The United States Should Adopt the Single Transferable Vote

Final RebuttalsProportionalitySTV is a proportional system, and is considered that because it has granted Proportional results when it has been used. This is expliained in the video posted in round one which explains how STV works.In further detail, like all Proporional systems it requires a quota and allows any party or candidate that reaches said quota to get a seat until all seats are filled. Under the FPTP system, which is a plurality system, the single candidate who gets the plurality of the votes wins.http://esm.ubc.ca...Spoiler EffectThe Con seems not to understand why FPTP creates the spoiler effect. With FPTP voters only get to select one candidate, and by voting for that one candidate they are not voting for another candidate. By voting for a third party which has little chance of winning, they have taken a vote away from a less preferable candidate who has a higher chance, potentially causing that candidate to lose to the least favoured option.STV, like all Ranked Choice systems, eliminates this by allowing voters to rank the candidates. When the ballots are counted, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choice votes are counted and this is continued until a candidate reaches the quorum or all seats are filled. With STV all votes surpassing the Quorum are also transferred to other candidates.By allowing voters to rank the candidates, they are more willing to vote for the candidate they like the best, even though they will likley be eliminated early on. Once their first choice is eliminated, their second choice vote is counted and this goes to the more likley but more preferred candidate.GerrymanderingThe Con seems not to understand that Gerrymandering is simply an advantage of the STV system. While there are other ways to eliminate Gerrymandering, STV nullifies Gerrymandering, in addition to other advantages. This debate is about the single transferable vote system, not about alternate solutions for Gerrymandering. If the Con would like an alternative plan to solve for this, the con was abel to propose it in previous rounds as a counterplan.Examples Prove The article cited by the Con regarding the use of STV in Malta stated "..there are sometimes unique circumstances that lead to unexpected results." This is exactly what happened in Regards to Malta in 1981. In that year Malta had a strict 2 party system, even more so than in the United States, as here in the US third parties do exist and can accumlate strength at locla levels, in Malta at the time they did not exist in practicality, even though they do exist today. Furthermore, it was a common practice in those Maltese elections for parties to nominate many more candidates than could possibly win in a district. This makes transfering the votes to other candidates very difficult and votes become exhausted very quickly. These practices have only been seen in Malta, and in Australia and Ireand the system has never seen anything of this sort.The artice also stated that "STV has many favorable characteristics in theory and has worked well in Ireland, Malta, and Australia in practice." This is a clear endorsement of my contention and this argument should be flowed to the Pro.ConclusionI can only see a vote for the Pro in this debate for the followng reasons: 1. I as the pro have demonstrated the problems with the First Past the Post system and how the Single Transferable Vote is a solution 2. I have provided ample evidence as to why the Single Transferable Vote System is a better system than FPTP, and therefore have met the burden of Proof. 3. The Con has failed to disprove any of my contentions, rather citing an example of how instant runoff voting (a different system) is flawed, which he demonstrated incorrectly, and cited a single example of an anomally in Malta, using an article which endorse my contention. 4. In the firs round, the Con stated that he would argue that FPTP is a better system. However not once in his arguments has he shown how FPTP is a better system that STV and has not responeded to any of my arguments as to the Problems with FPTP. Silence is compliance and therefore has conceeded my arguments against FPTP. For these reasons I can only see a Pro vote in this debate and I encourage the voters to take these into consideration when voting.