Instigator / Pro
18
1593
rating
21
debates
66.67%
won
Topic
#3178

First Past The Post (FPTP) Voting Should Be Replaced

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

Nyxified
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
One week
Max argument characters
20,000
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1632
rating
20
debates
72.5%
won
Description

First Past The Post (FPTP): A system where, in a vote between two or more options/candidates/parties, whatever/whoever receives the most amount of votes is the winner of the vote.
A Vote (noun): A contest between two or more options where the goal is to represent the desires/beliefs of those who voted and (ideally) to act accordingly in order to ensure that more people's desires/beliefs are represented and (ideally) acted upon than are not. The more people's desires/beliefs that are represented and are (ideally) acted upon, the better.
Vote (verb): The act of declaring, between two or more options in a vote, which option any given person wants to win the vote. OFTEN (not always) a person/entity can vote for only one option and can only vote once per vote.

BoP is shared. Pro should attempt to prove that FPTP voting has flaws that warrant its replacement and present an alternative that, on balance, is more effective at achieving the goals of a vote (to represent/act upon the desires/beliefs of the most people possible to the greatest degree possible) with less flaws than FPTP. Con should attempt to prove that the flaws outlined by pro in FPTP voting are invalid, and/or the benefits of FPTP are stronger than that of any other voting system (or at least the alternative presented by pro)/FPTP has less flaws, and/or any other good reason that FPTP voting should not be replaced with an alternative system.

Examples of alternatives to FPTP include but are not limited to: Mixed-Member Proportional Representation (MMPR), Alternative Voting (AV), Single Transferable Vote (STV), etc...

No brand new information/arguments should be presented in the final round. The final round should be reserved for refutations/defences and restatements that do not require brand new, never seen before or established information, and summary of the debate/why your side should win.

Please comment for any questions or any requests for changes. Constructive feedback always welcomed, and I aim to make the fairest debate possible!

-->
@Fruit_Inspector
@Nyxified
@949havoc

**************************************************
>Reported Vote: 949havoc // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 4 to con.
>Reason for Decision:
I must first comment that in posting comment #5 I misunderstood the thrust of the topic, which I took to mean voting on. a debate, but the instigator did say in description that while debate is one of the options Pro indicated, it also included elections of issues and candidates. Others also had this impression.
Pro's topic is a blanket need to replace FPTP. The supporting Pro argument is that AV voting is preferable because in a condition where there are more than two choices, AV offers the better representative vote. However, Pro's thrust ignores, which Con successfully rebuts, that AV fails to have advantage in a two-choice vote, using the debate format, in fact, this debate, as example. Pro claims in the last two rounds that Con never rebuts the pro argument, but this 2-choice example is used by Con in all three rounds, and Con's 2-choice argument is the logical conclusion with either FPTP or AV voting, so Pro's argument is successfully defeated.
Pro presents supporting sources in the first round, and abandons further sourcing in the following rounds. Con offers no sources at all. one might be inclined to give the points to Pro for sourcing, but those sources fail to support Pro's argument. Results: tie.
Pro's first round was very organized, but that organization disappeared in the following rounds. Large blocks of text made Pro's organization difficult to follow. Whereas, Con's arguments and rebuttals were short and concise and much easier to follow. Pro was just too verbose. Poi t to Con
Both opponents displays good conduct to one another. Tie.

>Reason for Mod Action:
While the voter provides sufficient analysis of the arguments in the debate to warrant the allocation of those points, the S&G point is not sufficient. Legibility is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, wherein sections of the debate become illegible or at least comparatively burdensome to decipher. While this may include the use of large blocks of text, as they can make reading more difficult, none of those are on display in Pro's arguments, and both sides utilize paragraphs of a reasonable size. Other examples provided, including being verbose or eschewing some forms of organization as the debate went on, are not sufficient reasons to award this point.

Regarding this website in particular:
Alternative tally result systems would actually be pretty easy to implement. That said, it's an apples to oranges comparison. Voting here isn't about popularity and people trying to express support for something (thankfully fluffer voting blocs never got going here), it's a series of hopefully rational judgements in which people are supposed to vote against who they want to win when said person has a comparatively poor case.

-->
@949havoc

Very well. I look forward to what you have to say!

-->
@Nyxified

As a potential voter, it would be disingenuous to elaborate. Have your debate; I'll comment, further, then.

-->
@949havoc

I apologize, but I'm a bit confused on what you're saying. You're describing FPTP, yes, and the alternative I'm proposing is AV, but it was never meant to concern only voting on debates. Could you clarify?

The premise of this debate is confusing because the instigator, in presenting two definitions of the same word [vote] as a noun and verb doesn't really represent what is going on in voting for debates. I think the instigator is trying to say vote [n] is really an election; a collection of votes, in which one side acquires more votes than the other side, and is, therefore, the winner. So what's different about this proposition than what currently occurs? I entirely agree with Undefeatable.

-->
@Undefeatable

Yes, I had considered that. But PRO is free to make that argument. I don't think it will hold up though.

-->
@Fruit_Inspector

a bastardly approach, but Four Points is not FPTP... Winner Selection is! (If 7 people give 1 point to one person, while 5 people give 3 points to the other, it's clear who the winner is)

-->
@Intelligence_06

Well, I would argue that it doesn't in certain cases. As much as I personally do not like the "If it ain't broken, don't fix it" mentality, you aren't wrong!

The question is if it works... If it ain't broken don't fix it.