Should voting in elections be mandatory?

Many people will pay a fine over having to vote

Question: Should voting in elections be mandatory?
Position‹2 of 2: Voting should not be mandatory
Argument‹3 of 3: Many people will pay a fine over having to vote

Introducing a fine for not voting does not actually increase voting rates.

The argument

Mandatory voting as a solution to voter apathy and disenfranchisement is overstated and dependent on the sanctions that are introduced to deal with voter abstentions. In Latin America, several countries that have introduced mandatory voting do not enforce compulsory rules for senior citizens, this leads to a drop in turnout rates amongst the elderly. While in Australia, where compulsory voting is enforced through fines for abstention, 1.5 million people opted not to vote in the most recent general election, incurring $30 million in fines.

Premises

[P1]The benefits of mandatory voting depend entirely on the sanctions attached, and where enforcement is weak—such as Latin American exemptions for senior citizens—turnout still falls. [P2] Even where fines are enforced, as in Australia, 1.5 million people chose to pay $30 million in fines rather than vote in a recent general election. [C] Because many people simply pay the fine instead of voting, compulsory voting fails to fix apathy and voting should not be mandatory.

Counter-arguments

Despite lacks enforcement in some countries, the introduction of mandatory voting with financial penalities for abstention has led to significantly higher turnouts in elections. In Australia, where voting has been compulsory since 1924, turnout has not dipped below 90% of the electorate.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Mandatory voting has been shown to increase turnout rates significantly.