Question: Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?

Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability

Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion

Title: Efficiency Content: Voting machines are far from reliable in this instance. Experts have expressed concern that ‘hackers, software bugs . . . or power outages could intentionally or accidentally erase or alter voting data’ recorded by the machines[1]. In this case, while the machines may be politically impartial, they are still subject to potential human corruption alongside the opportunity for technical faults and breakdowns. Electronic vote-counting machine errors led to almost 2 million ballots being disqualified in the 2000 USA election[2]. Electronic voting systems need a lot more work before we should even consider using them; they certainly do not solve any problems currently raised by manual counting. [1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1101_041101_election_voting.html,, accessed 24/08/11

Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible

Title: Compulsory voting Content: Mandatory voting more impactful than making voting easier

Title: Efficiency Content: Because it would not require manual counting and tallying, remote electronic voting would allow the results to be known much faster[1], and would also eliminate the potential for human error, which is a common problem with the current system[2]. For example, in the Wisconsin Supreme Court election of 2011, a clerk discovered around 14,000 unrecorded votes which had been missed by human error – and actually changed the outcome of the election[3]. The clerk is now being questioned regarding her party allegiances under suspicion that she was trying to turn the election into a victory for her favoured candidate[4] – yet another potential for abuse under the current system. Machines, of course, are impartial concerning party allegiances and so eliminate the potential for individual corruption. [1] http://www.capc.umd.edu/rpts/Promise_and_Pitfalls_of_Electronic_Voting.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/votecounts.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2011/0409/Vote-count-human-error-shadows-Wisconsin-Supreme-Court-election, accessed 24/08/11

Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise

Title: The Internet is more useful than frustrating Content: I will first refute sewook123's arguments. 1.There are many sites on the Internet which provide true information. Many universities offer great resources for students who are researching. Based on my personal experiences, I found that universities give very detailed information about a specific subject. Universities also give valuable statistics that can be used to prove information. 2.In fact, many, if not all, complicated functions are designed for professionals. The Internet is not like a computer, or a program such as Microsoft Excel. Microsoft Excel is way more complicated than the Internet. 3. I did not meant voting; I meant online voting. In case you did not know, online voting is the act of going on the Internet and vote. There are many trustworthy services such as Elections BC that offer online voting. Online voting is extremely helpful because many people want to vote, but do not have cars or proper transit. To prove that online voting is useful, I will take the Malaysia Airlines' online voting debate. Why did they not simply "vote", which means, according to Merriam Webster, "the official choice that you make in an election, meeting, etc., by casting a ballot, raising your hand, speaking your choice aloud, etc." 4. I agree that one cannot buy groceries online. However, many people shop online to buy objects regardless of the costs. For example, Amazon, an online company, is very rich now by just making a website and let people shop online. According to Invesp, more than 80% of the online population has shopped online, and more than 50% of the online population has shopped online more than once. The reason: less taxes, save time, save fuel, less crowds, ease of comparing prices, etc. The link right here:http://www.cpcstrategy.com... 5. Dangers is kind of off topic; but I will refute it anyways. The Government of US has already tested the new technology against hackers. In addition, the new, evolving technology will prevent hackers from accessing confidential files. For my arguments: Con has stated that he spends numerous hours on the Internet for many uses. Therefore, that means the Internet is very useful.

Title: Online voting should replace traditional voting. Content: I staunchly disagree! Online voting should NOT replace traditional voting. It holds far too many ways to fail than suceed. Idealy, yes, for convenience sake online voting would be far superior to traditional voting. However it makes the already problematic voter fraud even easier then it already is. While you have listed ways that you think will be able to prevent this, I shall now go through and show how each is inevitably able to fail to virus', hackers, and general vote bombers. c-1: Voting fraud on this site has not been unheard of, and debate.orgs 'fail safe' with cell phone identity is a speed bump at best. All one needs is a phone number that can recieve text messages, an viola, that account can vote. I do not have a phone that can recieve TM, and so am unable to confirm my identity, though I know I exist. This means I can't vote, which is very inconvenient. However, if I so chose to I could get one or convince a friend or even steal a phone and "confirm" my identity tot he satisfaction of debate.orgs fail safe, though as you can see there are more dishonest ways to pass this than the honest one. Now, for your example of what I am assuming are serious political elections, you say that a social security number will do the trick. Not so. Just as with the cell phone all one needs to do attain a SSN, and they are now that person whether they are or not. If you have contention with this then you are probably not aware of identity theft [http://www.ftc.gov...]. Now as you'll have surly noticed this site is not just about what identity theft (IT) is but how to fight it. I fully admit that there are ways to fight IT after it has happened, though they are often lengthy, inconvenient, and costly. In all cases, IT could be fought but not after the damage has been done. This means that in a serious election, the mere possibility of the damages of IT far outweight the benefit of convenience. An election where seemingly thousands have voted could just as well be 1 person, or group with a particular agenda. Even if 1 vote is not that of the legitimate holder of the SSN, your fail safe has failed. It is far more pssoible than not, and for this reason, online voting clearly fails. C-2: If we lived in a perfect world then you'd be right. An electronic voting system would be more relable in counting votes. That is, if those votes were real and reliable. As I've already shown, the reliablity of votes is already in question. But whether a real person in any degree cast those is also in question. A virus, especially a well designed one, could easily pass through a fail safe of any kind, and perform a simple operation of changing a 1 into a 2, or 3, etc. Hacks and viruses into what where thought to be secure systems is all too common, and a simple google search can reveal hundreds of stories of real life scenarios where such a thing happened. Here's on that happened just 2 years ago [http://www.crn.com...] and a famous story where the FBI's database was hacked into [http://www.computerworld.com...]. The moral of the story is that if there is a will, then there's a way, especially when it comes to computers. Vote bots exist, and are able to be purchased easily and effectively, as well as (obviously) designed [http://cheatingnetwork.net...]. So again here, electronic votes fail as they would only suceed if there were not people who would exploit them. C-3: Sure they do, but it isn't as easy to fraud those as it is from a computer. With absentiee votes there is an official form, that has to be filled out be hand. A very lengthy process and definetly not immune to the effects of fraud, but it would take more time and resources to produce anywhere near the amount of damage that can be caused by a few key strokes. I believe I've sufficently described how that can happen above. C-4: Undoubtably, but like I've shown, for every honest elderly shut in who could use the technology to vote, there are more who would use it exploit their own agendas dishonestly. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliabilty and accessibility that a hacker or virus could take advantage of over the web, online voting does more harm than good. With traditional voting, were one has to go into a set voting center, and show an ID that matches the person to it to another living person, the chance of fraud exists but is minimalized by the ability to verify the actual physical existence of a person right then and there. Opperations to commit fraud with traditional voting are far more costly, time consuming, and active (as in one has to get up and go do something) than it is with a computer. No system is perfect but a computerized voting system is far more so in the ease that it could be hacked. So while we are not in contention that a online system would do some good, I hold that it's far too easily penetrated by wrongdoers for it to become the mechanism that decides the course of an entire country, or even county.

Title: open primaries are the most effective method of selecting candidates for elections Content: Increasing voter engagement

Title: Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote Content: Perhaps the infrequent nature of public votes is an indication of the level of confidence in the quality of the system. I agree that this does discriminate people who are less from those that are more knowledgeable. Another way of saying this is that it discriminates those that can contribute meaningfully towards the decision from those that cannot. In the majority of cases, the less knowledgeable could become more knowledgeable by reading the relevant materials. Everyone's votes still do still count, however. At the moment, each individual vote taken in isolation is usually almost insignificant in the calculation of the result. This proposal will just alter the level of significance of the vote up or down slightly. In engineering, there is the concept of the signal-to-noise ratio. If a telephone line has noise that is too strong, and a signal that is too weak, the signal is lost amongst the noise and the communication is useless. Uninformed voters are the noise of the system, and there are many more of them than informed voters. Thus the signal is too weak compared to the noise. This means that decisions reached through popular voting are largely irrational. Your last sentence is a little defeatist. To paraphrase, you say that the current system is poor and it won't change. Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that the proposed system will realistically be adopted, just that the act of making decisions through voting would be improved if it did.

Title: A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote. Content: By the definition of your title, I was speaking off topic for the previous Rounds. However, the only federally mandated election law change suggestions for future Federal Elections have been not a picture ID, but a voter ID. Regardless, I will propose a counter-plan advocating voter accountability through a paper trail. The greatest risk to switching votes (D. Josef Thompson, University of Chicago) is tampering with electronic machines. Because votes are analyzed more on the county precinct level instead of the voting locations, discrepencies are much harder to find. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, he estimates, that there were more incidences of voter fraud by one individual than there were electronic machine tampering. However, the percentage of votes changed by machine tampering outweighed the percentage of votes changed by voter fraud by a ratio of 3:1, while even counting invalidated absentee ballots equals the approximate number of votes by voter fraud. I will now assess the American government's ability to improve its voting system. The American government only has the resources available to take one option: paper trails for electronic machines OR voter/picture ID because of the official documentation and training purposes. The winner of this debate is the Negative side because its counter-plan of instituting a paper trail defeats the Affirmative plan of picture Identification at the voting booth. Thanks, The Colonel

Title: Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability Content: The numerous faults experienced in trials and small-scale use of electronic voting[1][2] shows that this system is not yet ready for wide use in elections, and gives no indication that it ever will be. The argument that they can provide a faster vote-count is negated by the fact that in many cases they aren’t counting all the votes, but instead missing some out[3]. If the results cannot be trusted, there is no merit in implementing an electronic vote. Furthermore, this motion neglects those who do not have access to electronic systems or the internet; they may end up being disenfranchised if voting went online. This is particularly pertinent for senior citizens who lack the skills to ‘find, retrieve and evaluate’ information found electronically[4]. It is also a disadvantage for those who with a limited income and education, who are ‘most likely to not use the internet or even understand how to use a computer’[5]. 37% of low-income households do not regularly use the internet[6]; this motion would create a two-tier system where already under-represented groups are allowed to fall behind the rest of society. Even public libraries and state-provided resources are suffering cuts under the economic depression[7], which further reduces access for those from poorer backgrounds. This allows real issues of discrimination and alienation to rise. [1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/04/electronic-voting-machine_n_141119.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1550650/, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11 [7] http://workingclassstudies.wordpress.com/2010/11/08/disconnected-disenfranchised-and-poor-addressing-digital-inequality-in-america/, accessed 24/08/11

Title: "should voting be done online" Content: My opponent has presented a very interesting argument, however it is flawed. Firstly my opponent makes the statement "" the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote "" however this does not disprove the statistics presented in the previous argument, young people are still voting less and most young people are not voting because they are too busy or have conflicting work, regardless of the holiday, and as such a more accessible voting system is required, i.e. internet voting. My opponent brings up hacking in the internet; I am well aware of it. I have recently studied Information Technology and that includes security, database management and networks. I am well-schooled on the issues and methods of hacking and believe I am qualified to talk on the subject. On the contrary my opponent has still failed to provide an example of how exactly an online voting service can be hacked, beyond "a lot of hacking in internet". However internet voting is more efficient as computers can more effectively calculate the results and it reduces human error in comparison to paper voting where human error is a very prominent issue. Actually one of the largest issues of fraud in voting is people who vote more than once either at the same location or separate locations. One of the main reasons nothing has been done to prevent this is the cost of implementing the system, however should online voting be introduced the cost would be substantially less, almost non-existent [1]. Thus online voting may actually be safer from fraud then conventional techniques. My opponent also argues that rural people do not have access to the internet to vote with; however this is a blatant fallacy. Most rural communities have internet access, in many countries internet access is considered a basic right, including Costa Rica, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece and Spain. I have been to rural areas that are a two hour drive from the nearest down as the crow flies, and still have access to basic satellite internet; it was slow, but still capable of casting a vote with. Unless my opponent can back up his statement and disprove the evidence I presented then this is simply not true. As it stands two European countries have already successfully upgraded to internet voting (Estonia and Switzerland) [2] and it would be beneficial for other nations to do that same. [1]http://www.washingtonpost.com... [2] http://www.eui.eu...

Title: Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org. Content: I think it remains to be shown that the intention of the voting system is, what my opponent claims it to be, or that the intentions of the voting system should play any role is how we vote. I intend my votes to influence the winner. I might just not like one person, think the debate was clever, see somebody make an interesting point and swing all my votes over to them. In your idealized way of view the world are you really suggesting we vote like automatons? If I had to vote for people for other than wanting to vote for them, I would bore myself to death. While I don't support the idea of registering multiple accounts to cheat the vote, I will vote however I damn well choose. If that involves loading up 40 debates and voting for you in all of them, that's fine. You speak heavily of the purpose of the voting system. Like using it against it's purpose is going to cause the world to crumble. The voting system assigns 7 points to people. Use them however you like. It's much more entertaining. You don't need to go QQ just because some people are going to vote you down for being a tool. You're not abusing the system by voting however you choose to vote. PS. The voting system is going to end up putting names for who voted what direction eventually. So those of you voting against me, be warned... I'll know who you are. *eyes dart around*

Title: Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion Content: Our understanding of online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

Title: Engagement with democracy Content: If voting were conducted electronically, we would have no guarantee that an individual’s vote was privately and freely made. Instead, voting becomes open to manipulation where the head of the household, or another figure, may cast votes for others to try and ensure their preferred outcome. Indeed, under the status quo there are still instances of organised corruption where votes are sold or bullied out of people[1][2], despite the fact that this was the exact reason that the secret ballot was originally introduced[3]. Electronic voting would just take corruption further out of our hands by hiding it from public view; this would be detrimental to democratic process. [1] http://www.usip.org/files/MC1/MC1-Part2Section15.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN03667.pdf , accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8ujf3YM9AfwC&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=secret+ballot+prevent+corruption&source=bl&ots=6Z5cAyLtLe&sig=-yPKNj6ikiTouVLKSthPmYbBtEA&hl=en&ei=mj9VTufACMeKhQehwJWkBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=secret%20ballot%20prevent%20corruption&f=false, accessed 24/08/11

Title: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Content: Electronic voting would also save a great deal of money which is currently spent on employing counters and renting venues to be used as polling stations. For example the UK general election in 2005 cost over £80 million to organise[1], Canada’s 2008 election cost around $300 million[2], and the USA presidential election of 2008 was estimated to cost up to $5.3 billion[3]. Electronic voting also brings the opportunity to increase access to those who currently find it difficult to register their votes; for example, electronic voting could be conducted in a minority language for those who find English difficult[4]. In the past, trials of this have been shown to improve voter turnout among minority groups[5]. Electronic voting could also benefit the elderly, as many find it difficult to use the lever-operated ballots currently in use.[6] Using electronic voting ensures that no groups are left out of an essentially democratic process. [1] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8497014.stm#list, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://randsco.com/index.php/2008/10/24/p594, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [5] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000310, accessed 24/08/11 [6] http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~mdr/teaching/modules04/security/students/SS8.pdf, accessed 24/08/11

Title: This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote. Content: Pro suggests we replace account verification with preventing the same computers voting twice for a period of time, however; 1. For such a feature to be effective, it would have to prevent people from voting for a very long time. If the person could simply come back and vote once per day it would still be ineffective. It would therefore have to prevent users from voting for about a week, which is ridiculous and still wouldn't be completely effective. 2. It could easily be worked around - for instance, school children could alternate between different school computers to vote, or if the household they lived in had multiple computers they could simply use all of them to vote. Most cell providers are already implemented in the registration system. The only problem is with the amount of numbers you can type in the box, which seems like a simple feature to fix. Almost everyone who uses the internet has a mobile, and if not they are sure to have a friend who does.

Title: Voting on Debate.org Should Be One Point Per Vote Content: org voting system. Having joined only a few months ago, I was unaware the current voting system was an added feature in version 3. However, I remain resolute in my position that a one-point voting system is better for this site. 1) My opponent begins his rebuttal with the accusation that my "entire premise is flawed," and backs this claim with ambiguous qualification, simply saying that the "old debate. org system was much, much worse. " How much worse exactly? He says there was a reason they asked for change but does not list it. Perhaps he meant for the reason to be explained in his other counter arguments; nevertheless I can guess the reason. As I stated in my previous round, the idea behind the current voting system is great. The IDEA is great. I am willing to bet that all serious debaters on this site appreciate the idea of having a more precise assessment of their performance. I myself admit the very IDEA brought me to this site. My premise, however, is that the idea only works if the majority of voters execute it in practice. As I showed in my first round, this is not the case. 2) My argument in no way rests on the assumption that users care about their win ratios. I am well aware of askbob's personal Terms of Service and Kleptin's intentional 0% win ratio. The motive behind their actions is evidence of the current voting system's flaws. The actions of these fine men are the result of inaccurate voting results, specifically in the form of prejudicial vote bombing. My argument rests, instead, on the assumption that users care about individual debate results, hoping to gain insight so they might improve in the future. 3) My opponent wants to shift the focus from the system to its users, but this does not comport with the philosophy of the site's creator, Phil. His position is that members who have legitimately confirmed their account have every right to vote whichever way they choose. If user voting is flawed, it is because the system allows for such flaws. So long as the administration does not intend to police votes (if that were even practically possible), total reliance falls upon the system itself. 4) I never conceded my system to be impractical and respectfully ask my opponent to quote me. If the webmaster was able to go from a single-point system to the current system, then he can do the opposite. To simply say it's too much work is a red herring. 5) As I stated in my previous round, thoughtful voters could still assess all areas of debate. My system in no way inhibits it. Thoughtful voters are capable of explaining their votes in any system and need not be given a formula. Indeed, if askbob can create his own TOS, then members can create a good voter feedback convention. 6) My casual voter category is based on simple observation. It is clear that many voters award all 7 points to their determined winner. I tried to give them the benefit of the doubt, assuming they do this because they simply view it as a 7 point score, like football. Call them vote bombers if you wish, but there is no shortage of evidence that people award all 7 points to one side. I daresay such voters far outnumber thoughtful ones. 7) Vote bomber identification is irrelevant unless a vote-bomb-removal system is implemented, though this does nothing to eliminate the problem with casual voters. The only way to ensure that the current system adheres accurately to its philosophy is to punish all voters that do not explain themselves, including non-malicious casual voters that like to award 7 points to the winner. Consider this debate: (. http://www.debate.org...). A score of 31 to 55 is meaningless. You cannot determine anything from that score other than some kind of preference towards Con. Is it because he argued better? Had better conduct? The only reason we know for sure is because 8 thoughtful voters explained their votes. Taking the thoughtful votes into account, this debate's score would have been around 4 to 11 in a one-point system. This score is MEANINGFUL, even with explanations. It tells us that 11 people preferred Con while 4 people preferred Pro. Even if some votes were arbitrary or malicious, it carries meaning, which is further enhanced by thoughtful voters explaining themselves. It's worth pointing out that, minus the 8 thoughtful votes, the score would likely have been 4 to 3 instead of 30 to 16, which is a much closer score. Just because Debate. org tried the one-point voting system and moved on does not mean we cannot count our losses with the current system and revert back. Already users are denouncing win ratios and ignoring actual vote scores. Let's go back to a more meaningful voting system--the one-point system--before it gets any worse. Vote (or vote bomb) in favor of Pro.

Title: Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting Content: As the BoP is shared, I will be arguing that Voting in Elections will make more of a difference than not voting. My contentions are as follows:1) Voting accurately polls a populus2) Voting officially elects government offices3) Voting increases the quality of a nation's overseas representation4) Voting helps the economy5) Voting voices the opinions of AmericansThese will be further expanded during the second round of this debate.

Title: Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely. Content: Our online security is improving every day; people feel safe enough to trust their most important details, such as bank details, to the internet[1] – why not their vote? Secure software and encryption protocols have allowed online markets to flourish, with companies such as PayPal inspiring a sense of security among their customers[2]. Any software for remote electronic voting could be scrutinised well in advance. It also removes the potential for identity fraud, which is a problem with current postal voting systems[3]. Each voter could be given a unique password, if necessary alongside something like a special swipe card, ensuring that everybody who is entitled to vote gets a single vote. Given that in many jurisdictions, traditional polling stations do not require voters to provide ID[4], it would arguably be a security improvement on the current situation. [1] http://www.natwest.com/personal/online-banking/awards.ashx, accessed 24/08/11 [2] https://www.paypal.co.uk/uk, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521468.ece, accessed 24/08/11 [4] http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/general_election_faq.aspx, accessed 24/08/11

Title: Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote Content: The first point Con makes is that opening the voting system to more people increases the risk of including biased voters. On the contrary, I believe that opening voting will diversify what types of voters we have, outnumbering the amount of potentially biased people there are and might be if we open up voting. Additionally, as I have said before, because Debate.Org has such able and responsible moderators and the report system put in place to report potentially biased votes, and because of the "Reason For Voting" which is mandatory for all debates when voting, voters must give statements specifying why they voted for someone. They cannot provide vague and unspecific statements like "I voted for Pro because he provided a better argument." Moderators will remove votes for these explanations because even though they might slightly explain the reason behind one voted, it is too unspecific.The second point Con makes is that a better solution to resolving the problem with low voter turnout is to advertise voting more. On the contrary, I feel that this will have little to no effect. I am certain that most, if not all people, are aware that anyone with the proper registration can vote. I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective, especially being that this is a debating website reliant on public voters. I believe that many people have considered voting, but have been prevented from doing so because they did not want to give out personal information such as their home or personal phone number.Con ends his argument by saying that "Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards."Yes, I do believe that we should not open voting to everyone, with little to no restriction. It will open the website to corruption and voting fraud. And there will be a point when it may become too extensive and tough for our moderator team to handle, no matter how great they are at their work. However, I do believe that the low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle. If we remain to keep the strict restrictions on voting, not only will many thought-provoking and groundbreaking debates go unnoticed, and a winner remaining undecided, but the failure to gain any new voters, the website itself might spiral down into ruin from inactivity, as people who seek greater debating opportunities will flock to other debating websites such as DebateIsland.

Title: Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever. Content: Most developed nations are representative democracies, in which we elect people to represent us and make decisions on our behalf. We retain the ultimate control over these representatives at the ballot box, and if we disagree with the decisions they have made we can vote for different candidates at the next election. Just because we can consult the public more easily nowadays, that is no reason to destroy a system that has generally served us well for decades and, in some cases, centuries. Furthermore, electronic voting is still in its infancy, and liable to fraud and technical problems. [1] [1] ”E-Voting Rights”, Electronic Frontier Foundation. http://www.eff.org/issues/e-voting

Title: Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could ... Content: Direct democracy would speed up political processes. If urgent action were needed, decisions could be made much more quickly (particularly with electronic voting) without the issue getting bogged down by political parties fighting one another, scoring points and trying to slow down the system.

Title: On balance, the current voting moderation standards have been a net harm to DDO. Content: Thank you warren42 for your speedy reply.Re: Intro/ImpactsI am going to start here as this is the easiest contention to counter. In my opinion, it is also pro's weakest contention. In the intro and final contention, pro blames vote moderation for lack of votes. In order for Pro to be able to win this point, he needs to show that vote moderation is the sole or at least the most significant factor in the lack of votes. I will contend that there are two other factors involved that are causing the lack of votes: 1) The debates are hard to find, and 2) An increase of overall debates. Factor 1: Debates are hard to findOn the old debate.org design, debates were the front and center of the website (see screenshot). As soon as you went to debate.org, you saw the completed debates on the homepage. Debates were the selling point of the website and the first thing you saw. You could easily locate completed debates that needed to be voting on. Screenshot from the Internet Archives.The current user interface, however, is quite inefficient and hides the debates in the voting period. In order to find those debate, the fastest way to do that is to go to debates->voting period. Had debate.org simply kept the old design to the homepage, then the voting thread would not be needed (more on this later as pro brought this up in his arguments).Factor 2: An increase of debatesOver the past few years, debate.org has grown exponentially and the overall number of debates have increased as a result. For example, as I am typing these words, there are 16 debates in the challenge period and over 8K debates in the voting period. Going back to the Internet Archive, we see that in the past two years, there has been a consistency in debates that are in the voting period. However, going back to only 4 years ago, there were only 4 debates in the challenge period (2). -------------------------------------------------"Misidentification hurts innocent individuals’ right to vote, as they are penalized for an act they didn't commit."I will address misidentification later on however I want to address this point now. On debate.org, there is no "right to vote." Voting is a privilege that can be taken away at any time for poor votes. Similarly, whiteflame and the moderators are usually quick to acknowledge their mistake and oversite. Should a vote be removed in error, the moderators allow the vote to be re-posted and the removal will not be held against that person.For example, Pro voted on my debate with Amed. The moderators failed to notice the RFD in the comment section (this is why I always post that my RFD is in the comments) and the vote removal is not held against that person. [2] Re: Voting standards are inadequatePro begins by taking Bluesteel's comment out of context. It is quite clear from Bluesteel's post that she is referring to RFDs that are very clearly biased. Pro agrees that biased votes ought to be removed. I will screenshot the post to make my point clearer: Bluesteel never stated that you cannot vote for the side that you agree with nor did he say that if your ballot on a 7-point system mentions that you agreed with this person before and after the debate your vote will be removed. I do not know of a single case in which a vote was removed solely because you voted for the side that you agreed with. I also do not know of a single case where a vote was removed because you indicated on the ballot that you agreed with a particular side. -------------------------------------------------The next point that Pro brings up the issue he takes with voting on the arguments presented. Pro writes:"[W]hen one debater makes statements which are objectively false, I think that previous knowledge of an issue can and should be utilized."I am in full agreement with the voting standards on this one. It is important that the voter does not become a debater. In actual Lincoln-Douglas debate styles, the judges only vote on the issues presented. Let's say that I make a statement that says 2+2=5. If that point is not countered or is inadequately countered, then the point is dropped and should be given to the person making the claims, regardless if it is objectively false.What you can do with your RFD is that while the point goes to that side, this point did not convince me because of X, Y, and Z. -------------------------------------------------Finally, Pro takes issue with the voting thread. I fully agree with him on this point that the voting thread should not be used to sway voters. The voting thread is important because debates in the voting period are hard to find. However, it should not be used to make additional arguments. I would argue that the main rule should be that the only thing that is allowed to be posted is the resolution and the link to the debate.The voting standards are adaquetI wanted to bring this point up in the pervious round but did not want to be seen as violating the rules of the debate and making a rebuttal. The voting standards are more than adaquet because they require only a minimum adaquecy on your RFD. No moderator is going to make you write a doctoral dissertation on your vote. Debate.org user TUF summed this up quite nicely [3]:"[L]et's be honest, the vote standards aren't overly complicated enough to where all of the potential problems with a vote can't be solved by just reading the debate in it's entirety. That's what the standards encourage members to do. Do we really want members voting who don't want to put the time and effort into giving you feedback on a debate you worked so hard on? I say good riddance to any voter that quits voting because they think the standards themselves are "too strict" and happily welcome the new era of voters who care enough about the site and community to contribute to fixing the problems themselves. "The voting standards are easy to understand, easy to follow, and do not require a ton of effort. If one is a decent voter and consistently posts good votes and good RFDs, then any vote standard will not effect you that much.Re: Interpretation by modsRe: A. Adaquet votes are removedPro cites a few times in which adaquet votes were removed and one of them happened to be my own vote. According to the vote guide, sources should only be awarded because one side had better quality sources. If one side used sources and the other side did not, then I still need to explain why I found that one side's sources to be reliable. In other words, quality is more important than overall quantity.As I mentioned in the first round, I was able to repost my vote after I added some more detail on the sources. In both instances that Pro cites, the voter failed to properly explain *why* the sources had an impact on the debate, thus the votes were in violation of the voter guide. As to Pro's argument that he has had a vote removed that he did not cast, this is the only time that I have heard of this happening. It is clear that the mods simply made a mistake as to who the voter was. Re: B. MisidentificationI've already touched on this previously and now wish to slightly expand. Moderators are only human and will make mistakes regardless of the voting standards in place. When a vote is removed in error, the mods are generally quick to make corrections and will not hold that against the voter. The resolution is negated. I look forward to your reply. Sources1. http://bit.ly... 2. http://bit.ly... 3. http://bit.ly...

Title: Direct representation should be adopt for legislatures Content: 1Alyssa, I appreciate You accepting this challenge. On point #1, if the only “more procedures” which would “slow down the entire decision-making progress” of concern are the “careful calculation” of Each Representative’s votes, that data can be easily automated. Currently, in the United States House of Representatives, the institution which I reference as “the existing model”, in order to vote, Each Representative takes Their official congressional identification, places it into a voting station and presses a button indicating “Aye” or “Nay”; the voting station reads from the identification, the identity of the Representative and records the vote electronically; to accommodate direct representation, the information stored on the identification could also include the relative voting weight of the respective Representative and the voting machinery could easily adjust accordingly. Regarding point #2, minority voices will indeed be heard and will be given weight proportionate to that of the Voters; the “limited” power concern raised is actually experienced now under what We might call the “Winner take all” system. Presume, for a moment, Americans all voted along racial lines: Whites only elect Whites, Blacks only elect Blacks, Latinos only elect Latinos. Under direct representation, One would expect ~17% of the votes to go to latino Representatives, ~13% of votes to go to black Representatives, ~5% of votes to go to asian/pacific island Representatives, 1.2% of votes to go to american indian/alaskan native Representatives, and ~63% of votes to go to white Representatives. Meanwhile, under the Winner take all system, We currently see only 6.9% of Representatives are Latinos, 8.1% of Representatives are Blacks, 2.4% of Representatives are Asians/Pacific Islanders, less than 0.5% of Representatives are American Indians/Alaskan Natives, and over 80% of Representatives are Whites. As such, the representation of minority populations can only be enhanced by direct representation. Contrary to the assertion, incentives to compromise will not be lacking: if One is elected to the legislature in a direct representation system, Voters expect One to accomplish certain goals and, if those goals are not met, the One would more readily find Voters transferring Their votes to Someone Else, diminishing One’s influence in the legislature; if compromise is necessary and/or helpful to accomplishing those goals, One will have a good reason to compromise so as to keep Constituents satisfied. As a result, polarization will actually be less likely than now, where One only needs satisfy a majority or sometimes only a plurality of Voters in order to retain the same influence in the legislature. With respect to point #3, the premise seems faulty: in no democratic republic is the “public” expected to compromise; only Legislators are expected to do so and, as I note above, direct representation provides Legislators more incentive to compromise and not less. As We have seen with the United States in the last few years, Representatives can and, to a sizable degree, do represent “a highly adamant force that refuses to compromise” and America has had gridlock as a result. Cf., “showdowns” over the debt ceiling and the recent shutdown of the federal government. Conversely, under direct representation, instead of asserting directly or indirectly a mandate to represent an entire electoral district, Representatives will only have a mandate from the Voters selecting Them as Representative and then only to the extent of the said specific Voters. Additionally, Representatives in this new system will not be able to turn Voters having preferred a different Candidate into “political hostages” because said Voters will have sent different Representatives, though They may have less voting weight, undercutting the ability to remain stubborn in the manner described. For example, if Izzy Idiot currently holds the only seat from Wyoming, Izzy is going to try to assert just as much influence in the congress if 100% of Voters approve or only 50%+1 Voters approve. Meanwhile, in a direct representation system, the state might send 4 Representatives and, if voting weight in the congress is proportionate to the fraction votes received, the republican Representative might have only 65% of the influence Izzy has under the current system, the democratic Representative might have only 20% of the influence Izzy has, the independent Representative might have only 13% of the influence Izzy has, and the “Everybody Else” Representative might have only 2%, resulting in a wider mix of voices and views being considered and the interests and desires of the People more accurately reflected. As noted, Each of the Representatives will have increased incentives to compromise and achieve goals. The assertion “if each representative can get elected by being highly polarized, he/she will compromise” seems contradictory to the rest of the argument made.

Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: Thanks for the debate. =Aff case=I. One man two votesZarroette makes no attempt to mitigate the impact of disparate voting power between members. Her only response was taken out in my last round--what's important are votes values in relation to each other, not their nominal value. I'll just extend this point all the way across and urge an affirmative ballot, the practical result of the old system is to make bad votes more valuable than good ones. DDO cannot have a system that gives GWL twice the power of whiteflame. Zarroette makes literally no response to the instances of bad voting I performed. Unless you think my votes against Mikal were justified, vote Pro. Remember that I can do the same thing on close and contentious debates and the moderators are not going to stop me. Any system that allows someone a legitimate vote without reading the debate is a system we should reject out of hand. Her only response that sort of attacks this point is the one on sample size. The problem with her argument here is that I'm not making sweeping generalized claims like x% of votes are fraudulent, I'm giving specific case studies of voting gone wrong under the old system. Anecdotal evidence is better than no evidence, under Zarroettes case we have no evidence of any harms stemming from the new system. II. Strategic voting This point should be viewed as dropped and therefore conceded. This is a crushing blow for Con, as it takes out her argument about me not providing enough evidence by establishing a logical framework that indicates strategic voting is inevitable under the old system. Ideological voters are going to try to award as many points as they can, and under the old system they are handed a toolbox to use to increase their voting share. I'm not sure what else to say here except to heavily encourage judges to reread my second contention and to not allow Zarroette any rebuttal to it in the last round as I can't respond. All of Zarroettes qualms about subjectivity are magnified under the old system because of the vast amounts of discretion voters are given. Zarroette's only response to my poll is that there are more than 17 debaters, but given DDO's small active population 17 is probably a pretty representative sample. Even if it isn't, I have 17 people who were harmed by the old system, Zarroette has 0 harmed under the new. At this point you can already vote Pro, as I gain the advantage of wiping out a huge subset of ideological voting that is impossible to extinguish in any categorical system. III. Competition and debate Zarroette drops that it's absurd the old system assigns a majority of the ballot value to points that aren't argued for in the debate. Her only response is that voting on a simple spelling error would be a violation of the rules under the old policy, but obviously it isn't because I did that very thing twice and my votes still remain in place. She also argues that we should reject the voting system used in every single debate league ever in favor of Phil's because the arguments aren't written down for the judge in a real debate, except they are. It's called flowing, the vast majority of judges are very adept at writing the arguments made down and it isn't as if the arguments are only heard once--the important ones are emphasized by the debaters again and again. Keep in mind as well that Zarroette never proved that "complexity" is a good thing nor that complexity has declined under the new system. As with my previous points, I don't really know what else to say here. At this point there's literally no way to vote Con because the majority of my case has survived the round completely unscathed. =Neg case= Tool tips vs. Moderation policyIn order to circumvent my arguments about poor votes slipping through under the old system, Zarroette tries to argue that we should look to the tool-tips on the side of the ballot as the voting policy, not the kinds of votes the mods allow. I think this is where she is staking her entire hopes to winning the debate, but this is flawed for four reasons: First, Zarroette made no response to my argument that these guidelines still don't explain *when* to vote. She asserts that awarding the S&G point because someone used the wrong "your" would be a fraudulent vote but the tool tips don't say that. Quite the contrary, they heavily imply that the judge is to try their best to fill out the entire ballot. The tool-tips say "on balance". If Pro makes one spelling error and Con makes zero, if I follow the tool tips I should award 33% of the argument value to Con because of one misspelled word in thousands, which even Zarroette admits is ridiculous. Secondly, even if Zarroette carries this point, she still loses because we should look to realism instead of idealism when trying to determine which system is best. At the end of the day, moderation policy is all that matters when it comes to the deletion of votes, not the tool tips and she hasn't even explained why these should be binding over the moderators policy. She argues that maybe there aren't enough mods--this is a turnable argument. Juggle is not going to grant anyone else mod power, at least not for a while thus if her system is unworkable without many more moderators we should prefer mine. Thirdly, the tool-tips encourage a bad voting paradigm. Zarroettes only response to this argument is that it's an appeal to popularity, but she fails to understand that things are often popular for a reason. Someone following the tool-tips and voting on a minor spelling error would have their vote meet hostility because trying to fill out the entire ballot is a *bad* paradigm. Fourth, there's no evidence that voting quality has decreased under the new system so she loses her offense. Thus the tool-tips should be ignored. Voting complexityZarroette puts herself in a double bind by asking me to prove that it's harder to explain the old system to a new voter while simultaneously arguing that the old system is better due to it's complexity. Zarroette makes no response to my argument that if we follow this argument all the way it advocates a system with hundreds of categories. Remember, either these things are important in a debate or they are not. If they are. people have the incentive to do them anyway due to wanting to win the ballot. Fraudulent votesZarroette has failed to give a single example of a bad vote under the new system, and now it's too late for her to do so. Zarroette has no answer to my response that under the old system a bad vote can be worth two or more good votes. Even if fraud was easier under the new system (it isn't), it's less potent. Zarroette keeps saying that we should assume that people vote poorly because the new system only asks who won, but that's literally the same thing the old one does except the old one gives poor voters more power. Vote Pro. IncentivesZarroette makes no response to the massive double bind she's put herself in. I argue that the categories on the old system, while important in a debate, are overemphasised to an absurd degree in the old system. Zarroette argues that these things are important in a debate, and that's why without having points for them no one will do them properly despite having every incentive to try and pick up the ballot. I think the flaw in this argument speaks for itself. Recall as well that Zarroette has given literally no evidence of any depreciation of debate quality under the old system and at this point it's too late for her to do so. Zarroette makes no response to my rebuttal about how the old system encourages debaters to use bad tactics such as source spamming to try to gain points. BiasIf bias was really so widespread and easy under the new system, Zarroette should've had some evidence of this. As it is, my harms greatly outweigh. Her vagueness disadvantage is nonunique.

Title: Democratisation Content: If it worked, online voting could allow more use of direct democracy methods. However, direct democracy is not in itself a better system, and still contains many dangers. Snap online polls could easily express an opinion which has not been properly thought through; the current voting system is more likely to result in considered voting as citizens have to make the effort to get to the polling stations in the first place. Furthermore, a low turnout or insecure systems could allow motivated minorities to use frequent online ballots in order to impose their will on the majority. The very ease of online voting could actually result in worse policy than under the status quo.

Title: Voting on Debate.org Should Be One Point Per Vote Content: I look forward to this! My opponent has only provided one argument to support his position. That argument is this: Because there exists three different voting styles (thoughtful voting, casual voting, and dishonest voting), the votes as a collectively whole become distorted; and therefore reverting to debate. org's previous voting system would be beneficial. I offer the following counterarguments: 1) My opponent's entire premise is flawed. As I and many other v2ers can vouch, the old debate. org voting system was much, much worse. There was a reason we v2ers pleaded for this amended voting system. 2) Your argument rests on the assumption that users actually care about their win ratios. For example, the cleaners have denounced win-ratio-worrying (. http://www.debate.org...); and instead, they debate for fun and learning. Others, such as askbob, have created their own systems for counting votes (. http://www.debate.org...). Furthermore, for those who care about their win ratios, the debate. org sys admin is currently building a vote-bomb-removal program (. http://www.debate.org...). So, really: Everyone should have no problem with the current voting system. 3) The flaw does not lie in the voting system, but in the users who do not follow debate. org's debate guideline and TOS. The voting guideline (. http://www.debate.org...) specifically tells users how to vote. Hopefully, we will soon have user moderators (the Webmaster has hinted at this feature many times), and bad users will no longer be a problem. Again, it is not the voting system, but some of its users, whose votes (like I mentioned in point two) will soon be removed. 4) Your system is impractical. You've conceded this. A system to convert all current votes to a proverbial binary system would take way too long to make, especially considering that the current system works fine. 5) As for the thoughtful voters, they often leave comments explaining how and why they voted. They give suggestions to the debaters, and this helps them improve their debate skills. Without the many categories, it would be harder for these "cleaners" to give reasons for why they voted. This would lead to confusion and would destroy the very intent of their helping, thus destroying the fun atmosphere debate. org is supposed to be founded on (. http://www.debate.org...). 6) I am uncomfortable accepting your "casual voter" premise. You bear the burden of proof in proving that a significant number of them exists (if at all). Honestly, I think that if people are going to spend the time to read a full debate, that they wouldn't be so lazy as to not spend the time to think for half a second, and judge the categories fairly. 7) The current system allows an easier identification of vote bombers. Vote bombers generally bomb all seven points, and so all of their information is shown in the "Votes" tab six times. This makes it easier to identify which users are bombers so we can report them. Imagine if you only had one vote statistic to judge off, which was mixed with tons of other votes. It would be virtually impossible to determine who the vote bombers are! Those are my objections and arguments for why we should not revert back to the old voting system. I leave the floor open to my opponent.

Title: Online voting should replace traditional voting. Content: Rules: No word play on semantics. No specific format. If you accept, please present a case and don't just forfeit. Thanks in advance! I affirm the resolution. C-1: Many entities use various forms of online voting with success. Examples include Major League Baseball All Stars, and Debate.org (Sources www.mlb.com & www.debate.org) The basic premise requires a person to log in and vote. Failsafe measures to prevent fraud would be 1 vote per SSN. The Social Security Administration has dates of birth on file. Thus, it stands to reason that persons 18 and older could vote one time. C-2: Numerous elections have had questionable results and recounts, most notably that of Florida or Iran. Such a system would likely alleviate inaccurate vote counting as it would be done electronically, and tallied as the votes occur. C-3: Absentee voting has it's share of potential debacles as well. Online voting alleviates the process of mailing ballots, having them marked, mailed back, opened and counted. C-4: Elderly and shut in voters may not get the opportunity to vote traditionally. Having access online would enable them to have a better opportunity to vote. CONCLUSION: Given the unreliability & inaccessibility of traditional voting, it passes the common sense test to switch to online voting. It is possible to create a reliable program that would be protected against hackers and pirates, that would not only simplify, but also uncomplicate the entire voting process. Further, greater accessibility suggests that more registered voters would actually vote, which is the very essence of what a democracy is intended to be. Many people fought for the rigth to vote, thus we have the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendmentst o our national constitution. Thank you!

Title: Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise Content: The elderly far more frequently find electronic voting to be a hindrance rather than a help. Those who are partially sighted are unable to see the position on the text blocks on the screen; small controls such as buttons or touch screens create problems; and some cognitively impaired people may find it difficult to remember a PIN number which is used to authenticate the vote[1]. A simple paper ballot is a far more commonly-recognised and straightforward method. In terms of cost, the electronic voting machines or voting programmes would certainly cost a great deal to implement and run[2]. Ultimately, the great risk that electronic voting machines or systems will lose votes[3] outweighs the cost argument: you cannot put a price on a crucial process at the core of every democratic state. [1] http://www.tiresias.org/research/guidelines/e_voting.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://votingmachines.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000313, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/diebold-audit-l/, accessed 24/08/11

Title: "should voting be done online" Content: No, I completely disagree with the fact that voting should not be done online as there can be many discrepancy while voting online there can be fraud to....now talking about the largest democracy in the world that is the USA too does not follow this type of voting.......if the fact arises that some people do not vote by coming in the booths.....it's for their betterment that they can vote online...I completely disagree by saying that if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote...thereby I remain unchanged in my stance...becoZ I believe ballot voting is the best method of voting

Title: Voting Reform Content: I accept. The additional set of rules listed aren't relevant to the debate but I'd definitely be willing to put my ideal against yours on how to prevent voter harassment in the future. It's my belief that neither voting system mentioned is the best possible but that the status quo is superior.to the proposed alternative. The purpose of this debate is to prevent DDO from making a mistake by excluding too many people and the wrong people from the presidential voting process. I want that purpose kept in mind because it probably will affect the style of my writing. Good luck BSH 1.

Title: Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled Content: i would like to congradulate my opponents conniving linguistics designed to twist my intentions and argument. you asked someone to defend the premise that our current voting system is fine, and blantantly ignored my first argument that attempted to do such that as well as my second one in which i specifically stated that it is fine and although it is not the perfect system is the best one designed for its orginal intentions. you my friend, i feel, have not even been completely clear. your main piece of evidence is personal experiment in which you claim proves that more than half the people on this website do not read the debates. "1/2" you say? do you honestly believe that more than "1/2" of debate.org subscribers actually participated in your little experiment? ill leave it for the readers to decide how pausible this is. the problem is not that i did not present an argument or defend it, the problem is you have so crudely disregarded everything ive said because you are so blindly consumed with your idea that our current voting system is frivelous, that even if i could have presented a brilliant, flawless argument,you would have still dismissed it because you are convinced of your own vain righteousness. as far as critiqued alternative suggestions that you never made i do admit that i assumed you wanted justification mandatory, but that is all. no need to take that minor mistake and run with it. you did, however, state that voting is unfair to debaters without justification, and i argued against that. i think it could be possible that you are upset with the people that dont read arguments because you are possibly one of those people and therefore assume everyone else is. i really dont know. for the THIRD TIME the current voting system is fine. and if you continue to argue that it is not, please present evidence with more authority than your side project experiment. also, be more specific when you claim that the voting system needs to be "overhauled" because i wasnt sure if you wanted it removed or changed or what. instead of using linguistics to attack me, you should have used them to be more clear in your own argument.

Title: Michigan and Florida delegates in 2008 US elections Content: A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud

Title: Automatic Voter Registration Content: I have debated this topic previously, though the user I was debating with closed his account. I would like to try and have a proper debate over the topic of automatic voter registration. I shall argue in favor of automatic voter registration, while my opponent shall argue against it. BOP is shared.

Title: Would complicate elections Content: Elections can be confusing enough already; there are numerous levels of elections which often all are voted for on the same day so that turnout is high for all the elections. As a result voters often get numerous different ballots to fill in; the system for voting in each may well be different and are often complex. Adding that sixteen year olds can vote in one election and not the other simply adds to this complexity in polling stations meaning more mistakes are likely to be made. Lack of knowledge of voting process, increased complexity of voting process, and long ballots decrease accuracy in voting.[1] The first, and possibly also the second are factors that this lowering of the voting age will influence – so this change would mean increasing the numbers of spoilt ballots. [1] Bederson, Benjamin B., et al., ‘The not so simple act of voting: An examination of voter errors with electronic voting’, University of Maryland, http://www.bsos.umd.edu/gvpt/apworkshop/herrnson2007.pdf, p.3

Title: Voting on Debate.org Should Be One Point Per Vote Content: 1) My opponent concedes that the idea of the multi-category system is good. He just has practical issues with it. So let's address those... 2) My opponent concedes that those users who have given up on their win ratios are doing noble things. He has a problem, though, with individual debate results. I've already responded to this: Phil is currently working on his vote-bomb-removal program. I stated this TWICE, and yet my opponent said nothing in response. The way to fix the voting system is not to completely redo it, but to amend it. My opponent agrees that the main problem is vote bombing, and that is in the process of being taken care of. 3) My opponent concedes that the problem originates from bad users. He writes that Phil's "position is that members who have legitimately confirmed their account have every right to vote whichever way they choose," and I agree. My opponent forgets, though, that his problem is with vote bombers who abuse the system, people who do not legitimately confirm their accounts. And vote bombing is in the process of being taken care of. Again, completely changing the voting system is not necessary. 4) Of course completely changing the current system is impractical! It works okay now, and is in the process of being fixed. And yes, it is harder to go from the current system to the outdated system than from the outdated system to the current system. When v2 became v3, all v2's one-point votes were converted to argumentation votes; the point ratios remained exactly the same. To go back to the outdated system now would require completely distorting the votes. And furthermore, my opponent of all people, as an experienced programmer, should know the months it would take to write a program that would redo all the votes on this site. Again, my opponent's plan is impractical. 5) Has my opponent ever considered that maybe the new system actually helps debaters improve? Since v3, debaters are now more eager to do research so that they can win the sources vote. Since v3, debaters check their spelling and grammar more adamantly. Since v3, the amount of abusive ad hominems have lessened. Of course the new system helps comment communication; people now know what to look out for. 6) My opponent writes, "It is clear that many voters award all 7 points to their determined winner." No it isn't. I don't think so. I believe that if a reader is going to take the time to read a full debate, that they would also take the half a second to think about their votes. And if indeed there exists this minority, I doubt they will have much effect. But I too am merely speculating. My opponent bears the burden of proof in proving that these "casual voters" exist. He has failed to do so. This destroys his entire case. 7) My opponent writes, "Vote bomber identification is irrelevant unless a vote-bomb-removal system is implemented." Ummm... my opponent seems oblivious to the fact that a vote-bomb-removal system is in the works. Knowing so destroys his counterargument. The current system allows an easier identification of vote bombers. In closing, my opponent has failed to prove his case. He (1) failed to prove casual voters exist beyond an extremely small minority, (2) failed to recall that a vote-bomb-removal program is in the works, (3) conceded that the idea of our current system is good, (4) conceded that the problem is the users and not the voting system, (5) failed to provide beyond a single argument, (6) failed to prove his singular argument, and (7) ultimately failed to prove the resolution. I'd like to thank my opponent for this wonderful debate, and I would like to thank the audience for taking the time to read this. Thanks!

Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: I wish to thank Thett3 for what I’m sure will be stiff competition. By standard debate conventions, Pro is to assume the burden of proof, hence he must affirm that the new system is better than the old one. Anything less (e.g. neither being proven better) results in my victory. “Better” I propose that there are two highly important aspects involving a debate which can make it “better”: 1: Quality of content 2: Quality of votes The old system strived for both components. My following arguments will show that the old system reached these goals better than the new system. Arguments in favour of the old system A1: Encourages far more complex, better voting In some regard, the new voting system likens to that of a forum upvote system: you vote it up or you don’t. There is a slight difference, of course, in that of an RFD being required. However, because there is less framework for voters, this new system lessens the capacity to vote well for BOTH competent and new voters. Allow me to explain… The multiple forms in which one can vote, under the old system, creates a structure that leaves the new system an embarrassment. For competent voters, the old system allows them to distinguish between debaters in important aspects of a debate. With the new system, competent judges cannot makes such distinction, in terms of point allocation. For example, if a competent judge thought that differing aspects of each debaters’ cases, he/she is unable to express those distinctions in point form (i.e. it’s either 7 points or nothing). Therefore, this competent voter is unable to express his/her true thoughts of the debate in point form, due to the over-simplification of the voting system. As for newer voters, the tool-tips of the old system provide instructions on how to vote in each category. This will help the newer voters produce a better vote, especially when you compare it to the “who do you believe won?” In an analogy, you don’t teach someone to ride a bike by telling them that he/she should be going forward (the result). You tell him/her how to go forward. Likewise, you don’t get someone new to voting to vote properly by telling him/her to choose a winner (the result). You tell him/her how to choose a winner. A2: From this complexity, it is far easier to detect fraudulent votes, because each component of the vote requires an RFD With the new system, the delegation of 7 points is all that there is to the vote, in terms of determining the winner. As to why the 7 points are given, it’s really as simple as “who you believe won”. How could you easily penalise anyone for a supposed ‘vote-bomb’, when the criteria is literally “who you believe won”? Someone could think that I won this debate, and regardless of whether the reasons are even coherent, there would be no qualms with the RFD, in regards to the rules (which is different to the moderation, as I’ll explain later). Alternatively, under the old system, a vote with underhand tactics would be deleted. Not only do the points’ allocation require accuracy, but it’s easy to detect inaccurate or fraudulent votes. If the RFD is not one from the criteria, listed in the tool-tip (the question mark circle, on the left of each category), then it is easily spotted, thanks to the explicit criteria to check against. Conclusion for A: Via increased complexity required in point allocation of votes, votes will: be easier for newer members to understand, be more nuanced for more competent members to differentiate debaters with and will make detection of fraudulent/grossly inaccurate votes easier. All of these things help to increase the quality of votes. B1: Sources, spelling & grammar and conduct are all important aspects of a debate My opponent essentially concedes this point in the latter half of his 3rd argument. Therefore, for this debate, this premise is a given. B2: Giving points to categories greatly incentivises them In absence of incentives, one does not necessarily feel obliged to perform. Hence, when the incentives are obvious (i.e. points, instead of assumed integrating into overall vote), then there becomes a real focus to strive for these. So, when 1 point is awarded for conduct in a debate, then there becomes a real incentive to behave during a debate. Similar examples can be given with sources and S&G. Conversely, in absence of incentive, or in this case a convoluted sense (general 7 point vote, rather than the multi-category), these important points are not encouraged to a great extent. Yet they are, as my opponent concedes, important parts of a debate. B3: Negation When opposing debaters are incentivised to behave correctly, provide sources and punctuate and spell correctly, they will both try to compete for the point. In absence of conduct or spelling and grammar issues, neither side will be awarded points. So, as long as you are correctly spelling, correctly punctuating and behaving correctly, you should not lose in this contention. In regards to the sources, offering points for sources encourages the debaters to not only gather sources, but to gather better sources than the opponent. The fear of not gathering the quality of sources required for points will drive debaters to hunt for sources. Conclusion for B: There are real incentives to be found in the old voting system. When offered points (i.e. things of desire) for work, people are far more likely to provide better quality work. When there is a vague sense of points for work, people are less likely to provide. C1: Lessening of inherent bias The goal of any voter is to vote objectively as possible on debate content only. At every point allocation of the old system’s tool-tips, it reminds voters that, “your opinion of the topic should not have any influence here”. Given this context, the new system spews out the unintelligent line, “who do you believe won the debate?” When it comes to voting in general, there is going to be a certain level of inherent bias. This is due to personal context, such as life’s experiences, background knowledge, reading comprehension skills etc. When there is explicit criteria to be met, this lessens the inherent bias, because the RFD is now bound by these specific voting guidelines. Again, “who do you believe won the debate?” is an incredibly vague standard in which to vote by, and this will exacerbate the inherent bias in voting. The old system lessened the capacity for inherent bias, and hence increased the quality of votes. Counter-arguments to my opponent’s main points CA1: The new system increases a voter’s capacity to cause more damage with a strategical vote To argue this points, let’s say that I wanted to illegitimately vote on a debate. Under the new system, the maximum and only amount of damage that I can do is 7 points worth. All I have to justify is “who I believe won”. Comparatively, under the old system, to do seven points of illegitimate damage is nigh impossible. In conjunction with the voting rules expressed in the tool-tip, a voter cannot award source points to someone who did not provide sources, or clearly provide poorer quality sources. Thus, in instances of strategical voting, the damage in the new system will always be the maximal of the old system – the worst you can do in the old system is the norm in the new system. CB1:“…there is no guideline on when to vote on which category.” I’m really quite shocked that my opponent has provided such misinformation. The tool-tips, next to each voting category, provide guidelines on when to vote on which category. Due to character limits, I will address the other of my opponent's arguments in the next round. The resolution is being negated.

Title: Voting Reform Content: Thanks to Wylted for taking me up on this important debate! The outcome of the voting reform process could have a variety of wide-ranging impacts on the health, direction, and tenor of DDO's politics and community affairs, and so it is important that this topic is discussed in our community. In this debate I will examine the problems of the current voting system that necessitate change, and then I will discuss how my proposal effectively and efficiently addresses those problems. I will also discuss the BOP before I launch into those arguments. With that, let's launch into the debate!BOPSince Wylted has agreed to split the BOP, judges should approach this debate keeping in mind the question of "which system is better?" Whichever system is better is the one you should vote for. There should be no presumption in favor of the status quo.PROBLEMS WITH THE STATUS QUOThere are five big issues that I see in the current voting system: (1) that people in the polls are largely disenfranchised, (2) that users who are barely part of the community are able to vote, (3) that users with no interactions in the forums can vote, (4) that users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign process, and (5) that voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votes. I will now review each of these five points and explain why these are problems under the status quo.(1) People in the Polls are DisenfranchisedFirstly, it is important to note that just because a user spends a lot of time in the polls section that does not mean that they are not good users who are invested in the site. Two particular users come to mind: PetersSmith and Bblackkbbirdd; both of these users attempted to cast votes or wanted to cast votes in the last election, but were barred from doing so because they did not meet the voting eligibility requirements. By all accounts these users were invested in the site, promoted exemplary polls, exhibited good conduct, and were all around benefits to the DDO community. (2/3) Users who are barely part of the community are able to vote/Users with no interactions in the forums can voteI just want to point out that 2 and 3 are different insofar as a user can be invested in the community without spending much time in the forums, but for the sake of saving valuable character space, I will be addressing these points together. The investment comments have more to do with (2), and the latter have more to do with (3), but I think they're all interrelated to some extent.Let me construct a hypothetical to demonstrate my point. Let's say that user X has received a PM asking him to vote. User X has done 3, 1-round debates. Each of his rounds in all of his debates was one or two brief sentences. He has never posted in the forums, never created a poll, and has been on the site for a few weeks (let's specify and say 21 days). This user is eligible to vote. There are several problems with this. Firstly, this user has not demonstrated any investment in the site. There are many temporary users of DDO, who flit in, do a few debates, and leave. They are not long-term users, and so have no stake in casting a wise, prudent vote for the site's long-term investment. This means that they will likely not care as much about casting a good vote if they choose to vote. Alternatively, they may stick around for awhile, but only be on the site in short bursts and leave for months on end. Here again, their frequent absence diminishes the stake they have in ensuring the best outcome. To me, the impacts of this are that they are more likely to vote for whoever asks them to vote (regardless of the quality of their positions), are more likely to not get informed about the issues before voting, and are thus more likely to cast careless or bad votes.Secondly, even if this voter is invested for some reason, they are likely not well informed. This most recent election cycle, big issues that the candidates discussed included forum reorganization and revitalization, reducing flamewars in the forums, trials, and other issues outside of the debate section of the website. These are things that users who spend little or no time in the forums are not going to be informed about, so it will be hard for them to truly assess the importance of these issues to the welfare of the site as a whole. In fact, it is quite possible that they do not even know many areas of concern in their own section of the website due to the lack of effort they put into it. Finally, it is also possible that they do not even know what they are voting for. Of the voters I talked to when I campaigned, those who were not involved in the forums seemed more likely than other groups to conflate the position of mod and president. It does not seem fair that two users who are aware of community issues should be denied the right to vote in the community's Presidential Elections simply because they frequent the polls section more than other sections of the site. In fact, the polls section as added to DDO after the eligibility requirements were created, so it seems logical to update those requirements to reflect such changes to the site.Thirdly, it seems that X could very easily be a multi-account created in anticipation of the election. With voting requirements that are easy to meet, it also becomes easy to craft alts with the specific purpose in mind of casting illicit votes.(4) Users are often bombarded with unwanted communications from the candidates during the campaign processI experienced this problem firsthand when I was campaigning this election cycle. Several users clearly did not want to receive messages, and were irked that they would often find their inboxes filled to the brim with notifications and PMs from multiple people on both sides of the race. One user in particular, Beastt, noted that he was fed up of receiving these messages. Clearly, this can feel harassing to some users, which is not what DDO wants its users to be feeling.(5) Voters who have already voted are often pressured by various campaign teams to change their votesThis issue sparked several debates in the forums, particularly after Mikal posted his thread accusing campaigners of harassing people to change their votes [http://www.debate.org...]. Wylted himself has admitted this is a problem--and it clearly is a threat to the integrity of DDO's electoral process (voter intimidation), but also to DDO's values and positive community atmosphere.HOW MY PROPOSAL SOLVES(1) My proposal solves for the disenfranchisement of poll-usersUnder my system, Bblackkbbirdd would have been eligible to vote per the fourth bullet, having at least 200 posts and 50 polls, and could thus have cast ballots. PetersSmith would have been very close to being eligible (less than 40 comments away, which could have easily been made up before voting began). Another disqualified voter, Zyloarchy, would have been much closer to qualifying too. Ultimately, my system makes it much easier for these types of users to become qualified voters.(2/3) My proposal solves for community involvement and forum useBy raising the bar on eligibility requirements, we can cut down on some of the members who are merely transient being able to vote. We can also make it harder to create alts simply to garner more votes. Moreover, by ensuring that everyone has to have at least 100 posts to vote, we ensure that voters have some exposure to the heart of the community and increase the chances of their being informed about other site issues.(4/5) My proposal solves for harassmentMy proposal mandates that if someone asks not to be PM'd further, campaigners must stop PMing them. A no-contact list could even be created to this end. Furthermore, my proposal explicitly bans contacting voters after they vote to lobby them to alter their votes.Prefer my System. Over to Con...

Title: allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections Content: Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.

Title: The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes Content: In this debate I am not arguing that the voting system for this website is simply flawed or contains unavoidable imperfections, but rather than it contains easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website. You may find this an odd statement to make. I have only been in one debate so far, and I am winning that debate, so why am I questioning the voting system, off of which I am winning. Well, I believe that the errors in the voting system did not affect my win (that I won despite the errors). In fact, I believe that I would have won by more if not for the errors in the voting system. I am not arguing that everything about the voting system is flawed, just a few things. Here are the dimensions of the debate: category miscellaneous topic The voting system for debate. org has many avoidable mistakes position (pro/for) number of rounds 3 time to argue 72 hours (3 days) voting period 72 hours (3 days) argument max 8000 characters The burden of proof is on me.

Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: There are a number of inconveniences when it comes to voting in American elections, but foremost it is getting to the polling station on the particular day. In our computerized society I see no reason for there to be single election days besides for the drama it creates and TV dollars it generates. I propose that polling during elections be at least a week's worth of time A few assumptions to be kept in mind 1. all results will be held till the end of polling 2. systems in place to ensure no re-voting or fraudulent voting Round 1 Opening statements Round 2 rebuttals to Round 1 Round 3 closing arguments

Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Content: Thanks you for accepting the challenge! I would like to begin by presenting evidence supporting my views previously stated in R1. 1. Compulsory Voting Decreases Political Polarization and Solves for Disenfranchisement of Voters According to Eric Liu, (Former Policy Adviser to President Bill Clinton), TIME, Aug. 21, 2012. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2013 from http://ideas.time.com.... Many reforms could increase turnout, from same-day registration to voting on weekends. But the most basic is also the most appropriate: making voting mandatory. Here"s why. Mandatory voting would make elections truly valid. "Protecting the integrity of our elections" is the rationale Republicans give for the cynically restrictive voter ID laws they"ve enacted in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. But if we truly cared about the integrity of elections, we should ensure that they reflect the will of all eligible voters. Second, as William Galston of the Brookings Institution argues, it would temper the polarization of our politics. In today"s electorate, hardcore partisan believers are over-represented; independents and moderates are under-represented. If the full range of voters actually voted, our political leaders, who are exquisitely attuned followers, would go where the votes are: away from the extremes. And they would become more responsive to the younger, poorer and less educated Americans who don"t currently vote. What we see is in a voluntary system the views of the partisan people are heard but the moderate middle go unheard. Through compulsory voting we would see moderate voters receive legitimate representation. 2. CV Increases Political Participation Margaret Kelly, (Prof., Law, Macquerie U., Australia), THE ADVERTISER, Oct. 22, 2007, 18. The turnout at Australian elections has never fallen below 90 per cent since the introduction of compulsory voting. This compares favorably to the situation in the U.S. and Britain. In 2001, the turnout for the federal election for the House of Representatives was 94.85 per cent. In the same year, the turnout for the general election in Britain was 59.4 per cent. With such a large percentage of the electorate voting, the Parliament more accurately reflects the will of the electorate, the silent majority, not just the noisy minority. Parties must consider the total electorate in policy formulation not just those inclined to go to the polls. Not only does it increase political participation, but it also increases the political process as a whole. Politicians will have to appeal to a new range of voters rather than campaigns just go get there base out to vote. ------------------------------------- A few points I would like to address before my opponent presents his evidence supporting his position. 1. All CV does is force you to fill out a ballot (none is an option). CV does not force you to chose the lesser of two evils since you can always vote for none of the below (or above). 2. The Quality of Elections will increase because politicians will now have to represent the whole voter base rather than the few hardcore partisan voters that come out and vote. 3. All laws require citizens to do things they don't want to do. Jury duty is a good example of this, taxes, and much more. CV is no different than our other day to day civic duties. Forcing someone to vote is not undemocratic.

Title: Voter photo id laws. Content: Okay, real quick. My opponent says that new arguments don't count in the last round, implying I can't make counter rebuttals, so I demand that nobody considers any new arguments, counter arguments, rebuttals etc. he has made in the final round. My evidence that his studies agree with me still stand since his counter rebuttals don't count. Here is one point my opponent can't contend with, and I think this argument should be weighed heavier than anything. No matter how many studies are done on in person voter fraud, we will never be able to come up with even a close estimate to how much of it takes place. Every single investigative journalist who attempts to place a fraudulent vote, has been succesful. The stats may lie, because it is impossible to know when in voter fraud has happened (because they don't ID people, these people just come in, vote and leave, without leaving a paper trail other than the vote. ) My opponent is asking us just to believe people are who they say they are and just had the "honor factor" when it comes to voting. He doesn't believe people will be dishonest, under this "honor factor" system, despite the fact that investigative reporters have shown that in person voter fraud is extremely easy to commit. I don't know about you guys, but I want to know my vote isn't being erased by people who are ineligible to vote or who vote multiple times. I want my vote to count.

Title: Edemocracy (properly structured) should replace Representative Democracy everywhere. Content: Hello, I argue against the idea of Edemocracy. Although a noble idea to update politics to today's technology, it would not be possible for these reasons; 1. This is just a updated idea of a direct democracy, our founding fathers were against and created the Electoral College to stop this for several reasons. To have no chance of any tyrant/dictator came to power by having few responsible people who are put into place by the respective party and the average voter. If we voted for president with an Edemocracy system who is to say we would not elect a lying/manipulative who is a great public speaker such as Adolf Hitler? 2. It would be impossible for anything to pass. If every voting adult could raise and vote on issuing, voting would be a daily job where one would be voting on hundreds if not thousands of different issues. To be informed enough to make a valid decision on a vast amount of issues would be impossible for the average American. The chance of compromising would be next to nothing; look at Congress now (with less than 700 people), and the amount of SUBSTANTIAL bills passed. It is low, the chance of getting MILLIONS of people to agree would be impossible. 3. It would leave a lot room for collusion. People would only be voting by what affects them, so we would have groups/regions only taking their needs into account, while not keeping America in mind as a whole. This would lead to many behind the door dealings which couldn't be tracked or proved because anyone could vote for anything. 4. Technology is not at a point currently to do this. The Internet is not secure enough to allow of this magnitude to occur over it, identity/password/account information could be stolen. It would be impossible to identify the person who is voting is actually the person voting. One could easily get their phone, flash drive, papers stolen with their information on it. Many people still do not have access, a want, need, understanding of Internet, text messages, or e-mails. They would have no way of being able to vote, and forcing this whole new system would be against their constitutional right to vote. Taking in Hurricane Sandy for example, if the power, phone, Internet goes out of a large part of a region they would have no way or an extreme difficulty voting, as they have now with the current system. The amount of time/resources for all voters to listen to voice and videos would be overwhelming. A black market for voter information could begin with various groups buying and selling these for their own use or profits. 5. If this is system would be in place there would be no need to initially keep Congress, unless their vote would be more important. This is not possible based on the one man equals one vote. Like I said earlier this is a very noble idea, but this could not be used at the Federal level. I would agree that it would be possible at the state/local level for various referendums/questions. The idea of Edemocracy has potential, but is not possible in this day and age. The point of the government we have now is to make decisions based on our political position and best interests.

Title: Online voting should replace traditional voting. Content: My opponent has failed to provide reasoning as to why hacking, viral infections, and cheating would be impossible in his perfect little system, beyond saying something akin to "nuh-uh". The truth of the matter is is any computer system can be hacked into. All one needs are the time, money, and resources to do it, none of which would be impossible to get [http://articles.latimes.com...], especially with such high stakes. It is likely that converting to an online voting system would bring on a new wave of internet terrorism, and would even make it possible for other countries to decide the course of our nation. Because this one problem WILL exist, and is such a serious threat that it outweighs any good online voting could do because of the amount of damage it could cause to us as a country. Therefore, online voting should not replace traditional voting.

Title: Vote bombing is an abuse of the voting system on Debate.org. Content: "I think it remains to be shown that the intention of the voting system is, what my opponent claims it to be, or that the intentions of the voting system should play any role is how we vote. I intend my votes to influence the winner. I might just not like one person, think the debate was clever, see somebody make an interesting point and swing all my votes over to them." The intention of the voting is shown in the article, "How to Vote," found on this site. http://www.debate.org... "The next four questions break down a debaters score by looking at the four most important aspects of the debate. These questions are where the points come from. Remember, voting on Debate.org is based on fact and NOT on Opinion." "Remember, the basis for decision should NOT include: Opinions held you, but not mentioned by the debaters. Conversation with any persons during or after the debate round. Comments made by other members of the site. " Thus, the point of the system is to get the points to the people who deserved them based on FACT, not OPINION, and opinions are one of the aspects of vote bombing. "In your idealized way of view the world are you really suggesting we vote like automatons? If I had to vote for people for other than wanting to vote for them, I would bore myself to death. While I don't support the idea of registering multiple accounts to cheat the vote, I will vote however I damn well choose. If that involves loading up 40 debates and voting for you in all of them, that's fine." I don't really care how you vote; I just want to point out that if you vote based on opinions, you are abusing the system. "You speak heavily of the purpose of the voting system. Like using it against it's purpose is going to cause the world to crumble. The voting system assigns 7 points to people. Use them however you like. It's much more entertaining. You don't need to go QQ just because some people are going to vote you down for being a tool. You're not abusing the system by voting however you choose to vote." You are abusing the system if you don't follow the guidelines laid out for how to vote. "PS. The voting system is going to end up putting names for who voted what direction eventually. So those of you voting against me, be warned... I'll know who you are. *eyes dart around*" My opponent is trying to threaten everybody who votes against him... In conclusion, vote bombing is, in fact, an abuse of the voting system here on Debate.org, because the purpose was for debates to be won based on facts, and NOT opinions. Thank you for reading, and I hope you vote, hopefully based on fact.

Title: Automatic Voter Registration Content: Even if you don't believe what I said (that democracy is bad), you still have to negate becuase pro doesn't prove why automatic voter registration is a good thing. He brings up stats saying that it'd increase voter turnout - okay, but there is no actual impact. We can accept everything the pro said and just one thing that I've said (anything at all) and still vote con because of pro's lacking arugments. My argument attacked the notion fundamental in the resolution - democracy is good. My opponent advocated for democracy throughout their arguments, something that should be considered irrelevant because he didn't even rebut what I said, he left it at its full value.

Title: on balance does the supremes court decision in citezens united harm the election process Content: Well, this debate has gotten very interesting. My opponent has seem to have broken his own rules. He said that the fourth round was to show why we are winning certain arguments and a summary speech. But instead, he decides to refute my arguments. And even though you usually use the last rounds to refute your opponent, my opponent created rules where you do otherwise. So, I will show why I am winning each argument as the rules shows.His first contention says that exposure to ads will possibly increase voter turnout. I prove that in 2008, the last presidential election, there were 130 million voters. But in 2012, after the passing of the ruling of Citizen's United and the most recent presidential election, that there were only 117 million voters. This proves that this ruling does not improve voter turnout. I believe that my opponent is trying to accuse me of the Fallacy of Miscausation, but we must realize that my opponent has committed three fallacies in one argument: Over Reliance of Authority (based on what people say and not true, hard evidence), Priori Fallacy (looking at moral instead of evidence), and Begging the Question (making unsupported claims). Proof that he has committed these fallacies:Over Reliance of Authority: Instead of using statistical evidence to prove that this is increasing voter turnout, he uses a quote from a man that thinks it may increase voter turnout. Dr. Hillguys himself says " exposure to ads increased intentions to vote by 18 percentage points", but it never proved that they did vote. Intentions means the thought to do something, but that doesn't mean they actually voted. Priori Fallacy: he is denying the evidence that proves that voter turnout is not increasing, but yet decreasing voter turnout. Also, voter suppression was to target African American and Hispanic voters. There are over 200 million white people in the United States. So, lets say 75% of them are able to vote. There will still be about 150 million white people that can vote, give or take a few. They could have in fact voted. Why did they not?Begging the Question: The evidence that he provided trying to prove that it increases voter turnout didn't even prove voter turnout. It said they were likely to vote. That means there is still some uncertainty that they will probably not vote.I am actually winning this argument because he has not proven with statistical evidence that it is increasing voter turnout, because it isn't.His second contention says that because of Citizen's United, voter's are more informed, but I proved that because corporations are treated as people, they are given the right to not tell you information. On wikipedia, they say "The basis for allowing corporations to assert protection under the U.S. Constitution is that they are organizations of people, and that people should not be deprived of their constitutional rights when they act collectively.[5] In this view, treating corporations as "persons" is a convenient legal fiction that allows corporations to sue and to be sued, provides a single entity for easier taxation and regulation, simplifies complex transactions that would otherwise involve, in the case of large corporations, thousands of people, and that protects the individual rights of the shareholders as well as the right of association." Because. they are treated as people, and people have the right to not reveal any information, then corporations have the right to withhold information. That doesn't help inform people. I am winning this argument because corporations don't have to reveal information because of corporate personhood, which is a direct contradiction to his argument there. His third contention says that it will increase transparency by allowing corporations to disclose financial information,but this is simply not true. Because of my refutation to his second contention, they are treated as people. Therefore, they don't have to disclose anything because they have the fourth amendment on their side, which prevents searchs without a warrannt. In fact, Kim Barker, reporter of reportergary.com, says, "Instead, this is the disclosure world that exists. Someone who gives up to $2,500 to the campaign of President Barack Obama or challenger Mitt Romney will have his or her name, address and profession listed on the FEC website for all to see. But that same person can give $1 million dollars or more to a social welfare group that can buy ads supporting or attacking those same candidates and stay anonymous.I am winning this argument because corporations aren't disclosing their information. In fact, Forbes magazine tried to find out how much money does the Koch Brothers give to politicians, and they told them no! In the recent magazine, all they have is a big ? because they can't force them to tell the information. Now to counter refutations. My opponent has failed to prove that this ruling increases transparencymy oppenents gives no justification for this claim so i dont's see the need to respondThis is a very weak counter refutation. I have now provided evidence that proves that people will not be able to find out how much a corporation gives to politicians. Because of this court case, corporations are now viewed as people. And because of that, they have the right to keep all information to themselves.again my opponent provides no evedince or justification for this claim and if tou cross apply my third contetion you see this statment is patently false.Question: So just because your contention says it does create more transparency, even if it doesn't, we are supposed to accept it to be true. He also contradicts himself in trying to refute my argument. He says and I quote "does not allow corporations or unions to donate money directly to a canadite but requires them to establish third party political action commitee's that are required to operate independently of any party" What this is simply saying is that corporations can't donate money, but the corporations can get a group of people from the corporation to donate the money to the politician. This is proving my point in saying that a person, or a group of people, can donate the corporation's money to the politician. So in fact, his refutation fallshere my opponent straw mans me and completly misinteprets my statements. what i was essentialy saying is that corporation can't donate money to politicians thats itAs you can see, my opponent decided to not clarify what he meant. As I said, he contradicts himself because as I said earlier, corporations can get people, that could be from the corporation, to donate to politicians. The superPacs, in his statement, are the middle man. At the end of the day, corporations can still donate money to politicians and that is where he contradicts himself.my oppenent claims i straw man him and asks my to give his exact quote so here are his words "because it comes on TV, they will most likely believe it" im sorry if you belive i minsterpreted your words but regardless essentialy what my opponent is saying is that televisions ads are the predominante voting factor and thus i feel my prevous refutaion still stands. My opponent fails to realize that I didn't say they will believe what came on TV, but they will most likely, which means there might be a chance they wont believe it.My opponent says that this ruling helps inform voters, but that is not true. In fact, some of these ads that my opponent talks about do not inform voters, but simply slander the opposing candidate.Here my opponent purly speculates and provides absoloutly no warrant to justify his puly speculational claim while in my second contetion i demonstrate how a free media creates a more informed voter thus my second contetion stands. Here is a link of a slanderous campaign ad.I ran out of characters. Sources in comments. http://www.youtube.com...

Title: "should voting be done online" Content: Sir I completely agree with the fact that voting is the essential basis of democracy....I said those statement because in country like USA and INDIA all the people going to work is being given a half dae leave or a holiday to vote ....but some of them use this holiday to stay at home or go for a trip sir.....this for them...now talking about the evidence for the frauds in internet...sir u should be clear with the fact that there have being a lot of hacking in internet if my opponent is not aware about it I give a suggestion to read newspapers...now talking about what my opponent said about the people living in rural area...sir they are people from rural area not urban n who will provide them internet....if provided still frauds can be don

Title: The Voting System For Debate.org Has Many Avoidable Mistakes Content: Thanks to CriticalThinkingMachine for his arguments. To win this debate Pro had to show that the DDO voting system contains many easily avoidable and significant errors that were caused by the conscious decisions on the part of the creator(s) of this website. It shall be apparent to voters that my esteemed opponent has failed in fulfilling his burden. 1. Who did you agree with before/after the debate: Pro concedes that he has no problem with these questions per se. He also admits that these questions are beneficial. However he argues that before/after questions are not asked in presidential elections. Voting in election is different from voting at DDO. One of the important purposes of DDO voting system is to provide feedback to the debaters, which makes these questions important. Important questions cannot be considered as irrelevant. 2. Who had better conduct / spelling and grammar: Pro admits that spelling, grammar and conduct are important in debate and should contribute to the debate. However he insists that these should not contribute to ‘voting system’. He fails to explain in what way these factors should contribute to evaluation of debate. It is clear that including these factors in voting provides incentives to debaters to maintain high standards. I am not saying that this is the best way possible. However Con has not presented any better way, which means this cannot be considered as an error on part of creators of debate. Pro says, “The number of points (or lack thereof) for each question appear in parenthesis next to the questions in the voting section but not on an actual page of a debate.Why the inconsistency?”. I cannot respond to this since I could not understand the objection. 3. Who had better sources: Pro argues that sources can be incorporated into arguments themselves. That is a matter of personal opinion. Keeping points for sources separate emphasizes its importance. This cannot be considered as an error. I also pointed out that my esteemed opponent is free to provide overall votes based on arguments. He did not respond to this point. 4. Reason for voting: Pro concedes that inappropriate votes are being combated. However he is unable to understand the rationale behind 3 debate requirement before voting. The measure is intended to hinder and expose mischievous trolls intent on breaking our voting system. Users have to take part in three debates before they can start voting. This requires some patience. Most trolls don’t have patience. On other hand for serious debaters (like my opponent, I hope), this is not a serious issue since they complete the three debates soon enough. My opponent wants to know why the voting system waits for a ineligible voter to cast his vote before informing them. I agree that it would be desirable to inform the voters beforehand. However this is clearly not significant issue as it has no bearing on integrity of voting system. In any case, this issue ceases to exist for sincere debaters once they complete 3 debates. 5 & 6. Self Vote and Indefinite voting period: Pro has conceded these points. 7. Won vs. Winning / Lost vs. Losing: My esteemed opponent escalates an obviously insignificant issue into a question of ‘falsehood’, ‘honesty’ and ‘logic of time’ (sic). After the debate is over and the winner has been declared, the section under the debaters still says ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ rather that ‘won’ and ‘lost’ respectively (for example [1]). However in the centre of the page, the winner of page is clearly displayed. Thus there is no chance of any confusion. This is clearly a trivial issue which does not merit attention. Similarly in statistics of individual debaters, it includes the trends from current debates into debates which have been ‘won’ or ‘lost’. This makes a difference of barely one or two debates for any debaters. This issue too is clearly insignicant. As an aside from the debate, CriticalThinkingMachine complains that some of his arguments have been defeated since he did not know about history of site and consequently his timing was off. I sympathize with him. On other hand, new debaters are unlikely to face issues like indefinite voting period since this is a feature of old debates only. This clearly shows that my esteemed opponent is not like a typical newbie on this site. He clearly explores, investigates and questions whatever he encounters. He should consider visiting DDO forums (specially the debate forum http://www.debate.org...) where such queries will be immediately answered by our experience members. In the meantime, the resolution has been negated. References [1] http://www.debate.org...

Title: The Internet is more useful than frustrating Content: As this is the last round, I will defend my arguments and refute the Pro's arguments. I will first respond to Pro's criticisms of my arguments. 1. I agree that there are numerous sites on the Internet that provide true, accurate information. However, due to the inaccuracy of some sites, it is unwise for users to simply generalize that the information found on the web is accurate. This creates a necessity for users to spend significant amount of time further researching and verifying the results, adding to the frustration level. Also, the statements about the universities actually support my arguments. Universities or schools in general teaches solid, valuable, and up-to-date information unlike the Internet. As I stated earlier, schools provide resources that are not web-based that could do better jobs than the Internet, undermining the usefulness of the Internet. 2. First of all, I did not deny the fact that some functions provided by the Internet are for professionals. However, in order for professionals to use those complex functions, they still need to learn how to use them. Learning how to utilize the complex functions of the Internet is frustrating. In addition, I agree that Microsoft Excel is more complicated than using the Internet. However, this does not disprove the fact that the Internet is very frustrating. Like the Internet, programs such as the Microsoft Excel also frustrates their users. 3. I do not see the differences between the Pro's definition of voting and mine. Online voting only has minimal effect on voting. First or all, there are other means of voting as I mentioned such as the televoting. Secondly, if people do not have or cannot afford any kind of transit, including public transportation system), it is almost certain that they do not own a computer nor have access to the Internet. Third, I am not familiar with the Malaysia Airlines's online voting debate. Pro should have given a link or describe the event for all. He failed to indicate the idea of usefulness by mentioning this ambiguous event. Fourth, I also do not understand the last statement with the definition. How does this tie into the usefulness of the Internet? What are you trying to say? 4. First of all, I question the statistics brought up by Pro. Does the 80% of the population refer to the 80% of total human population? How can one determine the total online population? Secondly, online shopping does not save time. Costumers have to wait for the ordered products which may take weeks or even months for products to arrive. Third, less tax actually may have negative impacts. Less tax means less government revenue which means fewer services offered by the government. Also, many people find online taxation extremely confusing. [1] 5. First of all, I brought up the topic of dangerousness of the Internet as companies and governments have to constantly combat online terrorism as I stated in my previous arguments. Secondly, I would have like Pro to provide information as to how the US government test technologies against hackers as each hackers uses their own methods and tools. Third, as the technology evolves, so will the hackers. As human beings, they will adapt to changing circumstances and will also develop. New hacking softwares and methods will arise. As Pro stated, I spend numerous hours on the Internet for diverse uses. This does not necessarily mean that I find Internet useful. I do find the Internet useful in some aspects, but the frustration of the Internet far outweighs the utility of the Internet, which is, ultimately, what this debate is about. In conclusion, Pro failed to respond to my refutations, failed to provide stable sources to support his arguments, and did not develop his points to substantiate his arguments. The Internet IS useful, but the frustration from using the Internet is greater than the satisfaction felt by its users. Thank you and vote Con! [1] . http://news.cnet.com...

Title: Debate.org voter data should be publicly available Content: My opponent brings to light the Vote Removal System (VRS), which is certainly something this site needs. However, the resolution did not state that Publicly Available Voting (PAV) was the only means by which the site is to be improved. In fact, ideally, both improvements should see the light of day. I present four scenarios ranked in order from most improving to least improving. 1. VRS and PAV. 2. PAV. 3. VRS. 4. Status Quo. By far, the best approach would be to institute both programs. The VRS has the excellent virtue of reversing malicious voting practices, which is vital in deterring would be abusers. However, abusers have to be clearly exposed before such action can be executed. Without PAV, the admin (and there is only one at the moment) would have the burden of monitoring dozens of debates everyday all on his onesie (savvy?). However, the addition of the PAV means members can spot suspicious activity and report it to the admin, allowing the admin to examine and--if appropriate--fix the debates as they come. A perfect synergy between the web master and its constituents. If, for some reason, both systems cannot be implemented and only one must be chosen, the PAV is the better solution. As it currently stands, the only deterrent against abusers is banning. Of course, as my opponent pointed out, this does not prevent abuse as much as slow it down. But then again, it takes weeks for the admin to single out the abusive accounts and ban them. With the PAV, abusers could be much more quickly identified and reported. Sure, abusers could still create new accounts, but if they were banned every other day rather than every other week, it still proves more effective than the status quo. By itself, the VRS suffers from the same slow response time as the status quo. A single admin cannot be expected to simultaneously improve and police this site with any significant degree of efficiency and accuracy. It is far better to get the community involved in the process. In fact, it's the community through a LOT of hard work (askbob) that is exposing the worst abuse this site has seen. Lets give them the tools they need to work with the admin in making this site what we all would to see it become. In conclusion, I like my opponent's VRS suggestion, but I think it's effectiveness is limited without the PAV. And if we could only choose one, the PAV should be that choice. It transfers the burden placed on a single webmaster to the shoulders of a community dedicated to this site. Therefore, my resolution stands, no matter how you slice it, Debate.org voter data should be publicly available.

Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: Thanks Zarroette. =Neg case=AVoting complexityZarroette needs to provide some kind of empirical evidence on the quality of votes going down due to the lack of categories. My harms are tangible and widespread, hers we cannot be sure even exist; if the new voting system is as bad as she says it is she ought to be able to provide some tangible evidence of the decrease in votes under the new system. My impacts should be preferred because evidence of their occurrence is manifest and widespread. She argues that a voter cannot express their "true thoughts" on a debate without the categories, but this is just ridiculous. Not only can a voter simply express their opinion in their RFD, but taken to it's logical conclusion this argument would lead to a template with hundreds of categories for everything that is important in a debate. Indeed, things that are extremely important to debate like word economy, argument prioritization, and case structure are ignored under the old system. Zarroette argues that the old system is easier for newer voters. First, this is an easily turnable argument. I've literally handed a lay judge a ballot and briefed her on how to judge on the way to the room--contrast this with the old DDO system where to teach a new member how to judge would be impossible as DDO members have wildly different paradigms on when to vote on each category. She argues that the tool-tips on the side of the point allocation provide an objective criteria on when to vote but this is flawed for two reasons: First, there's no indication that people even read them let alone abide by their suggestions--quite the contrary, my arguments show that they do not. Secondly, if you actually read the tool-tips they heavily imply that the judge is to vote on each category as it gives no quantification of when to vote, it just says "vote for the debater that does x better", even if they won the category by an extremely slight margin. This is a paradigm that most DDO voters *reject*. It's *rare* to see someone fill out the full ballot. Thus the tool-tips succeed only in misleading new voters into a voting paradigm that is contrary to the one most DDO voters hold, teaching them to vote incorrectly by adding 33% of the argument value to someone's count because they used the wrong "your". Fraudulent votes This argument is completely false. Zarroette offers no proof whatsoever of widespread voteboming under the new system. I would contend that contrary to the voting on debates with the new system has vastly increased. Zarroette is right that bad votes will still occur and they do--the difference is that under the old system a bad vote is often worth *two* good votes as opposed to one in the new system. Deletion of votes can only go so far--being overeager to delete votes led to a prominent member, Drafterman, leaving the site. Determining which RFDs are fraudulent is a lot more difficult than it sounds, this is why Airmax adheres to a policy of leaving votes unmolested as long as they explain each point awarded. By now, the vast majority of people wishing to vote dishonestly know how to structure their vote to keep it from being deleted, the best solution is to mitigate the power bad voters are allowed to grant themselves. Zarroette sells new members short when she argues that they can't figure out how to vote without a specific template. The tool tips are, at best, irrelevant and at worst mislead new members into a voting paradigm that clashes with the majority opinion on DDO leading to increased hostility to new members voting. The old system is infinitely harder to explain than the new one.B. Incentives Zarroette argues that things such as spelling and conduct are important in a debate. Sure. First cross apply the argument I made in response to her complexity argument--taken to it's full conclusion this argument would support nearly limitless categories for everything that's important in a debate. Zarroette shoots herself in the foot here--if these things are important in a debate than people will do them *anyway*. The goal of each debater is to win the round, and things like proper spelling and using sources help with this. Contrary to what my opponent claims, there has been no noticeable depreciation in conduct or grammar in debates under the new system. I would argue that the old system creates a perverse incentive in the debater themselves to argue points irrelevant to the arguments by encouraging them to nitpick spelling errors, to source spam, and to feign offense at minor conduct violations. While I don't dispute that some of these things are important in a debate, I question greatly the degree they're emphasized in the old system. Remember, a debater can win the arguments point and still lose the ballot as a whole. I can award 66% of the value of the arguments point by counting the sources used without reading the debate and the mods are powerless to stop me. What's really lacking here is empirical evidence--in my case I gave specific examples of bad voting. We all know that strategic voting occurs, which is why DDO members voted 17-0 when asked if someone had ever strategically voted on their debates[1]. I also offered (and performed) instances of poor voting under the old system and offered a comprehensive rationale for why we see these kinds of votes and how they are inherent under the old system. Comparatively Zarroettes arguments are baseless conjecture, my arguments should be preferred due to their sound basis.NegationZarroette agrees that people will compete for the points under the old system. This is a tough fact for supporters of the old system because it gives incentive for debaters to use all means of abusive tactics. As a typical example, before he reformed 16kadams would spam as many sources in a debate as he could even if they were unnecessary so that his friends could claim that he had better sources and increase their voting power. Remember, either these things are important in picking up ballots or they aren't and if they are people will do them anyway. Zarroette gets no advantage from these aspects being important in a debate. C. BiasThere's no evidence of bias being worse under the old system--we shouldn't look to the tool-tips on the old system, we should look to how people actually voted. I find it hard to believe that Zarroette would be comfortable with losing one of her debates because a voter "[wished] to choose a winner" and arbitrarily decided that "sources on Con's side aid his argument more."[2] Zarroette argues that "Who do you think won?" is too vague but it is just as vague as "Who had better conduct?". This disadvantage is nonunique. The old system increased the capacity for inherent bias because bad voters are given the power to outweigh good voters. We need to prefer whichever system best mitigates bad voting, not the one that hands them a blank check.=Aff case=Zarroette entirely misunderstands the strategic voting argument. What's important is not the nominal point value of votes, but their value in relation to eachother. While votes under the new system might nominally be worth seven points, for all practical purposes they are worth one. Compare this to old system where a poor vote can often be worth two good votes--look to GWL's vote as an example. Strategic voting is completely eliminated under a one judge, one vote system because voters can't fudge their RFDs to increase their value. She also misunderstands my argument regarding guidelines--the tool tips might exist but they don't say *when* to vote except to heavily imply to fill out the full ballot. When I say there's no bright line, I mean that DDO members are undecided on when to vote on each category. Thus some peoples votes are worth more than others because they have differing paradigms. The resolution is affirmed. We need a system that mitigates the power bad voters have, not one that hands them a blank check.1. http://tinyurl.com...2. http://tinyurl.com...

Title: Automatic Voter Registration Content: Throughout this debate, my opponent has failed to provide any real argument against the concept of automatic voter registration, and has instead chosen to focus on the completely irrelevant topic of whether or not democracy should be the main system of governing a society. The question of automatic voter registration assumes that democracy remains the principle form of governing a society that adopts such a measure. As such, the question of whether or not democracy should be upheld or not has no place in a debate where maintaining democracy is already the presumed outcome of both sides.

Title: Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote Content: I agree with Cosmojarvis that "low voter turnout is a problem that we must tackle." However, as I previously stated, I believe that there are better ways to do this than doing what would probably lead to a large collection of meaningless voters, troll voting, and vote bombing. Even with a highly capable moderation team, there may just be to many cases to handle. Pro says that, "there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code...". When you sign up on debate.org, you already give your E-mail address so that you can see notifications. The Debate.org moderators need a method to hold voters to accountability. Making voters give a phone number is a way to make sure that they are serious voters. Pro also says that, "I am certain that creating a campaign to teach people to vote will be ineffective...". I am not so certain. I think that a diligent, well designed campaign to teach people how to vote and streamlining the look, appeal, and process of registering would increase the number of voters. I think that by doing nothing about this problem , Debate.org risks losing popularity to other debate forums. However, there are other ways to boost usage that do not lower the quality standards of this great website.

Title: We Need To Complete 3 Debates Before Voting Content: I feel that this system only creates less involvement from an actual spread of people, and blocks real results. Those who have the time/need/want to participate in this website are the ones who will invest the time and will end up voting, creating a smaller sample size for results and causing the entire structure to lean in surprisingly predictable ways. It also causes a bunch of "Plz vote/approve so i can vote" debates. I think that the criteria for being able to vote should be reduced.

Title: Compulsory Voting Content: Con argues compulsory voting creates a "false democratic representation" and feels not voting is a valid option for citizens. I argue that, even though an uninformed vote could be damaging, the extremely low voter turnout of recent elections needs to be addressed. Low voter turnout creates to a very ineffective style of governing, where governments do not know the true needs of their citizens. Compulsory voting combined with an education of the political process for all citizens, would be a more effective form of government. *side note* Technology is extremely good at connecting people and allows data to be transferred from almost anywhere. The US possibly could create a secure form of mobile voting almost ensuring high voter turnout

Title: Voting Reform Content: I just want to bring one quick thing up that wasn't contested when I mentioned it in round 1. Remember this quote. "This is a debate over who should be eligible to vote in DDO Presidential elections." The voter harassment issues are for a different debate and I think those will be solved through a way more simple and easily enforceable method of just only allowing 1 vote and no unvotes or change of votes. FACTORS NOT CONSIDERED The only factor considered in my opponent's plan is how to make the most informed decision as to who the president is, and I'll undermine a lot of those premises for why his system achieves that in the next round. For now, I just want to say there are other things that need to be factored into this. One factor to consider is how the systems affect Juggle's (Owners of debate.org) bottom line. So I'll explain how this system does that. The reason this is important is because the more profitable this website is to Juggle the more they can allocate resources to it and make this place a better experience for all of us. THE STICKY FACTOR There are exceptions to every rule, but do me a favor and look around at the users who have stuck around for a while and those that are here for 6 months and move on. I don't think my opponent will contest this but the users that stick around are the ones who interact a ton, especially in the forum. The first thought that might come to your mind when hearing this is "Duh that's why they should be the only ones to vote" "They are the only ones to reap the reward or suffer the punishment of electing a bad/good president" It misses the point to say that though. It's in the site's best interest to encourage more members to become more engaged. Having a big sticky factor will increase regular users to the site which in turn creates a bigger user base with more fresh blood. This bigger user base increases profitability and in turn increases the amount of resources that can be allocated to this site. HOW IT INCREASES STICKY FACTOR I kinda went into why sticky factor is important without showing why my system increases sticky factor more but it was important to discuss things in this particular order. Not requiring forum posts give presidential candidates a bigger pool of potential voters to interact with. It's way easier to contact a voter while the voting is occurring than to do it a little before hand. Let me give you the 2 alternate scenarios for drumming up votes. Wylted's scenario, during the voting stage: PM to Noob: Hi I don't know if you realize this but my friend Mikal is running for site president and looking to make some great improvements to the site, do you mind voting for him in the following thread by bolding his name......? BSH1's scenario taing place prior to the election: PM to Noob: Hi I don't know if you realize this but my friend Mikal is running for site president and looking to make some great improvements to the site, do you mind making 100 forum posts and voting for him by bolding his name in a few weeks when the presidential voting thread is up? Believe it or not that first PM is going to get that noob to make his first forum post a lot better than the second one. Once that forum post is out the noob has already stuck his toe in the water and is more likely to engage in the forums more. Here is just a fraction of the people who got more involved with the forums after the previous election. Many of these people's first post was a vote for Mikal or Bladerunner. The voice of Truth: http://www.debate.org... Atheist Independent: http://www.debate.org... SeBuk: http://www.debate.org... Zyloarchy: http://www.debate.org... Geographia: http://www.debate.org... Kawai Krazy: http://www.debate.org... Kyle The Heretic: http://www.debate.org... Tabula Rasa: http://www.debate.org... Valkrin: http://www.debate.org... This guy got attatched so fast after the election that he even created a thread to announce a temporary departure something typically reserved for senior members. That's a list of people who wouldn't be participating at all or as much in the forums without being reached out to. This is a list of people who wouldn't be participating as much if it weren't for this election and the current voting rules (with possibly a couple of exceptions). MORE EFFORT During a close and heated election like the one that just occurred, there is going to be a tremendous effort to recruit qualified voters, more so than a few weeks before the election under my opponent's plan. Late in the voting when bladerunner was close but still behind there was a furious effort by his supporters to reach out to new voters. This type of effort is simply not going to take place prior to an election and outside of the heat of battle and if it did the turnout wouldn't be the same which would considerably effect sticky factor. If we reach out in future campaigns it will be even better. In this election Bladerunner's team was taken off guard by the dramatic amount of new barely qualified voters entering the pool and when his most loyal supporters caught onto the strategy Mikal's side was using, several of them adopted it. Unfortunately you'd have several members of their team contact the same person and it would annoy them pretty bad negatively affecting the voter turnout for them. They actually could've employed the same strategy late if they were more organized about it and won despite a later start with it. In future elections, voter recruitment will be more organized and less frantic for both sides, which will present a friendlier more warming outreach to people who rarely or never participate in the forums. The recruitment may start earlier by building friendly relationships with new users prior to requesting their vote. This friendliness will lead to experienced members (most likely recruiters), having more mentor relationships with new people, thus being able to show them the ropes. This new engagement is certain to create a bunch of new friendships and participation in the site significantly affecting the sticky factor and emotional attachment to the site. This bigger more engaged user base is good for Juggle's pocket books and likely to lead to more resources being dedicated to the site. PRESIDENT IS JUST A TITLE Before my opponent starts discussing the importance of the presidency let me address just how relative the presidency is in the words of some people who've been around debate.org a while. Quotes by Danielle: "The president (as far as I know) has little to no actual function. They don't have mod powers or do anything that a regular member cannot do." "While I understand the utility of having a member representative speak to Juggle on the community's behalf, any member(s) can do that if/when necessary. Similarly any member can implement every single initiative that both candidates have promised. If they truly care about the quality of the site and not a meaningless title, they shouldn't need to win the election in order to be active and quality members." http://www.debate.org... Quote by YYW: "Juggle is a corporation, and what interests them is making money. .......... Juggle, as a corporation, does not allocate resources based on who they like or don't like -and there is ample evidence to support that. Juggle allocates resources based on what it perceives is in its interest " http://www.debate.org... I agree with all these statements and believe that the presidency isn't important because of who's in office but because the process it's self brings DDO to life and it really brings us together in so many ways, particularly people who before the election didn't get to interact with us asmuch

Title: Debate.org should reform its voting criteria Content: The voting system here is not designed to ensure objectivity. .. it focuses and awards points for arbitrary things like spelling and grammar. The voting process focus should be mainly on whether or not one persons arguments were better or more convincing than the others. The current way the voting is structured, you could have the better arguments, the better logic and reasoning, but because you have made a grammatical error, you are penalized. This should have no bearing on whether you win or lose a debate or whether your arguments are sound. There are other flaws, that will be covered in rnd 2.

Title: The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Content: Thanks for the quick response. 1. There is a very low chance of that happening. There are loopholes in any voting system, but they're highly unlikely. As far as the not ranking = ranking last, I see what you're saying but I was talking about if there were several candidates whom you don't like. Then, it wouldn't be the same. 2. Adding candidates in the status quo can alter the outcome of the election. The problem you're referring to is the Condorcet method. But IRV solves for that, while the status quo does not. http://www.guardian.co.uk... http://en.wikipedia.org... The second link has a great graph showing the advantages and disadvantages of all. You can see that IRV solves for much more than Plurality (FPTP). I'll include it in the comment section. Officials can find it much easier to tamper with electronic machines. All they need is a hacker. http://www.youtube.com... I need evidence that the U.S. can't mandate IRV, states don't award proportionately for the presidential race (final). Multi-party systems can be a great thing, they provide much more balance. On the large global political scale, our Democrats and Republicans are very similar. That's the problem. If you want to vote for who YOU ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, then you can't do it in FPTP without wasting your vote. This way, you have a backup. *Overall, you can see that IRV may not be the best mathematical system, but it's the easiest for people to understand, it blows the current system out of the water and makes it look prehistoric, and it makes the most sense. I urge a Pro vote. Thanks to my opponent.

Title: A person's vote should be counted differently based on their intelligence. Content: I'm con on this debate.Today we're going to be debating over whether we should change the voting system to count your vote differently based on your intelligence. The arguments will start in round 2. I hope for a good debate.I thank you.

Title: Abortion and murder are not morally equivalent. Content: Extend my arguments, but be aware that since Pro has forfeited two rounds, they should concede a significant portion of voting advantage. Unless Pro can really hit it out of the park in their last round, they have essentially forfeited the debate.

Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory. Content: My opponent points to these things in trying to rebut my arguments, here is what I have to say about his responses. 1. My point was that it reduces the quality of elections. He said: (1) There will always be uninformed voters. (2) Even if someone is not informed as much as others they should still vote. (3) Quality increases because of the loss of possible voter suppression and a full range of voters not just a "noisy minority." I say: (1) There will always be uninformed voters, however, steps should be taken to encourage better informed voting as opposed to expanding an already large group of uninformed voters who have previously shown little to no interest in being an active voter. (2) If someone is not sufficiently informed, they should work to learn more before voting because the votes of uninformed voters can have serious negative impacts on everyone. Perhaps some would see it as a reason to become more informed but there are plenty of people who vote in voluntary elections that are not well informed and so I see no reason that people would decide all of the sudden that they need to be fully informed to vote if uninformed votes are cast frequently already. (3) It is true that there are many voter suppression efforts going on, however, to say that those who go to the polls are a noisy minority is false. If that were the case, they would no longer be a minority because they would currently hold power. This minority is balanced by a larger portion of voters who oppose and I am not understanding how this noisy minority would be any less of a MINORITY if voting were compulsory. The quality of elections WOULD be reduced due to uninformed votes being cast much more often than in a voluntary system. Eligible voters who would normally choose not to vote would likely go into elections with far less knowledge than the voluntary voter previously had since those who currently do not vote are mostly those who are not interested in politics in the first place. 2. My point was that Compulsory voting infringes upon individual rights. He said: (1) CV is another duty like jury duty and paying taxes. (2) They do not have to pick a candidate, there is a none of the above option. I say: (1) Voting should be a right, since making it obligatory forces people to perform a duty they may not want to perform without it being fully necessary. I am not going to say that voting is not important, however, jury duty is an essential service that would not be possible without making it a duty. At the same time, taxes are essential to the government being able to fund important programs, and therefore not paying taxes is not an option. However, in a democracy, voting can be a right because a large enough and better informed voting base will turnout whether it is a right or a duty. Voting can be done without a mandate since enough people voluntarily vote in order perform the necessary job, electing our leaders. (2) Getting to the polls is an unwanted detour for many and even though there is a "none of the above" option, it is still a hassle for many to turn up, wait in line, and finally fill out an unnecessary ballot all to choose none of the candidates and basically discard their vote. 3. My point was that there are other factors to polarization. He said: (1) More voters would go to primaries. (2) politicians must get out their base instead of being moderate and CV would solve this. (3) This issue is not just about the US and would have a larger impact in other countries. I say: (1) More votes would not necessarily go to the primaries since this would not be mandated. (2) There is little to no proof to show that eligible voters who do not commonly vote would be more moderate than current voters. (3) While this is not US specific, voluntary voting is not the only reason for the polarization in other countries either. After reading over my arguments, I hope that it is clear that Conpulsory Voting does or would do, depending on how you are looking at it, many negative things in elections. It reduces the level of information that voters posses, therefore harming the quality of elections, it infringes upon our rights, and it would do little to fight polarization. When voting on this debate, think about the fact that even if only a little more than half the eligible voters vote, this is still in the millions for most democracies, it is still an accurate assessment of the will of the people, and it is done with a larger percent of well informed voters. This is why voting should NOT be compulsory. Thanks for debating me and I am interested in seeing the result.

Title: "should voting be done online" Content: Hello Sheety! This is my first debate here so it"s a pleasure to do it with you! If I make any mistakes with my presentation please let me know. Onto my argument. Voting is the essential basis of a democratic government; it ensures that the people are fairly represented so that the best leader can be found. It is essential that in a democratic society all of its members are represented equally, however my opponent would seem to disagree with this simple fact, stating that "if they can't come to vote they do not deserve to vote". This means that people or peoples who have busy lifestyles where the time to vote may be very precious to them, or live in rural areas where the nearest voting location is a distance away "do not deserve to vote". In reality we should be encouraging all people to vote, thus a fair representation of the citizen's interests can be measured. The bias caused by the restrictive nature of ballet voting can be seen very clearly in many locations, For example during the American 2014 midterm elections 37% of voters where over 60, while only 12% where under 30 years old[1]. The reason college students do not vote is 34.7% that they are too busy, or have conflicting work [2]. It is clear that the voting system needs to be made more effective and allowing online voting would easily improve this issue, allowing a fairer representation of all people and thus a more democratic society. My opponent also argues that online voting can cause discrepancy and fraud, however fails to back up these arguments with any evidence. I cannot argue against these until my opponent is able to back them up. [1] (The Young Turks "Old people run the country") [2]http://www.civicyouth.org...

Title: Debate.org should Change their voting system Content: Thanks to my opponent for posting the challenge on this interesting topic. The challenge makes clear that we are only considering two alternatives, either to change to a system in which voters only cast a single vote for the winner of the debate or to keep the present system of awarding up to seven points in categories for each of the two debaters. I suspect that nearly everyone would like to make some improvement or other in the voting system, but what we are now debating is only whether a system of a single point would be an improvement. 1. Vote bombing won't be cured The change advocated by the resolution wouldn't solve the problem of vote bombing. With the voting categories for awarding points and required reasons for decisions, it's usually easy to see who is vote bombing, and we have quite a few DDO members who systematically counter vote bombs. Awarding all seven points is rarely valid, and the lopsided vote is a giveaway. There's a thread for reporting vote bombing, and most new members find it quickly. If voting is reduced to single point win or loss, a vote bomber will have an easier time of concealing a poorly reasoned vote. He can say, “The debate was close, but Con failed to rebut Pro's most important contention … blah, blah.” With unreasonable voting harder to detect, the number of bad decisions is as likely to increase as decrease. 2. Having categories improves the debaters skillsMany people who use the formal debate feature on the debate.org site are trying to improve their skills as debaters. If they just want to give opinions and seek reinforcement they can use the Forums or the Opinions features of the site, or they can just blog or post on facebook. The formal debates are for people who are more serious about structured debating. Reducing the serious-debate component of debate.org diminishes the feature that makes the site distinct from other social networking sites.The elements of a good debate are effective communication, logical presentation, avoiding the distractions of bad behavior, and backing up opinions with good sources. The site article "Tips for a better debate" makes these points explicitly. [1. http://www.debate.org...] The site article "How to Vote" specifically relates these criteria to voting. [2. http://www.debate.org... ]Having points awarded by category encourages the debater to pay attention to each aspect of the debate for fear of losing points in a neglected category. Having categories of judging is typical of competitions in which the judging has a substantial subjective component. Sports like artistic skating [3. http://en.wikipedia.org... ] and gymnastics [4. http://en.wikipedia.org...] have elaborately detailed criteria for judging. The performer is thereby made aware of what he must do to win the competition.3. Having categories improves judging skills A reader can casually evaluate a debate based upon a general impression of who did a better job of making a case. Having judging categories, however, demands a more thorough analysis of exactly why one side did better than the other. There is an adage that a person does not really learn a subject until the person teaches it. Accordingly, critically analyzing debates helps build understanding of good debate practices. If anything, the site should have a more detailed template for judging debates, spelling out the different types of conduct violations, the elements of argument (structure, logic, and rebuttal), what constitutes good sources, and so forth. My point is that to develop debate skills, the direction might be in having a more detailed categories, but it is certainly not in having less. We want the best possible judging by the great majority of members who are not vote bombing. The best judging is a product of the more careful analysis fostered by having point categories. Abbreviating the process in an attempt to foil vote bombers is likely to reduce the quality of analysis by members who want to do their best in fairly evaluating the debate. ---------------- Changing to a single point system will make biased voting easier to conceal, it will obscure the requirements for winning debate, and it will make honest voting less thorough and accurate.

Title: The option to make the voting time "Indefinitely" in debates should not exist. Content: Thankfully, my opponent has maintained the order of the arguments and rebuttals, making this an easy read for all. 1. Allows for More Accurate Judging Pro claims that letting more people vote on debates decreases the accuracy of the voting. If this sounds illogical, that's because it is. Just as studies tend to increase in correctness as their sample size increases [1], so too would debates be judged more fairly if more members get the opportunity to vote. Indefinite voting periods allow for such opportunities, thus increasing the accuracy of judging. Pro's second claim that only members who vote early actually read the arguments is an unsubstantiated assumption. One may postpone voting due to time constraints or may search through older debates out of interest for a particular topic. Ironically, it is placing time restrictions on debates that encourage blind-voting, as members hurry to participate while they still can. 2. A Defense against "Bombing" My opponent suggests shorter time periods prevent vote bombing more so than longer ones. However, given that most bombing occurs shortly after a debate ends (especially since one culprit is usually one of the debaters using multiple accounts), time restraints work only to lessen the likelihood that the situation will be corrected. Swaying votes over to the rightful winner takes time and a large audience, both of which are restricted by Pro's proposition. 3. An Incentive to Participate My opponent is correct in stating that all debates eventually lose their popularity with time. Please note, though, that he does not deny that indefinite voting periods do much to maintain such popularity for far longer than would normally be the case. By allowing new members to participate and continue the discussion, indefinite voting periods benefit the debaters, readers, and the community atmosphere of the site at large. ::Rebuttals:: My opponent only somewhat addressed my rebuttal of his original argument, so I will reiterate. Wins granted by limited voting periods may actually do more harm than good; by capturing only a snapshot of potential voting, limited voting periods reduce community input and increase the likelihood of unjustified wins. Given that debates with indefinite voting periods already provide wins in the form of point totals, Pro's proposal is simply unnecessary. That's all for now and I eagerly await R3. ::References:: 1. http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Debate.org Should Have A Stats Page. Content: Tisk Tisk... what a shame. I extend my arguments^. i will simply say that a Stats page would help the voting problems. It doesn't have to delay the new version of the site, it could be implemented in an even later version.

Title: Voter ID's Content: My final rebuttals and conclusion: In the opening paragraph of the final round, Pro contradicts herself. She states that "I don't claim to get rid of all fraud" by supporting IDs, yet she then states that IDs will "help to stop fraud". With the point having been conceded to me in round two that voter fraud is rare, this does not make much sense to cite as a benefit, with such a minimal impact. Pro repeatedly states throughout the entirety of the debate that voter IDs will protect the integrity of elections, but never states how the minimal amount of fraud that rarely ever affects elections is hurting the integrity; her only sources in this regard simply state that it does hurt that integrity. Cost: I did in fact quantify the argument. I stated that it could cost a single state "millions of dollars", and in the source I had linked, a more exact figure is given. It's interesting that Pro accuses me incorrectly of having not quantified the argument, when she drops a point due to not quantifying it. Pro states, "Con said, "Pro says that investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly, yet he provides no source". Well here's my source . http://www.protectmyvote.com...;. Beside the fact that this source was added in late, the irony is that, with regards to cost, it simply says "investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly. " Pro does the very thing she accuses me of, dropping the point by not quantifying the argument. Discrimination: Pro did not rebut any of my factually backed up claims about discrimination with any sources. She simply dismisses the study and disparity of ethnic groups registered to vote that I cited last round, going on an tangent about registered voters not being relevant to the argument. The fact is that if legal Hispanic voters are disproportionately not registered to vote, they will also disproportionately not obtain voter IDs; therefore, that source is completely relevant; as well, Pro does not even respond to the study I cited, so Pro drops this point to me. My opponent then attempts to state that her arguments are better because I only made one argument against IDs and she made five arguments for it. I clearly have made more than one argument; in addition to discrimination, my argument about the cost of IDs is completely relevant and documented. More important than the quantity of arguments, however, is the quality. Pro has been completely unable to refute the two major premises of my argument, those of cost and discrimination. On the other hand, Pro's arguments have all been debunked. Pro has provided 5 points, as she said: A) "voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud thus providing voters with more assurance in their political system", B) "voter fraud is generally only detected after the fact, if at all and investigating and prosecuting election crimes is difficult and costly", C) "people support voter ID's" D) "requiring a state-issued photo ID enables the use of common technology to further improve the integrity and efficiency of our election system", and E) "ID's will ensure integrity in our electoral system while reducing fraud". She dropped point B by not providing a source until a round later, which was also not quantified in any way. I rebutted point C by stating that popular support doesn't make a law necessarily right, and she didn't respond to that rebuttal. I've already illustrated repeatedly the fact that A is a non-issue. Point D was responded to with the Help America Vote Act. Point E is almost identical to point A, and was rebutted in the same way that Point A was. As such, Pro's arguments do not stand, while mine do. My final rebuttal is of Pro's hypothetical example. Voter fraud is nothing like a car crash. One fraudulent vote is nearly never the margin of victory. As well, I've shown that fraud is often successfully detected. As well, Pro already admitted in Round 2 that "even though it may be rare voter ID's can help to deter and prevent these rare occurrences of voter fraud", yet now she makes a U-turn and states that, "Maybe voter fraud is rare, maybe it's common. We don't know. .. " Pro thus has demonstrated a lack of faith in her own knowledge of the subject; if she cannot trust herself to present the facts, no one else can trust her to present the facts. I have shown that voting is protected very well already, and that voter IDs are far more cumbersome than any minute benefits they might provide. Pro, on the other hand, has failed to back up many of her claims with specific, factual information, and has even admitted a lack of faith in her own knowledge of the subject.

Title: The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. Content: Some parts of con's argument were confusing, such as when they referenced electronic voting with block chains would be better, and when they said "...more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt." I read the source, and I don't understand what this portion of their argument is referring to, and what they mean by saying anarchic and trusting people who are corrupt. When I mentioned that the electoral system prevents corruption, I was referencing that it allows for electors to choose what candidate they elect, which was intended by the founding fathers to prevent wide sweeping waves of corruption that would allow for corrupt politicians to exploit the system and gain office [1].Why do you think Hillary won the popular vote? Because she is a corrupt sociopath who manipulated the public, but we were saved from her wrath by the electoral college, that prevented her from winning the election [2][3]. The electoral college protected us from this corruption because it balances the effects of widespread manipulation. Hillary was able to manipulate people all across the country, but since she didn't manipulate all the people in specific states, she couldn't win the electoral vote. Her sociopathic tactics allowed her to convince many people, but the electoral system requires states to be influenced, not just the general. nationwide populace. Make sure to read my sources to better understand what I'm talking about, if it doesn't make sense to you.Again, I don't understand what block chains have to do with the electoral college. From what I saw, the method of obtaining the votes is what the block chain system con referenced pertains to. The electoral college itself has nothing to do with HOW the votes are counted, just the way that they are used for determining the president. This part of con's argument is irrelevant, and definitely doesn't pertain to this debate. Con stated that it is "more trustworthy" to use this "modern system". Again, they are making no sense, as this doesn't pertain to the topic, but con words it to sound as if the vote collecting system and block chains are relevant. My opponent states that the electoral system is unfair, because residents of certain states will have larger says than others, which I referenced in my own arguments. Con believes it is an infringement of democracy. However, the electoral college gives advantages to minorities who would otherwise be less useful to candidates. As I stated before, candidates will only visit urban states to gain votes, and not rural ones in a popular vote system. This shows a disregard and bias against these rural state votes, and gives all the power of the election to large states. This means that these states will be hotpots for lobbyists, propaganda, and supporters of candidates. The increased lobbying will allow for the companies in these states to have far higher chances of profit, as lobbying often leads to corporate profit [4]. With this in mind, the rural states, and lower population states in general, will never be visited and be devoid of presidential politics, which makes lobbying impossible. The larger states will not only have more political say, but gain valuable political activity that promotes profitable lobbying and campaigning, which is unfair to the smaller states. Only a few states in the nation would be benefiting, and the others would hardly be effected from this imbalance caused by the popular vote. How does this tie back to democracy? Well, the balancing of the states restores power to smaller states, which gives those regions their needed advantage. An individual in Wyoming may have more voting power than a Californian, but the state of Wyoming only gives a puny 3 electoral votes, compared to California's 55. And if it were a popular vote, Wyoming would still be even punier than California in terms of influences to the presidential election. Democracy doesn't just encompass the equality of the people, but the states too. Our country is composed of many different people, who should be represented as each one out of many, not just many [5]. We need states to have rights and be more balanced, rather than the federal government having all the power. The popular vote system basically is letting the go of the reins of the election. It leaves it in the hands of corrupt politicians (such as Hillary) and destroys the influence of smaller states. Only large states will participate, and they will benefit from campaigning and lobbying. The popular vote creates mass media chaos, and will make the elections far more corrupt and chaotic [5]. The electoral system may seem to violate democratic principals of equal vote weight, and I will concede that it does in some ways, but the benefits, balancing, and protection it provides to the elections out way this negative result of the electoral system. I did not say that the system is perfect, as no system can be perfect, but that it is at least far better than the popular system [5]. Thank you for participating in this debate, and I look forward to your closing round. Happy debating.P.S. Please review my sources, as they contain lots of information that backs my arguments. Sources : http://www.thegazette.com... [1]http://www.wnd.com... [2]https://pisoproject.wordpress.com... [3]https://hbr.org... [4]http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [5] Additional Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org...https://en.wikipedia.org...https://pisoproject.wordpress.com...

Title: DDO should keep a voting system with multiple categories Content: Con must show that there is a significant problem with the present system and that changing the voting system will fix the problem. Every debater who has been around for a while will say they think they should have won a debate they lost, and they are right at least some of the time. So how do we improve judging? Con argues that by eliminating all standards as to what is good and bad in a debate, voting will improve. I think it should go the other way. Better voting comes from having common standards as to what is important, and in making debaters and voters aware of that. Judges of academic debates are presumed to have a good understanding of what's important. We cannot safely make that presumption here.There are no clear examples of bad outcomes from strategic voting on DDO Voters sometimes shade their voting strategically. If a voter believes strongly that one debater ought to win a debate, he will tend to award more of the seven points to the side he thinks should win. The voter may be correct in his judgment about who should win. He may be enthusiastic about the subject and read the debate very carefully, making a reasonable judgment about each category. Or he may not be so careful and just make a subjective appraisal of by how much he believes the side he favors won, which could be unfair. A vote counted as suspect by one side is likely to be counted as unusually perceptive by the other side. How many debates have been wrongly decided by strategic voting? In a close debate strategic voters will tend to cancel automatically. If the suspect votes make no difference in the outcome, we should be satisfied that they either offset or do not affect the tide of voting. Con offered only one example of a debate where there was a potential that strategic voting affected an outcome. In that debate, more people voted for the losing side than the winning side. But Con just assumed the outcome was unfair, without arguing it was in fact unfair. I had voted on that debate and at the time judged it to be very close. The debate could have gone either way, so there is no cause for complaint. Without even a single clear example of an unfair vote, Con has not established either that there is a problem of strategic voting unfairly affecting outcomes, or that up-or-down voting would provide an improvement.DDO debates show the change would produce more ties Of twenty debates examined, in only one was there a reversal of the winner and loser if each vote was presumed to translate to a full vote for one side or the other. The 0-1, 0-1, 0-2 voters might have called the debate a tie instead. Again it wasn't clear whether that made the voting more fair or less fair. Con dismisses my sample of twenty debate as too small, but con offered no data at all. A sample of 20 is not definitive, but it gives a reasonable idea of what is going on. I used the Bidwell-Wilson approximation to the confidence limits on the binomial distribution to get the error bounds. [10.http://en.wikipedia.org... If found in my sample that 17 of 20 debates were unchanged by up-or-down voting. The 95% confidence interval is that between 13 and 19 debates would be unchanged. The increased number of ties is put between 1 and 7. The number of reversals is between one debate in five and one in 120. Since Con only cited one reversal, even when pressed, it's likely the number is on the rare end of the interval. Clearly more debates would end in a tie because of the quantization, in my sample twice as many. I think it is less fair to the debaters to declare a tie when voters considering the categories thought that one side had won. How many debaters will say, “The new voting system is terrific, I'm getting more tied scores now!'? All subjective judging benefits from standards Con argues that the analogy of debate voting to judging subjective sports is invalid because debating is not an athletic competition. But the object of the competition is irrelevant to the logical process of scoring a subjective competition. In terms of judging, subjective sports, dog shows, flower shows, and pie baking competitions are alike in having subjective judging. The goal is to establish both for competitors and judges guidelines for what is better and what is worse, and how much each category counts. Con claims that because academic debate uses a primitive up-or-down system so therefore, DDO debates should use that system. The subjective sports moved to more sophisticated voting systems as a result of voting scandals. If academic debating became a competition having general interest and suffered a scandal from biased voting, academic debate would have no alternative but to move to more sophisticated point system as well. Despite the use of a point system, the Olympic figure skating in Sochi still had a voting scandal. But there is no effective Moderator checking on judges in the Olympics. A moderator could examine each point addition and deduction, and an inflated score would then be very difficult to defend. Reverting to an up-or-down system wouldn't cure the judging problem, because that was already tried at the Olympics without success. Having standards doesn't work if there is no threat of enforcement.The silly poll Con points to a poll of debaters that revealed that each debater thought that strategic voting was used on their debates. That's a standard bit of nonsense used all the time by poll takers. It's along the lines of “Are you satisfied with current government policy on X?” No one is completely satisfied, so there will a high percentage saying “No.” Upon getting the expecting ”no,” proponents then proclaim that they have a ringing endorsement for policy Y, which was not mentioned in the poll. I would have answered “yes” to the poll as well. However, my remedy is to better educate voters and to improve the ability to moderate voting. That choice wasn't posed.Not simpler, better Con said I wanted a simpler voting system. I don't. I want to keep the present system. I allowed the weights on categories could be tweaked, but I think they are now about right. What I'm proposing is a more elaborate system available as an option to help voters who want to know more detail on how to vote decide who should win each category. The same guidelines would be used by moderators. Saying “Vote for whomever you thought did best.” doesn't work, because "best" is undefined. It doesn't say, for example, that the relevance and quality of sources is far more important than the number of sources. It doesn't say what is a serious conduct violation and what is not. It leaves everything to the intuition of the voter, and that is not a good idea, particularly with the highly mixed character of DDO voters. When everyone uses there own standards, there are no grounds for claiming bias. It is officially arbitrary.Academic debate is not the real world I did not say that academic debating was worthless. I said it does not reflect the real world of jobs, community organizations, and politics. A gave a list of the significant differences between real world debate and academic debate. Con ignored every item I listed without giving counter arguments as to why the difference was unimportant. Con asserted that everyone wants to live in the world of academic debate forever. That's impossible. For example, conduct is a problem in academic debate, because debaters know that bad conduct is sure to be punished. Academic judges are individually selected. Con did not address any of the differences. My study of randomly selected debates showed the categories were working well. People were, to perhaps a surprising degree, considering each aspect of the debate. Making voting simpler makes it unpredictable, because each person has complete freedom to decide what is important and what is not. Judging can be improved only by making the standards more clear, not moving closer to polling.

Title: Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day Content: I often wonder if the single day voting is meant to curb voter fraud. No I don't think so. I think its discrimination against the poor and those that have to work 2 or 3 jobs to survive and feed their family. Suggestion 1 to improve voting: I think that the first time people register to vote (age 18 or above) they should be required to give a fingerprint, than at least there would be a record to identify an individual without having to require a photo ID. I don't see how a fingerprint would be invasion of privacy and it would also be free. You only have to prove who you are once with a birth certificate or other suffiecient form of ID (barring any scaring on your fingers). If this database could be used solely for elections and not accessible to law enforcement (of course could we trust them?) You'd only know a person's finger pad pattern, not what they look like and people would not have to have a photo ID if they didn't want to. Then, you could take your time to vote. Voting at your own convenience. Currently its just a tv spectacle with winners being declared often before even 50% of the vote is in for districts and states. Its not as if the switch from incumbent to the next elected official is happening that next day. Usually its like 3 months till the handover. Pretty much everything must kowtow to the tv networks. Too much money for tv. Sports are slaves to tv as well. For those that want national ID cards or required photo IDs YET they want total privacy and no records to match who voted for who, you can't have both. Suggestion #2: Better yet, align voting and taxes, then if you want to vote you have to pay your taxes (which should already be the case, even if you owe nothing or expect a refund) No taxes, no vote. Citizens benefit from services and infrastructure provided by taxes and it is their duty to pay them, voting should also be a duty of a citizen. EVEN putting the voting date on Saturday is still going to be impossible for some people. There aren't absentee ballots everywhere. Why not go further and make Voting Day a national holiday? Say President's Day? or Veteran's Day? All non-essential businesses are closed and all essential ones required to only have half day. We have holidays for really stupid crap (some just commercial holidays really), but we should celebrate voting. Representation is what we revolted from England for Still, having enough time to vote over the period of time of a week, a few weeks, or some agreed upon length of time, would be best and not have any more problems than we already have. At least then there could be no excuse for not voting. As of now many people have an excuse and some a legitimate complaint Also, voter intimidation at a polling station would take a lot more effort if it had to be manned for longer than a single day and hopefully happen less

Title: i will get the fewest votes in this debate Content: Pro has seemed to overlook one glaring hole in her argument:Not all votes have the same weight.Pro takes only of votes, not points.Thus, it is perfectly possible to receive a greater number of votes, yet lose the debate due to lack of points. Consider: 5 single point votes for Pro against 1 six point vote for Con.With this in mind, Pro can no longer rely on logical paradox to determine a future outcome and Pro must provide some other argument or reason for somehow knowing the future outcome of this debate.Indeed, vote wisely.

Title: Quiz before Vote Content: I am not talking about voting on online debates... I am talking about the United States voting system. For example, voting for a president, or voting on laws.

Title: This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote. Content: 1.It will be effective if it prevents computer users from voting twice for just a certain topic. They then can vote again for another topic. Yes, two members might be using the same computer and both might want to vote for a certain topic but such case is less common than not having a provider listed and less disadvantageous. >members using the same computer with an intent to vote on the same topic in the system I proposed a. is rare b. won't render the other users from voting for other topics >members not having access to providers listed by the site in a system requiring verification a. is very common especially outside the U.S. b. will render them unable to vote for all topics 2. Having identity verification is easier to be worked around, so it must be replaced. Having different sim cards or friends to lend you a phone is easier, less costly than having different computers. Providers from some countries aren't listed and might not agree to be included.

Title: Revive DDO Tournament R1: Compulsory Voting Content: Thanks to tylergraham95! In this round, I will address framework, the Pro case, the Pro Con, and provide some reasons to vote Pro. FRAMEWORKSimply because VV is the status quo does not make it inherently desirable; yet, my example of slavery goes un-rebutted. By extending my argument, we can see that we cannot blindly accept VV as inherently desirable. Con is "begging the question. " Voting is desirable in a democracy, but what type of voting is most desirable is up for debate. Con must prove the desirability of his voluntary system just as much as I must prove the desirability of my compulsory system. PROs CASESub-point A: CV boosts TurnoutCon does not deny that CV boosts turnout. His only argument here is that boosting turnout decrease voting quality--I will address this assertion later in this round--but for now, Con DROPS that CV will increase turnout, and we can extend this point. Sub-point B: Low Turnout BadI made three assertions here: (1) that high turnout was "one legitimating factor" of a government, particularly as it regards the need for a mandate; (2) low turnout harms the socio-economically disadvantaged; (3) there should be a "minimization of elite power. "Con also makes three arguments: (1) that forcing everyone to votes pollute the polls with low quality votes; (2) that turnout alone does not boost credibility; and (3) that having people vote who want to vote legitimizes government more so than compulsion does. First of all, none of Con's points address my 2nd and 3rd arguments--they're DROPPED. Extend that low turnout harms the disadvantaged and that elite power should be reduced. These two points on their own are enough to show that low turnout is bad, even if you don't believe that compulsion is necessary for legitimacy. Now, let's take a look at Con's three claims. Firstly, Con repeats his "quality of votes" assertion, which I will address later. But, I will make one point here of importance. Italy does not enforce its CV laws. [1] Therefore, Silvio Berlusconi was elected VOLUNTARILY. Con makes a huge deal about how uneducated voters pollute the polls; yet we can turn his own example against him and say that this SAME phenomenon occurs in a voluntary system. I made this same argument in my last speech when I pointed out that this was a non-unique claim. Secondly, I stated that "high turnout is one legitimating factor," which is not the same as saying that "numbers ALONE do not add credibility. " Never did I claim that high turnout was the ONLY metric, but it is nonetheless an important one, for legitimacy. Thirdly, if only a small group of people vote, they are the ones molding the government and the ones elected officials will focus on. Politicians wanted to get reelected, and so will make policies favorable to those who are likely to vote, and this means that leaders will pay less attention to other groups. This only entrenches socio-economic disparities and leads to elitism. When only a handful of people control the government it seems more oligarchic than democratic. So, low turnout is also bad for legitimacy too. Sub-point C: Free RidersCon's big claim here is that nonvoting is not free riding because people can still contribute without voting. Thus, nonvoters are not exploiting the system. This is wrong largely because of Con's interpretation of the social good that nonvoters are exploiting. The actual people who make up the government is the social good--not the community at large. Nonvoters may contribute to the community, they may protest against bad legislation, they may do community service, and so on, but they don't actually participate in electing the members of the government. Con argues, throughout this debate, that we want good, competent leaders. If good, competent, non-demagogic leaders are a social good, then when 10 of us vote for them, but some else doesn't vote, that person is enjoying that social good, i. e. those leaders, without having done the act of electing them; they are free-riding. Extend my argument. Sub-point D: PolarizationI argued that people who are more likely to vote tend to be more extreme (extremes have higher enthusiasm, loyalty to a cause, etc. ). The corollary is that moderates tend to vote less. Therefore, by instituting CV, we force moderates to vote, checking against polarization. Con DROPS this argument that nonvoters tend to be moderates. Extend it. Con's only attack here is his "quality of votes" point, which I will address later. Con also asserts that nonvoters do not comprise the majority in the U. S. However, there are many other democracies in which nonvoters aren't just the majority, but the vast majority. Even in the U. S. , non-presidential elections tend to hover around 40% turnout (60% don't vote), and even in 2012, around 43% of registered voters did not participate. [2] That is still a MASSIVE margin. Sub-point E: CV reduces violenceI am asserted that when voting norms atrophy the system is seen as being controlled by elites, and that the leaders cater to that group. This leads people to seeing the system as corrupt, and to use violence to express themselves. for example, the miners in South Africa who felt that they weren't being heard, the protests in Afghanistan when Karzai was reelected, the violence in Nigeria when Goodluck Jonathan was reelected, etc. . It's not a slippery slope fallacy when it's actually happened. Groups that lose at the polls and who simultaneously see the system as skewed or corrupt often resort to violence. When the GOP lost to Obama, there wasn't nationwide violence because the average Romney voter had a higher level of confidence in the physical polling system itself than people elsewhere. CV, inasmuch as it promotes good voting norms and reduces elite influence, does reduce violence. CON's CASEPoint 1: Right to Inaction(1) Con DROPS this argument that not all positive rights imply negative rights. We have the right to educate our kids, but we don't have the right not to educate our kids. Extend this point. (2) Con misinterprets my use of the jury example. I was arguing that some rights that take precedence over others. So, my right to due process is more important than your right to your free time; therefore, I can compel you to serve on the jury. Apply this to voting. My right to a representative government trumps your alleged right to not vote; thus I can compel voting. As Con misconstrues my point, we can extend it. The impact is that if I can show the CV benefits democracy, than your right to not vote is not enough to stop me from compelling you to do so. As my sources said, "If there is a strong enough collective interest at stake with voting, this should prevent the individual right to vote from becoming an inverse right not to vote. " [3](3) Con DROPS my point that CV is not a violation of human rights. Extend it. (4) Con DROPS my arguments against his religious objections. He loses this. Point Two: Uneducated Voters(1) This is non-unique. As Con's own example of Italy shows, even with VV twits can be elected. So again, unless Con is willing to ban every single uneducated person from voting he cannot claim that I am the only person who might include uneducated voters in the system. And, if Con did ban those people, he would be infringing on freedom, which he says is a bad thing to do. (2) Con states, "the idea that. .. CV translates into a politically engaged electorate is nonsensical. " Con says that I have no warrants, yet this quote has no warrants. Saying that something's nonsensical is not SHOWING that it is nonsensical. Con's second source offers no citation for the numbers it gives, nor does it provide any methodology by which it attained those numbers. This source is questionable too. Furthermore, Con only addresses my point A argument, that people will educate themselves. He never addressed my point B that parties will educate voters. It's DROPPED, extend it. Point 3: QualityCross-apply my point B re: educating voters here. (1) Con agrees that only 1-2% of voters cast bad votes. Half of these, my source notes, will be spoiled or invalidated by their authors, so they won't be counted. So few donkey votes are counted then, that with an increase in voting of between 15-30 points on average, the effect of bad votes is negligible. They are "incapable of distorting outcomes. " And, regardless of how many actually turnout, CV still boosts turnout by large margins. (2) Con defines a "quality" vote as one that "would have been cast without compulsion. " This would mean that all compelled votes lack quality--which isn't true. When voting was first introduced in Australia (1925), turnout increased by nearly 33%. [4] So, 1-2% of poorly cast votes is a drop in the bucket. So clearly many votes cast only because voters are compelled to cast them are quality votes, judging by Con's own source and judging by the fact that people made a premeditated effort to vote well, as Lisa Hill describes. CV does not endanger quality. VOTING ISSUES1. Low turnout is bad: it hardens socio-economic divides and elitism. Con dropped these points. CV boosts turnout (Con dropped this) and so it solves for this.2. CV reduces free riding and violence; it brings moderates to the polls.3. Voting can be compelled insofar as the benefits to society outweigh the objections. con misinterpreted and dropped this point.4. CV promotes education as I show in point B, which was dropped.5. Con uses his quality claim against all my sub-points. Yet, the impacts of bad votes are negligible and non-unique. Thus, we can dismiss MOST of Con's attacks on my case just by taking out this claim. SOURCES1 - . http://en.wikipedia.org...2 - . http://www.statisticbrain.com...3 - Harvard (previously cited)4 - . http://www.aec.gov.au...Thank you to Subutai, Tyler, and the Judges!

Title: New Age Electronic Government Content: Direct democracy via the Internet is impractical given the modern limitations of technology and of access to technology. Furthermore the amount of legislation and administration involved in our modern society would overwhelm the time constraints required to allow for "every" person to vote on everything. Your original premise is science fiction.

Title: In the United States, the Electoral College should be abolished. Content: - Introduction I am going to once more tear down my opponent's arguments and rebuttals and show why my case remains firmly unscathed. - Regarding My Opponent's Initial Arguments 1. A coin analogy wont work as it does not embody Pro's original sentiments about how once a 50% threshold of votes is reached the others do not "matter". The fact remains that more people that vote for a specific candidate, the higher the chances of that candidate winning. Regardless of whether or not every vote is directly responsible for a win, every vote still counts from a probabilistic standpoint. Ergo, Pro's arguments here still fail. 2. I never once stated that giving more power to smaller states makes it more democratic, just that it makes it more fair from a holistic standpoint. Also, my opponent cited no sources or reasoning for his 19.4% calculation so it can be disregarded. I provided sources for my claim that half of the country populated only 146 out of the 3000 counties in the country in my first round. If half the population resides in only 4.86 % of the the counties, then if the winner was decided by popular vote, and everyone from those 146 counties voted one way hypothetically, a candidate could get half the votes just from just 4.86% of the counties that exist in the whole country. Since deciding the winner by popular vote isn't fair to the vast majorities of counties in the US, it should not be implemented as a replacement to the Electoral College which works so well. 3. An objective court could prosecute electors for biased voting if there was proof of such conduct. However, it is next to impossible to prove as biased electors could conjure up multiple reasons for the bad vote. Also, there is no reason to think the non-practice regarding my opponent's issue will not continue in the future so his concerns are unfounded. Pro still hasn't shown why a pure democracy is better than the Electoral College, just stating "Democracy is the best system" doesn't cut it. 4. Most of the time simplicity is a form of efficiency, especially considering how long it would take to calculate votes if the FPTP was abolished. Pro has not proven that his reasons against the FPTP system outweigh the efficiency of easily calculated votes. His argument still fails. 5. Pro argues against my teleportation example because the universal laws would have to be re-written to make it possible. This is false, teleportation is possible in this universe via quantum entanglement. Either way, third-party candidates have an little chance of winning presidential elections anyway, so if the Electoral College makes it even harder for that to occur there is no practical difference as the outcome would most likely be the same regardless. 6. My opponent's calculation involving population distribution this round wasn't backed up by anything; mine was. Pro implies that the democratic aspects the Electoral College embodies are exactly what it hurts but offered no argument for this. My opponent's baseless assertions can be graciously ignored. 7. I never implied that some people are more important than others, just that some voters have more motivation to make an educated vote than others. Since my opponent straw-manned my position he fails to establish any relevant point. 8. One of the main reasons those 43% of households don't pay federal income tax is because they didn't make enough income to qualify. This isn't the same as being exempt from income tax because they live in a territory; my opponent is drawing a false equivalence. So, Pro's objections miss the mark once again. - Regarding My Initial Arguments 1. This objection has been addressed in this round already. 2. Pro claims the STV is still a simple system but it is not; all one needs to do is look at what happened in New Zealand in 2004. It took over a month to calculate the votes because of the complexity involved in vote calculations. As New Zealand party MP Nick Smith writes: "STV is a system designed for political scientists and mathematicians not voters. .. The local government elections were a disaster and an international embarrassment. " The STV is not practical in any sense. 3. A rebuttal is a form of arguing so one cannot rebuttal without making a "new argument". Either way the no new argument rule only applies to this round according to the rules outlined. My opponent also once again states that if the Electoral College doesn't match with the popular vote that it is not "correct", in order to argue for deciding the winner by popular vote. However, this assumes already that deciding the victor by popular vote is correct. Since Pro assumes his conclusion to argue for it, this amounts to nothing more than begging the question and circular reasoning. 4. The Electoral College is not anti-democratic, it is just less democratic than other potential election methods. This is not necessarily a bad thing though, because a pure democracy would force us to deem a handful of counties and states as more important than most of the country. That is unacceptable, because issues like the water crisis in Flint, Michigan would go largely ignored. 5. My opponent says that the efficiency comes at the price of more democracy. However, a pure democracy isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread like my opponent implies, as majority of the country is vastly uneducated on political issues. So, leaving important choices like who becomes the president to the majority of Americans is more scary than anything. Therefore, just because an election done via the Electoral College doesn't match with the popular vote doesn't mean it wasn't successful. If anything, in many cases, it could be considered a good thing. 6. What my opponent fails to realize is that the idea of the Electoral College is inherent to American Federalism, so his reasons for wanting to abolish the Electoral College are irrelevant to my point here. It still stands that we might as well get rid of Federalism and states in general if we get rid of the Electoral College, because the Electoral College is the only system which can embody those principles accurately. 7. My opponent argues that the Electoral College has caused more bad presidents to win the election than good. Thus, in his mind, this point alone shows why the resolution has been proven. This fails for two reasons: (i) It is debatable whether or not the presidents he mentioned were actually bad presidents (ii) It invokes a quantity over quality logic which is flawed With regards to (i), Benjamin Harrison for example did much good, like forcing Chile into paying reparations to Americans. The War on Terror stopped many terrorist cells from causing harm to American cities. Also, what Trump said before he got elected does not dictate what he will actually do once president. With regards to (ii), it could be argued that abolishing slavery trumps whatever bad a handful of presidents might have done. Therefore, based on (i) and (ii), Pro's logic falls flat. 8. Again, just because X is not as democratic as Y, that doesn't mean X is less desirable by default. This is a false axiom Pro uses in many of his arguments that simply hasn't been shown to be true. - Conclusion "Equal voting rights" would mean a handful of counties and states would have half of the voting power, and it would be a crime to ignore the needs of the majority of states because they have less people; this would be catastrophic. My opponent simply doesn't realize that the US was never meant to be a pure democracy, and there is no reason to assume a pure democracy is to be desired.

Title: The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement Content: It seems obvious to me: anyone can set up an account on DDO, search for their favorite topics, and easily vote on whatever they want, without even reading the arguments. The resolution is that SOMETHING must be done to improve the voting system on this site. I will give a few ideas that could be incorporated by the DDO creators, but am open to any other suggestions: 1) Show how each person voted. 2) Moniter the votes more closely. 3) Show a feed on each account's page that reveals what they voted on and how they voted. 4) Have each voter write a short, detailed paragraph on why he/she voted that way, which fellow members can see and report if they find something wrong with it. Also, I am not able to vote, even though I have a cell phone. Why? I do not know. I have sent in my number multiple times, and have never received an approval text. This must be remedied as well. Remember, this debate is focusing on whether or not the DDO Voting System is flawed, NOT on whether or not my specific ideas are "the best". I await an opponent

Title: Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote Content: Hello Cosmojarvis, I will be taking the con side, arguing against the resolution. Good luck, Cosmojarvis! Main Argument: Although it is not good to see lower voter turnouts, and is concerning, I believe it is no cause to lower the standards. Think of the potential consequences that could arise from removing some or all of the voting qualifications. Instead of having only those who are experienced debaters (three debates) voting, removing this requirement could cause many non-serious voters to cast biased votes, or "vote bomb". Although it would be nicer to have many voters, we would risk causing a degradation of the quality of material on Debate.org. When debating, we should consider the opinion of one person who is vetted and experienced more valuable than the opinion of one who is not. In addition , there are other ways to attract voters that are not so dangerous. For one, Debate,org could advertise its debate voting feature more. It could also remove the most privacy invasive requirement that asks for a phone number Even though it is not ideal to have few voters, it is best not to reduce quality standards.

Title: Mandatory Voting Content: I. Uniformed PublicFirstly, my opponent said that he presented evidence to prove that voting would increase public knowledge and awareness. However, I believe that I properly refuted that argument, as he didn't respond to my rebuttals. .Then, my opponent questions the accuracy of my source to prove how uniformed voters are. However, here's a paragraph taken directly from the article I found my information in. "The poll was conducted by Conquest Communications Group, a professional polling firm located in Virginia. The responses were obtained through live telephone surveys of 700 likely voters across the continental United States on Dec. 15–20, 2015. Likely voters are those who say they vote 'every time there is an opportunity' or 'in most elections.'" [1]Lastly, my opponent says that every voter will have blind spots when voting. I will concede a bit to this. Yes, every voter will have blind spots, but let me reference even more data to share how uniformed voters are."Despite years of public controversy over the budget,surveys consistently show that most of the public have very little understanding of how the federal government spends its money. They greatly underestimate the percentage of federal funds allocated to massive entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security—which are among the largest federal expenditures—and vastly overestimate the proportion that goes to foreign aid (only about 1 percent of the total). Voters are also often ignorant about the basic structure of government. The Annenberg survey found that only 36% of Americans can name the three branches of the federal government: the executive, legislative and judicial." [2]This is a huge problem. If most voters don't know about issues like Medicare, Social Security, or even the basics of our government, then why bring even less informed people in instead of focusing on bringing accurate information to the masses?II. Freedom of Choice and SpeechIf we skip ahead a little bit in his rebuttals, my opponent quotes Harvard Law Review notes. With my defense, I'll pick parts of it to really dissect."[C]ompulsory voting is a legitimate infringement upon individual liberty for the purpose of ensuring that political outcomes reflect the preferences of the electorate...the very idea that a right, by definition, can be waived is false. Numerous rights cannot be waived; and, although many others can, this still does not imply the general existence of inverse rights." [3]It isn't that the right is being waived necessarily, they just simply aren't being exercised. Let's say that we have a man. We'll call him Jim. Jim is unregistered to voter and is simply not interested. Let's say a few years later that Jim wants to register to vote. Just because he didn't vote previously doesn't mean that his right was taken away. He still has the right, he just didn't acknowledge it.III. Universal Declaration of Human RightsI will concede to this rebuttal.ConclusionI still stand by the fact that mandatory voting would be harmful to Democratic societies. To end this debate, I'd like to thank ThinkBig for his participation. Thank you for a fun debate. I wish you luck. So long and goodnight! Citations[1]http://www.theblaze.com...[2]http://www.forbes.com...[3]http://harvardlawreview.org...

Title: The United States congress should be dismantled and replaced with a direct democratic voting system Content: 1) You claimed it would have issue such as vote manipulation " rigging systems, psychological trickery, bandwagon, untrustworthy individuals, or causing social dilemmas" but I don't see how it would. You didn't really explain how a direct democratic system would be susceptible to those things, you merely claimed it would be. 2) Well, it was a suggestion for instant run-off voting. Like I stated, it is not necessarily what I would have, as I'm still thinking about the idea itself. However, you say it's susceptible to tactical voting, but our current voting system is already too. How many people do you think votes for the lesser of two evils because they think that they can't vote or a third party candidate because they believe it is a wasted vote? Instant run-off voting would help third parties come to power because people will more likely put a third party as their first choice since the wasted vote argument is invalid under instant run-off voting since your vote transfers to someone else if your candidate came in last. So, while it is susceptible to tactical voting, our current system already is. I consider instant run-off better since it would help third parties and get more opinion out there. 3) Well as I said before, it would be up to the political party to decide how they choose their representatives. It would vary from party to party most likely. 4) But why does the federal government need to be the one to solve these issues? Local governments would be better at it because they are not as partisan. In the federal government, there is so much partisanship we've had two government shut downs looming before because one side wants to block what the other side does. For local governments, this partisanship almost doesn't exist. Mayors and cities can get things done where the federal government is still debating on things. For example, with man-made climate change, there is a huge debate between republicans and democrats over if it's real. Science says it is real, and because of this partisanship, hardly anything is getting done about it anyways. See this ted talk for more reasons why it would be better to have local governments empowered [1] 5) I did back up this claim, as I pointed out in the first round, studies have been done to show that economic elites and businesses are the ones with the most influence over legislation. Since representatives are susceptible to corruption, whereas the people cannot be susceptible to corruption nearly as much, it is better to replace congress with the people. I showed above how donations influence specific items that congress passes, this issue would not exist in a democratic vote since there are just too many people to try to bribe. 6) I think this is malarchy because we had tyranny from congress to begin with. We had so much discrimination in the past occur when we didn't have a majoritarian system, for example, we had the gag rule in congress where slavery should never be discussed and slavery continued under the congressional system. What difference does it make if a few hundred people are passing legislation to discriminate against a minority, versus the majority of people doing it? In fact, if we had a majoritarian system, we probably would have ended slavery sooner since the north had more population than the south did, so majority supported getting rid of slavery while a minority wanted to keep it. In the case of our current system, it protected a minority of people to keep slaves and even after we ended slavery, it protected them to continue discriminating against black people. Sure, there may be a case where the majority will discriminate against a minority, but that already happened in the current system, and it was worse since, as I pointed out, the government allowed a minority of people to discriminate against another minority. In popular rule, it would get rid of that aspect, and only majority can discriminate against a minority. Minorities wouldn't be able to discriminate against minorities like they could in our current system. No system is perfect, but I think a majoritarian rule would be better than our current system for that reason. Sources: [1] https://www.ted.com...

Title: New Age Electronic Government Content: As an indulgence, please notice the following reiteration: Direct democracy via the Internet is impractical given the modern limitations of technology and of access to technology. Furthermore the amount of legislation and administration involved in our modern society would overwhelm the time constraints required to allow for "every" person to vote on everything. Your original premise is science fiction.

Title: The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system. Content: Because you have conceded that the electoral college system does violate the democratic principals of equal vote weight, I will not cover this argument in my last response. This only leaves the argument that the electoral college system is necessary to prevent corruption. I see no reason to add an intermediary between the voter and their vote being counted. Contrary to your argument, this increases the chance of corruption. This intermediary is just another point of failure that can manipulated, paid or otherwise mislead. Your main argument is that the electoral college can prevent corruption. The electoral college is not a good solution at preventing corruption. What I propose is a better popular voting system that would be significantly stronger at preventing corruption, voter fraud and also deliver equal vote weight. Blockchain technology is decentralized and has no single point of failure. It would be impossible for a voter to vote twice when blockchain technology is associated with solid two factor authentication. This would make the blockchain system significantly more resilient than the electoral college system. Blockchain technology is already being used in voting and is the way of the future. It is very short sighted to think that there is no better way and the current electoral system will remain what works best indefinitely. Other countries are already at various stages of deploying blockchain technology to offer more efficient and secure voting platforms [1]. Has far as Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump being sociopath or not have nothing to do with the electoral college being a good system. I personally didn't like either candidate and found it very sad that this was the best we could come up with. Regardless of the election outcome and as your candidate Donald Trump stated, "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy." [2] Sources: https://venturebeat.com... [1] https://twitter.com... [2]

Title: All members of debate.org ought to provide RFD's in the debates they vote in. Content: I'll start with my opponent's case, and then my case. 1. Ineffective and time consuming. RESPONSE: SO my opponent is arguing that it would be too time consuming, and a vote would count for little to no points. First off, if anything this system would remove any illegit votes, since everyone would have to post a RFD, and people would know who voted where and why, and those voting illegiitimately will be obvious. My opponent states that what if both sides had good speelling and grammar, and sources, and conduct. He claims that this would make voting meaningless. WRONG. If anything, it would make it more meaningful, since the voter has voted honestly. If the Spelling, grammar, sources, and conduct are really the same, then it makes the debate that much better. Its no fun to have a debate where one person decides to forget about any sense of manners and swears every other word. So that part of my opponent's argument has been refuted. My opponent then goes on to say that biased votes will inevitably happen, due to the first 2 criteria my opponent brought up. However, those 2 criteria have no bearing on the debate. The only votes that actually give points are the last 4 criteria. So that argument has been refuted. 2. Unfair and can't be enforced RESPONSE: Look. You can easily get around my opponents argument in the following way: Who says everyone see's the votes? Nowhere have I said that everyone will see everyone's votes. I say that the only people who need to see the people's votes are the debaters. So I propose the following system: Debaters debate. Voters vote. Voters see RFDs, and only voters The votes can be posted, but the RFDs can only be seen by the debaters. That takes care of the first half of this argument. For the second half. So my opponent is arguing that it would be incredibly difficult to monitor all the votes in a debate, and that not all votes will be read. RESPONSE: My opponent is trying to argue that it would be too difficult to monitor all votes, and therefore we should reject my system. The problem with this is that there are a bunch of responses. We could: 1. Get more moderators to handle it. 2. If Webcorp doesn't want to hire them, the current moderators can get a group of people willing to do this. These people would be relatively experienced, and the veterans of the site. They could help and monitor all the votes. 3. After a while, the moderators will be able to do the job quickly and easily, as they begin to learn voting habits of people. CONCLUSION: So my opponent hasn't provided any actual reason as to why people should not post RFDs when they vote. He has only said that it would be difficult to monitor, it would be ineffective, but he hasn't provided any actual reason as to why people should not be allowed to know why they are winning or losing. You can extend all my arguments. BURDENS: The only burden my opponent has set before me is the one to answer all his questions. I have done so. One more reason for an affirmative ballot My opponent has not fulfilled the burden that I gave him, the one to prove why we should not be allowed to know why we won or lost, only that we won or lost. One more reason for an affirmative ballot. I await my opponent and the voters, and I ask that everyone post an RFD. You should be proud of who you voted for and why, and you have more than enough reason to let me and my opponent know about it.

Title: The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement Content: My main problem with the voting system is the lack of accountability concerning votes, not on how the votes are distributed. For instance, I recently finished a debate on a rather controversial topic. I posted my final argument, and the voting time began. Literally less than a minute later, I noticed that someone voted on the debate. The result? Three points given to my opponent, none given to me. I would not particularly have had a problem with that. .. if it were not for the fact that the person voted less than a minute after I posted my final argument. There is absolutely no chance that someone could have noticed that the debate was open for voting, read my final argument, reflected on what was being said, then voted, all in less than a minute's time. Even if she/he happened to be looking at the debate just as I posted my final argument, I still find it incredible. Also, in this debate, my opponent did not use ANY citations whatsoever, all the while "quoting" facts. I backed up my arguments with citations, and when my opponent claimed that my sources were biased and unreliable, I gave other sources (showing the same exact facts, thus proving my original sources WERE reliable, by the way) that no one could logically claim were "unreliable" (Major newspaper articles, government health instituions, etc. ) The first three voters (I checked periodically) gave me absolutely NO POINTS. Once again, if I were simply losing in that debate, that would be one thing. But to give citation points (or at least give a tie) to a person who cited NO SOURCES while making arguments that absolutely had to be backed up by sources? That is preposterous. Also, the voting system is different from what you described it to be (not to count against you; I was under the delusion that the system worked the way you stated as well). My main reason for bringing up this debate is to try to get people to talk about the voting system; whether or not they believe that it needs improvement. Is the voting system fine (minus the lack of accountability)? Yes, I find the point distribution to be adequate. But what good is a voting system for a debate site if it merely reflects people's predetermined thoughts on the given subject? 1) The tab indicating that they are "redesigning" the site has been there for quite a while; as long as I have been on (a few months). Nonetheless, it is something that is not incorporated into the voting system yet, so that would be considered an "improvement". 2) I do not know if anyone tracks the voting on this site. If they do, they need to stop what is called "vote bombing", where a group of people (for various reasons) vote for a specific side en masse, always as a concerted effort. Granted, it would be hard to determine that without question. However, when iLikeRepublicans, nObama08, fashistNeocon69, and reaganBaby! (all fictitious usernames, by the way) are constantly seen voting (around the same time) on political debates (and giving ALL of their points to the more conservative side), well, one can wonder. .. 3) I may or may not be the minority on this point, but I would not consider (nor do I believe that DDO should consider) it an invasion of privacy if someone were able to see my voting record, because: A) No one knows who I really am. B) It is required that the age, city and state (country, for internationals) be shown. I find that a greater invasion of privacy. If privacy is important to DDO, then they should not require that this information be shown. C) If DDO is genuninely trying to accomplish what it says it means to accomplish ("This page is being redesigned to show the voter's picture and username. "), then why not put that information right on the page of each voter? Remember, accountability is key here. 4) I was thinking of having the voting comments put on the voting tab, once it is up and running. No one would be able to start a "comment war" on that tab, as you can only comment when you vote. I initially did contact them about the situation, but never received a response. I just sent another e-mail to them. Hopefully they will respond this time. I await your reply.

Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: Resolved: The new DDO voting system is superior to the old one. I am affirming.The new DDO voting system is a system of up/down voting where the judge selects a single winner for the debate. The old system was a categorical system weighing Spelling and Grammar, Conduct, and Sources as well as arguments. As a courtesy to my opponent, we'll use that system for the round. Round 1 is for acceptance only. No new arguments in the last round. Good luck.

Title: This debate will, with 100% certainty, be won by con. Content: I am from the future, and can tell you with 100% certainty that Con will garner more votes than Pro. Don't believe me? Once this debate enters the voting period, you can see the proof for yourselves. I'll probably forfeit the rest of the debate to cement Con's win. Do note that Con can get more votes but fewer points.

Title: Direct democracy Content: Introduction is not relevant to the debate. R1) Only voting MAACs often need internet. Other MAACs will only need few minutes on internet, to give their election point. More then 80% Americans reportedly uses internet. (. http://en.wikipedia.org...) Yes, voting is also done trough internet. Voting MAACs would of course, allow non-voting MAACs to use their PC for few minutes. If someone can not handle the computer, it is good thing if he doesn't vote. I thank my opponent for making an argument for my case. My opponent obviously does not know that access to servers can be limited to specific countries. In other words, it could be hacked only from America. Since it doesn't benefit American people to crush their own system, programmers would only have to deal with several individuals. R2) It makes ruling impossible for individual politicians. That is the whole point of direct democracy. It makes it possible for people to rule. What does my opponent mean by educating whole country? It is absurd. People will just thrust other people who are already educated on each specific issue. There would be no totally new government. Every congressmen who done well would remain in congress. Election points are never automatically reset. If non-voting MAACs are satisfied with how their representative(voting MAAC) is doing, country's politics wouldn't change at all. R3) We are talking specifically about America(which is to be concluded by number of congressmen(535), I am sorry if I wasn't clear enough). I don't see any wars over religion in America. There would be too much voting MAACs to kill them enough to change vote. It is much easier in America's current system to kill few congressmen. - They can possibly be re-elected each time, as long as they are alive. - There are not meant to be any campaigns. Most of the people would give their election point to their friend or family member who knows what he wants. Then that person checks out which voting MAACs are voting for what he wants, and then that person gives that voting MAAC his election points. I hope my opponent now understand proposed system better.

Title: There needs to be a faster way to get to voting Content: I accept and wish to argue that requiring users to debate 3 times before voting is a benefit to the website. First, Pro has created a short, limited 500 character debate (most likely to satisfy is debate requirements to vote on further debates. I will indulge you. The biggest, and most likely only reason this requirement is in place, is to prevent users from creating multiple accounts and voting on their own debates. Ina way to 'boost' your Win %. This is a reasonable request to verify users

Title: Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting Content: Cheers! WE AGREE THAT IT IS BETTER TO VOTE MOST OF THE TIME I am glad that my opponent agrees that it's better to vote most of the time. However, he posits three claims in negation of my resolution. I will refute each of his claims with the following contentions. [1] IT's BETTER TO BE COUNTED THAN DISCOUNTED My opponent suggests "not voting can be a way to send a message in times of great injustice. " What message can be sent when someone chooses to NOT vote? A non-voter hopes that those in high office and other observers will realize that her lack of participation reflects a grievance that must be addressed. There are a few problems with this. (A) Election observers cannot understand what the grievance is if the only message is silence in the form of a passive non-vote. Political observers are likely to assume that the non-voter is lazy or apathetic. No subversive message will be received. (B) But what if a non-voter writes a letter to a representative explaining why she chose not to vote? A politician has little incentive to listen to someone not interested in voting; politicians can discount what cannot be counted on election day. In this case, this move would be strengthened if she chose to back up her convictions with a vote. A letter is more persuasive if she explains, "if you do not support X then I will vote for your opponent. If you support X then I will vote for you. " Voting is a better way to send a message than not-voting. When you vote you send a message that you support a candidate and or the ideas she stands for. In a direct referendum a person can communicate her support for a particular policy, and possibly help it get passed into law by voting for it. If you do not vote, you lose your chance to make that difference. In each case one"s vote is a clear sign that a policy or particular leader has a certain level of support among the people. In a democratic society, it is in the interest of the leaders to be receptive to those ideas with support so they can win reelection. EXAMPLE: SOUTH AFRICA, 1994 South Africans had been living in times of great injustice. They lived under a policy of apartheid in which they were treated like second-class human beings. What message would have been sent if they chose to NOT vote in that historic "94 election? Would observers understand that they were expressing their dissatisfaction after decades of oppression by not voting? Probably not. The white Frederik Willem de Klerk would have been re-elected and continue to be the face of South Africa after blacks earned suffrage. Instead, despite decades of injustice, they chose to vote and elected the nation"s first black president, Nelson Mandela. [2] EVALUATE ELECTIONS THROUGH THE ORIGINAL POSITION OF A VOTER My opponent asserts "I don't agree that more voters produces a more democratic result or even a good result necessarily. " First of all, if more people vote, whether or not you favor the results, the election is by definition more democratic and more representative of the constituency (body of eligible voters) being represented. But do more voters produce a better result? How should my opponent and I consider this contention? If one provides a partisan historical example in the affirmative or negative it will prejudice one"s consideration of the proposition. If I argue a low voter turnout led to a BAD outcome, like the election of George W. Bush in 2000, then it may prejudice conservatives against my position. If my opponent argues that a low voter turnout led to a GOOD outcome, like the election of George W. Bush in 2000, then it may prejudice progressives against his position. And I assume my opponent, like me, does not wish to explode the topic by debating the virtues of progressivism over conservatism and vice-versa. Therefore, let"s consider this question from the Original Position first posited by John Rawls. In one's current shoes, it's easy to assert that the world would be better if your ideological opponents stayed home on election day while your people vote in big numbers. But imagine if you could be any voter in any democratic election throughout time and space. To vote or not vote? That is the question. It will always be better to vote your conscience. Let"s say you are a Republican in 1999 considering whether or not you should vote in the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Gore. You believe in low taxes, low regulation, and traditional social values. You do not know the outcome but you have reason to believe that the election will be very close. Therefore you should vote in order to increase the likelihood that your values will be promoted. In 2000, if you are a sincere Republican then you should vote for Bush. Not voting would decrease the likelihood that your values will be promoted in high office and increase the likelihood that a candidate will be elected who is antithetical to your values. Therefore, you should vote. From the point of view of many Republicans, Bush was a success. Under Bush, taxes were cut and traditional social values were championed. OR Let"s say you're a Democrat in 1999 considering whether or not you should vote in the 2000 US presidential election between Bush and Gore. You believe in a strong social safety net, regulated capitalism, and social liberalism. You do not know the outcome but you have reason to believe that the election will be very close. Therefore you should vote in order to increase the likelihood that your values will be promoted. From the point of view of a Democrat, more Democrats should of voted, especially in Florida. Under Bush more people fell into poverty and civil rights were pushed back a decade. In 2000, suppose you are a Nader supporter. It would still be better to vote than not vote because by voting you (1) increase the probability that your candidate may win, and (2) increase the apparent support for Nader and his ideas. By not voting you (1) have no impact on the election for either party, and (2) forsake your duty to express your point of view in a democracy. Imagine you are a voter in a fledgling democracy where there may be some election fraud. You want to live in a stable society represented by honest leaders. In this case it is better to vote than not vote. If there is a high chance of fraud what will not voting accomplish? It will only make the ballot-box stuffer's job easier and the corrupt politician may cheat to achieve a legitimate win. If you do vote then there is at least an initial record of your choice. The corrupt leader might try to destroy this record or crowd it out with fake votes, but the corrupt leader will still have to expend energy, money, and resources to cheat. Voting is still better because voting provides a chance that the corrupt leader could be ousted. If he cheats, voting is better because the international community may discover the fraud and pressure him to perform a re-count. If there is a re-count you will want to be among the counted. Lastly, voting is better because it will make the corrupt leader aware that a sizable percentage do NOT support him. With this new information he may consider instituting popular reforms or even consider a graceful exit in the near future so that he will not be embarrassed in the next election. Therefore, even in the case of a corrupt election, voting provides at least some marginal advantages while not-voting provides no advantages. [3] CHOOSING THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PREVENTS GREATER EVIL OR SEND A REAL MESSAGE WITH A WRITE-IN or THIRD PARTY VOTE My opponent said that non-voting may be better " when there is no good choice available. " Not voting accomplishes nothing. If you dislike the two mainstream party candidates then vote for a third party or write-in a candidate! Your candidate could win. List of third party wins: . http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: the governance of the United States should be split between the two major US political parties Content: Effect on democratic participation

Title: Voter photo id laws. Content: Rebuttal round (1) Photo ID laws place a severe burden on a significant number of voters. "Studies indicate that 11 percent of American citizens, more than 21 million people, don"t have a state-issued photo ID." The study linked to does indeed show that number. What my opponent fails to show is how many of those 21 million people can still easily vote, with their military ID, government or employer ID, school ID, certificate of live birth, passports and several other methods that escape me at the moment. Claiming that 22 million people are cut off from voting as a result of a few common sense laws to eliminate voter fraud is extremely dishonest. My opponent cites a few studies that show voter ID does effect voter turn out, but let's take a look at what these citations, actually say. "Voter identification requirements alone do not determine turnout. Multivariate models that take into account other predictors of voting can paint a more complete picture of the relationship between voter identification requirements and turnout." http://www.brennancenter.org... "Indiana passed its voter ID law in 2005, and it is among the strictest in the nation. The law requires voters to present a state or federal government-issued photo ID with a valid expiration date.47 If the voter does not possess an ID, they may cast a provi- sional ballot. In order for the ballot to be counted, the voter must appear before the circuit court clerk or county election board within ten days eitherto present ID or to execute an affidavit declaring that the voter is indigent or has a religious objection to being photographed.48 Indiana does provide a free voter ID card, but obtaining it requires identification documentation. The district court found that the law placed no significant burden on the right to vote. " http://journalistsresource.org... Even my opponents citations, support my position. "note that photo ID laws impose much more than a small cost; low-income individuals simply cannot afford to pay $75 to $175 just so that they can vote. That cost virtually guarantees that they won't vote, given the perception that their "one vote" won't matter." I don't know where my opponent is getting his stats, but my ID cost me $20. In Indiana where they have voter ID laws, they made state issued ID's free for those who couldn't afford them. I think we can all afford free. (2) Voter-impersonation fraud is exceedingly rare and doesn't justify photo ID requirements. Voter impersonation fraud happens, and it happens frequently. We can use Occam's Razor to know this. People will get away, with what they can, and when it comes to idealogues, the ends always justifies the means. I think we can all agree that idealogues are quite attracted to the political realm. The reason it is so hard to detect in person voter fraud is because it is almost untraceable. It is not like the person showing up, shows ID and that ID to prove their identity. We just have to have the honor factor, without voter ID laws. Do you guys actually trust the guys on the other side of the aisle not to cheat? We know in voter fraud occurs, because every time a watchdog organization attempts to do it, they are successful. According to the National Review: "But New York City"s watchdog Department of Investigations has just provided the latest evidence of how easy it is to commit voter fraud that is almost undetectable. DOI undercover agents showed up at 63 polling places last fall and pretended to be voters who should have been turned away by election officials; the agents assumed the names of individuals who had died or moved out of town, or who were sitting in jail. In 61 instances, or 97 percent of the time, the testers were allowed to vote. Those who did vote cast only a write-in vote for a "John Test" so as to not affect the outcome of any contest." http://www.nationalreview.com... Even if one of these voters were caught (highly unlikely), it would still be difficult to prosecute them. "Lawyers say that fraud is the most difficult crime to prove because showing that the act complained of actually happened is not enough. It must be proven that the perpetrator had intent to defraud. Like any fraud, voter fraud is by its nature generally very difficult to detect and prosecute. Voter fraud in the form of actual fraudulent balloting is especially hard to demonstrate in court. A prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person voted without having the right to vote, used fraud (deception) in the process, and intended to defraud the victim (in this case, the public). These facts can be hard to establish after the voter leaves the polling place." http://www.americanthinker.com... If this was election time, I'd take a hidden camera into a polling place and commit voter fraud to submit for evidence, right now.

Title: There is significant proof of election fraud in New Hampshire as of 1/11/08 Content: My opponent has failed to prove that there was any election fraud, citing only his own suspicions of voter fraud due to what he sees as discrepancy in the numbers. He has yet to reply to any of my arguments.

Title: The new DDO Voting System is superior to the old Content: Thanks for the debate. Before I begin, I want everyone to know that Pro has the BoP – in the event neither system is proven better, I win. Other logical fallacies I’m really quite shocked at how many logical fallacies riddle my opponent’s arguments – how much sense can you be making with this many fallacies? Slippery slope fallacies ~ A1: “Not only can a voter simply express their opinion in their RFD, but taken to it's logical conclusion this argument would lead to a template with hundreds of categories for everything that is important in a debate.” B2: “taken to it's (spelling and grammar) full conclusion this argument would support nearly limitless categories for everything that's important in a debate.” (For both) Just because I’m arguing for the old system’s voting categories being better than the new system, it does not mean that I am arguing for the extreme. Clearly, the old system did not have ‘hundreds’ of categories, and so I am not required to defend that. Strawmans ~ A1: “She argues that a voter cannot express their "true thoughts" on a debate without the categories, but this is just ridiculous.” I argued that, “this competent voter is unable to express his/her true thoughts of the debate in point form”. It’s not just “true thoughts” (i.e. qualitative reason), as my opponent has incorrectly stated. It’s ‘true thoughts in point form’ (i.e. points delegated via true thought). ~ A2: “Zarroette offers no proof whatsoever of widespread voteboming under the new system.” I argued the theoretical likelihood of being able to get away with votebombing, not this. Pro’s case I. One man two votes Voting does not exist in a vacuum – simply giving your vote twice the amount of points of another does not mean that: 1. It is legitimate 2. It will survive Illegitimate votes, under the old system, were not tolerated. The GWL example, wherein he tacked on illegitimate RFDs (as I explained earlier), makes the vote null (and subject for deletion), NOT more valuable than good ones. “Zarroette makes literally no response to the instances of bad voting I performed.” You can vote poorly under EITHER system. It’s just that the old voting system LESSENED the potential for poorer votes, due to its structure. “Remember that I can do the same thing on close and contentious debates and the moderators are not going to stop me.” There is a difference between moderation and the voting system. II. Strategic voting These are the arguments I made against this point: 1. Under the old voting system, strategic voting wasn’t tolerated 2. MODERATION of the old system was wanting, as my opponent showed with Airmax’s policy of allowing votes as long as there was an RFD 3. It’s much harder to detect strategic voting under the new system, because of the sheer vagueness of the voting standard: ‘who do you believe won the debate?’ It’s through having the “toolbox” that votes can be broken down to see if they are legitimate. “…given DDO's small active population 17 is probably a pretty representative sample.” The fact that my opponent thinks this poll is sufficient as evidence is an insult to everyone’s intelligence: 1. It suffers from the small sample-size fallacy (17 debaters, when there are more than 35, 000 debates) 2. People are not bound by anything to be honest with their vote 3. Conversely, if you’re to say that the sample size is just fine, I could flip this and say that during the old system’s time on DDO (many years), only 17 people have involved themselves in strategic voting (remember all the other positives that it brings!) III. Competition and debate “…a simple spelling error would be a violation of the rules under the old policy, but obviously it isn't because I did that very thing twice and my votes still remain in place.” The moderation of illegitimate votes, and the voting system that determines what an illegitimate vote is, are different. This conflation is incorrect. (about debating irl)“…The vast majority of judges are very adept at writing the arguments made down…” Writing down =/= already written down, which is what I said. Neg’s case Tool tips vs. Moderation policy Why are the tool-tips better than ‘who do you think won the debate’? 1. Provides better structure. There are indicators of when to vote on the important aspects of a debate. There are even indicators of when to vote on arguments, which my opponent agreed are the most important aspect of a debate (and the new system lacks). 2. Gives new members an understanding of when to vote. ‘Who do you think won the debate?’ doesn’t even come close to the tool-tips standards, in this regard 3. Gives veteran members more chance to differentiate components of the debate, rather than a ‘winner takes all’ outcome 4. Provides less creative licence to justify what is essentially a vote-bomb. Under the old system, I must justify the voting according to the tool-tips. Under the new system, I can justify however I wish, as long as it’s who I think won “Zarroette made no response to my argument that these guidelines still don't explain *when* to vote.” Wrong. I made it several times. I showed the tool-tip in which it tells you when to vote. I worked through your S&G point of when S&G points should be given, as you refer to in the sentence after the one I’m quoting. “If Pro makes one spelling error and Con makes zero, if I follow the tool tips I should award 33% of the argument value to Con because of one misspelled word in thousands” Having the potential of this extreme (it’s unlikely that both debaters will only make one mistake, altogether, S&G wise) is better than having: 1. Less of an incentive to spell and apply grammar well 2. Having the excessively vague voting standard of ‘who do you believe won this debate?’ – it essentially allows you, under the new system, to justify the vote with whatever you think, as long as it’s why you believe someone won the debate. “moderation policy is all that matters when it comes to the deletion of votes, not the tool tips and she hasn't even explained why these should be binding over the moderators policy.” We’re debating which voting system is better, not whether moderation policy should be binding over voting system rules. “if her system is unworkable without many more moderators we should prefer mine.” Not unworkable, since DDO had it for a long time. Besides, it will be worth the extra moderator or two. Voting complexity It’s not “infinitely harder” to explain the old system (no proof from opponent to the contrary), and that doesn’t mean it’s hard to explain (it’s really quite simple, thanks to the tool-tips). The new system is over-simplified: ‘who do you think won the debate?’ does not pertain to the level of depth required to vote with quality on a debate. Why the increased complexity is good: 1. Allows competent voters the chance to better differentiate the debate 2. Allows newer voters to gain an understanding of how to structure a quality vote 3. Easier to detect fraudulent votes “Zarroette makes no response to my argument that if we follow this argument all the way it advocates a system with hundreds of categories.” Slippery slope fallacy. Fraudulent votes I’ve explained this elsewhere, in terms of old voting rules not allowing this and requiring more complex RFDs. Incentives My opponent has conceded that the voting point allocations of the old system gave points to important components of a debate. If your arguments are better, you won’t lose based on S&G. “Zarroette makes no response to my rebuttal about how the old system encourages debaters to use bad tactics such as source spamming to try to gain points.” It’s not permitted in the old voting rules – this is not encouraged. Bias “Vote Con only if you want your debate to be decided by an RFD like "sources on Con's side aid his argument more." That’s not a legitimate vote, under the old system. Interestingly though, such a vote would be permitted, under the new system. Thank you for reading :)

Title: Technology to give all a vote Content: "I had a dream where I have seen a future in which we use the technology already available to us, enabling humans to have a direct voice in how governments operate." Pro The technology is already present, its called the internet. Con will contend against the resolution on the grounds that not everyone should have a vote. Babies, mentally handicapped, and comatose patients should not get a vote. Next, a lot of the legal language is incredibly complex and even if the common folk could understand, many would opt not to understand and vote anyways. This is just Con's opening statements. Con will make a full argument next round. Note the resolution could be more clear.

Title: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory Content: I hereby state that the opinions stated below and the arguments presented do not necessarily dictate my personal opinions.As commonly proposed, democracy is of the people, for the people, and by the people. The basis of democracy depends on the effectiveness of the state to grant its citizens with the right to vote and the citizens to respect that right. Democracy exists on the notion that all the eligible citizens vote for a future that they would like to see. However, in many democracies, today, a decrease in this number of eligible citizens at the voting booths has been witnessed. This is why I call for voting to be compulsory in all effective democracies. I will first present a mechanism that will address the issues at hand. Then, I will refute the arguments presented by Con as I go through my first two arguments and get to any points of rebuttal left at the end. Mechanism: All registered voters will be asked to compulsorily cast a vote during the elections. However, for those who do not have a chosen candidate or do not wish to vote on the particular election, there will be an option to not vote which would say something on the lines of “I wish to abstain from voting”. Those citizens who are registered, but do not place a vote, will be withdrawn from the list of registered voters, until they register again. On the second time of registration, they will be fined a decently hefty amount. So, we are looking into a system where a onetime registered person will be expected to vote each election year. There will be an additional law added which will ask all employers to give a day off for each one of their employees such that workload does not become an issue of low turnout.Argument 1: A better distinction between the citizens. People who are registered voters have an interest in voting for the country. By mandating them to vote each year, we are keeping our responsible eligible voters active. The turnout rate has gone very low with unequal turnout also a big issue. However, what the status quo does not tell us is the real reason behind this low turnout. Once this distinction is made, the state will be more aware of their political institutions. This will then help them see if attention should be paid to improve the campaigning systems and the procedure of political election. If many people vote to abstain, then the state will have to make sure that the political leaders express themselves better and also will have to see that a diversity of principles are presented by the leading parties. Con argued that the registered voters not voting is mainly due to reason that they are “not particularly excited by any candidates, or because they are disenchanted by their favored political Party”. The best way to confirm this will be by asking these voters to show up at the polling stations and pick the option that says they would like to abstain. This practice will help us distinguish between the people who see the political parties of the particular year to be not legit from those who just do not want to make the effort to vote. There are many other reasons for which one may not like to vote. One, being diversion from the workload and other being laziness. To make sure that these reasons do not rule the low turnout, the proposed mechanism should be adopted. The lazy people will be ousted from the registered voters list and would have to pay a penalty if they want to vote the next time. However, some of these smart lazy people will be able to see that they could save a fine and the time spent on the process of registering by going to the polling station. And if they are just going there, why not have at least some information about the parties. This will increase the effectiveness of a democracy, which will be addressed in Argument 3. Argument 2: Unfairness abolished It is important to notice that politicians place a lot of focus on making sure that their supporters go to the polling stations and place their votes, without regards to those who would probably not vote. However, if the proposed mechanism is adopted and voting is made compulsory for all registered voters, politicians will now have to make sure that most of the registered voters vote for them. They will also have to focus on the hard labor workers who could sometimes not make it to the polling stations and those people who did believe that the parties were not any good this election period. Con argued that “the duties and rights of citizens are importantly different from those of their representatives, because the latter have powers and responsibilities that the former do not...Citizens do not owe their government electoral support or legitimacy.” This claim supports a system where democracy can never work effectively. Not only democracy, any institution cannot work without a mutual share of duties of the powerful and the ruled. The citizens do have a responsibility to vote, which in our system, could also be a vote of abstention. How can citizens expect to take advantage of a democratic institution without fulfilling their own job of placing a vote? Except those who have researched and did not get fascinated by a candidate, all the other citizens have a duty to keep tuned with the political parties and then make a decision. Secondly, Con emphasized that compulsory voting takes away the right of people to have a choice, which Con suggested was “the point of democracy”. I would like to also emphasize that in the proposed mechanism this choice of the people will be respected. They will be given a choice to vote or not and for whom to vote. The proposed mechanism will both support the rights of the people and ask them to perform their duties.Argument 3: Democratic Ideals promotedThis argument will be presented in the next round.Remaining rebuttals to Con’s case:Con was worried about the fines that will follow after people will not vote. Con was right to say that this would negatively affect the poor and may increase the number of criminals who owe fine debt. However, the mechanism clearly states that a fine will only have to be paid if one wishes to register again. This will work as an incentive for registered voters to not skip a voting period. And if for some reason they do, they will not have to worry about a fine until the next elections and will only have to worry if they wish to vote next time.None of the Con’s arguments so far have shown a downfall to the proposed mechanism for the motion at hand. The mechanism works really well to make a distinction between the citizens and find out the weaknesses of the political institutions of a state and also abolishes unfairness on many grounds. This is why I urge a strong Proposition vote.

Title: The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting. Content: In this round I will address all of my opponent's contentions and then reaffirm the resolution. 1. Actually that wouldn't happen. If you don't want a candidate to win, you don't rank them at all and leave the box blank. So if you want the Democrat to win but like none of the others, and if the Democrat gets eliminated in the first round, then you're not electing another candidate whom you don't like. 2. They can already corrupt the system in the status quo. In the scenario you gave, David wouldn't necessarily win because you're assuming that 100% of John supporters ranked David #2, which is highly unlikely. You say that people in this system would just listen to others without doing research, but I'll remind you that that also happens very much in today's FPTP system. 3. If you were to do a poll using the "regular" First Past The Post system we used today, found the "early predicted winner", and then did an election using an entirely different system, of course the results will be different. The point of the system is to find a candidate that most people would actually want to have, and so people voting for a 3rd party candidate would be justified. 4. That doesn't have to do with Instant Runoff Voting but more of people today. It's irrelevant. 5. http://www.oilempire.us... "Those who cast the vote decide nothing, those who count the vote decide everything." - Joseph Stalin According to Black Box Voting (blackboxvoting.org), an independent company investigating voter fraud, hand counting the paper ballots is actually quicker. The machines can break down at any time, and when they do, they must spend hours trying to fix it. The machines are also more susceptible to corruption. They can easily alter the results and hackers can change the outcome (for more see HBO's "Hacking Democracy"). So not only would hand counting be quicker and cheaper, it would also be more reliable (assuming they did the correct thing by allowing the public to watch the counting, like in Germany). The purpose of IRV is that you can rank #1 a candidate whom you agree with the most. Especially if they are a 3rd party candidate. In the current voting system, if you vote for a 3rd party candidate, you are throwing your vote away. You can't get the majority of people collectively in the FPTP system to elect a 3rd party candidate. In cases like the Bush-Gore recount, while it may take longer, but it would be worth the significant change that could benefit everyone.