Directions: The following prompt is based on the accompanying six sources.

This question
requires you to integrate a variety of sources into a coherent, well-written essay. Refer to the
sources to support your position; avoid mere paraphrase or summary. Your argument should be
central; the sources should support this argument. Remember to attribute both direct and indirect
citations.

Introduction

Throughout the history of the United States, voting has been an essential part of the countrys
national identity. From suffragettes in the early twentieth century to the Civil Rights Movement
in the 1960s, the struggle for the right to vote has been a central conflict in American history.
Yet, the United States still experiences a low voter turnout. To counteract the low percentage of
voters and to give all Americans a voice in elections, some have suggested that the United States
adopt a compulsory voting systema system in which voting is mandatory for all eligible
citizens.

Assignment

Read the following sources (including any introductory information) carefully. Then, in an essay
that synthesizes at least three of the sources for support, take a position that defends, challenges,
or qualifies the claim that the United States should adopt a compulsory voting system.

Refer to the sources as Source A, Source B, etc.; titles are included for your convenience.

Source A (Summers)
Source B (Galston)
Source C (Louth and Hill)
Source D (Carter)
Source E (Gentile)
Source F (Stephanopoulos)
 Source A

Summers, Dana. "The Problem With Democracy." The Orlando Sentinel [Orlando] 11 Feb.
1983: 115. Print.

The following is a cartoon from a newspaper based in Central Florida, U.S.A.

 Source B

Galston, William A. "Telling Americans to Vote, or Else." The New York Times. The New
York Times, 05 Nov. 2011. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

The following is excerpted from an opinion piece published by The New York Times, a globally
recognized newspaper based in New York City, U.S.A.

Jury duty is mandatory; why not voting? The idea seems vaguely un-American. Maybe so, but
its neither unusual nor undemocratic. And it would ease the intense partisan polarization that
weakens our capacity for self-government and public trust in our governing institutions.

Thirty-one countries have some form of mandatory voting, according to the International
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. The list includes nine members of the
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and two-thirds of the Latin American
nations. More than half back up the legal requirement with an enforcement mechanism, while the
rest are content to rely on the moral force of the law.

Despite the prevalence of mandatory voting in so many democracies, its easy to dismiss the
practice as a form of statism that couldnt work in Americas individualistic and libertarian
political culture. But consider Australia, whose political culture is closer to that of the United
States than that of any other English-speaking country. Alarmed by a decline in voter turnout to
less than 60 percent in 1922, Australia adopted mandatory voting in 1924, backed by small fines
(roughly the size of traffic tickets) for nonvoting, rising with repeated acts of nonparticipation.
The law established permissible reasons for not voting, like illness and foreign travel, and allows
citizens who faced fines for not voting to defend themselves.

The results were remarkable. In the 1925 election, the first held under the new law, turnout
soared to 91 percent. In recent elections, it has hovered around 95 percent. The law also changed
civic norms. Australians are more likely than before to see voting as an obligation. The negative
side effects many feared did not materialize. For example, the percentage of ballots intentionally
spoiled or completed randomly as acts of resistance remained on the order of 2 to 3 percent.
 Source C

Louth, Jonathan, and Lisa Hill. "Compulsory Voting in Australia: Turnout with and Without
It." Australian Review of Public Affairs 6.1 (2005): 26-27. School of Economics and
Political Science, The University of Sydney. Web. 26 Nov. 2016.

The following is excerpted from a journal written about the impact of compulsory voting on
Australia and the Netherlands.

...Australia has, it can be argued, the most efficient, effective, and equitable compulsory voting
system in the world and it enjoys turnout levels that are the envy of the industrialized voluntary
voting world. It would be hard to find another system with such high levels of voter turnout
coupled with such low transaction and opportunity costs to voters.

Compulsory voting was introduced at the federal level in 1924 to address the problem of low
voter turnout. It proved an extremely effective and well-tolerated remedy. The 1903 federal
election turnout had only been 46.9 per cent of registered voters (RV), and at the last federal
election held before the introduction of compulsory voting (1922) the average turnout of
registered voters had been 58.7 per cent. But turnout at the first federal election after 1924 (in
1925) surged dramatically, to an average of 91.4 per cent (RV). Data taken from the nine
elections preceding and the nine following the introduction of compulsory voting shows that the
average voter turnout increased by 30.4 per cent (RV). Turnout rates among the voting age
population in Australia have remained consistently high, against the trend of steadily declining
voter participation in advanced democracies. In the postwar period, the average turnout rate has
been around 83 per cent of voting age population (VAP) and 94.5 per cent (RV). In fact
compulsory voting has been so effective at maintaining high turnout here that it has rendered the
study of turnout in Australian elections virtually irrelevant.

Other well-administered systems in established democratic settings have enjoyed similar

results In the Netherlands, for the 53 years when compulsory voting was in force (1917-70),
turnout was consistently above the 90 per cent (RV) mark. In 1970 the Dutch Parliament voted
91-15 to repeal the legal compulsion to vote. A drop in turnout followed immediately
Importantly, while compulsion was in force in The Netherlands, it kept turnout above the 90 per
cent mark for all socio-economic groups. With its removal, an immediate consequence was an
increased variation between subgroups. This points to the long-asserted social leveling effect of
compulsory voting whereby all, rather than just the privileged and well-established sectors of
society, are enabled to have their voices heard at election time.
 Source D

Carter, Joe P. "3 Reasons to Oppose Mandatory Voting." Acton Institute PowerBlog. Acton
Institute, 19 Mar. 2015. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

The following is excerpted from an opinion piece published by Acton Institute, an American
research and educational institution centered in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Compulsory voting violates civil liberties The government and politicians serve the people,
not the other way around. Citizens should not be obligated, by force of law and against their will,
to participate in an electoral system. Padraic McGuinness makes a powerful point about how
mandatory voting is violation of liberty: ...Surely it is a fundamental human right to be left
alone, to be allowed to live ones own life within the law but otherwise unmolested, and to take
no interest in policies at all except by choice. Compulsory voting, by imposing participation in
the election of politicians and governments, infringes the right to be apolitical.

Compulsory voting doesnt change political ignorance Just as you can force a horse to water
but cant make him drink, you can force a voter to the polls but cant make him think. Many
people choose not to vote because they are disengaged from or apathetic about politics. There is
no evidence that requiring people to vote provides sufficient incentive for them to gain the
information necessary to cast an informed ballot. The decision not to vote is therefore a rational
one for those who have not put in the time or effort to discern which electoral choice is best for
them or their country.
 Source E

Gentile, Sal. "Are Bad Voters like Drunk Drivers? New Book Says They Are, and That They
Should Stay Home on Election Day." PBS. PBS, 15 Apr. 2011. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

The following is excerpted from an article analyzing a book that focuses on misinformed voters.

...You are allowed even encouraged to vote.

But should you? Not everyone thinks so.

Polls have shown routinely that large numbers of Americans know very little about how our
political system works. And its not just a lack of factual knowledge Americans skewed
understanding of how the government functions (or fails to function) also influences their
proposals for how to fix it.

...If most voters decide, We dont know anything, were just going to kind of choose whatever
we find emotionally appealing, then theyre imposing that upon other people, said Brennan, a
professor of political philosophy at Brown University. And not only are they imposing it upon
other people, theyre imposing it literally at gunpoint.

...Voting, according to Brennan, is actually a decision about how other people should live. And
that, he says, makes it a pretty hardcore ethical situation.

When Im at a restaurant deciding what to eat, Im deciding for myself. I choose to have a
hamburger, Im the person who lives with the consequences. If its overly fatty, I get fat, you
dont get fat. If it causes heart disease, I get it, not you, Brennan said. When were voting, we
are imposing costs upon one another. Were not just deciding for ourselves.

And because of that, Brennan argues, there is no moral obligation to vote in fact, not everyone
should vote. I dont think people have a duty to vote. I argue that voting is just one of many
ways you can exercise civic virtue, Brennan said. I think its sort of morally optional. If you do
it well, its praiseworthy, but its not anything special.

The point isnt merely that you should feel free to stop reading newspapers or paying attention to
elections when they roll around. As Brennan put it, misinformed choices at the ballot box have
harmful consequences for society, and were all forced to live with those consequences. So we
need to reconsider what voting is, and who should do it.
 Source F

Stephanopoulos, Nicholas. "A Feasible Roadmap to Compulsory Voting." The Atlantic.

Atlantic Media Company, 2 Nov. 2015. Web. 27 Nov. 2016.

The following is excerpted from an article published in a global news magazine that explores the
possibility of compulsory voting in America, and provides a plan to achieve it.

Not enough people vote. Its a perennial source of concern in American politics. Theres no
shortage of reforms designed to address the problem, but one idea that seems particularly
promising, at least in theory, is compulsory voting. It would produce much higher turnout for the
obvious reason that it requires people to vote. Its long been dismissed, though, as an impossible
pipe dream, unlikely to ever happen in the United States. But if reformers were to start at the
municipal level, they could set into motion forces that might lead to its nationwide adoption.

...There are many policies that, if implemented, would increase turnout. Extended early and
absentee voting would lengthen the period for casting ballots. Automatic voter registration would
add drivers to the rolls when they apply for licenses. And moving Election Day to Saturday
would make it easier for full-time employees to participate. But the most obvious way to get
more people to vote doesnt attract nearly enough attention. Its to oblige people to vote.

Compulsory voting isnt as draconian as it sounds. No one is dragged to the polls against his or
her will, and no one is thrown in jail for refusing to cast a ballot. Instead, a modest fine (about
$20 in Australia) is levied on people who fail to show up and have no good excuse for their
absence. There also isnt any danger of political speech being compelleda no-no under the
First Amendment. People are free to do what they like with their ballots, including turning them
in blank.
Step 2:
Analyze the Sources
Source A - Summers, Dana. "The Problem With Democracy."
Currency? This cartoon was created in 1983, so it is not very recent. However,
the content still applies to the United States voting system, and it was published
by a newspaper that is still current to this day. So even though it isnt current, it is
still reliable because it applies to the same situation in the United States.
Relevance? This political cartoon is meant to cover the issue of low voter turnout
in America, and because it is only a drawing it doesnt go into full detail of the
issue. However, the cartoonist is still able to make clear the issue that Americans
complain about the current government situation, but they do not show up to vote
for change. So without going into extreme depth, the cartoon is able to show a
relevant perspective on the issue, thus making it credible. Authority? The creator
of this political cartoon is a popular political cartoonist, Dana Summers, who has
written for the Orlando Sentinel and the Washington Times since the 1980s. This
helps build his credibility because he writes for two popular, widely read
newspapers and has done so for many years. Accuracy? This source accurately
gets its main idea across by showing the irony of low voter turnout. Because the
cartoon uses sarcasm, it isnt purely factual, but it takes an idea from the truth of
low voter turnout in America. This helps make it reliable and accurate. Purpose?
This cartoon is trying to illustrate the problem with lack of voter turnout paired
with negativity towards the government. The cartoonist intends to persuade
Americans to see that they should vote if they dont like the current situation in
America. The source is biased towards its belief, but being a political cartoon this
is to be expected. It is still credible because it shows an illustrated perspective of
the need for more Americans to vote.
Is it biased? Does it fall victim of
Spin/Omission/Cultural/Confirmation/Selection Bias? This source is biased
towards the idea that not enough Americans are showing up to the polls and more
need to do so. However, the whole point of a political cartoon is to portray ones
opinion about something in a humorous way. It is difficult to show all sides of the
argument in one political cartoon, so the source does fall victim to spin and
omission bias. However, the cartoon is still effective in showing an argument
based on the fact that America has a low voter turnout.
What/how do you think a reader would use this source for this argument?
Does it lean towards pro/con/qualification? Readers could use this source to
promote compulsory voting. He or she could explain that because the United
States has people unhappy with the turnout of the elections but does not have
 enough people to make their opinions known in a vote, the U.S. should create
mandatory voting to give everyone a say in the government.
Source B - Galston, William A. "Telling Americans to Vote, or Else."
Currency? The source was created in November 2011, so it is relatively current.
The source references the Australian compulsory voting system, which is still in
place. Thus, its currency helps the author create a credible argument. Relevance?
The source is very thorough. It goes into not only a claim but also a counterclaim
to reinstate the authors purpose. The counterclaim and rebuttal help give the
source a lot of coverage on the topic, so the source is credible. Authority? The
writer of Source B is a professor with a Ph.D. in political science. Also, he wrote
this article for the acclaimed New York Times. His experience in the field gives
him a knowledgeable opinion and view on the topic that he addresses in his
article, thus making the source credible. Accuracy? This source accurately covers
the history of the Australian compulsory voting system and the author has
extensive knowledge on the political atmosphere in America, so he accurately
creates a credible argument in his article. Purpose? The authors purpose is to
promote mandatory voting and to show how it would have a positive impact on
the United States. He does so at a mostly objective perspective. Of course it
shows the authors somewhat biased opinion, but he displays facts from two sides
of the argument, which gives him more credibility and makes the source reliable.
Is this biased to one side or the other? Does it fall victim of
Spin/Omission/Cultural/Confirmation/Selection Bias? This source was
published in the opinion section of the New York Times, so it reflects the
authors opinion. However, it does a good job showing both sides of the
argument, and its counterclaim builds up the authors credibility. So the source
may contain an opinion, but it is not blatantly biased. If anything, it may show a
spin on the argument to show his side more, but it still shows multiple aspects to
the claim.
What/how do you think a reader would use this source for this argument?
Does it lean towards pro/con/qualification? This source could be used to both
support the claim that the United States should adopt a compulsory voting system,
or if the reader wished, he/she could excerpt the counterclaim within the article in
order to challenge the claim. Even further, a reader could actually use the piece of
this article to qualify the claim, by saying that the U.S. should adopt a compulsory
voting system, but it should not result in consequences if one does not show up to
vote.
Source C - Louth, Jonathan, and Lisa Hill. "Compulsory Voting in Australia: Turnout
with and Without It."
 Currency? This journal was written in 2005. It isnt overly recent, but the content
is still current and relevant to 2016. It goes through the history of elections and
compulsory voting in Australia and the Netherlands, so the information remains
valid. Relevance? The source goes into depth on the history of compulsory
voting in several countries, including Australia and the Netherlands. It shows how
compulsory voting in those countries has been beneficial, which shows the
importance of the issue of compulsory voting. Thus it is relevant and credible.
Authority? The writers of this journal are writing for the economics and political
science department of a university. This shows that the authors specialize in the
topic being discussed in their journal, and that would give them a credible
authority. Thus they are reliable. Accuracy? This source is accurate in showing
reliable, factual effects of the compulsory voting systems worldwide. The
information is true and concrete, so it is reliable and builds a credible argument.
Purpose? The purpose of this journal is to show the positive impact of the
compulsory voting system on Australia, the Netherlands, and other countries. It is
fairly objective. It gave accurate statistics, and then analyzed them. The simple
analysis cut out the possibility for skewed opinion.
Is this biased to one side or the other? Does it fall victim of
Spin/Omission/Cultural/Confirmation/Selection Bias? This source praises the
use of compulsory voting in The Netherlands and Australia, but the bias isnt
overwhelmingly present. Most of the article discusses statistics from the elections,
so the source does not fall victim to SOCCS.
What/how do you think a reader would use this source for this argument?
Does it lean towards pro/con/qualification? The information in this article
could be used to promote the use of compulsory voting in America since it has
had a positive impact on other countries, or maybe a reader could use the basis of
the systems in other countries to qualify compulsory voting in America.
Source D - Carter, Joe P. "3 Reasons to Oppose Mandatory Voting."
Currency? This article was written March 2015 so it is very recent. It references
the comment former President Obama made on compulsory votings potential in
America. Its currency helps make it more credible because the content the author
references is still relevant to the United States in 2016. Relevance? The excerpt
from this article does not go into extreme depth on both sides of the argument, but
it does thoroughly explain its position on the unconstitutionality of mandatory
voting and how voter ignorance would only be magnified in a compulsory voting
system. By give in depth explanations for his position, this source was able to
give a credible argument. Authority? The author, Joe Carter, is a professor of
journalism at Patrick Henry College. This would give him credibility because it
shows he is an educated individual who professionally works with writing about
 topics such as political institutions in the U.S. While Acton Institute, the blog he
writes this article for, is a religious based institute and could contain some cultural
bias, it does not focus on religion in the topic. The amount of bias, then, is
limited. This means that the source is reliable. Accuracy? This source accurately
considers the impact of compulsory voting and it bases this idea on the
Constitution, which is factual and accurate. The ideas drawn from the
Constitution are logical, which makes the source accurate and reliable. Purpose?
The author intended to show how there are serious flaws in implementing a
compulsory voting system in the United States. While the source contains the
authors opinion, the author remains mostly objective. He fairly and accurately
communicates his ideas, thus making the source credible.
Is this biased to one side or the other? Does it fall victim of
Spin/Omission/Cultural/Confirmation/Selection Bias? This source raises two
reasons that mandatory voting could be harmful. It doesnt show obvious bias. It
may show spin or omission because it lacks the other side of the argument that
supports mandatory voting. It doesnt give detailed facts about how it is harmful
but bases its argument on logic and understanding on the U.S. Constitution.
What/how do you think a reader would use this source for this argument?
Does it lean towards pro/con/qualification? A reader could use the idea of the
unconstitutionality and impracticality of compulsory voting to challenge the claim
that compulsory voting would be beneficial to the United States. It definitely
leans towards the con side.
Source E - Gentile, Sal. "Are Bad Voters like Drunk Drivers? New Book Says They Are,
and That They Should Stay Home on Election Day."
Currency? This article was written in April 2011. It is relatively recent, and it
discusses the negative impact of misinformed voters on election day. The content
discussed is not outdated by 2016, so the article is still current and reliable.
Relevance? This source explores many different reasons why voters who do not
know enough about the election should not be voting, let alone encouraged to be
voting. The author uses quotations from another professor about how little
Americans actually know about American government, and explains in detail why
this negatively affects America. Authority? The author, Sal Gentile, writes about
politics and international news for PBS regularly. He also is a news reporter. This
experience and knowledge on politics makes Gentile more reliable because he has
core knowledge on voting in America. Also, PBS is a nationally recognized news
station. Because PBS published this article, it can be seen that the article is
reliable. Accuracy? This source is accurate because it takes concrete statistics
from studies to show the portion of Americans that do not understand politics, and
then the author makes an analysis on what that data means for American
 elections. Because it has a factual basis, the source is reliable. Purpose? Gentiles
purpose was to convince Americans that people who are ignorant to American
government should not participate in American elections. While this opinion may
seem unfair at first, the author does a good job at showing the logic behind his
argument, and makes a rather objective argument by using statistics in order to
achieve his purpose effectively and with little bias.
Is this biased to one side or the other? Does it fall victim of
Spin/Omission/Cultural/Confirmation/Selection Bias? This source definitely
contains a strong opinion that misinformed voters place a negative impact on the
American government. While it bases most of its argument on logic and both the
writer and the person quoted in it are reliable professors, the source still displays
bias. It definitely shows selection bias and spin.It spins the argument to show how
negative it is for voters who arent informed enough hurt the U.S. However, it
redeems itself with the logic and reliability of the authors.
What/how do you think a reader would use this source for this argument?
Does it lean towards pro/con/qualification? This source could be used to either
challenge or qualify the claim. Readers could use the idea that some voters are
uninformed to say that mandatory voting would be impractical. Or the reader
could use this to say that mandatory voting should be put in place, but there
should be more programs that promote awareness and knowledge about politics in
America.
Source F - Stephanopoulos, Nicholas. "A Feasible Roadmap to Compulsory Voting."
Currency? This article was written in November 2015. This source is very recent
and the information discussed is current. Because of its recency, this source is
credible and valid. Relevance? This source is relevant because it gives a detailed
argument. It first discusses the history of low voter turnout in America. Then it
gives multiple potential solutions to the problem and introduces the authors
suggested solution, compulsory voting. By creating a logical line of reasoning and
extensive background information, the source is thorough and credible.
Authority? The author of this source, Nicholas Stephanopoulos, is an assistant
professor at the University of Chicago Law School. His research and work has
been used by several well known universities.such as Harvard, Stanford, and
Yale. To go through law school and to attain the level that Stephanopoulos has
achieved academically, he undoubtedly has years of experience and knowledge on
government in America. It, then, makes sense that he would be able to predict the
impact of the mandatory voting system in the U.S. To add to the reliability of the
source, it was published by The Atlantic, which is a magazine based in Boston
with a national reputation. It can be inferred that the authority of the source is
highly qualified and that this source is reliable. Accuracy? This source
 accurately identifies the problem with American voter turnout and gives several
logical solutions to it. It also raises several rebuttals to popular counterclaims on
compulsory voting to show how irrefutable the idea is. This, then, helps build the
credibility of the source. Purpose? The author of this article intends to show how
compulsory voting is the ultimate solution to low voter turnout. The author has his
own opinion, but he remains objective by providing arguments from the opposing
side of the argument, and then he effectively rebutted each counter. This gave a
more convincing argument and eliminated extreme bias. Through doing this, the
author was able to create a credible article.
Is this biased to one side or the other? Does it fall victim of
Spin/Omission/Cultural/Confirmation/Selection Bias? This source is
somewhat biased because it displays an opinion, but the author implements
alternatives to his ultimate solution (mandatory voting) which gives alternate
perspectives to the argument. By displaying more than one perspective on the
issue, the concentration of bias is decreased. The source does not evidently
display any of the elements of SOCCS Bias.
What/how do you think a reader would use this source for this argument?
Does it lean towards pro/con/qualification? A reader could use this source to
both qualify or support compulsory voting in America. To qualify, the reader
could excerpt the portion that gives alternatives to the U.S. current voting system,
such as lengthening the period to cast ballots. To support the claim, readers could
reference the rebuttals given that supports mandatory voting, such as There also
isnt any danger of political speech being compelled...People are free to do what
they like with their ballots, including turning them in blank.
Step 3:
Post Analysis
Which side do you fall under based on your prompt? Do you feel like you were
biased towards that side in your creation of the prompt/sources?
I feel that the United States should not create a compulsory voting system. Not
only would it be contradictory to the American ideals of democracy and of
freedom of speech, but it would cause the United States to be vulnerable to
ignorant voters that would weaken the government. Additionally it would put an
economic strain on the country due to costs of monitoring and enforcing the
compulsory voting system. However, when creating my prompt and creating
sources, I do not feel that I was biased towards my side. For one thing, there are
more articles arguing for the implementation of compulsory voting in America
than there are against. Therefore, I had more ease adding in sources that argued
against my position. Because of this, I feel that I may have even been biased
against my own position on compulsory voting, if I showed bias at all.
What is the bigger idea or issue that is at the core of your question? Why do you
say this?
At the heart of the question Should the U.S. make voting mandatory? lies a
bigger issue. Mandatory voting would give practically every person in America
the opportunity to vote. The underlying issue is that by giving everyone a say,
some believe that the United States may become more democratic and strong,
while others see that it could become corrupt and almost socialist. It is a question
of whether this act would create a more democratic nation filled with the votes
from everyone, or if it would represent the government gaining more control from
the people while disguising it as a universal voting opportunity. I say this because
the argument for mandatory voting often voices the opinion that mandatory voting
would widen the electorate and incorporate more peoples opinions in the
government's elections. The argument against mandatory voting often makes the
point that by forcing Americans to vote, the right to freedom of speech is being
infringed upon and is giving the government too much control. These two
elements point to the idea of democracy versus socialism.
If you were to respond to this essay using any of the philosophies that we spoke
about in class, which one would you use and why?
If I were to respond to this prompt using a specific philosophy, I would use the
idealistic philosophy. I would argue that by making voting mandatory, it would go
against mankinds idealistic and democratic beliefs by tying them down to the
control of the government. By the giving the government the power to decide that
you must give a voice on an opinion, ones ideals and personal goals are
compromised. This can affect the growth of the individual spiritually and
psychologically. Thus it would be most ideal to give individuals of the free
United States of America their own choice on whether or not they would like to
participate in the U.S. elections. I would use this philosophy because it aligns well
with my personal take on the issue, and it would be able to focus on individuals
goals and beliefs, which are majorly affected by compulsory voting systems.