for the state in the long run. The majority of students graduating from
state schools will remain in the state over their working lives, and as a result of being better
trained, will have better jobs. This means they will earn more and stay employed at a higher
rate, paying more income and sales taxes and relying less on state assistance programs. There is
evidence that every additional student who gets an associate or bachelor’s degree instead of
stopping formal education after graduating from high school will, over his or her lifetime, return
to the state, in the form of higher taxes, substantially more than the cost of their education.
This means that scholarships or other programs that lead more students to higher education
can more than pay for themselves, even if a third of the graduates leave the state (French and
Fisher 2009). The overall returns from investments in early childhood education mean that such
investments will generally pay for themselves (Lynch 2007).

Champion Briefs 172

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Education key to preventing Climate Change – providing students

facts, skills, and motivation to take action.
Dyster, Adam. “Education Is The Key To Addressing Climate Change.” CCN. September 07, 2013.
Web. August 17, 2020. <http://www.climatechangenews.com/2013/07/09/comment-
education-is-the-key-to-addressing-climate-change/>.
Education is vitally important for several, key reasons. It can deliver the scientific facts about
the biggest issue facing young people, something that is being felt by millions worldwide. It
equips youth with the skills to help combat climate change, and be part of a green recovering,
and positive future. It also encourages young people to be involved as global citizens, and
involves and engages them in an issue that’s impacts will be felt most keenly by those now
going through the education system. We have a responsibility to educate, not only bound by
international convention, but by moral and ethical duties. Schools must educate young people
about the world around them, so that they are informed with facts and key issues. Education
should keep up to date with science and academic thought. Just as the facts and science of
stem cell research or alcohol abuse are taught, because of their relevance and strong scientific
foundations, so should climate change and sustainability – indeed, even more so, given the
magnitude and impact of environmental issues. Facts not fiction Such education must be about
facts and science, not treated as the political football as it so often is. Such politicisation mires
the issue, and means that the urgency and relevancy of climate change education is often lost
amidst political point scoring. This should, as with other relevant science-based issues, be an
area of consensus, not party political manoeuvring. Beyond establishing the facts of the issue,
education can have be a great force for good, preparing young people to face, and indeed
improve, the world after education has long been completed. How can we expect creative
solutions and innovation to combat climate and sustainability issues if we don’t educate the
next generation about them? The UK campaign against the removal of climate change from the
Geography curriculum is itself proof of the power of education. Esha Marwaha, at 15-years-old,
was able to write so eloquently on the dangers of removing climate change that her petition
gained over 30,000 signatures in a matter of weeks. Yet without education, would we get
another Esha, or another generation of activists, or even another generation who care about
climate change. Without education, those who want or who’re able to combat climate change
will surely be in the minority. New jobs This is especially relevant with the need for innovation
and sustainable development. Currently the green economy is nascent, its burgeoning growth
providing employment and a viable alternative to resource hungry industries and economic
models. But positive growth needs new generations who both understand the need for
alternative development and have the passion and desire to act. Education has a key role in
showing young people that not only do they have wider responsibilities, but also that they are
entitled to involvement in decisions. Climate change and sustainability are issues that cut across
generations, and the decisions that are made today will have impact not upon the generation
that makes them, but generations to come.1 Education can help give young people the tools to

Champion Briefs 173

AFF: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

take part in these decisions, allowing them to enter into the debate. UN agreements Finally,
there is a legal obligation for many countries to educate about climate change. Under Article 6
of the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, signatories are obliged to: ‘Promote
and facilitate …the development and implementation of educational and public awareness
programmes on climate change and its effects’. This article is clear and direct, and must not be
ignored. However in many respects this legal obligation is a lesser consideration when
compared to the moral obligation each generation has to educate the next about climate
change. Education is the most powerful tool and can engage young people in the debate,
prepare them for working with the green economy, and give the definitive science and facts
about the biggest issue facing young people. To quote H.G. Wells: “Human history becomes
more and more a race between education and catastrophe.”

Champion Briefs 174

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Climate AC

This case is based on utilitarianism, which argues that individuals’ and states’ moral
responsibility is to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Democracies
act according to the will of the majority, and every policy has significant effects on people’s
ability to flourish (experiencing lives with more happiness than suffering). Some utilitarians,
such as Robert Goodin, argue that governments can only act in a utilitarian fashion; they only
know how policies affect people in the aggregate, not on an individual-by-individual basis.
Applied to compulsory voting, each person that doesn’t vote may have an idiosyncratic
motivation, but the government has to prioritize society as a whole, and cannot carve out
exceptions for every special case. Democracies can even decide that minor curtailment of the
freedom of the few, such as non-voters, maximizes freedom for the majority of people who
have less rights now. Of course, to make the argument about more rights > less rights, you’d
have to argue for consequentialism (morality requires promoting the good), which is broader
than utilitarianism (which focuses on pleasure/pain, although rights violations cause suffering).
This affirmative argues that compulsory voting, by producing higher turnout among
poor and working-class people, especially people of color, will benefit the Democratic Party.
Analogously, the Australian Labor Party tends to win elections more often because of
compulsory voting. This creates the electoral majorities necessary for effective, broad-based
climate action. Climate change will cause mass suffering through decades to come, and possibly
the death of all living beings. The weakness of this position is that there are good studies
showing that compulsory voting has no effect on which party wins more often. Australia is a
good counter-example of a country with compulsory voting that has recently elected prime
ministers and parties that are strongly opposed to regulating or taxing greenhouse gas
emissions.

Champion Briefs 175

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting reduces polarization--that increases the viability of

climate action.
Alcorn, Gay. “How Australia's Compulsory Voting Saved It From Trumpism.” The Guardian.
March 07, 2019. Web. August 14, 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2019/mar/08/how-australias-compulsory-voting-saved-it-from-trumpism>.
Compulsory voting keeps politics focused on the centre rather than the fringe of politics. To win
elections, political parties have to appeal not just to their base but to the majority of people.
Australia is also one of only a few countries with preferential voting, which means a voter ranks
candidates in order of preference, compared with most countries where the candidate with the
most votes wins. It ensures that those elected have the support of the majority of voters. “It
keeps the emotional temper of the conflict down,” says Brett. “That’s become more evident
recently with the way politics has gone in the United States, where you’ve had issues around
sexuality and race being used to motivate voters. If you need to get out the vote, you need to
have things that people are going to feel passionate about, and that’s not necessarily such a
good thing.” Brett gives the example of the fringe right within the Liberal party that has fiercely
rejected action on climate change – the issue that cost former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull
his job. Yet most Australians want serious action on climate change and the party has “got
themselves right out of whack, and you can see [prime minister] Scott Morrison trying to pull
them back desperately now”. Brett disagrees with commentators who argue Australian politics
is becoming as polarised as the United States. It’s “lazy thinking … our political culture is pretty
different. There may be that level of polarisation within the political class, because they’re
much more heated in the way they argue their politics, but there’s not so much evidence of it, I
don’t think [among the general population].” Australians may distrust their politicians and
abhor their behaviour, she says, but they value the role of government in their lives and they
trust their electoral system.

Champion Briefs 176

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is key to youth turnout---that ensures older voters

can't dominate elections--youth votes are key to climate action.
Lodge, Guy. “The Case For Compulsory Voting.” New Statesman. April 28, 2012. Web. August
14, 2020. <https://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/case-compulsory-
voting>.
Democracies have an ingenious mechanism for ensuring that public policy broadly reflects the
demands of the population: voting. Yet elections are only able to achieve this if the views of the
electorate accurately reflect those of the population. When the collective desires of the voting
population diverges too much from those of the citizenry at large, elections can no longer steer
governments according to popular wishes. There are worrying signs that this is beginning to
happen in the UK, with potentially devastating consequences for the body politic. Turnout in
this week’s local elections is likely to be low. But falling turnout is not the fundamental problem
facing British democracy. The far greater challenge concerns the growing inequality in turnout,
which gives those that do vote unfair influence at the ballot box. Electoral participation is falling
fastest among the young and the least affluent. According to Mori at the last general election,
76 per cent of voters from the top social class (AB) voted, whereas just 57 per cent of voters in
the bottom social class (DE) did. This social-class gap has tripled since 1992, suggesting that the
political voice of the well-off remains strong, as that of the poor gets weaker. The age-gap is
even starker: the young are getting massively outgunned by the burgeoning grey vote, with 76
per cent of those aged over 65 voting in 2010, compared to just 44 per cent of 18-24 year olds.
This gap between the voting power of the young and old has grown steadily over time. Worse
still, there is now clear evidence of a generation effect: that is those that don’t vote when
they’re young are now less likely than previous generation to develop the habit of voting as
they move into middle age. The consequences of differential rates of electoral participation for
public policy are profound. Worrying evidence from the US suggests that non-voters are much
less well represented than voters, and surely it cannot be coincidental that the recent spending
cuts in the UK have disproportionately affected the young and the poor – precisely those
groups that vote with least frequencies. Why has the Education Maintenance Allowance been
cut and tuition fees trebled but the free goodies (TV licenses, bus passes, winter fuel payments)
going to older people preserved? Indeed the ageing of the baby-boomer generation is
emboldening the power of the grey vote over non-voters. In an age of austerity this means
governments are likely to continue to allocate scarce resources to the health service and state
pensions, at the expense of investing in tackling longer-term strategic challenges like climate
change and child-care provision. Just look at the recent furor of the so-called Granny tax –
which asked pensioners, and relatively affluent pensioners at that, to make a (small)
contribution to deficit reduction – to appreciate how difficult it is for governments to take on
the grey vote. Increasing electoral turnout is not just a nice idea, it is something we must
actively strive for if elections are to serve the needs of all citizens. Sadly this is not something
the coalition government cares about: their proposal to shift from a compulsory to voluntary

Champion Briefs 177

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

system of voter registration will at a stroke disenfranchise millions of voters. So how can we
increase rates of electoral participation, particularly among ‘hard-to-reach’ groups such as the
young and the poor? IPPR research demonstrates that by far the most effective – albeit
controversial - way of boosting participation is to make voting compulsory. It is more
widespread than many realise, and is currently practiced in approximately a quarter of the
world’s democracies, including Belgium and Australia, though in no case is voting itself required
by law; rather what is mandatory is attendance at the polls. Not all of these states actively
enforce the legal requirement to turn out on election-day, but among those that do,
enforcement is usually underpinned by means of small fines. Countries that use such sanctions
have turnout levels that are on average 12 to 13 per cent higher than those where electoral
attendance is voluntary. Moreover, states that make electoral participation a legal requirement
also have higher levels of satisfaction with democracy, lower levels of wealth inequality and less
corruption.

Champion Briefs 178

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is key to mobilization against climate change. Even

if right-wing governments can still win, activating the entire polity will
give climate activists a wider audience.
Tucker, Todd. “Compulsory Voting: A Salve For Broken Politics?.” Medium. September 22, 2019.
Web. August 14, 2020. <https://medium.com/@toddntucker/compulsory-voting-a-
salve-for-broken-politics-fbf2d09b9744>.
That said, it might be a way to lessen racism and classism in our politics and turnout rates — at
a time when we need a lot of less of both in order to tackle existential threats like climate
change and inequality. (See @blfraga and @wwfranko for more on turnout gaps.) That said, it’s
no silver bullet. Australia — like most advanced democracies — has seen declining faith in
government, more economic inequality, and -this year — a right-wing government re-elected
pledging to slow walk the fight against climate change. Technocratic fixes don’t save citizens
from having to do politics and build support for their favored outcomes. But activating the shell
of the whole polity through compulsory voting gives activists a better container in which to do
said politics.

Champion Briefs 179

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting generally benefits the political left by increasing

turnout among working class and poor people.
Tucker, Todd. “Australia: Compulsory Voting.” Politico: How to Fix Politics. 2019. Web. August
14, 2020. <https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-
experiments/>.
Yet Australia’s system is not perfect. Empirical research shows that compulsory voting, once
introduced in Australia or elsewhere, has tended to benefit the political left, which could be
one reason the right in Australia has periodically toyed with eliminating it. Citizens have also
challenged the requirement over the years, arguing that the candidates on offer were too
capitalistic, anti-Aboriginal or corrupt (voting for “none of the above” is not an option); those
challenges have been blocked in court. Since Australians can’t sit any race out, whether an
election, by-election or referendum—and same for state elections, which aren’t held on the
same day as the federal ones—they need to educate themselves on a lot of different issues. (In
practice, this isn’t too onerous, though: The last mandatory federal referendum was two
decades ago, on sacking the queen as head of state. It failed.) Like their peers abroad,
Australians also report declining faith in government. Only 41 percent of Australians say they
are happy with democracy in their country, compared with almost twice that about a decade
ago. And Australia is following the lead of the United States in becoming more stratified by
wealth. Could compulsory voting happen here? Late in his second presidential term, Barack
Obama praised Australia’s mandatory polls, noting that a vastly increased electorate in the
United States could help to balance out the influence of corporate money in politics. “The
people who tend not to vote are young. They’re lower income. They’re skewed more heavily
towards immigrant groups and minority groups,” Obama said at a Cleveland town hall in 2015.
“There’s a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls.” A mandatory vote
could be seen as a coordination device for the working class and poor, who outnumber rich
voters but historically vote in lower numbers: While it might be irrational for any one individual
to vote, a mandate ensures everyone that people who share their economic interests will turn
out.

Champion Briefs 180

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Polarization undermines American climate action now---compulsory

voting solves, because it would ensure that the majority of people
who care about climate change are showing up to elections.
Jackman, Simon. “Australians, Americans, And Climate Change.” The United States Studies
Centre, University of Sydney. November 20, 2009. Web. August 14, 2020.
<http://united-states-studies-
centre.s3.amazonaws.com/attache/af/c4/4b/05/62/67/31/9e/0d/b3/c4/ff/13/92/21/24
/091120_climate_change_survey.pdf>.
Canberra is not Washington This brief comparison of public opinion suggests that majorities in
both Australian and the United States support action on climate change, at least in a broad
sense. Moreover, there is considerable partisan polarisation on issues to do with climate
change in both countries, but this polarisation is considerably more pronounced in the United
States. Supporters of conservative parties in both countries are considerably more skeptical
about climate change and less supportive of government action than the respective
populations-at-large. Skepticism/opposition runs deepest amongst Republican voters who are
considerably more negative on the issue of climate change than their Liberal party counterparts
in Australia. This polarisation in the US would seem to give the Obama administration and
Democrats in Congress an incentive to push hard on climate change issues, so as to highlight
that Republicans are “out of touch” with mainstream public opinion on this issue. This could
well be part of the political narrative in the United States leading into the 2010 mid-term
elections, and climate change is likely to be the next big-ticket item on the US domestic policy
agenda if and when the health care reform debate winds down. The interesting question is why
has Rudd made climate change legislation such a priority, but Obama and Congressional
Democrats have not? In answering this question, we note that while there are many similarities
between American and Australian public opinion on climate change, there are some politically
consequential differences. First, only 57% of Americans believe that global warming is
generated by human activity; the corresponding figure is 67% in our Australian data. Moreover,
57% is hardly an overwhelming majority. And unlike the Australian case, where compulsory
voting ensures that all of that 67% is required to enroll and vote, the 57% level of support in the
United States almost surely translates into less-than-majority support once we subset down to
the segment of the American population likely to turn out in the 2010 mid-term elections. A
reasonable guess based on historical experience is that no more than 40% of the eligible
population will vote in the 2010 midterm elections, down from the 62% turnout recorded in the
2008 presidential elections.5

Champion Briefs 181

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is key to youth turnout, which makes climate

action politically viable.
Martin, Lawrence. “It's Time To Make Voting Compulsory.” iPolitics (Canada). March 26, 2014.
Web. August 14, 2020. <https://ipolitics.ca/2014/03/26/its-time-to-make-voting-
compulsory/>.
It’s an astonishing contrast. In the last federal election, voter turnout for people aged 65 to 74
was an estimated 75 per cent. The rate for people aged 18-24 was 38 per cent — half that of
the older cohort. Cool, eh? In other words, the people deciding Canada’s future are the ones
who aren’t going to be here that much longer. Those who have the biggest stake in our future
aren’t even bothering — out of laziness, apathy, bone headedness or whatever — to weigh in.
So it was a fine idea for the University of Ottawa to hold a forum on youth voting Tuesday. The
opposition party leaders came out. They all said the right things. They all stressed how youth
could make a difference, how issues like climate change would get more attention if more
young people voted. Events like this one will help turnout. The presence in the next election of
the youthful Justin Trudeau as Liberal leader will help. Tom Mulcair’s NDP has many young
caucus members, particularly in Quebec. That will help as well. Who knows? We might even get
the voting rate among the young and restless up to 50 per cent — which would still be pathetic.
The overall voting rate in Canada is only about 60 per cent. It might go a little higher — which
also would be pathetic. There’s an easy solution to this, one which the party leaders at the
forum didn’t touch on, unfortunately. It’s to go the route of Australia and over 20 other
countries around the world and make voting compulsory. It’s been talked about here a bit in
the past. But since the pros outweigh the cons it should be the focus of much more debate —
particularly among progressive party leaders, since their parties would stand to benefit
significantly from such a change. The big counter-argument is that forcing people to vote is an
oppressive, statist measure. It’s a strong argument, one cited by Stephen Harper back in the
day when he was head of the National Citizens’ Coalition. Compulsory voting would help
protect election results from being overly influenced by the parties with the best get-out-the-
vote machines and the most money. It would reduce the impact of dirty tricks designed to
suppress or increase the vote. But there is a way to mitigate that problem. Put a box on the
ballot that says ‘none of the above’. Do that, and you’re not forcing anyone to cast a ballot for a
person or party they don’t want. Marking that box would signal dissatisfaction with the system
in a far stronger way than staying away from the polls. The advantages to compulsory voting
are numerous. It would induce great numbers of complacent or disinterested people to become
engaged in the political process. If they knew they would have to vote, more people would start
paying attention to what’s going on in government. Parties tend to win federal elections in
Canada with the support of only 35 to 40 per cent of those who voted. That means that out of
all eligible Canadian voters, the winners have the support of little more than 20 per cent of the
population. With almost all the population voting, governments would have more legitimacy.
Compulsory voting would help protect election results from being overly influenced by the

Champion Briefs 182

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

parties with the best get-out-the-vote machines and the most money. It would reduce the
impact of dirty tricks designed to suppress or increase the vote. Compulsory voting would make
the voices of the socially disadvantaged far louder than they are under our current system. It
would mean all segments of the population would be heard to the degree their numbers
dictate they should. Countries with compulsory voting include Argentina and Brazil, as well as
Australia. There are many different approaches. Australia imposes fines of up to $170. In the
election of 2013, many opted to pay the fine instead of going to the polls. But the turnout was
still 92 per cent. A push for compulsory voting will never happen under the Conservatives. They
have the best get-out-the-vote machine. They don’t want the youth or the socially
disadvantaged to vote in great numbers because those people tend to vote for other parties.
Progressive parties would stand to gain from mandatory voting — but they’ve shied away from
trying to build support for it because compelling people to vote has an ugly ring to some
people.

Champion Briefs 183

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting reduces polarization.

Shineman, Victoria. “More On Mandatory Voting, Which Does *Not* Necessarily Make
Electorate Less Informed.” The American Prospect. November 28, 2011. Web. August
14, 2020. <http://www.billmadden.com/activist360/2011/11/more-on-mandatory-
voting-which-does-not-necessarily-make-electorate-less-informed/ >.
The information effect also ties into the polarization debate. A person will vote when their
perceived benefit of voting exceeds their perceived cost of voting. In a 2-party system, people
on the extremes experience a bigger benefit differential between the two candidates, as
compared to people in the middle. This suggests that extremists naturally have more at stake in
an election, and so have a higher perceived benefit from voting. This difference increases with
polarization, as the candidates are placed further apart. When voting costs are high, it is
difficult to motivate a centrist citizen to endure the cost of voting, since that actor has little to
gain from affecting the outcome of the election. As voting costs decrease, the probability that a
moderate can be incentivized to vote increases. Because CB effectually decreases the
considered cost of voting, it should also increase the participation among moderates.

Champion Briefs 184

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Political polarization undermines concern for climate change in

politics.
Guber, Deborah Lynn. “A Cooling Climate For Change? Party Polarization And The Politics Of
Global Warming.” American Behavioral Scientist 57:1. January, 2013. Web. August 14,
2020. <http://abs.sagepub.com/content/57/1/93.full.pdf+html>.
The history of global warming as a political issue is at least as interesting as its evolution as a
scientific one. In the past 30 years, what began as an ill-defined condition has gradually
emerged as a public problem worthy of attention on the national policy agenda. Yet it is
increasingly apparent that those gains have come at a cost. Whereas once, the issue had been
bolstered by majority support among average Americans— although never prominently or
enthusiastically, to be sure—it is now characterized by a growing partisan divide. In a variety of
ways, this article has explored the shifting terrain beneath the public’s views on climate change.
Its most important conclusions can be summarized as follows. First, concern for global warming
has declined sharply, but so, too, has concern for all other environmental problems. The
comparison is an important one because it hints at a complex cause. Some of the ingredients
likely relate to poor economic conditions; others, to issue-specific events and even to a broader
political climate strained by partisan rancor among elites. The results found here must be
understood, and to some extent softened, by these facts. Not every number associated with
global warming in a poll relates to global warming alone. As students of political psychology
have long recognized, public attitudes are created and sustained through a complex web of
schema, within which the subject of global warming is but a single thread (Conover & Feldman,
1984). Second, whether we call them “influentials,” “legitimizers,” or “opinion leaders,” elites
and the cues they provide to members of the mass public undoubtedly matter (Katz &
Lazarsfeld, 1955; Stewart, Smith, & Denton, 1994). In The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion,
John Zaller (1992) argues that “public attitudes toward major issues are a response to the
relative intensity of competing political communications.” When elites unite, the public’s
response is relatively nonideological. However, “when elites come to disagree along partisan or
ideological lines,” as they did for Zaller during the latter stages of the Vietnam War, and as they
did on global warming in the years following the release of the documentary film An
Inconvenient Truth in 2007, “the public’s response will become ideological as well” (Zaller,
1992, p. 210). Surely, the efforts of Gore and others at the IPCC succeeded in capturing public
and media attention, but strategies to increase issue salience often, and unwittingly, invite
political opposition. The timing on climate change could not have been worse, since its
opponents were already emboldened by a series of events virtually guaranteed to reorder the
public’s priorities, ranging from 9/11 to soaring energy prices and a deep and prolonged
economic recession (Guber & Bosso, 2009). In short, as Zaller would have predicted, party
polarization among elites has now trickled down to the masses. Like the unraveling of a thread,
opposing sides on global warming are now evident within the American mass public and, to a
lesser extent, on a host of other more innocuous subjects ranging from air pollution to soil

Champion Briefs 185

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

contamination by toxic waste and the loss of tropical rainforests. These differences are robust,
even after controlling for demographic traits, such as age, education, income, race, and gender.
Now that disagreements extend beyond policy preferences into virtually every aspect of
environmental thought, it will be harder to sustain what had been called “the politics of
consensus”—a fragile (if at times unproductive) equilibrium that for many years allowed
discourse on the environment to focus on shared values while muting cleavages along
ideological lines (Guber, 2003). For better or for worse, partisanship has now moved front and
center in the debate on global warming. For the better, Levendusky (2010) offers an optimistic
assessment. He believes that elite polarization can have a positive impact because it clarifies
“where the parties stand on the issues of the day,” and thus “causes ordinary voters to adopt
more consistent attitudes” (Levendusky, 2010, p. 111). On a subject that has rarely moved
voters to action in the past (Guber, 2003), this could lead to an increase in green voting
behavior in the future, although the net effect, both for and against, remains unpredictable. For
this reason, activists are increasingly divided as to whether to pursue partisan or bipartisan
strategies. A partisan approach might articulate differences in policy that could be used as a
wedge to attract some votes, but it would likely sacrifice others by triggering opposing
predispositions. In contrast, a bipartisan plan might actively seek and find middle ground and
yet lock advocates into a far slower and more incremental process of policy change (Abbasi,
2006). Yet either way, there are significant dangers to consider, too. On global warming, in
particular, there is troubling contrast between “hard policy” on one hand and admittedly “soft
thinking” on the other (Wagner & Zeckhauser, 2012). As Walter Lippmann (1922, p. 273)
famously wrote, people respond not to an objective reality but rather to the “pictures in their
heads,” a metaphor that seems particularly well suited to issues where there is an obvious
disconnect between scientific understanding and mass competence. As Levendusky (2010)
admits, consistency is “more about the power of party cues than the presence of ideological
thinking in the electorate” (p. 126). Allowing political parties and other players to frame the
debate over climate change, “opens the door to elite manipulation of mass behavior, a
troubling implication to say the least” (Levendusky, 2010, p. 126; see also Kinder & Herzog,
1993; Sniderman & Theriault, 2004). The infamous Luntz memo, written in 2002 to help
Republican candidates reassure voters that they were committed to preserving and protecting
the environment, despite a platform of policies to the contrary, underscores the importance of
language and reminds us that rhetoric, classically understood, is key to winning policy debates
(Luntz Research Companies, 2002; McCright & Dunlap, 2000).

Champion Briefs 186

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Global warming causes ecosystem collapse and threatens human

extinction.
Spratt, David. “Existential Climate-related Security Risk: A Scenario Approach.” Breakthrough –
National Centre for Climate Restoration. May, 2019. Web. August 14, 2020.
<https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/148cb0_a1406e0143ac4c469196d3003bc1e687.pdf>.
With the commitments by nations to the 2015 Paris Agreement , the current path of warming is
3°C or more by 2100. But this figure does not include “long-term” carbon-cycle feedbacks,
which are materially relevant now and in the near future due to the unprecedented rate at
which human activity is perturbing the climate system. Taking these into account, the Paris path
would lead to around 5°C of warming by 2100. 7 Scientists warn that warming of 4°C is
incompatible with an organised global community, is devastating to the majority of ecosystems,
and has a high probability of not being stable. The World Bank says it may be “beyond
adaptation”. But an existential threat may also exist for many peoples and regions at a
significantly lower level of warming. In 2017, 3°C of warming was categorised as “catastrophic”
with a warning that, on a path of unchecked emissions, low-probability, high-impact warming
could be catastrophic by 2050. 9 The Emeritus Director of the Potsdam Institute, Prof. Hans
Joachim Schellnhuber, warns that “climate change is now reaching the end-game, where very
soon humanity must choose between taking unprecedented action, or accepting that it has
been left too late and bear the consequences.” He says that if we continue down the present
path “there is a very big risk that we will just end our civilisation. The human species will survive
somehow but we will destroy almost everything we have built up over the last two thousand
years.” 11 Unfortunately, conventional risk and probability analysis becomes useless in these
circumstances because it excludes the full implications of outlier events and possibilities lurking
at the fringes. 12 Prudent risk-management means a tough, objective look at the real risks to
which we are exposed, especially at those “fat-tail” events, which may have consequences that
are damaging beyond quantification, and threaten the survival of human civilisation. Global
warming projections display a “fat-tailed” distribution with a greater likelihood of warming that
is well in excess of the average amount of warming predicted by climate models, and are of a
higher probability than would be expected under typical statistical assumptions. More
importantly, the risk lies disproportionately in the “fat-tail” outcomes, as illustrated in Figure 1.
This is a particular concern with potential climate tipping-points — passing critical thresholds
which result in step changes in the climate system that will be irreversible on human timescales
— such as the polar ice sheets (and hence sea levels), permafrost and other carbon stores,
where the impacts of global warming are non-linear and difficult to model with current
scientific knowledge. Recently, attention has been given to a “hothouse Earth” scenario, in
which system feedbacks and their mutual interaction could drive the Earth System climate to a
point of no return, whereby further warming would become self-sustaining. This “hot house
Earth” planetary threshold could exist at a temperature rise as low as 2°C, possibly even lower.

Champion Briefs 187

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

We have a moral obligation to protect future generations from

environmental destruction---this is a litmus test for any moral theory.
Bickham, Stephen. “Future Generations And Contemporary Ethical Theory.” 1981. Web. August
14, 2020. <http://profs-polisci.mcgill.ca/muniz/intergen/Bickham%20-
%20Future%20generations%20and%20contemporary%20ethical%20theory.pdf>.
There exists today in philosophy a question of our ethical obligations to future generations.
Several different aspects of this question render it philosophically unusual. For one thing the
substantive answer to the question is not in dispute. Were someone to suggest seriously that
we have no ethical obligations to future generations and mean by this that we need take no
care for what living conditions on the planet will be in a hundred years - that whether there
would exist then, say, a lethal level of radioactivity in the atmosphere, it would be no concern
of ours - we should regard that individual as lacking one of the most basic of human ethical
sensibilities. Of course we have some serious responsibility for the future, though this does not
commit us to the more particular position that we have ethical obligations to future
generations. The question does not, thus, require an answer at the general level, nor am I
prepared here to demarcate specifically the content of our responsibility for the future, though
I shall treat of others' attempts to do so. I am interested rather in why this question should
seem so mysterious at this time as to generate a dispute or issue within the philosophical
community. Thus my focus will be interior to philosophy. I hope to show how the assumptions
involved in raising this question in this way make it difficult for us to address the new realities
with which the question is concerned. Why is this question a current one in philosophy? From a
somewhat sociological perspective it is significant that John Rawls in A Theory of Justice,
perhaps the most influential ethical treatise of the seventies, is the first person who seems to
have dealt with the question in its current form.' I shall examine Rawls' position in detail later,
but basically he treats justice among generations as involving each generation's passing on to
the next a suitable accumulation of intellectual, economic, and educational “capital” so that the
next can have the were withal to continue or to establish just institutions, as well as support a
reasonable standard of living.2 While the immense philosophical popularity of A Theory of
Justice brought the current question to the attention of the philosophical community, most
philosophers writing of the issue of ethical obligation to future generations since Rawls have
seen the problem in an environmental rather than an economic context? It is clear that our
relatively new capacity for possibly permanent devastation of the environment has created a
new ethical situation which requires a reassessment of our responsibility to the future.
Environmental pollution itself is nothing new. I am sitting a quarter of a mile from a river which
has contained no life for about 80 years due to pollution from mine acid waste. In my county
virtually every marketable tree was cut down between 1895 and 1915. But until now there just
have not been enough people nor an advanced enough technology to threaten a large
environment with permanent destruction or impairment. Trees grow back and mine acid waste
pollution can be stopped, though it is expensive to do so. But we simply do not know how to

Champion Briefs 188

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

render radioactive waste from power plants nonradioactive, or to replace the ozone layer in the
atmosphere should this become depleted, or to develop an effective, economical replacement
for iron. It is quite simple. We did not have the responsibility for the future that we do now
before we had the capacity to destroy it. As I said earlier, our responsibility for the future in a
broad sense is well recognized. What is not understood is how this responsibility is to be
rationally grounded in an ethical theory. But it is becoming clear to ethicists that the question
of our obligations to the future can be seen as a litmus test for an ethical theory. No theory can
really be adequate to the contemporary situation which cannot found such obligations on its
own principles. The problem is that each of the major, current ethical theories has difficulty
doing this. I shall examine briefly the deontological theory and at more length the utilitarian
and contractarian theories to illustrate why this is so.

Champion Briefs 189

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Structural changes are needed but acknowledging the necessity of

everyone’s vote is a key prerequisite.
Working Group On Universal Voting Conven,. “Lift Every Voice: The Urgency Of Universal Civic
Duty Voting.” Brookings. July 20, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.brookings.edu/research/lift-every-voice-the-urgency-of-universal-civic-
duty-voting/>.
The new activism points to the need for a renewed civic life, and universal voting would assist
in its rebirth. Citizens, political campaigns and civil rights and community organizations could
move resources now spent on protecting the right to vote and increasing voter turnout to the
task of persuading and educating citizens. Media consultants would no longer have an incentive
to drive down the other side’s turnout, which only increases the already powerful forces
working to make our campaigns highly negative in character. Candidates would be pushed to
appeal beyond their own voter bases. This imperative would raise the political costs of invoking
divisive rhetoric and vilifying particular groups. Low turnout is aggravated by the hyper-
polarization in our political life that is so widely and routinely denounced. Intense partisans are
drawn to the polls while those who are less ideologically committed and less fervent about
specific issues are more likely to stay away. Of course, democratic politics will always involve
clashes of interests and battles between competing, deeply held worldviews. But by magnifying
the importance of persuasion, universal voting could begin to alter the tenor of our campaigns
and encourage a politics that places greater stress on dialogue, empathy, and the common
good.[5] And some citizens, initially empowered by their votes, would be drawn to deepen their
participation in other aspects of civic life. To say that everyone should vote is the surest
guarantee that everyone will be enabled to vote. Stressing the obligation to participate will, we
believe, expand the freedom to participate. As we will detail in these pages, civic duty voting
must be accompanied by other voting reforms. They include automatic voter registration at
state agencies; restoration of voting rights for citizens with felony convictions; early voting;
expanded mail-in voting; and no-excuse absentee voting. But we also need to recognize the
disparities in American society that affect participation. This has been put in sharp focus in the
2020 primaries. The high turnout and willingness of voters to adapt to the changes in elections
in the face of the pandemic deserves to be celebrated. But we must also recognize that barriers
to voting were often concentrated in lower income and Black or Latinx communities, where
turnout was suppressed by dramatically curtailed opportunities for in-person voting and
distrust of voting by mail. “Long lines are voter suppression in action,” election lawyer Marc
Elias observed—one reason the 2014 bipartisan Presidential Commission on Election
Administration insisted that no voter should have to wait more than 30 minutes to cast a
ballot.[6] And while the polemics around easier voting have often taken on a partisan cast—the
recriminations around the April 2020 primary and State Supreme Court election in Wisconsin in
the midst of the pandemic are an unfortunate example—we would note that a number of
Republican secretaries of state and many conservatives support mail ballots and other reforms

Champion Briefs 190

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

to ease access to voting. Writing in National Review in support of broad participation through
no-excuse absentee and drive-through voting during the pandemic, Rachel Kleinfeld and Joshua
Kleinfeld warned: “The United States is already at high levels of polarization and historically low
levels of trust in government and fellow citizens. We cannot afford an election our people don’t
believe in.”[7] This captures the spirit behind our proposals. “[Civic duty voting is] a full
embrace of democracy: It insists that every citizen has a role to play in our nation’s public life
and in constructing our future.” Essential as these various enhancements and repairs to our
system are, we believe that civic duty voting itself is the necessary prod to the changes we need
because it would clarify the priorities of election officials at every point in the process: Their
primary task is to allow citizens to embrace their duties, not to block their participation. We see
it as a message to political leaders: It will encourage them to understand that their obligations
extend to all Americans, not just to those they deem to be “likely voters.” And we see it as a full
embrace of democracy: It insists that every citizen has a role to play in our nation’s public life
and in constructing our future. Our hope is that this report will spur national discussion in two
spheres: the need to make our system more voter-friendly, and the obligation of citizens
themselves to embrace the tasks of self-government. Ultimately, we hope our country as a
whole can embrace this idea as a decisive step in our long struggle to ensure that all Americans
are included in our Constitution’s most resonant phrase, “We, the people.”

Champion Briefs 191

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory attendance does not make voting compulsory.

“Compulsory voting” as the aff defines it is a misnomer.
Engelen, Bart. “Why Liberals Can Favour Compulsory Attendance.” Politics 29:3, 218-222. 2009.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1467-
9256.2009.01358.x>.
First, there is the secrecy of the ballot. As a matter of fact, ‘compulsory voting’ is a misnomer.
What is made compulsory is not voting, but attendance at the polling station. All a citizen has to
do to comply is register his or her presence. The state has no control whatsoever over his or her
choice inside the voting booth. As long as the ballot is secret, voting simply cannot be made
compulsory. In this sense, it would be more accurate to speak of ‘compulsory attendance’ or
‘compulsory turnout’. As Arendt Lijphart (1998, p. 10) – perhaps the best-known proponent of
compulsory attendance – rightly argues, ‘the secret ballot guarantees that the right not to vote
remains intact’. If a state not only obliges its citizens to show up at elections but also to publicly
express their vote, totalitarianism is lurking. However, in each of the countries that implement
such laws,1 the ballot’s secrecy is guaranteed.

Champion Briefs 192

AFF: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Freedom means that although we have a right to vote, we aren't

required to exercise it. This acknowledges that the vote is important,
but turnout itself is not a proxy for democratic legitimacy.
Lever, Annabelle. “Liberalism, Democracy, And The Ethics Of Voting.” April, 2009. Web. August
17, 2020.
<http://alever.net/DOCS/Liberalism%20Democracy%20and%20the%20Ethics%20of%20
Voting.pdf>.
Democracy means that we are entitled to participate in politics freely and as equals. However,
this does not mean that we must exercise our political rights, however important it is that we
should have them; nor does it require us to consider electoral politics more important than
other endeavours. In established democracies, our political rights help to protect our interests
in political participation whether or not we actually exercise them. Likewise, we need not
refuse, accept, or offer to marry someone in order for our right to marry to be valuable and
valued. Rights can protect our interests, then, even if we do not use them. For example, they
make certain practical possibilities unthinkable. Most of the time we never consider killing
others in order to get our way. Nor do they consider killing us. So, while it is true that
democracy requires people to be willing and able to vote, the empirics of legitimacy, as well as
its theory, make turnout a poor proxy for legitimacy or for faith in democratic government.
(Lever 2009 a, b)

Champion Briefs 193

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

AFF: Intersectionality AC

Coming from a very long history of reading feminist literature in debate, I am very
excited that I get to share this concept within the brief as there are very strong links to fem
within this topic. The argument I present is centered around a focus on socio-economic issues
as well.
The framework prioritizes the need for an inclusive method that listens to all lived
experiences in order to dictate the best ethical method to solve a problem. This is very similar
to the way structural violence functions, however, you need to be able to make a firm
distinction that this focuses on everyone having a voice within the process and being able to
use all of these lived experiences to make a change that will benefit all individuals.
The offense here is very unique because there are several authors that make a very
clear and warranted argument that those who identify as female seem to lack access to the
political. The argument furthers such claims by exacerbating the problems with gender binaries
within national relations when it comes to voting. A similar claim can be made to those who
experience certain socio-economic disadvantages that prevent them from being able to be
educated properly during the election season, especially because campaigns tend to not target
these groups. There is so much offense within the topic on the affirmative so even if you choose
not to read this you still should definitely read the articles just as a form of out-of-round
education and also to make sure that you are supporting policies that are inclusive (go and vote
if you can btw- this election is super important).
This argument does explain really well why women are less likely to have a voice in
policy making while also explaining why our relations require diverse perspectives.
This aff is a very important discussion to have since we all have been or are involved
with high school debate. In order to make everyone feel like they have a voice I think being able
to debate issues like these can allow for some really cool discussions, again even if you aren’t
interested in reading this as a position I would definitely take the time to read over some of the
arguments just so you can be aware of situations that are currently taking place within politics.

Champion Briefs 194

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy becomes illegitimate based on the absence of high voter

turnout.
, Harvard Law Review. “THE CASE FOR COMPULSORY VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.” Harvard
Law Review. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
The presidential election of 2000 led to an unusual situation in which the results of the election
in Florida were subject to a recount that would determine who won the presidency.13 The
difference in the number of votes won by the two major candidates was only 537, 14 which
meant that the margin of error of the machines used to count the ballots exceeded the margin
of victory.15 Recounts by hand were inconclusive.16 In other words, the victory of President
Bush in 2000 was not statistically significant. This illustrates that American elections may be
little more than expensive, official polls of U.S. citizens.17 Unlike polls conducted by social
scientists, however, U.S. elections are not even particularly well designed polls because they
are not based on a representative sample of eligible voters. Rather, they rely on a racially and
socioeconomically skewed sample.18 Because of this, America could actually achieve a more
representative government by doing away with the current election system, and instead polling
a large, representative sample of eligible voters,19 despite the fact that such a mechanism for
selecting government leaders seems inherently unfair and might violate the Equal Protection
Clause.20 Given how limited the franchise was until the twentieth century, and the low rates of
voter turnout in recent decades, it is likely that no U.S. President has ever received a majority of
the votes of the American adult population.21 In the 1984 election, for example, Ronald Reagan
won a “landslide” victory, but received the votes of only 32.9% of the potential electorate.22
The preferences of the other 67.1% of eligible voters were either for a different candidate or
simply left unaccounted for. There are serious questions about how legitimate a government is
when the vast majority of citizens have not elected it.23 This concern goes beyond the question
of whether or not low voter turnout affects substantive policy outcomes (which is unclear24).
More fundamentally, there is a serious tension with the understanding “that within our
constitutional tradition, democracy is prized because of the value of collective self-
governance,”25 which is as much about procedure as it is about substance.

Champion Briefs 195

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting makes politicians and policymakers more

accountable-reaches untapped population.
Trevitt, Vittorio. “Compulsory Voting Is Controversial, But Would Represent A Move Towards
Genuine Democratic Empowerment.” Democracy Audit. March 09, 2014. Web. August
18, 2020. <http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63171/1/democraticaudit.com-
Compulsory%20voting%20is%20controversial%20but%20would%20represent%20a%20
move%20towards%20genuine%20democratic%20empowerment.pdf>.
Compulsory voting is a long standing practice in many countries, such as in Argentina (which
has had mandatory voting in elections since 1914) and in Belgium (which introduced the
practice as far back as 1893). In 2013, there were 38 countries worldwide that required their
citizens (with certain exceptions) to vote by law. Although enforcement of this rule varies
between countries, the fact that voting is seen as a civic duty in those nation-states
demonstrates the importance of compulsory voting as a means of increasing democratic
participation within a society. From an equity point of view, compulsory voting could empower
the dispossessed here in Britain (where those in the highest income group have been found to
be 43% more likely to vote than those in the lowest income group) by enabling them to feel
that they have a stake in their country’s future, and see for themselves the kinds of candidates
they could vote for that may influence legislation leading to long-term improvements in their
lives. In a country where mainstream politics has long been dominated by three parties, people
do not seem to challenge the status quo by voting for other parties that may have a different
approach to politics (the rise of UKIP, however, may be a sign that British politics is moving in
this direction).There are over fifty parties to choose from in the United Kingdom, with differing
ideologies and beliefs on how Britain should be governed, demonstrating the large number of
choices available. It is better to vote than not at all, because one person’s vote could make a
difference, however small it may be, on whatever changes politicians may bring about in British
society. Various countries with compulsory voting have also been credited with having lower
levels of political corruption and inequalities of wealth, together with higher rates of
satisfaction from people with the way democracy is functioning in their countries, compared
with those nation-states where voting is voluntary. In Australia, where voting has been
mandatory since 1924, 70% of people support the long-enshrined principle of compulsory
voting in their democratic society. There is, therefore, a strong case for voting in elections to be
made compulsory in Britain. By requiring citizens of all income groups to have a say in who
should make important decisions, and by potentially increasing the political education of the
population as a whole, the introduction of compulsory voting could prove itself to be one of the
greatest democratic experiments in the history of our country, and set a precedent for other
liberal democracies to follow in the years to come.

Champion Briefs 196

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Incorporating gender into discussions of politics reveal underlying

issues that basic discussions not rooted in IR would not account for.
Sjoberg, Laura. “Gender And International Security.” 2010. Web. August 18, 2020.
Fueled by the recognition that secure states often contain insecure women, feminists analyze
the security of individuals and communities as well as of states and international organizations.
Feminists have argued that “the personal is international [and] the international is personal.”45
The second common theme in feminist Security Studies is an understanding of the gendered
nature of the values prized in the realm of international security. If “masculinism is the ideology
that justifies and naturalizes gender hierarchy by not questioning the elevation of ways of being
and knowing associated with men and masculinity over those associated with women and
femininity,”46 then the values socially associated with femininity and masculinity are awarded
unequal weight in a competitive social order, perpetuating inequality in perceived gender
difference. Social processes select for values and behaviors that can be associated with an
idealized, or hegemonic, mas- culinity.47 This selection occurs because traits associated with
hegemonic masculinities dominate social relations while other values are subordinated. This
cycle is self-sustaining—so long as masculinity appears as a unitary concept, dichotomous
thinking about gender continues to pervade social life.48 This dichotomous thinking about
gender influences how scholars and policy-makers frame and interpret issues of international
security. A third common theme for feminist Security Studies is the broad and diverse role that
feminist scholars see gender playing in the theory and practice of international security. In each
of these chapters, gender matters in the theory and practice of international security in three
main ways: (1) it is necessary, conceptually, for understanding international security; (2) it is
important in analyzing causes and predicting outcomes; and (3) it is essential to thinking about
solutions and promoting positive change in the security realm. First, gender can be a
constitutive category which defines (and is defined by) international actors’ understandings of
their security as well as those left out of security analyses. International security practice often
relies on the invisibility of women (both as labor and as a casus belli) specifically and gender
generally.49 Second, gender can be a causal variable, which causes (or is caused by) states’
security-seeking behavior. Feminist scholars have argued that states’ foreign policy choices are
guided by their identities, which are based on association with characteristics attached to
masculinity, manliness, and heterosexism.50 Finally, feminists’ interest in remedying gender
subordination could be epistemologically constitutive for the theory and practice of security. If
we were to re-envision security as starting from the perspective of individual women’s lives, it
would change not only what security is, but how it is conceptualized, operationalized, and acted
on. The chapters in this book argue that gender adds something to Security Studies, but that it
is also a transformative force in the constitution of security generally and security scholarship
specifically. These observations lead to a final common theme for feminist Security Studies: that
the omission of gender from work on international security does not make that work gender-
neutral or unproblematic. Instead, feminist work Introduction 5 6 Laura Sjoberg on issues of
international security has served to “question the supposed non- existence of and irrelevance

Champion Briefs 197

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

of women in international security politics,” to interrogate “the extent to which women are
secured by state ‘protection’ in times of war and peace,” to contest “discourses where women
are linked unreflectively with peace,” and to critique “the assumption that gendered security
practices address only women.”51

Champion Briefs 198

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Increase in feminine discourse is key.

Sjoberg, Laura. “Gender And International Security.” 2010. Web. August 18, 2020.
It has been argued that all scholars approach their particular subject matter with lenses that
“foreground some things, and background others.”17 In other words, scholars’ investigations
start with the variables that they find meaningful in global politics. For the studies in this book,
that lens is gender.18 As Jill Steans explains, “To look at the world through gendered lenses is to
focus on gender as a particular kind of power relation, or to trace out the ways in which gender
is central to understanding international processes.”19 In order to understand feminist work in
IR, it is important to note that gender is not the equivalent of membership in biological sex
classes. Instead, gender is a system of symbolic meaning that creates social hierarchies based
on perceived associations with masculine and feminine characteristics. As Lauren Wilcox
explains, “Gender symbolism describes the way in which masculine/feminine are assigned to
various dichotomies that organize Western thought” where “both men and women tend to
place a higher value on the term which is associated with masculinity.”20 Gendered social
hierarchy, then, is at once a social construction and a “structural feature of social and political
life” that “profoundly shapes our place in, and view of, the world.” This is not to say that all
people, or even all women, experience gender in the same ways. While genders are lived by
people throughout the world, each person lives gender in a different culture, body, language,
and identity. Still, as a structural feature of social and political life, gender is “a set of discourses
that represent, construct, change, and enforce social meaning.”22 Feminism, then, “is neither
just about women, nor the addition of women to male- stream constructions; it is about
transforming ways of being and knowing” as gendered discourses are understood and
transformed.23 Therefore, there is not one gendered experience of global politics, but many.
By extension, there is not one gender-based perspective on IR or international security, but
many. Feminists can approach global politics from a number of different perspectives, including
realist, liberal, constructivist, critical, poststructural, post- colonial, and ecological. These
perspectives yield different, and sometimes contradictory, insights about and predictions for
global politics. Feminist work from a realist perspective is interested in the role of gender in
strategy and power politics between states.24 Liberal feminist work calls attention to the
subordinate position of women in global politics and argues that gender oppression can be
remedied by including women in the existing structures of global politics.25 Critical feminism
explores the ideational and material manifestations of gendered identity and gendered power
in world politics.26 Feminist constructivism focuses on the ways that ideas about gender shape
and are shaped by global politics.27 Feminist poststructuralism focuses on how gendered
linguistic manifestations of meaning, particularly strong/weak, rational/emotional, and
public/private dichotomies, serve to empower the masculine, marginalize the feminine, and
constitute global politics.28 Postcolonial feminists, while sharing many of the epistemological
assumptions of poststructural feminists, focus on the ways that colonial relations of domination
and subordination established under imperialism are reflected in gender relations, and even
relations between feminists, in global politics and academic work.29 Ecological feminism, or
“ecofeminism,” identifies connections between the treatment of women and minorities, on one

Champion Briefs 199

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

hand, and the nonhuman environment, on the other.30 While each of the chapters in this book
approach international security from a feminist perspective, each of their feminist perspectives
differ. Still, feminists looking at global politics share a normative and empirical concern that the
international system is gender-hierarchical. In feminist Introduction 3 4 Laura Sjoberg
scholarship, gender is not a variable that can be measured as a “yes” or “no” (or “male” or
“female” question), but as a more complicated symbolic and cultural construction.31
Fundamental to this understanding is that gender hierarchy is seen as a normative problem,
which can be revealed and analyzed through scholarly evaluation. While gender hierarchy is a
normative problem, the failure to recognize it presents an empirical problem for IR scholarship.
Failing to recognize gender hierarchy makes IR scholarship less descriptively accurate and
predictively powerful for its omission of this major force in global politics. Scholars looking
through gender lenses “ask what assumptions about gender (and race, class, nationality, and
sexuality) are necessary to make particular statements, policies, and actions meaningful.”32 As
such, feminist scholars have argued that “gender matters in what we study, why we study, and
how we study global politics,”33 and it matters in a way that “transforms knowledge in ways
that go beyond adding women” to critiquing, complicating, and improving Security Studies.34
Feminist theorists have contributed to the field of Security Studies through analyses and
reformulations of the traditional contents of Security Studies, explorations of the roles that
women and gender play in combat and combat resolution, and by bringing attention to new or
neglected subjects revealed by taking gender seriously. In analyzing traditional concepts in
Security Studies, feminists have demonstrated the gender bias in security’s core concepts, such
as the state, violence, war, peace, and even security itself, urging redefinition in light of that
bias.35 Feminist scholars have also gained empirical and theoretical insights from analyzing the
various roles of women and gender in conflict and conflict resolution. Feminists have found
gender-based language and assumptions at the foundation of debates about nuclear
strategy,36 the noncombatant immunity principle,37 peacekeeping,38 and various aspects of
militarization and soldiering.39 In addition to critiquing concepts traditionally employed in the
study of security, gender-based perspectives have also uncovered new empirical knowledge
about sexual violence in war and gendered participation in armed conflict.40 For example,
feminist scholars have pointed out that rape is more prevalent in times of war than in times of
peace.41 In addition to pointing out the serious threat to women’s security posed by wartime
rape,42 feminists have demonstrated that rape is institutionalized in war, as recreational and as
a weapon.43 This book aims to con- solidate and build on these gains, expanding on common
tenets of feminist work in security to explore new empirical situations and develop new
theoretical insights. The first common tenet is a broad understanding of what counts as a
security issue, and to whom the concept of security should be applied. Feminist approaches
define security broadly in multidimensional or multilevel terms. In this view, security threats
include not only war and international violence, but also domestic violence, rape, poverty,
gender subordination, and ecological destruction.44 Feminist scholars not only broaden what is
meant by security but also who merits security.

Champion Briefs 200

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Incorporating a gender lens into politics increases representation.

Detraz, Nicole. “International Security And Gender, Page 15-17.” 2012. Web. August 18, 2020.
E-Book .
One way to explore the connections between security and gender is to examine security issues
through gender lenses. We can think about gender lenses like the different lenses of a camera.
As any photography buff knows, there is a vast array of camera lenses to choose from. Some
lenses allow for wide views, some for intense close-ups, while others filter out certain colors. If
we take a picture with one lens, particular elements of a scene will come to light. For example,
if we take a picture of a beach with a wide-angle lens we can see much more of the scene than
would be possible with a regular lens. Because of this, the pictures taken with each lens will
look different. The wide-angle shot will show the entirety of the scene including a broad
expanse of white sand, a long row of beach chairs with umbrellas, and crowds of people
swimming, lying on the sand and walking along the water. The regular lens will give more detail
to a smaller area, including a couple sitting under a big red umbrella with two children building
a sandcastle a few feet from the clear blue water. In much the same way, using gender lenses
allows us to view different elements of gender as we explore a particular topic. Peterson and
Runyan (1999, 2010) have popularized the idea of examining topics in international relations
through gender lenses. They argue that gender lenses allows us t0 examine issues in ways that
go beyond what is typically visible and present in IR scholarship. Steans (2006: 30) claims that to
use gender lenses “is to focus on gender as a particular kind of power relation, and/or to trace
out the ways in which gender is central to understanding international processes and practices
in international relations. Gender/feminist lenses also focus on the everyday experiences of
women as women and highlight the consequences of their unequal social position.” It is
important to stress the plural in the idea of gender lenses in order to highlight the fact that
there are multiple elements of gender that can inform IR scholarship. If we use a gender lens
that is also sensitive to class issues in order to understand the recent global economic
downturn, our analysis will focus on issues like the North- South differences in the
“feminization of poverty.” Additionally, if we use a gender lens that is also sensitive to sexual
orientation, we can better understand the differences of experience “motherhood” may have
for a straight single-mother versus a lesbian couple who faces discrimination when they try to
adopt a child. It is important to understand gender with regard to a variety of topics, including
international security, and it is important to do this in a way that acknowledges the complexity
of people’s perspectives and experiences. As conceptualizations of security shift and broaden, it
is imperative that gender informs the discussion. By using gender lenses, this book can identify
the ways gender is currently incorporated in security issues, as well as the ways gender can be
incorporated in security studies into the future. Each of our understandings of security has
important ties to gender. This book provides an introduction to the links between gender and
security by analyzing some of the key issues and topics within security studies through gender
lenses. The book challenges narrow ideas of security and provides an alternative
conceptualization that seeks to broaden and deepen understandings of security. This book is
premised on the idea that there are multiple ways scholars, policymakers, the media and other

Champion Briefs 201

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

actors discuss and understand security issues. In other words, there are a variety of security
discourses at play. Discourses can be thought of as “specific ensembles of ideas, concepts and
categorization that are produced, reproduced and transformed in a particular set of practices
and through which meaning is given to physical and social realities” (Hajer 1995: 45). This
definition suggests that discourses are constantly evolving entities that are shaped over time.
Political debates are typically informed by multiple discourses, although certain discourses may
become more dominant than others as coalitions of actors succeed in promoting their
preferred understanding of the world. As certain discourses take hold, some types of policy
responses may become more or less viable and the interests of some groups may be served
more than others (Backstrand and Lovbrand 2005; Cohn 1993; Haas 2002; Hajer 1995; Litfin
1999).

Champion Briefs 202

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Hearing from those who experience issues firsthand help guide

academia and the future generations.
Larson, Laura M. “The Necessity Of Feminist Pedagogy In A Climate Of Political Backlash.”
Equity & Excellence in Education, 38:2, 135-144,. 2006. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10665680590935115>.
Referencing Gloria Anzald u ́ a (1990) and other feminist pedagogues, Kathryn Pauly Morgan
(1996) asserts that student achievement should happen in the context of an educational
community committed to educational equity. It is in this context that students can experience
the desired “sense of authenticity ... of personal integrity,’’ because, she states, “when we
situate ourselves culturally, historically, racially and sexually, we feel ... we are being educated
in a community where each of us has been fully recognized as a valued, legitimate participant’’
(pp. 108–109). The value of multiple and diverse perspectives in feminist pedagogy can be
traced to the works of feminists of color (Davis, 1981, 1989; Lorde, 1984; Moraga & Anzald u ́ a,
1984) who have passionately and successfully challenged white feminists’ authority to define
feminist theory and practice. The importance of diverse perspectives also is rooted in the
feminist concept that the personal is political. One interpretation of this concept is that we
cannot gain a full understanding of the systems that oppress us without the personal accounts
of multiple and diverse voices. In order to successfully build community among a diverse
student body in the class- room, “a democratic educator has to cultivate a spirit of hopefulness
about the capacity of individuals to change’’ (hooks, 2003, p. 73). Further, hooks (1994) argues
that to build a diverse community in the classroom, there must be “a sense that there is a
shared commitment and a common good’’ (p. 40). This is a core goal of the practice of feminist
pedagogy, but one that must be constantly addressed, especially given the history of racism
and exclusion in previous white feminist movements, and the predominance of white women
teachers (Frankenberg, 1993; Maher & Tetreault, 2001). Feminist pedagogy requires that
educators create an environment that promotes participatory democracy (Morgan, 1996). This
entails attention to content, context, and process, with an egalitarian ethic (Schneidewind,
1983). One of the strongest outcomes of this practice is that by using both affective and
cognitive learning methods (Adams, 1997), learning can occur on an exception- ally deep level,
and promote “an increased sense of optimism’’ among both agents and targets of oppression
that “change is possible’’ (Romney et al., 1992, p. 107). I will illustrate how this goal can be
achieved by drawing on a classroom example from a class on public policy in the university
community service learning program.

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 203

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Legal discourse oppresses voices within democracy.

Crenshaw, Kimberle. ““Foreword: Toward A Race-Conscious Pedagogy In Legal Education”.” S.
Cal. Rev. L. & Women. 1994. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/scws4&div=10&id=&p
age=>.
Minority students across the country have waged a series of protests to draw attention to
problems of diversity in the nation's law schools.1 Although the students' bottom line demand
is often for the recruitment of more minority faculty and students, the anger and frustration
apparent in these protests indicate that the disappointment is not simply over the lack of
“color” in the hallways.2 The dissatisfaction goes much deeper-to the substantive dynamics of
the classroom and their particular impact on minority students.3 In many instances, minority
students' values, beliefs, and experiences clash not only with those of their classmates but also
with those of their professors.4 Yet because of the dominant view in academe that legal
analysis can be taught without directly addressing conflicts of individual values, experiences,
and world views, these conflicts seldom, if ever, reach the surface of the classroom discussion.
Dominant beliefs in the objectivity of legal discourse serve to suppress the conflict by
discounting the relevance of any particular perspective in legal analysis and by positing an
analytical stance that has no specific cultural, political, or class characteristics. I call this
dominant mode “perspectivelessness.” This norm of perspectivelessness is problematic in
general, and particularly burdensome on minority students. While it seems relatively
straightforward that objects, issues, and other phenomena are interpreted from the vantage
point of the observer, many law classes are conducted as though it is possible to create, weigh,
and evaluate rules and arguments in ways that neither reflect nor privilege any particular
perspective or world view. Thus, law school discourse proceeds with the expectation that
students will learn to perform the standard mode of legal reasoning and embrace its
presumption of perspectivelessness. When this expectation is combined with the fact that what
is understood as objective or neutral is often the embodiment of a white middle-class world
view, minority students are placed in a difficult situation. To assume the air of
perspectivelessness that is expected in the classroom, minority students must participate in the
discussion as though they were not African-American or Latino, but colorless legal analysts.5
The consequence of adopting this colorless mode is that when the discussion involves racial
minorities, minority students are expected to stand apart from their history, their identity, and
sometimes their own immediate circumstances and discuss issues without making reference to
the reality that the “they” or “them” being discussed is from their perspective “we” or “us.”
Conversely, on the few occasions when minority students are invited to incorporate their racial
identity and experiences into their comments, they often feel as though they have been put on
the spot. Moreover, their comments are frequently disregarded by other students who believe
that since race figures prominently in such comments, the minority students-unlike themselves-
are expressing biased, selfinterested, or subjective opinions. The result is that minority students
can seldom ground their analysis in their own racial experiences without risking some kind of

Champion Briefs 204

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

formal or informal sanction. Minority students escape the twin problems of objectification and
subjectification in discussions when minority experiences are deemed to be completely
irrelevant, or are obscured by the centering of the discussion elsewhere. The price of this
sometimes welcomed invisibility, however, can be intense alienation. I will elaborate on these
dilemmas below.

Champion Briefs 205

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Media is turning the marginalized populations away from electorate

politics- decreases representation unless enforce compulsory voting.
Shames, Shauna. “Barriers And Solutions To Increasing Women’s Political Power.” Rutgers.
February, 2015. Web. August 18, 2020.
<scholars.org/sites/scholars/files/shauna_shames_-_barriers_and_solutions.pdf.>.
The data presented in this paper tell a sobering tale of intentional silence – women of color in
an elite sample, chosen specifically to represent well-positioned eligible candidates – are still
not very likely to express political ambition. Their reasons for not wanting to run, however, are
not about a lack of confidence in their abilities. They are, along with their peers in the elite
sample, extremely ambitious. Their ambition, however, does not incline them toward electoral
politics, and for several good (as in, highly rational and well-considered) reasons. They
anticipate facing an invasion of privacy, either their own or that of their families, if they were to
run, and seek to protect themselves and those they love from this kind of attention. They would
have to forgo private-sector salaries, which was an even greater opportunity cost when
considered in the light of their desire to contribute financially to their family of origin in the
coming years. They strongly anticipated facing both racial and gender bias in the political realm
(and much previous research tells us they are not wrong). The costs they would have to bear, in
other words, seem (and perhaps are) extremely high. Perhaps most damning for their chances
of running, however, is the other side of the equation. When looking at politics today, few of
the women of color in the interview or survey samples saw elective office as a path to making
positive change for the issues, communities, or people they cared about. Of the various
subgroups in this study, women of color were the group least likely to believe that politics can
solve important problems. In interviews, they described politics as doing more harm than good,
and feared that it could corrupt well-meaning people. It is hardly the case that women of color
are genetically averse to politics – they have in fact led some of the major social movements of
the past century. When they have believed that political work was worthwhile, they were able
to overcome whatever barriers blocked their path. The fact that these highly-educated, bright,
young women of color see high costs to politics is hardly surprising, but the fact that they do
not see corresponding high rewards should give us all pause. Unless we can give individuals
good reasons to overcome the high costs of political ambition, it will likely continue to be more
rational for black, Hispanic, and Asian American women to put their talents and passion to
other uses, to reserve their strong voices for something they see as more worthwhile than
electoral politics.

Champion Briefs 206

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Voting amongst adult female-identifying people is steadily increasing

already- compulsory voting would increase that number.
Hartig, Hannah. “In Year Of Record Midterm Turnout, Women Continued To Vote At Higher
Rates Than Men.” Pew Research Center. May, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/03/in-year-of-record-midterm-
turnout-women-continued-to-vote-at-higher-rates-than-men/>.
elections dating back to 1998, women turned out to vote at slightly higher rates than men. Over
half of women (55%) who were eligible to vote cast ballots in the 2018 midterms in November,
as did 51.8% of men, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of newly released data from
the U.S. Census Bureau. The 3.2 percentage point gender gap in turnout is similar to the gap in
the 2014 (2.2 points), and slightly bigger than the gap in 2010 (less than 1 point). In 2018,
women made up about the same share of the electorate as they did in the previous five
midterms; 53% of voters were women and 47% were men. Voter turnout was higher among
adults of all ages in 2018 relative to 2014 – but increased the most among younger voters.
Between 2014 and 2018, turnout among adults under 25 nearly doubled – from 17.1% to
32.4%. Turnout among adults ages 25 to 34 rose by more than 14 percentage points (27.6% to
42.1%) and more than 13 points among those 35 to 44 (37.8% to 51%).

Champion Briefs 207

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

The younger voters are more impressionable- the aff would require
campaigns to target the younger generations in order to close the
gender gap.
Hartig, Hannah. “In Year Of Record Midterm Turnout, Women Continued To Vote At Higher
Rates Than Men.” Pew Research Center. May, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/05/03/in-year-of-record-midterm-
turnout-women-continued-to-vote-at-higher-rates-than-men/>.
The increases in turnout among older adults were more modest. About two-thirds (66.1%) of
eligible adults 65 and older cast a ballot in the 2018 midterm – up from 59.4% in the 2014
midterm election. Those ages 55 to 64 increased their turnout rate by 7.8 percentage points.
Older age groups continued to be much more likely than younger groups to vote in the
midterms. The electorate was younger in 2018 than in 2014 as a result of relatively high turnout
among young adults. In 2014, 16% of the electorate was under 35. In 2018, these voters made
up 21% of the electorate. Though turnout among women was about 3 percentage points higher
than men overall, the difference in turnout by gender varied significantly by age. Among
younger voters (18 to 44), the gender gap was wider than the gap for older voters (45 and
older). The gender gap in turnout among the youngest group of voters was also larger than it
was in 2014. Five years ago, slightly more women ages 18 to 24 turned out in the midterm
election than men (18.2% and 16%, respectively). The 2.2 percentage point gap in 2014 was
similar to that of 2010 and 2006. But last year, the gender gap in turnout was significantly
larger; 35.3% of women 18 to 24 turned out, compared with 29.5% of men.

Champion Briefs 208

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

CV has benefited Australian politics- data proves.

Alcorn, Gay. “How Australia's Compulsory Voting Saved It From Trumpism.” The Guardian.
March 07, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2019/mar/08/how-australias-compulsory-voting-saved-it-from-trumpism>.
Australia, which has had six prime ministers in eight years, is suffering from an increasing
mistrust in politicians, in parties, even in democracy. And in the next few months – the lead-up
to a federal election – politics is set to become even more dispiriting. Yet, according to Brett,
Australia has a degree of inoculation from the polarisation infecting politics in the United
States, the UK and much of Europe. Her new book, From Secret Ballot to Democracy Sausage,
teases out the reasons – prosaic at one level, profound at another. Australia is one of only 19
countries out of 166 electoral democracies where voting is compulsory, and one of only nine
that enforce it. It is the only English-speaking country that compels its citizens to vote. The
impact is hard to overstate. In 2015, former US president Barack Obama praised Australia’s
system, saying it would be “transformative” if everyone voted in the United States. But
Australia’s system is an electoral beacon for seemingly smaller reasons too. While Americans,
Britons and Canadians vote during the week, Australians vote on Saturdays, making it easier for
people to get to the polls. There’s a holiday atmosphere at booths, where community groups
raise money by selling cupcakes, raffle tickets and “democracy sausages”. Specially-made stalls
for secret voting are another Australian invention, and political parties have no role in running
elections, which are left to non-partisan public servants – “something Americans can only
dream of,” Brett says.

Champion Briefs 209

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

CV avoids fringe politics- better to avoid polarization.

Alcorn, Gay. “How Australia's Compulsory Voting Saved It From Trumpism.” The Guardian.
March 07, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.theguardian.com/australia-
news/2019/mar/08/how-australias-compulsory-voting-saved-it-from-trumpism>.
America’s early political ideas, came from the philosopher John Locke, who held that individuals
and their rights came before government. But by the time the Australian colonies were
establishing their institutions in the 19th and early 20th centuries, the ideas of political
reformer Jeremy Bentham were in vogue. Bentham rejected the idea of natural or divine rights
preceding governments – rights are created by law, so government comes first. Australians
needed governments to build roads, railways and other infrastructure and tended to trust
them. “Government came before society in Australia and was gratefully accepted,” Brett writes.
It helped that people who migrated to Australia tended to be the ambitious middle class rather
than members of the aristocracy. “They can try out some of the new ideas, there is a
commitment to not reproducing the class hierarchy and the status hierarchies of the old
world,” Brett says. While Australia was not the first country to have compulsory voting – that
was Belgium – it happened early, with Queensland the first state in 1914 (for whites only).
Federally, it has been compulsory to vote in elections since 1924.The idea that the uninterested
or the ignorant should not be forced to vote never took serious hold, with modern surveys
showing more than 70% support for compulsory voting. The most common argument in favour
when it was introduced, writes Brett, was that “the elected government should represent not
just the majority of those who vote but the majority of those eligible to vote. This would
increase the government’s legitimacy and make sure it paid attention to the interest of all the
people”. Today, more than 90% of those on the roll turn up. You don’t actually have to vote,
but you have to attend a polling booth, even if you stuff a blank or spoiled ballot in the box.
Australia was an electoral innovator in many ways, but the historic disenfranchisement of
Indigenous people is a “shameful story”, Brett says. When the 1902 federal Franchise Act came
to be debated, the proposed law would have given “all adult persons” the right to vote in a
national election, including Indigenous Australians as well as women – but the new government
compromised to get the bill passed. The West Australian senator Alexander Matheson moved
the amendment denying the vote to Indigenous people, saying, “Surely it is absolutely
repugnant to the greater number of the people of the commonwealth that an Aboriginal man,
or Aboriginal lubra or gin – a horrible, dirty, degraded creature – should have the same rights,
simply by virtue of being 21 years of age, that we have, after some debate today, decided to
give to your wives and daughters.” It took until 1962 for Indigenous Australians in all states to
get the right to vote in federal elections, and it was only after the election of the Hawke
government in 1983 that they were required to enrol. The Franchise Act, Brett says, became
another of the “infamous stepping stones of cruelty and shame” in the treatment of First
Australians. Compulsory voting keeps politics focused on the centre rather than the fringe of
politics. To win elections, political parties have to appeal not just to their base but to the
majority of people. Australia is also one of only a few countries with preferential voting, which

Champion Briefs 210

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

means a voter ranks candidates in order of preference, compared with most countries where
the candidate with the most votes wins. It ensures that those elected have the support of the
majority of voters. “It keeps the emotional temper of the conflict down,” says Brett. “That’s
become more evident recently with the way politics has gone in the United States, where
you’ve had issues around sexuality and race being used to motivate voters. If you need to get
out the vote, you need to have things that people are going to feel passionate about, and that’s
not necessarily such a good thing.”

Champion Briefs 211

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

CV changes who runs for election.

Aly, Waleed. “Voting Should Be Mandatory.” The New York Times. January 19, 2017. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-
mandatory.html>.
The evidence is mixed on whether compulsory voting favors parties of the right or the left, and
some studies suggest that most United States federal election results would be unchanged. But
all that misses the point because it overlooks that compulsory voting changes more than the
number of voters: It changes who runs for office and the policy proposals they support. In a
compulsory election, it does not pay to energize your base to the exclusion of all other voters.
Since elections cannot be determined by turnout, they are decided by swing voters and won in
the center. Australia has its share of xenophobic politicians, but they tend to dwell in minor
parties that do not even pretend they can form a government. That is one reason Australia’s
version of the far right lacks anything like the power of its European or American counterparts.
Australia has had some bad governments, but it hasn’t had any truly extreme ones and it isn’t
nearly as vulnerable to demagogues. Even today, as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces an
insurgency from the right wing of his conservative party, the principal threat is that these
politicians will form a breakaway party — not that they will take over. They can’t, and even if
they could, they would quickly face electoral oblivion unless they moderated. That’s more or
less the story of the government of Mr. Turnbull’s predecessor, Tony Abbott, which indulged in
too many ideological frolics and crashed after only two years.

Champion Briefs 212

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

CV encourages the expansion of voices in politics.

Aly, Waleed. “Voting Should Be Mandatory.” The New York Times. January 19, 2017. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-
mandatory.html>.
It’s also clear that voluntary voting hasn’t helped the United States avoid a serious uninformed-
voter problem. That might seem especially acute after a Trump campaign that offered up
copious servings of fiction and conspiracy, but it is a much deeper phenomenon than that.
Compulsory voting would deliver a broader, more representative sample of voters. That’s true
in Australia. It’s also demonstrated by the Netherlands, which abandoned compulsory voting in
1970: The result was not merely a fall in turnout, but a disproportionate decline in the turnout
of socially and economically marginalized groups. On balance, the overriding result of
compulsory voting is a more complete democracy. One that includes the voices of those most
easily discouraged from turning up: poorer people and minority communities, for instance. One
that refuses to hand power to someone whose plan is to keep turnout low, hoping to appeal to
an impassioned minority rather than a nation at large. And after all that, if there is to be
wreckage, at least it will be inflicted by a majority of the population.

Champion Briefs 213

AFF: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

Different policy approaches are adopted as a result of CV.

Hoffman, Mitchell. “Compulsory Voting, Turnout, And Government Spending: Evidence From
Austria.” Vox EU. October 30, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://voxeu.org/article/compulsory-voting-turnout-and-government-spending>.
Governments have different policy tools at their disposal to increase turnout, including
increasing the number of polling stations and implementing proxy or mail voting, among others.
One popular way to overcome the decline in electoral participation is to make voting
mandatory. Currently, 18 countries around the world have some sort of compulsory voting laws
(see Figure 2), with a higher number having had CV at some point in the last fifty years (see
International Idea). Even President Barack Obama, in March 2015 proposed the possibility of
compulsory voting in the US, arguing: “It would be transformative if everybody voted, that
would counteract money more than anything. If everyone voted, then it would completely
change the political map of the country. The people who tend not to vote are young, they're
lower income, they're skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority
groups...There's a reason why some folks try to keep them away from the polls” (CNN 2015). A
few studies in countries as diverse as Switzerland, Brazil, and Australia have shown that even
with small fines for non-voting or low enforcement of penalties, electoral participation is
significantly higher under compulsory voting (Funk 2007, De Leon and Rizzi 2014, Fowler 2013.)
However, unlike the policies analysed in the work of Miller (2008) and Fujiwara (2015), there
are no a priori reasons to believe that the preferences of voters induced to participate in
elections due to compulsory voting are significantly different from those of the average voter
who participates when voting is voluntary. Hence, it is unclear if increasing turnout using
compulsory voting would translate into changes in public policies.

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 214

A/2: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Kant NC

There are many compulsory civic duties in a democracy, and that's

because we need to address collective action problems. The same
logic justifies compulsory voting.
Matthews, Dylan. “Obama Suggested Making It Illegal Not To Vote. Here's How That's Worked
In Australia.” Vox. March 18, 2015. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.vox.com/2014/11/11/7155285/australia-compulsory-voting-turnout-
midterm?__c=1>.
The best objection to compulsory voting is that it impinges on peoples' freedom to not vote.
But we make citizens perform actions for the collective benefit of society all the time, including
everything from objections to mandatory jury duty to taxes to the individual mandate for
health insurance. In each of those cases, there's a collective action problem. We want
individuals to be on juries or pay taxes or buy health insurance even though doing so would be,
from their point of view, irrational. Voting is the same way. Any given voter has very little
chance of influencing the election, but if nobody voted the result would be disastrous. So we
need people to make choices that might not benefit them personally for the system to work.
Traditionally, that's been an argument for mandates. It might be worth considering adding one
for voting as well.

Champion Briefs 216

A/2: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

The negative generously assumes that most abstainers are protesting

the system, when many disadvantaged people would participate if
the political system actively sought out their voices.
Hill, Lisa. “On The Justifiability Of Compulsory Voting: Reply To Lever.” British Journal of Political
Science 40:4, 917-923. October, 2010. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/40930592?seq=1>.
According to Lever, a key motive behind 'abstaining] from politics' is the desire for 'self-
government'; furthermore, 'non- voting can reflect contentment with the available political
choices or, at least, confidence that the winner, whoever it is, will be worthy of support'.6 This
line of argument is unconvincing because it relies on a naïve model of political quiescence.
Though it is doubtless true that there are some people who abstain from voting for these kinds
of reasons, generally speaking, the more socially and economically marginalized people are, the
less likely they are to vote. We should therefore be suspicious of any explanation that assumes
disadvantage is correlated with satisfaction. It simply takes silence or apathy for consent and it
also conflicts with what survey data consistently tell us about abstainers, namely that they are
less satisfied with the state of democracy than are voters. If disadvantage is largely what
defines the abstainer, and advantage the voter, then something is going on besides the exercise
of autonomy, 'free, equal and reasoned collective action', self-government, 'reasoned
judgement' and democratic choice; namely, a democratic system breakdown characterized by
such pathologies as unrepresentativeness and the steady transference of power from weak to
already strong interests. Putting aside socio-economic bias in declining turnout, the article also
tends to gloss over the more general problem of low and declining turnout. Notwithstanding
the bluntness of elections for conferring legitimacy, can we really agree that the legitimacy
conferred by elections with around 60 per cent turnout is as high as that conferred by turnout
of 95 per cent - as is routine in Australia? Is it acceptable when the voting public continues to
shrink and, worse still, in a socially uneven manner? How low is permissible - 20 per cent, 10
per cent, 5 per cent? And are we still talking about democracy at such low levels of citizen
participation?7 Precisely at what point do we start to worry about this problem, if at all? At
what point is it admitted that the system is no longer a democracy? Obviously, electoral
withdrawal signifies that something is wrong, but there is no evidence that it makes things
better; quite the reverse. Do we wait until democracy is the exclusive business of a minority of
elites before we start to question the value of voluntarism? Lever denies that high turnout is a
'public good', but if it means high and socially even turnout (which it invariably does) and
affects government behaviour in positive ways (which it does - see below), then surely it must b

Champion Briefs 217

A/2: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

The people who supposedly benefit from the right to abstain in fact
benefit far more by voting and getting letters to pay attention to their
interests.
Hill, Lisa. “On The Justifiability Of Compulsory Voting: Reply To Lever.” British Journal of Political
Science 40:4, 917-923. October, 2010. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.jstor.org/stable/40930592?seq=1>.
The 'right to abstain', says Lever, enables 'the weak, timid and unpopular to protest in ways
that feel safe' and 'prevent[s] coercion by neighbours, family, employers or the state'.15 This
spin on abstention seems disingenuous, considering that Lever has in mind 'long-established,
stable and ... functional democracies'. Moreover, anyone this vulnerable to electoral coercion is
unlikely to be participating in other forms of self-governing activity apart from voting. Voting is
perhaps the only form of political activity where a vulnerable person's privacy can be
guaranteed absolutely. It is hard to see how the 'weak, timid and unpopular' could benefit from
more disempowerment, especially where the disconnection involves such a relatively safe form
of political engagement. Can democracy really do without voters? And can we, as individuals,
do without voting? Lever suggests that '[democratic voting rights protect our interests as
individuals even when we do not exercise them'.16 I disagree. Unlike the 'right to marry', which
Lever posits as analogous, voting is one of those rights that, when it goes unexercised too often
and for too long, causes other rights (such as the right to equal treatment before the law; the
right to equality of opportunity) to be undermined. If this were not true, port-barrelling would
not be a cliché of politics. It is well documented, for example, that states tend to be more
attentive to the demands of voting groups such as senior citizens and the middle classes, at the
great expense of those who abstain. Political science has long known that voting 'helps those
who are already better off17 and that 'if you don't vote, you don't count'.18 By contrast,
complete and socially even voting can have the opposite effect: Chong and Olivera' s cross-
country analysis of ninety-one countries over the period 1960-2000 'shows that compulsory
voting, when enforced strictly, improves income distribution. Therefore, although it is certainly
true that governments 'we did not choose' should 'nonetheless protect our interests', this is not
always what happens and it should not surprise us when it does not. The consequences of
voting may sometimes be uncertain, but the consequences of abstention are not. Democracy,
such as it exists, will go on without the participation of abstainers, governing them without
their interests in mind and without their consent.

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 218

A/2: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting does not restrict freedom of speech or the right to

silence.
Aly, Waleed. “Voting Should Be Mandatory.” The New York Times. January 19, 2017. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-
mandatory.html>.
This isn’t particularly revolutionary if you see voting not merely as a right, but as a civic
obligation. That might sound un-American, but Americans already have many such obligations,
including more onerous ones like paying taxes or jury duty. Even the most persuasive argument
— that compulsory voting violates free speech ideals that include the right to silence —
misunderstands how compulsory voting works. Voters are not compelled to support a
candidate or even to cast a valid ballot. They are obliged to turn up. Leave your form blank if
the options are so uninspiring. Draw pictures on it. Even this is useful: By tracking the growth of
these “informal” votes we can gauge voter dissatisfaction.

Champion Briefs 219

A/2: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting does not violate individual rights. There are many
opportunities for freedom of expression against the system, even if
people are required to vote.
Umbers, Lachlan. “Compulsory Voting: A Defence.” British Journal of Political Science. 2018.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-
core/content/view/5D87DA25169FBC95C00468F51E40EBF7/S0007123418000303a.pdf/
compulsory_voting_a_defence.pdf>.
It doesn’t follow, however, that compulsory voting is rights-violating. This is clearest with
respect to the right to express indifference between, or dissatisfaction with, the options on the
ballot, by abstaining. Compulsory voting does not deprive citizens of the opportunity to abstain,
and therefore does not deprive citizens of such expressive opportunities. Compulsory voting
does, however, compel citizens to attend a polling station. That, it might be argued, is a form of
political participation, even if citizens go on to abstain. One might claim, then, that mandatory
attendance deprives citizens of the opportunity to express dissent by declining to participate, in
this more general sense. However, compulsory voting would leave open many expressive
opportunities of equivalent value – posting on Facebook, writing letters to newspaper editors
and so on. Indeed, compulsory voting plausibly amplifies the expressive power of refusing to
attend by converting the act of abstention into a costly signal (under compulsory voting,
citizens must pay a fine if they wish to express dissent by refusing to attend).

Champion Briefs 220

A/2: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

Abstention isn't effective, and offering conscientious objector status

solves.
, Harvard Law Review. “The Case For Compulsory Voting In The United States.” Harvard Law
Review Notes, vol. 121. 2007. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
While any compulsory voting proposal would probably need to have a conscientious objector
exemption in order to be politically palatable, the value of the statements individuals make by
not voting is actually quite limited. If not voting is meant to be a statement of dissatisfaction
with the candidates and their policies, then it is not a very effective one. First, the option of
voting for a write-in candidate gives people choices beyond the candidates listed on the ballot.
Second, even if a person does not particularly like any of the candidates, dissatisfaction is not
the same as indifference. Many nonvoters presumably have some preference as to which
candidate is elected even if none of the candidates is an ideal choice. If a potential voter is truly
indifferent, then being forced to cast a vote for one or another candidate is no better or worse
to that person than abstaining. There may be other political statements that people make by
not voting, such as questioning the legitimacy of democratic government.77 There are, of
course, many other outlets through which these statements can be made. Nevertheless,
including a conscientious objector exemption in a compulsory voting regime can effectively
subdue concerns about curbing political expression while still remedying the collective action
problem of voting.78

Champion Briefs 221

A/2: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

Blank and spoiled ballots are better than abstention for registering
discontent with the system. Freedom of conscience is also not a
blanket immunity from legal sanction.
Lardy, Heather. “Is There A Right Not To Vote?.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies (JSTOR). June,
2004. Web. August 17, 2020. <https://academic.oup.com/ojls/article-
abstract/24/2/303/1488703?redirectedFrom=PDF>.
Brief answers are possible to these claims. Taking the last first, it is strongly arguable that non-
voting per se expresses nothing at all. Given that the reasons for the voter's abstention are not
known, the mere act of abstaining constitutes, at best, a very garbled form of
communication.37 It cannot be known whether indecision, unconcern or even a sudden
domestic crisis prevented the voter from reaching the poll. It could be argued that a system of
compulsory voting would address this problem more effectively than a purely voluntary system.
This is so because the ballot paper could be designed to permit the voter to register a reasoned
abstention, giving the disenchanted elector the opportunity to supply her reasons for refusing
to support any of the alternatives on offer.38 A similar response could be given to the
argument about freedom of conscience: a voter with conscientious objections to voting might,
with a sufficiently sensitive system, acknowledge those on the ballot paper. Alternatively, she
could simply spoil it. Another option would be to permit applications to be made to the elect-
oral authorities for exemption from the obligation on grounds of conscience.39 Even if such
options were not thought sufficient to protect the freedom of some- one genuinely and deeply
opposed to all and any participation in democratic life, it must be remembered that the right to
freedom of conscience does not provide individuals with a blanket immunity from sanctions for
acting on their conscientiously held beliefs. It ensures instead only that they have some
reasonable opportunities to voice and to act upon those beliefs, subject to certain limits. There
is no reason to conclude that that freedom should protect a right not to vote.

Champion Briefs 222

A/2: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Punishment NC

Citizens are in favor of compulsory voting.

Jenner, Frances. “Does Obligatory Voting Strengthen Democracy Or Violate Its Ideals?.” Latin
America Reports. November 14, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://latinamericareports.com/obligatory-voting-strengthen-democracy-violate-
ideals/3726/>.
In Argentina, citizens themselves often support compulsory voting. According to Télam, a
private survey from August showed that 75 percent of Argentines would vote even if it wasn’t
compulsory, and that half were actually aware of the candidates’ proposals. Latin America
Reports spoke to Agustín Segura, a 26-year-old student from Argentina, who explained that it
highlights how important it is to participate in the democratic process. “Education is politics,
talking out loud is politics, me talking with my family over dinner is politics,” he said. “Politics is
day-to-day life, not just people wearing ties who are shut up in a room making decisions about
what is going to happen in the country. That is what would happen if voting wasn’t
compulsory.” He added that the sanction should be more severe to get people to the ballot
boxes, as the cursory fine of 50 Argentine pesos ($0.84 at the time of writing) isn’t enough to
dissuade people from not voting. “If the vote isn’t obligatory, it detracts from the importance of
it,” he said. “[Voting makes the] power fall on the people and not the politicians. Making voting
voluntary implies that the role a person or community plays by voting isn’t consequential.”
Compulsory voting also changes the way an individual approaches elections, Manuel Martín, a
25-year-old state worker from Argentina told Latin America Reports. “I think that every time
you go and vote, you have to reflect on your life, your plans, and about the different
governments and electoral platforms that there are,” he said. “Even though I’m not that
political, […] it brings it into the personal realm,” he added. “Because voting is obligatory, it is
conditioned into us, which I think is something healthy and positive.”

Champion Briefs 223

A/2: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

In the literature, compulsory voting is really just compulsory turnout.

The resolution should be understood to reflect the literature.
Chapman, Emilee Booth. “The Distinctive Value Of Elections And The Case For Compulsory
Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 63:1. 2019. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v63y2019i1p101-112.html>.
Before proceeding, it is worth making a few remarks about the scope of this argument. First,
technically, this argument applies only to compulsory turnout; enforcing a legal requirement to
cast a valid vote would require eliminating the secret ballot, which I do not advocate. In keeping
with the norm in the existing literature, though, I use the more common terms mandatory
voting or compulsory voting to refer to compulsory turnout. Second, this argument applies only
to voting in elections (or potentially referenda) in large-scale democratic societies (i.e., nation-
states, or large provinces in a federal system). The distinctive virtues of elections that I lay out
in the first section of this article may be less important in smaller communities that can ensure
consistent and equally effective access to other modes of participation.

Champion Briefs 224

A/2: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Mandatory voting isn’t undemocratic, and it yields positive results.

, In These Times Editors. “The Big Idea: Mandatory Voting.” In These Times. March 25, 2020.
Web. August 18, 2020. <https://inthesetimes.com/article/mandatory-voting-
democracy-working-class-turnout>.
Isn’t forcing people to vote kind of … undemocratic? Well, potentially. Some countries enforce
penalties for failing to vote, such as a monetary fine or passport restrictions. But done right,
mandatory voting isn’t about dragging people to the polls against their wills. Its goal is to
increase the legitimacy of elections and make sure everyone’s voice is heard. Coupled with poli-
cies like a national holiday for Election Day, universal voter registration and robust resources for
all election agencies — all of which would make voting simpler and more accessible — manda-
tory voting could turn the tide against voter suppression. Where does mandatory voting exist?
Belgium was the first democracy to implement mandatory voting — back in 1893 — and its
authors saw the policy as a way to empower the working class. Twenty other countries —
 including Bolivia, Brazil and Australia, but not the U.S. — now have mandatory voting, with uni-
formly high voter turnout. Mandatory voting became the law of the land down under in 1924,
when voter turnout was below 50%. Today, it sits around 90%.

Champion Briefs 225

A/2: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Voluntary voting nations have lower voter turnout rates than

compulsory voting nations.
DeSilver, Drew. “U.S. Trails Most Developed Countries In Voter Turnout.” Pew Research Center.
May 21, 2018. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/>.
Nearly 56% of the U.S. voting-age population cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election,
representing a slight uptick compared with 2012 but less than in the record year of 2008. While
most Americans – 70% in a recent Pew Research Center survey – say high turnout in
presidential elections is very important, what constitutes “high turnout” depends very much on
which country you’re looking at and which measuring stick you use. The Census Bureau
estimated that there were 245.5 million Americans ages 18 and older in November 2016, about
157.6 million of whom reported being registered to vote. (While political scientists typically
define turnout as votes cast divided by the number of eligible voters, in practice turnout
calculations usually are based on the estimated voting-age population, or VAP.) Just over 137.5
million people told the census they voted in 2016, somewhat higher than the actual number of
votes tallied – nearly 136.8 million, according to figures compiled by the Office of the Clerk of
the U.S. House of Representatives, though that figure includes more than 170,000 blank,
spoiled or otherwise null ballots. That sort of overstatement has long been noted by
researchers; the comparisons and charts in this analysis use the House Clerk’s figure, along with
data from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) and
individual nations’ statistical and elections authorities. The 55.7% VAP turnout in 2016 puts the
U.S. behind most of its peers in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD), most of whose members are highly developed, democratic states. Looking at the most
recent nationwide election in each OECD nation, the U.S. placed 26th out of 32 (current VAP
estimates weren’t available for three countries). The highest turnout rates among OECD nations
were in Belgium (87.2%), Sweden (82.6%) and Denmark (80.3%). Switzerland consistently has
the lowest turnout in the OECD: In 2015, less than 39% of the Swiss voting-age population cast
ballots for the federal legislature. One factor behind Belgium’s high turnout rates – between
83% and 95% of VAP in every election for the past four decades – may be that it is one of the 24
nations around the world (and six in the OECD) with some form of compulsory voting, according
to IDEA. (One canton in Switzerland, also an OECD member nation, has compulsory voting.)

Champion Briefs 226

A/2: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

The effectiveness of compulsory voting isn’t about enforcement, it’s

about the presence or absence of voting laws.
DeSilver, Drew. “U.S. Trails Most Developed Countries In Voter Turnout.” Pew Research Center.
May 21, 2018. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2018/05/21/u-s-voter-turnout-trails-most-developed-countries/>.
While compulsory-voting laws aren’t always strictly enforced, their presence or absence can
have dramatic impacts on turnout. In Chile, for example, turnout plunged after the country
moved from compulsory to voluntary voting in 2012 and began automatically enrolling eligible
citizens. Even though essentially all voting-age citizens were registered for Chile’s 2013
elections, turnout in the presidential race plunged to 42%, versus 87% in 2010 when the
compulsory-voting law was still in place. (Turnout rebounded slightly in last year’s presidential
election, to 49% of registered voters.)

Champion Briefs 227

A/2: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Libertarianism NC:

A2 Violates Rights-Compulsory voting doesn't force voters to express

a viewpoint shared by the government.
Harvard Law Review. “THE CASE FOR COMPULSORY VOTING IN THE UNITED STATES.” Harvard
Law Review. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-
content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
A compulsory voting regime differs from a prohibition on write-in votes, however, because it
does more than just limit choice — compulsory voting literally compels a choice of some kind.
The Supreme Court recognized an individual right not to be compelled by the government to
express an idea that one does not agree with in West Virginia State Board of Education v.
Barnette. 68 Requiring someone to vote for a particular cause or candidate would clearly
violate the First Amendment, but requiring someone to vote for the candidate of his or her
choosing is viewpoint neutral.69 A person is not being forced to express any particular
viewpoint when a law requires him to cast a vote for someone of his own choosing — anyone
really, given the opportunity to vote for a write-in candidate, which exists in most states.70

Champion Briefs 228

A/2: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 CV doesn't work- Australia proves CV solves.

Aly, Waleed. “Voting Should Be Mandatory.” The New York Times. January 19, 2017. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-
mandatory.html>.
MELBOURNE, Australia — When you survey the wreckage of 2016, it’s easy to forget that the
most seismic democratic events were brought about by minorities. Only 37 percent of eligible
Britons voted to leave the European Union. The case is even clearer in the American election,
which Donald J. Trump won despite having persuaded only a quarter of the American
electorate to support him. Mr. Trump triumphed in a low-turnout election. As we scramble to
explain the upheavals in democratic politics, we may be describing shifts that, while significant,
are smaller than we think. It’s time for democracies to adopt compulsory voting. I say this from
Australia, one of about a dozen countries where people can be penalized for not voting (about
a dozen more have compulsory voting on the books but don’t enforce it). We’ve done so at the
federal level since 1924, following a drop in voter turnout. We’re now required by law to enroll
at 18 years old (though this isn’t strictly monitored), and we’re fined if we fail to vote. Around
three-quarters of Australians have consistently supported compulsory voting, and there is no
meaningful movement for change.

Champion Briefs 229

A/2: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 CV won't change the outcome- It's a question of changing who

runs in the election, results will depend on that change.
Aly, Waleed. “Voting Should Be Mandatory.” The New York Times. January 19, 2017. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-
mandatory.html>.
The evidence is mixed on whether compulsory voting favors parties of the right or the left, and
some studies suggest that most United States federal election results would be unchanged. But
all that misses the point because it overlooks that compulsory voting changes more than the
number of voters: It changes who runs for office and the policy proposals they support. In a
compulsory election, it does not pay to energize your base to the exclusion of all other voters.
Since elections cannot be determined by turnout, they are decided by swing voters and won in
the center. Australia has its share of xenophobic politicians, but they tend to dwell in minor
parties that do not even pretend they can form a government. That is one reason Australia’s
version of the far right lacks anything like the power of its European or American counterparts.
Australia has had some bad governments, but it hasn’t had any truly extreme ones and it isn’t
nearly as vulnerable to demagogues. Even today, as Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull faces an
insurgency from the right wing of his conservative party, the principal threat is that these
politicians will form a breakaway party — not that they will take over. They can’t, and even if
they could, they would quickly face electoral oblivion unless they moderated. That’s more or
less the story of the government of Mr. Turnbull’s predecessor, Tony Abbott, which indulged in
too many ideological frolics and crashed after only two years.

Champion Briefs 230

A/2: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 Voluntary elections are better- Trump era proves false.

Aly, Waleed. “Voting Should Be Mandatory.” The New York Times. January 19, 2017. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-
mandatory.html>.
It’s also clear that voluntary voting hasn’t helped the United States avoid a serious uninformed-
voter problem. That might seem especially acute after a Trump campaign that offered up
copious servings of fiction and conspiracy, but it is a much deeper phenomenon than that.
Compulsory voting would deliver a broader, more representative sample of voters. That’s true
in Australia. It’s also demonstrated by the Netherlands, which abandoned compulsory voting in
1970: The result was not merely a fall in turnout, but a disproportionate decline in the turnout
of socially and economically marginalized groups. On balance, the overriding result of
compulsory voting is a more complete democracy. One that includes the voices of those most
easily discouraged from turning up: poorer people and minority communities, for instance. One
that refuses to hand power to someone whose plan is to keep turnout low, hoping to appeal to
an impassioned minority rather than a nation at large. And after all that, if there is to be
wreckage, at least it will be inflicted by a majority of the population.

Champion Briefs 231

A/2: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 CV forces them to violate individual freedoms- CV doesn't force

one to submit a ballot.
Engelen, Bart. “Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy.” Research Gate. April, 2007.
Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248874800_Why_Compulsory_Voting_Can
_Enhance_Democracy>.
Second, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about compelling citizens to do something,
which not all of them want to do voluntarily. Any democratic regime can legitimately enforce
laws, even if these are not agreed upon by all of its subjects. Indeed, no democracy can or
should be expected to completely free its citizens from obligations and duties. Also, according
to the European Commission for Human Rights and contrary to what opponents often claim,
compulsory voting does not violate any human right (Vanmaercke, 1993, 73). Third, it is not
voting that is compulsory, but attendance at the polling station. As shown above, the secrecy of
the ballot guarantees that citizens always have the possibility of leaving their ballots blank or
spoiling them (Keaney and Rogers, 2006, 30). This forms an institutional answer to so-called
‘conscientious objectors’ and to those who are and want to remain indifferent.12 However,
opponents of compulsory voting are not so easily fobbed off and claim that no government may
oblige its citizens to attend elections. This argument functions as some kind of rock-bottom: I
oppose compulsory voting because it infringes on my freedom by which I may well prefer to
stay at home

Champion Briefs 232

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Politics DA

Trump has already secured a second term. This means the aff doesn’t
cause the DA impacts.
Atkisson , Sharyl. “Why Trump Has Already Secured A Second Term — No Matter Who His
Opponent Is.” The Hill. February 18, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/483344-why-trump-has-already-secured-a-
second-term-no-matter-who-his-opponent-is>.
Here are seven ways I think Trump has already secured a second term: More experience. Trump
is the only candidate who has served as president and commander in chief for four years.
Extreme vetting. Trump has been as thoroughly vetted as any political figure in American
history, if not more so. There are few stones that remain unturned except, arguably, his tax
returns, which will not make any difference to his supporters. On the other hand, all of his
opponents — from former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg to former Vice President Joe
Biden — are fending off new criticisms of their policies and actions. The sky didn’t fall. Some
Republicans worried that Trump would be too liberal in practice; some independents were
wary. Economists predicted the stock market would immediately crash. Critics said Trump
would ship out illegal immigrants on trains, expel Muslims from the U.S. and start a nuclear
war. With some of the most cataclysmic predictions not coming to pass, some of those who
held back in 2016 are coming aboard the Trump train. No surprises. Trump has proven to be
exactly as he advertised. He has gone from being an unknown to being quite predictable, like
him or not. Track record. While Trump’s critics find much of his track record is objectionable,
that same record is just what many of his supporters hoped for — and then some. From record-
high employment for African Americans and other minorities, to a new trade deal with China,
replacing the North American Free Trade Agreement with the United States-Mexico-Canada
Agreement, unbuckling the regulatory environment, moving the U.S. embassy in Israel to
Jerusalem, progress toward building a border wall and draining the Washington swamp, Trump
is picking up some independents, Democrats, blacks and other minorities. He’s a proven
survivor. Not much new can be thrown at Trump that will shake his support. He’s overcome
impeachment and a special counsel investigation; he’s survived being called a rapist, racist, liar,
tax-evader, Putin stooge, clown, mentally ill, traitor — you name it. It’s hard to imagine he
cannot survive more of the same. In fact, by Democrats pursuing the strategy of attacking
everything President Trump does as the-end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it stuff, their criticism
has just become white noise to many Americans. Somehow, he has come out on the other end
as politically stronger and looking like a winner. Not only that, but the attacks have all helped to
shore up the perception of Trump as an enemy of the “Deep State” fighting against all odds —
just in time to build enthusiasm for his 2020 campaign.

Champion Briefs 233

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

There are multiple ways that Trump could win – mandatory voting
doesn’t make a difference.
Nicholas , Peter. “Don’t Count Trump Out.” The Atlantic. July 27, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/07/how-trump-could-win-
reelection/612205/>.
The pointless feuds and rage tweets, the conspiracism and obsessions all seem baked in—none
of that seems to surprise the electorate anymore. He could win. He might win. Here are six
reasons why. 1. The economy could come back just enough. Reckless though it was to reopen
businesses while the virus raged, states that lifted stay-at-home restrictions gave the economy
an unmistakable jolt. A record-setting total of 7.5 million jobs were added in May and June. The
numbers might well cool off in the coming months, but Trump can spin what might turn out to
be fleeting gains as a full-fledged recovery. “This looks like a very rapid rebound,” Gregory
Daco, the chief economist at the consulting firm Oxford Economics, told me, referring to recent
job numbers. “But we have to keep in mind that we’re still deep in the hole. We’ve only
recouped about one-third of the jobs lost, and the second portion of the recovery phase is likely
to be much slower.” To illustrate the point, Daco cited clothing sales, which dropped 90 percent
from February to April. Since then, sales have nearly doubled, which may sound like reason to
celebrate. But they’re still 70 percent below the peak, Daco told me. For Trump’s purposes, the
broader context wouldn’t matter. He’d point to the progress and ignore the rest. And some
may be inclined to believe him. Even as voters sour on Trump for other reasons, 50 percent still
like the way he handles the economy, a new ABC News-Washington Post survey shows. “The
president needs a glimmer of hope in the fall, and that will be enough on the economy,” a
former senior White House official told me, speaking on the condition of anonymity in order to
talk candidly about Trump’s reelection. 2. Polling could be wrong (again). Four years ago, the
race between Trump and Hillary Clinton came down to Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Trump narrowly won all three. This time around, Biden is leading in each of the same three
states by anywhere from 6 to 8 points, the RealClearPolitics average of polls shows. If that
sounds familiar, it may be because state surveys also showed Clinton topping Trump in
Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania ahead of the election. In Pennsylvania alone, seven
different state polls taken in the first two weeks of October 2016 showed Clinton beating
Trump by no fewer than 4 percentage points and by as many as 9. She wound up losing the
state by about a point. Postmortem analyses of state polling turned up serious flaws. In some
instances, surveys failed to correct for the overrepresentation of college-educated voters who
participate more in polls and tended to favor Clinton. Or they didn’t capture a trend in which
most voters who made up their minds late voted for Trump. Franklin, the Marquette Law
School poll director, told me that his survey now shows Biden leading the president by 8 points
in Wisconsin. But how much weight do such polls deserve, given the debacle in 2016? At the
end of that race, Clinton led Trump by an average of more than 6 points in Wisconsin and then
lost by nearly a point. “So, that’s a large error,” Franklin said. “Was that a humbling

Champion Briefs 234

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

experience?” I asked. “Yes! Absolutely. How could it not be?” It’s not clear that state polling this
time around is any better. “You certainly see state polls appearing today that clearly are not
reflecting the educational distribution in the states they’re polling,” said Franklin, who took part
in a postelection polling study conducted by the American Association for Public Opinion
Research. “That’s a bit of a puzzlement.” Kellyanne Conway, a former pollster and a current
counselor to the president who served as Trump’s campaign manager in the 2016 race, argues
that nothing has been fixed. “The same problems surround the polls this time because many of
the people running the polls then are running the polls now. There’s been no course correction
whatsoever,” Conway told me. “If polling were run like a business, the C-suite would have been
cleaned out, the shareholders would have revolted, the customers would have walked away.”
3. Trump can campaign all day long. If they choose, presidents can exploit the office for
reelection purposes with brutal efficiency. They can push policies that matter most to prized
constituencies, and fly to swing states for campaign stops masquerading as official visits. Trump
can no longer hold rallies whenever and wherever he wants, but even during a pandemic, he
can capitalize on his surroundings in ways that a challenger can’t. “Most presidents want to be
reelected, and so they take full advantage of all those benefits of incumbency,” Barbara Perry,
the presidential-studies director at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, told me. A
president’s sheer ubiquity is enough to reinforce his grip on the office. “For all of his foolishness
and craziness, Trump is there. He’s there 24/7. That’s a huge advantage,” Aaron David Miller,
the author of a book on the presidency called The End of Greatness, told me. Amid signs that
he’s losing ground with seniors, Trump appeared in the Rose Garden in the spring to announce
a plan that caps the amount of money they pay for insulin. Two minutes into his speech, he
began belittling his opponent: “Sleepy Joe can’t do this, that I can tell you.” Toward the end, the
White House aired a video showing a 68-year-old man with diabetes thanking Trump for cutting
his expenses. Last week, Trump showed up in the Rose Garden again, ostensibly to talk about
Hong Kong, but instead spent most of a free-associative hour lampooning Biden. A “Rose
Garden” strategy used to mean that a sitting president would plant himself in the White House
and devote himself to governing. Trump is more literal: He’s turned this historic outdoor space
into a campaign stage. This week, Trump resurrected the daily coronavirus task-force briefings
that he’d dropped a couple of months ago. They give him a captive national TV audience at a
moment when he can’t easily hold his beloved rallies. A former White House official told me
that some aides were “dead set against” the briefings in the spring. “We were stunned that he
was out there doing it,” this person told me. “We lost that battle. There were a group of us in
the West Wing who said, ‘He needs to be the commander in chief. He doesn’t need to be the
head of the coronavirus task force.’” But to Trump, the briefings are irresistible. “Suggesting the
president go on TV is like pushing against an open door,” the former official said. 4. Biden’s got
his own problems. Biden has suffered personal loss, which has made him a comforting figure to
grieving Americans who have lost jobs and loved ones in the pandemic. Yet he still symbolizes a
brand of establishment centrism that leaves some younger voters and some in the party’s
activist wing uninspired. “We have to be true to ourselves and acknowledge that Biden is a
mediocre, milquetoast, neoliberal centrist that we’ve been fighting against in the Democratic
establishment,” Cornel West, the Harvard University professor and a Bernie Sanders supporter,
told me. If Sanders’s primary voters stay home on Election Day out of pique, that could damage

Champion Briefs 235

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Biden’s chances, especially in must-win swing states. Nina Turner, a co-chair of the Sanders
campaign, told me she has no appetite for the choice she faces: “It’s like saying to somebody,
‘You have a bowl of shit in front of you, and all you’ve got to do is eat half of it instead of the
whole thing.’ It’s still shit.” Expect Trump to aggravate a dispute that advances his own
interests. As I’ve written, he spent months wooing Sanders voters during the primary, trying to
convince them that the senator was the victim of a Democratic conspiracy to prevent him from
getting the party’s nomination. 5. Biden voters might not get to vote. If the state elections held
in recent months are any sort of dry run, November could be a disaster. The number of polling
places was slashed in the face of COVID-19, forcing voters to wait hours in line. More than 80
voting locations were shut down or consolidated in the Atlanta metro area last month, while
places in Milwaukee were cut from 180 to 5. That amounts to voter suppression. A replay in
November might dampen the Biden vote in the Democrats’ urban strongholds within red, blue,
and purple states alike. Millions of potential Biden voters would face a bleak choice: Stay home,
or go to the polls and risk catching a potentially fatal disease. An obvious work-around is mail-in
voting. But Trump has used his megaphone to make the spurious claim that expanded mail-in
voting is a plot to defeat Republicans, which sends a clear message to state GOP leaders and
election officials that he’s not in favor of greater access. And the mail-in process is already
difficult for voters in some states, as my colleague Adam Harris recently wrote. 6. What if
there’s an October surprise? Ever the showman, Trump could try to shake up the race with a
late announcement of dramatic progress in fighting COVID-19. News of a “breakthrough” would
get ample attention, and whether he’s right or wrong might not get sorted out until long after
the votes are counted. By that time, it wouldn’t matter; Trump could lock in a chunk of voters
grateful for any news of an antidote. “He’ll probably announce a vaccine in October,” Charlie
Black, the longtime Republican strategist, told me with a laugh.

Champion Briefs 236

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Democrats are favored to take back the Senate – that’s terminal

defense on the DA.
The Street,. “Democrats Favored To Win The Senate.” The Street. July 26, 2020. Web. August
17, 2020. <https://www.thestreet.com/mishtalk/politics/democrats-favored-to-win-the-
senate>.
“Something remarkable would have to happen for Republicans to still have control of the
Senate after November,” remarked one GOP pollster. “It’s grim. There’s just so many places
where Democrats either have the upper hand or are competitive in states that six months ago
we wouldn’t have considered at risk.” “If you’re an incumbent in a bad environment sitting at
44 percent, you should be pretty damn scared,” another alarmed Republican strategist said.
“The expanding map has made it really hard, and there’s just a lot of Democratic momentum
right now.” By looking at the numbers, the battleground becomes clear — Arizona is falling
down the list for the GOP to defend, and Colorado is threatening to. If the election were today,
Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina stand as the most vulnerable, closely followed by Maine.
That leaves what Republicans see as the tipping point states of Montana, Iowa and Georgia. But
they have other states they have to watch and worry about, including Kansas, Texas, and even
Alaska and South Carolina. The bottom line is that even Republicans believe Michigan is gone
for Trump, and even if James might be able to overperform the president, especially in the
Detroit suburbs, polls don’t show it’s enough, so it remains in Lean Democratic.

Champion Briefs 237

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Democrats can win the Senate and keep it for a while – senators like
Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson are vulnerable.
Kilgore , Ed. “If Democrats Can Win The Senate, They Can Hold It For A While.” Intelligencer.
July 16, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020. <https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/07/if-
democrats-win-the-senate-they-could-hold-it-for-a-while.html>.
With Joe Biden in a steady lead over Donald Trump, and the battleground state landscape
looking pretty favorable, Democrats are optimistic about their chances of winning back control
of the Senate for the first time since 2014. But then what? Would control flip back to
Republicans in a 2022 midterm election? After all, last time Democrats took the White House
away from Republicans, they lost six Senate seats in the ensuing 2010 midterms. At Sabato’s
Crystal Ball, Louis Jacobson looks ahead at the next couple of Senate cycles and suggests 2022
may not be so bad for Democrats even if they are playing defense and Joe Biden is in the White
House. Senate seats are divided into three “classes,” so that a third of the chamber is up every
two years. And as it happens, seats currently held by Democrats are heavily concentrated in
Class I, which was up last year and will be up next in 2024. In fact, nearly half (23 of 47)
Democratic senators are in that class, which reflects the fact that its recent elections have all
been held in relatively strong Democratic years (2006, 2012 and 2018). But that also means that
Class II (up this year) and Class III (up in 2022) skew heavily Republican, creating more targets
for Democrats. Jacobson assigns “vulnerability points” for senators based on past election
performances and trends in their states. He finds that 14 of this year’s batch of Republican
senators have at least one indicator of vulnerability — Martha McSally has four, and Cory
Gardner and Susan Collins have three. Democrats have only six senators with vulnerabilities —
though Doug Jones of Alabama is particularly exposed, with three areas of vulnerability.
Democratic gains appear very likely, and the only question is whether Democrats can pick up
three net seats (which is what they need if Joe Biden wins the presidency and his running-mate
takes the tie-breaking gavel of the Senate). For 2022, Jacobson finds eight Republicans with
vulnerabilities, with Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin having three
areas of weakness. He identifies just five Democrats with vulnerabilities, none of them having
more than two. Unless it’s a disastrous midterm for Democrats, they should be able to hold
onto the Senate and possibly could even make gains. In 2024, Democrats have 16 senators with
vulnerabilities, as opposed to just three Republicans in similar peril. Their main hope for holding
onto the chamber would be a successful Biden administration with a popular president — or
perhaps a popular designated successor — running for a second Democratic term. If you are
going to have a hyper-vulnerable Senate class when your party controls the White House, it’s
good to expose it in a presidential year rather than a midterm. But the starting point for a
Democratic era of Senate control is this November.

Champion Briefs 238

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

COVID means Trump loses – compulsory voting isn’t even a factor.

Brownstein , Ronald. “The Sun Belt Spikes Could Be A Disaster For Trump.” The Atlantic. June
25, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/06/coronavirus-surge-sun-belt-
could-doom-trump/613495/>.
The wildfire of coronavirus cases burning through the Sun Belt’s largest cities and suburbs could
accelerate their movement away from President Donald Trump and the GOP—a dynamic with
the potential to tip the balance in national elections not only in 2020, but for years to come.
Until the 2016 election, Republicans had maintained a consistent advantage in the region’s big
metros—including Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix—even as Democrats took hold of
comparable urban centers in other parts of the country. But under Trump, the GOP has lost
ground in these diverse and economically thriving communities. And now, a ferocious upsurge
of COVID-19 across the Sun Belt’s population hubs—including major cities in Florida and North
Carolina where Democrats are already more competitive—is adding a new threat to the
traditional Republican hold on these places. “There’s a lag between the trends that we have
seen in some of these big northern metropolitan areas and the southern metros,” Alan
Abramowitz, a political scientist at Emory University, told me. “But they are definitely going in
that same direction.” In 2016, Trump won all five of the large Sun Belt states that could be
battlegrounds in November. But the improving Democratic performance in the big metros
provides Joe Biden a beachhead to contest each of them. Polls consistently give the former vice
president a lead in Arizona and Florida, show him and Trump locked closely in North Carolina,
and provide the president only a small edge (at best) in Texas and Georgia. New York
Times/Siena College polls released today give Biden solid leads in Arizona, Florida, and North
Carolina, and commanding advantages in the major population centers of each state, including
Phoenix, Miami, Charlotte, and Raleigh. Fox News polls also released today show Biden leading
Trump narrowly in North Carolina, Georgia, and (even) Texas, while opening up a comfortable
9-point advantage in Florida. Among suburban voters, Biden led by 20 percentage points or
more in each of those states except Texas, where suburbanites still preferred him by 9 points.
After winning one Arizona Senate seat in 2018, Democrats are also pressing to capture
Republican-held Senate seats in Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia, and more suburban
House seats near Raleigh, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, and Tampa, among others. Even the
Republicans relatively confident that Trump’s grip on rural voters will allow him to hold most, if
not all, of these states recognize the implications of a trend that has them losing ground in the
communities that are preponderantly driving economic and population growth. “The trends of
2016, ’17, ’18 are continuing apace, with continuing weakness of the Republican brand in
suburban areas that had traditionally voted Republican, coupled with strengthening of the
Republican brand in rural areas that had traditionally voted Democrat,” Whit Ayres, a
Republican pollster who has long specialized in southern suburbs, told me. “The problem, of
course, is that the Republicans are trading larger, faster-growing areas for smaller, slower-

Champion Briefs 239

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

growing areas, and the math does not work out in the long run with that sort of trade.” The
new twist in this ongoing reconfiguration is the coronavirus. After weeks in which the outbreak
did not hit the southern metropolitan areas nearly as hard as major northern cities, the number
of new cases in and around Sun Belt cities is exploding. “If we stay on this current trajectory,
then we will overwhelm our hospitals” in July, Steve Adler, the mayor of Austin, Texas, told me
yesterday, echoing the public alarms of many mayors across the region. The trend lines are
daunting. From May 23 through Tuesday, the total number of confirmed cases more than
doubled in the counties centered on Austin (Travis), Houston (Harris), and Dallas; nearly
doubled in Fort Worth (Tarrant); and roughly tripled in San Antonio (Bexar). In Maricopa
County, Arizona, which comprises Phoenix and its sprawling suburbs, the total number of cases
more than quadrupled from 8,151 on May 23 to 34,992 yesterday. In Florida, daily new cases in
Miami-Dade County rose from 113 on May 24 to 947 on June 22. The map of cumulative cases
maintained by the Georgia Department of Public Health is a soothing shade of blue across most
of the state—except for the bright red marking Atlanta and its sizable surrounding suburbs of
DeKalb, Cobb, and Gwinnett counties. Statewide, both Florida and Texas announced more than
5,500 new cases yesterday, a record for each. (California, the largest Sun Belt state, is also
suffering a surge, but it is not politically competitive, with Biden enjoying a huge lead there.)
Public-health experts expect the numbers to continue rising for weeks. In Arizona, “we are
experiencing a second surge after an early-May plateau,” Joe Gerald, a professor at the
University of Arizona College of Public Health, told me. “This surge is much larger than the first
one and basically our foot is still on the accelerator. It is going to get worse before it gets
better.” In Texas, Peter Hotez, the dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor
College of Medicine in Houston, described the situation in equally ominous terms. “I’m
extremely worried,” he told me. “I sometimes use the word dire because the numbers are just
accelerating so dramatically. If you look at the curve [of case growth], it’s very much an
exponential curve.” Both Gerald and Hotez, like Adler, told me that if the current trend is not
slowed, hospitals’ capacity in their areas will be overwhelmed in the next few weeks. “The
implications are: We’ll see in Houston what we saw in New York City in the spring, which is a
surge on intensive-care units and hospitalizations, and we’ll reach or exceed capacity,” Hotez
said. “You don’t want to do that, because that’s when the mortality rates start to climb.”
Yesterday, Houston’s massive Texas Medical Center projected it could exceed its intensive-care
capacity by as soon as today. Coronavirus hospitalizations in the Houston area have nearly
tripled since Memorial Day, the Houston Chronicle has reported. Likewise, the number of
coronavirus patients hospitalized in Maricopa has more than doubled since late May, and just
12 percent of the state’s intensive-care-unit beds were available as of yesterday. The pressure
on local medical workers is growing so intense that Ross Goldberg, the president of the Arizona
Medical Association, told me the state may soon need to ask for volunteer health-care
professionals from other states, as New York did earlier this year. “Obviously there is going to
be a finite amount of space and a finite amount of staff,” Goldberg, a surgeon in Phoenix, said.
“Is this a time where we start looking for help elsewhere? That is something we need to be
considering.” Across almost all of the Sun Belt states, the spikes are exacerbating tensions
between Republican governors who rely mostly on suburban and rural areas for their votes,
and Democratic local officials in the most populous cities and counties. Taking cues from

Champion Briefs 240

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Trump, Republican Governors Ron DeSantis in Florida, Brian Kemp in Georgia, Greg Abbott in
Texas, and Doug Ducey in Arizona have all moved aggressively to reopen their state economies;
refused to deviate from that course as the caseloads have increased; and blocked municipal
officials from reversing or even slowing the pace of the reopening. The one concession from
DeSantis, Abbott, and Ducey has been to allow local governments to require some degree of
mask wearing. But experts say that requirement alone, especially given the uncertainties of
compliance and enforcement, cannot stop the rapidly rising caseload in these states. “I don’t
think [masks] are going to be sufficient to slow the spread or prevent us from exceeding our
hospital capacity,” Gerard told me. Very little polling is available to show how voters across
these Sun Belt states are reacting to the surge in new cases or the determination of the GOP
governors to plow forward despite them. Mike Noble, who polls for nonpartisan clients in
Arizona, told me that in his surveys this year, most residents have consistently worried more
about reopening too quickly than too slowly—though with a sharp partisan divide between
Democrats and Republicans. He told me that he expects his next survey in early July to show
heightened anxiety and diminished confidence in Ducey’s handling of the outbreak. “I assume
voters will be souring,” Noble said. “We thought originally that here in the desert, we’re not
going to be affected.” The core political question in the large Sun Belt metro areas may be
whether residents are grateful that their governors have given them more freedom to resume
daily activities or resentful that they have put them at greater risk by reopening so widely.
Ayres said the answer is likely some of both. “I really think there’s a limit to how long you can
enforce a rigid lockdown in a country where freedom and liberty are core values,” he told me.
“That said, it is now impossible to dismiss this pandemic as a hoax or just the flu or any of the
other dismissive appellations that have been applied to it.” For Trump and the GOP, an
urban/suburban backlash against these Republican governors—combined with a broader
negative verdict on the federal pandemic response—risks accelerating the trends reshaping
metropolitan politics across the Sun Belt. After advancing in the populous white-collar
suburban areas in the Northeast, the Midwest, and California during the 1990s, followed by
gains in the metros of Virginia, Colorado, and North Carolina starting around 2004, Democrats
are now finally seeing the same trends fortify their position in the Sun Belt population centers.
Take Gwinnett and Cobb counties, outside Atlanta. In 2014, Republican Senator David Perdue,
who’s up for reelection in November, won comfortable margins of about 55 percent in each. In
2016, though, Hillary Clinton won both by relatively narrow margins against Trump, and in
2018, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee, Stacey Abrams, carried them more resoundingly.
Abramowitz expects them to continue moving toward the Democrats in 2020, with margins
sufficient enough to give Biden and Perdue’s Democratic opponent, Jon Ossoff, a competitive
shot at the state, and also to flip an open U.S. House seat in Gwinnett. In Texas, the arc looks
similar. The University of Houston political scientist Richard Murray has charted a clear blue
bend in voters’ political preferences in the 27 counties that comprise the state’s four huge
metro areas—Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin—which together account for about 70
percent of the state’s votes and jobs. As recently as 2012, GOP presidential nominee Mitt
Romney won 55 percent of the vote across them. But in 2016, Trump fell just under 50 percent,
the first GOP nominee to lose them since Barry Goldwater running against native son Lyndon B.
Johnson in 1964. In 2018, Democratic Senate candidate Beto O’Rourke carried all four of those

Champion Briefs 241

A/2: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

metros with 54 percent of the vote. Murray said he expects Biden to capture as much as 58
percent in November. With the higher presidential-year turnout, he predicts, that could
produce an advantage of more than 1 million votes for Biden in and around those four cities.
Murray said there is no guarantee Trump can squeeze out enough rural votes to hold Texas. But
even if he does, the GOP faces some brutal arithmetic: As Ayres and Murray both noted, it’s
relying more and more on the places that are shrinking or stagnant in population while
retreating in the growing places. This problem is especially acute in Texas, Murray said, because
the metropolitan areas are among the nation’s fastest growing, and they are becoming much
more racially diverse as they expand. Paul Begala, the veteran Democratic strategist and a
Houston native, predicts this realignment will be on hyperdrive because of the pandemic.
“People in the suburbs today more readily identify with their neighbors in the city than they do
with folks 100 miles away who refuse to wear a mask,” he told me. “That’s a tectonic change.
The suburbs exist because people there didn’t want to be around people in the cities. But the
shift has been happening for quite some time, and this COVID makes it worse.” Gains for
Democrats in the Texas suburbs sufficient to allow them to win statewide would likely qualify as
the most significant political development of the 2020s. But for November, Arizona is the state
where these dynamics may matter most. Many Democrats see Arizona, which Democrats have
carried only once since 1948, as Biden’s best chance to reach 270 Electoral College votes if he
can’t dislodge Trump’s hold on either Wisconsin or Florida. Maricopa County is the key to those
hopes. It was the biggest county in America that Trump won in 2016, when he carried it by
almost 45,000 votes. But in 2018, it propelled the Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema to her
victory when she took it by about 60,000 votes. Noble’s recent polls have consistently found
both Biden and Democratic Senate candidate Mark Kelly leading their respective Republican
opponents by roughly double digits in the sprawling county—unprecedented in recent years for
Democrats. As Noble noted, only one Republican (a superintendent of public instruction, in
2014) has recently won a statewide race while losing Maricopa, no matter how much
Republicans run up the score, as Trump is likely to do, in the state’s rural regions. “They are still
in trouble in Maricopa County,” he said. Both a precinct-by-precinct analysis of the 2018 results
that Noble conducted and his monthly polling this year have convinced him that Republicans
are leaking support from two groups in Maricopa: college-educated white voters (especially
women) and seniors. Both populations are among those who have expressed the most concern
about the coronavirus, even before the fearsome surge now buffeting the area. Trump’s
response? When he stopped in Maricopa for a rally in north Phoenix on Tuesday, he did not
wear a mask or require one for those attending the event, despite public pleas to do so from
Mayor Kate Gallego. He barely mentioned the outbreak in his 90-minute speech. In other
words, even while visiting metropolitan Phoenix, Trump’s focus seemed to be on his
preponderantly white base in the exurban and rural communities beyond it. Across the Sun
Belt, November will test whether Trump’s base-first strategy can overcome the resistance
that’s coalescing against him in the population centers now confronting the full force of the
coronavirus outbreak.

Champion Briefs 242

A/2: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Accessibility CP

A2 Accessibility first- No, relying on states to make modifications

prevents the government from being held accountable.
Trevitt, Vittorio. “Compulsory Voting Is Controversial, But Would Represent A Move Towards
Genuine Democratic Empowerment.” Democracy Audit. March 09, 2014. Web. August
18, 2020. <http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/63171/1/democraticaudit.com-
Compulsory%20voting%20is%20controversial%20but%20would%20represent%20a%20
move%20towards%20genuine%20democratic%20empowerment.pdf>.
Compulsory voting is a long standing practice in many countries, such as in Argentina (which
has had mandatory voting in elections since 1914) and in Belgium (which introduced the
practice as far back as 1893). In 2013, there were 38 countries worldwide that required their
citizens (with certain exceptions) to vote by law. Although enforcement of this rule varies
between countries, the fact that voting is seen as a civic duty in those nation-states
demonstrates the importance of compulsory voting as a means of increasing democratic
participation within a society. From an equity point of view, compulsory voting could empower
the dispossessed here in Britain (where those in the highest income group have been found to
be 43% more likely to vote than those in the lowest income group) by enabling them to feel
that they have a stake in their country’s future, and see for themselves the kinds of candidates
they could vote for that may influence legislation leading to long-term improvements in their
lives. In a country where mainstream politics has long been dominated by three parties, people
do not seem to challenge the status quo by voting for other parties that may have a different
approach to politics (the rise of UKIP, however, may be a sign that British politics is moving in
this direction).There are over fifty parties to choose from in the United Kingdom, with differing
ideologies and beliefs on how Britain should be governed, demonstrating the large number of
choices available. It is better to vote than not at all, because one person’s vote could make a
difference, however small it may be, on whatever changes politicians may bring about in British
society. Various countries with compulsory voting have also been credited with having lower
levels of political corruption and inequalities of wealth, together with higher rates of
satisfaction from people with the way democracy is functioning in their countries, compared
with those nation-states where voting is voluntary. In Australia, where voting has been
mandatory since 1924, 70% of people support the long-enshrined principle of compulsory
voting in their democratic society. There is, therefore, a strong case for voting in elections to be
made compulsory in Britain. By requiring citizens of all income groups to have a say in who
should make important decisions, and by potentially increasing the political education of the
population as a whole, the introduction of compulsory voting could prove itself to be one of the

Champion Briefs 243

A/2: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

greatest democratic experiments in the history of our country, and set a precedent for other
liberal democracies to follow in the years to come.

Champion Briefs 244

A/2: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

A2 CV doesn't fix accessibility- AUS proves, plus makes voices heard.

Aly, Waleed. “Voting Should Be Mandatory.” The New York Times. January 19, 2017. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/voting-should-be-
mandatory.html>.
MELBOURNE, Australia — When you survey the wreckage of 2016, it’s easy to forget that the
most seismic democratic events were brought about by minorities. Only 37 percent of eligible
Britons voted to leave the European Union. The case is even clearer in the American election,
which Donald J. Trump won despite having persuaded only a quarter of the American
electorate to support him. Mr. Trump triumphed in a low-turnout election. As we scramble to
explain the upheavals in democratic politics, we may be describing shifts that, while significant,
are smaller than we think. It’s time for democracies to adopt compulsory voting. I say this from
Australia, one of about a dozen countries where people can be penalized for not voting (about
a dozen more have compulsory voting on the books but don’t enforce it). We’ve done so at the
federal level since 1924, following a drop in voter turnout. We’re now required by law to enroll
at 18 years old (though this isn’t strictly monitored), and we’re fined if we fail to vote. Around
three-quarters of Australians have consistently supported compulsory voting, and there is no
meaningful movement for change.

Champion Briefs 245

A/2: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

A2 CV doesn't solve for those who feel violated at polling places- CV

doesn't require any additional intervention, justifies a permutation.
Engelen, Bart. “Why Compulsory Voting Can Enhance Democracy.” Research Gate. April, 2007.
Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248874800_Why_Compulsory_Voting_Can
_Enhance_Democracy>.
Second, there is nothing inherently undemocratic about compelling citizens to do something,
which not all of them want to do voluntarily. Any democratic regime can legitimately enforce
laws, even if these are not agreed upon by all of its subjects. Indeed, no democracy can or
should be expected to completely free its citizens from obligations and duties. Also, according
to the European Commission for Human Rights and contrary to what opponents often claim,
compulsory voting does not violate any human right (Vanmaercke, 1993, 73). Third, it is not
voting that is compulsory, but attendance at the polling station. As shown above, the secrecy of
the ballot guarantees that citizens always have the possibility of leaving their ballots blank or
spoiling them (Keaney and Rogers, 2006, 30). This forms an institutional answer to so-called
‘conscientious objectors’ and to those who are and want to remain indifferent.12 However,
opponents of compulsory voting are not so easily fobbed off and claim that no government may
oblige its citizens to attend elections. This argument functions as some kind of rock-bottom: I
oppose compulsory voting because it infringes on my freedom by which I may well prefer to
stay at home

Champion Briefs 246

A/2: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Topicality: Must cast ballot

There are many different ways to implement compulsory voting. In

Australia, you have to show up to the polling place but can decline to
vote once you're there.
, FindLaw. “What Is Compulsory Voting?.” March 16, 2020. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/what-is-compulsory-voting-
.html>.
There are a handful of countries that enforce their compulsory voting laws. Some allow citizens
to decline their vote via a formal request. Or, others make exceptions based on age and other
factors. Here are the countries that enforce compulsory voting, and the penalties for not
complying: Argentina dictates that non-voters must provide a reasonable explanation for not
voting. That person may also be subject to a fine about equivalent to less than a dollar.
Australia enacted compulsory voting in 1924. In a different twist, Australians are legally
required to go to their local polling place but can decline to vote once they sign in. Citizens who
don't show up at the polling place may face a fine between the equivalent of $14-34. If they
don't pay that fine, they might face jail time. Belgium has the world's oldest mandatory voting
system, dating back to 1924. Citizens over 18 receive a small fine if they don't vote. They may
face jail time if they fail to vote in at least four elections. Brazil has a law that voting is voluntary
for citizens between 16 and 18 and over 70, and for those who cannot read. Everyone else must
vote and will face a small fine for not doing so. Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Nauru, Uruguay,
and Turkey require an explanation to not vote and impose a small fine if the explanation is not
reasonable. North Korea's elections generally only offer voters one candidate. Abstaining or
casting a dissenting vote is considered treason. Peru levies a small fine for those who fail to
vote. For months following elections, Peruvians are also required to carry a stamped voting
card as proof that they voted. Without that stamp, citizens cannot get some goods and services
from public offices. Singapore's laws state that non-voters are taken off the country's voter
register until they reapply and offer a reason for not voting. If the reason is found to be not
reasonable, the citizen must pay a fee to be put back on the register. Non-voters in Singapore
are also barred from being a candidate in a Presidential or Parliamentary election. Switzerland
requires voting only in the Canton of Schaffhausen. Citizens there are subject to a fine
equivalent to about $3 for not complying. Similar to Brazil's law, some countries offer
exemptions to their compulsory voting laws. Those might include illness, military duty, or
religious reasons.

Champion Briefs 247

A/2: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Because democracies have a secret ballot, compulsory voting can only

mean compulsory turnout. The affirmative is topical because the
intention of compulsory turnout is to compel voting.
Lever, Annabelle. “Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science
40. 2010. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248665969_Compulsory_Voting_A_Critical
_Perspective>.
The term ‘compulsory voting’ can be a bit misleading, at least in democracies, where the secret
ballot obtains. Because of secrecy, it is impossible to verify whether or not anyone has cast a
legally valid ballot. Consequently, compulsory voting generally means compulsory turnout or, as
some call it, compulsory participation.2 However, because the purpose of compulsion is to get
people to vote, rather than just to turn out or to participate in some generic way, talk of
‘compulsory voting’ strikes me as less misleading than these other terms, and is the term that I
will be using here.

Champion Briefs 248

A/2: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting refers in practice to mandatory attendance, where

citizens are free to cast blank or invalid votes.
Schafer, Armin. “Republican Liberty And Compulsory Voting.” MPIfG Discussion Paper, No.
11/17. 2011. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/51552/1/672242184.pdf>.
Compulsory voting is an effective means not only to increase turnout but also to equalize
electoral participation across social groups.1 [FOOTNOTE #1 BEGINS] Throughout the paper I
will use the terms “compulsory voting” and “mandatory voting” interchangeably. Both terms
refer to an obligation to attend the polling booth rather than to an obligation to actually vote.
Even under compulsory voting laws, citizens remain free to cast blank or invalid votes.
[FOOTNOTE #1 ENDS] But although turnout has been declining in many established
democracies, mandatory voting does not seem to be an answer that is frequently taken into
consideration. In fact, a number of countries have abandoned compulsory voting of late, while
only Thailand has recently introduced it. For many observers, forcing people to attend the
ballot box seems to violate the idea that voting is a right which citizens may or may not choose
to exercise. From this perspective, staying at home on Election Day appears to be primarily an
individual choice. Whether one is interested in politics or not is regarded as a matter of taste:
some like to play chess, others listen to heavy metal, and some may even get thrills from
following politics. Individuals choose their leisure activities as they deem fit, and – as long as
these do not interfere with other people’s rights – none of these activities are inherently more
valuable or virtuous. If individuals have the right to vote but voluntarily decide not to use it,
there is little to worry about.

Champion Briefs 249

A/2: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

”Compulsory voting” means compulsory attendance, without the

need to choose a candidate. This is what many countries mean by
“compulsory voting” in their respective languages.
Birch, Sarah. “Full Participation: A Comparative Study Of Compulsory Voting.” United Nations
University Press. 2009. Web. August 17, 2020.
<http://archive.unu.edu/unupress/sample-chapters/full_participation_web.pdf>.
What is in a term? Compulsory voting can be defined very simply as the legal obligation to
attend the polls at election time3 and perform whatever duties are required there of electors.
As is often recognised, the inherent constraints of the secret ballot mean that in most modern
democracies (and even in many less-than democratic settings) compulsory voting is, strictly-
speaking, impossible. The state cannot typically monitor the behaviour of the elector in the
privacy of the polling booth and can therefore do nothing to prevent him or her from casting an
invalid or blank ballot; in very few states is any legal effort made to do so.4 The Dutch language
recognises this distinction by employing a term – opkomstplicht – which can be translated as
compulsory (or obligatory) attendance at the polls,5 as does a recent Institute for Public Policy
Research Report, which refers to ‘compulsory turnout’ (Keaney and Rogers, 2006). Most
European languages fail to make this distinction, however, and use terms that translate roughly
as ‘obligatory voting’. The French speak of le vote obligatoire, the Italians of il voto obbligatorio,
the Spanish of el voto obligatorio and the Portuguese of o voto obrigatório. In German the
terms employed are (gesetzliche) Wahlpflicht and Stimmpflicht, while most Slavic languages
use variations on the Polish term głosowanie obowia˛zkowe. 6The terms ‘obligatory voting’ and
‘mandatory voting’ do make their appearances in the English-language literature, yet the most
commonly used term to designate this practice is ‘compulsory voting’. This is somewhat
unfortunate, given the pejorative connotations of the term ‘compulsion’ in English; certainly
‘obligation’ has a rather different sound. Use of the term ‘compulsion’ thus casts the institution
in a negative light in many English-languages debates on the subject (despite the fact that the
Australians have been happily using this term to describe their electoral system for over 80
years). This usage has the further consequence of precluding an automatic semantic link
between the institution and the broader notion of political obligation. A more appropriate term
might be ‘the legal obligation to participate in elections’, but this being cumbersome, the
present study will employ the terms ‘compulsory voting’, ‘mandatory voting’, ‘compulsory
electoral participation’ and ‘mandatory electoral participation’, which will be used
interchangeably.

Champion Briefs 250

A/2: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

The neg's interpretation mixes the burden of solvency with being

topical. Although not everyone will cast a valid vote, “compulsory
voting” is not misleading because the aim of compulsory turnout is to
get people to vote.
Lever, Annabelle. “Is Compulsory Voting Justified?.” Public Reason 1(1): 57-74. 2009. Web.
August 17, 2020.
<http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/23100/1/Is_Compulsory_Voting_Justified_%28publishers%29.p
df>.
The term “compulsory voting” can be a bit misleading, at least in democracies, where the secret
ballot obtains. Because of secrecy, it is impossible to verify whether or not anyone has cast a
legally valid ballot. Consequently, compulsory voting generally means compulsory turnout or, as
some call it, compulsory participation.2 However, because the purpose of compulsion is to get
people to vote, rather than just to turn out or to participate in some generic way, talk of
compulsory voting strikes me as less misleading than these other terms, and is the term that I
will be using here.

Champion Briefs 251

A/2: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

All compulsory voting advocates agree with the recognition of opt

outs. Their interpretation is inconsistent with the literature.
Malkopoulou, Anthoula. “The History Of Compulsory Voting In Europe: Democracy.” Routledge,
p. 20-21. December 05, 2014. Web. August 17, 2020.
In any case, compulsory voting advocacy always comes with the recognition of opt outs. These
can take the form of a blank ballot or a non[e]-of-the-above option. Another possibility is to
cast an informal or invalid vote. Anyway, because of the secrecy of the vote, guaranteed by the
privacy of the voting booth, it is not possible to compel citizens to cast a valid vote. These two
opt-outs, blank and invalid voting, make sure that the good effects of full turnout may be
preserved without harming liberty of conscience. They prevent the abuse of compulsory voting
by oppressive regimes and constitute thereby one necessary criterion for distinguishing
democratic from authoritarian forms of the practice. Consequently, as confirmed by one
decision of the European Court of Human Rights, the option of casting a blank ballot ensures
that neither freedom of electoral choice nor personal autonomy is threatened by a legal
obligation to attend the polls.

Champion Briefs 252

A/2: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

If the aff had to require that every person cast a valid vote, Australia's
law wouldn't be topical either, because it allows for exceptions.
Commission, Australian Law Reform. “Equality, Capacity And Disability In Commonwealth
Laws.” ALRC Report 124. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.alrc.gov.au/publication/equality-capacity-and-disability-in-
commonwealth-laws-alrc-report-124/9-electoral-matters-2/valid-and-sufficient-reason-
for-failure-to-vote/>.
9.28 Section 245 of the Electoral Act provides voting is compulsory. Section 245(4) provides that
a DRO is not required to send or deliver a penalty notice if satisfied that the elector: is dead,
was overseas, was ineligible to vote or ‘had a valid and sufficient reason for failing to vote’.
Electors with a valid and sufficient reason for not voting do not have to pay a fine.

Champion Briefs 253

A/2: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Baudrillard K

Baudrillard is so misogynist that he literally advocates for sacrificing

women to death.
Brodribb, Somer. “NOTHING MAT(T)ERS: A Feminist Critique Of Postmodernism.” Spinifex
Press. 1992. Web. August 17, 2020.
Jean Baudrillard blames the failure of the “revolution” on women and change, women’s
change. He sees puritanical “hysterics” everywhere whom he accuses of exaggeration about
sexual abuse (1986, p. 42). The radical nostalgia which pervades his postmodern scribbling is for
Rousseau’s (1979) Sophie and Lasch’s haven in a heartless world. For Baudrillard, a rapist is a
violent fetus who longs for ancient prohibitions not sexual liberation (1986, p. 47). Baudrillard’s
pessimism is actually his hope for a defeat of feminist initiated change and a return to man and
god in contract, the eternal sacrifice of woman. His ramblings in his cups of cool whisky (1986,
p. 7) are given the status of thought. He considers himself outré and daring to criticize feminists
but, as anyone who has taken a feminist position knows, misogynous attack is banal and
regular. Sorry, Baudrillard: it is outré to support and to be a feminist. But is this in vino veritas,
when Baudrillard proposes a Dionysian sacrifice of woman to the image of beauty, purity,
eternity? In Amérique, he writes: “One should always bring something to sacrifice in the desert
and offer it as a victim. A woman. If something has to disappear there, something equal in
beauty to the desert, why not a woman? (1986, p. 66). When queried about this “gratuitously
provocative statement” Baudrillard replied, “Sacrificing a woman in the desert is a logical
operation because in the desert one loses one’s identity. It’s a sublime act and part of the
drama of the desert. Making a woman the object of the sacrifice is perhaps the greatest
compliment I could give her” (Moore: 1989, p. 54). A compliment postmodernism will make
over and over, like opera.18 Commenting on a sacrificial scene in D.H.Lawrence’s The Woman
Who Rode Away, Millett writes: This is a formula for sexual cannibalism: substitute the knife for
the penis and penetration, the cave for a womb, and for a bed, a place of execution—and you
provide a murder whereby one acquires one’s victim’s power. Lawrence’s demented fantasy
has arranged for the male to penetrate the female with the instrument of death so as to steal
her mana...The act here at the centre of the Lawrentian sexual religion is coitus as killing, its
central vignette a picture of human sacrifice performed upon the woman to the greater glory
and potency of the male (1971, p. 292).

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 254

A/2: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

The negative creates an epistemic disregard for material violence.

Best, Steven. “Postmodern Theory.” 1991. Web. August 18, 2020.
Furthermore, Baudrillard's analysis operates on an excessively high level of abstraction. He fails
to make key distinctions and engages in misplaced abstraction. For instance, Ron Silliman
pointed out in his response to Baudrillard at the Montana conference that Baudrillard failed to
distinguish between tranvestism and transexuality. Transvestites play at dressing as members
of the opposite sex and enjoy the 'gender fucking' and subversion of dress codes; transsexuals,
by contrast, are often tortured and suffering individuals who can appear uncomfortable in
either sex ~ as evidenced by the high rate of suicides of those who undergo sex change
operations. But human suffering is erased from Baudrillard's semiological universe which
abstractly describes certain sign spectacles abstracted from material underpinnings. The same
bad abstraction appears in his travelogue America (l988d). Baudrillard speeds through the
desert of America and merely sees signs floating by. He looks at Reagan on TV and sees only his
smile. He hangs out in southern California and concludes that the United States is a 'realized
utopia'. He fails to see, however, the homeless, the poor, racism and sexism, people dying of
AIDS, oppressed immigrants, and fails to relate any of the phenomena observed to the
vicissitudes of capitalism (he denies that capital ever existed in America!), or to the
conservative political hegemony of the 1980s. Baudrillard's imaginary is thus a highly abstract
sign fetishism which abstracts from social relations and political economy in order to perceive
the play of signs in the transvestite spectacles of the transaesthetic, transsexual, and
transpolitical. Baudrillard's 'trans' manoeuvres, however, are those of an idealist skimming the
surface of appearances while speeding across an environment which he never contextualizes,
understands, or really comes to terms with.

Champion Briefs 255

A/2: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Baudrillard’s alternative fails to confront real world politics.

Best, Steven. “Postmodern Politics And The Battle For The Future.” 1998. Web. August 18,
2020.
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07393149808429830?journalCode=cn
ps20>.
In the aftermath of the 1960s, novel and conflicting conceptions of postmodern politics
emerged. Postmodern politics thus take a variety of forms and would include the anti-politics of
Baudrillard and his followers, who exhibit a cynical, despairing rejection of the belief in
emancipatory social transformation, as well as a variety of efforts to create a new or
reconstructed politics. On the extreme and apolitical position of a Baudrillard, we are stranded
at the end of history, paralyzed and frozen, as the masses collapse into inertia and indifference,
and simulacra and technology triumph over agency. Thus, from Baudrillard’s perspective, all we
can do is “accommodate ourselves to the time left to us.”

Champion Briefs 256

A/2: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Fatal strategies are political acquiescence—they should be rejected.

Waddington, David. “Review Of Trevor Norris, Consuming Schools Commercialism And The End
Of Politics.” 2011. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11217-010-9211-x>.
Norris does excellent work summarizing Baudrillard’s fairly wide-ranging and non-systematic
theories about consumer culture. His explanation of Baudrillard’s famous Disneyland analysis
(‘Disneyland must exist in order to distract Americans from the fact that America is a
simulation.’) is especially effective. The sole significant difficulty with Norris’ account of
Baudrillard comes when he appears to support a particularly questionable aspect of
Baudrillard’s theory—the strategy of ‘‘surrendering to the object.’’ Norris comments,
‘‘Baudrillard encourages us to abandon the subject and side with the object, a ‘fatal strategy’ of
surrendering to the object and submitting to the power of seduction’’ (p. 141). As Norris notes,
Baudrillard thus understands ‘‘the silence of the masses’’ in the face of growing consumerism
as ‘‘an effective fatal strategy of resistance’’ (p. 141). An effective fatal strategy of resistance?
Baudrillard is famous for unconventional analyses, but this one beggar’s belief. Who would
have thought that, all this time, the folks who phone in and order products from the Shopping
Channel were gallantly resisting consumerism through their heroic surrender to the objects that
are offered for sale! Arendt may be overly nostalgic, and there may be some difficulties with
her conception of action, but at least she has a robust idea of agency, which would seem to be
what is required in order to resist consumerism. Baudrillard’s strategy seems to be nothing
more than acquiescence. Thus, although it is entertaining to read Baudrillard’s (2000) put-
downs of, say, American culture (‘‘Americans may have no identity, but they do have wonderful
teeth.’’ (p. 34)), there is a problem with his thinking that Hegel scholar Allan Wood pinpoints
effectively. In a brief discussion of The Matrix (the makers of which were influenced by
Baudrillard), Wood (2004) makes the following point: But there is also metaphorical reality to
the coolness of the few, which the Matrix movies fashionably celebrate. This is the attitude that
used to be called ‘postmodernism’ and now lives on under various names, or perhaps in forms
so ultra-cool they no longer need any name at all…The distinctive feature of this movement is
that it gets piquant aesthetic pleasure from the deconstructive experience of passing from the
tedious illusion of everyday experience to momentary glimpses of the horrifying reality that lies
behind it. The pleasure derives in part because the nauseating glimpses of reality relieve the
boredom of the illusion and in part from indulging the deconstruction artist’s childish self-
conceit in thinking himself or herself superior to most people who do not even catch these
horrifying glimpses of reality. Postmodern coolness, however, is only the final form of illusion,
the self-deceiving pleasure of thinking there is something liberating about just catching these
momentary glimpses of reality, it is the last pitiful facsimile of the genuine liberation of
humanity that Marx fought for and hoped for, but which cool postmodernism now knows to be
forever impossible (p. 268). Regardless of whether he is right about the essence of
postmodernism, Wood points toward a genuine danger—the possibility that one will become
content to ridicule popular culture while either doing nothing to combat it and/or simply

Champion Briefs 257

A/2: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

acquiescing to it. Although Baudrillard has some powerful insights to offer as far as the question
of consumerism is concerned, the ‘‘fatal strategies’’ should be rejected and this is especially
true as far as education is concerned.

Champion Briefs 258

A/2: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Baudrillard’s theory is necessarily self-defeating – they could win

every argument and it still doesn’t justify a ballot.
Merrin, William. “To Play With Phantoms: Jean Baudrillard And The Evil Demon Of The
Simulacrum.” Economy and Society, Vol. 30, No. 1. 2001. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03085140020019106>.
The power of the simulacrum, therefore, may prove to be greater than Baudrillard realized. On
a personal level this is certainly the case. In a candid 1984–5 interview he reveals that his
courtship of its demon became an unlivable experience: ‘I stopped working on simulation. I felt
I was going totally nuts’ (1993a: 105). The simulacrum, however, could not be so easily disposed
of. Despite his desire to ‘cast off this yoke of simulacres and simulation’ (1993a: 184), the
‘simulacrum’ has thrived, becoming an idea popularly and irrevocably identified with
Baudrillard. It has, appropriately, exerted its simulacral power to appear in the popular
imagination as the real philosophy of Jean Baudrillard, eclipsing his critique, and all other
aspects of his work and career. Journalistic commentary and student texts are typical here in
identifying the simulacrum as Baudrillard’s sole approved project. Thus the problem of finding
Baudrillard’s flat is turned into an obvious and banal hook by one interviewer, who takes the
opportunity to enquire whether ‘Baudrillard himself ... might be a simulacrum’: Does he really
exist? (Leith 1998: 14). More importantly for Baudrillard, however, is the simulacral efficacy of
doubling – the theoretical strategy of employing simulation which, quite naturally, has a
simulacral effect. The theory of simulation Baudrillard did not believe in has now been realized:
as the Japanese interviewer makes clear, the simulacrum has become reality. Volatized in, and
as, the real, its victory is the concept’s defeA2: once it is ‘true’, the simulacrum becomes a
commonplace, robbed of its capacity to arouse the world’s denial and thus its critical force: if
there is nothing beyond the simulacrum then it is not even open to question but is simply ‘our
absolute banality, our everyday obscenity’ (Zurbrugg 1997: 11). Hence Baudrillard’s emphasis
upon the theoretical challenge of the simulacrum. Once realized, unless – as Baudrillard hopes
– it can itself be reversed against simulation, then this critical function is lost. Opposing
Baudrillard with the simulacrum – with its success – is, therefore, the most effective means of
critique. For his work is not wrong, but too true: the simulacrum has become reality and this is
his end; the game is over. It is, therefore, in the hyperdefence of Baudrillard that we find a
means of leaving him behind. With his success, Baudrillard disappears. If we want him to
survive, we must condemn him as a nihilistic proponent of the simulacrum and oppose him
with an outraged, vituperic, moral appeal to reality, as Kellner and Norris do; thereby restoring
his work to life. For, if it is only in its contradiction that it can live as a provocation and
diabolical challenge, then once it is true this ends. Kellner and Norris, therefore, may yet prove
to be Baudrillard’s greatest defenders. Baudrillard, of all people, should have anticipated his
disappearance, for the simulacrum’s demonic power rests also in its attraction for, and hold
over, humanity. Aristotle, for example, recognized this, writing of this instinctive pleasure of
imitation in man, ‘the most imitative of living creatures’ (1997: 5), while Nietzsche also speaks

Champion Briefs 259

A/2: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

of ‘the delight in simulation’ and of its effects in ‘exploding as a power that pushes aside one’s
so-called “character”, ooding it and at times extinguishing it’ (1974: para. 361). One courts this
demon, therefore, at one’s own risk, as it captivates and overwhelms our personality. As the
author of the Psalms cautioned the makers and worshippers of idols, ‘they that make them are
like unto them: so is everyone who trusteth in them’ (Barasch 1992: 20). The efficacy of
simulation and the danger of disappearance are key themes in Roger Caillois’ influential essay
on animal mimicry and the mimetic instinct – no less powerful in insects than in man (Caillois
1984). The instinct of mimesis parallels primitive magic, Caillois says, though it is a mimetic spell
which is too strong for those who cast it. For the insects it is a spell which has ‘caught the
sorcerer in his own trap’ (1984: 27) – Phylia, for example, ‘browse among them- selves, taking
each other for real leaves’ (1984: 25). So, Caillois argues, simulation absorbs the simulator,
leading to their mimetic ‘assimilation to the surroundings’ with a consequent ‘psychasthenic’
loss of distinction, personality, and also, in a thanatophilic movement, the loss of the signs of
life itself (1984: 28, 30). Simulation, therefore, nally overwhelms the simulator: as Caillois
warns in the epigram which opens his article, ‘Take care: when you play with phantoms, you
may become one’ (1984: 17). So Baudrillard’s game has the same result. If the simulacrum has
been realized; if simulation is now our everyday banality, then Baudrillard is condemned to a
lifeless disappearance as a sorcerer trapped by his own magical invocation, absorbed by his
own simulation. Baudrillard may not believe in the ghost of the simulacrum, but he himself
becomes this very ghost. His game with phantoms ends, as Caillois knew it would, with his own
phantasmatic transformation, with his apparitional disappearance. But this is only fitting, for in
the pact with the devil it is always your soul that is the stake.

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 260

A/2: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Democracy K

US democracy is key to international collective action on multiple

existential threats and to prevent war---backsliding causes those
systems to unravel.
Kendall-Taylor, Andrea. “How Democracy’s Decline Would Undermine The International Order.”
Center for Strategic and International Studies. July 15, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-democracy%E2%80%99s-decline-would-
undermine-international-order>.
It is rare that policymakers, analysts, and academics agree. But there is an emerging consensus
in the world of foreign policy: threats to the stability of the current international order are
rising. The norms, values, laws, and institutions that have undergirded the international system
and governed relationships between nations are being gradually dismantled. The most
discussed sources of this pressure are the ascent of China and other non-Western countries,
Russia’s assertive foreign policy, and the diffusion of power from traditional nation-states to
nonstate actors, such as nongovernmental organizations, multinational corporations, and
technology-empowered individuals. Largely missing from these discussions, however, is the
specter of widespread democratic decline. Rising challenges to democratic governance across
the globe are a major strain on the international system, but they receive far less attention in
discussions of the shifting world order. In the 70 years since the end of World War II, the United
States has fostered a global order dominated by states that are liberal, capitalist, and
democratic. The United States has promoted the spread of democracy to strengthen global
norms and rules that constitute the foundation of our current international system. However,
despite the steady rise of democracy since the end of the Cold War, over the last 10 years we
have seen dramatic reversals in respect for democratic principles across the globe. A 2015
Freedom House report stated that the “acceptance of democracy as the world’s dominant form
of government—and of an international system built on democratic ideals—is under greater
threat than at any point in the last 25 years.” Although the number of democracies in the world
is at an all-time high, there are a number of key trends that are working to undermine
democracy. The rollback of democracy in a few influential states or even in a number of less
consequential ones would almost certainly accelerate meaningful changes in today’s global
order. Democratic decline would weaken U.S. partnerships and erode an important foundation
for U.S. cooperation abroad. Research demonstrates that domestic politics are a key
determinant of the international behavior of states. In particular, democracies are more likely
to form alliances and cooperate more fully with other democracies than with autocracies.
Similarly, authoritarian countries have established mechanisms for cooperation and sharing of

Champion Briefs 261

A/2: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

“worst practices.” An increase in authoritarian countries, then, would provide a broader

platform for coordination that could enable these countries to overcome their divergent
histories, values, and interests—factors that are frequently cited as obstacles to the formation
of a cohesive challenge to the U.S.-led international system. Recent examples support the
empirical data. Democratic backsliding in Hungary and the hardening of Egypt’s autocracy
under Abdel Fattah el-Sisi have led to enhanced relations between these countries and Russia.
Likewise, democratic decline in Bangladesh has led Sheikh Hasina Wazed and her ruling Awami
League to seek closer relations with China and Russia, in part to mitigate Western pressure and
bolster the regime’s domestic standing. Although none of these burgeoning relationships has
developed into a highly unified partnership, democratic backsliding in these countries has
provided a basis for cooperation where it did not previously exist. And while the United States
certainly finds common cause with authoritarian partners on specific issues, the depth and
reliability of such cooperation is limited. Consequently, further democratic decline could
seriously compromise the United States’ ability to form the kinds of deep partnerships that will
be required to confront today’s increasingly complex challenges. Global issues such as climate
change, migration, and violent extremism demand the coordination and cooperation that
democratic backsliding would put in peril. Put simply, the United States is a less effective and
influential actor if it loses its ability to rely on its partnerships with other democratic nations. A
slide toward authoritarianism could also challenge the current global order by diluting U.S.
influence in critical international institutions, including the United Nations , the World Bank,
and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Democratic decline would weaken Western efforts
within these institutions to advance issues such as Internet freedom and the responsibility to
protect. In the case of Internet governance, for example, Western democracies support an
open, largely private, global Internet. Autocracies, in contrast, promote state control over the
Internet, including laws and other mechanisms that facilitate their ability to censor and
persecute dissidents. Already many autocracies, including Belarus, China, Iran, and Zimbabwe,
have coalesced in the “Likeminded Group of Developing Countries” within the United Nations
to advocate their interests. Within the IMF and World Bank, autocracies—along with other
developing nations—seek to water down conditionality or the reforms that lenders require in
exchange for financial support. If successful, diminished conditionality would enfeeble an
important incentive for governance reforms. In a more extreme scenario, the rising influence of
autocracies could enable these countries to bypass the IMF and World Bank all together. For
example, the Chinese-created Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank and the BRICS Bank—
which includes Russia, China, and an increasingly authoritarian South Africa—provide countries
with the potential to bypass existing global financial institutions when it suits their interests.
Authoritarian-led alternatives pose the risk that global economic governance will become
fragmented and less effective. Violence and instability would also likely increase if more
democracies give way to autocracy. International relations literature tells us that democracies
are less likely to fight wars against other democracies, suggesting that interstate wars would
rise as the number of democracies declines. Moreover, within countries that are already
autocratic, additional movement away from democracy, or an “authoritarian hardening,” would
increase global instability. Highly repressive autocracies are the most likely to experience state
failure, as was the case in the Central African Republic, Libya, Somalia, Syria, and Yemen. In this

Champion Briefs 262

A/2: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

way, democratic decline would significantly strain the international order because rising levels
of instability would exceed the West’s ability to respond to the tremendous costs of
peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, and refugee flows. Finally, widespread democratic
decline would contribute to rising anti-U.S. sentiment that could fuel a global order that is
increasingly antagonistic to the United States and its values. Most autocracies are highly
suspicious of U.S. intentions and view the creation of an external enemy as an effective means
for boosting their own public support. Russian president Vladimir Putin, Venezuelan president
Nicolas Maduro, and Bolivian president Evo Morales regularly accuse the United States of
fomenting instability and supporting regime change. This vilification of the United States is a
convenient way of distracting their publics from regime shortcomings and fostering public
support for strongman tactics.

Champion Briefs 263

A/2: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy checks state repression.

Davenport, Christian. “Stopping State Repression: An Examination Of Spells, 1976-2004.” Social
Science Research Network. August 22, 2014. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2485195>.
In contrast, we find that democratization significantly contributes to the termination of
repressive spells. If one is trying to stop state repression, therefore, then they should consider
how best to move the government toward full democracy. These findings on democratization
reinforce the general interest with democracy that has been put forward throughout history as
a resolution to state repression. The democratization finding is consistent with our argument
that it takes something major and connected with core reasons for repression, such as regime-
change, to terminate repression 35 spells that are underway. Taken together, the results
suggest the importance of identifying and preventing the onset of repressive behavior, given
that challenges to terminating repression. This work should reorient not just scholarship on the
relevant topic but also public policy, advocacy, activism as well as discussion. Implications for
researchers. Influenced by the current study, scholars interested in stopping state repression
should incorporate regime change into their standard repertoire of resolutions. There is some
discussion of the level of democracy and state repression but there needs to be more
discussion of movement toward democracy as a solution to ongoing repressive action. Our
research also suggests that there should be greater discussion of preferential trade agreements
and their influence on state repression. Again, there is genera discussion of the topic but this
relationship should specifically be raised in the context of ongoing repressive spells. In contrast,
discussions of economic sanctions, military intervention, naming and shaming and
signing/ratifying international treaties – standard topics whenever any repressive spells are
being discussed, should be reduced.

Champion Briefs 264

A/2: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracies check political violence.

Timmerman, Ashley. “WHEN LEADERS REPRESS: A STUDY OF AFRICAN STATE.” 2014. Web.
August 18, 2020. <http://etd.fcla.edu/CF/CFE0005428/Masters_thesis_final.pdf >.
Several alternate causal mechanisms are proposed to explain this finding. Joseph Young (2009)
argues that norms such as nonviolent conflict resolution (including voting) and the institutions
of formal political participation reduce the likelihood that competing actors will resort to
violence. Others argue that democratic institutions are associated with less repression because
they serve to create political consequences for the policymaker. Since the masses can
participate in the political system, repression can alienate potential political support
(Henderson 1991: Poe and Tate 1994; Davenport 1999). A policymaker’s perception of the
consequence of repression as compared to the perceived benefits is important. The type of
political system and the level of openness in the political culture have an effect on the
definition of the cost-benefit assessment that policymakers make (Poe et. al. 1999), and the
socialization process inherent in democratic politics guides citizens and policymakers to prefer
nonviolent means to resolving conflicts, which is a key tenet of the democratic peace literature
(Kant 1996). However, the relationship between respect for human rights and democracy does
not appear to be linear. Christian Davenport and David Armstrong (2004) argue that while it is
generally the case that democratic systems inhibit the willingness and capacity of policymakers
5 to violate human rights the constraining effect of democracy is not perceptible until the
highest level of democracy is reached. That is, below a certain level of democracy there is little
improvement in human rights. States ranked on the Polity IV scale at a “7” or below are shown
to have no improvement on personal integrity rights. States ranked at either an “8” or “9” were
shown to have a small degree of improvement in human right practices. While states ranked at
a “10” (the highest level of democracy) were associated with a strong curtailing of state
repression. Bruce Bueno De Mesquita , George W. Downs, Alastair Smith and Ferayal Marie
Cherif (2005) support the threshold argument explaining that it takes a “full-fledged”
democracy with a multiparty system before a significant improvement in human rights
practices is achieved

Champion Briefs 265

A/2: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracies are more effective in hard power situations.

Dobransky, Steve. “The Dawn Of A New Age? Democracies And Military Victory.” Journal of
Strategic Security. 2014. Web. August 18, 2020.
<http://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol7/iss1/2/>.
This paper confirms Lake’s original model that democracies are much more effective in winning
wars than non-democracies. It is an important finding, although scholars have produced studies
suggesting that democracies may be less effective in fighting wars as Lake and others have
suggested, but they still win nevertheless. This leads us to a compelling scholarly challenge of
building upon previous research findings in order to prove/disprove them and add to the
academic knowledge base. This research study supports the claim that the degree of
democracy affects strongly war outcomes, from Lake’s time period and then up through the
post-Cold War period to the present. The additional independent variables that are used in the
updated version suggest that alliances are a very important contributing factor to war
outcomes and, thus, encourages further research on the matter. This finding is consistent with
other research that stress that democracies tend to be much better at working with other
countries (democracies or non-democracies) and that this ability to be more open and flexible
can help establish and maintain strong alliances, in order to win wars. Furthermore, this paper’s
other findings lead us to a number of important conclusions. Knowing that democracies can win
wars beyond their borders and regions highlights the fact that major power projection
capabilities and, to some degree, diplomatic skills are important in ensuring the communication
lines from the home country all the way to the enemy. More detailed analytical and statistical
research is recommended on this issue, although historically and qualitatively this has been
common sense. The findings also make it clear that the fairness, initiator, and duration
variables of the war do not play significant roles in most cases in the final war outcomes. The
findings, moreover, indicate that democracies can win wars, even long wars, without sacrificing
any significant degree of their political structures and without any political breakdowns in their
governments.

Champion Briefs 266

A/2: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy upholds international law, especially for human rights.

Paust, Jordan. “International Law, Dignity, Democracy, And The Arab Spring.” Cornell
International Law Journal. 2013. Web. August 18, 2020.
<http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1802&context=cilj>.
C. Democracy as a Core Value In 2005, the international community formally expressed its
commitment “to actively protecting and promoting all human rights, the rule of law and
democracy” and recognized that these “are interlinked and mutually reinforcing and that they
belong to the universal and indivisible core values and principles of the United Nations.”31 The
international community also reaffirmed “that democracy is a universal value based on the
freely expressed will of people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural
systems,” while reaffirming “the necessity of due respect for sovereignty and the right of self-
determination.”3 2 Moreover, the international community declared that there is a
“responsibility to protect” state populations or “R2P”: “Each individual State has the
responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes
against humanity”3 3 and, quite clearly therefore, not to commit such crimes against portions
of its own population. With regard to “due respect for sovereignty,” it should be noted that
sovereignty is not absolute under international law nor impervious to its reach.34 More
specifically, the pretended cloak of state sovereignty ends where human rights begin. It is well
recognized that human rights violations and international crimes are of international concern
rather than internal affairs of a single state even if they occur totally within a single state. As
the International Court of Justice recognized decades earlier, violations of basic human rights
are violations of obligatio erga omnes, “are the concern of all States,” and all states “can be
held to have a legal interest in their protection ELLIPSIS.” During the Arab Spring, it became
especially evident that Qaddafi's regime in Libya not only denied democracy, human rights, and
self-determination to the people of Libya, but also engaged in murderous armed attacks against
sections of the Libyan civilian population that constituted war crimes and crimes against
humanity36 and led to the United Nations Security Council's authorization for member states to
use responsive military force to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas in Libya.37 Despite
similarly systematic and widespread murderous armed attacks on demonstrators and other
civilians in Syria, the Security Council has not authorized member states to use force in order to
protect civilians in Syria.38

Champion Briefs 267

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

NEG: Kant NC
This negative case is based on the ethical philosophy of Immanuel Kant, particularly the
Categorical Imperative (act only on what you can will universally for all, don’t treat humans as a
mere means to your ends). Kant believed that practical reasoning about what is right and
wrong, done from its own standpoint (reason itself), will bear universal conclusions that must
be shared by all reasoners to escape self-contradiction. Reason is a more solid foundation for
determining moral truth than desire, a variable impulse that cannot generate universal
precepts. Certain inalienable rights, such as freedom of conscience/expression, cannot be taken
away from a person for two reasons: one, violating some people’s freedom of expression to
advance your own expression cannot be willed universally (if we all censored each other, there
would be no expression); two, sacrificing some people’s rights for your own purposes
disrespects their human dignity.
This negative argues that compulsory voting undermines freedom of expression for non-
voters. Some non-voters deliberately abstain from politics because of their principles. Even
requiring people to show up to a polling place, where they can cast a protest ballot, disrespects
people’s autonomy. This case is compatible with reforms that make voting easier, such as
expanded early voting, abolition of voter ID requirements, and same-day registration.
The weakness of this position is that from the perspective of a Kant/Ripstein AC, the
state is allowed to curtail people’s choices for the sake of achieving equal freedom. This is
called “hindering a hindrance.” In Ripstein’s worldview, it is okay to restrict the freedom of a
criminal by arresting them, because that rectifies the original violation of freedom resulting
from crime. In the same respect, willfully abstaining from politics is a hindrance to other
people’s freedom, and the state can intervene to address that.

Champion Briefs 269

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

The affirmative is correct that everyone should have an equal

opportunity to participate in politics, but that alone does not justify
coercing the vote.
Saunders, Ben. “Increasing Turnout: A Compelling Case?.” Politics 30(1), 70-77. 2010. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9256.2009.01368.x>.
Recent articles in this journal have defended compulsory voting or, at least, compulsory turnout
(Engelen, 2009; Lacroix, 2007). It has also been suggested that, if we want to increase turnout,
incentives may be preferable to compulsion (Saunders, 2009a). Those opposed to such
measures have questioned firstly whether we have a general duty to vote and secondly
whether any such duty should be legally enforced (Lever, 2008 and 2009). This article re-
evaluates the premise that low – and even disproportionate – turnout is necessarily a bad thing.
It proceeds not from questions about the individual’s duty or what a liberal state may
permissibly force its citizens to do, but from an examination of democratic principles. While
accepting that all should have a genuine opportunity to vote, I argue that we need not, from a
democratic point of view, take further measures – coercive or otherwise – actively to
encourage voting. Indeed, democratic values may actually be served by allowing individuals the
freedom not to vote. Thus, it is harder to adduce reasons for any attempts to increase turnout,
especially when they violate individual liberty.

Champion Briefs 270

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

The ability to cast a blank or spoiled ballot is insufficient for freedom

of conscience, and it also casts doubt on the democratic benefits of
compulsory voting.
Saunders, Ben. “Increasing Turnout: A Compelling Case?.” Politics 30(1), 70-77. 2010. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9256.2009.01368.x>.
Turnout or Voting? It may be objected that most of the above argument concerns whether or
not individuals should vote. It is not, as such, an objection to proposals that require mere
attendance at the polls, provided that individuals retain the right either to spoil their ballot
and/or are provided with a ‘none of the above’ option. Advocates of compulsory voting have
generally endorsed such measures, in order to protect freedom of conscience (e.g. Birch, 2009,
p. 22; Engelen, 2009; Hill, 2002, pp. 82–83; Lacroix, 2007, pp. 192–193; Lijphart, 1997, p. 2).
Nonetheless, this manoeuvre seems unsatisfactory. Firstly, if we think that individuals have
reason to exercise these options – that is, not to cast valid votes – then it seems puzzling why
we should expect them to attend the polls at all. As Annabelle Lever has remarked, there surely
is no duty to turn out as such; the only reason to make it compulsory is to encourage voting
(Lever, 2009, p. 224). Even if some individuals do have a duty to vote, at least on some
occasions, others may have a duty not to vote, for instance because they are unaffected or
uninformed about the decision (Brennan, 2009; Hanna, forthcoming). If anything, forcing the
latter group to attend the polls is more likely to cause them to violate their duties by voting
anyway. Since casting a vote is not always more democratic, it is hard to see what democratic
value can be gained from requiring people to attend the polls, even if we grant that it is not a
serious violation of individual liberty. Requiring everyone to turn out, merely so that some vote,
seems like forcing everyone to attend church in the hope that some will pray (Lever, 2008, p.
64). Anyway, it is disingenuous of supporters of compulsory turnout to rely on the contingent
practice of secret ballots to protect freedom of conscience (e.g. Birch, 2009, p. 22 fn.1). While it
is true that voting is private in most national democracies, it is not impossible for it to be public
– as in the show of hands at a town meeting – and some, such as J.S. Mill, have advocated such
practices (see Lever, 2007). I suspect that those who currently favour compulsory turnout,
under conditions of the secret ballot, would be divided if asked to choose between compelling
actual voting and mere attendance at the polls. The Australian Electoral Commission certainly
holds that it is in principle the citizen’s legal duty to cast a valid vote, albeit that this cannot be
strictly enforced because of the secret ballot, and this has been confirmed in a number of court
decisions (Evans, 2006, p. 4). Therefore, were the secret ballot repealed (without changing
existing compulsion laws), it would be willing to enforce what even many advocates of
compulsory turnout acknowledge to be a violation of individual freedom of conscience. Many
who defend compulsion in the literature refuse to say explicitly whether they share the
Australian Electoral Commission’s view that, ideally, voting ought to be compulsory, but

Champion Briefs 271

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

enforcing turnout is the best we can do given the secret ballot (in which case perhaps we
should question that institution), or hold that only turnout ought to be mandatory, even if we
were able to enforce voting. As has been noted, the former seems to countenance possible
violations of individual freedom of conscience; yet the latter position is puzzling, because it is
unclear why we ought to force someone to attend the polls only to abstain. Mere turnout does
nothing for the democratic values lauded by advocates of compulsion.

Champion Briefs 272

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

Rights are side-constraints. The right not to vote, if the negative

proves that it exists, cannot be sacrificed for the benefit of the
democratic system.
Saunders, Ben. “A Further Defence Of The Right Not To Vote.” Res Publica 24: 93-108. 2018.
Web. August 17, 2020. <A Further Defence of the Right Not to Vote>.
According to an influential tradition, individuals have rights that limit what can be done to
them, without their consent, to promote social ends (Nozick 1974; Dworkin 1977). Thus, if a
better democratic system could be had only at the cost of enslaving some portion of the
population, this would be unjust. Similarly, if individuals have rights not to vote, it would be
unjust to force them to do so, even if it improved democracy. Of course, I do not mean to
suggest that compulsory voting is on a par with slavery. Nonetheless, if there is such a right, this
would be an important— perhaps decisive—objection to compulsory voting. Unsurprisingly,
advocates of compulsory voting have rejected this right (Hill 2002, 2015a; Lardy 2004). These
efforts are hampered, however, by the fact that this putative right—though invoked in public
discourse—has received little philosophical analysis or defence. My aim in this paper is to clarify
and defend a right not to vote against these critics. I aim to show that, when properly analysed,
this right is more plausible than critics have supposed and that certain objections to it miss their
intended target

Champion Briefs 273

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

Even if there is a duty to vote, the right not to vote is essentially the
“right to do wrong,” which all rational agents with freedom of
conscience have.
Saunders, Ben. “A Further Defence Of The Right Not To Vote.” Res Publica 24: 93-108. 2018.
Web. August 17, 2020. <A Further Defence of the Right Not to Vote>.
Let us turn now to the right not to vote. Hohfeld’s typology allows us to distinguish two obvious
ways to understand the right not to vote. First, it may refer to a privilege-right; thus, one
violates no duty by not voting. Second, it may refer to a claim-right, because others have some
duty, such as a duty not to force one to vote. One might think that citizens have a right not to
vote in both of these senses, but neither entails the other. First, one may think that citizens
have a privilege-right not to vote but not think that this privilege is protected by any claims
against interference. Alternatively, one may think that citizens have a duty to vote (and so no
privilege not to) but, even so, that they have a claim not to be interfered with if they do not—
that is, they have a ‘right to do wrong’ (Waldron 1981; Herstein 2012).11 It is perhaps the
privilege-right that has received more attention, since arguments as to whether or not there is
a duty to vote carry immediate implications for the existence of a privilege not to vote. If one
has a duty to vote, then one has no privilege (with respect to the agents to whom one owes the
duty) not to vote. Conversely, if one does not owe someone a duty to vote, then one has a
privilege not to vote. However, it is not clear that it is a privilege-right that is being invoked by
opponents of compulsion. As noted above, you can have a privilege to / without having any
claim against others that they not prevent you from /-ing (Hohfeld 1913, p. 35). Thus, I am not
sure what it would be to violate a privilege. Indeed, Thomson (1990, p. 47) explicitly affirms
that there is no such thing as infringing a privilege-right. Hence, a privilege-right not to vote
does not seem able to ground an objection to compulsory voting. Perhaps, it may be suggested,
having a privilege to / means being under no duty not to / and so having a duty to / imposed
upon one violates one’s privilege. However, it is not clear that one’s privilege is violated, rather
than simply revoked. If one is liable to such interference, because someone else has this power,
then this may be entirely permissible. To suggest otherwise would conflate privileges with
another Hohfeldian relation, namely immunities (Hohfeld 1913, p. 55; Jones 1994, pp. 24–25).
While one may have both a privilege and an immunity, the immunity is not itself part of the
privilege, for it is possible to have a privilege without an immunity, in which case it may simply
be revoked without being violated. Thus, while I am certainly inclined to think that most people
have a privilege-right not to vote, it is not clear whether compulsory voting laws violate this. So,
for the sake of argument, I will concede that there is a duty to vote. This duty is compatible
with there being a right not to vote in another sense. The second sense in which a right not to
vote can be invoked is as a claim-right against interference with one’s act of not voting. This
right, if it exists, is clearly violated by compulsory voting laws (at least, when they are enforced).
Thus, it seems that whether or not those who object to compulsory voting laws actually invoke
a claim-right not to be forced to vote, it would be more dialectically effective to invoke such a

Champion Briefs 274

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

right, rather than a mere privilege not to vote. Hill (2015a) does not, so far as I can see, consider
whether there may be a right not to vote in this latter sense. At least, the arguments that she
offers against the right not to vote seem to target the idea of a privilege or to support a duty to
vote, but do not show that there is no claim against being forced to vote. Even if we grant that
there is a duty to vote, all that follows is that non-voters are acting wrongly. It does not follow
that coercion becomes permissible to make them comply, for they may still be owed a duty of
non-interference, correlating to their claim not to (be made to) vote.

Champion Briefs 275

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

Even if the affirmative's position is only a small violation of freedom,

all violations of freedom are important. Rights are not subject to a
cost-benefit analysis.
Saunders, Ben. “A Further Defence Of The Right Not To Vote.” Res Publica 24: 93-108. 2018.
Web. August 17, 2020. <A Further Defence of the Right Not to Vote>.
Various substantive arguments might be offered to support the putative right not to vote, but
the most obvious is grounded in the value of individual liberty. If we assume a general right to
be free (Hart 1955), then it seems that coercion always stands in need of justification. To be
sure, sometimes we are justified in restricting individual freedom, most obviously when it is
necessary to prevent harm to others. Nonetheless, a compelling justification is required in
order to overcome the presumption in favour of liberty. Advocates of compulsory voting
sometimes argue that the loss of liberty is small and can be justified by the benefits that
compulsion is supposed to bring (Lijphart 1997, p. 11). However, if this compulsion violates
individual rights, then the fact that it is only a small violation, or that it realises significant
benefits, is irrelevant. Rights are not subject to cost-benefit calculations.

Champion Briefs 276

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

Citizens in a democracy have an inalienable right to abstain from the

political process, which compulsory voting violates.
Lever, Annabelle. “Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science
40. 2010. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248665969_Compulsory_Voting_A_Critical
_Perspective>.
The idea that compulsory voting violates no significant rights or liberties, then, is mistaken and
at odds with democratic ideas about the justification of rights, duties and power amongst
citizens. Rights to abstain, to withhold assent, to refrain from making a statement or from
participating may not be very glamorous, but can nonetheless be important for all that. Rights
to abstain, no less than rights of anonymous participation, enable the weak, timid and
unpopular to protest in ways that feel safe, and that require little co-ordination and few
resources. These rights are necessary if politics is to protect people’s freedom and equality, and
therefore to reflect their duties as well as their interests.47 True, such forms of protest can be
misinterpreted, and by themselves are unlikely to be wholly successful. But that is true of most
forms of protest, and would be true of compulsory voting itself.48 After all, it is unclear what
meaning we should give to those who queue to tick their names off an electoral register, but
then go home without voting. Nor is it evident what we should say about those who voted for
‘none of the above’, other than that they preferred this option to the others that were
available. Most protest, and all voting, depends for its success on the behaviour of other
people, many of whom we will not know, many of whom will have interests and beliefs quite at
odds with our own, and over whose behaviour we have no influence. This is why the
interpretation of political action (or inaction) is complex, whether we are talking about votes or
demonstrations, and why the consequences of political action can be hard both to predict and
to interpret.49 People must, therefore, have rights to limit their participation in politics and, at
the limit, to abstain, not simply because such rights can be crucial to prevent coercion by
neighbours, family, employers or the state, but because they are necessary for people to decide
what they are entitled to do, what they have a duty to do, and how best to act on their
respective duties and rights.

Champion Briefs 277

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

The right to abstain from the political process is essential to freedom

of conscience, whether people are conscientious objectors to the slate
of candidates or question the legitimacy of democracy itself.
Swenson, Katherine. “Sticks, Carrots, Donkey Votes, And True Choice: A Rationale For
Abolishing Compulsory Voting In Aust.” Minnesota Journal of International Law. 2007.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217210423.pdf>.
4. Reasons for Allowing the Political Expression of Not Voting As discussed above, failure to cast
a formal ballot (whether by abstaining from voting at all or by intentionally casting an informal
ballot) can be a means of political expression. Even under the narrow confines of Australia's
implied freedom of political communication, the political expression of not voting should be
allowed for four reasons. First, the political expression of not voting should be allowed because
abstention from voting has political effects. Henry J. Abraham pointed out that by intentionally
not casting a formal vote, a voter “figuratively lends additional votes to those who cast ballots
since, in a sense, the latter vote will have added affirmative weight.”10 7 A voter might also
seek to sacrifice her vote at the present time to gain a political effect in the future. In his
Economic Theory of Democracy, Anthony Downs described how voters might strategically
abstain to keep their party from moving toward the center: essentially, voters allow an
opposing party to win by withholding their votes entirely. 108 Abstention can be used as a
bargaining chip to keep a party in line with the views of a group of voters. 10 9 Other scholars
suggest that voters perceive abstention as a check against the tyranny of the majority. 110 Not
voting can also influence other participants in the political system.111 Consider the case of Mr.
Langer, 112 who was imprisoned for encouraging others to mark their ballots in a way that
would make them likely to become exhausted votes. 13 The public controversy surrounding Mr.
Langer's actions (and the Commonwealth's response to them) was at least one possible cause
contributing to the increase of exhausted votes” 4 -- from 7,325 in 1993, to 48,979 in 1996.” 5
By failing to cast a formal ballot, a would-be voter can influence an election, other voters, and
the political system in general. The fact that actual political effects arise from this form of
political communication strongly suggests that such expression should be allowed. 116 A
second reason to allow voters to abstain entirely is that under the current system of
compulsory voting, the ballots of voters who wish to abstain117 are grouped with the ballots of
voters who intend to cast a formal vote but fail to follow the instructions.18 Australia does not
have an opportunity for voters to choose “none of the above,” other than breaking the law. 19
There should be an electoral avenue for voters to communicate their dissatisfaction with the
system in general or the selection of candidates on the ballot without breaking the law by
leaving a ballot bank, marking it incorrectly, or failing to attend the polls. 120 Although other
means of communicating dissent can be effective,121 an electoral avenue allows for the
expression of an especially powerful form of political dissent. Third, the political expression of
not voting should be allowed because political expression through abstention is inextricably

Champion Briefs 278

NEG: Kant NC Sept/Oct 2020

intertwined with the question of whether a democracy is legitimate. Refusing to vote arguably
attacks the very foundation of a democratic government; abstention can be considered
“radically subversive speech,” defined by Steven D. Smith as expression that “challenges
government at the core by denying the very legitimacy of the existing legal order.”1 22 This is
comparable to the view that Michael Mansell expressed through his refusal to vote. 23
Assuming that voting is a cornerstone of democracy, however, the best way to preserve the
system does not lie in forcing people to vote. 124 Individuals should be allowed to
communicate dissent through non-voting. This form of dissent, radical though it may be, should
be allowed because democracies are based not only upon the casting of ballots, but upon the
idea that citizens should constantly examine whether the State is legitimate. The casting of
ballots is a necessary condition for a working democracy, but it is not a sufficient one. The
choice of whether or not to cast such a ballot is also an ingredient of paramount importance to
democracy, which is fundamentally a system chosen by the people. When the people are
forced to choose democracy, it is no longer a choice. Fourth, the political expression of not
voting should be allowed because the current situation punishes people who can be described
as conscientious objectors.125 Australia allows for conscientious objectors to be relieved of
their duty of military service, 126 and the CEA specifically allows for people to be relieved of
their duty to vote if such duty conflicts with religious obligation. 127 At minimum, conscientious
political objection should be considered a “valid and sufficient reason” for failing to vote. 128
When people are punished for “reasons that are politically principled in nature,”129 it is a
perversion of a law that is supposed to foster democracy and freedom of political
communication. 30 The injustice is made especially clear when a person who casts a blank
ballot or intentionally spoils one cannot possibly be caught due to the secret ballot law. It is
deeply disturbing that a person who holds fast to their belief that voting is somehow
objectionable or unjust should be punished, while a person who writes down a vote that is a lie
has followed the law. 131

Champion Briefs 279

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

NEG: Punishment NC

The Punishment NC is centered around the punishments or methods of enforcement

that a government would use to compel eligible voters to vote. The thesis of this negative case
is that it is undemocratic to enforce punishments for something that ought to be a right, not a
requirement. The evidence that we have provided will function well at traditional tournaments
and will appeal to the type of argumentation that traditional judges are looking to hear.
The Punishment NC relies on a few different thesis-level claims. The first is that one
does not truly have a right if they do not also have the ability to abstain from exercising that
right. In the case of voting, this NC argues that if citizens have the right to vote, then they also
have the right not to vote. The second thesis-level claim is that compelling or coercing citizens
to exercise a right is undemocratic. This means that enforcing punishments such as fines, jail
time, and revocation of privileges are violations of the democratic ideal that citizens have the
right to vote. The third thesis-level claim made by this case is that votes that are obtained
through coercion and punishment undermine the principles of democracy due to things like
uninformed votes that drown out the voices of informed voters.
When reading the Punishment NC, negative debaters should prepare arguments that
respond to affirmatives that make claims about how compulsory voting is necessary for all
identities to have equal access to the ability to vote. Negative debaters can do this by ensuring
that they are able to articulate why punishment delegitimizes votes, disproportionately impacts
already marginalized communities, and ensures that marginalized groups’ votes will be
invalidated by the high volume of votes that are cast without any knowledge of the issues at
hand. Negative debaters will be able to win debates against the majority of affirmatives on this
topic by appealing to core democratic principles and articulating how compulsion undermines
them. It is the affirmative’s burden to defend the desirability of compulsory voting in a
democracy, and thus, the negative is able to turn the affirmative’s arguments by articulating
that the affirmative creates an undemocratic or illegitimate society.

Champion Briefs 280

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Affirmative debaters can answer the Punishment NC by defending the implications of

compulsory voting in regard to democracy. There are many democracies that have previously
undertaken compulsory voting and seen positive results. Referencing these instances can help
the affirmative to prove that democracy is only positively impacted by compulsory voting. The
affirmative can also make arguments about the importance of voter turnout and articulate how
participation is an essential prerequisite to true democracy. This would ensure that the
affirmative controls the direction of the debate and would allow the affirmative to weigh their
impacts against the negative.
Debates regarding the Punishment NC will be won or lost on who better articulates a
link to democratic principles. The negative must prove that the use of punishment to enforce
voting will create undemocratic precedents, implications, and results. The affirmative must
prove that the benefits generated by mandating voting are necessary to having a functioning
democracy. Engaging in the core ideals of democracy and proving how one side is better for
upholding these values will be the best route to the ballot in these debates.

Champion Briefs 281

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Forcing nonvoters to pay a fine is unconstitutional – it creates the

same scenario as a poll tax.
Von Spakovsky , Hans. “Compulsory Voting Is Unconstitutional.” The Heritage Foundation. April
01, 2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.heritage.org/political-
process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional>.
The government cannot force you to speak or to vote (or to say a prayer). While Obama may
admire the small number of countries that make voting mandatory, such a requirement violates
the basic constitutional rights that Americans enjoy and our most cherished liberty: the right to
be left alone by the government. In fact, countries such as Australia enforce their voting
requirement by imposing fines on non-voters. In 1964, we ratified the 24th Amendment, which
prohibits making voting contingent on paying a poll tax. Yet President Obama is now proposing
what would in essence be a reverse poll tax on any American who decides not to vote. It says a
lot about President Obama’s political and social views that he talks about imposing a
requirement that even socialist-minded countries such as Italy have rescinded. As my co-author
John Fund points out, the former Italian foreign minister Antonio Martino, said that “there was
finally a consensus that it was a basic infringement of freedom.”

Champion Briefs 282

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Many nonvoters abstain in order to send a message.

Von Spakovsky , Hans. “Compulsory Voting Is Unconstitutional.” The Heritage Foundation. April
01, 2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.heritage.org/political-
process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional>.
Martino understands something that Obama apparently does not. As Martino said, “Forcing
people to vote violates their freedom of speech, because the freedom to speak includes the
right not to speak.” President Obama got a lot wrong when he broached this idea at a town hall
in Cleveland. He claimed that immigrant groups and minorities are being kept “away from the
polls.” That is completely false. In fact, his own Justice Department hasn’t filed a single lawsuit
under the relevant portion of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits anyone from keeping voters
away from the polls. The only suit like that in recent memory is the one filed in the final days of
the Bush administration against the New Black Panther Party for intimidating voters and poll
watchers in Philadelphia in 2008 – and the Justice Department promptly dismissed that lawsuit
almost as soon as Eric Holder took over. Census Bureau surveys of non-voters also show that
the president is wrong in his assessment of why people don’t vote. The vast majority of them
choose not to vote because they don’t like the candidates or the campaign issues or are simply
not interested in the political process. Their choice not to vote sends its own message to
candidates and political parties about their relevance or irrelevance to the lives of those
nonvoters.

Champion Briefs 283

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

The right not to vote is as important as the right to vote – the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights agrees.
Barry, Peter. “How Compulsory Voting Subverts Democracy.” Quadrant Online. September 01,
2013. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2013/09/how-
compulsory-voting-subverts-democracy/>.
The right not to vote in an election is as fundamental as the right to vote. Both the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the UN’s International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
refer to people’s rights to “freely chosen representatives”. This right is something we each
possess and can each choose to use, but it should never become a dictate. Those who argue
that voting is a duty, and therefore a legal obligation, readily agree we’re free to vote, but then
declare it’s a freedom we’re compelled to exercise. They have no time for freedom of choice.
Greg Sheridan says: It is a central conservative insight that democracy confers both rights and
responsibilities. Attending a polling booth on Election Day is the mildest possible responsibility.
Christopher Bayliss, in his submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters,
said: All our voting system requires is for a voter to attend a polling booth and mark some
papers as they wish, approximately once every three years. This does not seem to be an
insurmountable burden to be part of a democracy. The logic that backs such statements on
behalf of the pro-compulsory-voting lobby is frequently bolstered by linking the event to sitting
on a jury, paying taxes or wearing seatbelts—a civilised society expects its citizens to perform
such duties. I’ll consider these three points in more detail because they’re brought up with
mind-numbing frequency. There’s an understandable desire to avoid jury service because it’s
both time-consuming and costly to most people. Therefore, it has to be made compulsory,
because otherwise only a few of us would volunteer, despite the fact that most of us would
wish to be judged by a jury if we were unfortunate enough to find ourselves standing in the
dock one day. Although everyone will agree that taxes are necessary to maintain the services
we all deem essential to the smooth running of society, none of us is likely to be sufficiently
altruistic to volunteer to pay them. There certainly wouldn’t be sufficient volunteers to
guarantee the funding of the many societal structures we now all take for granted. So taxes,
also, must be made compulsory. As for seatbelts, if people were not legally obliged to wear
them it would cost society several millions of dollars to either hospitalise or bury victims after
the majority of car accidents. The alternative, to leave victims at the side of the freeway like
roadkill, is scarcely an appropriate societal response. Jury service, the paying of taxes and the
wearing of seatbelts all benefit society, whereas compulsory voting doesn’t benefit anyone
(except perhaps politicians).

Champion Briefs 284

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Fines levied on nonvoters have created inequality between districts.

Gonzales, Mariella. “Voters' Sophisticated Response To Abstention Fines.” VoxEU. September
23, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://voxeu.org/article/voters-sophisticated-
response-abstention-fines>.
Existing research shows that compulsory voting leads to higher turnout even with very low fines
or enforcement (Funk 2007, Cepaluni and Hidalgo 2016, Hoffman et al. 2017). But voters’
responses to a change in the value of the fine remain uncertain. Would turnout be affected? If
so, in what direction and by how much?2 Are there other potential behavioural responses?
Would electoral results change? The answers to these questions have important policy
implications, given the potential trade-off between the increased effectiveness of a larger fine
and its greater burden on those who are sanctioned (plus the cost of enforcement). In a new
paper (Gonzales et al. 2019), we study a nationwide reform to the value of the abstention fine
in Peru, a middle-income country with more than 20 million voters, where voting has been
compulsory since 1933. Until 2006, the value of the abstention fine was homogeneous
throughout the country. Following that year’s national elections, a newly introduced reform
classified districts into three categories, based on their poverty level, and differentially reduced
the value of the fine (Figure 1).3 Using administrative data covering four election cycles, we
analyse voters’ short- and long-term responses along several margins, including turnout,
registration, and invalid and blank votes. Figure 2 shows voter turnout rates in national
elections in high- and low-fine districts, relative to medium-fine ones.4,5 Before the reform, the
difference in turnout between all categories is quite stable. After the reform, we observe a
systematic divergence in electoral participation between fine categories, leading to a five
percentage point turnout gap between high- and low-fine districts by 2016, an important
difference which could enlarge inequalities between districts.

Champion Briefs 285

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Voters will illegally manipulate their address to receive lower fines for
nonvoting.
Gonzales, Mariella. “Voters' Sophisticated Response To Abstention Fines.” VoxEU. September
23, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://voxeu.org/article/voters-sophisticated-
response-abstention-fines>.
On average, we estimate that an increase in the fine of 10 Peruvian sol fine (roughly US$3)
leads to a 0.5 percentage point increase in voter turnout. This estimate is substantially smaller
than the one provided in León (2017) from a field experiment in the same setting, which
involved an informational campaign about the modified value of the fine. This discrepancy is
consistent with the large-scale policy having a reduced effectiveness relative to a salient
experimental intervention. We conjecture that this ‘voltage drop’ is due to informational
frictions, i.e. not all voters are informed about the change in regulation. Consistent with this
interpretation, we provide causal evidence that voters seek more information about the
abstention fines (from Google searches), and the effect increases substantially in later elections
after the reform. We also find that voters adapt to changes in regulation along unexpected
margins. We examine how the abstention fine affects the number of registered voters in a
district (Figure 3).6 There is a relative increase in the number of registered voters in low-fine
districts after the reform (and a decrease in high-fine districts). In Peru, all individuals over the
age of 18 are automatically registered to vote, but their voting district depends on the address
in their national identification document. Hence, our results are consistent with voters
intentionally manipulating their registered address in order to face a lower abstention fine.

Champion Briefs 286

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Monetary penalties lead to actions from citizens such as address

misreporting. This will create misrepresentation and inequality.
Gonzales, Mariella. “Voters' Sophisticated Response To Abstention Fines.” VoxEU. September
23, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://voxeu.org/article/voters-sophisticated-
response-abstention-fines>.
Further analyses reveal that the increase in registration is driven by first-time voters (ages 18–
20), who must apply for a national identification document and hence face a negligible cost
from strategically misreporting their address. These effects on registration, which are not
typically captured in short-lived, localised field experiments, could lead to large biases in
representation, especially for the young. We further study the effects of monetary incentives
on electoral results by focusing on the share of blank and invalid votes, which plausibly
correspond to uninformed or uninterested voters.7 For the first round of the presidential
election, a 10 sol increase to the value of the fine leads on average to a 0.37 percentage point
increase in the number of blank (0.27 percentage points) or invalid votes (0.1 percentage
points) as a share of registered voters (Figure 4). This is equivalent to a staggering 86% of the
observed effect of the fine on turnout for this type of election. This finding indicates that
incentivising electoral participation may have a very small impact on election outcomes since
most voters drawn to the polls by a larger fine end up casting a blank/invalid vote.

Champion Briefs 287

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting leads to low engagement in other areas of

democracy.
Timsit , Annabelle. “Why Are Belgians So Much Better At Voting Than Everyone Else?.” Quartz.
May 01, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://qz.com/1605690/european-election-
belgiums-voter-turnout-rate-is-an-outlier/>.
Belgians may show up to vote, but they’re not necessarily engaged in politics. The country on
the whole scores low on political participation. Some, like Pilet, believe that over-emphasizing
voting risks distracting people from other important forms of engagement, like activism, party
membership, and community work. “Politics is being transformed, and more and more, you see
interest among citizens for other forms of participation,” he says. “Citizenship should be about
more than voting for parties every four years or every five years.” Civic engagement can be
encouraged in other ways. Sweden does not have compulsory voting. Yet 87% of its voting
population turned out for parliamentary elections last year—in part because of the country’s
investment in voter participation and flexible voting regulations (Sweden allows voters to
return to a polling station and vote a second time if they’ve changed their mind, for example.)

Champion Briefs 288

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Citizens who don’t vote face fines and job ineligibility.

Timsit , Annabelle. “Why Are Belgians So Much Better At Voting Than Everyone Else?.” Quartz.
May 01, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://qz.com/1605690/european-election-
belgiums-voter-turnout-rate-is-an-outlier/>.
Belgians who don’t vote can face penalties (pdf). Citizens receive a voting card two weeks
before elections that states that they could be fined for not voting. Eligible, unexcused voters
who don’t vote have to pay a fine of up to €10 ($11.15) the first time, and up to €25 ($27.88)
the second time. If an unexcused voter fails to vote at least four times over 15 years, they are
struck off the electoral register for 10 years. They also can’t receive any “nomination nor
promotion nor distinction from any public authority” during those years. In a country where
about 18% of citizens (pdf) work in the government sector, that’s a serious deterrent.

Champion Briefs 289

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Legislating that nonvoters ought to be punished will lead to instances

of disproportionate coercion.
Schäfer , Armin. “Republican Liberty And Compulsory Voting.” Max Planck Institute for the
Study of Societies, Cologne. November, 2011. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.mpifg.de/pu/mpifg_dp/dp11-17.pdf>.
Finally, even if one accepts that voting is valuable to the political community, that most of the
time a choice between different platforms is meaningful, and that individual abstention should
not be allowed to become the general norm, it does not follow that coercion is justified against
those who do not vote, especially, since it is not sufficient to make voting legally obligatory on
paper, as recent empirical work has demonstrated. To be effective, punishment for non-voters
cannot be trivial or merely symbolic.13 And, in fact, Lever (2009: 66) points out that an
Australian woman was sent to jail (for one day) because she refused to pay the fine for not
voting. Severe sanctions are rare but they do exist. Now, if democracy was about to break down
due to low turnout, such measures might be justified. Yet countries with low electoral
participation such as Switzerland or the United States are not on the verge of collapse.
Democracy has never been a casualty of too little participation. To the contrary, opponents of
mandatory voting argue, intense politicization with high rates of turnout contributed to the fall
of the Weimar Republic (Mayo 1959: 321, fn. 4).

Champion Briefs 290

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Threatening punishment compels uninformed voters to cast ballots

that dampen the voices of the informed majority.
Jaffe-Geffner, Nina. “The Pros And Cons Of Requiring Citizens To Vote.” FairVote. October 23,
2015. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.fairvote.org/the_pros_and_cons_of_requiring_citizens_to_vote>.
One of the major arguments given by those against compulsory voting is that it leads to a
greater number of uninformed voters, noting that those who choose not vote are generally less
educated on political issues than those who choose to vote. Critics argue that the resulting
surplus of politically ignorant voters has three main negative consequences: Misleading
uninformed voters. It is often asserted that uninformed voters are more susceptible to the
influence of money and spending on television ads. A short advertisement is likely to have a
greater influence on an uninformed voter than one who already has strong views. This
encourages the use of sensational and misleading advertising and may have a negative effect
on campaigning techniques. While politicians no longer need to try to convince citizens to go
out and vote, they still need to find ways to maximize their vote among less informed voters.
Australian political scientist, Haydon Manning notes that compulsory voting often “require[s]
banal sloganeering and crass misleading negative advertising.” Ignoring the wishes of most
voters. Since uninformed voters are more easily persuaded, some politicians may choose to
focus on marginal voters and ignore their main base of support. Even if compulsory voting leads
to less polarization, it may not result in better policy outcomes because complicated and
nuanced legislation may be perceived negatively by swing voters. Dampening the voice of the
majority. An additional concern under a compulsory system is that people who are uninformed
(or simply do not care about the outcome of an election) may end up voting randomly. The
impact of ‘random’ votes ends up being particularly detrimental because it fails to increase civic
engagement and may skew election results. Compulsory voting presents some ethical
challenges. Many people argue that it infringes upon individual liberty by denying people the
ability to choose not to vote. While it is true that ballots may include a “none of the above”
option (though, in practice, typically do not), the act of voting itself may be seen as “endorsing”
the current politicians and political system, an endorsement that some citizens may not want to
make. While it seems pretty unlikely right now that compulsory voting will be adopted in the
United States, at least on a federal level, it is a policy to keep in mind as America continues
striving towards a better democracy.

Champion Briefs 291

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

If one has the right to vote, one must also have the ability to give up
that right. If not, voting becomes a matter of undemocratic coercion.
Derks , Jaqueline. “Does Mandatory Voting Violate Your Liberty?.” Bustle. March 20, 2015.
Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.bustle.com/articles/70983-is-mandatory-voting-
unconstitutional-the-answer-is-not-that-straight-forward>.
Mandatory voting is a violation of our civil rights, just as denying a citizen a right to vote is a
violation. Casting a vote is speech. It is showing support or opposition to a candidate or
proposal. Making voting mandatory means voting is no longer a right. It's an obligation. It's
forced speech. An important refresher from high school civics — freedom of speech is in the
First Amendment. Simply put, it's protected. As a society, we value this and claim our right to it.
Less often, individuals claim their right to not speak. Individuals cannot be forced to speak, and
this translates to the voting booths. In a free society, each individual ought to be free to decide
whether to participate on election day. The use of force or coercion by the government to make
an individual vote is problematic — not voting is an act of protest. Dissatisfaction of candidates
on the ballot is compelling reason enough for some people to simply stay home. National
Review's John Fund addresses the importance of non-voters: ... in times of discontent when
major parties are not offering up clear and compelling alternatives, non-voting signals that the
legitimacy of the process is being questioned. Some nations that have adopted mandatory
voting have made steps to accommodate non-voters — in lieu of casting a vote, Australian
citizens potentially face a fine or a day in court. Even if a fine were implemented allowing
Americans to opt out of voting, it still violates one's right. Any fine levied is a punishment — a
statement by the government that the individual has done wrong. That is the wrong message to
send.
*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 292

NEG: Punishment NC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting becomes a tax on those who are less able to

engage in the electoral process.
Jenner, Frances. “Does Obligatory Voting Strengthen Democracy Or Violate Its Ideals?.” Latin
America Reports. November 14, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://latinamericareports.com/obligatory-voting-strengthen-democracy-violate-
ideals/3726/>.
In most countries, voting is not obligatory. In 2012, Chile changed their voting system from
obligatory to voluntary, which brought with it the expected drop in voter turnout, which
currently averages at just under 50 percent. Although compulsory voting increases voter
turnout, it also raises questions on democratic freedom, added The Dialogue’s Raderstorf.
“There is a certain discomfort on the obligatory part of it,” he said. “It’s the worrying idea that
you can fine someone for not participating in the democratic process, it feels regressive, a tax
on people with fewer resources, or less ability to engage.”

Champion Briefs 293

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

NEG: Libertarianism NC

One of the bigger debates happening with this topic is whether or not voting is a
guaranteed constitutional right and whether or not it is considered free speech. A lot of the
literature out there suggests that the action of voting requires one to act on their own interests
which is why it would technically be considered protected under the 1st Amendment. I suggest
for these more heavy framework type debates to focus on the way certain arguments link into
different frameworks and how they are fleshed out in the aff/neg world.
Framework for this debate is really important because libertarianism focuses on
protecting individual liberties and freedoms of the individual within a democracy. This means
that the debate shifts from being very utilitarian to focusing more on an individual level. The
framework will be the primary focus in debates like util v libertarianism because giving up the
framework means you will certainly struggle to win the round. The impacts should be focusing
on what happens when liberties and personal freedoms are violated by the government, but
also focus on how CV doesn’t really increase our access to the political.
The offense is also pretty flexible because there are so many debates happening right
now on whether or not CV is violating any given freedom of speech. I have included several
different articles highlighting the problems associated with CV and the government imposing
some sort of required voting law that inhibits freedom of expression. The main issue to focus
on is how the affirmative defines CV and whether or not blank ballots are allowed, the reason
for such is that there is still an argument to be made that blank ballots are not a violation and
still allow for those who do not wish to participate to still sort of disengage. These blank ballots
would raise awareness to the fact that many do not wish to take part in politics, however, make
sure that you are also focusing on the fact that some people actually are not allowed to
participate in elections due to certain personal or religious reasons. Affirmatives tend to gloss
over this fact, but even though they are a small part of the population it is still important to
include them into the discussion.

Champion Briefs 294

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

The value criterion is preserving individual liberties-.

Kinsella, Stephan. “Argumentation Ethics And Liberty: A Concise Guide.” May 27, 2011. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://mises.org/library/argumentation-ethics-and-liberty-concise-
guide>.
In essence, Hoppe's view is that argumentation, or discourse, is by its nature a conflict-free way
of interacting, which requires individual control of scarce resources. In genuine discourse, the
parties try to persuade each other by the force of their argument, not by actual force:
Argumentation is a conflict-free way of interacting. Not in the sense that there is always
agreement on the things said, but in the sense that as long as argumentation is in progress it is
always possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement about the validity of
what has been said. And this is to say nothing else than that a mutual recognition of each
person's exclusive control over his own body must be presupposed as long as there is
argumentation (note again, that it is impossible to deny this and claim this denial to be true
without implicitly having to admit its truth). (TSC, p. 158) Thus, self-ownership is presupposed
by argumentation. Hoppe then shows that argumentation also presupposes the right to own
homesteaded scarce resources as well. The basic idea here is that the body is “the prototype of
a scarce good for the use of which property rights, i.e., rights of exclusive ownership, somehow
have to be established, in order to avoid clashes” (TSC, p. 19). As Hoppe explains, “The
compatibility of this principle with that of nonaggression can be demonstrated by means of an
argumentum a contrario. First, it should be noted that if no one had the right to acquire and
control anything except his own body … then we would all cease to exist and the problem of the
justification of normative statements … simply would not exist. The existence of this problem is
only possible because we are alive, and our existence is due to the fact that we do not, indeed
cannot, accept a norm outlawing property in other scarce goods next and in addition to that of
one's physical body. Hence, the right to acquire such goods must be assumed to exist. (TSC, p.
161)

Champion Briefs 295

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

CV prevents the individual from making their own informed decision.

Boaz, David. “ “Libertarianism: A Primer.”.” Simon & Schuster. 1997. Web. August 18, 2020.
<Book>.
Any theory of rights has to begin somewhere. Most libertarian philosophers would begin the
argument earlier than Jefferson did. Humans, unlike animals, come into the world without an
instinctive knowledge of what their needs are and how to fulfill them. As Aristotle said, man is a
reasoning and deliberating animal; humans use the power of reason to understand their own
needs, the world around them, and how to use the world to satisfy their needs. So they need a
social system that allows them to use their reason, to act in the world, and to cooperate with
others to achieve purposes that no one individual could accomplish. Every person is a unique
individual. Humans are social animals—we like interacting with others, and we profit from it—
but we think and act individually. Each individual owns himself or herself. What other
possibilities besides self—ownership are there? • Someone – a king or a master race – could
own others. Plato and Aristotle did argue that there were different kinds of humans, some
more competent than others and thus endowed with the right and responsibility to rule, just as
adults guide children. Some forms of socialism and collectivism are—explicitly or im- plicirly—-
based on the notion that many people are not competent to make decisions about their own
lives, so that the more talented should make decisions for them. But that would mean there
were no universal human rights, only rights that some have and others do not, denying the
essential humanity of those who are deemed to be owned. • Everyone owns everyone, a fully-
fledged communist system. In such a system, before anyone could take an action, he would
need to get permission from everyone else. But how could each other person grant permission
without consulting everyone else? You’d have an infinite regress, making any action at all
logically impossible. ln practice, since such mutual ownership is impossible, this system would
break down into the previous one: some- one, or some group, would own everyone else. That is
what happened in the communist states: the party became a dictatorial ruling elite. Thus,
either communism or aristocratic rule would divide the world into factions or classes. The only
possibility that is humane, logical, and suited to the nature of human beings is self-ownership.
Obviously, this discussion has only scratched the surface of the question of self-ownership; in
any event, I rather like Jefferson’s simple declaration: Natural rights are self-evident.

Champion Briefs 296

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

People have access to their free will, forcing a vote destroys that
concept.
Darwall, Stephen. ““Contractualism, Root And Branch: A Review Essay.”.” Philosophy and public
affairs 34.2. 2006. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2006.00062.x>.
The fundamental contractualist notion is rather of a kind of agreement that essentially involves
justification to one another. What is it, however, to justify oneself to someone? It is not, it is
important to see, simply to present a justification in someone’s presence, or even only to
exhibit to someone good reasons for something one did. Suppose you are wondering where to
spend your vacation and you ask me where I went and whether I would do it over again. I tell
you about my experience camping at Kookamanga State Park and why I was pleased with my
decision to go there. I have certainly given you reasons, and in that sense a justification, for
what I did. Yet have I justified my choice to you? It seems ludicrous to suppose that I have. For
that to be true, either you or I would have had to have taken you to have had some claim to a
justification from me. Imagine saying, “Would you please justify your vacation choice to me?”
or even something more polite that implies a request for such a justification. These seem
clearly different. To justify oneself to someone is to give her a kind of second-personal
authority.11 It is to regard and treat her as having a standing to claim a justification from one
(and hence to address claims to others at all). Second-personal authority of this kind is
essentially tied to accountability. Justifying oneself to someone is part of holding oneself
responsible or accountable to her. So justification to one another is what constitutes mutual
accountability. When I justify myself to you, I hold myself answerable to you, and treat you as
having the standing to claim this from me. You reciprocate and accord me the same standing
when you justify yourself to me. As I understand it, therefore, the root contractualist idea is
that this standing is one that you and I share. We have an equal (second-personal) authority to
make claims of one another, which we respect in seeing each other as beings to whom we
should be able to justify ourselves. Understanding morality in terms of mutual accountability
illuminates why Scanlon can say in “Contractualism” that agreement (of this sort) is what
“morality is all about.” If moral self-regulation essentially involves making ourselves answerable
to one another, then agreement on fundamental principles is not simply a collective epistemic
achievement, or a standard of our each doing what is right individually; it is an essential
element of the fundamental moral relation (responsibility to one another). This idea is
suggested also by the passages from “Preference” and “Process” quoted above. Urgency or
importance of interests is justificatory weight in warranting claims on others. The question of
when practices or institutions are legitimate in light of their “power to control or intervene”
turns on when this is consistent with individuals’ legitimate claims. This interpretation is
confirmed further by the way Scanlon distinguishes the concepts of reasonableness and
rationality in What We Owe to Each Other.12 To bring out this “familiar distinction in ordinary
language,” Scanlon describes a case in which water rights are being negotiated and there is a

Champion Briefs 297

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

wealthy landowner who can control the negotiations, who believes himself entitled to his vast
holdings, and who does not like having “the legitimacy of his position questioned” (p. 192).
Scanlon says that while it would not be unreasonable to propose that each person is entitled to
some minimum supply of water, it might not be rational to make this claim, since that might
enrage the large landholder and make the situation worse for everybody (p. 192). Unlike the
concept of the rational, that of the reasonable “presupposes a certain range of reasons that are
taken to be relevant” (p. 192). We can now see what this range must be. Scanlon must be
taking it to be part of the very idea of the reasonable, and hence of the notion of reasonable
agreement, that the relevant reasons concern, or are able to support, legitimate claims. They
must be ones we could offer in justifying ourselves to one another. Furthermore, to play that
role, they must be ones that we can accept consistently with what we assume in so justifying
ourselves, namely, that we each have an equal basic second-personal authority. Since we all
stand, fundamentally, in the relation of mutual accountability and have an equal standing to
claim justification from one another, unequal claims must be able to be justified within that
framework. They must be sup- portable from a standpoint in which we regard one another, as
Rawls put it, as “self-originating sources of valid claims.”13

Champion Briefs 298

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

Voting is a right, heavily related to the freedom of speech.

Spakovsky, Hans A. Von. “Compulsory Voting Is Unconstitutional.” The Heritage Foundation.
April 01, 2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.heritage.org/political-
process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional>.
President Obama recently praised the idea of “mandatory voting,” saying it would be
“transformative” and “completely change the political map in this country,” showing again how
unbound he feels by the limits imposed on the power of government by the Constitution and
the Bill of Rights. The president apparently does not believe that the right to speak, which is
protected under the First Amendment, includes the right not to speak. And there is no question
that we are speaking when we make our choices in the ballot booth. When we don’t vote, we
are again making a choice, a choice not to speak that also sends a political message. The
government cannot force you to speak or to vote (or to say a prayer). While Obama may admire
the small number of countries that make voting mandatory, such a requirement violates the
basic constitutional rights that Americans enjoy and our most cherished liberty: the right to be
left alone by the government.

Champion Briefs 299

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

There are multiple reasons many individuals choose not to participate

in the election process.
Spakovsky, Hans A. Von. “Compulsory Voting Is Unconstitutional.” The Heritage Foundation.
April 01, 2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.heritage.org/political-
process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional>.
In fact, countries such as Australia enforce their voting requirement by imposing fines on non-
voters. In 1964, we ratified the 24th Amendment, which prohibits making voting contingent on
paying a poll tax. Yet President Obama is now proposing what would in essence be a reverse
poll tax on any American who decides not to vote. It says a lot about President Obama’s
political and social views that he talks about imposing a requirement that even socialist-minded
countries such as Italy have rescinded. As my co-author John Fund points out, the former Italian
foreign minister Antonio Martino, said that “there was finally a consensus that it was a basic
infringement of freedom.” Martino understands something that Obama apparently does not.
As Martino said, “Forcing people to vote violates their freedom of speech, because the freedom
to speak includes the right not to speak.” President Obama got a lot wrong when he broached
this idea at a town hall in Cleveland. He claimed that immigrant groups and minorities are being
kept “away from the polls.” That is completely false. In fact, his own Justice Department hasn’t
filed a single lawsuit under the relevant portion of the Voting Rights Act that prohibits anyone
from keeping voters away from the polls. The only suit like that in recent memory is the one
filed in the final days of the Bush administration against the New Black Panther Party for
intimidating voters and poll watchers in Philadelphia in 2008 – and the Justice Department
promptly dismissed that lawsuit almost as soon as Eric Holder took over. Census Bureau surveys
of non-voters also show that the president is wrong in his assessment of why people don’t vote.
The vast majority of them choose not to vote because they don’t like the candidates or the
campaign issues or are simply not interested in the political process. Their choice not to vote
sends its own message to candidates and political parties about their relevance or irrelevance
to the lives of those nonvoters.

Champion Briefs 300

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

CV doesn't promote a positive outcome- leads to blank ballots and

wont effect many elections.
Spakovsky, Hans A. Von. “Compulsory Voting Is Unconstitutional.” The Heritage Foundation.
April 01, 2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.heritage.org/political-
process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional>.
This mandatory voting idea appeals to progressives such as Barack Obama because they just
don’t understand it when voters reject them, as voters did in the mid-term congressional
elections in 2014 and 2010. The concept that voters don’t like or agree with their views of an
all-powerful government that tells us what to do from birth to death just can’t be true in their
eyes. They seem to think that if they can just force non-voters into voting booths, then they will
win elections and America will be “transformed” into a progressive utopia. But the academic
research shows this isn’t true. Even if the constitutional problems with mandatory voting could
be overcome, “compulsory voting would change the outcome of very few elections,” according
to Professor John Sides of George Washington University. That is because non-voters aren’t
that different than voters in their partisan outlook and because, as Sides correctly points out,
many elections (such as congressional ones) “aren’t that close.” There is no doubt that we
should encourage Americans to exercise their right to vote. But coercing Americans to vote is
not only unconstitutional, it is bad public policy. If the president and the federal government
were trying to force people to exercise other rights protected by the First Amendment, liberals
would be up in arms about it. As my former Justice Department colleague J. Christian Adams
says, if the president proposed mandatory prayer, such a proposal could be subject to
“laughter, ridicule and endless citation of the Free Exercise clause” of the First Amendment. Of
course, not to be outdone, the president also said at his town hall that it would be “fun” to
amend the First Amendment to restrict the free speech rights of Americans to contribute
money to the candidates and causes they like and agree with. That an American president
would propose such a troubling change to the Bill of Rights that would gut the First Amendment
is shocking — as is his complete lack of embarrassment over making such a proposal. Just more
evidence of how much this president disdains the liberty that the Constitution was designed to
protect and that Americans take for granted as a birthright.

Champion Briefs 301

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

Voting is a right- not just an obligation.

Derfner, Armand. “Voting Is Speech.” Yale Law Journal. June, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://ylpr.yale.edu/sites/default/files/YLPR/derfner_hebert_final_copy.pdf>.
The Court’s relaxed review of voting restrictions would not be surprising if voting were not a
fundamental right. But isn’t the right to vote fundamental, when it is “preservative of all
rights”?94 And shouldn’t voting be regarded as speech deserving of full First Amendment
protection when it serves a clear expressive function? One answer to these questions is that
the Supreme Court has never said “No.” Despite the Court’s current jurisprudential confusion,
the Supreme Court has never explicitly considered, much less rejected, the argument that
voting is speech fully protected by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court in Harper, the poll
tax case, specifically recognized and left open the question of the First Amendment’s
application to restrictions on the right and proceeded to decide the case under the Equal
Protection Clause.95 Supreme Court case law supports a theory of First Amendment protection
for voters. The Court has repeatedly characterized the fundamental right to vote in terms of
“voice” and expression. In Wesberry v. Sanders, the Court explained: “[N]o right is more
precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the election of those who make the
laws.”96 In Reynolds v. Sims, the Court held: “[E]ach citizen [must] have an equally effective
voice in the election of members of his state legislature.”97 In Norman v. Reed, the Court noted
that voting gives “opportunities of all voters to express their own political preferences.”98
Finally, in Anderson, the source of the current balancing test, the Court held that the interest at
stake was the “interests of voters who chose to associate together to express their support for
Anderson’s candidacy and the views he expressed.”99 The list goes on at length.

Champion Briefs 302

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

Voting is a way of executing a decision of a mode of thought- thus a

part of the first amendment protections.
Derfner, Armand. “Voting Is Speech.” Yale Law Journal. June, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://ylpr.yale.edu/sites/default/files/YLPR/derfner_hebert_final_copy.pdf>.
While voting is typically secret or anonymous, that practice is neither universal nor dispositive.
Voting for presidential candidates in the Iowa caucuses, for example, is not anonymous. Indeed,
the secret ballot was not established in the United States until the late 1800s.109 Moreover,
the First Amendment has consistently given strong protection to anonymous speech. 110 While
individual votes are anonymous, votes in the aggregate are publicly announced and
communicate the electorate’s opinions of various candidates and political proposals. The
expressive interests implicated by voting are strong. By voting, citizens declare their choice to
participate, express this in front of their neighbors and poll officials, and allow a public record
of their choice. The expressive nature of the vote is present whether the vote is for a candidate
in a primary or general election or for a ballot proposition, recall, referendum or anything else
called a vote. Likewise, a vote is expressive regardless of whether it is decisive. Unlike some
other countries,111 the United States does not require citizens to vote. The choice to
participate actively in our democratic system by casting a ballot may therefore constitute an
expression of civic pride. This is certainly true for people like Congressman John Lewis, a leader
in the protest that led to “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama. They risked their lives to obtain
the meaningful opportunity to vote and fully understand what it means to be shut out of the
political process.112 The decision not to vote may also serve an expressive purpose and be
intended to protest the unresponsiveness of the government (“What difference does it make?”)
or deny the legitimacy of the process or of a particular outcome.113 Voting is therefore both a
means of achieving a particular end and of expressing an opinion as to both the process and the
desired end.

Champion Briefs 303

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

First Amendment freedoms aren't clear but the courts have been
modifying the exceptions- voting is still an act of expression within
democratic processes.
Derfner, Armand. “Voting Is Speech.” Yale Law Journal. June, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://ylpr.yale.edu/sites/default/files/YLPR/derfner_hebert_final_copy.pdf>.
Ignoring the reality that voting is “expressive communication” contrasts with the strong First
Amendment protections of money in politics. Isn’t signing an absentee ballot and putting the
stamped envelope in the mailbox as expressive as signing a check to a candidate or political
committee and putting the stamped envelope in the mailbox? Isn’t signing a poll list at the
precinct and pulling levers next to your preferred candidates as much or more an expression of
political view than funding an advertisement on a candidate’s behalf? The honored treatment
of the right to spend money in politics is, in fact, derived from the right of the voter. The
Supreme Court stated in the seminal First Amendment “money is speech” case that “[i]n a
republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices
among candidates for office is essential.”114 Voters take the information that is put into the
marketplace of ideas and ultimately make a decision about which view to adopt and which
candidate or political party best represents it. The voter then expresses that decision by
actually going to the polling place, entering the voting booth, and selecting the candidate of his
or her choice. As Justice Holmes wrote of the First Amendment, the “best test of truth is the
power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,”115 and there
can be no better “test” than the canvass of votes cast by voters. As the Supreme Court said in
Buckley v. Valeo, the “central purpose” of the First Amendment is to ensure that “healthy
representative democracy [can] flourish.”116 That is what votes are for. But while the right to
vote has been languishing, the Supreme Court has been expanding the scope of the First
Amendment, protecting far-reaching forms of speech such as commercial advertising,117 flag
burning,118 forms of hate speech,119 and, perhaps most remotely, the right of insurance
companies to buy prescription data from drug stores

Champion Briefs 304

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

Further justification for voting being covered under the First

Amendment.
Burrus, Trevor. “Mandatory Voting Guarantees Ignorant Votes.” Cato Institute. March 22, 2015.
Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mandatory-
voting-guarantees-ignorant-votes>.
The president is wrong. Compulsory voting is not just unwise, it is unconstitutional. The First
Amendment protects not just the right to speak, but the right to refrain from speaking. In 1943,
the Supreme Court held that Jehovah’s Witness students couldn’t be forced to salute the flag or
say the pledge of allegiance. Other cases have upheld the right to be free from forced speech in
the context of compulsory union dues spent on political speech. So, is not voting a form of
speech? Not voting can certainly communicate a variety of messages, such as dissatisfaction,
being fed-up with the two-party system or even being an anarchist. True, it is a crude method
of communicating those messages, but it is no more crude than voting. A vote for a candidate
could either indicate a begrudging acceptance or a whole-hearted endorsement. It could also
just communicate that you hate the other guy (or girl). The First Amendment covers the right
not to vote. Moreover, Congress lacks constitutional authority to pass a law mandating voting,
particularly in presidential elections. Article II of the Constitution gives Congress limited powers
over presidential elections. State legislators have the power to choose how electors will be
selected to the Electoral College, and there’s actually nothing in the Constitution mandating
states to give citizens the right to vote for electors. Congress only has power to determine “the
Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes.”

Champion Briefs 305

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

The American electoral system needs to change before CV is enacted-

won't hold politicians accountable.
Burrus, Trevor. “Mandatory Voting Guarantees Ignorant Votes.” Cato Institute. March 22, 2015.
Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mandatory-
voting-guarantees-ignorant-votes>.
Moreover, in the American electoral system, not voting conveys valuable information. Every
presidential election is about “getting out the base” — that is, getting core party members
excited enough about a candidate to go out and vote. If turnout is low, then the party knows
that, next time, they better run a candidate who excites rather than bores the base. In
Australia, where they have mandatory voting and a preference voting system — voters rank
candidates in order of preference — they have a consistent problem of the “donkey vote.” A
small percentage of voters merely list the candidates in the order they are printed on the ballot.
It is a small amount, but enough to turn a close election. Donkey votes might happen because
of apathy or they could be protest votes, but in1983 the Australian system had to be reformed
to reduce the impact of donkey votes. Ultimately, compulsory voting does not solve the
problem that advocates hope it will solve: low voter engagement and knowledge. Why?
Because there is simply not enough hinging on a single vote for it to be worth it for most voters
to be engaged. Statistically speaking, one vote in a national election will never impact the
outcome, and voters react to those incentives accordingly. Ask yourself this question: would it
make more sense to spend two years researching politics to cast a “fully informed” vote or
would it make more sense to spend that time researching your next car purchase? And
remember that your “fully informed” vote will count as much as a person who chooses his
candidate by throwing a dart at board with all the candidates’ pictures. Instead, just let the dart
throwers stay home.

Champion Briefs 306

NEG: Libertarianism NC Sept/Oct 2020

US Census Bureau data about reasons why some don't vote.

Fund, John. “Mr. President, We Have A Civil Right Not To Vote.” National Review. March 19,
2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/03/mr-president-
we-have-civil-right-not-vote-john-fund/>.
But the U.S. Census Bureau disagrees. It has long published reports on election turnout and the
reasons people don’t vote. As my co-author Hans von Spakovsky has pointed out: For example,
of the 146 million people who the Census Bureau reported were registered to vote in 2008, 15
million (10 percent) did not vote. Of those who did not vote, only 6 percent cited registration
problems as the reason for not participating. Rather, the vast majority of these registered but
nonvoters said they did not vote for reasons ranging from forgetting to vote to not liking the
candidates or the campaign issues or simply not being interested ... The Census Bureau’s 2008
report demonstrates that the major reason individuals failed to register was that they were not
“interested in the election/not involved in politics.” That represented 46 percent of the
individuals in the Census Bureau’s survey. Another 35 percent of individuals did not register for
a variety of reasons such as not being eligible to vote, thinking their vote would not make a
difference, not meeting residency requirements, or difficulty with English.

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 307

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

NEG: Politics Disadvantage

The politics disadvantage is one of the best policy-oriented negative positions on

this topic. It’s super flexible, links into the majority of the affirmative cases on the topic and

allows debaters to add whatever impact scenarios they want. Debaters can our version of

this disadvantage against any affirmative case that defends that the United States

implements compulsory voting, meaning that they can read it against US-specific

affirmatives as well as against affirmatives that defend the whole resolution. They can also

follow the model that we used for our politics disadvantage to create similar positions that

link into other affirmatives. The United States scenario is particularly compelling due to the

upcoming presidential election.

When reading this disadvantage, debaters should make sure that the link story is up

to date and that their cards don’t contradict each other. With the constant updates

regarding presidential candidates, coronavirus, and the economy, debaters should ensure

that the scenarios they cut at the beginning of the season are updated before they read

them again in October. We strongly recommend that debaters who are invested in reading

this disadvantage follow the news to ensure that they are familiar with the latest scenarios.

When preparing to read this disadvantage, negative debaters should ensure that

they have links prepared against various different affirmatives. Even within the group of

“affirmatives that talk about the US,” there are still many nuances including, enforcement

mechanism, method of compulsion, and perhaps which states or districts the affirmative

covers. As such, the negative should be prepared to debate multiple different scenarios.

Champion Briefs 308

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

When responding to this disadvantage, the affirmative should prepare evidence for

the link debate. There is compelling evidence that indicates that the election could already

be decided. Preparing this evidence will allow the affirmative to prove that their plan

doesn’t generate the impacts of the disadvantage, and that therefore, the negative doesn’t

have a link to the affirmative. The affirmative should also prepare arguments against

potential impact scenarios. They should learn what is at stake in this election (Supreme

Court seats, climate legislation, healthcare legislation, etc.) and they should find ways to

indicate that their affirmative doesn’t negatively impact those scenarios.

In order to win this position, the negative needs to win a clear link to the affirmative and
an impact that they successfully weigh against the affirmative. In order to give themselves the
best chance of doing this, the negative should read varied impacts and be prepared to defend
the links that are in the 1NC.

Champion Briefs 309

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Voters without college education are more likely to vote for Trump.
Pew Research Center,. “An Examination Of The 2016 Electorate, Based On Validated Voters.”
Pew Research Center. August 09, 2018. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-
electorate-based-on-validated-voters/>.
This report introduces a new approach for looking at the electorate in the 2016 general
election: matching members of Pew Research Center’s nationally representative American
Trends Panel to voter files to create a dataset of verified voters. The analysis in this report uses
post-election survey reports of 2016 vote preferences (conducted Nov. 29-Dec. 12, 2016)
among those who were identified as having voted using official voting records. These voter file
records become available in the months after the election. (For more details, see
“Methodology.”) Among these verified voters, the overall vote preference mirrors the election
results very closely: 48% reported voting for Hillary Clinton and 45% for Donald Trump; by
comparison, the official national vote tally was 48% for Clinton, 46% for Trump. This data
source allows researchers to take a detailed look at the voting preferences of Americans across
a range of demographic traits and characteristics. It joins resources already available – including
the National Election Pool exit polls, the American National Election Studies and the Current
Population Survey’s Voting and Registration Supplement – in hopes of helping researchers
continue to refine their understanding of the 2016 election and electorate, and address
complex questions such as the role of race and education in 2016 candidate preferences. It
reaffirms many of the key findings about how different groups voted – and the composition of
the electorate – that emerged from post-election analyses based on other surveys. Consistent
with other analyses and past elections, race was strongly correlated with voting preference in
2016. But there are some differences as well. For instance, the wide educational divisions
among white voters seen in other surveys are even more striking in these data. Among
validated voters in 2016, wide gap among whites by education Overall, whites with a four-year
college degree or more education made up 30% of all validated voters. Among these voters, far
more (55%) said they voted for Clinton than for Trump (38%). Among the much larger group of
white voters who had not completed college (44% of all voters), Trump won by more than two-
to-one (64% to 28%).

Champion Briefs 310

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

This diploma divide is likely to continue.

Harris, Adam. “America Is Divided By Education.” The Atlantic. November 07, 2018. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/11/education-
gap-explains-american-politics/575113/ >.
According to exit polls, 61 percent of non-college-educated white voters cast their ballots for
Republicans while just 45 percent of college-educated white voters did so. Meanwhile 53
percent of college-educated white voters cast their votes for Democrats compared with 37
percent of those without a degree. The diploma divide, as it’s often called, is not occurring
across the electorate; it is primarily a phenomenon among white voters. It’s an unprecedented
divide, and is in fact a complete departure from the diploma divide of the past. Non-college-
educated white voters used to solidly belong to Democrats, and college-educated white voters
to Republicans. Several events over the past six decades have caused these allegiances to
switch, the most recent being the candidacy, election, and presidency of Donald Trump. Last
night’s results confirm that the diploma divide is likely here to stay—especially if the GOP
maintains its alignment with Trump and the nationalist, anti-immigrant sentiments he hangs his
hat on. The gap is likely to be one of the most powerful forces shaping American politics for
decades to come.

Champion Briefs 311

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Less-educated white voters elected Trump.

The Economist ,. “Poorly Educated Voters Hold The Keys To The White House.” The Economist.
November 11, 2019. Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.economist.com/graphic-
detail/2019/11/11/poorly-educated-voters-hold-the-keys-to-the-white-house>.
IT WAS IN the 1970s that American politics began to polarise around voters’ levels of
educational attainment. The Republican Party, until then a party of tweedy north-easterners,
began recruiting less-educated southern whites, alienated by the civil-rights movement. Over
time, the partisan gap between college-educated voters and less-educated ones widened. In
2016 it exploded. The Pew Research Centre, a think-tank, found that overall, college graduates
favoured Hillary Clinton by 21 percentage points, while those without a degree backed Donald
Trump by a seven-point margin. Among whites, the difference is greater: those without a
college degree backed Mr Trump over Mrs Clinton by a margin of more than two to one. How
far did this educational divide determine the outcome of the 2016 election? To answer this
question, Michael Sances of Temple University collected data on presidential-election results
and education levels in each of America’s 3,000-plus counties from 1972 to 2016. Mr Sances
finds that the gap in support for Democratic candidates between the highest- and the lowest-
educated counties grew significantly between 2012 and 2016, from about 16 percentage points
to 28 percentage points (see chart). This disparity has grown especially quickly in midwestern
swing states. In Iowa, for example, Hillary Clinton won 66% of the vote in better-educated
counties, up from Barack Obama’s 61% share in 2012, but only 27% in less-educated ones,
down from 46%. According to Mr Sances, this shift in political support was decisive to Mr
Trump’s victory in 2016. Had the counties in the bottom 10% of the education distribution stuck
to their voting behaviour in 2012, Mrs Clinton would have been tied with Mr Trump in the
electoral college. Had the counties in the bottom 20% done so, she would have won. As the
2020 election approaches, Democrats will have to think seriously about how to bring less-
educated voters back to their side. The party’s current focus on left-leaning government
programmes such as Medicare for All, which tend to be popular with well-educated liberals but
poll poorly among blue-collar white voters, are unlikely to tilt the scales back in their favour.

Champion Briefs 312

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

The aff forces everyone to vote. This mobilizes the 459,000 non-voting
white men in Wisconsin – this turns Wisconsin red and keeps Trump
in the White House.
Levitz, Eric. “459,000 Working-Class White Male Wisconsinites Didn’t Vote In 2016.”
Intelligencer. October 26, 2019. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/10/trump-wisconsin-white-working-class-men-
2020-democrats.html>.
If America picked its presidents democratically, Democrats could sleep more serenely. In
virtually every national poll of a hypothetical 2020 election, the Donkey Party’s top three
primary contenders lead Donald Trump comfortably. CNN’s most recent survey finds Joe Biden
beating Trump by ten points, Bernie Sanders besting the billionaire by nine, and Elizabeth
Warren ahead by eight. Other pollsters give Democrats a narrower advantage. And polling this
far from Election Day is only a bit more reliable than an IOU from the Trump Organization. But
the consensus of existing surveys is buttressed by broader data on demographic trends. Under
the president’s leadership, the Republican Party has grown historically reliant on the support of
non-college-educated white voters — at a time when non-college-educated whites make up a
rapidly-declining percentage of eligible voters. With each passing year, America’s voting-age
population grows less white, and its white voting-age citizens grow more learned. In 2020,
there will be 2.3 percent fewer voting-age whites without a college diploma in the U.S. than
there were in 2016, according to a new study from the Center for American Progress (CAP; a
liberal think tank). Meanwhile, there will be 1.3 percent more Latino eligible voters, 0.6 percent
more Asian eligible voters, and 0.2 percent more African-American and college-educated white
ones. Those percentages may look small. But in a body politic as closely divided as our own,
even minuscule shifts in the electorate’s demographic composition can have world-historic
consequences. If the 2020 election played out almost exactly like 2016 — with each
demographic group turning out at the same rate, and each major-party candidate winning the
same share of each demographic group’s ballots — the population changes projected by CAP
would be sufficient to increase the Democratic nominee’s margin of victory in the popular vote
by 1.2 percentage points. Which is to say: If the Democrats’ 2020 standard-bearer essentially
replicates Hillary Clinton’s performance, he or she will would win the popular vote by 3.2
percent. Given the myriad improbable misfortunes that Clinton’s 2016 campaign suffered (and
the candidate’s below-replacement skills as a retail politician), CAP’s data suggests that the next
Democratic nominee shouldn’t have much trouble winning more ballots than Donald Trump.
But American presidential elections aren’t decided democratically. Winning more votes won’t
get the Democrats very far if those ballots aren’t optimally distributed across state lines. And
the emerging Democratic majority is so inefficiently distributed across space, Trump could
plausibly win reelection while losing the popular vote by 5 percentage points. The 2020 election
will not be decided by eligible voters nationwide — but rather, in all probability, by actual

Champion Briefs 313

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

voters in Wisconsin. As the chair of the Badger State’s Democratic Party, Ben Wikler, recently
explained to Bloomberg, “If you take all the states where Trump is less popular than Wisconsin,
that’s not enough to win the Electoral College. All the states where he’s more popular than
Wisconsin, not enough to win the Electoral College. So whoever wins Wisconsin essentially will
be president.” In 2016, Trump won Wisconsin by just 22,748 votes. Hold all else constant —
which is to say, freeze each major demographic’s turnout rate at its 2016 level, and keep the
two-party share of each group’s vote steady — and the population changes projected by CAP
would be enough to move the state into the Democratic column. But as Bloomberg’s Francis
Wilkinson reports, that’s an enormous “if.” Wisconsin is unusually white for a purple state in
2019. 87 percent of the Badger State’s population is Caucasian, according to Census Bureau
estimates. In Pennsylvania, that figure is 82 percent; in Michigan, it’s 79 percent. And
Wisconsin’s white population is less college-educated than the Keystone State’s. In
demographic terms, Wisconsin is scarcely more favorable for Democrats than Ohio — which, in
the Trump era, appears to have become a safe red state. Democrats owe their competitiveness
in Wisconsin to two things: Its white population is unusually Democratic (an ostensible legacy of
the state’s rapidly declining labor movement), and a lot of its white non-college-educated
residents don’t vote.

Champion Briefs 314

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Four more years of Trump will push us toward irreversible climate

change.
Starr, Paul. “Trump’s Second Term.” The Atlantic. May, 2019. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/trump-2020-second-
term/585994/>.
This is one of those moments. After four years as president, Trump will have made at least two
Supreme Court appointments, signed into law tax cuts, and rolled back federal regulation of the
environment and the economy. Whatever you think of these actions, many of them can
probably be offset or entirely undone in the future. The effects of a full eight years of Trump
will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to undo. Three areas—climate change, the risk of
a renewed global arms race, and control of the Supreme Court—illustrate the historic
significance of the 2020 election. The first two problems will become much harder to address as
time goes on. The third one stands to remake our constitutional democracy and undermine the
capacity for future change. In short, the biggest difference between electing Trump in 2016 and
reelecting Trump in 2020 would be irreversibility. Climate policy is now the most obvious
example. For a long time, even many of the people who acknowledged the reality of climate
change thought of it as a slow process that did not demand immediate action. But today, amid
extreme weather events and worsening scientific forecasts, the costs of our delay are clearly
mounting, as are the associated dangers. To have a chance at keeping global warming below
1.5 degrees Celsius—the objective of the Paris climate agreement—the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change says that by 2030, CO2 emissions must drop some 45 percent from
2010 levels. Instead of declining, however, they are rising. In his first term, Trump has
announced plans to cancel existing climate reforms, such as higher fuel-efficiency standards
and limits on emissions from new coal-fired power plants, and he has pledged to pull the
United States out of the Paris Agreement. His reelection would put off a national commitment
to decarbonization until at least the second half of the 2020s, while encouraging other
countries to do nothing as well. And change that is delayed becomes more economically and
politically difficult. According to the Global Carbon Project, if decarbonization had begun
globally in 2000, an emissions reduction of about 2 percent a year would have been sufficient
to stay below 2 degrees Celsius of warming. Now it will need to be approximately 5 percent a
year. If we wait another decade, it will be about 9 percent. In the United States, the economic
disruption and popular resistance sure to arise from such an abrupt transition may be more
than our political system can bear. No one knows, moreover, when the world might hit
irreversible tipping points such as the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would
likely doom us to a catastrophic sea-level rise.

Champion Briefs 315

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Climate change is an existential threat.

Xu , Yangyang. “Well Below 2 °C: Mitigation Strategies For Avoiding Dangerous To Catastrophic
Climate Changes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America. September 26, 2017. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5625890/>.
We are proposing the following extension to the DAI risk categorization: warming greater than
1.5 °C as “dangerous”; warming greater than 3 °C as “catastrophic?”; and warming in excess of
5 °C as “unknown??,” with the understanding that changes of this magnitude, not experienced
in the last 20+ million years, pose existential threats to a majority of the population. The
question mark denotes the subjective nature of our deduction and the fact that catastrophe
can strike at even lower warming levels. The justifications for the proposed extension to risk
categorization are given below. From the IPCC burning embers diagram and from the language
of the Paris Agreement, we infer that the DAI begins at warming greater than 1.5 °C. Our
criteria for extending the risk category beyond DAI include the potential risks of climate change
to the physical climate system, the ecosystem, human health, and species extinction. Let us first
consider the category of catastrophic (3 to 5 °C warming). The first major concern is the issue of
tipping points. Several studies (48, 49) have concluded that 3 to 5 °C global warming is likely to
be the threshold for tipping points such as the collapse of the western Antarctic ice sheet,
shutdown of deep water circulation in the North Atlantic, dieback of Amazon rainforests as well
as boreal forests, and collapse of the West African monsoon, among others. While natural
scientists refer to these as abrupt and irreversible climate changes, economists refer to them as
catastrophic events (49). Warming of such magnitudes also has catastrophic human health
effects. Many recent studies (50, 51) have focused on the direct influence of extreme events
such as heat waves on public health by evaluating exposure to heat stress and hyperthermia. It
has been estimated that the likelihood of extreme events (defined as 3-sigma events), including
heat waves, has increased 10-fold in the recent decades (52). Human beings are extremely
sensitive to heat stress. For example, the 2013 European heat wave led to about 70,000
premature mortalities (53). The major finding of a recent study (51) is that, currently, about
13.6% of land area with a population of 30.6% is exposed to deadly heat. The authors of that
study defined deadly heat as exceeding a threshold of temperature as well as humidity. The
thresholds were determined from numerous heat wave events and data for mortalities
attributed to heat waves. According to this study, a 2 °C warming would double the land area
subject to deadly heat and expose 48% of the population. A 4 °C warming by 2100 would
subject 47% of the land area and almost 74% of the world population to deadly heat, which
could pose existential risks to humans and mammals alike unless massive adaptation measures
are implemented, such as providing air conditioning to the entire population or a massive
relocation of most of the population to safer climates. Climate risks can vary markedly
depending on the socioeconomic status and culture of the population, and so we must take up
the question of “dangerous to whom?” (54). Our discussion in this study is focused more on
people and not on the ecosystem, and even with this limited scope, there are multitudes of

Champion Briefs 316

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

categories of people. We will focus on the poorest 3 billion people living mostly in tropical rural
areas, who are still relying on 18th-century technologies for meeting basic needs such as
cooking and heating. Their contribution to CO2 pollution is roughly 5% compared with the 50%
contribution by the wealthiest 1 billion (55). This bottom 3 billion population comprises mostly
subsistent farmers, whose livelihood will be severely impacted, if not destroyed, with a one- to
five-year megadrought, heat waves, or heavy floods; for those among the bottom 3 billion of
the world’s population who are living in coastal areas, a 1- to 2-m rise in sea level (likely with a
warming in excess of 3 °C) poses existential threat if they do not relocate or migrate. It has
been estimated that several hundred million people would be subject to famine with warming
in excess of 4 °C (54). However, there has essentially been no discussion on warming beyond 5
°C. Climate change-induced species extinction is one major concern with warming of such large
magnitudes (>5 °C). The current rate of loss of species is ∼1,000-fold the historical rate, due
largely to habitat destruction. At this rate, about 25% of species are in danger of extinction in
the coming decades (56). Global warming of 6 °C or more (accompanied by increase in ocean
acidity due to increased CO2) can act as a major force multiplier and expose as much as 90% of
species to the dangers of extinction (57). The bodily harms combined with climate change-
forced species destruction, biodiversity loss, and threats to water and food security, as
summarized recently (58), motivated us to categorize warming beyond 5 °C as unknown??,
implying the possibility of existential threats. Fig. 2 displays these three risk categorizations
(vertical dashed lines).

Champion Briefs 317

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Climate change hurts the poorest.

Khanna, Mallika. “Why Climate Change Hurts The Poor The Most.” EcoWatch. July 11, 2019.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change-hurts-the-poor-
2639163107.html?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1>.
If you've read anything about climate change over the past year, you've probably heard about
the IPCC report that gives a 12-year deadline for limiting climate change catastrophe. But for
many parts of the world, climate change already is a catastrophe. Recently in Bihar, one of the
poorest states in India, more than 40 people were killed by a severe heat wave in just one day.
A study by UNICEF suggests that “in the next decade, 175 million children will be hit by climate-
related disasters in South Asia and Africa alone.” Closer to home, Miami's steady sinking is
depleting usable drinking water at an alarming rate. The truth is, vulnerable communities have
been dealing with the effects of climate change and environmental pollution for decades now.
The 85-mile stretch between Baton Rouge and New Orleans — aptly nicknamed Cancer Alley —
is a stark example. Thanks to petrochemical pollution there, Louisiana at one point suffered the
second-highest death rate from cancer in the U.S., with some localities near chemical plants
getting cancer from air pollution at 700 times the national average. This is no accident:
Corporations deliberately target places like Cancer Alley because they're home to socially and
economically disadvantaged people whom the corporations assume can't fight back. There's
even a name for it: “least resistant personality profiles.” Sociologist Arlie Hochschild discovered
this term in a 1984 study done by a consulting firm to determine where a waste board could
build a plant without local communities complaining. According to the study, the people least
likely to protest having their health put at risk were typically “longtime residents of small towns
in the South or Midwest, high school educated only, Catholic, uninvolved in social issues, and
without a history of activism, involved in mining, farming, ranching, conservative, Republican,
advocates of the free market.” While this study only tells part of the story, it does a lot to
explain why poor communities face the worst consequences of climate change and pollution.
These inequities cut across racial lines: As Hochschild's study shows, “least resistant
personalities” include small town, working-class white communities in the South and Midwest,
as well as poor black people in places like Cancer Alley. After Hurricane Maria hit Puerto Rico in
2017, the federal government did next to nothing. The comparison between the responses to
9/11 and Hurricane Maria — whose death tolls were almost exactly the same — highlights just
how overlooked the suffering caused to marginalized communities by climate change is. The
idea that environmentalism is an “elite” concern is a lie. Those who stand to gain the most from
sweeping environmental protections are the marginalized people corporations assume can be
put in toxic environments without fear of backlash.

Champion Briefs 318

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Trump would continue to tear apart the global nonproliferation

regime – a new nuclear arms race is likely.
Starr, Paul. “Trump’s Second Term.” The Atlantic. May, 2019. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/trump-2020-second-
term/585994/>.
The 2020 election will also determine whether the U.S. continues on a course that all but
guarantees another kind of runaway global change—a stepped-up arms race, and with it a
heightened risk of nuclear accidents and nuclear war. Trump’s “America first” doctrine, attacks
on America’s alliances, and unilateral withdrawal from arms-control treaties have made the
world far more dangerous. After pulling the United States out of the Iran nuclear agreement (in
so doing, badly damaging America’s reputation as both an ally and a negotiating partner),
Trump failed to secure from North Korea anything approaching the Iran deal’s terms, leaving
Kim Jong Un not only unchecked but with increased international standing. Many world leaders
are hoping that Trump’s presidency is a blip—that he will lose in 2020, and that his successor
will renew America’s commitments to its allies and to the principles of multilateralism and
nonproliferation. If he is reelected, however, several countries may opt to pursue nuclear
weapons, especially those in regions that have relied on American security guarantees, such as
the Middle East and Northeast Asia. At stake is the global nonproliferation regime that the
United States and other countries have maintained over the past several decades to persuade
nonnuclear powers to stay that way. That this regime has largely succeeded is a tribute to a
combination of tactics, including U.S. bilateral and alliance-based defense commitments to
nonnuclear countries, punishments and incentives, and pledges by the U.S. and Russia—as the
world’s leading nuclear powers—to make dramatic cuts to their own arsenals. In his first term,
Trump has begun to undermine the nonproliferation regime and dismantle the remaining arms-
control treaties between Washington and Moscow. In October, he announced that the U.S.
would withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty signed in 1987 by
Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev. While the Russian violations of the treaty that Trump
cited are inexcusable, he has made no effort to hold Russia to its obligations—to the contrary,
by destroying the treaty, he has let Russia off the hook. What’s more, he has displayed no
interest in extending New START, which since 2011 has limited the strategic nuclear arsenals of
Russia and the United States. If the treaty is allowed to expire, 2021 will mark the first year
since 1972 without a legally binding agreement in place to control and reduce the deadliest
arsenals ever created. The prospect of a new nuclear arms race is suddenly very real. With the
end of verifiable limits on American and Russian nuclear weapons, both countries will lose the
right to inspect each other’s arsenal, and will face greater uncertainty about each other’s
capabilities and intentions. Already, rhetoric has taken an ominous turn: After Trump
suspended U.S. participation in the INF Treaty on February 2, Vladimir Putin quickly followed
suit and promised a “symmetrical response” to new American weapons. Trump replied a few
days later in his State of the Union address, threatening to “outspend and out-innovate all

Champion Briefs 319

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

others by far” in weapons development. The treaties signed by the United States and Russia
beginning in the 1980s have resulted in the elimination of nearly 90 percent of their nuclear
weapons; the end of the Cold War seemed to confirm that those weapons had limited military
utility. Now—as the U.S. and Russia abandon their commitment to arms control, and Trump’s
“America first” approach causes countries such as Japan and Saudi Arabia to question the
durability of U.S. security guarantees—the stage is being set for more states to go nuclear and
for the U.S. and Russia to ramp up weapons development. This breathtaking historical reversal
would, like global warming, likely feed on itself, becoming more and more difficult to undo.

Champion Briefs 320

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Nuclear war would lead to nuclear winter.

Monzon , Inigo. “US, Russia Nuclear War Would Cause 'Nuclear Winter' And 'Human Extinction,'
Study Reveals.” International Business Times. August 20, 2019. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.ibtimes.com/us-russia-nuclear-war-would-cause-nuclear-winter-human-
extinction-study-reveals-2815921>.
Anew study has confirmed that the world will be plunged into a nuclear winter following a
nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia. According to the study, the war between these two
superpowers would trigger a global environmental event that can last for several years. The
new study was conducted by a team of researchers from the University of Colorado, Rutgers
University and the National Center for Atmospheric Research. It was published in the Journal of
Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. For the study, the researchers created a model depicting
what would happen to Earth if the U.S. and Russia engaged in an all-out nuclear war. As part of
the simulation, the researchers observed what would happen if a large number of nuclear
bombs were detonated in urban areas near the U.S. and Russia. In the simulation, the two
countries used all of their nuclear weapons. According to the findings of their model, dubbed as
the Community Earth System Model – Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model version 4,
the explosions from the nuclear bomb detonations would create a massive amount of smoke
that would cover up the Earth’s atmosphere. The smoke, which scientists predict would linger
for years, will block out sunlight, leading to a significant drop in Earth’s temperature. According
to the scientists, the winter-like season that will be caused by the nuclear war will last for a long
time. It will also trigger other environmental events such as changes to the monsoon and El
Niño seasons. The scientists noted that the results of their study agree with the findings of a
previous research published in 2007. The similarity between these two studies clearly indicates
the inevitability of a nuclear winter following a massive nuclear war. “Despite having different
features and capabilities, both models produce similar results,” the scientists stated in the
study’s abstract. “Nuclear winter, with below-freezing temperatures over much of the Northern
Hemisphere during summer, occurs because of a reduction of surface solar radiation due to
smoke lofted into the stratosphere.

Champion Briefs 321

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Indigenous people pay the price for nuclear weapons.

Heeley , Lacie. “To Make And Maintain America's Nukes, Some Communities Pay The Price.”
The World. January 30, 2018. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-01-30/make-and-maintain-americas-nukes-some-
communities-pay-price>.
Prior to the 1970s, the US and other countries conducted more than 500 nuclear weapons tests
in the atmosphere. The tests blanketed the world with radioactive fallout, and in 2002, a study
by the CDC and National Cancer Institute found that any person living in the US since 1951 has
been exposed. The Navajo Nation is just one example — where cancer rates doubled from the
1970s to the 1990s due to the impacts of testing, mining and milling in the southwestern US.
Mining companies extracted millions of tons of uranium between 1944 and 1986. At the time,
Navajo children played in mine debris piles and pools, and livestock drank contaminated water.
Some homes were even built with materials from uranium mines and mills. But, some of these
issues are still ongoing. While only a handful of active uranium mines remain in the US, more
than 160,000 have been abandoned — and thousands of those abandoned mines continue to
pollute nearby water supplies. As recently as 2016, the CDC reported that babies are still being
born to Navajo parents with traces of uranium in their urine. A second example is the Marshall
Islands. Sixty-seven weapons were detonated on Enewetak Atoll and Bikini Atoll between 1946
and 1958. And, despite resettlement efforts, radiation levels in parts of that country are still
almost double what has been deemed safe for human habitation. Runit Dome, on Enewetak
Atoll, serves as a living reminder of US nuclear testing that continues to threaten the islands
today. The 18-inch concrete cap covers 111,000 cubic yards of radioactive debris left behind
after 12 years of nuclear tests. Today, scientists fear the effects of climate change could
damage the dome, releasing its contents into the ocean. The lands of some indigenous
communities still house nuclear waste today. Tribes play host to this waste because their
reservations are not subject to the same environmental and health standards as US land. “In
the quest to dispose of nuclear waste, the government and private companies have disregarded
and broken treaties, blurred the definition of Native American sovereignty, and directly
engaged in a form of economic racism akin to bribery,” Bayley Lopez of the Nuclear Age Peace
Foundation told Scientific American, citing examples of companies taking advantage of the
“overwhelming poverty on native reservations by offering them millions of dollars to host
nuclear waste storage sites.” Whether this characterization and those like it are fair, it's an
unfortunate fact that the people who live near the hallmarks of the US nuclear industrial
complex — like test sites in Nevada and the Marshall Islands, mines in the western half of the
US, and the indigenous communities that still house nuclear waste today — have been
disproportionately affected by the cost of what it takes to keep the rest of us safe.

Champion Briefs 322

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Trump’s Supreme Court appointees would jeopardize affordable

healthcare and care for gender minorities.
Starr, Paul. “Trump’s Second Term.” The Atlantic. May, 2019. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/05/trump-2020-second-
term/585994/>.
Finally, a second term for Trump would entrench changes at home, perhaps the most durable
of which involves the Supreme Court. With a full eight years, he would probably have the
opportunity to replace two more justices: Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 87 at the beginning of
the next presidential term, and Stephen Breyer will be 82. Whether you regard the prospect of
four Trump-appointed justices as a good or a bad thing will depend on your politics and
preferences—but there is no denying that the impact on the nation’s highest court would be
momentous. Not since Richard Nixon has a president named four new Supreme Court justices,
and not since Franklin D. Roosevelt has one had the opportunity to alter the Court’s ideological
balance so decisively. In Nixon’s time, conservatives did not approach court vacancies with a
clear conception of their judicial objectives or with carefully vetted candidates; both Nixon and
Gerald Ford appointed justices who ended up on the Court’s liberal wing. Since then, however,
the conservative movement has built a formidable legal network designed to ensure that future
judicial vacancies would not be squandered. The justices nominated by recent Republican
presidents reflect this shift. But because the Court’s conservative majorities have remained
slim, a series of Republican appointees—Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and most
recently John Roberts—have, by occasionally breaking ranks, held the Court back from a full-
scale reversal of liberal principles and precedents. With a 7–2 rather than a 5–4 majority,
however, the Court’s conservatives could no longer be checked by a lone swing vote. Much of
the public discussion about the Court’s future focuses on Roe v. Wade and other decisions
expanding rights, protecting free speech, or mandating separation of Church and state. Much
less public attention has been paid to conservative activists’ interest in reversing precedents
that since the New Deal era have enabled the federal government to regulate labor and the
economy. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, conservative justices regularly struck down
laws and regulations such as limits on work hours. Only in 1937, after ruling major New Deal
programs unconstitutional, did the Court uphold a state minimum-wage law. In the decades
that followed, the Court invoked the Constitution’s commerce clause, which authorizes
Congress to regulate interstate commerce, as the basis for upholding laws regulating virtually
any activity affecting the economy. A great deal of federal law, from labor standards to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 to health and environmental regulation, rests on that foundation. But the
Court’s conservative majority has recently been chipping away at the expansive interpretation
of the commerce clause, and some jurists on the right want to return to the pre-1937 era,
thereby sharply limiting the government’s regulatory powers. In 2012, the Court’s five
conservative justices held that the Affordable Care Act’s penalty for failing to obtain
insurance—the so-called individual mandate—was not justified by the commerce clause. In a

Champion Briefs 323

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

sweeping dissent from the majority’s opinion, four of those justices voted to strike down the
entire ACA for that reason. The law survived only because the fifth conservative, Chief Justice
Roberts, held that the mandate was a constitutional exercise of the government’s taxing power.
If the Court had included seven conservative justices in 2012, it would almost certainly have
declared the ACA null and void. This is the fate awaiting much existing social and economic
legislation and regulation if Trump is reelected. And that’s to say nothing of future legislation
such as measures to limit climate change, which might well be struck down by a Court adhering
to an originalist interpretation of our 18th-century Constitution.

Champion Briefs 324

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

The Affordable Care Act saves lives.

Aron-Dine, Avia. “New Research: Medicaid Expansion Saves Lives.” Center on Budget and Policy
Priorities. November 06, 2017. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.cbpp.org/blog/new-research-medicaid-expansion-saves-lives>.
Since the start of the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) Medicaid expansion to low-income adults,
evidence has poured in that the expansion is helping enrollees access and afford care. But as
more time passes, researchers can also examine how expansion is affecting other health and
financial outcomes. New research finds the policy is delivering on its promise to improve both
financial security and health – including by saving lives. Medicaid expansion saved the lives of at
least 19,200 older low-income adults from 2014 to 2017 in states that adopted it, while state
decisions not to expand cost the lives of 15,600. (Hover on the map below for state-by-state
estimates.) Expansion was most consequential in preventing premature deaths from causes
such as cardiovascular disease and diabetes, which are conditions responsive to medical care.
Figures colored orange represent lives lost in states that have not adopted Medicaid expansion
for low-income adults under the Affordable Care Act. Blue represents lives saved in expansion
states. Table omits the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, New York, and Vermont, because
they expanded Medicaid prior to 2014 and are therefore excluded from the analysis. * Some
states expanded Medicaid to low-income adults effective after January 1, 2014: Michigan (April
2014), New Hampshire (August 2014), Pennsylvania (January 2015), Indiana (February 2015),
Alaska (September 2015), Montana (January 2016), Louisiana (July 2016), Virginia (January
2019), and Maine (January 2019). In these states, estimates represent lives saved over the first
four years with expansion fully in effect. ** Estimates for Idaho, Nebraska, and Utah are lives
lost from 2014 to 2017. These states have adopted Medicaid expansion but have yet to
implement it. As our new paper explains, the study likely underestimates the lives saved by
expansion because it doesn’t capture the policy’s long-term benefits or include certain
expansion states. Nonetheless, expansion’s lifesaving potential ranks with other major public
health interventions: if all states had expanded Medicaid, the lives saved just among older
adults in 2017 would roughly equal the lives saved by seatbelts among the full population. (See
figure below.) Medicaid Expansion Could Save as Many Lives as Seatbelts The estimates
translate to a 39 to 64 percent annual mortality rate reduction for low-income older adults who
gained coverage. That’s almost as large as the gap in mortality rates between poor and middle-
income older adults, showing that expanding Medicaid can sharply reduce health disparities.
This research is only one of many recent studies that show how Medicaid expansion is
improving health and well-being. For example: Preventing evictions. A study last month in the
National Journal of Public Health finds that evictions fell about 20 percent in expansion
compared to non-expansion states (see figure), while another study in Health Affairs finds
similar effects from California’s Medicaid expansion. While earlier studies found that expansion
reduces medical debt and improves low-income households’ access to credit, the new studies
document that improved financial security is helping people avoid one of the most harmful
consequences of financial stress. After eviction, renters often end up in homeless shelters,

Champion Briefs 325

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

extremely poor-quality housing, or dangerous neighborhoods, or they must move frequently

among homes of family and friends. All of these outcomes can cause long-term harm, especially
for children. Evictions Fell Sharply in Medicaid Expansion States Additional evidence of lives
saved. Corroborating the mortality study’s findings discussed above, two other recent studies
find that Medicaid expansion reduced mortality from specific, serious health conditions that
people can manage with appropriate medical treatment. A 2018 JAMA study finds an almost 10
percent reduction in one-year mortality from end-stage renal disease (kidney failure) in
expansion compared to non-expansion states, with larger improvements for African Americans
(who are at higher risk for kidney failure). A 2019 JAMA Cardiology study finds a roughly 3
percent reduction in cardiovascular deaths. Improving quality of care. Even when the uninsured
receive care for acute health needs, the quality of care and health outcomes may be worse
because problems are detected later, patients can’t afford appropriate follow-up care, or for
other reasons. Several recent studies document how Medicaid expansion addresses these
shortcomings, showing that it’s increasing early-stage cancer diagnoses as well as the share of
people getting surgical care consistent with clinical guidelines, such as less invasive surgical
techniques when feasible. Expanding access to treatment for opioid use disorder. A 2018
Journal of Health Economics study finds that Medicaid expansion increased treatment facility
admissions in which patients were given medication assisted treatment (MAT) — the gold
standard treatment for opioid use disorder — by about 50 percent. While earlier research
showed that Medicaid expansion led to large increases in Medicaid-financed MAT prescriptions,
the newer study looks at MAT treatment across all payers, concluding that expansion drove a
rise in the total number of people getting help, not just the share of treatment covered by
Medicaid. Our Medicaid expansion chartbook summarizes this and other research. These
findings should give the 14 states that haven’t yet decided to expand Medicaid more reason to
do so. They should also finally put to rest claims that Medicaid doesn’t provide quality
coverage, such as Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Administrator Seema Verma’s
suggestion that Medicaid gives low-income adults “a[n] insurance card without care.” Instead,
the evidence shows, Medicaid expansion lets low-income adults get preventive services,
medications, and other care they couldn’t otherwise, and lets them get the care they need
without incurring burdensome medical debt. And we now know that it’s sometimes literally a
matter of life and death, particularly for people with serious but treatable health needs.

Champion Briefs 326

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Abortion is essential for self-determination and to ensure safety

during COVID.
Bayefsky , Michelle. “Abortion During The Covid-19 Pandemic — Ensuring Access To An
Essential Health Service.” The New England Journal of Medicine. May 07, 2020. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2008006>.
The historical misclassification of most abortions as “elective” is also central to the vulnerability
of abortion care. There is no debate that a minority of abortions are necessary to prevent death
or serious physical harm. But this strictly medical model fails to capture the reality that the
nonmedical reasons that women exercise their constitutional right to abortion are often as
important to them and their families as averting a serious health consequence. The long-
standing insistence on using the word “elective” to describe the vast majority of abortions
frames women’s equality as a luxury and women’s autonomy as expendable. Categorizing
abortions as “elective” or “therapeutic” is more of a moral judgment than a medical judgment,3
and it allows people who use these terms to determine a woman’s level of deservingness on
the basis of her reason for choosing to pursue abortion.4 In the rest of medicine, classifying a
surgical procedure as “elective” doesn’t determine whether or where it will be done. Instead, it
denotes that a case can be planned and scheduled, as opposed to an “urgent” case that cannot
be delayed without causing harm to the patient. Under the current circumstances, many
hospitals are appropriately rescheduling procedures for which the outcome will not be
worsened by a surgical delay. However, the surgical complexity of abortion procedures and the
associated risks increase with each passing week, and since most states impose upper limits on
the gestational age at which abortion can be performed, delaying procedures will mean that
many women will be unable to obtain an abortion at all. In ordinary times, access to abortion is
essential because deciding whether and when to bear a child is central to women’s self-
determination and equal participation in society. During the Covid-19 pandemic, such access is
even more important. Millions of women under quarantine or shelter-in-place orders may have
reduced access to contraception; many ambulatory clinics have restricted or halted outpatient
visits, including those for placement of contraceptive devices, and women may have difficulty
traveling safely to a pharmacy. It is also possible that increased time at home will increase
couples’ sexual activity. The Covid-19 response has already brought about substantial financial
hardship for many families, and not having the money to support a child (or an additional child)
is a leading reason that women choose to have an abortion.5 Finally, quarantine and shelter-in-
place orders have increased intimate partner violence, which sometimes includes sexual
coercion and assault that may result in unplanned pregnancies. The medical profession’s
response to the Covid-19 pandemic must include continuing to meet other urgent health care
needs, including the need for time-sensitive abortion care. The speed with which some
governors have suspended abortion care during this pandemic highlights the extreme
vulnerability of abortion access in the United States. We believe that the current global crisis
requires the medical profession to speak with a unified voice on several topics, including access

Champion Briefs 327

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

to abortion care. We call for all medical professionals to stand in solidarity with ACOG and the
AMA, with the women and couples who need the option of pregnancy termination, and with
their colleagues who serve these patients. If the entire profession can actively support abortion
care as an essential health service during the Covid-19 pandemic, such unity could form a
foundation for strengthening our abortion care infrastructure for years to come.

Champion Briefs 328

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

Trump’s reelection would be a threat to liberal democracy

everywhere.
Wolf , Martin. “Trump’s Reelection Would Be A Threat To Liberal Democracy Everywhere.”
Financial Times. February 11, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.ft.com/content/3749175a-4c17-11ea-95a0-43d18ec715f5>.
The most obvious implication of Mr Trump’s victory would be for liberal democracy in the US.
The president believes he is above accountability to the law or to Congress for what he does in
office. He holds himself accountable only to the electorate (or, rather, to his electorate). He
believes, too, that appointed members of his administration, public servants and the elected
officials of his party all owe their loyalty to himself, not to any higher cause. The founding
fathers feared just such a man. In the first of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote
that, “Of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have
begun their careers by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues
and ending tyrants.” In this, he was following Plato, who wrote how a man who gained power
as the people’s protector might become “a wolf — that is a tyrant”. In his Farewell Address of
1796, George Washington argued that the “disorders and miseries which result [from
factionalism] gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute
power of an individual”. Factionalism is certainly rife in today’s America. We cannot know how
far Mr Trump would want to go or how far the institutions of the republic would let him do so.
Yet is there anything Mr Trump could do, apart from losing the loyalty of his base, that would
persuade Mitch McConnell, Senate majority leader, to turn on him? It is not institutions, but
the people who serve them, that matter most. Even if the great republic survived the trial
largely unscathed (which is optimistic) the re-election of this man — a demagogue, a
nationalist, an incontinent liar and an admirer of tyrants — would have worldwide significance.
Despots view Mr Trump as a kindred spirit. Liberal democrats would feel even more
abandoned. The notion of the west as an alliance with some moral foundations would
evaporate. It would at best be a bloc of rich countries seeking to hold their global position. As a
nationalist, he would continue to dislike and despise the EU, as both an ideal and a wielder of
countervailing economic power against the US. David Helvey, acting US assistant secretary of
defence, recently wrote of the hostility of China and Russia to the “rules-based order”. This
ideal does indeed matter. Unfortunately, its most powerful enemy is now his own country,
because it has always relied on American vision and energy. With his mercantilism and
bilateralism, Mr Trump has aimed an intellectual and moral missile at the global trading system.
He even sees his own country as the greatest victim of its own order. The problem, then, is not
that Mr Trump believes in nothing, but rather that what he believes is often so wrong. More
broadly, his short-term transactionalism and willingness to use all available instruments of US
power creates an unstable and unpredictable world not just for governments, but also for
businesses. This uncertainty, too, might get worse in a second term. It is an open question
whether any sort of international rule of law would survive. There are huge practical challenges

Champion Briefs 329

NEG: Politics DA Sept/Oct 2020

that need to be managed. One is the US’s complex and fraught relationship with China. Yet, on
this, Mr Trump is far from the most hawkish of Americans. He has a streak of pragmatism. He
likes to do deals, however half-baked they may be. Perhaps the most important issue (if one
leaves aside avoiding nuclear war) is management of the global commons — above all, the
atmosphere and oceans. Crucial concerns are climate and biodiversity. Little time is left to act
against threats to both. A renewed Trump administration, hostile to these causes and the very
concept of global co-operation, would make needed action impossible. Often, this
administration does not seem even to recognise public goods as a category of challenges
worthy of concern. We are living through a hinge moment in history. The world needs
exceptionally wise and co-operative global leadership. We are not getting it. It may be folly to
expect it. But Mr Trump’s re-election could well mark a decisive failure. Pay attention: the year
2020 matters.

Champion Briefs 330

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

NEG: Accessibility Counterplan

I am a very strong advocate for increasing voting accessibility because I think that it
would play a pivotal role in increasing accessibility in other areas that also struggle. This topic
has a few different negative CP’s which is exciting because it really challenges the integrity of
the affirmative. There is an abundance of literature that discusses the benefits of increasing
accessibility and I think that these types of arguments will be extremely popular as a more lay
sort of K strategy that leans towards a K/CP combo.
The framework for this can be anything you desire because the argument can be very
flexible. I suggest leaning more towards util, structural violence, or something about maximizing
rights or freedoms granted in the constitution. Each of these has a very similar use when it
comes to this CP because the literature advocates for this method to maximize opportunities. I
would make sure that you have offense that is unique to your particular framework, but the
general idea is available for you to customize. Just make sure that you have particular reasons
why compulsory voting would hinder any sort of advancement polling places would make in
regard to ac
The offense here is very unique because there are several authors that make a very
clear and warranted argument that those who need certain accessibility modifications seem to
lack access to the political. The argument furthers such claims by exacerbating the problems
with the lack of access to polls when it comes to voting. A similar claim can be made to those
who experience certain socio-economic disadvantages that prevent them from being able to be
educated properly during the election season, especially because campaigns tend to not target
these groups. There is so much offense within the topic about how a lack of accessibility
hinders the voting process so even if you choose not to read this you still should definitely read
the articles just as a form of out-of-round education and also to make sure that you are
supporting policies that are inclusive.

Champion Briefs 331

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

Increasing accessibility is a prior question to CV- addressing smaller

instances is the step in the right direction.
, Paraquad. “Ten Suggested Practices To Improve Accessible Voting.” Paraquad. 2020. Web.
August 18, 2020.
<http://web.mit.edu/supportthevoter/www/files/2013/12/Paraquad_Ten-Tips-to-
Improve-Accessible-Voting.pdf>.
Administrators likely already know which polling places are going to have physical barriers for
people with disabilities and limited mobility. At the very least, make a commitment to assess
polling places that received accessibility complaints during the previous election. Bringing
disability advocates with you can be very beneficial. Advocates will be able to quickly identify
where the problem areas are and come with easy solutions already in mind which people who
do not have a disability may be unfamiliar with. Also, for very problematic polling places that
cannot be fixed, this will at least allow you to inform voters ahead of time that the polling place
is not ADA accessible and voters should consider voting at an accessible central polling location.
Areas that should be considered in a polling place assessment include availability of accessible
parking, pathway from parking to entry, pathway from entry to voting location, doorway into
voting room, pathway around the voting room (check-in to ballot box), possible room layouts,
table heights and voting machine placement, thresholds on doorways, and any steps or inclines.

Champion Briefs 332

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

Even though accessibility is supposed to be mandated at every polling

place- still a lack of resources for those who require such assistance.
, US Government Accessibility Office. “VOTERS WITH DISABILITIES: Observations On Polling
Place Accessibility And Related Federal Guidance [.” US Government Accessibility Office.
2017. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-4>.
Of the 178 polling places, GAO was able to fully examine voting stations inside the voting area
at 137. Of these 137 polling places, 65 percent (89) had a voting station with an accessible
voting system that could impede the casting of a private and independent vote. For example,
some voting stations were not set up to accommodate people using wheelchairs, which might
have required someone else to help them vote. GAO was not able to fully examine voting
stations at 41 polling places due to voting area restrictions. Most states that completed GAO's
survey reported taking actions during the 2016 general election to facilitate voting access for
voters with disabilities, including having accessibility requirements, providing election worker
training, and conducting oversight. For example, 44 states reported having accessibility
standards for polling places, and 48 states reported conducting at least one oversight activity,
such as analyzing accessibility complaints. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) guidance does not
clearly specify the extent to which certain federal accessibility requirements are applicable to
early in-person voting, an increasingly common form of voting at a designated location before
Election Day. In this context, GAO found some variation in the extent to which accessible voting
systems are provided for early in-person voting. GAO found one county without accessible
voting systems at five of its early in-person voting locations. Also, officials from four states said
that these systems are not required by their state laws for in-person voting before Election Day.
Given that voting has evolved since federal accessibility requirements were enacted, studying
the implementation of these requirements in the context of early in-person voting could
position DOJ to determine the extent to which any changes to its guidance are necessary.

Champion Briefs 333

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

Lack of the discussion about accessibility means that sub-par and

hazardous areas will go unchecked.
Fessler, Pam. “Voters With Disabilities Fight For More Accessible Polling Places.” NPR. October
24, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.npr.org/2016/10/24/499177544/disabled-voters-fight-for-more-
accessible-polling-places>.
More than 35 million eligible voters in the U.S. — about one in six — have a disability. And in
the last presidential election, almost a third of voters with disabilities reported having trouble
casting their ballots — whether it was getting into the polling place, reading the ballot, or
struggling with a machine. Despite some improvements, many of these voters are expected to
face similar problems again this year. Ian Watlington, of the National Disability Rights Network
(NDRN), demonstrates why. He has cerebral palsy and needs to use a wheelchair to get up a
long concrete ramp outside a church in Washington, D.C. “It is one of those ramps that
everybody thinks is absolutely perfect,” he says. But as he struggles to get up it, it's clear that
it's not perfect. Watlington says the slope is fairly steep, which means some people in
wheelchairs could tip backward. At the top, he finds another problem. “Right when you turn to
get into the main door, you have a pretty substantial crack in the concrete. One that most
people would have to bump over,” Watlington says as he bounces his chair over the crack. He
then has to make a sharp pivot to get to the door. This church was used as a polling site in this
year's primary, and the ramp was one of many potential obstacles cited in a report by a group
called Disability Rights DC. Elsewhere, the group found locked doors, broken elevators and
obstructed pathways — barriers not uncommon at polling sites across the country.

Champion Briefs 334

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

People with disabilities have some of the lowest voting rates because
of lacks in polling access.
Fessler, Pam. “Voters With Disabilities Fight For More Accessible Polling Places.” NPR. October
24, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.npr.org/2016/10/24/499177544/disabled-voters-fight-for-more-
accessible-polling-places>.
“If your polling place is somewhere that you can't even get in, not only do you sometimes feel
like your vote may not matter. But it also feels like people don't want you to vote, or don't care
if you can,” says Michelle Bishop, a voting rights specialist at NDRN. Bishop says millions of
Americans who have disabilities are routinely discouraged from voting, not only by obstacles
outside the polls, but inside as well — paper ballots that are hard to mark, long lines, even poll
workers who question their eligibility. “Based on some type of old stereotype and outdated
prejudice that people with disabilities aren't intelligent enough to vote,” Bishop says. Terrica
Jennings is sympathetic. She is the Americans with Disabilities Act coordinator with the D.C.
Board of Elections. Jennings says the city has been working very hard to make sure that all of its
voting places are accessible. It has acquired new voting machines that are adjustable to
accommodate residents using wheelchairs. The machines also have instructions in Braille and
attachments, like sip and puff tubes and control pads, to help voters cast their ballots. Jennings
says every precinct also has workers whose sole job is to help elderly voters and those with
disabilities. The District offers curbside voting at every site for those who can't get inside. Still,
she acknowledges that in heavily populated cities like Washington not every polling place can
be ideal. “You don't necessarily have facilities that are sprawling, that have huge parking lots,
that have all the features that would just make it really easy for any voter to get into,” she says.
Finding accessible sites is a challenge for election officials across the country, who often have to
rely on churches, schools and even homes to make sure there are enough polling places for
voters on Election Day. The U.S. Government Accountability Office found that in 2008 only 1 in
4 polling places was completely accessible — an improvement over 2000, but still far short of
the complete accessibility required by federal law. Lisa Schur, a professor at the Rutgers School
of Management and Labor Relations, says the result is that Americans with disabilities vote at a
lower rate than everyone else. She estimates that if they had voted at the same rate in 2012,
some 3 million more voters with disabilities would have participated. “I think it's been a lack of
attention to these problems and frankly also fixing some of them costs money, and, you know,
that's always an issue,” says Schur. But she says money doesn't have to be an obstacle. “The
solutions can be as simple as moving garbage cans to make sure that they're not blocking
people who are using wheelchairs when they're trying to get in the door. Or making sure that
there are chairs there for people who really can't stand in lines for very long,” she adds. And
most election offices have been trying to fix the problem — including providing more training
for poll workers on how to deal with voters who have disabilities. The issue has taken on more
urgency, because the challenges are expected to grow as the population ages. One solution has

Champion Briefs 335

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

been to allow more voting by mail. But Schur says that still poses a problem for some voters,
like those who are blind, and that in surveys, Americans with disabilities say they'd prefer to
have the option to vote in person, like everyone else.

Champion Briefs 336

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

Accessibility isn't just physical, it also means having better training for
polling employees.
Cokley, Rebecca. “Reforming Elections Without Excluding Disabled Voters.” Center for
American Progress. March 28, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/disability/news/2019/03/28/468019/refor
ming-elections-without-excluding-disabled-voters/>.
There are a variety of creative ways to approach the issue of physical inaccessibility beyond the
new legislation, including supporting H.R. 865, the Rebuild America’s Schools Act of 2019. This
act includes provisions to improve voting access at schools, which serve as common polling
places. Furthermore, despite a mandate in the Help America Vote Act of 2002 that requires all
polling places to have at least one accessible voting machine, many are not serviced regularly—
and workers do not necessarily know how to use them. Mandating that all voting machines and
equipment include universal design modifications could normalize accessibility and ensure that
everyone can vote on any piece of available equipment. Importantly, poll worker training must
include proper handling of such voting equipment. Furthermore, all poll workers—not just
those covered by existing state and local laws—should be educated on how to respectfully
interact with disabled voters. State protection and advocacy groups could assist with this,
expanding upon their existing training services to increase access to the polls. To this end,
extending federal funding for the Native American Disability Law Center is especially critical for
addressing shortcomings in Indigenous communities. This issue is identified in the For the
People Act and was also evident in the 2018 election cycle, when politicians in several states
attempted to use the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in their voter suppression efforts,
targeting inaccessible polling places in black and Indigenous communities for closure. Pursuit of
access violations was not equal across all polls—and these were long-established, well-known
issues that officials had ample opportunity to correct between election cycles, including via
federal accessibility grants.

Champion Briefs 337

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

States can also adopt state-based accessibility models depending on

their setting and demographic, CV is too universal.
Cokley, Rebecca. “Reforming Elections Without Excluding Disabled Voters.” Center for
American Progress. March 28, 2019. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/disability/news/2019/03/28/468019/refor
ming-elections-without-excluding-disabled-voters/>.
While the above recommendations focus on the federal level, there is also action that states
could be taking on behalf of disabled voters. One of the most significant areas of concern is
disenfranchisement on the basis of disability: 39 states and Washington, D.C., allow judges to
bar those with state-determined “mental disorders” from voting. This means that an
unreported total number of otherwise eligible voters are currently barred from the polls
because of mental health conditions or intellectual, developmental, and cognitive disabilities.
According to the Spectrum Institute, the restriction has affected at least 32,000 individuals in
California over the past decade. Because the process of disenfranchisement varies by state,
however, there is hope that states could follow the model used by Maryland and Nevada. Their
model, which was based on guidance proposed by the American Bar Association, states that a
person is only to be found ineligible to vote if there is “clear and convincing evidence that the
person lacks the mental capacity to vote because he or she cannot communicate, with or
without accommodations, a specific desire to participate in the voting process and includes the
finding in a court order.” This makes it significantly more difficult to disenfranchise people on
the basis of disability status. Strong lines of communication between the disability community
and key agencies also drive voter turnout. Colorado, for example, engages in a county-by-
county audit following each election to review accessibility standards; starting with the 2016
election, the Colorado secretary of state’s office began working closely with the state’s
protection and advocacy agency to choose the new accessible voting machines to roll out in
each county. In Nebraska, meanwhile, a close working relationship between the State
Independent Living Council and the secretary of state’s office is cited as the reason the state
has a 70 percent voter participation rate.

Champion Briefs 338

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

Many voters with a need for accessibility are blocked from the ballot
box.
Vasilogambros, Matt. “How Voters With Disabilities Are Blocked From The Ballot Box.” Pew
Research Center. February 01, 2018. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/02/01/how-voters-with-disabilities-are-blocked-from-the-
ballot-box>.
For decades, Kathy Hoell has struggled to vote. Poll workers have told the 62-year-old
Nebraskan, who uses a powered wheelchair and has a brain injury that causes her to speak in a
strained and raspy voice, that she isn’t smart enough to cast a ballot. They have led her to stairs
she couldn’t climb and prevented her from using an accessible voting machine because they
hadn’t powered it on. “Basically,” Hoell said, “I’m a second-class citizen.” The barriers Hoell has
faced are not unusual for the more than 35 million voting-age Americans with disabilities. As
many jurisdictions return to paper ballots to address cybersecurity concerns — nearly half of
Americans now vote on paper ballots, counted digitally or by optical scanners — such obstacles
are likely to get worse. Many people with disabilities cannot mark paper ballots without
assistance, so they rely on special voting machines that are equipped with earphones and other
modifications. But the return to paper ballots has made poll workers less comfortable with
operating machine-based systems, said Michelle Bishop, a voting rights advocate for the
National Disability Rights Network. Under increasing pressure to oversee a smooth, secure
election, untrained poll workers have discouraged the use of accessible voting machines,
leaving voters with disabilities behind. It’s a constant complaint from voters with disabilities
nationwide, Bishop said. In the last election, for example, a voter called her to report that a
machine was placed in the corner, turned off, with a flower wreath hung on it. “The message is:
You’re not wanted here,” Bishop said. “We get reports of poll workers discouraging their use.
They say, ‘I haven’t been well trained,’ ‘It’s intimidating to me,’ ‘We’ll set it to the side and get
through Election Day.’ “ Indeed, according to an October study by the Government
Accountability Office, nearly two-thirds of the 137 polling places inspected on Election Day
2016 had at least one impediment to people with disabilities. In the 2008 presidential election,
it was fewer than half. The GAO also reported that state inspections of voting accessibility had
fallen nationally over the same time. Among the infractions: The accessible voting machine
wasn’t set up and powered on, the earphones weren’t functioning, the voting system wasn’t
wheelchair-accessible, or the voting system didn’t provide the same privacy as standard voting
stations. Lack of access to proper voting machines, among several other issues, has led to a
decline in participation, according to a survey of voters in the 2016 election by Rutgers
University. Voter participation among people with disabilities has gone down over the past two
presidential elections — from 57.3 percent in 2008 to 56.8 percent in 2012 and 55.9 percent in
2016. Among non-disabled Americans, voter participation also dropped between 2008 and

Champion Briefs 339

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

2012 — from 64.5 to 62.5 percent, according to the Rutgers survey. But that percentage
changed little from 2012 to 2016. The Rutgers study also notes that many polling places have
physical barriers, such as steep ramps and poor path surfaces, which block people with
disabilities from voting. Political parties don’t target “get out the vote” efforts to people with
disabilities and many of them struggle to find transportation to polling places. Other factors
that contribute to the problem — such as a lack of training for poll workers, limited access to
registration materials, and insufficient resources for election officials — were laid out in a
September 2016 white paper from the Ruderman Family Foundation, a disability rights
advocacy organization. The proliferation of voter ID laws may compound the problem, since
people with disabilities are less likely to drive and to carry a photo ID. “We’re segregating in the
way we vote,” Bishop said. “Separate is not equal. That’s a lesson this country should have
already learned by now.”

Champion Briefs 340

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

Any voting assistance to compensate for a lack of cooperation steals

the idea of an independent ballot from many.
Vasilogambros, Matt. “How Voters With Disabilities Are Blocked From The Ballot Box.” Pew
Research Center. February 01, 2018. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/02/01/how-voters-with-disabilities-are-blocked-from-the-
ballot-box>.
In few places is this gap more visible than in West Virginia — a state with the highest
percentage of people with disabilities, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, and one of the
worst voter participation rates for people with disabilities. Just 46 percent of West Virginians
with disabilities who were eligible to vote participated in the 2016 election, worse than any
other state but Kentucky, at 42.5 percent, according to the Rutgers researchers. Gina Desmond,
an advocate for Disability Rights of West Virginia, said the lack of access has led many people
with disabilities to question their role in the democratic process. “It’s surprising how many
people don’t think they have the right to vote,” Desmond said. In a predominantly rural and
mountainous state, transportation options are limited, said Susan Given, the executive director
of Disability Rights of West Virginia. Polling places in the state’s 55 counties are spread out and
often located in outdated buildings that aren’t accessible to people with disabilities. People
with disabilities who can’t get into polling places often have to vote curbside with assistance
from a poll worker, Given said, robbing the voter of a private and independent ballot. The
organization also gets complaints that machines for voters with disabilities often don’t work or
are turned off, following a similar national pattern. Recently, Disability Rights of West Virginia
hired an advocate who will visit polling places this year to see whether they are accessible. The
organization also holds outreach events at high schools, psychiatric hospitals, homeless shelters
and service providers to explain the voting rights of people with disabilities. Voter participation
among West Virginians with disabilities did go up by 3 percentage points since the 2012
election. But, Desmond said, the state has a long way to go.

Champion Briefs 341

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

Colorado proves- rates of voting increased when booths became more

accessible.
Vasilogambros, Matt. “How Voters With Disabilities Are Blocked From The Ballot Box.” Pew
Research Center. February 01, 2018. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-
analysis/blogs/stateline/2018/02/01/how-voters-with-disabilities-are-blocked-from-the-
ballot-box>.
In Colorado, where 69 percent of registered voters with disabilities voted in 2016 — among the
highest rates in the country — advocates and state officials have taken numerous steps to make
voting accessible, according to Jennifer Levin, a senior attorney at Disability Law Colorado. In
the decade following the passage of the 2002 Help America Vote Act (HAVA), Disability Law
Colorado went to all 64 counties in the state, met with clerks, checked for accessibility barriers,
and used state funding to help polling places meet federal HAVA and Americans with
Disabilities Act standards. (Nationwide, physical barriers to voting places have steadily dropped
since 2000, according to the GAO.) Now after every election, the secretary of state releases a
county-by-county audit on whether localities are meeting standards for accessible polling
places. After the 2016 election, for example, Denver satisfied a majority of disability access
criteria, while El Paso County, home to Colorado Springs, met every one. Because of this
enforcement, Levin said, accessibility shortcomings in the state are rare. In 2015, her
organization again partnered with the secretary of state’s office to test five new voting
machines. After collecting data, officials settled on one machine that every county will use for
voters with disabilities. Now, voters can choose to use a paper ballot or an accessible machine
ballot. The state’s adoption of vote-by-mail and automatic voter registration for all voters also
has made it easier for people with disabilities to cast their ballots. Other states have taken
similar measures. Before the 2016 election, New Hampshire adopted a new tablet-based voting
system for the blind, while Rhode Island recently became the ninth state to enact automatic
voter registration — which eliminates the need for people with disabilities to submit paper
forms that are not accessible to them. Levin finds poll workers are still afraid of new
technology. “We get complaints where a person walks in and asks to use the machine, and a
worker says, ‘It doesn’t look like you need it,’ “ Levin said. “They were discouraged and
intimidated by it.” City officials in Washington, D.C., said they had poll workers ask every voter
whether they want to use a paper ballot or a machine, taking away any excuse for unplugged
machines or untrained workers. But several polling places still fall short, according to a 2016
survey by Disability Rights DC at University Legal Services, a nonprofit advocacy organization.
Some states are trying to bridge the access gap through legislation. In New York state, where
the voter participation rate among people with disabilities is 48.8 percent, Senate Democrats in
January introduced 13 voter-focused pieces of legislation. One bill would redesign paper ballots
to be more readable. Another, written by state Sen. Michael Gianaris, would allow the

Champion Briefs 342

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

distribution of voter registration forms at offices that provide services to people with
disabilities, while also allowing voters to change their precinct to one whose voting systems are
more accessible.

Champion Briefs 343

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

The CP doesn't infringe on rights like the affirmative world does.

Derfner, Armand. “Voting Is Speech.” Yale Law Journal. June, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://ylpr.yale.edu/sites/default/files/YLPR/derfner_hebert_final_copy.pdf>.
Ignoring the reality that voting is “expressive communication” contrasts with the strong First
Amendment protections of money in politics. Isn’t signing an absentee ballot and putting the
stamped envelope in the mailbox as expressive as signing a check to a candidate or political
committee and putting the stamped envelope in the mailbox? Isn’t signing a poll list at the
precinct and pulling levers next to your preferred candidates as much or more an expression of
political view than funding an advertisement on a candidate’s behalf? The honored treatment
of the right to spend money in politics is, in fact, derived from the right of the voter. The
Supreme Court stated in the seminal First Amendment “money is speech” case that “[i]n a
republic where the people are sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed choices
among candidates for office is essential.”114 Voters take the information that is put into the
marketplace of ideas and ultimately make a decision about which view to adopt and which
candidate or political party best represents it. The voter then expresses that decision by
actually going to the polling place, entering the voting booth, and selecting the candidate of his
or her choice. As Justice Holmes wrote of the First Amendment, the “best test of truth is the
power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market,”115 and there
can be no better “test” than the canvass of votes cast by voters. As the Supreme Court said in
Buckley v. Valeo, the “central purpose” of the First Amendment is to ensure that “healthy
representative democracy [can] flourish.”116 That is what votes are for. But while the right to
vote has been languishing, the Supreme Court has been expanding the scope of the First
Amendment, protecting far-reaching forms of speech such as commercial advertising,117 flag
burning,118 forms of hate speech,119 and, perhaps most remotely, the right of insurance
companies to buy prescription data from drug stores

Champion Briefs 344

NEG: Accessibility CP Sept/Oct 2020

CV doesn't address core problems with a lack of voting.

Fund, John. “Mr. President, We Have A Civil Right Not To Vote.” National Review. March 19,
2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/03/mr-president-
we-have-civil-right-not-vote-john-fund/>.
When it comes to voting, only eleven nations in the world actually enforce laws requiring
people to vote. Several nations have tried them and dropped the idea, including Chile, Fiji, and
Italy, which rescinded the policy in 1993. “There was finally a consensus that it was a basic
infringement of freedom,” says Antonio Martino, a former Italian foreign minister. “Forcing
people to vote violates their freedom of speech, because the freedom to speak includes the
right not to speak.” Indeed, not voting can send a message just as much as voting. If times are
good and major parties are in broad agreement on major issues, a low voter turnout can be a
sign of a healthy democracy. Similarly, in times of discontent when major parties are not
offering up clear and compelling alternatives, non-voting signals that the legitimacy of the
process is being questioned. President Obama gave his real motivation away during his
Cleveland riff by noting that Democrats stayed home in last November’s election, in which his
party was crushed. It won’t surprise you that his motivation is political. Recall his famous post-
election comment that he also heard the voices of Americans who didn’t vote. This week the
president said “the people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re
skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. We should want to get
them into the polls.” But rather than blame himself or his party for the failure to inspire his
ostensible supporters to vote, the president is turning to the idea of dragooning them to the
ballot box. The columnist George Will once said: “Really up-to-date liberals do not care what
people do, as long as it is compulsory.” President Obama has joined their ranks. Nor is he alone.
Oregon governor Kate Brown has just signed into law a requirement that everyone in the state
be automatically registered to vote based on information the Department of Motor Vehicles
has in its electronic files. Liberals justify such actions by claiming that people aren’t voting
because they don’t have enough chances to register to vote. But the U.S. Census Bureau
disagrees.

Champion Briefs 345

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot

This topicality argument posits that making voting compulsory requires not only
mandatory turnout, but also that people actually choose a candidate (even a “none-of-the-above”
option). Compulsory voting systems that allow for blank or spoiled ballots are not topical, as
they do not expect the voter to make a choice. This T argument comes down less to a question of
the exact meaning of the words “voting” or “compulsory” as the way that they’re written into the
resolution. “Compulsory voting” may be a turn-of-phrase that truthfully means “mandatory
attendance,” because the secret ballot – a cornerstone of democratic elections – means states
can’t enforce a requirement for valid ballots. But the resolution would have said “Democracies
ought to adopt compulsory voting for their elections” if that were the question; instead, it says
voting – which, in common usage, means the choice of a candidate – should be compulsory. The
cards in the brief explain carefully that systems typically called “compulsory voting” do not
actually make voting compulsory, yet that is what the resolution asks us to consider doing. The
standards would be precision (because compulsory voting is a misnomer) and ground (allowing
blank or spoiled ballots means that there’s no libertarianism/Kant NCs).
There are three weaknesses to this argument. First, virtually all of the literature is about
“compulsory voting,” and all authors agree that this really means mandatory attendance. There
is no advocate in the topic literature who thinks we should abolish the secret ballot and force
voters to pick a candidate. Second, the neg still has ground, such as utilitarian and kritikal
arguments, or an autonomy link about forcing conscientious objectors to show up at the polls
(which violates their prerogative for staying home/engaging in radical movements). And third,
the last time this topic was debated (Sept-Oct 2013), we had fair and educational debates
about mandatory turnout, so it’s not impossible for the neg to win debates or get precise
knowledge.

Champion Briefs 346

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory ballot casting is not compulsory voting -- the latter phrase

is a misnomer, when the resolution asks if voting should be required.
Brennan, Jason. “Polluting The Polls: When Citizens Should Not Vote.” Australasian Journal of
Philosophy. December, 2009. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.brown.edu/Research/ppw/files/Polluting%20the%20Polls.pdf>.
Some countries, such as Australia and Belgium, have compulsory voting. (In Australia and many
others with such laws, citizens are required to show up at the polls, but nothing stops them
from leaving the ballot blank or scribbling on the ballot. So, it is more accurate to say Australia
has compulsory ballot casting rather than compulsory voting.) Compulsory voting introduces a
number of complications I will not examine at length here, though this paper bears on the
justice of compulsory voting laws. (If, empirically, compulsory voting laws lead to widespread
bad voting, this is a reason to dispense with such laws.) Some questions: Do compulsory voting
laws tend to induce better voting from citizens? Are compulsory voting laws unjust, for
example, on grounds that they violate liberty? Even if such laws are unjust, might citizens have
an obligation to obey them once they have been enacted? If citizens should obey such laws
(and are literally required to vote, rather than to cast a possibly blank or spoiled ballot), is this
obligation stronger than the obligation not to vote badly that I describe in this paper? Even if
the obligation not to vote badly is stronger than any obligation to obey compulsory voting laws,
might citizens be excused from the obligation not to vote badly if they are punished when they
abstain?

Champion Briefs 347

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting means requiring all eligible voters to vote by law.

, Harvard Law Review. “The Case For Compulsory Voting In The United States.” Harvard Law
Review Notes, vol. 121. 2007. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://cdn.harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/compulsory_voting.pdf>.
One solution to the problem of low voter turnout is to require all eligible voters to vote by law.
Approximately twenty-four nations have some kind of compulsory voting law, representing 17%
of the world’s democratic nations.9 The effect of compulsory voting laws on voter turnout is
substantial. Multivariate statistical analyses have shown that compulsory voting laws raise
voter turnout by seven to sixteen percentage points.10 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.11

Champion Briefs 348

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting only requires that voters cast ballots, not that they
have to choose a candidate.
Shineman, Victoria. “More On Mandatory Voting, Which Does *Not* Necessarily Make
Electorate Less Informed.” The American Prospect. November 28, 2010. Web. August
17, 2020. <https://prospect.org/article/mandatory-voting-not-necessarily-make-
electorate-less-informed/>.
1. Compulsory Voting as Compulsory Balloting The names “mandatory voting” and “compulsory
voting” (CV) are both misleading. Modern democracies using this voting system do not force all
citizens to vote, nor do they penalize citizens who cast invalid ballots. Rather than combining
voting as a single stage, a more accurate model of voter behavior recognizes that balloting and
voting are 2 different decisions. Citizens first choose whether to acquire a ballot (including all
the costs of registration, transportation, and time spent traveling to the polling place) and then,
only if the citizen chose to acquire a ballot, choose whether to mark a valid vote for each
contest on that ballot. The widespread existence of secret ballots prevents democratic
governments from monitoring if (and how) a person marked their ballot. Therefore, non-
participation penalties are attached to the balloting stage, not the voting stage. Citizens are
therefore able to submit a blank, spoiled, or invalid ballot without penalty. Therefore, a better
name for the voting system currently practiced in 31 democracies is Compulsory Balloting (CB).
CB can be defined as a penalty for not casting a ballot, which allows citizens to ballot and
abstain without penalty.

Champion Briefs 349

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

”Vote” means express one's views.

, Merriam-Webster. ““Vote”.” Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/vote>.
vote verb \ ˈvōt \ voted; voting Definition of vote (Entry 1 of 2) intransitive verb 1: to express
one's views in response to a poll especially : to exercise a political franchise 2: to express an
opinion consumers … vote with their dollars — Lucia Mouat

Champion Briefs 350

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting means you have to choose a candidate or party---

the option for blank ballots makes the aff not topical.
, American Academy Of Arts And Sciences. “Strategy 2: Empowering Voters.” Our Common
Purpose: Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship. 2020. Web. August 17,
2020.
<https://www.amacad.org/ourcommonpurpose/report/section/7#footnote46_pn4sjzt>.
Many Americans may initially see this recommendation as “un-American” or “undemocratic.”
This recommendation is not for compulsory voting for any candidate or party. Indeed, the
option to cast a blank ballot or vote for “none of the above” is central to this recommendation.
The requirement to participate at the polls is on par with the requirement to fulfill the call to
jury service, and is equally American and democratic.

Champion Briefs 351

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

To be topical, the aff has to establish a law that makes a valid vote
compulsory. The secret ballot means this can't be fully enforced, but
that doesn't let the aff argue strictly for compulsory turnout.
Saunders, Ben. “Increasing Turnout: A Compelling Case?.” Politics 30(1), 70-77. 2010. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9256.2009.01368.x>.
Anyway, it is disingenuous of supporters of compulsory turnout to rely on the contingent
practice of secret ballots to protect freedom of conscience (e.g. Birch, 2009, p. 22 fn.1). While it
is true that voting is private in most national democracies, it is not impossible for it to be public
– as in the show of hands at a town meeting – and some, such as J.S. Mill, have advocated such
practices (see Lever, 2007). I suspect that those who currently favour compulsory turnout,
under conditions of the secret ballot, would be divided if asked to choose between compelling
actual voting and mere attendance at the polls. The Australian Electoral Commission certainly
holds that it is in principle the citizen’s legal duty to cast a valid vote, albeit that this cannot be
strictly enforced because of the secret ballot, and this has been confirmed in a number of court
decisions (Evans, 2006, p. 4). Therefore, were the secret ballot repealed (without changing
existing compulsion laws), it would be willing to enforce what even many advocates of
compulsory turnout acknowledge to be a violation of individual freedom of conscience. Many
who defend compulsion in the literature refuse to say explicitly whether they share the
Australian Electoral Commission’s view that, ideally, voting ought to be compulsory, but
enforcing turnout is the best we can do given the secret ballot (in which case perhaps we
should question that institution), or hold that only turnout ought to be mandatory, even if we
were able to enforce voting. As has been noted, the former seems to countenance possible
violations of individual freedom of conscience; yet the latter position is puzzling, because it is
unclear why we ought to force someone to attend the polls only to abstain. Mere turnout does
nothing for the democratic values lauded by advocates of compulsion.

Champion Briefs 352

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

The resolution says “voting ought to be compulsory,” not “compulsory

voting.” In other words, they cannot rely on the term of art where
compulsory voting “really means” compulsory turnout. They must
require a valid vote, even if it can't always be enforced because of the
secret ballot.
Saunders, Ben. “A Further Defence Of The Right Not To Vote.” Res Publica 24: 93-108. 2018.
Web. August 17, 2020. <A Further Defence of the Right Not to Vote>.
First, some compulsory turnout laws, including Australian law, do require citizens to cast valid
votes (Pringle 2012). Though this law may not be enforced, or even enforceable where there is
a secret ballot,4 such laws still have a symbolic effect (Gusfield 1967, pp. 176–178). A law
prohibiting a certain religion would be an objectionable violation of religious freedom, even if
not enforced. Similarly, a law that requires citizens to vote can hardly be said to respect their
right not to, simply because it is not enforced. To be sure, the advocate of compulsion need not
defend compulsory voting laws as actually implemented in Australia.5 They might concede that
such laws are problematic, because they violate a right to abstain, but still hold that it would be
permissible for the law to require attendance at the polls (Engelen 2009). This, however, runs
into a second problem.

Champion Briefs 353

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory turnout is relevantly different from compulsory voting.

Keaney, Emily. “A Citizen's Duty: Voter Inequality And The Case For Compulsory Turnout.” IPPR.
2006. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.ippr.org/files/ecomm/files/a_citizens_duty.pdf>.
Though compulsory turnout is often known as ‘compulsory voting’, this is a misnomer.
Countries with this measure do not oblige people to vote for a party or candidate, merely to
turn up at a polling station or fill in a postal ballot form. Some countries give voters the
opportunity to abstain formally, by including a ‘none of the above’ option on the ballot.

Champion Briefs 354

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory turnout is not compulsory voting.

Lever, Annabelle. “Democratic Choice, Legitimacy And The Case Against Compulsory Voting.”
June, 2009. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://spire.sciencespo.fr/hdl:/2441/3isuhh21jk8e8b63i58vmg6ihm/resources/2009-
lever-democratic-choice-legitimacy-and-the-case-against-compulsory-voting.pdf>.
As a general matter, this means something like ticking your name off an electoral role and then
going home without voting. This used to happen in the Netherlands, before they abandoned
compulsory voting in the 1970s. There is no such provision in Australia or many of the countries
that actually make voting legally compulsory. How compulsory turnout is meant to increase the
legitimacy of a government escapes me; nor do I see how it supports faith in democracy.
Compulsory turnout is not easier to justify than compulsory voting, it is actually harder to
justify. The case for compulsory turnout is parasitic on arguments for compulsory voting, but
then needs an explanation for why some people should be required to ‘turnout’, and some
explanation of whether this is meant to supplement or replace legal exemptions for
conscientious objection.

Champion Briefs 355

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting means everyone has to cast a vote.

Bargmann, Jaqueline. “Compulsory Voting: The Start Of Our New Series.” Polyas. June 12, 2016.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.polyas.de/blog/en/increasing-voter-
turnout/compulsory-voting-start-of-new-series>.
Why compulsory voting is even discussed Yet first, a definition: what does compulsory voting
mean? It obliges all eligible voters to cast their vote. If they do not do their electoral duty,
citizens can be punished. The punishments vary in each country. There are states where
compulsory voting is more of a symbolic nature. Still, there are also nations where repeated
non-voting is punished. In Turkey a fine has to be paid, in Bolivia, the bank accounts will be
frozen and in Australia, even imprisonment is an option.

Champion Briefs 356

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

In the literature, Australia's model is understood to have “made

voting compulsory.”.
Glick, Deborah. “An Act To Amend The Election Law, In Relation To Establishing Compulsory
Voting In This State.” New York State Assembly. March 16, 2017. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://nyassembly.gov/leg/?default_fld=%25E2%258B%259Avideo=&bn=A06730&ter
m=2017&Summary=Y&Actions=Y&Committee%2526nbspVotes=Y&Memo=Y&Text=Y>.
Since the early 1900s, Australia responded to lower voter turnout by making voting
compulsory. Since the law was passed, the country has seen more than 90% of voting eligible
Australians cast a ballot. Mandatory voting would drastically increase civic participation and
transform the political arena by making politicians more reflective of the constituents that
elected them.

Champion Briefs 357

NEG: Topicality: Must Cast Ballot Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory turnout is not compulsory voting --- blank ballots aren't

topical because they weaken the requirement that citizens vote.
Southern Alberta Council Of Public Affairs. “Dialogues On Democracy: Should Voting Be
Compulsory?.” February 10, 2011. Web. August 17, 2020.
<http://www.chumirethicsfoundation.ca/files/pdf/BackgrounderCompulsoryVotingLeth
bridge20110210.pdf >.
Compulsory voting, also called mandatory voting, is the legal requirement that electors vote in
elections. Requirements are found in electoral laws or national constitutions, may or may not
be enforced, and can be differentially applied by age group. For example all citizens 21 years
and older are required to vote in Bolivia, but those 18-20 are only required to vote if they are
married. Generally, voting is required of full citizens, but not of temporary residents. Why does
compulsory voting exist? In some countries, voting is an obligation or legal responsibility.
Mandatory voting is promoted as a means of addressing low voter turnout and ensuring
election results reflect the will of the majority. In Australia, which has an established tradition
of compulsory voting, recent polls show ¾ of the population supports the practice. In Canada,
voting is a right which a citizen can choose to exercise or not. Interesting Facts • Voting was
voluntary in ancient Athens, though a 5th century BC play had non-voters rounded up with a
red-stained rope and fined. • There are instances of a “voluntary” vote being enforced in
practice, such as in the Soviet Union. • Some countries have “compulsory turnout”, requiring
voters to show up at the polling station on voting day but not necessarily to cast a ballot.

Champion Briefs 358

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

NEG: Baudrillard Kritik

This argument, on the surface level, is quite simple. The argument is that the 1AC,
through their literal performance, takes part in a corrupt system of politics. Baudrillard’s
theory, however, ends up getting a lot more complex, though that is what debaters need to
know to understand the argument at a basic level. Before reading this argument, more than any
others, debaters should thoroughly read through each piece of evidence, as well as some of the
source material to ensure that they understand the argument being presented.
The framework to use with this argument is included within the K. The alternative is the
only way to solve. This is something but must be reiterated throughout the debate. If the
affirmative debater wins any type of permutation, it is game over for the K.
This is a long argument, and not every single piece of evidence is going to apply to every
single aff. In order to make this argument as strategic as possible, debaters are encouraged to
add and remove links and impacts as needed. Included are nearly ten links and around five
impacts. Debaters should mix and match these to keep their opponents on their toes. The
alternative is integral to the K and it’s important to understand it. The Robinson evidence
indicates that the participants of the debate round should act out in methods of implosion and
overloading rather than attempt meaningful communication. This means that the ballot should
be a frustration and discontentment with the system of debate.
Answering Baudrillard can be very easy or it can be very hard. To answer this K
meaningfully, debaters should first understand it, which means reading through it. Included are
five indicts of Baudrillard and this strategy in debate. It is not enough to just indict an argument,
it is also necessary to actually line-by-line answer it. First is to answer the links, then answer the
alternative. If debaters have time, then they should also attempt to answer the impacts and
beat out the framing of the 1NC.
Before reading this argument, debaters should have a thorough understanding of the
ideas being presented as well as the historical context within which they first appeared. It is
important to read Andrew Robinson’s series on Baudrillard in Ceasefire Magazine as well as
Simulacra and Simulation by Jean Baudrillard himself.

Champion Briefs 359

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

They attempt to simulate politics with their symbolic representation

but their simulated model actually precedes reality – the lie of the aff
is the same as lie of Disneyland – the representation pretends that
there is even a real world that it is the representation of when, in
reality, the world outside and Disneyland itself are mirror illusions
caused by the same simulation – the aff assumes that political
communication is good, instead we should learn to shut up about it
and stop participating in the endless reality TV talk show.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Dust Breeding.” 2001. Web. August 17, 2020.
<http://www.egs.edu/faculty/jean-baudrillard/articles/dust-breeding/>.
Our reality has become experimental. Without destiny, modern man is left with an endless
experimentation of himself. Let's take two recent examples. The first one, the Loft Story show,
is a media illusion of live reality. The second one, the case of Catherine Millet’s book, is a
phantasmatic illusion of live sex. The Loft show has become a universal concept: a human
amusement park combined with a ghetto, solitary confinement (huisclos), and an Angel of
Death. The idea is to use voluntary seclusion as a laboratory for synthetic conviviality, for a
telegenetically modified society. In this space, where everything is meant to be seen (as in “Big
Brother”, other reality-TV shows, etc.), we realize that there is nothing left to see. It becomes a
mirror of dullness, of nothingness, on which the disappearance of the other is blatantly
reflected (even though the show alleges different objectives). It also reveals the possibility that
human beings are fundamentally not social. This space becomes the equivalent of a “ready-
made” just-as-is (telle quelle) transposition of an “everyday life” that has already been trumped
by all dominant models. It is a synthetic banality, fabricated in closed circuits and supervised by
a monitoring screen. In this sense, the artificial microcosm of the Loft Story is similar to
Disneyland which gives the illusion of a real world, a world out-there, whereas both Disney's
world and the world outside of it are mirror images of one another. All of the United States is
(in) Disneyland. And we, in France, are all inside the Loft. No need to enter reality’s virtual
reproduction. We are already in it. The televisual universe is merely a holographic detail of the
global reality. Even in our most mundane activities we are deep into experimental reality. And
this explains our fascination with immersion and spontaneous interactivity. Does it mean that it
is all pornographic voyeurism? Not at all. Sex is everywhere else to be found, but that's not
what people want. What people deeply desire is a spectacle of banality. This spectacle of
banality is today's true pornography and obscenity. It is the obscene spectacle of nullity
(nullité), insignificance, and platitude. This stands as the complete opposite of the theater of

Champion Briefs 360

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

cruelty. But perhaps there is still a form of cruelty, at least a virtual one, attached to such a
banality. At a time when television and the media in general are less and less capable of
accounting for (rendre compte) the world's (unbearable) events, they rediscover daily life. They
discover existential banality as the deadliest event, as the most violent piece of information:
the very location of the perfect crime. Existential banality is the perfect crime. And people are
fascinated (but terrified at the same time) by this indifferent “nothing-to-say” or “nothing-to-
do,” by the indifference of their own lives. Contemplating the Perfect Crime --banality as the
latest form of fatality-- has become a genuine Olympic contest, the latest version of extreme
sports. What makes it worse is the fact that the public is mobilized as the judge of all this. The
public has become Big Brother. We are well beyond panopticism, beyond visibility as a source
of power and control. It is no longer a matter of making things visible to the external eye. It is
rather a question of making things transparent to themselves, through the diffusion of control
into the masses, a mode of control which by the same token erases the marks of the system.
Thus, the audience is involved in a gigantic exercise of negative counter-transference (contre-
transfert), and this is once again where the dizzying attraction of this kind of spectacle comes
from. In fact, all this corresponds to the inalienable right or desire to be nothing and to be
regarded as such. There are two ways to disappear. Either you demand not to be seen (the
current issue with image rights); or you turn to the maddening exhibitionist display of your
insignificance. You make yourself insignificant in order to be seen as such. This is the ultimate
protection against the need to exist and the duty to be oneself. But this situation also creates
the contradictory demand to simultaneously not be seen and to be perpetually visible.
Everyone must have it both ways. No ethic or law can solve this dilemma. There is no possibility
to adjudicate between the unconditional right to see and the unconditional right not to be
seen. Complete information is a basic human rights requirement. And this necessity brings with
it the idea of forced visibility, including the right to be over-exposed by the media. Foucault
used to refer to self-expression as the ultimate form of confession. Keeping no secret. Speaking,
talking, endlessly communicating. This is a form of violence which targets the singular being and
his secrecy. It is also a form of violence against language. In this mode of communicability,
language loses its originality. Language simply becomes a medium, an operator of visibility. It
has lost its symbolic and ironic qualities, those which make language more important than what
it conveys. The worst part of this obscene and indecent visibility is the forced enrollment, the
automatic complicity of the spectator who has been blackmailed into participating. The obvious
goal of this kind of operation is to enslave the victims. But the victims are quite willing. They are
rejoicing at the pain and the shame they suffer. Everybody must abide by society's fundamental
logic: interactive exclusion. Interactive exclusion, what could be better! Let’s all agree on it and
practice it with enthusiasm! If everything ends with visibility (which, similar to the concept of
heat in the theory of energy, is the most degraded form of existence), the point is still to make
such a loss of symbolic space and such an extreme disenchantment with life an object of
contemplation, of sidereal observation (sidération), and of perverse desire. “While humanity
was once according to Homer an object of contemplation for the Gods, it has now become a
contemplation of itself. Its own alienation has reached such a degree that humanity’s own
destruction becomes a first rate aesthetic sensation” (Walter Benjamin). Everywhere the
experimental takes over the real and the imaginary. Everywhere, principles of scientific

Champion Briefs 361

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

evidence and verification are introduced. Under the scalpel of the camera, and without
recourse to any symbolic language or context, we are vivisecting and dissecting social relations.
The case of Catherine Millet is another example of experimental reality, another type of vivi-
sexion. In her book, the sexual imaginary is blown away. All that’s left is a principle of unlimited
verification of sexual operations. It is a mechanism which is no longer sexual. A double
misinterpretation is taking place. The idea of sexuality is turned into the ultimate reference.
Whether it is repressed or it is displayed, sexuality is at best nothing more than a hypothesis. It
is incorrect to take a hypothesis for a truth or a solid reference. It may well be that the sexual
hypothesis is nothing more than a fantasy. In any case, it is through its repression that sexuality
has gained such a strange power of attraction. Once it is played out, sexuality loses its
postulated quality. Hence, it is absurd and misplaced to act it out and to systematically call for
sexual “liberation.” One never liberates a hypothesis. And how sad is the idea of demonstrating
sexuality through the sexual act! As if displacements, deviations, transfers, and metaphors had
nothing to do with sex. Everything is in the filter of seduction, in détournement. Not the
seduction in sex and desire, but the seduction of playing with sex and desire (le jeu avec the
sexe et le désir). This is exactly what makes impossible the idea of “live sex.” The concepts of
live death or live news are just as naively naturalist. They are all linked to the pretentious claim
that everything can happen in the real world, that everything craves to find its place inside an
all encompassing reality. After all, this is the essence of power too: “The corruption of power is
to inscribe into reality what was only found in dreams.”

Champion Briefs 362

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

This debate round is decay upon which the cultural Left attempts to
reinject meaning onto an already dying institution under the pretense
that democratic deliberation and participation are still possible.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra And Simulation: The Spiraling Cadaver.” 1981. Web. August 17,
2020.
The university is in ruins: nonfunctional in the social arenas of the market and employment,
lacking cultural substance or an end purpose of knowledge. Strictly speaking, there is no longer
even any power: it is also in ruins. Whence the impossibility of the return of the fires of 1968: of
the return of putting in question knowledge versus power itself - the explosive contradiction of
knowledge and power (or the revelation of their collusion, which comes to the same thing) in
the university, and, at the same time, through symbolic (rather than political) contagion in the
whole institutional and social order. Why sociologists? marked this shift: the impasse of
knowledge, the vertigo of nonknowledge (that is to say at once the absurdity and the
impossibility of accumulating value in the order of knowledge) turns like an absolute weapon
against power itself, in order to dismantle it according to the same vertiginous scenario of
dispossession. This is the May 1968 effect. Today it cannot be achieved since power itself, after
knowledge, has taken off, has become ungraspable - has dispossessed itself. In a now uncertain
institution, without knowledge content, without a power structure (except for an archaic
feudalism that turns a simulacrum of a machine whose destiny escapes it and whose survival is
as artificial as that of barracks and theaters), offensive irruption is impossible. Only what
precipitates rotting, by accentuating the parodic, simulacral side of dying games of knowledge
and power, has meaning. A strike has exactly the opposite effect. It regenerates the ideal of a
possible university: the fiction of an ascension on everyone's part to a culture that is
unlocatable, and that no longer has meaning. This ideal is substituted for the operation of the
university as its critical alternative, as its therapy. This fiction still dreams of a permanency and
democracy of knowledge. Besides, everywhere today the Left plays this role: it is the justice of
the Left that reinjects an idea of justice, the necessity of logic and social morals into a rotten
apparatus that is coming undone, which is losing all conscience of its legitimacy and renounces
functioning almost of its own volition. It is the Left that secrets and desperately reproduces
power, because it wants power, and therefore the Left believes in it and revives it precisely
where the system puts an end to it. The system puts an end one by one to all its axioms, to all
its institutions, and realizes one by one all the objectives of the historical and revolutionary Left
that sees itself constrained to revive the wheels of capital in order to lay seige to them one day:
from private property to the small business, from the army to national grandeur, from puritan
morality to petit bourgeois culture, justice at the university - everything that is disappearing,
that the system itself, in its atrocity, certainly, but also in its irreversible impulse, has liquidated,
must be conserved. Whence the paradoxical but necessary inversion of all the terms of political
analysis. Power (or what takes its place) no longer believes in the university. It knows
fundamentally that it is only a zone for the shelter and surveillance of a whole class of a certain

Champion Briefs 363

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

age, it therefore has only to select - it will find its elite elsewhere, or by other means. Diplomas
are worthless: why would it refuse to award them, in any case it is ready to award them to
everybody; why this provocative politics, if not in order to crystallize energies on a fictive stake
(selection, work, diplomas, etc.), on an already dead and rotting referential? By rotting, the
university can still do a lot of damage (rotting is a symbolic mechanism not political but
symbolic, therefore subversive for us). But for this to be the case it is necessary to start with
this very rotting, and not to dream of resurrection. It is necessary to transform this rotting into
a violent process, into violent death, through mockery and defiance, through a multiplied
simulation that would offer the ritual of the death of the university as a model of
decomposition to the whole of society, a contagious model of the disaffection of a whole social
structure, where death would finally make its ravages, which the strike tries desperately to
avert, in complicity with the system, but succeeds, on top of it all, only in transforming the
university into a slow death, a delay that is not even the possible site of a subversion, of an
offensive reversion. That is what the events of May 1968 produced. At a less advanced point in
the process of the liquefaction of the university and of culture, the students, far from wishing to
save the furniture (revive the lost object, in an ideal mode), retorted by confronting power with
the challenge of the total, immediate death of the institution, the challenge of a
deterritorialization even more intense than the one that came from the system, and by
summoning power to respond to this total derailment of the institution of knowledge, to this
total lack of a need to gather in a given place, this death desired in the end - not the crisis of the
university, that is not a challenge, on the contrary, it is the game of the system, but the death of
the university - to that challenge, power has not been able to respond, except by its own
dissolution in return (only for a moment maybe, but we saw it).

Champion Briefs 364

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

They are like Watergate, a façade that attempts to reinject morality

into the political in order to conceal the fact that the political is
irredeemably corrupt. The system manufactures opposition to
simulate deliberative democracy and progressivism, like a cop
masquerading as a Marxist revolutionary.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra And Simulation: Political Incarceration.” 1981. Web. August 17,
2020.
Watergate. The same scenario as in Disneyland (effect of the imaginary concealing that reality
no more exists outside than inside the limits of the artificial perimeter): here the scandal effect
hiding that there is no difference between the facts and their denunciation (identical methods
on the part of the CIA and of the Washington Post journalists). Same operation, tending to
regenerate through scandal a moral and political principle, through the imaginary, a sinking
reality principle. The denunciation of scandal is always an homage to the law. And Watergate in
particular succeeded in imposing the idea that Watergate was a scandal - in this sense it was a
prodigious operation of intoxication. A large dose of political morality reinjected on a world
scale. One could say along with Bourdieu: “The essence of every relation of force is to
dissimulate itself as such and to acquire all its force only because it dissimulates itself as such,”
understood as follows: capital, immoral and without scruples, can only function behind a moral
superstructure, and whoever revives this public morality (through indignation, denunciation,
etc.) works spontaneously for the order of capital. This is what the journalists of the
Washington Post did. But this would be nothing but the formula of ideology, and when
Bourdieu states it, he takes the “relation of force” for the truth of capitalist domination, and he
himself denounces this relation of force as scandal - he is thus in the same deterministic and
moralistic position as the Washington Post journalists are. He does the same work of purging
and reviving moral order, an order of truth in which the veritable symbolic violence of the social
order is engendered, well beyond all the relations of force, which are only its shifting and
indifferent configuration in the moral and political consciences of men. All that capital asks of
us is to receive it as rational or to combat it in the name of rationality, to receive it as moral or
to combat it in the name of morality. Because these are the same, which can be thought of in
another way: formerly one worked to dissimulate scandal - today one works to conceal that
there is none. Watergate is not a scandal, this is what must be said at all costs, because it is
what everyone is busy concealing, this dissimulation masking a strengthening of morality, of a
moral panic as one approaches the primitive (mise en) scène of capital: its instantaneous
cruelty, its incomprehensible ferocity, its fundamental immorality - that is what is scandalous,
unacceptable to the system of moral and economic equivalence that is the axiom of leftist
thought, from the theories of the Enlightenment up to Communism. One imputes this thinking
to the contract of capital, but it doesn't give a damn - it is a monstrous unprincipled enterprise,

Champion Briefs 365

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

nothing more. It is “enlightened” thought that seeks to control it by imposing rules on it. And all
the recrimination that replaces revolutionary thought today comes back to incriminate capital
for not following the rules of the game. “Power is unjust, its justice is a class justice, capital
exploits us, etc.” - as if capital were linked by a contract to the society it rules. It is the Left that
holds out the mirror of equivalence to capital hoping that it will comply, comply with this
phantasmagoria of the social contract and fulfill its obligations to the whole of society (by the
same token, no need for revolution: it suffices that capital accommodate itself to the rational
formula of exchange). Capital, in fact, was never linked by a contract to the society that it
dominates. It is a sorcery of social relations, it is a challenge to society, and it must be
responded to as such. It is not a scandal to be denounced according to moral or economic
rationality, but a challenge to take up according to symbolic law.

Champion Briefs 366

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

The legal education they create is utterly ineffectual and reinvests

fidelity in the Law – only a prior rejection of that faith can resolve
their impacts.
Balkin, Jack. “Agreements With Hell And Other Objects Of Our Faith -- Part II.” 1998. Web.
August 17, 2020. <http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/jbalkin/articles/agrhell2.htm/>.
I emphasize this point because we might think that one answer to the problem of constitutional
evil is to take constitutional idealism seriously: By discussing and arguing about the Constitution
among ourselves, legal academics can contribute to the constitutional tradition and change its
trajectory. We can be the masters of our own constitutional destiny.(51) This solution to the
problem of constitutional evil is appealing because it envisions legal academics as having a
significant effect on the Constitution. By writing about the importance of justice in
constitutional interpretation, by engaging in an ongoing conversation with others about the
meaning of the Constitution, they can actually make the Constitution more just. Yet this is a
fool's errand for most of the law professors who write and think daily about the Constitution. It
is a confusion of their role with the role of the Supreme Court Justice.(52) Even if participating
in arguments about the Constitution is a possible solution to the problem of constitutional faith
for Justice Story, it is not a possible solution for the vast majority of American law professors,
or, indeed, the vast majority of American citizens. The articulation of constitutional ideals by
different parties may look grammatically identical but its social meaning and social effect is
quite different.(53) The construction of constitutional systems by the average law professor at
the average American law school has only a minuscule effect on the direction of the
Constitution's meaning. For them, as for most Americans, constructing a Shadow Constitution is
shadow boxing. It does not avoid the real problems of constitutional faith. Justice Story's faith
in the Constitution is importantly different precisely because he is able to turn the Constitution
to the path of what he regards as just. Of course, the very fact that Story was presented with a
case like Prigg shows that even Supreme Court Justices have limited control over events that
affect the Constitution's meaning. And in any case, he does not act alone - he must convince
four of his other colleagues. But these limitations on Justice Story simply support the larger
point I wish to make: To have faith in the Constitution is to have faith in an ongoing set of
institutions whose meaning the individual will not be able to control. Most of us participate
only in the great mass of public opinion that eventually affects the meaning and direction of the
Constitution; our views are like a drop of water in a great ocean. We cannot mold the object of
our faith to our will; its eventual trajectory is largely out of our hands. And what, then, if our
constitutional faith is shaken? What if we come to believe that fidelity to the Constitution will
not eventually achieve social justice, but that it will, on the contrary, preserve and even expand
pervasive social injustices? It would be like discovering that the God we worshiped was not in
fact good but was indifferent or even evil; that He did not care about us or about our well being
and might be actively hostile to us. Should we have faith in such a God at that point? Should we
even come to doubt His existence? It is no accident that one of the most difficult arguments put

Champion Briefs 367

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

forward by atheists against the existence of God is the Argument from Evil. Explaining the
existence of evil, and constructing theodicies, has been a constant task for generations of
theologians.(54) Of course, there is no question of not believing in the existence of the
Constitution. But we might well doubt whether our Constitution deserves our fidelity, just as
we might come to wonder whether the god we thought we were worshipping was actually a
demon.

Champion Briefs 368

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy is nothing other than the right everything has to its own
special place within a museum that’s already dead. This is a violence
of neutralization; a plastic surgery of the political; an inclusion unto
death where all conflict is cryogenically frozen.
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Illusion Of The End.” 1994. Web. August 17, 2020.
There is, moreover, a paradox of Western societies opposite and equivalent to that of
communism: though they present all the signs of more developed and open societies, at the
same time they have one eye on the past as though it were a void they have created behind
them, while absorbing the future. It is like the story of the lorry and the hole: some workers dig
a hole and load it on to a lorry, but when they hit a bump in the road the hole falls off and,
reversing, the lorry falls into the hole. We are the lorry and the hole: we are weighed down by a
hole in our memories, weighed down by the retrospective emptiness of our history, to the
point that our societies do not even know whether they are heading towards the future. They
are riding the surf of their present, problematic wealth. Beneath their apparent mobility and
acceleration, they have come to a stop in their hearts and their aims. That is, indeed, why they
are accelerating, but they are doing so out of inertia. The encounter between this type of
society with maximum mobility but immobility in its heart and the Eastern bloc societies which
are petrified on the outside but in no way inert in their inward core should be highly dramatic
or. totally ambiguous. Like blood transfusions today, the transfusion of Good and Evil presents
many dangers. There is a risk we shall pass all our germs on to them, and they might give us all
of theirs (this is how contacts between dissimilar cultures or races go). First of all, there will be
seventy years of 'backwardness' to make up, but are we so sure things are going to happen that
way? Instead of the Eastern bloc countries accelerating towards modern democracy, perhaps
we are going to drift in the other direction, moving back beyond democracy and falling into the
hole of the past. It would be the opposite of Orwell's prediction (strangely, he has not been
mentioned of late, though the collapse of Big Brother ought to have been celebrated for the
record, if only for the irony of the date Orwell set for the onset of totalitarianism which turned
out to be roughly that of its collapse). Even more ironic is the fact that we are not at all
threatened by the totalitarian (Stalinist) rewriting of the past, but the democratic rewriting of
history: the very images of Stalin and Lenin swept away, streets and cities renamed, statues
scattered, soon none of all that will have existed. Yet another ruse of history - not the last but,
as ever, the best. Democratic rewriting. The scenario is off to a good start. Everyone is having a
clear-out. All the dictatorships are being wound up and sold off cheap, before the end of the
century if possible (before Christmas for Eastern Europe so that everything can shine bright in a
new Nativity). Splendid emulation, as stupendous as the tolerance which has reigned over it all
so far. Everyone equally committed to the liquidation! Eliminating the planet's black spots as
one might eliminate traffic accident blackspots, as we might eliminate spots from a face:
cosmetic surgery elevated to the level of the political, and to Olympic performance levels. Of

Champion Briefs 369

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

course, this great democratic rally is not believable for an instant. Not that there is any
Machiavellian strategy going on, but it's too good to be true. There is something suspect about
the sudden consensus. The disappearance, as if by magic, of all contradiction is more than
suspect (China has temporarily relapsed, and what remains of world communism is merely a
theme park. With a little imagination, Cuba could be joined up with Disneyworld, which is not
far away, as part of a world heritage centre). Something tells us that what we have here is not a
historical evolution, but an epidemic of consensus, an epidemic of democratic values - in other
words, this is a viral effect, a triumphant effect of fashion. If democratic values spread so easily,
by a capillary or communicating-vessels effect, then they must have liquefied, they must now
be worthless. Throughout the modern age they were held dear and dearly bought. Today, they
are being sold off at a discount and we are watching a Dutch auction of democratic values
which looks very much like uncontrolled speculation. Which makes it highly probable that, as
might be the case with financial speculation, these same values may crash.

Champion Briefs 370

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Their attempt to unite us together in a collective celebration of the

state is one that overlooks the death of democracy and simulates
enemies resulting in escalatory violence to preempt threats to
Western identity.
Abbinnett, Ross. “Machiavelli’s Double: Power, Simulation, And Hyper-Sovereignty.” 2012.
Web. August 17, 2020. <http://www.ubishops.ca/baudrillardstudies/vol-9_3/v9-3-
abbinnett.html>.
This reshaping of the geopolitical imagination requires a massive deployment of the resources
of simulation, and, for Baudrillard, it is in America that the definitive formation of Western
hyper-sovereignty takes place. This is anticipated in the remarks Baudrillard made in 1986 on
the ‘astral’ trajectory of American culture, in which ‘the immanence and material transcription
of all values’ has been reduced to the expansive regime of the hyperreal (Baudrillard, 1993:
28).Thus, once the events of 9/11 have been determined as the beginning of a War on Terror
that the West must win at all costs, a process begins in which ‘politics’ in America becomes the
performance of a national unity that is without schism or fracture; the pure self-determination
of one nation happy and free under God. In a state that has become increasingly void of
normative authority, and which has been pared down to the punitive functions that orbital
capital demands of it, the sense of symbolic community is restored through the simulation of
the ‘natural enemy’. The logic of this process, as it has taken pace in America since 9/11, is
significant because it is not simply the exchange of the menace of the Soviet Union for the
threat of Islam. The imagination of the enemy has been completely transformed: Islamic
fundamentalism becomes a simulacrum that is simultaneously identical with particular states
(Iran, Iraq, Pakistan etc) and with the cellular networks of al Qaeda, it combines the fanaticism
of non-Christian religion with the technological skill of the terrorist, and as such it is devoid of
the basic values of honour and integrity that once allowed it to be an ‘enemy’ in the Western
sense of the term (Schmitt, 1996: 27-37). The Soviets at least were adversaries against whom it
was possible to conduct a proper war (albeit a cold one); Islamic fundamentalism, on the other
hand, has become an evil cipher that is without determinate form or limit. The representation
of Islam that takes hold in the US therefore excludes the possibility of ethical conflict, and it is
this exclusion that has transformed politics in America since 9/11. For Baudrillard, those
‘developing’ nations who have pledged themselves to the hyper-accumulative model of
capitalism (China, India, Japan etc) enter into an unstable relationship of attraction and
repulsion with the West, while those who retain a theocratic structure (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan
etc) are the ones that are destined to refuse the fatal promise to be better mimics of Western
culture. It is this refusal to participate in the cycle of pornographic disclosure to which
‘Enlightenment’ has been reduced that has determined the ‘cosmopolitical’ interventions of the
US. For given that America has now virtually abandoned a democratic process based on

Champion Briefs 371

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

opposition and dialogue, and that elections are little more than a contestation of idols and
personalities, politics in the US has become a brutal enforcement of power that takes place
both at home and abroad. The election of George W. Bush as President and of Arnold
Schwarzenegger as Governor of California represents the complete exchangeability of
simulation and politics: both have made reputations as ‘strongmen’ who are able to cut
through the complexities of democratic representation (including human rights and the
electoral process itself), and to destroy those who threaten the American way of life
(Baudrillard, 2010: p. 19). With the parodic figures of Bush and Schwarzenegger therefore, we
have reached the point at which simulation has overwhelmed the order of political power: the
relationship between existential force of character, political judgement, and military skill that is
the essence of Machiavelli’s prince is dissolved, and we are left with ciphers who can only
perform the rhetoric of power and chastisement they symbolize. Indeed, the more stupid and
violent the response (the invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 for example), the more chance
there is it will succeed in persuading the masses to support the action. And so the US becomes
the global defender of hyper-consumption, obscenity, and indifference: the punisher of those
who refuse ‘subscription to the most disenchanted models’ (Baudrillard, 2010: 24). At the end
of the previous section I suggested that the question that is raised by the doubling of
Machiavelli’s political aesthetics, is essentially related to the fate of sovereign violence after
Auschwitz. For Adorno, the stark truth that the death camps reveal to us is the violence that
persists within the rational organization of modernity. And so we, as the inheritors of the
Holocaust, are placed under an obligation to keep watch over the technological processes of
representation and erasure through which reified society reproduces itself. The doubling of
Machiavellian sovereignty is a ruse of simulation, through which the immediate demands of the
state (for safety, happiness, and unity) can present themselves as absolutely unquestionable.
From the first Gulf War onwards, Baudrillard has made it clear that, for him, the military
excursions made by America and the Western Alliance into the Middle East have not been wars,
which are marked by a roughly equal distribution of risk, but rather technological strikes whose
outcome has been decided before the first missile is launched (Baudrillard, 2001). In the first
Gulf War in 1991, for example, a survey commissioned by the American Air Force estimated
that over twenty thousand Iraqi combatants were killed in the combined air and ground
campaigns, compared with two hundred and ninety four Americans (Thomas and Cohen, 1993).
Thus, the Machiavellian imperative to pre-empt the danger posed by rogue states, and to inflict
the maximum possible damage with the smallest possible losses, becomes a largely
technological operation: it is a spectacle of remote destruction in which the risk of death lies
almost entirely on one side. Thus, in both The Intelligence of Evil and Carnival and Cannibal,
Baudrillard presents the reduction to absurdity that is implicit in this enactment of sovereignty;
for as the symbolic threat posed by Islamic states is increased exponentially by the use military
force, so the communicative potential of diplomacy is fatally diminished by the spectacle of
‘shock and awe’ (Baudrillard, 2005: 159-164; Baudrillard, 2010: 22-28). There is something
profoundly disturbing in Baudrillard’s account of the parodic sovereignties that have emerged
since 9/11. For it discloses a redoubling of evil that takes place through the connivance of each
side, and the apparent lapsing of Enlightenment into the dream of pure utility. Thus, the feeling
that crystallizes in Baudrillard’s thought is the same one that haunts Adorno’s work; that the

Champion Briefs 372

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

concepts which define the autonomous subject (reflection, judgement, recognition), have been
lost to the representational processes through which ‘being’ returns to dominate the life of the
nation. The logic of sovereignty therefore becomes a matter of escalatory violence, in which the
antagonistic powers of East and West, Christianity and Islam, contrive to overwhelm every
conciliatory possibility that might arise from the regime of simulation. My own position on this
follows a rather more qualified account of the power of representation, which is close to the
position Derrida expounds in ‘Envoi’. His argument is that it is the aesthetic figuration of the
real can never be technologically hermetic, for the envoi of being, its representative, has always
been ‘menaced by divisibility and dissension’ (Derrida, 2007: 122). The image, in other words,
always carries within it the trace of what, or who, it cannot represent, and the possibility of
events that exceed its encoding of the real (Abbinnett, 2008: 79-87). So, for example, we might
look to the difficulties America had in justifying the second Gulf War to what George W. Bush
referred to as ‘Old Europe’, and in constituting a new Western coalition. However, this is not to
say that Baudrillard’s concept of the simulacrum, as the form in which the image has virtually
disposed of its difference from the real, does not menace the politics of hospitality that Derrida
expounded in his later work. And so in my concluding remarks I will look briefly at the
transformation of hegemony that has taken place with the rise of the Chinese economy, and
the impact this has had on the dynamics of sovereignty in the globalized world.

Champion Briefs 373

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

The affirmative made Disneyland – the endless desire for a simulacra

of a cryogenic utopia that renders life valueless.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra And Simulation.” 1995. Web. August 17, 2020.
Disneyland is a perfect model of all the entangled orders of simulacra. It is first of all a play of
illusions and phantasms: the Pirates, the Frontier, the Future World, etc. This imaginary world is
supposed to ensure the success of the operation. But what attracts the crowds the most is
without a doubt the social microcosm, the religious, miniaturized pleasure of real America, of
its constraints and joys. One parks outside and stands in line inside, one is altogether
abandoned at the exit. The only phantasmagoria in this imaginary world lies in the tenderness
and warmth of the crowd, and in the sufficient and excessive number of gadgets necessary to
create the multitudinous effect. The contrast with the absolute solitude of the parking lot - a
veritable concentration camp - is total. Or, rather: inside, a whole panoply of gadgets
magnetizes the crowd in directed flows - outside, solitude is directed at a single gadget: the
automobile. By an extraordinary coincidence (but this derives without a doubt from the
enchantment inherent to this universe), this frozen, childlike world is found to have been
conceived and realized by a man who is himself now cryogenized: Walt Disney, who awaits his
resurrection through an increase of 180 degrees centigrade. Thus, everywhere in Disneyland
the objective profile of America, down to the morphology of individuals and of the crowd, is
drawn. All its values are exalted by the miniature and the comic strip. Embalmed and pacified.
Whence the possibility of an ideological analysis of Disneyland (L. Marin did it very well in
Utopiques, jeux d'espace [Utopias, play of space]): digest of the American way of life, panegyric
of American values, idealized transposition of a contradictory reality. Certainly. But this masks
something else and this “ideological” blanket functions as a cover for a simulation of the third
order: Disneyland exists in order to hide that it is the “real” country, all of “real” America that is
Disneyland (a bit like prisons are there to hide that it is the social in its entirety, in its banal
omnipresence, that is carceral). Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us
believe that the rest is real, whereas all of Los Angeles and the America that surrounds it are no
longer real, but belong to the hyperreal order and to the order of simulation. It is no longer a
question of a false representation of reality (ideology) but of concealing the fact that the real is
no longer real, and thus of saving the reality principle. The imaginary of Disneyland is neither
true nor false, it is a deterrence machine set up in order to rejuvenate the fiction of the real in
the opposite camp. Whence the debility of this imaginary, its infantile degeneration. This world
wants to be childish in order to make us believe that the adults are elsewhere, in the “real”
world, and to conceal the fact that true childishness is everywhere - that it is that of the adults
themselves who come here to act the child in order to foster illusions as to their real
childishness. Disneyland is not the only one, however. Enchanted Village, Magic Mountain,
Marine World: Los Angeles is surrounded by these imaginary stations that feed reality, the
energy of the real to a city whose mystery is precisely that of no longer being anything but a
network of incessant, unreal circulation - a city of incredible proportions but without space,
without dimension. As much as electrical and atomic power stations, as much as cinema

Champion Briefs 374

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

studios, this city, which is no longer anything but an immense scenario and a perpetual pan
shot, needs this old imaginary like a sympathetic nervous system made up of childhood signals
and faked phantasms. Disneyland: a space of the regeneration of the imaginary as waste-
treatment plants are elsewhere, and even here. Everywhere today one must recycle waste, and
the dreams, the phantasms, the historical, fairylike, legendary imaginary of children and adults
is a waste product, the first great toxic excrement of a hyperreal civilization. On a mental level,
Disneyland is the prototype of this new function. But all the sexual, psychic, somatic recycling
institutes, which proliferate in California, belong to the same order. People no longer look at
each other, but there are institutes for that. They no longer touch each other, but there is
contactotherapy. They no longer walk, but they go jogging, etc. Everywhere one recycles lost
faculties, or lost bodies, or lost sociality, or the lost taste for food. One reinvents penury,
asceticism, vanished savage naturalness: natural food, health food, yoga. Marshall Sahlins's
idea that it is the economy of the market, and not of nature at all, that secretes penury, is
verified, but at a secondary level: here, in the sophisticated confines of a triumphal market
economy is reinvented a penury/sign, a penury/simulacrum, a simulated behavior of the
underdeveloped (including the adoption of Marxist tenets) that, in the guise of ecology, of
energy crises and the critique of capital, adds a final esoteric aureole to the triumph of an
esoteric culture. Nevertheless, maybe a mental catastrophe, a mental implosion and involution
without precedent lies in wait for a system of this kind, whose visible signs would be those of
this strange obesity, or the incredible coexistence of the most bizarre theories and practices,
which correspond to the improbable coalition of luxury, heaven, and money, to the improbable
luxurious materialization of life and to undiscoverable contradictions.

Champion Briefs 375

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Their recourse to illusions like “responsibility” is a symptom of the

inability to confront hyperreality. There is no free will - politics is
already over-coded—their impacts are terminally insignificant and the
introduction of their plan does not change the flow of the status quo.
Baudrillard, Jean. “The Intelligence Of Evil.” 2005. Web. August 17, 2020.
Individuality is a recent phenomenon. It is only over the last two centuries that the populations
of the civilized countries have demanded the democratic privilege of being individuals. Before
that, they were what they were: slaves, peasants, artisans, men or women, fathers or
children—not ‘individuals’ or ‘fully fledged subjects’. Only with our modern civilization did we
find ourselves forcibly inducted into this individual existence. Of course, we fight to retain this
‘inalienable’ right, and we are naturally driven to win it and defend it at all costs. We demand
this freedom, this autonomy, as a fundamental human rights and, at the same time, we are
crippled by the responsibility that ends up making us detest ourselves as such. This is what
resounds in the complaint of Job. God asks too much: ‘What is man, that thou shouldest
magnify him? And that thou shouldest visit him every morning, and try him every moment?
How long wilt thou not depart from me, nor let me alone till I swallow down my spittle?’ This
leaves us subject to a contradictory twofold requirement: to seek an identity by all possible
means—by hounding the identities of others or by exploring the networks—and to slough off
identity in every possible way, as though it were a burden or disguise. It is as though liberty and
individuality, from having been a ‘natural’ state in which one may act freely, had become
artificial states, a kind of moral imperative, whose implacable decree makes us hostage to our
identities and our own wills. This is a very particular case of Stockholm Syndrome, since we are
here both the terrorist and the hostage. Now the hostage is by definition the unexchangeable,
accursed object you cannot get rid of because you don’t know what to do with it. The situation
is the same for the subject: as hostage to himself, he doesn’t know how to exchange himself or
be rid of himself. Being unable to conceive that identity has never existed and that it is merely
something we play-act, we fuel this subjective illusion to the point of exhaustion. We wear
ourselves out feeding this ghost of a representation of ourselves. We are overwhelmed by this
pretension, this obstinate determination to carry around an identity which it is impossible to
exchange (it can be exchanged only for the parallel illusion of an objective reality, in the same
metaphysical cycle into which we are locked). All the grand narratives of our individual
consciousness—of freedom, will, identity, and responsibility—merely add a useless, even
contradictory, over-determination to our actions as they ‘occur’. To the effect that we are the
cause of them, that they are the doing of our will, that our decisions are the product of free
will, etc. But our actions do not need this: we can decide and act without there being any need
to involve the will and the idea of the will. There is no need to involve the idea of free will to
make choices in one’s life. Above all, there is no need to involve the idea of subject and its
identity in order to exist (it is better, in any case, to involve that of alterity). These are all

Champion Briefs 376

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

useless, like the belief that is superadded to the existence of God (if he exists, he doesn’t need
it). And so we believe in a free, willed determination of our actions and it gives them a meaning,
at the same time as it gives meaning to us—the sense of being the authors of those actions. But
this is all a reconstruction, like the reconstruction of the dream narrative. ‘A person’s
actions…are commonly continuations of his own inner constitution…the way the magnet
bestows form and order on iron fillings’ (Lichtenberg). This is the problem Luke Rhinehart sets
himself in his novel The Dice Man: how are we to slough off this freedom, this ego which is
captive to its free will? The solution he finds is that of chance. Among all the possibilities for
shattering the mirror of identity, for freeing beings from the terrorism of the ego, there is the
option of surrendering oneself to chance, to the dice, for all one’s actions and decisions. No
free will any longer, no responsible subject but merely the play of a random dispersal, an
artificial disapora of the ego. At bottom, the ego is itself a form of superego: it is the ego we
must rid ourselves of, above all, we must live without reference to a model of identity or a
general equivalent. But the trap with these plural identities, these multiple existences, this
devolution on to ‘intelligence machines’—dice machines as well as the machines of the
networks—is that once the general equivalent has disappeared, all the new possibilities are
equivalent to one another and hence cancel each other out in a general indifference.
Equivalence is still there, but it is no longer the equivalence of an agency at the top (the ego); it
is the equivalence of all the little egos ‘liberated’ by its disappearance. The erosion of destinies
occurs by the very excess of possibilities—as the erosion of knowledge occurs by the very
excess of information or sexual erosion by the removal of prohibitions, etc. When, under the
banner of identity, existence is so individualized, so atomized (‘atomon’ is the literal equivalent
of an individual) that its exchange is impossible, the multiplication of existences leads only to a
simulacrum of alterity. To be able to exchange itself for anything or anyone is merely an
extreme, desperate form of impossible exchange. Multiplying identities never produces
anything more than all the illusory strategies for decentering power: it is pure illusion, pure
stratagem. A fine metaphor of this fractal, proliferating identity is the storyline of the film Being
John Malkovich (by Spike Jonze) or, more precisely, the moment when Malkovich, by means of
a virtual apparatus goes back into his own skin—until then it was the others who wanted to
become Malkovich, this time it is Malkovich who wants to re-enter himself, to become himself
at one remove, a meta-Malkovich as it were. It is at this point that he diffracts into countless
metastases: by a kind of fantastic image feedback, everyone around him becomes Malkovich.
He becomes the universal projection of himself. This is the paroxystic form of identity (here
treated with humour). So it is that everywhere redoubled identity ends in a pure extrapolation
of itself. It becomes a special effect which, with the coming of electronic and genetic
manipulation, veers towards cloning pure and simple. It is in the entire machinery of the Virtual
and the mental diaspora of the networks today that the fate of Homo factalis is played out: the
definitive abdication of his identity and freedom, of his ego and his superego.

Champion Briefs 377

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

The Affirmatives attempt to exploit global economic and political

values on the rest of the world creates a potlatch of indifference and
removes all radical alterity that can be found in absolute Otherness.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Carnival And Cannibal: The Play Of Global Antagonism.” 2010. Web. August
17, 2020. E-Book .
With this in mind, we have to look again at the successive phases of this global masquerade of
power. First, it is the West more generally that foists its political and economic models and its
principle of technical rationality on the whole world in the name of universality. But this isn’t
the acme of the brainwashing and domination. Beyond economics and politics, global power
asserts itself today through the grip exerted by simulation, an operational simulation of all
values and cultures. That power is no longer exerted by the exporting of technologies, values
and ideologies, but by the universal extrapolation of a parody of those values (democracy is
being universalized in a caricatured, derisory form; the ‘underdeveloped’ nations are geared to
the simulacrum of development and growth, and peoples whose cultures are being wiped out
set their compass by fake, Disneyfied reconstructions of those cultures - all of them spellbound
by a universal model. And, though America assumes it will reap the benefits of that model, it is,
at the same time, its first victim). It is their lives and deaths that the terrorists are laying on the
line, at the highest possible cost. It is everything by which a human being retains some value in
his own eyes that we (the West) are deliberately sacrificing. Out potlatch is one of baseness,
shamelessness, obscenity, debasement and abjection. This is the whole movement of our
culture - it is here that we raise the stakes. Our truth is always to be sought in unveiling, de-
sublimation, reductive analysis - it is the truth of the repressed, of exhibition, of confession, of
laying bare. Nothing is true if it is not de-sacralized, objectivized, shorn of its aura, dragged on
to the stage. Our potlatch is the potlatch of indifference - an in-differentiation of values, but
also an indifference to ourselves. If we cannot lay our own lives on the line, this is because we
are already dead. And it is this indifference and abjection that we throw out to the others as a
challenge: the challenge to debase themselves in their turn, to deny their own values, to lay
themselves bare, to make their confessions, to own up - in short, to respond with a nihilism
equal to our own. We are, in fact, trying to wrest all these things from them forcibly - their
modesty in the prisons of Abu Ghraib, the headscarf in our schools - but this is not enough to
console us for our abjection. They have to come to it themselves; they have to sacrifice
themselves on the altar of obscenity, transparency, pornography and global simulation. They
have to lose their symbolic defences and, of their own accord, take the path of the free-market
order, integral democracy and integrated spectacle. The whole stakes of the global
confrontation consist in this: in this provocation to the frenzied exchange of all differences, in
this challenge that they equal us in deculturation, in debasing values, in subscribing to the most
disenchanted models. The machinations over oil merely mask a much more serious
destructuring. Global power is the power of the simulacrum, of a universal carnivalization,
which the West imposes at the cost of its own humiliation, its own symbolic mutilation.

Champion Briefs 378

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Challenge against challenge. Potlatch against potlatch? Are the stakes of indifference and
dishonour equal to those of death? Is there an end to this confrontation and what may the
victory of the one or the other ultimately lead to? On this point, I am entirely in agreement with
Boris Groys’s ‘double potlatch’ hypothesis (See ‘Les corps d’Abou Ghraib’1): the Western
potlatch of nullity, self-debasement, shame mortification set against the potlatch of death. But
is this a genuine symbolic response to the terrorists’ challenge? Let us leave aside war here, or
the battle ‘against Evil’, which are, for their part, the admission of a total incapability to
respond symbolically to the challenge of death. We are speaking of the deliberate sacrifice by
the West of all its values, of everything by which a human being or a culture has some value in
its own eyes. Il sacrifizio dellà dignità fundamentale, dell’ pudore, dell’ honore … a self-
annihilation, a disenchantment and prostitution of self thrown in the Other’s face as a weapon
of mass deterrence - a vertiginous seduction by emptiness, a challenge to the Other (to Islam,
but also to the rest of the world) to prostitute itself in turn, to unveil itself, to cough up all its
secrets and lose all sovereignty - and hence, the sovereignty, par excellence, of death. Have we
an immense auto-da-fé here - in which case we can view it as a symbolic response, by mutual
challenge. Potlatch against potlatch - does the one balance out the other? We may take the
view that the one is a potlatch by excess (that of death), the other a potlatch by lack (that of
self-derision and shame). In that case, the two do not exactly meet head on and we should
speak, rather, of asymmetric potlatch. Or should we rather take the view (thereby
acknowledging that Groys is right in a way) that ultimately no form - not even that of the
challenge of death or of extreme sacrifice - can be regarded as superior, and hence the terrorist
challenge cannot be seen as superior to the opposite, Western challenge? Yet is seems that the
West is not able to make an equal response, as is the rule in potlatch; it is not able to respond
to death with death or, most importantly, to raise the stakes and make a response that goes
beyond it - for what is there beyond death? We may, however, take the view that, at the
highest level, at the height of the confrontation, a more general and even more radical form of
reversibility is in play, which means that no form - not even the highest - escapes reversion or
the victorious substitution of another form, as in the game of ‘scissors, paper, stone’. Even the
most extreme, most sublime thing one can conceive of will be taken over and surpassed by
some other form - perhaps even by its opposite or caricature. This is how it is. This is the game.
Matters are never definitely settled. Having said this, to contemplate the idea that a global
power, which is, after all, a form of self-abasement and universal abasement, may nevertheless
constitute a power of defiance, a power of response to the challenge from the other world -
that is to say, ultimately, a symbolic power - means for me a drastic revision, a casting into the
balance of what I have always thought (which has always had the revolt and final victory of
Borges’s ‘Fauna of Mirrors’ as its horizon). But perhaps we have to resign ourselves to the idea
that even reversibility, as a weapon of mass seduction, is not the absolute weapon; and that it
is confronted with something irreversible - in what we may just discern today as a worse kind of
ultimate prospect

Champion Briefs 379

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy is dead and we’re all playing in its cemetery. Our political
participation is a symptom of the body’s decay and only seeks to
masquerade the hyperreal carnival of carnage.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Carnival And Cannibal: The Play Of Global Antagonism.” 2010. Web. August
17, 2020. E-Book .
Faces of the Schwarzenegger type may serve as an illustration of any sort of power-structure,
even of the way politics works. We may analyse this as a caricature of democracy, as a
grotesque parody of it, which, after it was unmasked, would leave us with the hope of a rational
way of exercising power. But if we entertain the hypothesis that government can be sustained
only by this grotesque simulation and that it is not, in any sense, the representation of society
but, rather, a kind of challenge to it, then Bush is the equivalent of Schwarzenegger. More than
this, the two fulfil their roles perfectly and are the ‘right men in the right place’, not because a
country or a people could be said to have the leaders it deserves, as the saying goes, but
because they are emanations of global power as it is. The current political structure of the
United States corresponds literally to its domination at the world level: Bush leads the United
States in the same way that the US exerts its hegemony over the rest of the planet. There is,
then, no reason to devise an alternative (one might even argue that the domination of a global
power reflects the absolute precedence of the human species over all the others). This is the
whole paradox of power. We have to ride ourselves once and for all of the - very ’68-ish -
illusion of installing imagination or intelligence in power, though this is, ultimately, an
Enlightenment notion (all the naïve utopian slogans of 1968 need revising, not just ‘The
imagination in power!’ but also ‘Take your desires for reality!’ and ‘Enjoy unconstrainedly!’ We
need to look again at all these things that have been realized or hyperrealized ‘unconstrainedly’
by the mere development of the system). It all depends what idea you have of power. If you
assume that intelligence should be in power, then the persistence, if not indeed permanence,
of stupidity in power is inexplicable (and yet the rare historical examples of intelligence in
power show that it most often veers off very quickly down the paths of stupidity). This would
be the proof, then, that, in some way, stupidity is one of the attributes of power, virtually a
perk of office. Perhaps this goes back to the ancestral function of having to assume the
accursed share of the social - including stupidity - which would take us back to the ‘power
figures’ of primitive societies and explain why the most limited, unimaginative individuals stay
in power the longest. It would perhaps also explain the general tendency of populations to
delegate their sovereignty to the most innocuous, oligocephalic of their fellow citizens. It is a
kind of evil genius that induces people to choose someone more stupid than themselves, both
as a precaution against a responsibility you are always wary of whenever it is foisted on you
from above, and out of secret jubilation at watching the spectacle of stupidity and corruption
afforded by those in power. Contrary to the democratic illusions of the Enlightenment, it is only
by a superhuman effort that we can resolve to choose the best people; this is why, particularly
in a period of turbulence, citizens will turn in their millions to the person who doesn’t ask them

Champion Briefs 380

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

to think. It is a kind of silent conspiracy, analogous in the political sphere to the conspiracy we
find in the field of contemporary art. This is how, from a rather different angle, Bush fulfils all
the roles. On the one had, Bin Laden declares that he needs Mr Bush’s stupidity, hence that he
wants him to be re-elected. On the other, a majority of Americans desire the presence in the
White House of someone whose stupidity and banality underwrite their own conformism. The
more stupid he is, the less personally idiotic they will feel. In this ‘stupid’, hereditary function,
power is a virtual configuration that absorbs any element and metabolizes it to its advantage. It
may be formed of countless intelligent particles, but that will change nothing of its opaque
structure: it is like a body that changes its cells but continues to be the same. In this way, every
molecule of the American nation will soon come from somewhere else - as if by blood
transfusion. America will have become Black, Indian, Hispanic or Puerto Rican, without ceasing
to be America. And it will be even more mythically American for no longer being ‘authentically’
so. And the more fundamentalist for no longer having any foundation (if, indeed, it ever had,
since even the Founding Fathers were from elsewhere). And it will be all the more integrist for
having become, in actuality, multiracial and multicultural. And all the more imperialist for being
led by the descendants of the slaves. This is how it is. It is a paradox, but a paradox that gives
the lie to the ‘Power to the imagination’ argument. It is power itself that has to be abolished -
and not just in the refusal to be dominated, which is the essence of all traditional struggles, but
equally and as violently in the refusal to dominate. For domination implies both these things,
and if there were the same violence or energy in the refusal to dominate, we would long ago
have stopped dreaming of revolution. And this tells us why intelligence cannot - and never will
be able to - be in power: because it consists precisely in this twofold refusal. ‘If I knew that
there are still on this earth some men without any power I would say that all is not lost’ Elias
Canetti). With the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger to the office of Governor of California, we
are in total farce, where politics is entirely a matter of idols and fans. This is a huge step
towards the demise of the representative system. And it is the inevitable outcome of current
politics - everywhere those who live by spectacle will die by it - and that goes as much for
‘citizens’ as for politicians. It is the immanent justice of the media. You want power through the
image? Then you will die by the image-playback. The carnival of the images is also self-
cannibalization by the image. Having said this, we should not be too quick to conclude that the
election of Schwarzenegger spell the decline of American political life. Behind this farce is a far
reaching political strategy, though certainly not a deliberate one (that would presuppose too
high a level of intelligence) which paradoxically runs counter to our critical analysis and eternal
democratic illusions. America, electing Schwararenegger (or by the rigged election of Bush in
2000) in this mind boggling parody of all systems of representation, is taking its revenge, in its
own way, for the symbolic contempt in which it is help. In this way It demonstrates its
imaginary power; for, even more than in finance or weaponry, no other country can rival
America in this headlong dash into political farce, in this nihilistic enterprise of the liqudation of
values and all out simulation, and it will remain ahead in this particular game for many years to
come; in this extreme – empirical and technical – form of mockery and profanation of values,
this radical obscenity and total impiety on the part of what is, otherwise, a religious people.
This is the secret of its global hegemony. This is what holds everyone spellbound; this is what
we enjoy even as we reject and mock the phenomenal vulgarity and a (political relevisual)

Champion Briefs 381

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

universe reduced to a zero degree of culture. I say this without irony and with admiration: this
is how – by radical simulation – America dominates the rest of the world, which regards it as a
model; and how, at the same time, it takes its revenge on the rest of the world, which is
infinitely superior to it in symbolic terms. America’s challenge is that of a desperate simulation,
of a masquerade it implodes on the rest of the world, even in its desperate simulation of
military power. A carnvalization of power. And that challenge is one the rest of the world
cannot meet: we have neither finality nor counter-finality to set against it. With this in mind, we
have to look again at the successive phases of this global masquerade of power. First, it is the
West more generally that foists its political and economic models and its principles of technical
rationality on the whole world in the name of universality. But this isn’t the acme of
brainwashing and domination. Beyond economics and politics, global power assets itself today
through the grip exerted by simulation, an operational simulation of all values and cultures.
That power is no longer exerted by the exporting of technologies, values and ideologies, but by
the universal extrapolation of a parody of those values (democracy is being universalized in a
caricatured, derisory form: the ‘underdeveloped’ nations are geared to the simulacrum of
development and growth, and peoples whose cultures are being wiped out set their compass
by fake, Disneyfied reconstructions of those cultures – all of them sellbound by a universal
model. And, though America assumes it will reap the benefits of that model, it is, at the same
time, its first victim).

Champion Briefs 382

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Those flows of information produce an energetic investment in

simulation, which enables the political gamesmanship that sustains
conditions of permanent war, violent lash out, and the precarious and
depressing global existence.
Berardi, Francesco. “Heroes: Mass Murder And Suicide.” 2015. Web. August 17, 2020.
At issue here are the essential features of what is generally called fundamentalism, but might
better be defined as an identitarian obsession: the self-identification as the ‘chosen people’,
which implies as its complementary opposite the identification of the other as the enemy of the
truth and of the good – that is, the personification of evil. Fascism and Nazism The terms
Fascism and Nazism are often used as ambiguous signifiers. Their meaning is vaguely referable
to extreme oppression, violence and authoritarianism, but it is difficult to define exactly what is
meant by these provocative identifiers. Any historical overview of the first part of the twentieth
century provides its own damning verdict on these political ideologies, but attempts to extract
a general meaning from the thinking of Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and their followers often
founder in a labyrinth of identification. What, in fact, is Fascism? In an article about Ur-Fascism,
Umberto Eco writes: Fascism had no quintessence. Fascism was a fuzzy totalitarianism, a
collage of different philosophical and political ideas, a beehive of contradictions. Can one
conceive of a truly totalitarian movement that was able to combine monarchy with revolution,
the Royal Army with Mussolini’s personal milizia, the grant of privileges to the Church with
state education extolling violence, absolute state control with a free market? The Fascist Party
was born boasting that it brought a revolutionary new order; but it was financed by the most
conservative among the landowners who expected from it a counter-revolution. At its
beginning fascism was republican. Yet it survived for twenty years proclaiming its loyalty to the
royal family, while the Duce (the unchallenged Maximal Leader) was arm-in-arm with the King,
to whom he also offered the title of Emperor. But when the King fired Mussolini in 1943, the
party reappeared two months later, with German support, under the standard of a ‘social’
republic, recycling its old revolutionary script, now enriched with almost Jacobin overtones.6 I
would argue that Fascism is difficult to identify for the simple reason that its core is exactly the
obsession of identification. Rather than specific national, religious or ethnic identities, it is the
very process of national identification, religious identification and ethnic identification that has
led to dangerous historical game-playing, often culminating in war and slaughter. Indeed, in
order to deny all possibility of becoming a Fascist, one ought first to resist any pressure to
identify oneself. Unfortunately, it is not always particularly easy to avoid identification,
particularly when social survival is threatened, as all other people become essentially
competitors in the labour market or competitors in the occupation of territory. It is not easy to
escape identification when the social community is attacked and people are unable to organize
themselves around their interests and political rights, particularly when social solidarity is weak
or entirely abrogated. In these instances, people understandably experience the need to find a

Champion Briefs 383

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

point of identification in the phantoms of identitarian belonging – and identitarian belonging

cannot find any foundation but aggressiveness toward other groups. These dynamics of
identification and aggression can be better explored if we acknowledge the differences
between the historical regimes of Italian Fascism and German Nazism, and relate them to what
is happening in the current century. These differences are illuminated under consideration of
the baroque Catholic cult of the inclusive community (il fascio, the bunch, the union of those
who are part of the same ‘populus’ and of the same nation) and the Gothic racist cult of the
exclusive Volk. Nazism is essentially based on the negation of the human nature of the other,
while Fascism is based on the aggressive inclusion of the other, and the punishment and
extermination of those who refuse to be included. Regarding the traces of extremism evident in
the first decade of the twenty-first century, I would contend that Nazism is embodied by the
social-Darwinist cult of competition and the subjugation of the human nature of those who
perish as a result of the ‘natural selection’ of the market. Italian Fascism, on the other hand, is
revived in the modern age by the resentful and vengeful spirit of the losers, those who are
marginalized in the economic game of competition and who react under the banners of cultural
identification. The present war between Western absolute capitalism and Islamic
fundamentalism may be viewed as a war between Nazism and Fascism. This war is going to
indelibly stain future decades, unless some – currently unimaginable – political invention will
come to free us from this cultural killing field. Financial capitalism is based on a process of
unrelenting deterritorialization, and this is causing fear to spread among those who are unable
to deal with the precariousness of daily life and the violence of the labour market. This fear in
turn provokes a counter-effect of aggressive re-territorialization by those who try to grasp
some form of identity, some sense of belonging, because only a feeling of belonging offers the
semblance of shelter, a form of protection. But belonging is a delusive projection of the mind, a
deceptive sensation, a trap. Since one’s belonging can only be conclusively proved by an act of
aggression against the other, the combined effect of deterritorialization in the sphere of
financial capitalism and of re-territorialization in the realm of identity is leading to a state of
permanent war.

Champion Briefs 384

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Fascism is the logical result of hyperreality- in a world without value

or political referentials, the masses may turn to the extreme
valorization of race, nationality, etc.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra And Simulation: History.” 1981. Web. August 17, 2020.
1. Fascism itself, the mystery of its appearance and of its collective energy, with which no
interpretation has been able to come to grips (neither the Marxist one of political manipulation
by dominant classes, nor the Reichian one of the sexual repression of the masses, nor the
Deleuzian one of despotic paranoia), can already be interpreted as the “irrational” excess of
mythic and political referentials, the mad intensification of collective value (blood, race, people,
etc.), the reinjection of death, of a “political aesthetic of death” at a time when the process of
the disenchantment of value and of collective values, of the rational secularization and
unidimensionalization of all life, of the operationalization of all social and individual life already
makes itself strongly felt in the West. Yet again, everything seems to escape this catastrophe of
value, this neutralization and pacification of life. Fascism is a resistance to this, even if it is a
profound, irrational, demented resistance, it would not have tapped into this massive energy if
it hadn't been a resistance to something much worse. Fascism's cruelty, its terror is on the level
of this other terror that is the confusion of the real and the rational, which deepened in the
West, and it is a response to that.

Champion Briefs 385

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

The impact is symbolic apocalypse. The Affirmative’s attempt to

reduce meaning to hyper functionality and programmatic dissection
produces a form of virtual cloning by which we sacrifice the Real for
the artificial simulacra, destroying our genuine purchase on reality.
Baudrillard, Jean. “Carnival And Cannibal: Ventriloquos Evil.” 2010. Web. August 17, 2020. E-
Book .
The basic rule, which, though it comes from the depths of our anthropology, still applies even in
our present world, is the rule of gift and counter-gift. If the natural world is given to us, then we
must be able to respond to that. If we cannot, then we have to eliminate the natural world. It is
an undertaking of just this kind that the human race has embarked upon, launching itself,
particularly in modern times, into ever-increasing abstraction, going so far as to create a
hegemonic structure that liberates us totally from the natural order. By this global
performance, this technical scheming, this substitution of a controllable universe made by our
own hand, we are probably trying to ward off the anxiety produced by everything that has
escaped us since the beginning, by what has been given to us without our having anything to
give back. We thought we had found a way out by wiping the natural world from the map. But,
on the one hand, this does not settle the symbolic issues at all: the transformation of the world
is a technical operation, not a symbolic one. And on the other hand, it is no response. We are
just contenting ourselves with liquidating what we cannot respond to. Now, this technical
solution has, in its excessiveness, ended up producing a world from which human beings are
excluded (which is normal, since they are themselves natural beings) and created a new
situation of basic anxiety: anxiety at dealing with a world that is totally beyond our grasp. It
remains for us to understand what induces the human species to throw itself into such a
performance. But there is nothing … unless we suppose that t his is our real response and that
this substitution mania is our form of counter-gift, our challenge. If this is the case, our entire
technical universe, even in its most excessive elements, would then assume a high symbolic
value as a response to the original gift (the original crime) that is the existence of the world
without us, without our having been consulted. In which case, according to this new hypothesis,
there would no longer be any reason to submit this whole way the system has developed to the
tender mercies of critical thought and negativity. Matters would be settled here too - ‘… Now
fully realized in electronic form, in the zero-oneness of the world, the digital imperative that
defined every breath of the planet’s living billions. Here was the heave of the biosphere …’, as
Don De Lillo writes in Cosmopolis.17 That being the case, there would no longer be any need to
dream of a critical or symbolic alternative. It would just be a matter of going on with the
destruction, since this is our challenge and the source of our pride: that we have smashed the
fundamental symbolic rule and have not just conceived, but brought into being - to the very
worst degree (but what is the worst in this case?) - a truly inhuman science-fiction universe. We
may, moreover, extend the analysis of this all-encompassing machination to the whole field of

Champion Briefs 386

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

simulation. We may take the view that the precession of models and images, the stratagem
that erases the boundaries between the true and the false, is itself a form of offensive response
to the actual world, the real world, and that all this is done to escape actuality and reality, to
escape the unbearable pretension of the ‘natural’ world that preceded us and seeks to force us
to recognize that precedence. Everything would, in fact, come down to this: we want to be
original, and to be so at any cost. Even if it means destroying the genuine article. In this way, we
are rounding off reality with a demolition project that is assuming insane proportions. Today,
unfortunately, the undertaking has succeeded so well and progress has made such strides that
everything is potentially available to us, and we find ourselves in the same impasse as at the
beginning, facing a reality as obvious and irresistible as if it had fallen from the sky! And we still
do not know how to respond. Nor to whom we are answerable. We can no longer set anything
‘against’ this technological world (this hegemonic universe). We can longer set anything
‘against’ anything, nor even imagine what the extreme limits of this evolution might be. And
those who still have a glimmer of nostalgia in them are asking why the world is so vulnerable to
such a project of ‘globalization’ and why the human being is so vulnerable to this project of
systematically eliminating the human. There remains, also, the nostalgia cultivated by all
heresies over the course of history - the dream, running parallel to the course of the real world,
of the absolute event which would open on to a thousand years of happiness. The heightened
expectation of the single event that would, at a stroke, unmask the enormous conspiracy in
which we are immersed. This expectation is still at the heart of the collective imagination. The
Apocalypse is present, in homoeopathic doses, in each of us.

Champion Briefs 387

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

We advocate a strategy of implosion rather than curtailment. Drastic

times call for drastic measures, the only option left is to push the
system to its extremes so that it implodes under its own weight.
Robinson, Andrew. “Jean Baudrillard: Strategies Of Subversion.” Ceasefire Magazine.
September 07, 2012. Web. August 17, 2020. <https://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-
theory-baudrillard-11/>.
Baudrillard proposes that opponents of the system replace explosive strategies with implosive
strategies. Such strategies outbid the system in the direction in which it is already going, and/or
restore symbolic exchange. Explosion responds to the order of production. Implosion and
reversal similarly respond to the order of networks, combinations and flows. We live in an era
when games of chance and vertigo have replaced competitive, expressive games. For
Baudrillard, an effective subversion today would involve becoming more aleatory than the
system. Baudrillard sees this as possible through ‘symbolic disorder’, the return of symbolic
exchange. Death offers a higher order than the code, one which can move beyond and
overthrow it. Baudrillard argues for catastrophic – rather than dialectical – responses.
Catastrophic responses involve pushing things to their limit. Catastrophe is not necessarily a
negative idea – Baudrillard means catastrophe for the system, not for anyone else. Something is
catastrophic in the bad sense only from a linear mode of thought. From another point of view,
it is a winding-down of a cycle to its horizon or to a transition-point where an event happens.
The catastrophe is the point of transition after which nothing has meaning from one’s own
point of view. But the rejection of the code’s demand for meaning makes catastrophe no longer
negative. Catastrophe is the passage to an entirely different world. The challenge must now be
taken up at a higher level. The challenge the code poses for us is the liquidation of all its
structures, finding at the end only symbolic exchange. Baudrillard proposes that we ‘become
the nomads of this desert, but disengaged from the mechanical illusion of value’. We should
live this space, devoid of meaning, as a return to the territory, as symbolic exchange. To
become, as one writer puts it, ‘the hunters and gatherers of the contemporary megacity’. We
should reconstruct the current space as a sacred space, a space without pathways, while
rejecting the seduction of value – allowing work, value, the dying system to bury themselves.
Baudrillard was writing this before the rise of contemporary surveillance and policing practices,
which make it far harder to live in the system’s spaces as if they were territorial. It seems the
system has somehow gained a reprieve from death, as it has several times before. It has done
this by further deepening and expanding the code, and by drawing on reactionary and fascistic
energies. According to Baudrillard, the challenge is to avoid fascination with the death throes of
the system, to avoid giving it our energies in this way – to simply leave it to die. The system
keeps itself alive by staging the ‘ruse’ of its death, while leaving the subjects it has created
intact. It is, rather, through our own ‘death’ (or metamorphosis) that the system collapses. With
the social failing, it seeks new energy, drawing on the marginal rebellions of excluded groups.

Champion Briefs 388

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

For this reason, Baudrillard is suspicious of attempts to recreate marginal systems of meaning,
instead calling for the logical exacerbation of the system’s logic. One part of this revolt is the
recreation of direct relations. The code depends on everything being segmented and reduced
to it, hence separated from others. Where exchange happens – for instance, direct
communication in a liberated area – the finality of the code is shattered. Any kind of social
practice or language which does not rely on the distinctions made by the code is revolutionary.
Connections between people which don’t depend on their social status, solidarity across social
borders, is revolutionary. Baudrillard also calls for the expansion of ‘pataphysics‘ – the
formulation of imaginary solutions and problems in parody of science, similar to Situationist
detournement and post-Situationist subvertisement and culture jamming. One might also see
phenomena such as Internet memes as pataphysical. For Baudrillard, pataphysics is a further
stage beyond simulation, which raises the stakes on it. This leads to particular implications. The
revolutionary aspect of emancipatory movements (say, of Tahrir Square or the Argentinazo or
Occupy) [ that ]do not reside in their demands or significations, but in their existence beyond
these, as direct connection. The real struggle is always against the code. But the system defuses
or recuperates struggles by redirecting them from the code to reality. This turns them into
struggles within the system. It also deflects them back to the field of political economy. But the
reality we experience is a product of the code, and political economy is now an illusion. What
seems to most people as a fulfilment of a movement – the realisation of its particular project –
is for Baudrillard a recuperation, a loss of the alternative forms of sociality it produces. A
thoroughgoing revolution would keep up constantly the intense connections of a liberated
zone. It would thus become something akin to a new indigenous group, constructed through
symbolic exchange.

Champion Briefs 389

NEG: Baudrillard K Sept/Oct 2020

Embracing catastrophe is key to bringing us back to the real.

Robinson, Andrew. “Jean Baudrillard: Catastrophe And Terrorism.” Ceasefire Magazine.
December 07, 2012. Web. August 17, 2020. <http://ceasefiremagazine.co.uk/in-theory-
baudrillard-13/>.
Other possibilities of resistance arise around the issue of implosion. The system insulates itself
against crisis by resisting explosion. It converts the explosive force of crisis into a homeopathic
dose of simulated catastrophe. Against this constant drip-feed of simulated catastrophe,
Baudrillard suggests, the only means of mitigation is to make a real catastrophe arrive. This is
perhaps why events like Hurricane Katrina are almost euphoric for some survivors, though
traumatic for others. Disaster unties the knots of anxiety and terror in which people are caught.
This is also why terrorism is so fascinating. Real violence makes the invisible violence of security
disappear. According to Baudrillard, power is collapsing. Institutions and “the social” are
collapsing. Implosive events take this process further, speeding it up. They are necessarily
incalculable in terms of their effects. The endpoint of this process is catastrophe. For
Baudrillard, catastrophe is the abolition of causes and the creation of ‘pure, non-referential
connections’. Such connections are inherently beautiful and seductive. Catastrophe is not
necessarily disastrous as is usually assumed. It is a disaster only for meaning and power.
Implosion offers possibilities because of the generalization of the remainder. When the system
becomes saturated, everything turns to and becomes the remainder. The remainder – what is
barred – continues to exist. Because the system has claimed to be everything, it comes back
inside and shatters the system. This may be why the system now imagines itself under siege
from enemies within. Without the imaginary, without a space beyond the system’s coded
functioning, it can no longer keep what it excludes outside. He suggests, for instance, that
architects could form a conception of cities based on their remainders, such as cemeteries and
waste grounds. Such an act would be fatal to architecture. It is thus on the remainder that a
new intelligibility is founded. For instance, sanity is refounded on the basis of madness (the
theory of the unconscious). Metropolitan societies exclude the indigenous, only to find the
indigenous at their foundation (urban ‘tribes’, gangs, subcultures…) Death is excluded, only to
be seen or foreshadowed everywhere. Structures become unstable because the remainder is
no longer in a specified place. It is everywhere. When everything is repressed or alienated, the
entire field is repressed or alienated – so nothing is repressed or alienated, everything is within
the visible field. Repressed energy is no longer available to be channelled by the system. The
totalising nature of power today makes it more vulnerable than ever. The more total the
system seems, the more inspiring any little setback for it becomes. Every small defeat now
carries the image of a chain reaction bringing down the system. Baudrillard proposes a strategy
of forcing power to occupy its own place, so as to make itself obscene. By making power appear
as power, its absence is made visible, and it disappears.

Champion Briefs 390

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

NEG: Democracy Kritik

This is a criticism of democracy. There are very, very many criticisms of democracy and
why it’s bad, and for many areas of critical literature, it is a link in and of itself. This particular
criticism is critical of the state, the politic, and how it’s used. Because of how modern America
and democracies around the world have been shaped, it also has deep connections with
capitalism. This critique is an exercise of epistemological cleansing – it’s a thought experiment
to change the majority paradigm we make decisions with, and it should be articulated as such.
Similar to most Ks, the framework is mostly built into the argument. That said, debaters
should have an understanding of what it means to be anti-political and anarchist in nature, if
they choose to read this alternative.
Similar to the Baudrillard K, this argument is long and not all of it is entirely necessary.
Debaters should pick and choose impacts and modules they choose to go for. There are five
impacts included, as well as pre-empts to obvious answers built in, so the argument can be cut
down a lot. As it is a Kritik, the only necessary parts are the Link, Impact, and Alternative.
Answering this argument should be fairly easy as there are a variety of ways that
debaters can answer this. Included are a bunch of “Democracy good” cards and those should be
employed as an impact turn to the K. Further, affirmative debaters should argue that even if it’s
bad, it’s necessary. Daniel Griswold is a phenomenal author that has written a lot about the
benefits of a capitalist democracy and affirmative debaters expecting to debate this argument
should definitely consider reading up on some of his works as well.

Champion Briefs 391

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

This isn’t your middle school civics class – American democracy has
been flipped on its head and become the aristocracy that we’ve all
been taught to fear.
Price, Wayne. “Liberal Illusions And Delusions.” Utopian Magazine. May 03, 2018. Web. August
18, 2020. <https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-liberal-illusions-and-
delusions>.
Facing the Trump regime, there are several different liberal delusions (although these views are
also held by many who regard themselves as radicals). One is to see Trump as leading pretty
directly to fascism and another believes that Trumpism does not really represent a major
change in U.S. politics. The view that the U.S. is approaching fascism is based on an unrealistic
expectation that the U.S. government is—or at least ought to be—a fair and open democracy,
as portrayed in high school civics classes. Instead, many people are shocked—shocked!—when
the state acts in an undemocratic, unjust, and authoritarian manner (I am not thinking of young
people, new to politics, but to older people who should know better). What, the government
lies to us! Elections are distorted and votes are suppressed! African-Americans are killed by
police at random! Public opinions (on gun reform or the environment) are ignored by elected
“representatives”—who are really agents of the wealthy! The government attacks people in
countries with which the U.S. is not at war! And so on. Therefore the conclusion is often
reached that the U.S. is undemocratic and on the road to fascism, or perhaps is already fascist.
On the contrary—this is what capitalist democracy looks like. It is a system, which serves the
interests of the capitalist class and its systemic need for capital accumulation. “The three
wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom half of American society.
The top one-tenth of one percent now owns as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent.”
(Bernie Sanders in an interview with John Nichols for The Nation 4/2018; p. 4.) How could such
an arrangement permit true democracy? Instead, the system of representative democracy
permits factions of the capitalist class to fight out their differences and make decisions. And it
fools the mass of working people into thinking that they really control the state—that they
really are free. At times things have been worse. The ‘50s were part of the “golden age” of
capitalism, the prosperous years following World War II. They were also the years of the anti-
communist hysteria and McCarthyite witch-hunt. Thousands of leftists were persecuted, jailed,
or thrown out of their jobs in government, universities, public schools, unions, entertainment,
and other private businesses. Meanwhile, the whole of the South was under legal segregation,
the vicious oppression of African-Americans. This was enforced by the law and by the terror of
the Klan. The anti-communist repression and the legal Jim Crow laws were defeated by the
70s.This was done by the massive struggles of African-Americans and by the movement against
the war in Vietnam, and other efforts. There has since been a rightist backlash. This includes the
rise of a real fascist movement, one that aims to overthrow bourgeois democracy and replace it
with a political dictatorship. Trump has encouraged these people to come out into the light.

Champion Briefs 392

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

However, the neo-Nazis, Klanspeople, and advocates of a theocracy are still a small minority,
even of Trump’s followers. All parts of the establishment, including businesspeople, high
military officials, and leading Republicans have denounced them. There has not been an effort
to cancel elections, establish a president-for-life, ban all but one political party, outlaw unions,
throw political radicals into concentration camps, legally persecute Jews, LGBT people, and
women, and reinstall African-American slavery. That is what fascism would really be, and it is
not what we are currently facing. Claiming that we are confronting an immediate fascist threat
from Trump weakens us when we deal with real fascists.

Champion Briefs 393

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy is meaningless – it’s an arbitrary set of rules that

fluctuates in and out of fashion.
Black, Bob. “Debunking Democracy.” CAL Press Pamphlet Series 2. April, 2011. Web. August 18,
2020. <https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-debunking-democracy>.
For the first time in history, “nearly everyone today professes to be a democrat.” [1] Professors
profess democracy profusely, although they keep it off campus. Democracy—truly, “that word
can mean anything.” [2] Even North Korea calls itself a Democratic People’s Republic.
Democracy goes with everything. For champions of capitalism, democracy is inseparable from
capitalism. For champions of socialism, democracy is inseparable from socialism. Democracy is
even said to be inseparable from anarchism. [3] It is identified with the good, the true, and the
beautiful. [4] There’s a flavor of democracy for every taste: constitutional democracy, liberal
democracy, social democracy, Christian democracy, even industrial democracy. Poets
(admittedly not many) have hymned its glory. And yet the suspicion lurks that, as it seemed to
another poet, Oscar Wilde, “democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people, by the
people, and for the people. It has been found out.” [5] Found out, and found to be unfounded.
Until the 20th century, there were few democracies. Until the 19th century, the wisdom of the
ages was unanimous in condemnation of democracy. All the sages of ancient Greece
denounced it, especially the sages of democratic Athens. [6] As Hegel wrote: “Those ancients
who as members of democracies since their youth, had accumulated long experience and
reflected profoundly about it, held different views on popular opinion from those more a priori
views prevalent today.” ** [7] The Framers of the U.S. Constitution rejected democracy. [8] So
did their opponents, the Anti-Federalists. [9] The democracy which was then universally
despised is what is now called direct democracy, government by the people over the people.
“People” in “by the people” meant the citizens: a minority consisting of some of the adult
males. “People” in “over the people” meant everybody. The citizenry assembled at intervals to
wield state power by majority vote. This system no longer exists anywhere, and that makes it
easier to believe in it, as Hegel observed. Democracy only became respectable, in the 19th
century, when its meaning changed. Now it meant representative democracy, in which the
citizenry—now an electorate, but still a minority—from time to time choose some of its rulers
by majority vote (or rather, by the majority of those actually voting—which is not the same
thing). The elected rulers appoint the rest of the rulers. As always, some rule, and all are ruled.
In the 19th century, when this system prevailed in only a few nations, it acquired a few
intellectually able proponents, such as John Stuart Mill, but it also evoked some intellectually
able opponents, such as Herbert Spencer, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Friedrich Nietzsche.
Democracy, as one of the ascendant political ideologies of the age, accommodated itself to the
others: to liberalism, nationalism, socialism, and even Christianity. They in turn accommodated
it, usually. Improbably, the doctrines legitimated one another, usually. The announced
popularity of democracy is surely exaggerated. It’s a mile wide and an inch deep. Aversion to
authoritarian regimes is not necessarily enthusiasm for democracy. In some of the post-
Communist democracies, democracy has already lost its charm. [10] In others, such as Russia,

Champion Briefs 394

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

democracy itself is already lost. Older democracies persist more from apathy and force of habit
than from genuine conviction. John Zerzan reasonably asks: “Has there ever been so much
incessant yammer about democracy, and less real interest in it?” [11] Well, has there? The idea
of democracy has never been justified, merely glorified. None of the older criticisms of
democracy has been refuted, and neither has any of the newer ones. They come from left,
right, and center. Some of these criticisms follow. They establish that democracy is irrational,
inefficient, unjust, and antithetical to the very values claimed for it: liberty, equality, and
fraternity. It does not even, for instance, imply liberty. [12] Rather, the instinctive tendency of
democracy is “to despise individual rights and take little account of them.” [13] Democracy not
only subverts community, it insults dignity, and it affronts common sense. Not all of these
violated values are important to everyone, but some of them are important to anyone, except
to someone to whom nothing is important. That is why post-modernists are democrats.

Champion Briefs 395

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Voting is INTEGRAL to prop up the façade of democracy.

Daniels, Emily. “Voting An Essential Part Of Democracy.” The Journal. October 03, 2017. Web.
August 18, 2020. <https://www.journal-news.net/opinion/editorials/voting-an-
essential-part-of-democracy/article_37268b67-4052-5061-ba76-4cd6c424989f.html>.
Democracy is dependent on the democratic process. Too often voters fail to show up at the
polls. That’s letting everyone else decide for you, and in this case, possibly your children and
grandchildren, as the impact of approving or not approving this amendment will be felt for a
long time. As of 9 a.m. Tuesday, 28,864 voters in the state had cast early ballots, according to
the Secretary of State’s office. About 1,222,562 were registered to vote as of Sept. 18, the last
day to register for the special election. This means that about 2 percent of West Virginians have
cast their ballot. We hope this number increases dramatically on Saturday. A study by Pew
Research Center released last spring indicated that voter turnout in the U.S. is low by
international standards. It found that about 55.7 percent of the U.S. voting age population cast
ballots in the 2016 presidential election, citing Census Bureau figures. This was “less than the
record year of 2008 and well below turnout levels typical in most other developed
democracies,” Pew found. This percentage put the U.S. behind Belgium (87.2 percent), Sweden
(82.6 percent) and Denmark (80.3 percent). Pew cites various reasons for the difference in
numbers between countries including compulsory voting — laws that require eligible citizens to
register and participate in democratic elections.

Champion Briefs 396

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

The affirmative is an exercise in re-empowering the democratic

process – vote negative to abandon hope in the false promises of the
aff.
De Witte, Melissa. “Stanford Political Scientist Makes The Case For Mandatory Voting.”
Stanford News. November 30, 2018. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://news.stanford.edu/2018/11/30/case-mandatory-voting/>.
Despite an increase in voter turnout during the 2018 U.S midterm election, about half of all
eligible voters didn’t cast their ballot on election day. To increase voter turnout in elections,
some scholars – including Stanford political scientist Emilee Chapman – have suggested making
voting compulsory in the United States. The U.S. would then join countries such as Australia,
Belgium and Brazil, which all require universal participation in national elections. In an article
published in the American Journal of Political Science, Chapman builds on existing scholarship
to make the case for mandatory voting. Chapman sees voting as a special occasion for all
citizens to show to elected officials they are all equal when it comes to government decision-
making. “The idea of compulsory voting is that it conveys the idea that each person’s voice is
expected and valued,” said Chapman, an assistant professor of political science in Stanford’s
School of Humanities and Sciences. “It really offers this society-wide message: There is no such
thing as a political class in a democracy. Voting is something that is for everybody, including and
especially people at the margins of society.”

Champion Briefs 397

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Fascism is the inevitable outcome of the American project.

Jenkins, Colin. “Americanism Personified: Why Fascism Has Always Been An Inevitable Outcome
Of The American Project.” Hampton Institute. June 08, 2017. Web. August 18, 2020.
<http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/americanism-personified-fascism.html>.
When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.” This quote,
which has often been misattributed to Sinclair Lewis , is wise in its recognizing the authoritarian
potential of both nationalism and organized religion. In slight contrast, Professor Halford E.
Luccock of the Divinity School of Yale University said in a 1938 interview , “When and if fascism
comes to America it will not be labeled 'made in Germany'; it will not be marked with a
swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism.'“ Luccock's
view was that of a Christian theologian during the height of Nazi Germany, likely meant to not
only downplay the role of religion but perhaps more so warning against the false idolatry of
nationalistic reverence. Despite the tidbits of insight offered, both quotes underestimate
Americanism as a highly-authoritative and dominating national project in and of itself. At the
time of both quotes, America had already cemented strong elements conducive to fascism: an
economy based in capitalist modes of production, a geography created through mass
extermination of Native American populations, white supremacist ideals rooted in both
dominant culture and pseudoscience , and aggressive expansionist and imperialist projects
throughout the Western hemisphere. It should come as no surprise that Adolf Hitler studied,
admired, and was inspired by the US genocide of Native Americans as well as its subsequent
reservation program. “Hitler's concept of concentration camps as well as the practicality of
genocide owed much, so he claimed, to his studies of English and United States history,” John
Toland wrote in his book, Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography. “He admired the camps for
Boer prisoners in South Africa and for the Indians in the wild west; and often praised to his
inner circle the efficiency of America's extermination-by starvation and uneven combat-of the
red savages who could not be tamed by captivity.” This notion of American fascism is certainly
nothing new. As Steve Martinot explains in his invaluable essay on “Fascism in the US,” this
discussion has been around for a long time: “In an early, now canonical discussion of racism in
the US, Pierre Van den Berghe (1967) pointed out that a prevalent racial despotism coexisted
with constitutionality, a confluence he characterized as 'herrenvolk democracy' - 'democracy
for white people.' In his book, Friendly Fascism, (1980) Bertram Gross argues that the US under
Reagan began moving toward a form of governance closely analogous to 1930s European
fascism; he compares the social consequences of corporate influence to Mussolini's 'corporate
state.' George Jackson finds no better word than 'fascism' to describe the psychotic use of
power and violence by which white prisoners relate to black, or by which the prison
administration maintains its hierarchical system -- and which he sees mirrored in white-black
relations outside the prison.” As a settler-colonial project steeped in white supremacist
domination and capitalist ideals, America is and always has been an ideal fascist breeding
ground. The current rise of Donald Trump, the “alt-right,” neo-Nazism, and white nationalism is
nothing new, it is merely Americanism becoming further personified through the vulnerabilities

Champion Briefs 398

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

opened by the failures of capitalism and the weakening of liberal democracy - systems that
were constructed on shoddy, hypocritical foundations to begin with.

Champion Briefs 399

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

It's the very same system of democratic “choice” of voting that

allowed Radical Americanism to flourish under Trump.
Price, Wayne. “Not My President!.” Anarkismo. December 17, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<http://anarkismo.net/article/29862>.
Yet a little less than half the voters did vote for Trump. (Somewhat less than half the eligible
voters did not vote at all.) They had mixed motives. Some were out and out white supremacists.
Many feared Latino immigrants and Muslim and Arab immigrants. Many hated Hillary for good
and bad reasons, because she was an establishment politician and also because she was a
woman. But also a great many reacted against the economic stagnation of the last decades, the
end of the post-World War II prosperity, the lack of good jobs, the off-shoring of industry to
low-wage countries, the loss of the “American dream.” Trump’s victory, such as it is, is
sometimes blamed on the “working class.” But the working class is much broader than older
white male industrial workers. It includes African-Americans and Latinos, who are mostly
working class and who hated Trump. It included young workers, who rarely supported Trump. It
included many of the “better-educated,” many of whom are white-collar workers (such as
teachers). It included a lot of working people who did not vote for either Trump or Clinton, out
of disgust for both. Overall, it was not so much that Trump brought out new white working class
voters, but that Clinton lost many voters and voting groups which had previously voted for
Obama. The Democrats really had very little to say to working people. Around 1970 the
Democratic leaders had deliberately decided to stop looking to the working class and the
unions, and to focus on the “professional” middle class. (See Price 2016.) It is usually safe for
the Republicans to whip up their traditional base of small businesspeople, lower middle class
people, better-off and prejudiced white workers, and religious fanatics. Even at their most
hysterical, such forces do not threaten the capitalist system. This time, however, these got out
of control. They nominated, and then elected, someone who was completely unsuited for the
job of president. Still, they did not threaten capitalism. But it has always been dangerous for the
Democrats to whip up their traditional base of the working class: workers who are white and
People of Color, male and female, straight and LGBT, U.S.-born and immigrant. The workers’
interests clash with those of big business. Their needs require lowering the profits of the
capitalist class. Their numbers make them a majority of the population (if we count everyone
who works for a wage or salary, without being a supervisor). They have an enormous potential
power outside of the voting booth. The workers run the machines and processes of production,
transportation, communication, and all services. Democratically organized, in unions or
councils, they could stop the society in its tracks and even start it up in a different way. As far as
the Democrats are concerned, this must not happen; the working class must not become aware
of its power. It is for these reasons that the Republicans can be vigorous to the point of nihilism
in mobilizing their base to fight for their views, but the Democrats have been mild and
compromising in their efforts, capitulating to the right again and again. However, the very
results of this election shows the limitations of the Democrats’ methods, especially of

Champion Briefs 400

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

channeling all opposition into elections. We cannot beat the greater evil by relying on the lesser
evil.

Champion Briefs 401

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

White supremacy is a necessary component of American fascism –

capitalism locks it in and prevents change.
Jenkins, Colin. “Americanism Personified: Why Fascism Has Always Been An Inevitable Outcome
Of The American Project.” Hampton Institute. June 08, 2017. Web. August 18, 2020.
<http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/americanism-personified-fascism.html>.
In America, the structural and cultural phenomenon of white supremacy serves as this identity,
and therefore acts as the engine needed to redirect the widespread angst developed through
the systematic dispossession created by capitalism and “democracy” into a nationalistic
movement. It is important to understand that white supremacy is not something only reserved
for jackbooted neo-Nazis giving “Heil Hitler!” salutes, but that it is a systemic phenomenon
which is heavily seeped in American culture. It is both a conditioned mentality and a material
reality. The conditioned mentality that Black lives are substandard has been shaped through
centuries of popular culture, from the racist Minstrel shows of the early 19th century, which
utilized the “ coon caricature” to lampoon Black people as dim-witted, lazy, and buffoonish, to
modern TV shows like COPS, which perpetuates the racist stereotype that Black people are
more prone to debauchery and criminality. The material reality has been shaped by two and a
half centuries of chattel slavery followed by various forms of legalized systems of servitude and
second-class citizenship, including sharecropping , convict leasing , Jim Crow, and mass
incarceration. This history has built complex layers of institutional racism carried out under the
guise of legality, and a systematic ghettoization supported by both “ white flight” and
widespread discriminatory housing and employment practices, all of which have combined to
shape a uniquely intense experience for Black Americans who must face both class and racial
oppression. The two factors (conditioned mentality and material reality) interplay with one
another in a way that is increasingly disastrous for the ways in which American society views
and treats its Black citizens. Because of the perpetuation of racial stereotypes, people on
average are less empathetic toward their Black counterparts. Studies have shown that white
children as young as seven years old believe that Black children feel less pain than them; that
emergency medical personnel are less likely to give pain medication to Black and Latinx children
who are in pain; and that “Caucasian observers reacted to pain suffered by African people
significantly less than to pain of Caucasian people.” The material reality shaped by institutional
racism has created a landscape where Black people are disproportionately poor, unemployed,
and in prison. Martinot talks about this seemingly never-ending cycle that is centered within a
highly racialized criminal punishment system: “The social effects of this process are
catastrophic, yet familiar. Not only does felonization of a population insure massive
unemployment (a general tendency not to hire people with a record), but routine felony
charges amount to systematic disenfranchisement (14% of black people by 1998, according to
Fellner and Mauer). Recent studies indicate that one out of every three black men under the
age of 30 has been through the judicial system in the last 25 years. To continually remove a
sizable number of people from a community in this way constitutes a massive disruption of its

Champion Briefs 402

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

social coherence. This disruption buttresses its criminalization as a community in white society's
eyes, and rationalizes the disinvestment of capital and a general financial obstruction of
community asset accumulation. Racial oppression, impoverishment, imprisonment and police
impunity are all of a piece. Ultimately, the increase in prison population has become one of the
arguments, in social discourse, for further drug laws and racial profiling. It is a self-generating
cycle. What is significant about it is that it is not perceived by white society at large as an extant
injustice. Instead, more prisons are called for and accepted, again with a sense form of cultural
familiarity (“how else are we going to deal with crime?”). This acceptance euphemizes itself in
political campaigns as being “hard on crime” as opposed to addressing the social conditions
that generate crime. It inhabits a white consensus in solidarity with the police and prison
industry that have allowed for their untrammeled growth -- a consensus whose content is white
racialized identity.” When turned on its head, white supremacists can use this current reality to
support their arguments that Black people are in these positions because of “poor decisions,”
“a lack of personal responsibility,” “a lack of work ethic,” “laziness,” or even some type of
biological shortcoming, as is argued by so-called “race realists” (the modern term for
pseudoscientific racism). Individualizing systemic problems is both a convenient way to blame
victims of societal oppression, by basically ignoring history, and the result of a general lack of
historical and practical knowledge regarding how systems shape lived realities for people within
those systems. The latter point helps explain why ignorance is naturally drawn to reactionary
politics, and why fascism has always been the likely outcome for America. As most Americans
suffer from extreme deficits in sociological, historical, economic, and systemic understanding,
any reaction against personal misgivings (which are experienced by the working class as a
whole under capitalism) will surely default into raw emotion for many. This is fascism's
advantage, as it feeds off aimless frustrations. Ignorance is easily swayed; and guiding these
frustrations into an intense anger against women, immigrants, Muslims, Black people, Brown
people, or LGBTQ people, is easily accomplished.

Champion Briefs 403

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy promotion creates permanent instability.

Walt, John. “The Case For Offshore Balancing: A Superior US Grand Strategy.” Foreign Affairs.
August, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-
states/2016-06-13/case-offshore-balancing>.
Other critics reject offshore balancing because they believe the United States has a moral and
strategic imperative to promote freedom and protect human rights. As they see it, spreading
democracy will largely rid the world of war and atrocities, keeping the United States secure and
alleviating suffering. No one knows if a world composed solely of liberal democracies would in
fact prove peaceful, but spreading democracy at the point of a gun rarely works, and fledgling
democracies are especially prone to conflict. Instead of promoting peace, the United States just
ends up fighting endless wars. Even worse, force-feeding liberal values abroad can compromise
them at home. The global war on terrorism and the related effort to implant democracy in
Afghanistan and Iraq have led to tortured prisoners, targeted killings, and vast electronic
surveillance of U.S. citizens. Some defenders of liberal hegemony hold that a subtler version of
the strategy could avoid the sorts of disasters that occurred in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya.
They are deluding themselves. Democracy promotion requires large-scale social engineering in
foreign societies that Americans understand poorly, which helps explain why Washington's
efforts usually fail. Dismantling and replacing existing political institutions inevitably creates
winners and losers, and the latter often take up arms in opposition. When that happens, U.S.
officials, believing their country's credibility is now at stake, are tempted to use the United
States' awesome military might to fix the problem, thus drawing the country into more
conflicts.

Champion Briefs 404

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy unsustainable and causes war - 2500 years of history

prove.
Brooks, Rosa. “Review - Books: Democracy Is Dependent On War.” The Wallstreet Journal.
January 06, 2017. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.wsj.com/articles/democracy-is-
dependent-on-war-1483741787>.
Some books should come stamped with a surgeon general's warning: “Likely to cause
discomfort,” perhaps, or “Not suitable for romantics.” The political scientists John Ferejohn and
Frances McCall Rosenbluth have written such a book: “Forged Through Fire: War, Peace and the
Democratic Bargain” is not for the faint of heart. It begins with a paradox. “Humans have
inflicted untold horrors on each other through wars,” Mr. Ferejohn and Ms. Rosenbluth write,
but these wars have also been responsible for fostering one of our “most cherished human
values”: modern democracy, with its unique combination of universal suffrage and property
rights. This isn't the story we're taught in high-school civics. But it's a compelling one,
powerfully told by two scholars with mastery of their subject. The authors walk the reader
through 2,500 bloody years of Western history, from the Peloponnesian wars to the war in
Vietnam, highlighting, again and again, a brutal trade-off: The emergence and consolidation of
democracy depends on warfare, and a particular kind of warfare, at that. Here's the logic: The
rich and powerful prefer to remain that way, and are, as a general rule, disinclined to share
either wealth or political power with the poor. Only when elites are faced with external military
threats do the poor become valuable to the rich. This is so because armies have traditionally
required bodies -- and plenty of them. This, the authors argue, is the awful “alchemy of iron and
blood” that produces democracy. Manpower-intensive forms of warfare require the large-scale
mobilization of the population, which forces elites facing external threats to grant political
concessions to the common man. Mr. Ferejohn and Ms. Rosenbluth are not the first to chart
the linkages between warfare and the evolution of the modern democratic state, but their
magisterial volume makes the case in persuasive and explicit detail. We begin in Athens, where
the shift from aristocracy to democracy was driven by the need to defend the city against
foreign invasion. In 508 B.C., Cleisthenes “promised to turn political power over to the Athenian
public in exchange for their help in repelling Spartan intervention,” and the great age of
Athenian democracy was born. It might soon have died, too, but for the existence of near-
continuous external threats during the Peloponnesian and Persian wars, and the fact that
Athenian naval supremacy soon came to require the active participation of tens of thousands of
ordinary men. “Whether they liked it or not,” note the authors, “Athens' wealthy and
conservative citizens seem to have understood that the city's survival rested in the hands of
thousands of commoners who rowed the triremes.” Similar dynamics led Rome's elites to grant
freedom, land, citizenship and the franchise to an expanding body of commoners and
ultimately to residents of far-flung colonial outposts. As in Athens, “Roman military
accomplishments rested on wide manpower mobilization rewarded by ... political voice.” But
not all wars produce democracy. In medieval Europe, feudal lords were able to rely mainly on

Champion Briefs 405

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

small forces of heavy cavalry to sustain their power, not on large-scale mobilization of the poor,
and this mostly eliminated the need to offer political concessions to the masses in exchange for
military service. Later, in early modern Europe, “the effective use of gunpowder decisively
tipped the balance away from the cavalry-dominated militaries of the previous 500 years and in
favor of mass armies ... shifting political power upward to leaders who could finance and
maintain such large armies.” Even so, for a time most European governments were able to
finance armies with plunder from the New World, “or, where necessary, through exchanges of
favors with merchants that were less destabilizing than the bargains [monarchs] would
otherwise have had to strike with the poor.” As a result, pressures to democratize remained
minimal and episodic. “As long as monarchies could buy armies with money, blood did not buy
voting rights, as it had in Athens and Rome,” the authors write. It was only in the 19th and 20th
centuries, Mr. Ferejohn and Ms. Rosenbluth observe, that conditions once again became
favorable for the widespread expansion of democracy. The French Republic's levee en masse
set the stage: Mass mobilizations required both an effective administrative state and eventually
a more egalitarian approach to politics. By the end of the 19th century, both France and
Germany had “enormous standing armies” and “both had adopted representative
government,” with universal suffrage placating the masses, counterbalanced by protections for
property rights to assuage the concerns of the wealthy. In much of Europe, however, the
interests of the wealthy and the working class remained at odds. It “took the white-hot wars of
the twentieth century, which required both money and manpower, to hinge them into a single
coalition in favor of representative democracy,” the authors write. When it happened, it
happened quickly. Norway and Sweden initiated universal military conscription at the beginning
of the 20th century; within a decade, both had also granted universal male suffrage. In Britain,
conscription did not begin until 1916; by 1918, universal male suffrage had also been granted.
By the end of World War II, 60 million people were dead, but democracy had become the norm
throughout the West. “Forged Through Fire” is full of grim lessons. One lesson: warfare, as the
authors of this book soberly remind us, has been a near-constant throughout human history.
Those inclined to take solace in the post World War II decline of interstate wars might pause to
consider that 70 years is, in the grand scheme of things, not a very long time. Another lesson:
Those with power have rarely been inclined to relinquish it voluntarily. Only fear and threat
have driven the rich and powerful to share -- grudgingly -- with history's have-nots. A third
lesson -- perhaps the hardest to swallow -- is that our most cherished modern liberal political
values would likely never have triumphed without war and its multiple horrors, and even the
democratic gains produced by centuries of war were “neither easy nor inevitable.” Democracy
depended upon a unique combination of circumstances: technologies favoring manpower-
intensive forms of warfare; the lack of external sources of wealth that might have enabled
governing elites to purchase military power, rather than coax it from their citizens; and so on.
Even with all these conditions present, coercion and propaganda were sometimes sufficient to
thwart the development of democracy. Russia and China, for instance, have managed, so far, to
buck the trend. All this leads to an uncomfortable question. Wealthy modern states can once
again increasingly outsource their security to private contractors, and in any case, the
emergence of new military technologies is again reducing the need for mass armies. Drones,
surveillance technologies and cyber-warfare make it possible for states to achieve war's

Champion Briefs 406

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

traditional ends without much need to mobilize their citizens, shifting the balance of power
away from ordinary citizens and back towards governing elites “When armies no longer need
flesh and blood,” wonder Mr. Ferejohn and Ms. Rosenbluth, “what can take their place to
stabilize democracy?” In other words: forged through war, can democracy survive peace?

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 407

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy ensures a multitude of human rights issues.

Mizzi, Mark. “Supporting Democracy And Human Rights.” The Malta Business Weekly.
September 18, 2014. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.pressreader.com/malta/the-
malta-business-weekly/20140918/281539404165660>.
This is confirmed by studies that consistently show a decline in interest among young people in
traditional politics, with decreasing levels of participation in elections, political parties and
other political organisation Call for proposals to establish a European Union Human Rights
Defence Mechanism Declared by a 2007 United Nations resolution. Call for proposals to
establish a European Union Human Rights Defence Mechanism Declared by a 2007 United
Nations resolution, 15 September marks the International Day of Democracy – a celebration
intended to provide an opportunity to review the state of democracy in the world. With the
scope of highlighting the challenges and opportunities of young people involved in democratic
processes, the theme chosen for this year’s International Day of Democracy was, Engaging
Young People on Democracy. For those who enjoy it, democracy is a concept that is often taken
for granted. It is seen as something that simply “should be” there and will never be lost. It is
viewed as a guaranteed integral part of the system, something that is in permanent good health
without the need of any form of nurturing, strengthening or maintaining. This is confirmed by
studies that consistently show a decline in interest among young people in traditional politics,
with decreasing levels of participation in elections, political parties and other political
organisations. Democracy however, is neither guaranteed nor enjoyed by all. Described by the
United Nations as “a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to determine
their own political, economic and cultural systems and their full participation in all aspects of
their lives”, democracy is a concept that can be turned into reality and enjoyed by everyone
only with the full participation of the international community, national authorities, civil society
and individuals. Democracy is also intrinsically linked to human rights. The values of freedom,
respect for human rights and the holding of regular genuine elections are essential pillars of
democracy, which means that, by its own nature, democracy provides the natural environment
for the protection and effective realisation of human rights. The European Union believes that a
strong and effective civil society is essential to ensure human rights are respected and that
democracy is strong and effective. Going by the Treaty that establishes it, the EU also believes
that its “action on the international scene shall be guided by the principles which have inspired
its own creation... and which it seeks to advance in the wider world: democracy, the rule of law,
the universality and indivisibility of human rights and fundamental freedoms, respect for
human dignity...” Within this context, the EU’s European Instrument for Democracy and Human
Rights (EIDHR) is a financial instrument designed to help civil society become an effective force
of political reform and defence of human rights. This instrument is not dependent on the
consent of the host government, and as such can address sensitive political issues and
cooperate directly with local civil society without any interference, pressures or restrictions
from public authorities. EIDHR can grant aid even where no established cooperation exists, and
can intervene without the agreement of thirdcountry governments. Its financial support is

Champion Briefs 408

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

available both to groups or individuals within civil society defending democracy and to inter-
governmental organisations that work to protect human rights. Financial assistance under
EIDHR complements other EU tools such as political dialogue, diplomatic initiatives and
technical cooperation. Such assistance may take the form of grants to finance projects
submitted by civil society, international or inter-governmental organisations, small grants to
human rights defenders, and human and material resources for EU election and observation
missions.
*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 409

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

And before you say, “Democrats win,” you’d better believe they’re in
on this too.
Price, Wayne. “Trump Is Not The Main Problem.” Anarkismo. July 03, 2019. Web. August 18,
2020. <http://anarkismo.net/article/31473>.
Something New is Happening For decades after World War II, U.S. politics swung back and forth
between the Democrats and the Republicans. There was little difference between the two. It
was a platitude of U.S. “political science” that this was a strength of U.S. politics, providing
stability and consensus. This changed about the time that the post-World War II prosperity
came to an end (in the 1970s). The economy stagnated, and the making of profits became more
difficult. Big business declared war on the working class (and the environment) in open and
covert ways. The Republicans became the leaders of that attack. Today many look back on the
era of political consensus with sighs of regret. The bitter partisanship of the two parties is
dismaying to many politicians, political “scientists,” and ordinary voters. The Republicans have
moved to the far-right, and the Democrats have stayed just behind them. Even this
development has been shaken up in recent years. On the right, there has grown white-
supremacist, fascist, violent, forces. (By “fascist” I do not mean people who are simply very
conservative, but people who wish to overturn the representative bourgeois democracy of the
U.S. and replace it with a dictatorship.) They have been encouraged by Trump and have
encouraged him, even if he himself is not a fascist. Perhaps even more surprising is the growth
of a socialist movement. Polls have found thirty to forty percent of the population—especially
young adults—with a positive view of “socialism.” Many have become disillusioned with
capitalism. The presidential runs of Bernie Sanders built on this sentiment and encouraged it.
The Democratic Socialists of America rapidly expanded, attracting people of varying views (even
anarchists joined, to form a Libertarian Socialist Caucus). Socialists were elected to local and
national office, the most well-known, besides Sanders, being Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
These socialists are not very “socialist.” They do not advocate taking away the wealth of what
Sanders has called “the billionaire class.” They do not propose socializing the major
corporations—not even the oil producers and the rest of the energy sector. By “socializing” I
mean anything from national government ownership to municipal ownership to worker
management to consumer cooperatives. (As an anarchist-socialist, I am for the last two.) Their
model is usually an idealized version of the New Deal of Franklyn Roosevelt. This was an effort
to save capitalism from its own failures in the Great Depression—to save capitalism from itself.
That is, they hope to use the existing capitalist state to manage the market economy in a more
efficient, more benevolent, fashion, supposedly in the interests of the working population. As
such their program is not particularly different from that of liberals, such as Elizabeth Warren.
This should not be surprising given the semi-liberal programs of European social-democratic
parties, such as in the Nordic (Scandinavian) countries, the UK, France, or Germany. Although
far from Stalinist totalitarianism, liberals and democratic socialists have an unjustified faith in
the effectiveness of the state to solve social problems.

Champion Briefs 410

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

The alternative is to embrace an anarchist anti-politics.

Robinson, Andy. “Democracy Vs Desire: Beyond Politics Of Measure.” Anarchy: A Journal of
Desire Armed. 2006. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/andy-robinson-democracy-vs-desire-beyond-
the-politics-of-measure>.
If, then, democracy is to be rejected as a concomitant of an anarchist anti-politics, what is to be
counterposed to it? The answer is, first of all, that the flows of desire themselves must define
the contours of socio-political action, and not the other way around. On one level, however,
more needs to be said. For a rejection of “democracy” — of the reduction of desires to one
among many, to an equivalential and representational status — does not imply a tyrannical
standpoint. One can be a master without having slaves; the goal then would be to be a master
among masters. The point is thus precisely to refuse the blackmail that says that the only
alternative to democracy is despotism — repeated as insistently by the state-socialist adherents
of the latter as by the liberal and social-democratic apologists for the former. This binary must
be seen as one of the “false choices” of the society of the spectacle — a choice between two
similar entities (such as Pepsi and Coke) that ultimately serves to head off a perception of the
dividing-lines which run, not between the rivals, but between the system in its entirety (with
both its binarised poles) and that which opposes it. In the binary of democracy versus
dictatorship, what is foreclosed is the possibility of anarchy — a refusal of rule by either
minorities or majorities; a refusal of rule as such. There are many ways to attempt to construct
non-oppressive relations with others — both human and nonhuman — without the reduction
to similarity implicit in democracy and other statist forms. First of all, the self is in a condition of
overflow with the world, as a situated being-in-becoming that is not reduceable to fixed
categories. In this way, as many ecologists recognise, the self already has an interior connection
to the goal of forming sustainable relations with the world, without any need to introduce self-
sacrificing elements to justify such a concern. Secondly, difference doesn’t need to disappear to
enable dialogical interaction. Indeed, social relations are enriched where difference can
become a source of new experiences and of relations in which differences become strengths.
The way in which some hunter-gatherers take on animal attributes through shamanism would
be an example of this; the way in which different abilities can be combined to complete a task is
another. Thirdly, power for the self does not necessarily imply disempowerment of others. It is
possible to conceive of, formulate, and actively live, types of power which empower across
intersubjective boundaries. Nietzsche cites poets as his example of how a self-active egoism in
the Stirnerian sense can be something which is also enriching for others; Deleuze prefers the
example of a productive relationship or friendship, in which each partner’s enjoyment
intensifies the enjoyment of the other. Fourthly, desires can often find non-repressive
expression in ways that are not destructive of other active desires, through forming
assemblages in which desires are articulated around one another and are channelled in
productive ways that enmesh with the desires of others. Fourier’s concept of “harmony” is one
example of this kind of approach, which replaces repression with rearticulation. These are just a

Champion Briefs 411

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

few of the possible ways in which desires can operate constructively outside a framework of
repression. The point about democracy, however, is that, contrary to the claims of its more
vocal advocates, it does not enable or encourage the construction of spaces where these kinds
of non-oppressive relations can come into being. Rather, it ensures a closure around the
“people,” the majority, and the procedures of counting. It tends to foreclose dialogue and
interchange in advance by allowing the majority a self-satisfied despotic position, and
demanding of the excluded a self-subordinating reactive conformity. The possibility of a non-
repressive and sustainable social world is thus something that lies beyond the boundaries of
democracy. It is something too radical for the numerical and symbolic reductions necessary to
democratic practice, which recognises instead that the forces of life cannot be reduced to
figures in an equation. It is only beyond the reductive logics of sameness that emancipation
becomes conceivable, and it is thus beyond such frameworks that anarchists must look.

Champion Briefs 412

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

The system of the United States not only survives Trump, but is
enhanced by him.
Madrid, Raul. “Liberal Democracy Is Stronger Than Trump’s Populism: Why Trump Isn’t The
Threat To America’s Liberal.” The American Interest. December 11, 2017. Web. August
18, 2020. <https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/12/11/liberal-democracy-
stronger-trumps-populism/>.
One way to get at this question is to employ a comparative perspective. In recent years, many
democratic countries in Europe and Latin America have seen the rise—and sometimes fall—of
populist leaders. These experiences provide lessons on how contemporary populists operate,
and how liberal-democratic forces might respond. From them we can learn much about the
conditions under which populist strategies and tactics tend to succeed and those that more
often portend failure. Four Obstacles in Trump’s Path While populists in Europe and Latin
America bear many similarities to Donald Trump, they have operated in different political
contexts that need to be taken into account when drawing comparisons. The main differences
concern aspects of the institutional framework, the party system, the cleavage structure, and
the state of the economy when the populists take power. These four factors augur well for
liberal democracy in the United States, making it difficult for President Trump’s putative
populist machinations to triumph. First, the United States has a presidential system of
government with a clear separation of power between the chief executive, the two houses of
Congress, and the courts. These institutional checks and balances hinder the populist quest for
concentrating personal power. The parliamentary systems prevailing in Europe offer less
resistance to would-be populist autocrats. A party that wins a majority in the legislature elects
the Prime Minister (such as Viktor Orbán in Hungary), who heads the Executive Branch. This
adds up to a great deal of concentrated power, which facilitates attempts to strangle liberal
democracy. Not only is the distinction between legislative and executive branches blurred in
such systems, but in most continental countries the judiciary has less sway over politics than in
the United States. Not even a politically appointed Attorney General can readily obstruct this
separation of authority: Indeed, under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution, Congress can
impeach an Attorney General found guilty of criminal behavior, whether the President who
appointed him objects or not. In practice, Latin America’s systems of government also diverge
from U.S. presidentialism. While the continent’s constitutions prescribe a clear separation of
powers, Presidents in the region typically enjoy much greater formal or informal authority than
their counterpart in the United States does. Moreover, some chief executives in Latin America
accrue more power through various machinations that override formal strictures. In Europe and
Latin America, therefore, populist leaders who command majority support can often establish
political hegemony—which enables them to undermine democracy as they deem desirable.
Due to the institutional framework of the United States, it is much harder for President Trump
to do so. Second, populist leaders usually rise to power in countries where party systems are
weak or are collapsing. Silvio Berlusconi, for instance, became Prime Minister after a massive

Champion Briefs 413

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

corruption scandal devastated Italy’s postwar party system. Similarly, Peru’s Alberto Fujimori
and Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez won the presidency when established parties were crumbling. In
such fluid settings, populist leaders can create and dominate their own flimsy, unorganized
mass movements. By contrast, Donald Trump has needed to deal with an existing party that he
does not control and that did not want him to win its presidential nomination. The new
President commands fervent support among the Republican mass base, but faces at least the
residual distrust and aversion of the GOP establishment. Because he has to deal with leaders
and legislators of an established party, no matter how hollow and weak compared to earlier
times, Trump is in a comparatively poor position. In this sense, he resembles Carlos Menem, the
Argentine populist who won the presidential candidacy of the Peronist Party through a primary
election in 1988, but who never managed to dominate his venerable party during his ten years
as President (1989–99). In fact, another Peronist leader eventually blocked Menem’s attempt to
perpetuate himself in power. The political constraints that influential GOP barons still impose
on President Trump are also similar to those facing some populist leaders in European
multiparty systems. Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, for instance, never achieved a parliamentary
majority on its own. Instead, the Italian populist needed coalition partners to win and maintain
his premiership. For this purpose, he had to negotiate with powerful politicians whom he did
not control. This is one important reason why Berlusconi never achieved unchallengeable
political hegemony, and so did not do lasting damage to Italy’s liberal democracy. Third, Donald
Trump won the chief executive office in a country that suffers from an unusual degree of
political and ideological polarization, which offers him some political opportunities, but also
imposes important constraints on his populist designs. Populist leaders usually emerge when
mainstream parties have converged in their policy programs and ideological positions.1
Because “the political establishment” leaves voters few real choices, many citizens flock to
populist outsiders who promise to raise neglected issues. Venezuela’s Chávez, for instance,
addressed widespread social problems that previous governments had failed to resolve; in this
way, he won the backing of 65-70 percent of the citizenry. In the United States, by contrast, the
Republican and Democratic parties have engaged in significant ideological and cultural sorting
from the civil rights era onward. As a result, their party delegations in Congress vote in ever
more distinct ways. The mass bases of the two parties have also moved further apart in recent
years; in particular, fervent right-wing movements have pulled the GOP away from the
moderate center. The polarization prevailing in the United States makes it very difficult for
Donald Trump to win majority support, despite the significant appeal of populist entreaties
across the political spectrum. Indeed, his presidential approval ratings have since May 2017
hovered below 40 percent. How can this U.S. populist credibly claim to represent “the people”
when a majority disapproves of his job performance and expresses its aversion to his personal
leadership? Latin American populists, like Chávez and to a lesser extent Nestor Kirchner and
Cristina Fernández Kirchner in Argentina, have used landslide victories in plebiscites and
elections to cement their political hegemony and dismantle or weaken democracy, but the new
U.S. leader’s middling level of support makes such a strategy unfeasible. Americans are unlikely
to coalesce into a broad mass base of support for Trump’s populism as long as ideological and
cultural polarization offers real choices that divide “the people.” Fourth, Donald Trump faces a
paradox, because President Obama left the U.S. economy in good shape as measured by

Champion Briefs 414

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

conventional standards, such as growth, inflation, and unemployment. When Trump ran for and
subsequently took office, the country was not suffering from a perceived severe or acute crisis.
In comparative perspective, the absence of pressing problems is unusual. Right-wing populists
often emerge when their country is sliding toward the abyss. By claiming the mantle of the
providential savior, these political outsiders can benefit from dramatic crises as long as they
seemingly or actually manage to pull the nation away from the brink. Peru’s Fujimori and
Argentina’s Menem, for example, faced hyperinflation of four to six thousand percent per year.
When these populist presidents boldly defeated the scourge of inflation, large majorities felt
enormous relief. As a result, Fujimori and Menem won sky-high popularity ratings of up to 70-
80 percent, which subsequently allowed them to dominate politics, change the constitution,
and engineer their own reelection. The United States, however, did not suffer from a crisis in
2016 comparable to, say, the Great Depression of the 2007–09 period. Therefore, President
Trump has lacked an opportunity to boost his backing dramatically. The structural problems
that helped to fuel Trump’s rise, such as de-industrialization and the loss of well-paying jobs,
are not amenable to quick fixes. A bold adjustment plan can stop hyperinflation from one day
to the next, but there is no rapid way, especially in a market economy like that of the United
States, to bring back millions of industrial jobs. Even a determined populist leader like Donald
Trump cannot turn the Rust Belt into a string of shining, modern factories, or magically
resuscitate demand for coal when market factors decidedly point in the opposite direction. The
absence of an acute but resolvable crisis deprives President Trump of the chance to win over
masses of new followers from the ranks of independents or Democrats. And a populist who is
not very popular is not very powerful. In sum, international experiences suggest that President
Trump lacks important preconditions that would allow him to win overwhelming support,
relentlessly concentrate power, and undermine liberal democracy. Populist leaders like
Berlusconi and Orbán, Fujimori and Chávez encountered open doors and unusual opportunities.
By contrast, the U.S. President faces four sets of interlocking obstacles. Firm checks and
balances limit his power. The unreliable backing of his own party prevents him from overriding
these institutional and political constraints. Ideological polarization and the absence of an acute
crisis restrict his mass support. For these reasons, he cannot make an end run, grab power, and
weaken checks and balances, as Fujimori and Chávez did by convoking government-controlled
constituent assemblies. By international comparison, President Trump confronts an
unfavorable environment for establishing populist hegemony. President Trump’s Populist
Strategy Given these four obstacles, what are the prospects of populism in the United States?
International experiences can shed light on President Trump’s political options for dealing with
the institutional and political limitations he faces. These experiences suggest that his limited
mass support makes his strategy of relentless confrontation likely to fail. Comparative insights
also elucidate the strategic dilemmas confronting the opposition, which can choose between a
direct counterattack against the brash populist or pragmatic efforts to entrap this
inexperienced chief executive in a web of constraints. What emerges from the following
discussion is a sanguine conclusion: Liberal democracy in the United States will survive the
challenges and risks that populist leadership poses. Certainly, Trump will continue to transgress
norms of accountability and civility during his term, but he is unlikely to effect lasting changes,
enshrine them in institutional reforms, and thus do more than temporary damage to liberal

Champion Briefs 415

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

democracy. The U.S. system, sustained by a pluralist civil society, has great resilience. In fact,
there is a good chance that the new President’s norm violations may generate a liberal-
democratic backlash that will reaffirm these principles after Trump’s departure, and perhaps
even strengthen their institutional protection. How can Donald Trump advance his agenda?
Populist leaders commonly employ confrontation and foment polarization. To prove their
boldness and charisma, they act like attack dogs. They deliberately seek enemies in order to
induce their followers to offer intense support. As is evident in his Twitter barrages, President
Trump has consistently used this contentious strategy. This approach has its advantages.
Because Trump cannot easily expand his backing, given the high levels of partisan polarization
in the United States and the absence of an acute economic crisis, it makes sense for him to
solidify the support he does have by attacking enemies. But this confrontational approach also
has substantial downsides. After all, the system of checks and balances puts a large premium on
negotiation and compromise if a President wants to get his measures approved by Congress
and to survive challenges in the courts. The cost of confrontation is especially high because
President Trump does not fully control the GOP delegation in Congress. By turning his ire not
only against Democrats, but against the Republican leadership as well, he risks antagonizing
legislators whose support he needs. No wonder that, so far, Trump has established a very
meager legislative record. Moreover, this legislative weakness may set him up for political
failure. His problems in steering his bills through Congress not only generate a sensation of
government paralysis, they also limit his ability to provide benefits to his supporters, for
instance via substantial tax cuts for middle- and lower-middle class people. Of course, some
populist leaders manage to turn adversity to advantage. They parlay legislative stalemate and
gridlock into radical institutional reform, which weakens checks and balances and boosts
presidential powers. Peru’s Fujimori, for example, closed Congress and then convoked a
constituent assembly that strengthened his institutional armor and facilitated his political
hegemony, which persisted for years. Hugo Chávez achieved even longer-lasting predominance
by calling elections for a constituent assembly, which he used to rewrite the constitution,
strengthen his hold on power, and ultimately suffocate Venezuelan democracy. Will Donald
Trump be tempted to bend, if not break liberal democracy as well? The party polarization
prevailing in the United States could facilitate such machinations. Hostility to the opposition
could induce the GOP to use its majorities in Congress to impose illiberal reforms and to allow
Trump to skew democratic competition.2 But while such a slippery slope toward soft
authoritarianism is imaginable, the obstacles described above make this risk remote. The
interlocking nature of the checks and balances system makes serious erosion of democracy
unlikely, and open infringements highly improbable. For instance, even a Republican-
dominated Supreme Court would forestall a descent into authoritarianism. Moreover, it is
doubtful that the GOP would want to empower Trump, whose unpredictable, arbitrary
leadership many party barons distrust. Indeed, they have incentives to keep the new President
fairly weak so they can extract concessions and keep him under control. Another big obstacle
arises from Trump’s limited mass support – the flipside of partisan polarization and of the
absence of an acute crisis. A President with 55 percent disapproval rates is exceedingly unlikely
to get away with a serious assault on democracy. Even limited restrictions, such as a further
tightening of voting rights, will draw a determined response from the vibrant U.S. civil society,

Champion Briefs 416

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

which can challenge his policies through the courts. Thus, the four interlocking limitations that
Trump’s populism faces offer a great deal of protection for liberal democracy.

Champion Briefs 417

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

The alt solves right now, uniquely – liberalism has degraded enough
to the point where people will join the resistance.
Gillis, William. “The Delegitimization Of Democracy.” Center for a Stateless Society. October 20,
2016. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://c4ss.org/content/46671>.
There’s a number of folk celebrating the collapse of the legitimacy of US civil institutions in this
election, but regrettably it’s not so simple as de-legitimize the state and presto anarchism.
Liberal democracy is an incoherent, ultimately unstable and unsustainable system, but there
are many more stable configurations of society and a lot of them are far more dystopian. Our
strongest critique against liberalism is not that its founded upon horrific, unnecessary and
intolerable violence — although it is — but that it is insecure against slow rolls or sudden
descents towards greater authoritarianism and fractious civil war. When the civic religion of a
country withers and the treaty of liberal democracy is revealed as nothing more than paper,
what is most often released is the mass of fascistic predators who have grown fat slowly
nibbling the democracy’s flesh from within. The state survives on top of a much broader
ecosystem of sociopathic power-seeking that it encourages. It powers itself on the fuel of
constructed tensions and contestants for power, forces that can burst out of its control
explosively. The collapse of a democracy is most usually a reconfiguration of power, hardly ever
its abolition. That is not remotely to suggest that anarchists stop or show timidity in our efforts
to delegitimize our current state, but rather that we must stay steely-eyed about the incredibly
hard work to prepare for such a collapse and survive it, much less guide it. When one morning
in 1936 the president of the Second Spanish Republic called his ministers, his assistants and
secretaries and found that they had all abandoned their posts — his government de facto
dissolved like a silly dream — the people of Spain were already building barricades and raiding
the armories. Either for the fascists or for the anarchists. We lost that war. In part because we
did not get to choose its outset. And were not ready for its vicissitudes. There are presently far
far far more Trump brownshirts in this country than there are anarchists. An insurrection by
white supremacists and populist authoritarians against a thoroughly corrupt and totalitarian
establishment looking for any excuse to suppress all dissent is a conflict we are ill-prepared to
leverage to our advantage. This is a plain and uncontestable truth. Obviously our state must fall.
Democracy must be revealed as illegitimate. But these goals must happen on our terms. And
they are nowhere near sufficient conditions for anarchy to flourish. When they are brought
about on someone else’s timetable we should be concerned.

Champion Briefs 418

NEG: Democracy K Sept/Oct 2020

Democrats can’t solve the impacts of the K.

Price, Wayne. “Trump Is Not The Main Problem.” Anarkismo. July 03, 2019. Web. August 18,
2020. <http://anarkismo.net/article/31473>.
There needs to be massive union organizing drives through the U.S. There should be city and
regional general strikes to fight back against attacks on working people. There need to be
massive and militant demonstrations, with civil disobedience, to fight against police brutality
and other aspects of racism and poverty. Cities should be brought to a halt until steps are taken
to limit global warming. Colleges should be occupied by their students. So factories and other
workplaces should be occupied by their workers, who should run them for the common good. If
a Democrat is elected president, with a Democratic Congress, we can expect liberals,
progressives, and activists to be disappointed. The Democrats, whatever their motives, will stay
within the limits of capitalism. Therefore they cannot stop climate change or improve the living
conditions of working people—not under the current conditions of capitalist stagnation and
decline. This disappointment will lead to greater opposition, I hope. Opposition should not be
channeled into the Democratic Party (there to wither and die),nor into other electoral parties
(that is, into other supports of the capitalist state). They should be directed to direct action and
militant activities. To save the humans, a different system is needed—one based on
cooperation, equality, and freedom, with production for use not profit, and with radically-
democratic self-management of the economy and all aspects of society. Only a few are for this
now, but a radical left wing of the developing movements can be built to fight for this
revolutionary goal. If we are not mesmerized by the flam-flam of the electoral system.

Champion Briefs 419

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Democracy AC

Pro-voter policies take away the need for mandatory voting.

Danielle, Root. “Increasing Voter Participation In America.” Center For American Progress. July
11, 2018. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/07/11/453319/in
creasing-voter-participation-america/>.
Automatic voter registration: Center for American Progress research finds that, if every state
implemented Oregon’s model of AVR, more than 22 million registered voters could be added to
state voter rolls in just the first year.12 Based on this analysis, one could expect more than 7.9
million new voters nationwide—including 3.2 million previously disengaged voters—within just
the first year of implementation. Same-day voter registration: States with SDR, which this
report defines as including Election Day registration, experience, on average, a 5 percent
increase in voter participation and consistently have the highest participation in the country.13
According to the authors’ calculations, if all states without SDR had passed and implemented
the policy, there could have been approximately 4.8 million more voters in the 2016 elections.
Preregistration: In Florida, preregistration laws have been found to improve youth voting
participation by 4.7 percentage points.14 Online registration: A study of Georgia’s online voter
registration system found that approximately 71 percent of those who registered online turned
out to vote, compared with 48 percent and 52 percent of those registering by mail or through a
state agency, respectively.15 According to the authors’ calculations, had every state
implemented an online voter registration policy such as Georgia’s, there could have been more
than 536,000 additional voters during the 2016 elections. Early voting: One study found that
early voting can increase participation by about 2 to 4 percent.16 Eliminating early voting has
also been found to decrease turnout in communities of color.17 According to the authors’
calculations, if all states had early voting in place during the 2016 elections, there could have
been at least 789,500 more voters. No-excuse absentee voting: No-excuse absentee voting has
been projected to increase voter participation by about 3 percent over time.18 Vote-at-home
with vote centers: Colorado’s vote-at-home plus vote centers policy increased voter
participation in the state by about 2 to 5 percent and increased participation for young people
by 9 percent.19 Restore rights for formerly incarcerated people: More than 25,000 formerly
incarcerated people in Virginia participated in the 2016 elections after having their rights
restored by former Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D).20 Based on Virginia’s experience, all else being
equal, if all formerly incarcerated people had their rights restored, there could have been more
than 914,000 additional voters during the 2016 elections. Strengthen civics education in
schools: As one example, a study of Kids Voting USA—a civics education model—in Kansas

Champion Briefs 421

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

found that voter participation was 2.1 percent higher for both 18-year-olds and their parents in
Kansas counties that incorporated Kids Voting into school curricula.21 Invest in integrated voter
engagement and outreach: Integrated voter engagement groups combine issue advocacy and
organizing with voter mobilization to effectuate positive change within the communities they
serve. From 2012 to 2016, the IVE group Emgage, saw a 17.2 percent increase in participation
among Muslim American voters. Grassroots voter outreach efforts are also successful in driving
participation; one study showed that an additional vote is produced for every 14 people
contacted by canvassers.22 According to the authors’ calculations, had every eligible nonvoting
American been contacted by canvassers, there could have been approximately 6.2 million more
voters during the 2016 elections. These pro-voter policies are mutually dependent and
reinforcing. For example, the effectiveness of more convenient voting options—including early
voting, vote-at-home, and no-excuse absentee voting—depends on eligible voters being
registered. As aptly described in a report by the director of the Elections Research Center at the
University of Wisconsin, Barry C. Burden, and others, “The additional convenience of early
voting is worthless to a potential voter who finds that she is actually not registered, and
therefore unqualified to vote.”23 At the same time, the benefits of registration modernization
cannot be fully realized if voters do not have opportunities to exercise their civic duty.
Moreover, these policies often complement each other. Whereas early voting on its own has
been shown to increase participation by about 2 to 4 percent, early voting combined with
same-day voter registration has increased voter participation by 4.2 to 11 percent where it has
been implemented.24

Champion Briefs 422

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Voting at home is possible and increases voter turnout – this solves

for COVID risks.
Danielle, Root. “Increasing Voter Participation In America.” Center For American Progress. July
11, 2018. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2018/07/11/453319/in
creasing-voter-participation-america/>.
“No-excuse absentee” and “vote-at-home” are two affirmative voting policies that can make
the process of voting more convenient. As noted in previous sections of this report, the act of
voting can be a burdensome process for many eligible Americans who otherwise want to
participate. It may involve taking time away from work, child care costs, and mobility and
transportation challenges as well as long lines and complications at polling places. No-excuse
absentee voting and vote-at-home policies help voters avoid these altogether, allowing eligible
voters to cast ballots at their convenience, often in the comfort of their own homes. Absentee
voting is the process whereby eligible voters are permitted to return, by mail or in person,
voted paper ballots prior to an election. Voters are typically required to fill out an application
online or by mail in order to receive an absentee paper ballot from designated election
authorities. No-excuse absentee voting is particularly useful for students, those with conflicting
work schedules, and those who travel frequently and are otherwise unable to vote in person on
Election Day. Whereas some states allow voters to vote absentee only if they are permanently
disabled, serve overseas, or live in certain rural areas, 27 states and the District of Columbia
allow no-excuse absentee voting, which allows eligible voters to vote absentee for any
reason.141 According to one study, states with no-excuse absentee voting experience increases
in voter participation of about 3 percent over time.142 In adopting or updating absentee voting
policies, states should allow any eligible voter to vote absentee for any reason whatsoever, no
excuse needed. This would ensure that all eligible Americans could cast their votes no matter
what, even if they were simply out of town or unable to make it to the polls on Election Day but
did not fit under one of the limited set of exemptions. Vote-at-home, which is sometimes called
“vote-by-mail,” is another convenience-based voting policy that improves the voting experience
and can increase voter participation. Two states—Washington and Oregon—conduct all
elections through vote-at-home, while Colorado has an exemplary model that combines vote-
at-home with community vote centers where people can still cast their ballots in person.143
Vote-at-home differs from no-excuse absentee voting in that registered voters need not file a
request to receive their ballots; ahead of election day, paper ballots are distributed by mail to
all registered voters. Voters can take their time examining and researching the candidates and
issues, and they can vote in the comfort of their own home before placing their voted ballot in
the mail or dropping it off at a vote center or collection box. How does Colorado’s vote-at-home
with vote centers model work? Colorado is revolutionizing election administration by putting
voters first and giving them more opportunities to become registered and vote. Colorado is a
vote-at-home state but operates under a model that provides voters many options to cast their

Champion Briefs 423

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

ballots. Once voters receive their ballot, which is sent to them automatically by the state, they
can: Vote by returning the ballot by mail Vote by dropping the ballot in one of the conveniently
located 24-hour drop boxes located across their county Vote by dropping off the ballot or
voting in person at a county vote center, where eligible voters can register at the same time as
voting In the city of Denver, vote by dropping a ballot off or vote in person at the city’s mobile
vote center, which travels to different communities within the city.144 Colorado’s model
increased voter participation in the state by about 2 to 5 percent, according to one study.145
Notably, after the state implemented vote-at-home, participation increased by 9 percent for
Coloradans ages 18 to 34.146 Meanwhile, after Denver implemented its vote-at-home program
in 2001, it experienced a significant increase in voter participation among Latinos.147 While the
city as a whole saw participation increase by 17.2 percent compared with the 1999 local
elections, the 19 precincts with the highest Latino populations experienced an increase of 55.5
percent, and the precinct with the highest Latino population saw participation rise by 82
percent.148 One of the reasons that Colorado’s model is so successful is that it works in
tandem with the state’s same-day registration policy.149 By combining these two policies,
Colorado has removed significant barriers to registration and provided more options for voting,
thus driving participation. Colorado’s vote-at-home system is unique because of its expansive
incorporation of vote centers, which are required statewide and open on Election Day.
Colorado vote centers are open Monday through Saturday, for 15 days during general elections
and 8 days in primary and off-year elections. Vote centers are conveniently located within and
across counties; their precise location is determined through a public selection process
whereby the public can provide feedback on proposed locations, including concerns over
accessibility and convenience. In Denver, the city’s Ballot TRACE program allows voters
returning voted ballots by mail to track their delivery to and receipt by election officials. Voters
who sign up for this free service receive regular updates—via email, text message, or an online
portal—about the status of their ballot as well as when it is delivered to the elections
division.150 In designing the city’s elections, Denver Elections Director Amber McReynolds
focuses on the voter experience: “We have a voter-centered approach to election
administration—one that respects voters and focuses on improving their voter experience.”151
The state’s prioritization of voters’ needs and convenience has paid off: In 2016, voter
participation in Colorado was more than 12 percentage points higher than nationwide
turnout.152 During the 2016 elections, voter participation in states allowing vote-at-home was
10 percentage points higher, on average, than it was in other states. However, research has
been mixed regarding vote-at-home’s effectiveness at increasing voter participation. A 2017
analysis of vote-at-home’s impact on some California counties found that participation in
general elections was lower in jurisdictions using vote-at-home.153 The authors of that study,
Thad Kousser and Megan Mullin, posited that, during general elections, when there is constant
flow of information and reminders about voting, changes in election processes are unlikely to
influence voter participation.154 The authors also noted complaints by some voters living in
jurisdictions with vote-at-home who were unfamiliar with how it worked. Voters cannot engage
in the voting process if they do not understand how it operates or are skeptical of its utility; this
could offer, at least in part, an explanation for lower turnout.155 A comprehensive literature
review carried out by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2016 examined vote-at-

Champion Briefs 424

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

home’s impact on voter participation and found that most research showed a positive
correlation between voter participation and vote-at-home policies.156 Similar findings have
been reported elsewhere. A 2018 report examining voting behavior in Utah during the 2016
elections found that voter participation increased by 5 to 7 percentage points in the 21 counties
using vote-at-home rather than traditional polling places.157 During the April 2018 elections,
Anchorage, Alaska, experienced the highest voter participation in the city’s history after rolling
out a new vote-at-home system, which included some vote centers and ballot drop boxes.158
And in Washington, which carries out all elections by mail, researchers found that vote-at-home
increases voter participation by between 2 and 4 percent.159 One area where researchers tend
to agree is that vote-at-home increases voter participation in elections with historically low
participation. In local special elections, for example, vote-at-home has been shown to increase
participation by about 7.6 percent.160 In the 2014 midterm elections, voter participation in
vote-at-home states was, on average, 23 percent higher than in other states.161 In 2018, a
county clerk estimated that vote-at-home increased voter participation in Kansas by 20 percent
in a local election for sales tax.162 Furthermore, whereas most states see significant
discrepancies between presidential and midterm elections, in 2014, voter participation in
Colorado and Oregon was equal to the national average for the 2016 election.163 In Colorado,
after implementing vote-at-home, the voter turnout gap between the 2014 midterms and the
2016 general election decreased by approximately 1.5 percent, compared with the gap
between the 2010 and 2012 elections.164 In Oregon, vote-at-home has been shown to reduce
the participation gaps between general and special elections by 11 percent.165 In
implementing vote-at-home, states should abide by the Colorado model, which incorporates
vote centers, as research suggests that voters prefer dropping their completed ballots off in
person at a designated location rather than sending them through the mail.166 And since mail
delivery can occasionally be unreliable—particularly for highly transient communities—eligible
voters must have an alternative means of casting ballots.167 For example, surveys indicate that
Native American voters prefer to vote in person, as they often experience problems with mail-
in voting, including ballots never arriving, difficulty describing their voting addresses, and
difficulty understanding how to fill out the ballot.168 Vote centers themselves have proven
beneficial to improving participation, particularly for infrequent voters, and they reduce
election administration costs, allowing election officials to focus resources where they are
needed most.169 Vote-at-home may be a particularly good option for states with permanent
no-excuse absentee voting lists, where individuals sign up to automatically receive an absentee
ballot each election and where a large percentage of voters cast absentee ballots by mail
already—as is the case in Hawaii, Arizona, and Montana.170 This year, some counties in
California will begin transitioning to vote-at-home with drop boxes and vote centers.171 All
states should offer voters the chance to sign up for permanent absentee voting lists and to
automatically receive their ballots by mail. Doing so would provide voters with more
convenient options and would help to increase voter participation. Finally, vote-at-home may
be useful for jurisdictions lacking election resources and sufficient numbers of poll workers or
for jurisdictions in which voters are located long distances from polling places. Vote-at-home is
estimated to save $2 to $5 in election costs per registered voter.

Champion Briefs 425

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Democracy and gender equality work together.

Stavridis, James. “Democracy Isn't Perfect, But It Will Still Prevail.” TIME. July 12, 2018. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://time.com/5336615/democracy-will-prevail/>.
Another boon for democracy is the growing role of women in governance. Powerful female
champions of democracy and civil rights have emerged around the world, from Michelle
Bachelet of Chile to Jacinda Ardern of New Zealand and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, the first
elected female head of state in Africa. Female representation has increased in national
parliaments, from 15% in 2002 to 19.8% in 2012, the most recent year available. The rise to
power of those representing 50% of the world’s population can only be good for the legitimacy
and durability of democracy. Moreover, countries with higher levels of gender equality are less
likely to engage in internal or external conflict, according to the World Bank. Women’s
participation in conflict prevention and resolution often helps ensure success; agreements that
include women and civil-society groups are 64% less likely to fail than those that do not,
according to a U.N.-sponsored study.

Champion Briefs 426

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting doesn’t solve all the problems that it appears to.
Polimedio, Chayenne. “Is Voting A Civic Right Or A Civic Duty?.” Vox. November 06, 2018. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2018/11/6/18068484/voting-civic-
right-civic-duty>.
Compulsory voting accomplishes the basic task it sets out to do: to get the highest percentage
possible of eligible voters to leave their homes on Election Day. And yet compulsory voting isn’t
the solution to low voter turnout. The simplest case against compulsory voting is that it negates
the premise that while citizens ought to have the right to vote, they should also be free to
choose not to vote. Voters, whether voluntarily or involuntarily, assess the perceived costs to
voting vis-à-vis its perceived gains when deciding whether or not to cast a ballot. Those costs
can include, but are not limited to, issue salience, the ease with which voters are able to
register to vote and to cast a ballot, a country’s electoral system, the frequency of elections,
and when in the week elections are held. Other reasons why forcing individuals to cast a ballot
isn’t the solution to better democracy include the fact that people make bad choices
sometimes, not because they’re evil or stupid, but because they have preferences and biases
and will use shortcuts instead of deeply pondering the benefits and trade-offs of any given
policy proposal. Compulsory voting may also lead to democratic inequalities, where the burden
for not voting is highest on those who can bear it least. In Brazil, for example, those tend to be
voters for whom interaction with the state is unavoidable. Anyone who’s likely to rely on
transactions with the government in the form of benefits, pensions, severance pay, etc., ends
up paying a higher penalty for not voting. But most importantly, voter turnout shouldn’t be the
sole measure of a successful democracy. A healthy democracy depends on the quality of the
governance and the candidates, too. Higher turnout doesn’t guarantee higher quality
candidates or more responsiveness. More isn’t necessarily better. University of Sydney
professor Simon Jackman has argued that compulsory voting “creates a steady guaranteed
supply of disgruntled voters that cannot exit the system. … Those voters are typically alienated,
distracted and feel as though the major parties are not speaking to them.” Alienated and
distracted voters can be, in turn, more susceptible to demagoguery and protest platforms. That
Brazil and Turkey, the two largest countries in the world with compulsory voting, are not
shining stories of liberal democracy at the moment is worth noting. For a recent example of
what alienated voters look like, look no further than Brazil’s presidential election results, where
9.5 percent of the electorate cast blank or spoiled ballots largely as a way to protest a system
and a race they wanted no part in. Turkey’s voting system has been deemed the most unfair in
the world because if parties don’t win at least 10 percent of the seats, they must forfeit all of
their seats, which are then reallocated to the larger parties. So people are required to vote, but
their votes may effectively not count. In an extensive overview of the consequences of
compulsory voting, researcher Gabriela Sainati Rangel writes that “Individuals living under
compulsory voting rules are also more likely to report higher rates of party attachment” which,
in the American two-party system, could lead to even more polarization and winning
governments with weaker governing mandates. Rangel also finds that while compulsory voting

Champion Briefs 427

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

may lead parties to move away from mobilization, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it results in
outreach that’s more inclusive. In fact, with compulsory voting, “parties are likely to shift their
outreach strategy from mobilization to persuasion, by reaching out to voters that are less
partisan and thus can be more easily persuaded.” Finally, Rangel writes that “Taken together,
the voter turnout question seems to be the only dimension of the effects of compulsory voting
that has found clear answers through empirical research.” Still, for those who see compulsory
voting as the best way to fix turnout, low levels of enforcement seem to work just as well as
high levels of enforcement, without the undesired effect of harming certain segments of the
voting population.

Champion Briefs 428

A/2: Democracy AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting is incompatible with individual freedom, and

therefore incompatible with democracy.
Swenson, Katherine. “Sticks, Carrots, Donkey Votes, And True Choice: A Rationale For
Abolishing Compulsory Voting In Aust.” Minnesota Journal of International Law. 2007.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217210423.pdf>.
A. COMPULSORY VOTING IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH DEMOCRACY Although compulsory voting
would seem to bolster “the democratic ideals of participation and equality,” compelling a
person to cast a ballot is antithetical to the democratic value of individual freedom. 78 Indeed,
Australia's “freedom of political expression” rings rather hollowly when the right to make a
choice does not include the right not to make that choice. 79 The late Frederick Jonas Dreyfus
defined the word “vote” as “a sacred offering of patriotic service at the altar of one's
country.”80 Therefore, he argued, compulsion causes it to “lose] all sanctity and become[]
valueless.”8' There certainly is a tension between the idea that citizens choose to have a
democratic government, and the idea that they must cast a vote. Several authors have
compared compulsory voting to “forcing a man to be free.”8 2 This cuts to the heart of the
conflict: once people stop choosing democracy of their own free will, and are forced to choose
it, we are no longer talking about rule by the people.8 3

Champion Briefs 429

A/2: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Ripstein AC

While some forms of coercion are justified for the public good, such as
taxation or traffic laws, compulsory voting does not have the same
apparent benefits as those measures.
Saunders, Ben. “Increasing Turnout: A Compelling Case?.” Politics 30(1), 70-77. 2010. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9256.2009.01368.x>.
If we grant the premise that all want to vote, conditional on others voting, then such
compulsion may be justified, since it results in everyone getting what they really want. But if it
really were the case that all want to vote, and people are only deterred by the problems of
collective action, then one might expect universal support for compulsion. In fact, this is not the
case. Compulsory voting will therefore mean some people being coerced into voting – or at
least turning out – when they do not want to. This need not be a decisive objection, since we
sometimes coerce people for the public good (e.g. taxation and traffic regulations); but we
need to ask whether this is a case where some can rightly be required to bear costs for the
benefit of others. It is far from obvious that this is so, since lower levels of voting seem
sufficient to sustain the democratic process, as evidenced by the stability of Western
democracies despite low turnout. Moreover, non-voters cannot really be seen as unjustly free-
riding on voters, since they actually lose out from not being represented (Hill, 2002, p. 88).

Champion Briefs 430

A/2: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Appealing directly to marginalized groups solves their offense.

Saunders, Ben. “Increasing Turnout: A Compelling Case?.” Politics 30(1), 70-77. 2010. Web.
August 17, 2020. <https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-
9256.2009.01368.x>.
The problem, if there is one, seems to be that particular disadvantaged groups are
underrepresented, but this can be solved without coercing everyone. Indeed, if we think that
certain groups are simply alienated, then coercion is not a promising solution, since firstly it is
unlikely to correct this feeling and secondly members of these groups are unlikely to use their
votes wisely (or perhaps at all, since they may abstain even when forced to turn out). If we are
worried about particular marginalised groups, then the more appropriate remedy seems to be
some form of public education or dialogue aimed at engaging them. Other possible non-
coercive solutions include electoral reform (Karp and Banducci, 1999), providing selective
incentives for voters (Saunders, 2009a) or striving to increase social capital (Krishna, 2002). In
the meantime, we simply have to rely on those who do vote to do their best to consider the
interests of those who do not (Goodin, 2003, pp. 194–225).

Champion Briefs 431

A/2: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Citizens can and do contribute to the maintenance of democracy in

other ways besides voting, so compulsory voting is not necessary to
equalize participation.
Saunders, Ben. “A Further Defence Of The Right Not To Vote.” Res Publica 24: 93-108. 2018.
Web. August 17, 2020. <A Further Defence of the Right Not to Vote>.
Indeed, Pettit himself has likened the role of democratic citizens to editors, rather than authors,
of the laws (2000; 2004, pp. 61–62), which suggests that their main function lies in oversight,
rather than active participation. An editor need not intervene if the author’s text is satisfactory
and, similarly, citizens need not actually participate in politics, provided that they are alert and
ready to intervene if needed. Moreover, even if one decides that intervention is needed to
contest some decision, it is a further question whether voting is the best means of intervention.
Citizens might instead voice their displeasure by taking to the streets in protest or even by
engaging in acts of civil disobedience. While Hill (2010, pp. 919–920) suggests that non-voting is
part of a trend of demobilisation, others have suggested that citizens are increasingly
participating in other ways (Dalton 2008). Thus, while widespread voting may be one means
through which republicans might seek to avoid domination, it is not the only means. It is
therefore unclear whether a republican ought to favour compulsory voting over alternatives.

Champion Briefs 432

A/2: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

The right to abstain is essential because of the fundamental principle

of self-government -- even if citizens generally should contribute to
the maintenance of a democracy, that does not require voting.
Lever, Annabelle. “Compulsory Voting: A Critical Perspective.” British Journal of Political Science
40. 2010. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248665969_Compulsory_Voting_A_Critical
_Perspective>.
If these points are correct, it is hard to see how our interests in self-government are going to
justify the legal duties to vote. On occasion, your special political talents and virtues may mean
that you ought to take on political responsibilities that you would rather avoid, whether
through modesty or because they conflict with other things that you value, and had been
hoping to pursue. Moreover, democracies can quite properly require citizens to share in the
provision of public goods and services that are burdensome, necessary and difficult to supply
adequately by voluntary means.44 So, recognizing the benefits and virtues of democratic
government can require us fairly to share in public burdens and to be ready and willing to make
personal sacrifices, even if others are unable or unwilling to do so. It does not follow, however,
that democratic citizens can be legally required to vote. Forcing people to vote, whether they
want to or not, undercuts the idea that voluntary political participation is a distinctive human
good, and that democracies are justified in part by their ability to realize that good, and to
make it available to most, nearly all, of their populations. Forcing people to vote undercuts a
democratic conception of equality, too: for it implies that there is something uniquely
important about electing representatives to a legislature, although intelligent, informed and
experienced people evidently disagree on the matter. To mandate voting, in the face of this
disagreement, is effectively to say that some people’s views are entitled to more respect and
weight than others – though neither reason nor necessity normally require us to reach a
collective judgement on the importance of voting, let alone of voting in national, rather than
other, elections.45 I am sceptical, therefore, that compulsory voting can be reconciled with
democratic ideals of free, equal and reasoned collective action, even if we abstract from
people’s legitimate interests in political abstention. But once we recognize that people who
value self-government may, for that very reason, seek to abstain from politics, or to withhold
political judgement, the case for compulsory voting collapses.

Champion Briefs 433

A/2: Ripstein AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting leads to anti-democratic sentiments, which turns

political participation.
Singh, Shane. “Compulsory Voting And Parties.” American Journal of Political Science 63:1.
January, 2019. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12386>.
Even if compulsory voting has desirable effects, its moral justifiability remains a subject of
dispute (cf. Brennan and Hill 2014). There are also potential drawbacks: Compulsory voting may
trigger antidemocratic sentiment among those who would prefer to abstain (Singh,
forthcoming-a), and voters’ choices and stated preferences may be less correspondent where
voting is mandatory (e.g., Dassonneville et al., forthcoming; Dassonneville, Hooghe, and Miller
2017; Selb and Lachat 2009; Singh 2016). This article shows that compulsory voting induces
parties to balance toward programmatism. This informs debates, both academic and practical,
over the consequences and value of compulsory voting. Whether or not compulsory voting is,
overall, a justifiable and worthwhile electoral policy is a question I leave to such deliberations.

Champion Briefs 434

A/2: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Social Contract AC

Random selection of citizens as political representatives conveys the

needs of the citizenry better than voting for professional politicians.
Reiter, Brandon. “Voting Could Be The Problem With Democracy.” The Conversation. October
22, 2019. Web. August 13, 2020. <https://theconversation.com/voting-could-be-the-
problem-with-democracy-123952>.
In larger groups, like national and international governance, I think that it is worth returning to
the Athenian method of selecting representatives: by random selection, rather than by
election. As was true in ancient times, this allows average people to participate in government
at the same time as it reduces campaigning, and slashes the influence of special interests,
lobbyists and financial donors. A variation on this idea, which Stanford political scientist James
Fishkin has called “deliberative polling,” involves randomly selected citizens who are given
expert information and guided in their discussions by facilitators. During the 1990s, this method
led eight Texas energy companies to adopt the most advanced wind-energy policies of the
country. In 2016, Ireland convened a group of 99 citizens chosen at random, plus a national
supreme court judge as a chairperson. Their task was to study and report to the nation on key
issues facing the country, including abortion, an aging population and climate change. When
considering reforming their electoral systems, the Netherlands and Mongolia, as well as the
Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Ontario, all chose citizens at random to debate the
issues, instead of holding elections. [You’re smart and curious about the world. So are The
Conversation’s authors and editors. You can read us daily by subscribing to our newsletter.] All
of this leads me to conclude that what the public views as the best political decisions are not
made by professional politicians. Rather, average citizens, selected randomly and given the
time, necessary information and space to listen to each other and to debate, are better suited
to make these decisions while acquiring practical experience about politics and fighting
widespread political alienation at the same time. In addition, the random selection of
lawmakers who convene when necessary hinders the emergence of a political class of
professionals and undermines the need for anyone to campaign for office. Personal wealth and
campaign contributions would be irrelevant. Media manipulation would be useless, as nobody
would know up front who will be selected, so nobody could advertise their own merits or attack
opponents. A system in which every citizen has a turn at having a real voice, free of special
interests and misinformation? It sounds like real democracy to me.

Champion Briefs 435

A/2: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

American democracy is built on the idea of rule by the elites.

Reiter, Brandon. “Voting Could Be The Problem With Democracy.” The Conversation. October
22, 2019. Web. August 13, 2020. <https://theconversation.com/voting-could-be-the-
problem-with-democracy-123952>.
Democracy started as self-rule, where average citizens took turns in running public affairs. In
ancient Athens, democracy demanded many hours of public service and active participation.
The Public Assembly, open to all 40,000 adult male citizens, met 40 times a year to discuss laws.
But even with such a small society, some power needed to be delegated to smaller groups. The
executive branch and the courts each consisted of 500 members who met daily. Those bodies
were made up of citizens who were chosen at random. More recent democratic societies,
particularly those inspired by the American model, favored rule by high-minded elites. In
Federalist Paper No. 63, James Madison advocated for excluding average people from political
power, in favor of elected representatives, who he thought would be wiser. Madison and fellow
Founder Alexander Hamilton feared mob rule so much that they argued against the direct
elections of senators and presidents. Indirect methods, using state legislators and the Electoral
College, became part of the U.S. Constitution. In 1913, the 17th Amendment changed how
senators were elected, but the Electoral College remains. Over time, Americans came to accept
this rule by elites. They retreated into their private lives and took care of personal and
professional business, leaving public business to others. Much scholarship has chronicled how
this mass disinterest in politics has led to manipulation of public opinion and massive abuse by
economic elites and corporate interest groups.

Champion Briefs 436

A/2: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

The current party system has turned into majority rule without
minority rights – compulsory voting won’t fix this.
Rosen, Jeffrey. “America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare.” The Atlantic. October, 2018.
Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/james-madison-mob-
rule/568351/>.
James madison died at Montpelier, his Virginia estate, in 1836, one of the few Founding Fathers
to survive into the democratic age of Andrew Jackson. Madison supported Jackson’s efforts to
preserve the Union against nullification efforts in the South but was alarmed by his populist
appeal in the West. What would Madison make of American democracy today, an era in which
Jacksonian populism looks restrained by comparison? Madison’s worst fears of mob rule have
been realized—and the cooling mechanisms he designed to slow down the formation of
impetuous majorities have broken. The polarization of Congress, reflecting an electorate that
has not been this divided since about the time of the Civil War, has led to ideological warfare
between parties that directly channels the passions of their most extreme constituents and
donors—precisely the type of factionalism the Founders abhorred. The executive branch,
meanwhile, has been transformed by the spectacle of tweeting presidents, though the
presidency had broken from its constitutional restraints long before the advent of social media.
During the election of 1912, the progressive populists Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow
Wilson insisted that the president derived his authority directly from the people. Since then,
the office has moved in precisely the direction the Founders had hoped to avoid: Presidents
now make emotional appeals, communicate directly with voters, and pander to the mob.
Twitter, Facebook, and other platforms have accelerated public discourse to warp speed,
creating virtual versions of the mob. Inflammatory posts based on passion travel farther and
faster than arguments based on reason. Rather than encouraging deliberation, mass media
undermine it by creating bubbles and echo chambers in which citizens see only those opinions
they already embrace. We are living, in short, in a Madisonian nightmare. How did we get here,
and how can we escape? From the very beginning, the devices that the Founders hoped would
prevent the rapid mobilization of passionate majorities didn’t work in all the ways they
expected. After the election of 1800, the Electoral College, envisioned as a group of
independent sages, became little more than a rubber stamp for the presidential nominees of
the newly emergent political parties. The Founders’ greatest failure of imagination was in not
anticipating the rise of mass political parties. The first parties played an unexpected cooling
function, uniting diverse economic and regional interests through shared constitutional visions.
After the presidential election of 1824, Martin Van Buren reconceived the Democratic Party as
a coalition that would defend strict construction of the Constitution and states’ rights in the
name of the people, in contrast to the Federalist Party, which had controlled the federal courts,
represented the monied classes, and sought to consolidate national power. As the historian
Sean Wilentz has noted, the great movements for constitutional and social change in the 19th

Champion Briefs 437

A/2: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

century—from the abolition of slavery to the Progressive movement—were the product of

strong and diverse political parties. Whatever benefits the parties offered in the 19th and early
20th centuries, however, have long since disappeared. The moderating effects of parties were
undermined by a series of populist reforms, including the direct election of senators, the
popular-ballot initiative, and direct primaries in presidential elections, which became
widespread in the 1970s. More recently, geographical and political self-sorting has produced
voters and representatives who are willing to support the party line at all costs. After the
Republicans took both chambers of Congress in 1994, the House of Representatives, under
Speaker Newt Gingrich, adjusted its rules to enforce party discipline, taking power away from
committee chairs and making it easier for leadership to push bills into law with little debate or
support from across the aisle. The defining congressional achievements of Barack Obama’s
presidency and, thus far, Donald Trump’s presidency—the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and the
Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, respectively—were passed with no votes from members of the
minority party.

Champion Briefs 438

A/2: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

There are structural barriers to minority voting – making them vote

doesn’t make voting more accessible.
Viji, Sarina. “Why Minority Voters Have A Lower Voter Turnout: An Analysis Of Current
Restrictions.” American Bar Association. June 26, 2020. Web. August 13, 2020.
<https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_hom
e/voting-in-2020/why-minority-voters-have-a-lower-voter-turnout/>.
With ethnic and racial minority populations in the United States rising, there is a growing
population of voices that remain unaccounted for. Though current legislation has been
implemented to ensure fair and impartial voting access, there is too much leeway given to state
governments in the voting system’s execution. As a result, restrictions in the election system
have resulted in systematic discrimination toward minority populations, making them ineligible
to vote. Voter ID laws have underlying racial biases and prevent minorities from engaging in
active democratic participation. Voter ID laws have underlying racial biases and prevent
minorities from engaging in active democratic participation. These requirements compel an
individual to present his or her ID in order to cast a ballot on Election Day. Obtaining an ID can
be costly and requires an individual’s birth certificate, which may be burdensome. Proponents
advocate for the law under the guise of preventing voter fraud and ensuring that only voter-
eligible citizens partake in elections; however, individuals who lack government-issued
identification are more likely to be younger, less educated, and impoverished, and—most
notably—nonwhite. An example of the inherent discrimination of voter ID laws can be found in
the implementation of Georgia’s “exact match” system. This program requires an individual’s
voting status to be suspended if the name on their driver’s license or Social Security records
does not exactly match the name they inputted on their voter registration form. Of the 51,000
individuals that this law affected in 2018, 80 percent of them were African American. There is
evidence that the “exact match” law played a role in the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial election,
as African American candidate Stacey Abrams lost by approximately 55,000 votes. It is also far
more difficult for members of minority communities to be able to locate polling places on
Election Day. Only 5 percent of white survey respondents reported that they had trouble
finding polling locations, compared to 15 percent of African American and 14 percent of
Hispanic respondents. When deciding where to place a polling station, election officials are
required to assign each precinct a designated station based on factors such as population,
accessibility, and location recognizability; locations may be changed at the officials’ discretion.
Minorities have a lower voter turnout compared to whites and, in many cases, this has resulted
in discriminatory polling place distributions. Disparities in polling places can also be the result of
a change in the majority of election officials; minority populations are more likely to be left-
leaning and, as a result, officials may shift polling locations to areas that are more
representative of their political ideals. Another major issue is the access to translated voting
materials, which greatly decreases minority voter turnout. In communities that spoke little
English, translated voting ballots were found to be responsible for increasing voter turnout by

Champion Briefs 439

A/2: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

11 points in the 2004 presidential election. In addition to increased voter turnout, the
translated ballots allowed for higher voter engagement on all legislation. A concept known as
“voter fall-off” incentivizes people who are at the polls to vote on more legislation and to
answer more questions if the ballot is available in their native language. Often, ballot
proposition measures are reading-intensive, making it difficult for minority language groups to
fully comprehend and form an opinion on the proposed legislation. Current law (including
Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act) requires all written voting materials to be made available
in the language of the relevant minority group, but there are many restrictions. For instance,
the number of Limited English Proficiency (LEP) citizens of voting age must exceed 10,000, must
make up 5 percent of all eligible voters, or exceed 5 percent of all Native American reservation
residents. Additionally, for any of the above groups, the illiteracy rate of the minority
population must also be higher than the national illiteracy rate. With the 2020 elections fast
approaching, it is integral that we are encouraging active participation in our democracy and
lifting restrictions that prevent minority populations from voting. Today, organizations and
individuals are bringing cases of voter discrimination to court in an attempt to rewrite these
wrongdoings. Furthermore, states such as New Jersey are reaching out to minority individuals
via phone banks about election options, and they are also creating translated voting materials
in Gujarati, Korean, Spanish, and English. Campaigns by public figures to encourage voter
participation have been taking off, and the 2020 primary election is expected to have the
highest voter turnout in decades. As Thomas Jefferson said, “We do not have government by
the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”

Champion Briefs 440

A/2: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting hurts democracy by encouraging irresponsible and

ignorant voting.
Moraro, Piero. “Why Compulsory Voting Undermines Democracy.” The Ethics Centre. June 01,
2012. Web. August 13, 2020. <https://ethics.org.au/why-compulsory-voting-
undermines-democracy/>.
Forcing everyone to vote means that the voice of those with no interest in politics will influence
the decision about who rules the country. Forcing everyone to vote means that the voice of
those with no interest in politics will influence the decision about who rules the country. This
generates what author Jason Brennan calls ‘pollution of the polls’ in his book The ethics of
voting1 and is one of the main causes of the actual crisis of democracy worldwide: incompetent
politicians winning elections through media control (the recent case of Italy under Silvio
Berlusconi epitomises this phenomenon). By the same token, compulsory voting cannot be
defended by arguing that a government’s legitimacy of a majority formed by a low turnout is
questionable, for numbers alone do not add credibility in this regard. Those who do not care
about politics should not vote. Favouring democracy to other forms of government cannot be
because of the mere fact that democracy allows everyone’s voice in the public arena. This
might be, if anything, a reason against democracy. Dragging people to the polls will do nothing
to improve the quality of our democratic lives, insofar as people do not take seriously what
they are doing. There must be something else that makes democracy preferable to other forms
of government. This something else is the empowerment of the citizen. In a democracy,
everyone has the power to partake in determining the rules according to which the community
should be run. However, the misunderstanding lies in the fact that democracy does not entitle
citizens to do everything: it confers not only entitlements but also responsibilities. Those who
do not care about politics should not vote. It could even be argued that they should not have a
right to vote, and maybe the state would be better off justifiably preventing them from, not
forcing them into, voting. Citizens should undergo a basic competence test, as with driving. This
is because careless voters may seriously undermine those other citizens who spend time and
energy gathering sufficient information before voting. People’s efforts to follow politics to
develop an informed idea might be cancelled out by the vote of someone else who does not
care, but still is given the power to vote. In such a situation, making the effort to follow politics
might even be irrational for the individual citizen, given that this effort may well be wasted due
to the careless voters. Thus, compulsory voting backfires twice, since it even makes it pointless
for citizens to develop political awareness. Compulsory voting may advance the misleading idea
that democracy works even without citizens’ commitment or responsibility. It is not only wrong
to think citizens have a duty to vote. As Brennan argues in his book, it is rather the case that
some citizens (those who do not care about politics) have a duty to not vote, for we all have
duties to not cause damage to others. It is also the case that not everyone has the right to vote,
for the latter is not an unconditional entitlement we receive through mere membership to a
democratic community. If people do not care about politics, then they do not have a right to

Champion Briefs 441

A/2: Social Contract AC Sept/Oct 2020

participate—forcing them to vote is counterintuitive, and counterproductive. The right to vote

can be gained, and lost, depending on one’s commitment to democratic values. Compulsory
voting does not seem to offer any substantial advantage to the democratic life of a country,
since quantity does not mean quality (and in the end, it is the quality of our decision-making
procedures that should matter). Compulsory voting may advance the misleading idea that
democracy works even without citizens’ commitment or responsibility. To be sure, no one
should be forced to be a responsible citizen: however, neither should anyone be forced to do
what responsible citizens can do; that is, cast their vote at election time.

Champion Briefs 442

A/2: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Structural Violence AC

A2 Compulsory voting can be easily implemented- No, it would take

years for the public to agree and accurately execute this type of
voting.
Weller, Chris. “Half Of Americans Probably Won't Vote — But Requiring Them To Would Change
That.” Business Insider. November 07, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.businessinsider.com/compulsory-voting-what-if-americans-have-to-vote-
2016-11>.
Fowler says it's unlikely the US will adopt compulsory voting. For one, Republicans might fear
an influx of progressive voters. Overhauling the entire election process, which varies by state,
would require big changes. Fowler speculates that few Americans would be excited by the idea.
“The idea that somebody might force me to vote might sound off-putting to a lot of American
voters,” because Americans don't often like being told what to do, he said. It goes against many
Americans' notion of individual liberty. But compulsory voting doesn't require citizens to cast a
vote for a specific candidate. People would still be free to submit a blank or partial ballot.
Enforcement is another challenge. For instance, Chapin said Australia's turnout rate of 79%
could be even higher if the penalties were stiffer and the law better enforced. If the US, a much
more populous country than Australia, fails to go after vote avoiders, the mandate's
effectiveness could wane. “You certainly hate to reduce democracy to a cost-benefit analysis,”
Chapin said, “but I think with something like this, whatever level of government is considering it
is going to have to do that.” Some states have already taken steps to make voting easier by
design. Earlier this year, Oregon became the first state to automatically register its residents to
vote. If people don't want to, they have to manually opt out. Right now 28 other states are
weighing similar laws. Still, Chapin is skeptical that mandatory voting of any kind will make its
way to the US. American government is slow-moving, even for small changes. If there were
political will, overhauling the laws on voting — the bedrock of democracy — would take a long,
long time.

Champion Briefs 443

A/2: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 Other Democracies Successfully enforce CV- No, Latin America is a

prime example of CV failing with older populations, lack of
enforcement.
, Political Studies Association. “BEYOND TURNOUT: THE CONSEQUENCES OF COMPULSORY
VOTING.” Political Studies Association. 2020. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/beyond-turnout-consequences-compulsory-
voting>.
Starting with its adoption in El Salvador in 1883, compulsory voting spread throughout Latin
America as elections were introduced around the region in the ensuing decades. Today,
compulsory voting is widespread in Latin America, with 14 countries currently making voting
obligatory. In nine of these countries, there are sanctions for abstention. The nature of these
sanctions, which can be non-monetary, monetary, or both, varies by country, and both the
depth of the sanctions and their likelihood of enforcement vary across the region. In the Latin
American countries that routinely sanction abstention, participation rates tend to be higher
than in countries in the region with voluntary rules or in those with unenforced compulsory
voting. In Chile, compulsory voting was dropped in 2012, and turnout in its recent national
election, its first held under voluntary rules, declined sharply. In Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,
Ecuador, and Peru, compulsory rules are not enforced among senior citizens, and turnout rates
tend to drop as individuals cross the compulsory voting age threshold. Home to some of the
highest levels of socioeconomic inequality in the world, compulsory voting in Latin America may
be particularly important for ensuring the representativeness of the voting population. On the
flip side, compelling the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who tend to be less politically
informed and interested, to the polls could lead to votes that are cast with little consideration –
a dynamic that could have ill effects on electoral outcomes in Latin America.

Champion Briefs 444

A/2: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 Both Parties benefit from CV- Far right has the upper hand with CV
rather than the left.
, Political Studies Association. “BEYOND TURNOUT: THE CONSEQUENCES OF COMPULSORY
VOTING.” Political Studies Association. 2020. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/beyond-turnout-consequences-compulsory-
voting>.
One effect of compelling these individuals to the polls is an increase in the percentage of blank
and spoilt ballots. Further, as many such individuals do complete a ballot paper, compulsory
voting can increase the incidence of votes that do not necessarily align with ideological or policy
preferences, and instead are cast randomly, perhaps in response to a hot-button issue or a
scandal, or reflecting a psychological attachment to a political party. And, for individuals who
are sceptical of the democratic system, forcing engagement with it may exacerbate their
negative orientations toward democracy itself. An alternative perspective is that would-be
apathetic individuals, and those who are negatively oriented toward democracy, will take up an
interest in political affairs and become more civically oriented where their participation is
required. Moreover, such individuals have the option of spoiling their ballots or leaving them
blank where forced to vote. This viewpoint provocatively suggests that it is possible to legislate
a politically informed and engaged populace with minimal drawbacks, though empirical
research has returned mixed support for such an effect. Thus, the jury is still out. As research on
compulsory voting continues, we will hopefully arrive at a more definitive understanding of its
effects on citizen behaviour and attitudes. Compulsory rules alter the character of the voting
population, so it is reasonable to suspect that political outcomes will also vary across countries
with compulsory and voluntary voting. First, party system characteristics may be affected by
compulsory voting. By motivating participation among typically disadvantaged groups,
compulsory voting can benefit parties of the left. In Australia, for example, compulsory voting is
generally thought to advantage the Labor Party over the Liberal-National Coalition. Further,
party systems may become more fragmented where voting is required: where politically
apathetic individuals are forced to vote, they often choose extremist or ‘anti-system’ parties.
While this dynamic could, in theory, benefit parties on both ideological extremes, it appears
that the far right profits more from compulsory voting than the far left.

Champion Briefs 445

A/2: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 Increase better and more accurate results- CV doesn't have a

drastic effect on the results.
Spakovsky, Hans A. Von. “Compulsory Voting Is Unconstitutional.” The Heritage Foundation.
April 01, 2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.heritage.org/political-
process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional>.
This mandatory voting idea appeals to progressives such as Barack Obama because they just
don’t understand it when voters reject them, as voters did in the mid-term congressional
elections in 2014 and 2010. The concept that voters don’t like or agree with their views of an
all-powerful government that tells us what to do from birth to death just can’t be true in their
eyes. They seem to think that if they can just force non-voters into voting booths, then they will
win elections and America will be “transformed” into a progressive utopia. But the academic
research shows this isn’t true. Even if the constitutional problems with mandatory voting could
be overcome, “compulsory voting would change the outcome of very few elections,” according
to Professor John Sides of George Washington University. That is because non-voters aren’t
that different than voters in their partisan outlook and because, as Sides correctly points out,
many elections (such as congressional ones) “aren’t that close.” There is no doubt that we
should encourage Americans to exercise their right to vote. But coercing Americans to vote is
not only unconstitutional, it is bad public policy. If the president and the federal government
were trying to force people to exercise other rights protected by the First Amendment, liberals
would be up in arms about it. As my former Justice Department colleague J. Christian Adams
says, if the president proposed mandatory prayer, such a proposal could be subject to
“laughter, ridicule and endless citation of the Free Exercise clause” of the First Amendment. Of
course, not to be outdone, the president also said at his town hall that it would be “fun” to
amend the First Amendment to restrict the free speech rights of Americans to contribute
money to the candidates and causes they like and agree with. That an American president
would propose such a troubling change to the Bill of Rights that would gut the First Amendment
is shocking — as is his complete lack of embarrassment over making such a proposal. Just more
evidence of how much this president disdains the liberty that the Constitution was designed to
protect and that Americans take for granted as a birthright.

Champion Briefs 446

A/2: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 Wont infringe- Leads to other rights being censored or monitored

by the government.
Derfner, Armand. “Voting Is Speech.” Yale Law Journal. June, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://ylpr.yale.edu/sites/default/files/YLPR/derfner_hebert_final_copy.pdf>.
While voting is typically secret or anonymous, that practice is neither universal nor dispositive.
Voting for presidential candidates in the Iowa caucuses, for example, is not anonymous. Indeed,
the secret ballot was not established in the United States until the late 1800s.109 Moreover,
the First Amendment has consistently given strong protection to anonymous speech. 110 While
individual votes are anonymous, votes in the aggregate are publicly announced and
communicate the electorate’s opinions of various candidates and political proposals. The
expressive interests implicated by voting are strong. By voting, citizens declare their choice to
participate, express this in front of their neighbors and poll officials, and allow a public record
of their choice. The expressive nature of the vote is present whether the vote is for a candidate
in a primary or general election or for a ballot proposition, recall, referendum or anything else
called a vote. Likewise, a vote is expressive regardless of whether it is decisive. Unlike some
other countries,111 the United States does not require citizens to vote. The choice to
participate actively in our democratic system by casting a ballot may therefore constitute an
expression of civic pride. This is certainly true for people like Congressman John Lewis, a leader
in the protest that led to “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama. They risked their lives to obtain
the meaningful opportunity to vote and fully understand what it means to be shut out of the
political process.112 The decision not to vote may also serve an expressive purpose and be
intended to protest the unresponsiveness of the government (“What difference does it make?”)
or deny the legitimacy of the process or of a particular outcome.113 Voting is therefore both a
means of achieving a particular end and of expressing an opinion as to both the process and the
desired end.

Champion Briefs 447

A/2: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 We solve voter turnout- The aff doesn't account for American

voter ignorance.
Burrus, Trevor. “Mandatory Voting Guarantees Ignorant Votes.” Cato Institute. March 22, 2015.
Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mandatory-
voting-guarantees-ignorant-votes>.
Even if it were possible amend the Constitution to allow for compulsory voting, it would still be
unwise. Many people don’t vote because they don’t care enough or know enough to get
involved, and there is no compelling evidence that mandatory voting increases voter
knowledge. Simply put, people who vote tend to know more about politics than those who
don’t. It is worth asking why we would want low information citizens voting in the first place.
Just so they’re “involved” even if they’re trudging to the polls to avoid a fine? American voter
ignorance has become a familiar fact. In one Washington Post poll, only 36% could name the
three branches of government. In another, 29% couldn’t identify the current vice president.
Should they be forced to vote? On the contrary, there is a very good argument that those with
extremely low information have a moral obligation not to vote. Why should the rest of us have
to suffer the possible consequences of their ignorance?

Champion Briefs 448

A/2: Structural Violence AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 Data proves CV solves- US Census Bureau data about reasons why

some don't vote.
Fund, John. “Mr. President, We Have A Civil Right Not To Vote.” National Review. March 19,
2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/03/mr-president-
we-have-civil-right-not-vote-john-fund/>.
But the U.S. Census Bureau disagrees. It has long published reports on election turnout and the
reasons people don’t vote. As my co-author Hans von Spakovsky has pointed out: For example,
of the 146 million people who the Census Bureau reported were registered to vote in 2008, 15
million (10 percent) did not vote. Of those who did not vote, only 6 percent cited registration
problems as the reason for not participating. Rather, the vast majority of these registered but
nonvoters said they did not vote for reasons ranging from forgetting to vote to not liking the
candidates or the campaign issues or simply not being interested ... The Census Bureau’s 2008
report demonstrates that the major reason individuals failed to register was that they were not
“interested in the election/not involved in politics.” That represented 46 percent of the
individuals in the Census Bureau’s survey. Another 35 percent of individuals did not register for
a variety of reasons such as not being eligible to vote, thinking their vote would not make a
difference, not meeting residency requirements, or difficulty with English.

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 449

A/2: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Equal Justice AC

Democratic Peace Theory is wrong and fails.

Jourdain, Jouris. “Are Democracies Really Less War-prone? Does The Democratic Peace Theory
Best Explain The Motivations.” University College London. 2016. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://www.academia.edu/11828053/Are_democracies_really_less_war-
prone_Does_the_Democratic_Peace_Theory_best_explain_the_motivations_of_countri
es_to_avoid_conflict >.
The DPT’s failure stands in an obsolete and inaccurate conception of war and peace. As I have
analysed above, the DPT is mostly characterized by its failures in explaining countries
motivations regarding warfare. Throughout the following paragraphs, I shall argue that the
obsolescence of this theory comes from a deficiency in acknowledging that the nature of war
has changed; suggesting that liberalism may actually be incompatible with peace. Not
recognizing that wars are not only constituted by interstate-armed conflict is a major reason of
the DPT’s failure. Although liberal states may not use conventional warfare, they often use the
armed units of other nations to reach other nations e.g. India and Pakistan, which constantly
attempt to use militant groups to destabilize one another (Barkawi and Laffey 1999). Moreover,
the intrastate conflicts and the chaos in several countries initiating their democratic transition
or in countries that are already liberal demonstrate that although liberal democracies may be
less war-prone, it does not mean they are more peaceful (Chan 1997). For instance, in several
Sub-Saharan states such as DR Congo, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Somalia that had just finished a
war, initiating the democratic transition led them to have internal conflicts (Ohlson and
Soderberg 2002). Therefore, that the word “war” in the DPT’s sense does not consider several
types of conflicts demonstrates the failure of this theory and suggests that liberalism is in
reality in contradiction with the possibility of a perpetual peace. Although liberalism advocates
peace and freedom, it is to some extent an obstacle to world peace. Indeed, a major critique
that can be addressed to the liberalist ideology is that: on the behalf of the DPT, powerful
liberal democracies are more prone to wage preventive wars by pretending they want to create
a global liberal order whereas they actually want to secure some vested interests e.g. the Iraq
war justification that I mentioned earlier (Rhodes 2003). This type of hegemonic intervention
not only threatens the interests of the less powerful but also has violent side effects. For
instance, the US efforts to include Georgia in the NATO is arguably one of the roots in the
conflict between Russia and Georgia in 2008 (ibid.). Hence, because of this obsolete vision of
war, Democratic Peace theorists do not include several forms of violence that the liberal
ideology has started; this confirms the DPT failure in determining the motivations of states to
avoid war. Therefore, throughout this essay, I have attempted to demonstrate that the
Democratic Peace Theory does not best explain why countries in general are reluctant to go to

Champion Briefs 450

A/2: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

war. Indeed; this theory only attempts to explain why – to a very limited extent – liberal
democracies tend to go to war with other liberal democracies less often than other types of
regimes. However, as I have argued throughout this essay, the explanations given to this finding
are neither right nor accurate. Indeed, although norms and democratic institutions may
reinforce each other and help avoiding wars, the empirical evidences I have provided above –
colonial wars, Iraq War, conflict between India and Pakistan – demonstrate that, when the
word “war” is taken in a wider sense, liberal democracies are as prone to war as other types of
regimes when it comes to defending their interests.

Champion Briefs 451

A/2: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Education not key to global economic competitiveness- research flaws

prove no link between economic decline and poor education.
West, Martin. “Education And Global Competitiveness, Lessons For The United States From
International Evidence.” Harvard. 2012. Web. August 16, 2020.
<https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/9544459/West%20Education%20and%2
0Global%20Competitiveness%20chapter%20for%20DASH.pdf?sequence=1>.
American students now complete less schooling than those in many other developed countries
and, at the secondary level, perform substantially worse in math and science. Moreover,
America’s longstanding edge in higher education is fading as developing countries increasingly
make investments in higher education a central part of their economic development strategies.
How concerned should we be about these developments? And is it the improvement in
educational outcomes abroad that should motivate our concern? After all, until very recently
the performance of the U.S. economy had far surpassed that of the industrialized world as a
whole, despite our students’ mediocre performance on international tests. Some observers
have gone so far as to question the existence of a link between available measures of the
performance of national education systems and economic success. Education researcher Gerald
Bracey in 2002 criticized those asserting that low-quality education threatened our national
prosperity, noting that “none of these fine gentlemen has provided any data on the relationship
between the economy’s health and the performance of schools. Our long economic boom
suggests there isn’t one—or that our schools are better than the critics claim” (Bracey 2002,
B01).7 Bracey’s evidentiary concern was not entirely misplaced. Economists as far back as Adam
Smith have highlighted the theoretical importance of human capital as a source of national
economic growth. For technologically advanced countries, highly educated workers represent a
source of innovations needed to further enhance labor productivity (Benhabib and Spiegel
1994). For countries far from the frontier, education is necessary to allow workers to be able
adopt new technologies developed elsewhere (Nelson and Phelps 1966). Because a given
country is likely to be both near and far from the technological frontier in various industries at
any given point in time, both of these mechanisms are likely to operate simultaneously. Yet
rigorous empirical evidence supporting these commonsense propositions has been notoriously
difficult to produce. One key limitation of early research examining the relationship between
education and economic growth is that it was based on crude measures of school enrollment
ratios or the average years of schooling completed by the adult population. Although studies
taking this approach tend to find a positive relationship between schooling and economic
growth across countries, years of schooling is an incomplete and potentially quite misleading
indicator of the performance of national education systems (see, for example, Krueger and
Lindahl 2001). As noted above, measures of educational attainment implicitly assume that a
year of schooling is equally valuable regardless of where it is completed—despite the clear
evidence from international assessments that the skills achieved by students of the same age
vary widely across countries.

Champion Briefs 452

A/2: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Experts agree that income inequality is decreasing in the status quo.

Bowman, Sam. “Inequality Doesn't Matter: A Primer.” Adam Smith Institute. January 11, 2017.
Web. August 16, 2020. <https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/inequality-doesnt-matter-a-
primer >.
So Jeremy Corbyn’s talking about inequality. His ideas might be a little silly, but at least he’s
talking about inequality, right? Well, no – inequality probably isn’t something we should worry
about at all. The fact that Corbyn's policy is solely designed to make the rich poorer just shows
what a pointless measure inequality actually is. Most people use it as a shorthand for living
standards for poor and average-income workers, but inequality measures are just as sensitive
to the incomes of the people at the top as the bottom. That means that if everyone becomes
worse off, but people at the top become even worse off than the rest, then inequality falls.
That’s what happened during the Great Recession, where inequality (as measured by the “Gini
coefficient”) actually fell. OK, but that was a little blip. Everybody knows that income inequality
is higher than ever, and getting worse. Actually, the data says otherwise. Income inequality in
the UK is now at its lowest level for thirty years, according to new data from the Office for
National Statistics. That doesn't sound right. What about wealth inequality? That’s actually
been on a huge downwards trend for the past one hundred years! And the wealth share held by
the top 10%, top 5%, top 1%, even the top 0.5% and 0.1% has been static since the 1980s after
a long decline during the 20th century – see the chart below. And during that time wealth per
adult has increased massively, which means that people in the middle have seen huge gains.

Champion Briefs 453

A/2: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Economic growth provides the rationale for initiation of conflict.

Monteiro, Nuno. “An Economic Theory Of Hegemonic War.” February 01, 2014. Web. August
16, 2020. <http://www.nunomonteiro.org/wp-content/uploads/Monteiro-Debs-2014-
An-Economic-Theory-of-Hegemonic-War-v.Georgetown.pdf>.
This paper introduces a novel framework for understanding the economic causes of hegemonic
wars that allows us to solve these two puzzles. Our argument starts from a simple premise:
countries differ in their economic power, and a hegemon has a greater influence than other
countries in setting the terms of international economic engagement. Specifically, the hegemon
can affect the division of the surplus generated by its economic interaction with other, weaker
states. It also has the ability to regulate the cost other states have to pay to access foreign
resources they need in order to grow. Combined, these two mechanisms may prevent weaker
states from using their available resources in an optimal way, undermining their economic
growth. For these states, war against the economic hegemon may be a rational option. A
challenger faced with a constraining structure of the international economy will find war
rational not depending on whether its relative power is rising or declining, but on whether war
would bring about a more favorable international economic environment, thereby facilitating
faster economic growth. Although war is costly and the challenger’s relative weakness make it
less likely to win, victory would allow it to invest its available resources optimally, generating
faster economic growth. Therefore, when the gain in economic efficiency brought by victory in
war is sufficiently large to make the challenger’s expected outcome of fighting (despite its
relatively low likelihood of winning) better than the continuation of peace, war will break out.

Champion Briefs 454

A/2: Equal Justice AC Sept/Oct 2020

Competitiveness is resilient and has no impact.

, RAND. “US Competitiveness In Science And Technology.” RAND. 2008. Web. August 16, 2020.
<http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG674.pdf>.
Another opposing view suggests that fears of a looming S&T crisis may result from a
misunderstanding of concepts driving the issue. The July 2006 Economist noted the “wide range
of potential remedies” being suggested to the purported S&T problem, which include “getting
more Americans to study science and engineering, bigger tax breaks for research and
development, and trade protection to prevent the innovative hordes from China and India from
storming America’s gates” (The Economist, 2006). The piece continues by citing a new paper by
Amar Bhidé, of Columbia University’s business school, who argues that these supposed
remedies, and the worries that lie behind them, are based on a misconception of how
innovation works and of how it contributes to economic growth...This consists, first, of paying
too much attention to the upstream development of new inventions and technologies by
scientists and engineers, and too little to the downstream process of turning these inventions
into products that tempt people to part with their money, and, second, of the belief that
national leadership in upstream activities is the same thing as leadership in generating
economic value from innovation... Mr Bhidé argues that this downstream innovation ... is the
most valuable kind and what America is best at ... that most of the value of innovations accrues
to their users not their creators—and stays in the country where the innovation is consumed.
So if China and India do more invention, so much the better for American consumers. (The
Economist, 2006) In work published over a decade ago, economist Paul Krugman questions
whether the notion of competition in S&T is even relevant. He argues that the idea that nations
“compete” is incorrect; countries are not like corporations and “are [not] to any important
degree in economic competition with each other” (Krugman, 1994). Major industrial nations
sell products that compete with each other, yet these nations are also each other’s main export
markets and each other’s main suppliers of useful imports. More broadly, international trade is
not a zero-sum game. For example, if the European economy does well, this helps the United
States by providing it with larger markets and goods of superior quality at lower prices. Further,
he argues that the growth rate of U.S. living standards essentially equals the growth rate of
domestic productivity, not U.S. productivity relative to competitors; and enhancing domestic
productivity is in the hands of Americans, not foreigners. Part of the reason for this, Krugman
argues, is that the world is not as interdependent as one would think: 90 percent of the U.S.
economy consists of goods and services produced for domestic use, i.e., produced by
Americans, for Americans. But this is not to deny the importance of technological progress, and
beneath it, science and technology, as a determinant of economic progress and improvement in
the standard of living.

*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 455

A/2: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Local Elections AC

Schooling kills creativity - stopping progressive innovation.

Dalile, Line. “How Schools Are Killing Creativity.” Huffington Post. June 10, 2012. Web. August
17, 2020. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/line-dalile/a-dictator-racing-to-
nowh_b_1409138.html>.
Years continue to pass, some students graduate, some fail out, some drop out and nothing
really changes. The education system reminds me of a dictator that is unwilling to step down.
I’m aware that no education system is perfect, and I believe they are all the same across the
world. We memorize, study for the test and forget, only to know 10 years later what an
atrocious world we have been constructing. I strongly feel that our methodologies in schools
are demolishing creativity. Students have lost their capacity of creation simply because our
teaching methods don’t stimulate innovation and creativity. Remember being a kid and wanting
to play around? No one told you how to use your imagination or taught you how to be creative.
You played with LEGOS. You pretended you were an astronaut and imagined traveling in space.
Being naturally creative, you asked questions like “Why is the grass green?” and “Are we
alone?” — questions no wise man could answer. Then came school, a child’s worst nightmare.
You learned to live in a rotten environment. You were bullied, made fun of, and you had this
teacher that told you to stop dreaming and live in reality. So what did you learn at school? You
learned to stop questioning the world, to go with the flow, and that there’s only one right
answer to each question. The “whys” you have always wanted to ask are never on the test, and
they are omitted from the curriculum. Creativity isn’t a test to take, a skill to learn, or a
program to develop. Creativity is seeing things in new ways, breaking barriers that stood in
front of you for some time. Creativity is the art of hearing a song that has never been written or
seeing a work of art on empty canvas. Its essence is in its freshness and the ability to make
dreams come to life. Imagine this: A normal classroom with cheerful faces. Students’
excitement to start school ignites the classroom. The teacher asks the students to draw a tree.
Some students were talented, others were okay, and some students couldn’t give a visual figure
of a tree. The teacher rates every student’s work. Some students get an A+, some get a D and
others get a big fat F. Those students who got A’s now believe they’re highly talented and
artistic, but those who got an F... Well, they start to think they are losers and their works is
rubbish. From this “draw a tree” assignment, creativity starts to linger in the air and then, in
time, fades away. This is why many adults say “I can’t draw!” In school, children are “taught” to
draw shapes like a “perfect” triangle. Everything is “properly” drawn. Whenever a child
attempts to color something, the teacher screams in panic: “Do NOT color outside the lines!” In
the 21st century, the world demands students who can think creatively and critically. As
technology develops, we will have robots to do all the basic work for us. However, it is our

Champion Briefs 456

A/2: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

mission to ensure that the next generation will be full of inventors, musicians, painters,
mathematicians who will, in turn, bring humanity to another level. In his TED Talk “Do Schools
Kill Creativity?” Sir Ken Robinson said that instead of growing into creativity in school, we grow
out of it. Students all over the world have had more years of schooling than they care to count.
During this process, students are taught that making a mistake is a sin. We have planted in our
students’ minds a picture of a perfectly, carefully drawn life. When I play golf I sometimes feel
that I’m focused so much on the line that I forget about the flow of the putt. The same thing is
being applied to schools. We focus too much on standardized testing and then we forget what
the real aim of education is. Today’s teaching techniques are taking the beauty out of learning.
Diminishing creativity from our student’s mind is a serious problem with wide-reaching effects.
How exactly are schools diminishing creativity? We learn that being “good” means sitting still
and nodding yes, while being “bad” means attempting to do things differently. The cycle of
sitting still, memorizing, testing and getting a job have existed for a long time now and few
dared to challenge it. However, those who dared to challenge the status quo like Albert
Einstein, the Wright brothers, and Walt Disney have changed the course of history. I
understand that memorizing is the fastest way to get good grades, get into a good college, and
get a job (which we equate with a good life). We are being educated for the promise of money.
As a student I know one thing for sure: I never want to be a product living my life inside a box. I
want to cherish my brilliant mind. I want to imagine, to create, to be the best I can possibly be. I
never want to be a robot. I want to argue, to challenge and define the impossible. I cannot
possibly let someone assemble my life. How do we expect students to be creative if teachers
give them the outline, the title, and the structure of their “creative writing assignment?” We
give students model answers to memorize, we give a specific title to write a poem about, and
we truly give them everything but the freedom to express their ideas. Youth have fresh ideas.
While teachers complain that students are spending an awful lot of time on social networking,
they forget to mention that it’s the only way we, the students, can have our voice heard.
Education isn’t about facts being stored in our minds so that we can get tested on them.
Education is the beauty to nurture creativity, to fuel curiosity and to create a well-rounded
person. America is battling its way out to the top and promising that no child will be left behind.
Behind this competition, we forget the purpose of education. Schools become business, and
factories where children come out as pale as ghosts with everything being structured
“perfectly” and “properly” in their minds. Somewhere in our battle and pursuit of meaningless
papers, diplomas and money, we have lost the true meaning of learning. During our insane
worship to win the race, during our mad love to become number one, we forget that our
schools are raising children that are racing to nowhere.
*Ellipsis from source

Champion Briefs 457

A/2: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Motivation to solve climate change has nothing to do with

education—relies solely on pre-conceived values and relationships.
Battistoni, Alyssa. “Why Science Education Won't Solve Our Climate Problems.” Mother Jones.
May 13, 2012. Web. August 17, 2020.
<http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/05/science-education-wont-solve-
climate-change/>.
Think the reason we can’t address climate change is because people don’t understand climate
science? Think again: a new study suggests that people with higher scientific comprehension
use their abilities not to disinterestedly parse the complicated details of climate science, but to
better fit available evidence to their preexisting values and group identifications. A team of
researchers associated with the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School compared
scientific literacy and numeracy with beliefs about climate change and value-laden worldviews
for an article published this week in Nature Climate Change. Their conclusions? As individuals’
scientific comprehension went up, concern about climate change declined slightly. That
relationship isn’t what you’d expect to see if ignorance about science explained a lack of
concern about climate change, as the “scientific comprehension thesis” (SCT) would suggest;
the graph below demonstrates the difference between what SCT predicts and how people
actually responded. But not everyone with greater scientific understanding was equally likely to
be less concerned about climate change; the correlation split sharply depending on
respondents’ worldviews. As the study explains, “members of the public with the highest
degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned
about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was
greatest.” While those results don’t jibe with the SCT, they do make sense according something
called the cultural cognition thesis (CCT), which suggests that people tend to perceive risks in a
way that corresponds to the values of their identity groups. Think about it: An oil worker who
expresses concern about climate change may be mocked, while an English professor who calls
climate science a hoax may be shunned. People therefore adjust their beliefs to fit those of
others around them: according to the study, “public divisions over climate change stem not
from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest:
between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by
others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of
the best available science to promote common welfare.” Or, as researcher Ellen Peters of Ohio
State University puts it, “What this study shows is that people with high science and math
comprehension can think their way to conclusions that are better for them as individuals but
are not necessarily better for society.” More specifically, people with what the study identified
as a “hierarchical individualist” worldview—one that values top-down authority—tended to see
climate change as less of a risk as their scientific literacy and numeracy increased. On the other
hand, people with an “egalitarian communitarian” worldview—one favoring “less regimented
forms of social organization and greater collective attention to individual needs”—tended to

Champion Briefs 458

A/2: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

perceive climate change as a greater risk as they gained scientific comprehension. In short,
when it comes to climate change, people tend to accept or reject scientific information based
upon whether it threatens or supports their existing values and relationships, and the effect is
stronger among those who are better able to understand the implications of that information
for their values. The researchers’ conclusions suggest that climate change is fundamentally a
political issue, not simply a technical problem or information gap. They also suggest that green-
minded efforts to educate climate change deniers in hopes of getting them to change their
views are naive at best. People who don’t believe in climate change aren’t merely ignorant,
uneducated, or anti-science; on the contrary, many of them are actually pretty good at
assessing their (at least short term) interests and evaluating threats to them. That means we
can’t ignore the political and value questions associated with climate change—any strategy that
assumes everyone with adequate scientific education will reach the same conclusions is
doomed to fail. The study’s lead author, Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale, thinks that
information about climate has to do more than simply communicate “the facts”: rather, it has
to “create a climate of deliberations in which no group perceives that accepting any piece of
evidence is akin to betrayal of their cultural group.” In other words, people have to feel that
being concerned about climate change won’t result in them becoming ostracized by their social
groups. The study suggests that it may be effective to use “culturally diverse communicators”
who have credibility in different communities and are able to talk about climate change in less
threatening ways. (In other words, don’t expect Al Gore to convince Rush Limbaugh listeners to
care about climate, no matter how good his graphs are.) But those kinds of communicators are
few and far between; Fox News, for example, is already spinning the study’s findings to validate
climate denialism. Moreover, while better communication might help reach some people, what
happens when climate solutions actually do present a threat to certain worldviews and values,
as some certainly will? This study doesn’t answer those questions. But it does suggest that
some of the dominant narratives about why we aren’t dealing with climate change are lacking.

Champion Briefs 459

A/2: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Mandatory voting guarantees lazy votes - kills solvency.

Burrus, Trevor. “Mandatory Voting Guarantees Lazy Votes.” Cato Institute. March 22, 2015.
Web. August 17, 2020. <https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/mandatory-
voting-guarantees-ignorant-votes>.
President Obama has suggested that compulsory voting could be a good idea. “Other countries
have mandatory voting,” said the president, Australia being the most prominent example. “It
would be transformative if everybody voted — that would counteract money more than
anything,” he continued. The president is wrong. Compulsory voting is not just unwise, it is
unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects not just the right to speak, but the right to
refrain from speaking. In 1943, the Supreme Court held that Jehovah’s Witness students
couldn’t be forced to salute the flag or say the pledge of allegiance. Other cases have upheld
the right to be free from forced speech in the context of compulsory union dues spent on
political speech. So, is not voting a form of speech? Not voting can certainly communicate a
variety of messages, such as dissatisfaction, being fed-up with the two-party system or even
being an anarchist. True, it is a crude method of communicating those messages, but it is no
more crude than voting. A vote for a candidate could either indicate a begrudging acceptance
or a whole-hearted endorsement. It could also just communicate that you hate the other guy
(or girl). Compulsory voting is not just unwise, it is unconstitutional. The First Amendment
covers the right not to vote. Moreover, Congress lacks constitutional authority to pass a law
mandating voting, particularly in presidential elections. Article II of the Constitution gives
Congress limited powers over presidential elections. State legislators have the power to choose
how electors will be selected to the Electoral College, and there’s actually nothing in the
Constitution mandating states to give citizens the right to vote for electors. Congress only has
power to determine “the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give
their Votes.” Even if it were possible amend the Constitution to allow for compulsory voting, it
would still be unwise. Many people don’t vote because they don’t care enough or know enough
to get involved, and there is no compelling evidence that mandatory voting increases voter
knowledge. Simply put, people who vote tend to know more about politics than those who
don’t. It is worth asking why we would want low information citizens voting in the first place.
Just so they’re “involved” even if they’re trudging to the polls to avoid a fine? American voter
ignorance has become a familiar fact. In one Washington Post poll, only 36% could name the
three branches of government. In another, 29% couldn’t identify the current vice president.
Should they be forced to vote? On the contrary, there is a very good argument that those with
extremely low information have a moral obligation not to vote. Why should the rest of us have
to suffer the possible consequences of their ignorance? Moreover, in the American electoral
system, not voting conveys valuable information. Every presidential election is about “getting
out the base” — that is, getting core party members excited enough about a candidate to go
out and vote. If turnout is low, then the party knows that, next time, they better run a
candidate who excites rather than bores the base.

Champion Briefs 460

A/2: Local Elections AC Sept/Oct 2020

Mandatory voting could lead to uninformed votes – ruins solvency.

, FindLaw. “The Compulsory Voting Debate.” FindLaw. March 17, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.findlaw.com/voting/how-u-s--elections-work/the-compulsory-voting-
debate.html>.
Many people believe that compulsory voting would harm both our elections and U.S. citizens.
Forcing people to vote, they argue, would hamper freedom of choice and religion. It would also
negatively affect how politicians run their elections and how people vote. 1. Compulsory Voting
Would Encourage an Uninformed Electorate Nothing is stopping politically ignorant citizens
from voting now. Forcing more of those people to vote would mean millions more ballots cast
by people who haven't educated themselves on the candidates and the issues. Some studies
show that uninformed voters are easily swayed by television advertising. Increasing the number
of those people to be reached would mean a surge in advertising that is misleading and aimed
at appealing to voters' prejudices. In other words, if you think today's elections are filled with
nasty, negative campaign ads, encouraging candidates to woo all voters would make it that
much worse.

Champion Briefs 461

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Climate AC

Australia proves that compulsory voting doesn't guarantee victories

for leaders that will fight climate change.
Cave, Darien. “It Was Supposed To Be Australia’s Climate Change Election. What Happened?.”
The New York Times. May 19, 2019. Web. August 14, 2020.
<https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/19/world/australia/election-climate-
change.html>.
SYDNEY, Australia — The polls said this would be Australia’s climate change election, when
voters confronted harsh reality and elected leaders who would tackle the problem. And in some
districts, it was true: Tony Abbott, the former prime minister who stymied climate policy for
years, lost to an independent who campaigned on the issue. A few other new candidates
prioritizing climate change also won. But over all, Australians shrugged off the warming seas
killing the Great Barrier Reef and the extreme drought punishing farmers. On Saturday, in a
result that stunned most analysts, they re-elected the conservative coalition that has long
resisted plans to sharply cut down on carbon emissions and coal. What it could mean is that the
world’s climate wars — already raging for years — are likely to intensify. Left-leaning
candidates elsewhere, like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada, may learn to avoid making
climate a campaign issue, while here in Australia, conservatives face more enraged opponents
and a more divided public. “There has to be a reckoning within the coalition about where they
stand,” said Amanda McKenzie, chief executive of the Climate Council, an Australian nonprofit.
“I think it’s increasingly difficult for them to maintain a position where they don’t talk about
climate change.” Even for skeptics, the effects of climate change are becoming harder to deny.
Australia just experienced its hottest summer on record. The country’s tropics are spreading
south, bringing storms and mosquito-borne illnesses like dengue fever to places unprepared for
such problems, while water shortages have led to major fish die-offs in drying rivers. “This is all
playing out in real time, right now,” said Joëlle Gergis, an award-winning climate scientist and
writer from the Australian National University. “We are one of the most vulnerable nations in
the developed world when it comes to climate change.” And yet the path to victory for Scott
Morrison, the incumbent prime minister, will make agreeing on a response more difficult. He
and his Liberal-National coalition won thanks not just to their base of older, suburban economic
conservatives, but also to a surge of support in Queensland, the rural, coal-producing, sparsely
populated state sometimes compared to the American South. The coalition successfully made
cost the dominant issue in the climate change debate. One economic model estimated that the
45 percent reduction in carbon emissions proposed by the opposition Labor Party would cost
the economy 167,000 jobs and 264 billion Australian dollars, or $181 billion. Though a Labor

Champion Briefs 462

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

spokesman called the model “dodgy,” Mr. Morrison and his allies used it to argue against
extending Australia’s existing efforts to reduce emissions and invest in clean energy. The
message resonated strongly in Queensland, where the proposed Carmichael coal mine would
be among the largest in the world if it is approved. The Adani Group, the Indian conglomerate
behind the mine project, says it will provide thousands of jobs in nearby towns marked by
empty houses and rife unemployment. But in other parts of Australia, particularly among the
urban educated left, it faces fierce opposition. “Stop Adani” is a mantra for many, promoted by
organizations like Greenpeace and shared with pride on social media, signs and T-shirts. Even
Mr. Abbott, the former prime minister, seemed to grasp this growing political divide. “It’s clear
that in what might be described as ‘working seats,’ we are doing so much better,” he said in his
concession speech. “It’s also clear that in at least some of what might be described as ‘wealthy
seats,’ we are doing it tough, and the Green left is doing better.” Neither side seems open to
compromise. In some ways, the election was foreshadowed last month in the Queensland town
of Clermont, where environmentalists protesting the Carmichael mine were met by pro-coal
activists, including a man on a horse who rode into the crowd and knocked a woman
unconscious. In some ways it was a clash of cultures as well as political views. “I feel like there’s
quite a lot of scorn about the way Queenslanders feel about environmental issues, and that
doesn’t help,” said Susan Harris-Rimmer, a law professor at Griffith University in Queensland.
“The predominant Queensland characteristic is pride and you can’t pour scorn on them.” She
said doing so was a strategic mistake for politicians comparable to Hillary Clinton’s description
of some Donald Trump supporters as “deplorables” during the 2016 United States presidential
election. “You can’t trigger the pride response,” Ms. Harris-Rimmer said. Scholars of Australian
populism agree, arguing that the weakening of the major parties and the country’s tilt to the
right have been driven mainly by class envy and alienation, including the belief that the elite do
not understand the needs and values of the working class. Despite his Sydney upbringing and
former career in advertising, Mr. Morrison, 51, won in part by presenting himself as an
Australian everyman — a rugby-crazed beer drinker who was the first prime minister to
campaign in a baseball hat. Mr. Morrison’s coalition also benefited from deals with two right-
wing groups: One Nation, the anti-immigration party led by the Queensland senator Pauline
Hanson, and the United Australia Party led by the mining billionaire Clive Palmer, who spent
tens of millions of dollars on a populist campaign with the slogan “Make Australia Great.”
Under Australia’s preferential voting system, votes for candidates from minor parties can be
used to help allies reach a clear majority in the lower house of Parliament. Nationally, United
Australia secured 3.4 percent of the vote, while One Nation picked up 3 percent. Neither One
Nation nor United Australia did as well as similar parties recently in countries like Italy, Hungary
and Brazil. But for Australia, where compulsory voting encourages moderate election
outcomes, the results defied expectations and made clear that the country remains deeply
conservative and open to the far right on a variety of issues. The question that now confronts
the new government is how much sway to give the forces that led to victory. Climate change
may be the first battle in the long war that is reshaping democracy all over the world.

Champion Briefs 463

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting won't change which party wins more often, and it
won't have any effect on government spending decisions.
Hoffman, Mitchell. “Compulsory Voting, Turnout, And Government Spending: Evidence From
Austria.” VoxEU/CEPR. October 30, 2016. Web. August 14, 2020.
<https://voxeu.org/article/compulsory-voting-turnout-and-government-spending>.
To start answering this question, we examine if compulsory voting caused changes to the
results of national parliament and state elections. A potential explanation for the null effect
found is that the political choices of people who turn out to vote due to the introduction of
compulsory voting are, on average, similar to those who were voting when voting was
voluntary, thus electoral outcomes would remain unchanged. Alternatively, if the median
voter’s preferences change and impact electoral outcomes, government spending might still be
unaffected due commitment or agency issues. Consistent with the former explanation, we find
that for both parliamentary and state elections, compulsory voting has no impact on the vote
shares of right or left-wing parties. Further, there is no response from the political supply – the
number of parties running for office remains unchanged, as does the margin of victory and
share of votes of the winning party. In the final part of the paper, we shed light on the
underlying mechanisms for our results. Using individual data from the 1986 and 2003 rounds of
the Austrian Social Survey, we study how the composition of the electorate changed due to the
introduction of compulsory voting by looking at the interaction between compulsory voting
laws and voter characteristics. Exploiting the elimination of compulsory voting in parliamentary
elections taking place in three states in 1992 (between the two survey rounds), we find
evidence of larger impacts of compulsory voting on turnout among women and those with
lower income. Impacts also seem larger among those who have low interest in politics, who
have no party affiliation, and who are relatively uninformed (as proxied by newspaper reading).
While suggestive, these results are consistent with a story where individuals who vote or
abstain due to the introduction or repeal of compulsory voting do not have strong policy or
partisan preferences (on average), thereby having little or no effect on electoral outcomes.
Furthermore, if such voters are unresponsive to policy in deciding which party to support,
parties may have little incentive to shape policies to suit those voters' preferences. Implications
Our results provide evidence that even if compulsory voting increases turnout, it need not
significantly affect government spending. Of course, our results are specific to Austria, though
we think they would be quite relevant for other advanced democracies with high turnout, such
as Germany and the Scandinavian countries. It is less obvious how they would extrapolate to
other countries with lower turnout rates like the US.

Champion Briefs 464

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Australia proves that even with compulsory voting, young people will
feel disaffected in politics. Candidates won't always try to appeal to
young people, even in discussions of climate change.
Wright, Shane. “Voter Turnout At Record Low After Young People Disengage.” The Sydney
Morning Herald. May 31, 2019. Web. August 14, 2020.
<https://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/voter-turnout-at-record-low-after-
young-people-disengage-20190530-p51sol.html>.
Scott Morrison's government has been elected with one of the lowest voter turnouts since the
advent of compulsory voting as the nation's young turned their back on democracy after
enrolling in droves for the same-sex marriage postal survey. A special breakdown of voting
figures from the May 18 poll suggests less than 91 per cent of people cast a ballot, formal or
informal. It is on track to be lower than the 2016 election and the worst result since the mid-
1920s (excluding some years when up to a dozen seats had just one candidate) when
compulsory voting was introduced after just 55 per cent of Australians voted at the 1922
general election. Nearly 16.5 million - 96.8 per cent of eligible voters - were enrolled to vote,
the most complete the electoral roll has been since Federation. This was in part due to an influx
of younger voters who came onto the roll for the same-sex marriage postal survey in 2017. But
up to 1.5 million people on the roll failed to vote at the election. In some seats, once informal
votes are taken into account, less than three-quarters of those entitled to vote cast a legitimate
ballot. The biggest falls were in a string of inner-city electorates which have high proportions of
young voters. In Melbourne, the youngest seat in the country with a median age of 30, turnout
is below 82 per cent. At the 2013 election, 90 per cent of the electorate's voters cast a ballot. In
Sydney, held by former Labor deputy leader Tanya Plibersek, the median age of voters is 32.
There the voter turnout fell to a similarly low level after being as high as 90.8 per cent at the
2007 election. Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide - all either the youngest or among the youngest
electorates in their respective states - had among the lowest state turnouts. Some close seats
with relatively large populations of young people, such as Swan in Western Australia and
Chisholm in Victoria, could have changed hands if turnout had been higher. Outside the capital
city seats, every electorate with a median age of 33 or less - bar Holt in Victoria - had a turnout
rate less than 90 per cent. By contrast, across the five electorates of Tasmania, the nation's
oldest state with median ages of up to 45, voter turnout slightly increased with each one above
92 per cent. The NSW electorate of Lyne, the oldest in the country with a median age of 50, also
had a similarly high turnout. But where there was a real contest, voters responded by turning
up. The battle between Tony Abbott and independent Zali Steggall in the seat of Warringah
resulted in a 91.3 per cent turnout - up from 89.9 per cent in 2016. In the Victorian seat of
Flinders, where Health Minister Greg Hunt faced a battle from former Liberal Julia Banks plus
the Labor Party, the turnout also bucked the recent trend with an increase in the proportion of
voters turning out. Not one federal electorate has a turnout matching what they recorded at

Champion Briefs 465

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

the 2007 poll. If that turnout rate of 94.8 per cent had been replicated on May 18, up to
600,000 more votes would have been cast. Lead researcher of the Australian National
University's Australian Election Study, Ian McAllister, said it appeared younger people were
increasingly isolated from older Australians when it came to democracy. He said the same-sex
marriage postal survey had put young people on the roll but they had failed to find a reason to
vote in the general election. “They're not socialised into the whole experience of voting,” he
said. “They're busy with their lives and even though they've enrolled to vote they're just not
that interested in going through with the process.” NSW independent MP Alex Greenwich,
former co-chair of the 'yes' campaign, blames the major parties for not including younger
voters in the national discussion, even when discussing climate change. “My big concern was
the messaging from the major parties - a lot of the debate was about retirement, and even
when we were discussing things like climate change we were having an ideological debate
rather than an action-based one,” he said.

Champion Briefs 466

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Voluntary voting compels candidates to appeal to the most engaged,

interested voters--compulsory voting means that disinterested voters
change governments.
Paterson, James. “Voluntary Voting.” Institute of Public Affairs. April 10, 2015. Web. August 14,
2020. <https://ipa.org.au/ipa-review-articles/voluntary-voting>.
Though it may seem counter-intuitive to some, adopting voluntary voting may be the cure for
these widely perceived electoral ills. Compulsory voting entrenches a mentality in political
parties that they must offend the least number of voters (or special interests) as possible, and it
reduces political contests to an effort to appear as the ‘least worst’ option. That’s because
elections are decided by the most disengaged voters living in marginal seats, who are the most
likely demographic to change their vote from the previous election. Almost all political activity
is geared towards this small group of voters, who live in a clutch of mostly suburban and outer-
suburban marginal seats in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland. These voters wield
disproportionately significant political influence, because it is their votes that actually change
governments. Voluntary voting would force both major parties to appeal to the most engaged,
interested voters. Each political party would have to appeal to many middle ground voters, as
they do now, but also voters in their own political base. Voters previously neglected in safe
seats would be re-empowered by the threat of ‘staying home’ and not turning out to vote for
their formerly safely-encrusted member of parliament. Parties would have to offer bold policies
and reforms to energise their political base, rather than just adopt a small-target mentality that
has been the dominant political orthodoxy for decades. It also empowers a class of voters who
are typically taken for granted by political parties-their base. Politicians often believe they have
no obligation to heed the concerns of their most loyal supporters, because ‘they can’t vote for
anyone else’- these voters are as deserving of a political voice as any other, but the current
system, particularly with compulsory preferential voting, acts to disenfranchise them. And so a
left-wing supporter of the ALP who is angry about its policies can cast a protest vote for the
Greens, but ALP hard-heads know that in 142 out of 150 seats (where the top two candidates
are ALP and Liberal) that vote will ultimately return to the Labor Party.

Champion Briefs 467

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Economic dependence on fossil fuels is an alt cause---Australia proves.

Brett, Judith. “From Secret Ballot To Democracy Sausage: How Australia Got Compulsory
Voting.” Australian Policy and History. March 17, 2020. Web. August 14, 2020.
<https://aph.org.au/2020/03/from-secret-ballot-to-democracy-sausage-how-australia-
got-compulsory-voting/>.
And now to your forthcoming Quarterly Essay on Australia’s addiction to coal. How did this
project come about, and what can we expect? The project originated in my anger and
frustration at the Coalition’s inadequate response to climate change since 2013 when it
returned to power: Abbott’s denial, Turnbull’s impotence and now Morrison’s prevarication,
although it must be said that this is a great improvement on Abbott’s belligerent denial. The
reason, it seemed to me, was that Australia earns so much of its export income from fossil fuels
and that this was the latest manifestation of its historic reliance on the export of unprocessed
primary commodities, beginning with wool. Coupled with a domestically focussed
manufacturing sector, this has created a dual structure in the Australian economy where the
industries and activities that create most of the jobs are disconnected from the industries which
earn most of our export income. Geographically this is expressed as a divide between the city
and the country, and its most obvious political expression is the National party. The essay is an
exercise in historical political economy. I wanted to get away from the focus on the
personalities of the leaders and the intra-party tensions and machinations to think about the
longer historical patterns behind the support for coal and gas. I think this helps to explain why
climate politics has been so difficult here.

Champion Briefs 468

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting alone can't solve youth turnout.

, EcoVoice. “Ben & Jerry’s & AYCC Are Ona Roll Helping Young Australians Demand Climate
Action.” March 11, 2019. Web. August 14, 2020. <http://www.ecovoice.com.au/ben-
jerrys-aycc-are-ona-roll-helping-young-australians-demand-climate-action/>.
“Climate action is beyond urgent in Australia and many of our politicians seem to have brain
freeze when it comes to strong policies and meaningful climate action,” said Kent Hildred, Ben
& Jerry’s ANZ Social Mission Manager. “This past summer alone has seen a severe drought
crisis, distressing extreme weather events and ongoing damage to the Great Barrier Reef,” said
Kelly Albion, Campaigns Director, AYCC. “We have a huge opportunity to make climate a
defining issue for these upcoming federal elections – but only if you are on the roll and can
actually make your vote count!” said Albion. Despite compulsory voting in Australia, it is
estimated that in the last election over a quarter of a million eligible voters aged 18-24 were
not enrolled to vote1 and participation rates were below the national average at 86.7%. Further
recent studies have shown 43% of young Australians are more concerned about the
environment and climate change than any other global issue, with 8 in 10 thinking the world is
going in the wrong direction2.

Champion Briefs 469

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting doesn't reduce polarization.

Moss, Daniel. “Australia's Compulsory Voting May Not Curb Polarization Read More At:
Https://www.bloombergquint.co.” Bloomberg Opinion. April 16, 2018. Web. August 14,
2020. <https://www.bloombergquint.com/view/australia-s-compulsory-voting-may-not-
curb-polarization>.
The theory is this: If everybody casts a ballot, there’s less need for each side to motivate the
base, because turnout isn’t an issue. This would avoid extremism and reduce polarization, by
forcing elections to be fought in the center over issues that matter most to a majority of the
population. It’s a laudable idea. Advocates often point to Australia’s compulsory voting, the law
of the land since 1924, as proof of concept. Turns out it’s not so simple. Compulsory voting in
Australia hasn’t diminished polarization; it’s merely masked it. That’s one of the sobering
conclusions reached by Lachlan Harris and Andrew Charlton, who analyzed electoral data and
summarized their work in a Sydney Morning Herald article this month. Both have the benefit of
an insider’s perspective, having been aides to former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Among other
findings: In 2016 only one in 10 members of parliament described themselves as “moderate” --
regardless of whether they represent the two main political blocs or fringe parties -- compared
with more than one in three in 1996. Forty-two percent of overall voters call themselves
“centrist,” down from 54 percent in 1993. Two-thirds of the people who voted for minor parties
now “strongly” support them, whereas it used to be merely a protest vote. Support for
democracy itself is waning.

Champion Briefs 470

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Compulsory voting increases polarization.

Speed, Richard. “Compulsory Voting Bad For Big-picture Politics.” The Australian. August 31,
2010. Web. August 14, 2020. <compulsory-voting.blogspot.com>.
Compulsory voting has a second effect. It allows parties to ignore their base voters to a much
greater extent than is possible elsewhere in the world. Moving towards the centre in pursuit of
the marginal voter offends your party loyalists and sympathisers. They are unlikely to vote for
someone else, but elsewhere in the world the party risks them staying away. Where voting is
optional, a party of the Left must stay sufficiently on the Left to keep its natural supporters
interested; the same on the Right. In Australia, they must vote, however reluctantly, and they
are unlikely to break the habits of a lifetime. Ironically, one of the most common arguments in
favour of compulsory voting is that it ensures that those elected represent the choice of all, not
just the active and interested. However, the combination of knowing exactly who's going to
vote and being able to find among them the people who can be switched means the platforms
put forward by these parties are based on the interests of an increasingly narrow section of our
society. And there is absolutely no incentive for the parties to do anything different next time.

Champion Briefs 471

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

Young people who are already passionate about climate change will
already turn out to vote.
Mills, Don. “TO THE POINT: What Does Newfoundland’s Low Voter Turnout Say About
Democracy?.” Saltwire Network. October 05, 2019. Web. August 14, 2020.
<https://www.saltwire.com/opinion/to-the-point-what-does-newfoundlands-low-voter-
turnout-say-about-democracy-360255/?location=corner-brook>.
Voter turnout is one measure of civic engagement, and low voter turnout either indicates
disenchantment with the process or satisfaction with the status quo. While there was an
increase in voter turnout in the 2015 federal election, this is contrary to the downward trend in
voter turnout over the past 40 years. Encouragingly, there was a significant increase in the
percentage of younger people who voted in the last election. Among the youngest eligible to
vote (18-24), participation increased from 38 to 55 per cent. Among the next youngest cohort
(25-34), participation increased from 45 to 57 per cent. This is a hopeful sign that younger
people are becoming more actively engaged. While it’s difficult to speculate on the motivations
driving this apparent increase in interest, it may be driven by concerns about the environment
and climate change, an issue that has taken hold among younger Canadians, as evidenced by
the recent climate strike for the environment.

Champion Briefs 472

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

With compulsory voting, candidates have no reason to prioritize

climate change in particular, and they can just as easily convince
voters of the supposed “injustices” of carbon pricing.
Bailey, Ian. “Spatializing Climate Justice: Justice Claim Making And Carbon Pricing Controversies
In Australia.” Annals of the American Association of Geographers 107:5. 2017. Web.
August 14, 2020. E-Book .
Although justice claim making on behalf of households might be categorized as a social rather
than a spatial issue, it has distinctive spatial implications under Australia's compulsory
preferential voting system. This requires voters in each electorate to rank candidates in
preference order; if no candidate gains over 50 percent of first preferences, the candidate with
the fewest votes is excluded and their votes are reallocated to second preferences until
someone achieves a majority. Supporters argue that the system represents all citizens' views,
but opponents argue that it forces voters to support nonpreferred candidates and increases
safe electorates because voters often rank their nonpreferred major party low in their
preferences (Evans 2006; Fowler 2013). It also encourages parties to court popularity across a
range of issues to maximize preferences gained from eliminations rather than taking a strong
stand on individual issues. Compulsory voting also incentivizes targeting of voters with limited
interest in politics in marginal electorates rather than the majority whose voting behavior is
guaranteed. The 2013 election saw focused campaigning in the Western Sydney, Melbourne,
and Brisbane suburbs, often accompanied by locally directed expenditure pledges (“Campaign
Watch” 2013). Although the government sought to defuse Abbott's attacks by announcing the
early introduction of flexible pricing, Abbott claimed that this merely replaced an unjust fixed
tax with an unfair variable one (Rootes 2014). In summary, developing multiple lines of justice
argumentation, especially focusing on the short-term economic and social costs of climate
action, and the spatialization of these claims toward discrete sociospatial scales and locations
proved a highly effective weapon in undermining carbon pricing in Australia despite
assessments that the impacts of the CPM were substantially mitigated by industry and
householder assistance (Meng, Siriwardana, and McNeill 2013). In particular, pitching injustice
claims about carbon pricing within specified national, regional, and local boundaries enabled
CPM opponents to reach multiple audiences, influence how issues and groups were
characterized, and outmaneuver government attempts to frame carbon pricing as a general
global justice and national conscience issue. Interestingly, claims about injustices created by the
CPM appeared to gain greater political traction than tangible measures to address distributive
issues. Most assessments suggest that the government provided innovative measures to
ameliorate the CPM's effects on households and regionally concentrated industries. Its
unwillingness to stress links between the household package and climate action, however,
underscores the importance of message framing and claim making within debates on climate
policy. The government's failure to generate momentum behind the distributional impacts of

Champion Briefs 473

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

climate change on Australia can be again attributed chiefly to the Coalition's capacity to dispute
links between individual events and human impacts to recharacterize which issues and groups
deserved and did not warrant recognition. Additionally, casting doubt on Australia's ability to
make a difference to global emissions proved useful in magnifying the injustice of imposing
burdens on Australian regions and households, simultaneously projecting justice responsibilities
toward other countries where action deficits could be identified within the international
climate negotiations.

Champion Briefs 474

A/2: Climate AC Sept/Oct 2020

The plan forces nonvoters to vote – they lean red in key battleground
states.
Colin Woodard , Colin. “Half Of Americans Don’t Vote. What Are They Thinking?.” Politico.
February 19, 2020. Web. August 17, 2020.
<https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/02/19/knight-nonvoter-study-
decoding-2020-election-wild-card-115796>.
The study confirms that nonvoters as a whole are fairly reflective of the broader electorate in
terms of political preferences. If they were to all vote in November, 33 percent say they would
support Democrats, 30 percent Republicans and 18 percent a third-party candidate. More
surprisingly perhaps, and potentially more consequential for November, these numbers gently
tilt in the opposite direction in many battleground states, with nonvoters choosing Trump over
the as-yet-undetermined Democratic nominee 36%-28% in Pennsylvania, 34%-25% in Arizona
and 30%-29% in New Hampshire. Wisconsin and Michigan mirror the national average, favoring
the Democrat 33%-31% and 32%-31%, respectively, while in Georgia the margin is 34%-29%.
This data challenges many long-standing assumptions of political experts. “On the political left,
there’s this feeling that if all nonvoters voted it would benefit them, but the majority of the
academic literature that has tried to assess this has found this isn’t the case,” says Eitan Hersh,
an associate professor of political science at Tufts University and one of the two principal
academic advisers of the Knight survey. “But what if you increased it by 20 or 30 percent, then
who would vote? Who is closest on the cusp of voting? That’s a very different theoretical
electorate than either the status quo or universal turnout.”

Champion Briefs 475

A/2: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

A/2: Intersectionality AC

A2 Compulsory voting can be easily implemented- No, it would take

years for the public to agree and accurately execute this type of
voting.
, Political Studies Association. “BEYOND TURNOUT: THE CONSEQUENCES OF COMPULSORY
VOTING.” Political Studies Association. 2020. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/beyond-turnout-consequences-compulsory-
voting>.
Starting with its adoption in El Salvador in 1883, compulsory voting spread throughout Latin
America as elections were introduced around the region in the ensuing decades. Today,
compulsory voting is widespread in Latin America, with 14 countries currently making voting
obligatory. In nine of these countries, there are sanctions for abstention. The nature of these
sanctions, which can be non-monetary, monetary, or both, varies by country, and both the
depth of the sanctions and their likelihood of enforcement vary across the region. In the Latin
American countries that routinely sanction abstention, participation rates tend to be higher
than in countries in the region with voluntary rules or in those with unenforced compulsory
voting. In Chile, compulsory voting was dropped in 2012, and turnout in its recent national
election, its first held under voluntary rules, declined sharply. In Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil,
Ecuador, and Peru, compulsory rules are not enforced among senior citizens, and turnout rates
tend to drop as individuals cross the compulsory voting age threshold. Home to some of the
highest levels of socioeconomic inequality in the world, compulsory voting in Latin America may
be particularly important for ensuring the representativeness of the voting population. On the
flip side, compelling the socioeconomically disadvantaged, who tend to be less politically
informed and interested, to the polls could lead to votes that are cast with little consideration –
a dynamic that could have ill effects on electoral outcomes in Latin America.

Champion Briefs 476

A/2: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 CV will change voting outcomes- studies prove otherwise.

Spakovsky, Hans A. Von. “Compulsory Voting Is Unconstitutional.” The Heritage Foundation.
April 01, 2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.heritage.org/political-
process/commentary/compulsory-voting-unconstitutional>.
This mandatory voting idea appeals to progressives such as Barack Obama because they just
don’t understand it when voters reject them, as voters did in the mid-term congressional
elections in 2014 and 2010. The concept that voters don’t like or agree with their views of an
all-powerful government that tells us what to do from birth to death just can’t be true in their
eyes. They seem to think that if they can just force non-voters into voting booths, then they will
win elections and America will be “transformed” into a progressive utopia. But the academic
research shows this isn’t true. Even if the constitutional problems with mandatory voting could
be overcome, “compulsory voting would change the outcome of very few elections,” according
to Professor John Sides of George Washington University. That is because non-voters aren’t
that different than voters in their partisan outlook and because, as Sides correctly points out,
many elections (such as congressional ones) “aren’t that close.” There is no doubt that we
should encourage Americans to exercise their right to vote. But coercing Americans to vote is
not only unconstitutional, it is bad public policy. If the president and the federal government
were trying to force people to exercise other rights protected by the First Amendment, liberals
would be up in arms about it. As my former Justice Department colleague J. Christian Adams
says, if the president proposed mandatory prayer, such a proposal could be subject to
“laughter, ridicule and endless citation of the Free Exercise clause” of the First Amendment. Of
course, not to be outdone, the president also said at his town hall that it would be “fun” to
amend the First Amendment to restrict the free speech rights of Americans to contribute
money to the candidates and causes they like and agree with. That an American president
would propose such a troubling change to the Bill of Rights that would gut the First Amendment
is shocking — as is his complete lack of embarrassment over making such a proposal. Just more
evidence of how much this president disdains the liberty that the Constitution was designed to
protect and that Americans take for granted as a birthright.

Champion Briefs 477

A/2: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 Don't Violate rights- Voting is a right, a way to express oneself.

Derfner, Armand. “Voting Is Speech.” Yale Law Journal. June, 2016. Web. August 18, 2020.
<https://ylpr.yale.edu/sites/default/files/YLPR/derfner_hebert_final_copy.pdf>.
While voting is typically secret or anonymous, that practice is neither universal nor dispositive.
Voting for presidential candidates in the Iowa caucuses, for example, is not anonymous. Indeed,
the secret ballot was not established in the United States until the late 1800s.109 Moreover,
the First Amendment has consistently given strong protection to anonymous speech. 110 While
individual votes are anonymous, votes in the aggregate are publicly announced and
communicate the electorate’s opinions of various candidates and political proposals. The
expressive interests implicated by voting are strong. By voting, citizens declare their choice to
participate, express this in front of their neighbors and poll officials, and allow a public record
of their choice. The expressive nature of the vote is present whether the vote is for a candidate
in a primary or general election or for a ballot proposition, recall, referendum or anything else
called a vote. Likewise, a vote is expressive regardless of whether it is decisive. Unlike some
other countries,111 the United States does not require citizens to vote. The choice to
participate actively in our democratic system by casting a ballot may therefore constitute an
expression of civic pride. This is certainly true for people like Congressman John Lewis, a leader
in the protest that led to “Bloody Sunday” in Selma, Alabama. They risked their lives to obtain
the meaningful opportunity to vote and fully understand what it means to be shut out of the
political process.112 The decision not to vote may also serve an expressive purpose and be
intended to protest the unresponsiveness of the government (“What difference does it make?”)
or deny the legitimacy of the process or of a particular outcome.113 Voting is therefore both a
means of achieving a particular end and of expressing an opinion as to both the process and the
desired end.

Champion Briefs 478

A/2: Intersectionality AC Sept/Oct 2020

A2 We solve all voting issues- The aff glazes over other structural or
personal issues that could prevent voting.
Fund, John. “Mr. President, We Have A Civil Right Not To Vote.” National Review. March 19,
2015. Web. August 18, 2020. <https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/03/mr-president-
we-have-civil-right-not-vote-john-fund/>.
When it comes to voting, only eleven nations in the world actually enforce laws requiring
people to vote. Several nations have tried them and dropped the idea, including Chile, Fiji, and
Italy, which rescinded the policy in 1993. “There was finally a consensus that it was a basic
infringement of freedom,” says Antonio Martino, a former Italian foreign minister. “Forcing
people to vote violates their freedom of speech, because the freedom to speak includes the
right not to speak.” Indeed, not voting can send a message just as much as voting. If times are
good and major parties are in broad agreement on major issues, a low voter turnout can be a
sign of a healthy democracy. Similarly, in times of discontent when major parties are not
offering up clear and compelling alternatives, non-voting signals that the legitimacy of the
process is being questioned. President Obama gave his real motivation away during his
Cleveland riff by noting that Democrats stayed home in last November’s election, in which his
party was crushed. It won’t surprise you that his motivation is political. Recall his famous post-
election comment that he also heard the voices of Americans who didn’t vote. This week the
president said “the people who tend not to vote are young, they’re lower income, they’re
skewed more heavily towards immigrant groups and minority groups. We should want to get
them into the polls.” But rather than blame himself or his party for the failure to inspire his
ostensible supporters to vote, the president is turning to the idea of dragooning them to the
ballot box. The columnist George Will once said: “Really up-to-date liberals do not care what
people do, as long as it is compulsory.” President Obama has joined their ranks. Nor is he alone.
Oregon governor Kate Brown has just signed into law a requirement that everyone in the state
be automatically registered to vote based on information the Department of Motor Vehicles
has in its electronic files. Liberals justify such actions by claiming that people aren’t voting
because they don’t have enough chances to register to vote. But the U.S. Census Bureau
disagrees.

Champion Briefs 479