In addition to presidential voting, implement trial/probation segments.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 3 votes and 9 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two days
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
I am not sure how this is debatable but perhaps somebody can come up with an argument with this idea not working.
When you vote , you're going off of what the candidate has said that they'll do once in office. You have to have belief that they'll be committed to working for you. This is why I don't see the value in voting not knowing whether my vote will count. This is how so many folks are disappointed by the outcome of someone going into office failing to deliver on their "promises". I hear advertisements where someone says "I'll do (such and such) , you have my WORD . "
I understand that besides what anyone says at the time of a running campaign, debate session, press conference, etc., a person can look at a track record. That could be helpful to some degree in determining the best candidate. But the outcome can still be disappointing.
Therefore as an ancillary implementation, candidates should be given a trial period or probation stage. So that is to test drive the administration, the policies and all that so to speak.
There's no greater verification in truth then to see the actions of a person versus what they pitch.
Now a question is raised. What about when the trial is over, what happens then? All that vote, place their final vote. At this point, the individual voter has more to work with.
Next question is, what about the presidency after the trial, how do you know what was done in the trial will continue?
Now what could be implemented is governmental policy assurance. That is the removal of any president that fails to meet their intended goals. This can get rather complex as every issue can be. Sometimes plans do fall apart and the administration or whoever is not to be or shouldn't be immediately be penalized. So very careful consideration has to be applied in this process.
As far as the future is concerned, we don't know or can't verify how that will look.
For now, I don't see any formula that can help in voting decisions based on the future like past and present.
This idea in the topic here is more dealing with the present. This is not a full proof method that will cancel out all disappointment . If it did, then more than likely, 100 percent of all voting would just go to one person.
There maybe some that may not change their final vote versus some that will . Each party will see where their support went and what it meant. But at least, the voter has a little bit more to judge on in their decision just like a potential customer taking a test drive on a potential vehicle purchase.
Please comment or send a message for questions.
It would be just like the candidate is president officially. Everything is at full power and we get to see policies fully in effect. Now with the probation period, it gives voters an opportunity to not have to settle with their disappointment and can change their vote.
Yes the candidate would have full support [of Congress]. You would have to accept that these changes come along with the implementation.
This debate could really be boiled down quite simply - It is simply not practical to implement Pro's proposal as suggested. While Pro did rebuke certain claims and such, none of their points on the topic were refuted in their entirety. For example; The point of Voter Fatigue was never mentioned by Pro,
The ones the Pro did rebuke were rebuked correctly in return. For example; The president not enjoying their full presidential powers, as the proposal would literally limit them to a trial period.
In all, Pro simply did not refute the impacts of Cons arguments with any real weight. This point goes to Con.
The rest are tied, no one provides a single source, S&G are equivalent across the board, and conduct is not violated by either debater.
Con wisely pointed out that the presidential powers are already held in balance by congress, which pro could not get past to show benefit to introducing such confusion into our electoral system (nor could he really articulate his proposal satisfactory).
It’s obvious. Mall made nearly zero impacts or benefits on the trial segments while con posted many flaws with limited power and radical change