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!

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Con makes this vote easy for me. The rules indicate BoP is shared, meaning that Con is required to demonstrate why FPTP should be maintained. In general, they should offer a standard by which I can judge FPTP against alternates; then show FPTP is better.

Con doesn’t so this: but instead frames the debate by suggesting that if any example of FPTP that is better than alternatives invalidates the resolution.

Pro however, made a substantial argument in R1 about how the resolution is generalized, offering me a standard by which I can measure (function of voting); and justifying why this is an “on balance” resolution - to which con had no objection or argument. As a result; with no clear standard or justification from con - even if I accept everything con said as true - cannot affirm the resolution.

The only real critique relevant to AV at this point is an issue of complexity, while I can buy this; con doesn’t frame this as a weighted argument. I can’t tell whether the complexity aspect is worth keeping FPTP for - and one that is well responded to by pro - explaining there is a minimal difference in complexity.

By this same standard - pro offered the specific issues with FPTP, and reasons why alternatives are better. Con did not actually offer a rebuttal to this, effectively putting all his eggs into one basket.

Given this, as con argument doesn’t meet his burden; And as there was no rebuttal of pros standard in R1, these arguments stand and pro thus meets his burden.

Arguments to pro - all other points tied..

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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. But, this is an optional item, and I declare a tie.

Both opponents display good conduct to one another. Tie.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Pro focuses on the realm of politics, in which fptp can be detrimental to their actual will akin to a game of prisoner's dilemma, and proposes the solution of ranked voting.
Con does not challenge that ranked voting is better, but points out that it does not make sense in all cases, such as this debate to which structurally there is no third party possible.
Given that the resolution does not contain any absolute modifiers (to require alternatives in all cases), at the end of R1 pro has a massive lead.

Con does a little better later, but his core complaint becomes that a different outcome could be reached via ranked voting, which to me is actually in favor of said system; since if there was no possibility for it to change the outcome, it would be wholly pointless to do.
He also has the complaint of complexity, which I had no difficulty understanding how to implement such systems.
In the end con falls back on declaring that if there is ever a case where fptp is preferable, then the resolution fails. However, the resolution does not declare that it must always be so; if an implied majority of cases would benefit (or important ones like politics with weight to them), then the resolution passes.