Making voting compulsory turns a right into a legal duty, and that's a real problem. The freedom to abstain is part of free expression. A ballot cast under threat of penalty isn't genuine consent. And impeachment isn't a popularity contest. It's a legal process with evidence, defined grounds, and due process protections, so officials aren't removed by shifting majorities or an angry crowd. The other side's concern about accountability is fair, but accountability comes from courts, elections, and checks and balances, not from forcing everyone to the polls or letting society directly impeach. A system built on rights protects the minority from the mob, and that's the stronger principle.

The other side treats an election as a transfer of removal power, but that's not how constitutional government works. Voting someone in doesn't give the majority a standing right to vote them out outside the legal process. Impeachment exists because removal needs specific grounds, evidence, and a defense, not a plebiscite that shifts with the crowd. And compulsory voting makes it worse: a ballot cast under penalty isn't free consent. My opponent is right that accountability matters, but the answer is courts, legislatures, and regular elections, not turning impeachment into a popular recall. Rights protect the minority from the majority's mood.

I agree that politicians can weaponize impeachment for partisan advantage, and that's a real danger. But the fix is stronger procedural safeguards, clear legal grounds, independent oversight, and due process, not compulsory voting or letting society directly impeach. My opponent's complaint actually proves my point: removal power needs rules that protect everyone, including the minority, from whichever majority is angry that day. A ballot cast under penalty isn't free consent, and a popular recall isn't due process. Accountability through courts, legislatures, and regular elections is slower, but it's rights-based and more legitimate than mob removal.