Should the US change its constitution so that people are required to vote?

It goes without saying that changing of the US constitution where people

are required to vote is one of the most important issues facing us today. It is
often said that the US constitution should be changed so that people are required
to vote. Although this statement may seem controversial at first glance. In the
following essay I am going to outline the arguments that make me agree and
disagree with this idea.
Firstly, let us take a look at the arguments that support the idea that
required voting will place some responsibility on people for their future and for
the future of their country. To start with, it is worth mentioning that required
voting will also show the importance of each citizen's vote and will take into
account the interests of more than half the population. Furthermore, according to
experts, Belgium has a required vote, where 90 percent of the population vote,
that shows interests of all citizens. The following argument to mention is that
Belgium also has a penalty for non-voting, which deprives a person of the right
to vote for 10 years. Therefore, required voting will, to some extent, train people
to take responsibility for their own future and the future of their country.
When it comes to the arguments of those who disagree with the idea
discussed, they primarily mention that required voting would contradict to the
democratic regime of government. It will look like a totalitarian regime that is
not typical of America. First of all, required voting will force people to make
their choice even when there is no worthy candidate in the ballot. In addition,
research has found that required voting can lead to abuse of power using the
votes of citizens in their favor. On top of that, in terms of changing of the US
constitution where people are required to vote, the example can be the USSR,
where voting was conducted in voluntarily-forcibly way. It follows that required
voting is not democratic.
 Weighing up the arguments pro and against, I can say that I am in two
minds about changing of the US constitution where people are required to vote.
On the one hand, I strongly agree with the idea that required voting is a
manifestation of society's responsibility and interest in the future of the state,
because under the 26th Amendment where `the right of citizens of the US who
are eighteen years of age or older to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the
US or by any state on account of age, race and color` that guarantees the rights
of citizens regardless of their differences and ensures their participation in
political life. On the other hand, I cannot ignore the arguments of the opponents
due to the fact that introduction of required voting will mean the result of low
public interest in the development of their country in political questions and so
on. Such compulsory voting may be applied to countries with less than half of
citizens voted, that is not typical for the USA. After all, in 2016 there were 55,5
percent of voters, in 2008 - 58,2 percent. So from my point of view, this issue
requires a moderate approach that takes into account all its pros and cons.
In conclusion, although there exist arguments pro and against the idea of
changing of the US constitution where people are required to vote, my own
attitude to this matter is not so categorical. Personally speaking, I believe that in
order not to resort to required voting, it is necessary to involve society in
political life in such a way that people themselves learn to be responsible for
their future and to rely on their own strength, and not to be passive citizens who
are waiting for change without doing anything.