Do electronic voting machines improve the voting process?

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

Efficiency

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

Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise

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

Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.

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

Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability

In many Western democracies, voter turnout has been falling while voter apathy appears to be rising. In the UK, voter turnout fell sharply between 1997-2000, and the last general election in 2010 saw only 65% of potential voters cast a vote[1]. In the USA, the federal election of 2010 saw only 37.8% of potential voters cast their vote[2]. Voter turnouts across Europe follow this trend[3]. When so few people participate in the key act of democracy – voting for the political leader of the country – it begins to raise worrying questions about the legitimacy of that democracy in the first place. If electronic or internet voting was introduced as an option alongside more traditional polling methods, it would expands the accessibility of the voting system in general. Internet or electronic voting would be a strategic practical measure. It would make voting convenient for busy modern citizens because it minimalises the amount of effort each individual has to contribute – namely, they do not have to travel to the polling stations[4]. As such, it removes physical restrictions on the voting process and becomes more universally accessible. This would prevent people from being unable to vote because they are ‘too busy’[5] – whether this is simply because their local polling station is too far away for them to commute to, or to fit in alongside their other daily responsibilities based at work or home[6][7]. [1] http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [2] http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html, accessed 22/08/11 [3] http://www.euractiv.com/en/elections/voter-turnout-european-election-lower/article-117868, accessed 22/08/11. [4] https://files.nyu.edu/tsc223/public/ElectronicVoting.pdf, accessed 25/08/11 [5] http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11 [6] In the USA: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/whynotvote.htm, accessed 22/08/11 [7] In the UK: http://www.census.gov/prod/3/98pubs/cenbr984.pdf, accessed 22/08/11

Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible

Electronic voting can make the franchise more accessible

allow the use of electronic and internet voting in state-organised elections

Efficiency

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

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.

Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote

Electronic voting will create a more cost effective franchise

Electronic voting may harm the principle of democratic accountability

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.

Democratisation

Compulsory voting increases the number of people who cast their vote 1. People who know they will have to vote will take politics more seriously and start to take a more active role. Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled. Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain.  This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary. 1 Peter Tucker, The median Australian voter and the values that influence their vote choice presented by the author at the 3rd European Consortium for Political Research Conference in Budapest, September 10, 2005. improve this

It will cause more people to become interested in politics

The electoral college may have made sense many years ago when it took weeks to hand deliver votes by horseback to Washington, DC but it no longer makes sense. With today's technology it is possible to tally everyone's vote quickly and securely. Unfortunately, the current implementation of electronic voting is lacking from a security perspective but that shouldn't affect the scope of this debate as it could be fixed and implemented using current technology. Giving more power to residents of Wyoming over the residents of California is simply not fair. Each and every american is as much as American as the other one and each of their vote should be counted equally regardless of any state borders. Of course California should have more influence as it contains many more Americans than Wyoming. While states can and should regulate themselves, when it comes to our nation, we are all the same. As far as susceptibility to manipulation and corruption, with proper multi-factor authentication, authorization, cryptography and other strong security controls being used, a modern system can be significantly more trustworthy than this archaic system. The current system rely on trusting people which are often shown to be corrupt [1]. Using blockchain technology to vote could be used to provide much more secure voting with built-in validation vs. the current system [2]. In addition, as you have stated, 1% of electors sometime do not vote per their constituents which is 1% too much. A properly designed, vetted, tested and peer reviewed algebraic solution to voting would represent the will of the people 100% of the time. In conclusion, the electoral college had a purpose that it no longer serves. By switching to a better and more secure system, the will of the people would be respected 100% of the time and the risk of tampering with election results would be significantly reduced. Sources: http://www.politico.com... [1] https://followmyvote.com... [2]

The electoral college system is more fair and effective than the popular vote system.

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

Efficiency

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

Engagement with democracy

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

Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion

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.

It appears that my opponent's only true objection is the possibility of hacking. In the first round, I stated that such a system could be created and regularly updated to prevent intrusion from pirates and hackers, thereby dismantling my opponent's only objection. As such, no new evidence is admissible. The benefits clearly outweigh the cons. My opponent agreed on several points, at least in theory, that this is indeed a good concept. With the sole objection addressed and countered, and concurrence with my ideals, I respectfully request an Affirmative ballot. Thanks.

Online voting should replace traditional voting.

Modernisation

A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. The outcome of the election reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?).

Compulsory voting reduces power of lobbying groups.

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

Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.

Voter apathy cannot be solely attributed to having to walk to your local polling station. It can also be attributed to general disillusionment with the campaigning political parties, and the idea that none of them will perform well in government[1]. Political parties which focus more strongly on national rather than constituency campaigning can also inspire voter apathy[2]. The problems behind voter apathy are far greater than can be solved by trying to change the practical aspect of voting; it is the fact that voters often feel neglected by their government which is a far greater concern[3]. [1] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://otago.ourarchive.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/1456/voter_turnout.pdf, accessed 24/08/11 [3] http://www.independentliaison.com.au/Independent_values.html, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion

Voter apathy

Democratisation

Computer literacy is constantly on the rise[1][2]. In state-run secondary schools, children are provided with information and technology classes which helps to bridge any existing divide[3], and there are discussions about extending these lessons to primary schools. Easily-accessible community classes are also available to seniors[4][5]. Moreover, given the opportunity to save money through electronic voting rather than having to pay for polling station venues, manual vote counters and so on, this money could easily be redirected to provide computer lessons for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, or to funnel into state libraries and public computer resources. This mechanism is a much more efficient way of making sure that everybody is able to participate. [1] Children in the UK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/click_online/5223192.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [2] In the USA: http://computerliteracyusa.web.officelive.com/default.aspx [3] http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7770469.stm, accessed 24/08/11 [4] Across the USA: http://pittsburgh.about.com/od/computer_classes/Computer_Training_Classes_User_Groups.htm, accessed 24/08/11 [5] In the UK: http://www.ageuk.org.uk/work-and-learning/, accessed 24/08/11

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!

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...

"should voting be done online"

Engagement with democracy

My opponent doesn't respond to most of my arguments and doesn't describe anything in his sources. I'll rebut a few things he says real quick and then restate my case in the last round. {{{ Adding candidates alters the outcome now }}} This is only true if you add a candidate who gets the most votes. Under IRV, you can add a candidate who has very little support, but who splits the vote count of the *most* popular candidate enough so that this candidate loses and is eliminated before the last "round" of voting. For example, candidate A could have 60% of the vote to candidate B's 40% in a head-to-head matchup. But if enough candidates run that are similar to candidate A in ideology, candidate B advances to the finals, but candidate A was eliminated early on, allowing candidate B to beat a weaker opponent. Candidate B could even have his friends run with similar political platforms to candidate A in order to have him eliminated early. {{{ Is Hand-Counting the Votes under IRV feasible? }}} As to hand counting votes vs. machine tallying, there has yet to be a reported incident of hacking. The machines are a closed system, which is nearly impossible to hack. In contrast, my opponent drops all my arguments as to why having openly partisan election officials hand-counting ballots - with little to no oversight - is a bad idea. {{{ Voting 3rd Party }}} My opponent claims that IRV is easier to understand. This makes no sense. The current system is whoever you vote for gets your vote: vote for the candidate you want. Under IRV, there are scenarios where you are HURTING your candidates chances by voting for him. This system is far more complicated. In addition, 3rd Parties don't suddenly win under IRV, as seen in the UK. But even if they did, my opponent drops all my arguments about having more than 2 parties under a presidential system of government is BAD. {{{ Awarding Electors Proportionately }}} My opponent claims that no states do this. He is wrong, quite simply. Nebraska and Maine currently award electors proportionally instead of winner-take-all, and many other states are considering moving towards proportional awarding of electors. [1] My opponent still doesn't respond to the argument that awarding electors proportionally solves many of the problems with winner-take-all, without the baggage of IRV (overcomplicating the system, allowing the majority candidate to lose, strategic voting, additional candidates altering the outcome, etc). [1] http://www.archives.gov...

The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.

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

A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.

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

Would complicate elections

I am not arguing that Hillary rigged the election. This is irrelevant. Please be sure to argue for your actual position in round 2, which should be that the recounts will change the results of the election. I don't believe the recounts will change the outcome of the election because in order for Hillary Clinton to win at this point, all three of the aforementioned states will have to come out as Hillary actually winning. The chances that all of the three states will do this seems very small. Perhaps 1 will, but that won't be enough for Hillary to get to the 270 electoral votes needed to win. Donald Trump will still have more than 270 even if one or two of those states is lost. The recent objection is with the voting machines themselves, and some computer experts believe many voting machines in each of the aforementioned states have been hacked. However, while it is true that the voting machines are pretty archaic, for they use a Windows 2000 style of programming, almost none are connected to the internet [1] and cannot be hacked that way. In order for them to be hacked, the person would have to have access to the voting machine or the voting cards and tamper with either. The likelihood that this occurred in all three states in a widespread enough of a manner to effect the election seems slim. It would take a lot of coordination, and people would have had to have had access to either of those two things, which are under strict protection by the states they reside in up until election day. And on election day, poll workers are watching the machines the entire time. Bottom line, is that it seems very unlikely any such hacking occurred on such a large scale, and it doesn't seem likely all three of the states will end up going to Hillary Clinton Source: [1] http://www.nbcnews.com...

The recounts in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania will change the outcome of the election

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.

Automatic Voter Registration

Remote electronic voting can be conducted very safely.

William Galston, senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution. "Mandatory voting would loosen partisan gridlock." US News and World Report. July 8th, 2010: "In Australia, the case that I know the best, these nonvoters who are being drafted into the political system were referred to pejoratively as 'donkey voters' [who vote for candidates based only on their order on the ballot]. But in fact, once they have to vote, they may work a little bit harder than they would have otherwise to know what's going on."

First-time voters will better inform themselves.

Your system is way too complex for simple positions like mayor and counselman. One reason people don't vote is because they don't understand how their vote will make a difference. How is putting peoples' votes through a middle man (your proposed added congress) helping the weight of their vote? It gives them no more motivation. If anything, all it does is complicate the system. You failed to explain how the congressmen would get elected. I agree with you on the fact that people should use their right to vote more often, but this is not the solution. It is a waste of money.

United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.

It is highly unlikely that this would be the case across all 600+ constituencies of the UK. Furthermore, an abstention vote means 'do not count me', not 'don't elect anyone'. The number of votes in this category therefore do not matter, so long as the real candidate with the most wins the seat. (It would be different if the option were to Re-Open Nominations, but that has not been proposed.)

Compulsory Voting Does not enhance democracy

In a similar way that the secret ballot is designed to prevent interference with the votes actually cast, compulsory voting prevents interference with access to the vote. Compelling voters to the polls for an election mitigates the impact that external factors may have on an individual's capacity to vote such as the weather, transport, or restrictive employers. It is a measure to prevent disenfranchisement of the socially disadvantaged. Polls are generally held on a Saturday or Sunday as evidenced in nations such as Australia, to ensure that working people can fulfill their duty to cast their vote. Similarly, mobile voting booths may also be taken to old age homes and hospitals to cater for immobilized citizens, and postal voting may be provided for people who are away from their electorate on election day.

Compulsory voting helps protect voter access.

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]

In the past, it was impractical to organise frequent referendums due to the difficulty and expense of holding them. But with the advent of the internet and mass media, it is now easier than ever to consult the public on issues of concern to them. For example, Switzerland regularly holds referendums on all sorts of issues in an efficient manner which commands widespread public support. [1] [1] Gerlach, Jan; Gasser, Urs. “Three Case Studies from Switzerland: E-Voting”, Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, March 2009. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/Gerlach-Gasser_SwissCases_Evoting.pdf

Modern technology makes consultation easier than ever.

A benefit of compulsory voting is that it makes it more difficult for special interest groups to vote themselves into power. Under a non-compulsory voting system, if fewer people vote then it is easier for smaller sectional interests and lobby groups to control the outcome of the political process. A notable example would be the disproportionate influence of agriculture in policy making as seen in both European politics and well as American with enormous amounts of subsidies for farmers who represent a minute percentage of the population. 1 2  The outcome of the election therefore reflects less the will of the people (Who do I want to lead the country?) but instead reflects who was logistically more organized and more able to convince people to take time out of their day to cast a vote (Do I even want to vote today?). 1 Ira M. Sheskin and Arnold Dashefsky, "Jewish Population of the United States, 2006," in the American Jewish Year Book 2006, Volume 106, David Singer and Lawrence Grossman, Editors. NY: American Jewish Committee, 2006. 2: Mark Weber, Feb. 2009, 'A Straight Look at the Jewish Lobby', Institute for Historical Review (Accessed 10/06/2011) improve this

It will reduce the power of special interest groups

Only where the ballot offers a "none of the above" option can compulsory voting being truly democratic. However, where this is the case if the "none of the above" option achieves over 50% of the vote does democracy simply fail and the state fall into anarchy? that would be truly democratic, although, hardly pragmatic. Consider that in most British elections the majority is not in fact the winning party, but in fact, the non-voters.

I would like to debate someone on the effectiveness of the electoral system over the popular system. The electoral college assigns values to states depending on population size, and all of the points for a state are awarded to a candidate when that candidate receives majority vote in that SPECIFIC state. The popular vote is a simple majority vote of the entire nation. I have started this debate because of the rising controversy from Hillary winning the popular vote, but not the electoral vote. The first round is ACCEPTANCE ONLY, so please be courteous and don't present an argument until the second round. You may ask me questions about the topic, but no more than that. This debate is only 3 rounds, because people keep forgetting to post arguments after about 3 rounds, which ruins the debates. Sorry if you wanted to debate more rounds than 3.

well, first off, i dont think that voter justification is needed because we can assume that the voter identifies more closely with the arguments of the debater he/she voted for. to add that option could create a regurgitation of information, or-for the keyboard happy- countless paragraphs of why so and so agrees with so-so. when we vote for a winner we already make a point of where we stand and why, any additional information from voters can be provided in the comment boxes which is what i sometimes do. as far as your experiment goes, you have no way to prove, or have not proven, how many people read how far, yet voted for you anyways. i denote that it may be too ambitious to rule out someone saw the message but voted against nazis not being evil because they wanted to stay in tune with their own ethics. i think our current voting system is fine because its simple and to the point. maybe next time you can request that voters leave a reason, because even if it is mandatory whose to say someone will insert real reasons of substance.

Voting on debate.org should be significantly overhauled

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

The Voting System on Debate.org Needs VAST Improvement

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.

Democracy would be better if all citizens did not have an equal vote

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

"should voting be done online"

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.

Thanks for taking the time to debate me on this, and thanks to the debaters for reading this and voting.

Compulsory voting hides the problem which is causing people to be disengaged from politics; it allows politicians to ignore measures that can tackle the true causes of political disengagement.   States instead should seek on strategies that will eliminate barriers to voting along with reducing the costs of turnout for its citizens, weekend voting, making election days a holiday, simple registration procedures, reforms such as to the party finance rules to widen the playing field, and the creation of a centralized, professional bureaucracy concerned with all aspects of election administration. In the UK, for example, adopting a more proportional system will allow for a political spectrum rather than the three major parties that currently dominate.     improve this

There are alternatives that tackle the real causes of voter disengagement

VOTING ISSUES My opponent concedes that not-voting has ZERO advantages while VOTING has at least some advantages. Therefore, on balance, you must vote PRO.In this debate I don’t need to prove that voting is "the best thing you can do" nor that our electoral system is perfect. I only need to prove that voting is BETTER than not-voting. My opponent argued in round 2 that voting cannot solve every problem, granted, but he conceded that voting has some advantages while not-voting has zero advantages; therefore you must vote PRO. Round 1: Grandbudda: “I agree that most of the time it's better to vote than not to vote“ Round 2: Grandbudda: “I don't suggest that you shouldn't vote” Grandbudda asserted supposed advantages of not-voting in round 1; all of which were refuted in my opening round 2 response. PREFER EVIDENCE OVER MERE ASSERTION. Many of Grandbudda’s arguments are big claims with ZERO evidence. Regardless of your personal biases, in a debate claims should be backed up with hard evidence. Read over his round 2 case and count the amount of claims he makes with zero evidence. All of my arguments are supported with examples from recent history or I cite studies with a link to a reputable website. Prefer the side that uses empirical evidence. VOTE PRO.He failed to attack all of the PRO VOTING advantages I spelled out in round 2. In debate, if you fail to respond to an argument then you concede the argument. He failed to defend any of his non-voting advantages in his round 2 response, opting instead to spend the entire round making these three points in one form or another: 1) Sometimes ignorant people vote and that’s bad 2) Voting is irrational because most elections aren’t decided by a single vote 3) Sometimes politicians do not keep all of their election promises Let’s consider each of these points one by one 1) Grandbudda: Ignorant People Shouldn't VoteHierocles:Prefer a Rawlsian Ethical Analysis Over Assuming A Voter is Ignorant Because of Her Race or Age Who's to say who is too ignorant to vote? It’s convenient to assume that voters whom you disagrees with are misguided. But if you place yourself in the shoes of the person(s) in question then you will probably NOT assume that YOU are ignorant or misguided. In Grandbudda’s example he argues that people like Rock the Vote’s young people are too ignorant to vote. Grandbudda fails to consider the Rawlsian Original Position. He fails to realize that he could be a new voter who registered with Rock the Vote. You could be a young American voter in 2007 considering whether or not to vote. You know that you are worried about student debt, the war in Iraq, and health care. Therefore, you vote for Obama because he campaigned on the issues you care about. Since 2008, American troops have pulled out of Iraq, student loan interest is down, and health-care reform (for better or worse) has passed, just as Obama promised. Although Obama is imperfect, according to the Pulitzer Prize winning PolitiFact, Obama has kept approx. 70% of his campaign promises. Therefore, my opponent’s assertion that politicians never keep their campaign promises is clearly false. (More on this below in contention 3.)<http://www.politifact.com...> Grandbudda argues that “citizens who are young, uneducated, or otherwise less likely to be engaged” should not vote. Assuming that people you’ve never met are too ignorant to vote because of their age, class, or race is prejudiced and wrong. Who’s to say what people are “less likely to be engaged”? Instead of assuming that others are ignorant, use the Rawlsian Original Position to place yourself in the shoes of the person in question. 2) Grandbudda: Voting is Irrational Because a US Presidential Election Has Never Been Won By a Single Vote A) Voters are aware that they are working in concert with fellow voters, like voters in the same political party, to achieve a certain objective on election day. Saying voting is irrational is akin to saying singing in a choir is irrational because one singer will not make it a choir. It’s akin to saying attending a parade is irrational because one person won’t make it a parade. This is a logical fallacy of composition. If people don’t vote because they assume that their vote won’t make a difference then that collective decision makes a huge difference in a lower voter turnout. But if people choose to vote because they understand that millions of voters’ collective decision to vote can make a huge difference, then they will make a difference. To quote Henry Ford, “Whether you think you can, or you think you can't--you're right.” Case in point, in 2000 the US president was determined by less than 600 Floridian voters; I think their votes made a HUGE difference. B) In the US over 20 elections have been determined by a single vote. Here’s the list:http://cltr.co.douglas.nv.us... C) Many elections were decided by less than 1% of the electorate: http://en.wikipedia.org... 3) Grandbudda: Voting is a Waste Because Politicians Never Keep Their Campaign Promises This is clearly an empirical/historical question, yet Grandbudda makes the claim with ZERO evidence to back it up. So I’ll provide some evidence. According to the Tampa Bay Time’s Pulitzer Prize winning Fact-Checking project PolitiFact, Obama has met 70% of his campaign promises so far. <http://www.politifact.com...; Obama, love him or hate him, was reelected in 2012 because he’s kept most of his 2008 promises, not because people are stupid. According to PolitiFact, the GOP congressional leaders have kept approx 68% of their 2010 campaign promises. <http://www.politifact.com...; The charge that politicians never keep their campaign promises is false. It’s worth your time to vote. OTHER ISSUES 1) Electoral College: This is off-topic. Besides, a low voter turnout would only worsen this problem, especially for those from the neglected states. 2) Grandbudda: “Our political candidates are picked by monied interests” This is a popular and cynical view to hold, but it’s not supported by the facts. Many times the non-establishment candidate wins the primary. In 2010 over 60 of the congressional races were won by the candidate that had less campaign dough. In many of the bigger spender wins, it could be attributed to advantages reaped from being the incumbent in a safe district. In most close races, the smaller spender won about half of the time. SOURCE:<http://www.opensecrets.org...; If politicians were commodities to be bought and sold then the highest bidder would always win - that's not the case. 3) Regarding Third Parties: Grandbudda: “ I can write in or vote for a third party. The net effect of these actions are to elect the favored candidate of one of the two main parties.” This is not true. Sometimes third parties win. Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org...; Furthemore: “Voting for a third party candidate allows constituents to make a profound statement regarding their dissatisfactions with the platforms of both of the candidates that might be elected. In large numbers, these votes can change the behavior of the two major parties in future elections by encouraging them to incorporate the views of third parties.” <http://www.yale.edu...; Our democracy still has a lot of problems, but inaction solves nothing. As citizens of a democracy, it is our responsibility to add our voices so we are represented in our government. Falling into cynicism is the lazy way out; accept complexity and fight to make it better. In a democracy, your fight will always be more effective if you backup your convictions with a vote; be counted. History proves that progress can be made.

Voting in Elections is Always Better than Not Voting

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.

This site must not require users to confirm their identity first before they can vote.

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.

Online voting should replace traditional voting.

Because mandatory voting means that no large campaign funds are needed to goad voters to the polls, the role of money in politics will decrease. Compulsory voting will reduce spending such as campaign spending on voter turnout. It can also lead to a reduction in the incentive for negative advertising “as there is little to be gained from tactics aimed purely at persuading opposition voters to stay at home” 1. States that sanction fines usually sanction a very low fine, which even the poorest members can afford. Besides, government like the British seem to manage speeding fines just fine, there is no reason to think they wouldn’t be able to manage non-voting fines. However, other measures such as disenfranchisement (Belgium) and denial of public services (Peru, Greece) can be used, which don’t incur a cost for the individual. 1Electoral Reform Society improve this

Policing and financing the system is unmanageable

The benefits obtained from compulsory voting cannot be gained from any of the strategies mentioned by the opposition. Compulsory voting can enhance a sense of community, as everyone is in it together. This can be especially helpful in bringing new people in to community life. It also forces the silent majority to think about elections which safeguards from extremism. improve this

As this is the last the last i will be posting a short argument ,it is as follows: 1. Increased Block Voting - Unions have spent a noticeably greater amount of money since the ruling, and union members have voted more homogeneously. This demonstrates the advent of voting blocks rather than independent thoughtful voting. The results of this is increased political divisiveness as people increasingly vote on partisan lines as opposed to voting on the merits of the candidates" positions and ideas. 2. Increased Non-Voter Influence - Interest groups like unions and corporations do not vote. While election decisions affect them, candidates are supposed to represent the people. Since the ruling, a number of non-voter interests have enacted initiatives which can be characterized as "buying votes" for the candidate of their choice. This has negatively impacted the election process by not only decreasing its legitimacy but also removing the representation of the people.

On balance, the Supreme Court's decision in Citizen's United vs FEC harms the election process

PR results in more engagement in politics as every vote counts (CPA/Wilton Park conference, ‘How can Parliamentarians best re-engage the public?’). Political participation is good and we should care about the low voter turnout in elections that has been caused by first past the post. Surveys show that that those who vote are more engaged in the community in other ways and have better personal wellbeing. Research in Switzerland has shown that voting does make people happier as well as being better informed citizens. The higher the stake the person has, and the more likely their vote is to count the more effort they will make to find out the facts so as to make informed choices.(Marks et al., 2005,  p5-6)

PR increases political engagement which benefits society.

Even if compulsory voting allows for abstention, legitimacy is not improved. It merely allows the government to say 'because there is a 100% turnout, this government is 100% legitimate', which is clearly not the case. Donkey votes, random votes, "just for the fun of it" votes, protest votes and abstentions do NOT contribute to improved legitimacy of the government. There is a reason why some people are less politically active. They neither know nor care about politics. How can their forced input add legitimacy to the mix?

Mandatory voting does not enhance legitimacy of govt.

No networked commuter system is immune to attack or subversion. By their very nature, electronic voting systems must be inter connected and in continuous communication with one another. As a consequence, the devices and methods used to gather votes can also serve as access points to the larger network of vote gathering and counting systems. The most ‘secure’ of websites have been recently hacked. For example, Paypal was hacked by Lulzsec in response to the Wikileaks scandal[1]. Lulzsec also hacked the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[2], supposedly the source of all their national intelligence and top secret information. If anything, recent events have shown us that the internet is an unstable medium for people to conduct personal or professional affairs; we certainly should not allow our voting systems to become even more vulnerable to this kind of attack. A better way to prevent identity fraud would be the simple measure of now requiring polling stations to ask for ID, rather than going to the extreme of online voting. [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/prince-edward-island/story/2011/06/17/pei-lulzsec-personal-internet-accounts-584.html, accessed 24/08/11 [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/8578704/CIA-website-hacked-by-Lulz-Security.html, accessed 24/08/11

Electronic voting is vulnerable to fraud and subversion

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.

Compulsory voting will potentially encourage voters to research the candidates' political positions more thoroughly. This may force candidates to be more open and transparent about their positions on many complex and controversial issues. Citizens will be willing to inform themselves even about unpopular policies and burning issues that need to be tackled (some even at the cost of social benefits). Better-informed voters will, therefore, oppose a plan that is unrealistic or would present an unnecessary budget-drain. This means that such a system could produce better political decisions that are not contradicting each other, quite upon the contrary.

Mandatory voting compels voters to better educate themselves.

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.

The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.

Good Luck! My esteemed opponent has analyzed the electoral college and found it wanting. He believes it to be an inefficient formality. He offers two contentions to support his resolution: 1. "The Electoral College [EC] makes votes unheard. " 2. The EC gives some regions more representation than their population warrants, and others less. I will begin by correcting Con's analysis on what the EC is and what the EC is not. Then I will then refute his two contentions. Finally, I will offer a brief conclusion. (Note: I reserve the right to offer new arguments in round two) --------- Con believes that the main purpose of the modern EC is to echo the popular vote of its consituency. To a degree he is correct, this is a major function of the EC, but not the only one. The United States is a Federal Republic. A Federal Republic is a collection of sovereign states that give up certain aspects of their autonomy to form a larger 'union', or 'Federation'. [1] Therefore, when electing the Head of State for a Federal Republic there is more to consider than regional population. A state needs to be adequately represented in order to benefit from being a member-state of a Federation. The EC ensures that smaller, less populated states receive the same benefits as the larger ones. Without the EC smaller states such as Wyoming or West Virginia would receive even less federal consideration than they do under the current system. Politicians would have little reason to visit the mid-western states, and even less reason to give them the same benefits of union that larger states like New York and California enjoy. ------------ Claims: 1. The EC makes votes unheard (a,b,c). 2. The EC leads to overrepresentation and underreppresentation. Rebutals: 1. a) My young opponent claims that the voices of some citizens voting for the losing candidate go unheard (in cases where the winner of the popular vote loses the EC vote). I find a different interpretation to be more accurate. Their voices do not go unheard, rather the voice of the states Does get heard. b) This is not an argument in favor of reforming the EC. This is an argument in favor of conducting the federal census more often. We have the technology to make this more feasible today than we did when the census was instituted in the mid 1800s. c) Con is correct in his historical analysis. However, he offers no explanation as to why the election going into the House of Representatives is a bad thing that suggests that our election methods should be reformed. 2. . If someone were to look strictly at the popular vote then Con would be correct in this claim. However, as I have discussed above, there are more things to take into consideration. This nation was founded both on the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of separate states. The two branches of congress were created with the same principle as the EC. It apportions some of the representation based on population (House of Representatives) and the rest based on statehood (two votes for each state in the Senate). This gives smaller states like Wyoming the same representational proportion quoted by Con in Congress for the very same reason that the EC takes both measures into consideration - to ensure that the smaller states have some say in the Federal government. Therefore it would be more accurate to say that these states are given a base level of power to make their existence in the federation worthwhile than it would be to say that its citizens exercise more 'power' than others. ------------- CONCLUSION The United States of America was founded with two things in mind: the sovereignty of the people and the sovereignty of the separate states. These principles are reflected in the apportionment of Congress and the apportionment of the Electoral College. Both of these institutions ensure that the more populace regions like the Northeast and the West Coast do not dominate the less populace ones. A base level of power is necessary in order for all states to enjoy the benefits of union. 1. . http://en.wikipedia.org...

A Debate On The Electoral College

A mail-in system depends on ballots being received by voters. One of the problems, however, is that poor voters are frequently transient or without permanent or up-to-date addresses. This means that poor voters are uniquely disadvantaged and disenfranchised by a mail-in ballot system. A walk-in caucus or primary, conversely, does not depend on voters having permanent addresses, and is subsequently more accessible to poor voters.

A mail-in ballot risks disenfranchising poor, more transient voters

I have received no counter arguments from my opponent, so I will present them myself, and refute them. The implementation of this system would not force anyone to do anything, simply enact a self-provided incentive to do so. The only part yet to be figured into the plan is how to set this up. I believe that the money should be held by the state Division of Elections department. Part of every citizen's taxes will go towards this incentive; it will be put in their voter account. It provides some nice side benefits as well; if the money is absent from their account, you know that they have voted. It will be set up by someone with more knowledge of the whole process than myself, only 14 years old; I have yet to hear any fact based arguments, so I assume it has been found to be a possible option. Thank you for reading my arguments.

Increase Voter Turnout by Holding Money Until Vote

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...

"should voting be done online"

Well.

Emotion manipulation equals votes

The electoral college is helping promote democracy through implementing a mechanism that make candidates pay attention to local issues, and actually do what they are elected to do- serve the interests of their constituents. A presidential candidate is of course going to focus on a more national level interest, but in order to visit and campaign across the country, the candidate must be at least aware of the issues that of particular interest to the local area.

Casting votes by state forces candidates to be attentive to local interests, which they would otherwise ignore in a national campaign.

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.

Not Voting in Elections Will Make More of a Difference than Voting

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.

The proposition highlights how tactical voting can be affected by opinion polls. However there is nothing wrong with tactical voting.  In fact, it is a crucial feature of a democracy that citizens are not only able to vote for the government they want, but also for the type of opposition that that government will face.   Tactical voting also avoids wasted votes under the First-Past-the-Post system Britain and America both use.   To enable tactical voting, opinion polls are necessary to inform voters what way they should vote if they wish to vote tactically.   That this may sometimes lead to mistakes, is an unfortunate but necessary by-product.  Banning opinion polls can therefore have unintended results. In the 1981 French Presidential election once the seven day ban started Chirac’s campaign suggested that their campaign was taking off and he would go through to the second round – which would make it two conservatives in the run off. This frightened communist party supporters into voting tactically to support Mitterand when there may well have been no need.[1] [1] Bains, Paul, et al., ‘ Public opinion polls: do they do more harm than good?’, Proceedings of the 56th International Statistical Institute Conference, 22-29 August, 2007, Lisboa, Portugal, www.hansardsociety.org.uk/files/folders/3069/download.aspx

Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.

There's no reason to believe that the debate had started before Con posted his argumentActually, the debate has started as PRO has already typed an argument for his case.The role of the ballot is to break away from boxed out methodologies and change debate for the better.This is untrue: voting is for getting the general opinion on something, not to change opinion. Also, logic is not a boxed-out methodology; everything is based on logic, so pro needs to destroy everything in order to win.

You should vote for me.

People are apathetic about politics because they only get to vote once every few years. Even then it is not directly for policies but for competing political parties who promise to implement them (but often reverse position when in office). They feel that politicians do not listen to them between elections, and disengagement with the political process grows and grows. More frequent referendums would stimulate interest in politics because people would actually get a say in decisions. For example, evidence from the US shows that states with frequent use of ballot initiatives tend to have higher voter participation in elections. [1] [1] Tolbert, Caroline; Grummel, John; Smith, Daniel. “The Effect of Ballot Initiatives on Voter Turnout in the American States”. American Politics Research Vol. 29 No. 6, November 2001. http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/dasmith/apr.pdf

Reduces public apathy about, and disengagement from, politics.

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.

Debate.org Should Make it Easier for People to Vote

Thanks for admitting that CV could be damaging. Low voter turnout should be addressed but not through compulsory voting because not voting is a valid political choice; and exercise of freedom of choice, movement, and association. Also, compulsory voting will create false democracy. Pro cannot just add conditions now, he should have stated his conditions like ‘educating voters,’ in round 1. This is a basic rule in debate. But granted it counts, still his so-called ‘educating voters’ is very vague and not in harmony with compulsory voting. We can increase voter’s turnout by informing and educating people about election, without necessarily forcing people to go to the polling stations because it violates their fundamental freedoms.

Compulsory Voting

Knowing that turnout would be substantially increased would lead to far more active campaigning by all political parties. This in general would raise political awareness and negate the problem proposed. Furthermore, an option to 'abstain' on the ballot paper would accommodate anyone who truly does not wish to have a say in the running of their country.

People forced to vote are unlikely to vote intelligently.

Con please

Parties know that certain states will always vote one way eg Alaska always votes Republican, Massachusetts usually votes Democrat. Both parties generally spend less resources on campaigning in these ‘safe’ states, and pay more attention to the needs of electors in ‘swing’ states, such as Michigan and Florida, which determine the outcome of elections. This can mean that elections become less competitive as resources are concentrated on a smaller geographical area and smaller section of society.

The electoral college's "winner-takes-all" system causes campaigning only to swing states:

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.

Voting Reform

Rules:This debate is intended to be very short and brief. Therefore, there is a character cap of 5,000 characters, and will only be 1 round. Pro (myself) and Con will have only 24 hours to post their argument.Main Argument:Debate.Org is a website flourishing with many insightful debates and discussions on current events and pressing issues in society. However, due to the lesser amount of activity on this website, we have seen record-low voter turnouts, with a fair amount of debates being declared a tie due to no voters, or merely possessing only one or two votes.Comparatively, debates from approximately 7 or 8 months ago were crowded with commentary from spectators and plentiful of voters. The debate, "The swearing filter on DDO should be removed," had 123 comments and around 22 voters. However, in this day and age, most debates either have one voter or no voters at all. People are able to vote only if they give their phone number. This method is fairly strict being that there is not alternate method of registering to vote, and may seem compromising to people who do not wish to give out personal information like their personal cell phone number. I do believe that there should be more ways to register as a voter such as submitting one's email and give them a verification code, and in addition, voting will only be open to those that are fairly active on the website, to prevent bots or alts from being able to vote. Thankfully, in the event that an alt, bot, or overly-biased person were to vote, the moderation team is very capable and responsible in preventing voter fraud.There are many benefits of opening voting to more people such as awarding debaters a win that they fairly deserve. The less voters there are and the less spectators are present in debates, the less likely debaters will prefer this debating site over others, such as Debate Island. If Debate.Org cannot open debating to more people, the website is likely to get more inactive and be deemed obsolete compared to more active debating websites. Additionally, allowing more people to vote will combat biased voters. Though voters have to write "Reason For Voting" alongside their vote and though the moderators are persistent in removing votes which are clearly biased or underwritten, the lack of variety in our voters may close ourselves off to having to appease to voters who are biased or have a personal preference towards one debater. Voters are a crucial part of Debate.Org, and if the website fails to attract more voters due to its strict policy of who can vote, debates will be less populous with spectators and will be limited to few, if any, voters at all.

Tactical voting is legitimate within the democratic process.

opinion polls harm the democratic process.

I will first refute my opponent's argument and if space allows, return to my own.In his/her first observation, my opponent has clarified that this is a status quo debate. This is true, but I would like you to keep in mind my definition of should: MORALLY BETTER, which refers to an issue of justice and in this case, equality in the value of each and every vote. Since my opponent has failed to provide his/her own definition, it is only right that we should utilize mine. S/he has said that we ought not to “reform legal precedent based off status quo unless we can conclude” the following: A. The status quo DOES have a problem. We can see that the Electoral College is not morally better; rather, it fails to uphold equality in elections. The Electoral College system not only ignores votes due to the state winner-take-all policy, but compounds this inequality 51 times for the 51 voting jurisdictions. B. The problem will NOT go away by itself. As long as the state winner-take-all policy still exists, it is inevitable that a large portion of the voters in each state will be ignored, and this number is compounded 51 times, as previously mentioned. C. Changing the status quo will indeed fix this problem. Referring back to my framework, I define should as morally BETTER. Notice that it does not say morally BEST. This is important because no system is perfect, but direct popular vote is indeed BETTER because it greatly improves the equality which the state winner-take-all system fails to uphold. D. The “unintended problems from changing the status quo” HAVE been evaluated. As mentioned, no system is perfect. In the end, there will be votes that are disregarded because they did not favor the majority. However, in direct popular vote, this number is kept to a minimum by placing all votes in a single national pool instead of 51 separate jurisdictions. This means that much less people are ignored, and their votes DO matter because they have a direct say in the overall election. Briefly addressing my opponent’s second observation, the direct popular vote system would use a single, national vote tally to determine the presidency. If votes were counted by state, there would be no difference from the current system which already uses state popular vote totals to determine the winner of electoral votes. All votes will be taken on the same day, and candidates will still be referred to the House of Representatives if they do not win a majority (over 50%) of votes. My opponent claimed in his/her first contention that the EC preserves our moderate government. S/he assumes that a candidate “could represent all fifty states by winning the vote with a minimal plurality.” However, I have established in response to his/her second observation that a candidate would need to either win a majority of popular votes or be selected by the House of Representatives. Also, s/he states that the Electoral College requires landslide victories, which s/he defines as “half of the electoral votes, plus one.” A one-vote difference is definitely NOT a landslide victory; rather, it further emphasizes the fact that the Electoral College is creating RAZOR-THIN MARGINS and EXTREMELY CLOSE outcomes. In direct popular vote, this simply would not happen. “In fact, no presidential election since the 19th century has been won by fewer than 100,000 votes on a nationwide basis” according to John R. Koza, a professor at Stanford University. [1] This confirms that the probability of a close outcome would be decreased, which greatly IMPROVES the MORALITY of the voting system by electing a definitive winner - thus indicating that direct popular vote SHOULD replace the Electoral College.In his/her 2nd contention, my opponent cites the Heritage Foundation in placing his warrant regarding focus. However, this source is strongly conservative and therefore biased. Their website clearly states that it is an organization “whose mission is to formulate and promote CONSERVATIVE public policies.” [2] Therefore, my opponent has failed to support his claim with reliable evidence. The judge should also consider that just 17.0% of American citizens live in Missouri, Indiana, Ohio, North, Carolina, and Florida combined, the 5 most controversial swing states in the 2008 election according to the New York Times. [3] By contrast, 80.3% of citizens reside in metropolitan areas according to the 2010 census. [4] The metropolitan areas clearly represent a greater part of the country, thus candidates will campaign to more people with direct popular vote. This is morally better, so it should replace EC.My opponent states in his/her 3rd cont. that the EC respects the states, and DPV takes away the voice of the small states. The fact remains, however, that small states are currently OVERrepresented. A vote cast in a less populous state is currently worth THREE to FOUR TIMES one cast in a more populated state. “Although the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution does not allow such extreme deviations from the ‘one person, one vote’ standard in legislative apportionment, they are perfectly tolerated in the apportionment of the Electoral College” according to John Mark Hansen of the Michigan Law Review. This is NOT an equal representation, while in direct popular vote, the “one person, one vote” standard is upheld. Using my definition of should as morally better in terms of equality, direct popular vote thus SHOULD replace electoral vote in presidential elections.We have successfully rebutted each of our opponent’s points and shown why the direct popular vote is better in every scenario, thus we urge a pro ballot. Thank you.Sources:[1] http://www.every-vote-equal.com...[2] http://www.heritage.org...[3] http://elections.nytimes.com...[4] http://factfinder.census.gov...

Resolved: Direct popular vote should replace electoral vote in presidential elections.

Role of the Ballot:The role of the ballot is to determine who does a better job debating the resolution by evaluating the arguments each side makes against each other. This is the only fair way to evaluate a debate because it better eliminates judge bias compared to evaluating a debate based on if the resolution is true or false. This mean you're determining the victor of the debate by who makes the better arguments, rather than who proves the resolution to be true or false. If Pro makes the better arguments, then he "wins" the debate, meaning you negate the resolution. If I make the better arguments, then I "win" the debate, meaning you affirm the resolution. Thus, my argument is simple: I won't make an argument.

Debate Halting Problem

I am going to rebut my opponent's case and defend my own. Defense 1. The example my opponent provides is a flawed example. Elections, unlike bullets, are mutually exclusive. A more apt example might be a coin flip or a dice roll, where more votes is equal to more weight on that side of the coin or dice. Votes can sway the Election one way or the other, but those who vote against the majority are wasting their time. 2.My opponent claims that larger states states in fact have more power in the popular vote because the larger states would decide all of the elections. This appears to be a reasonable concern until we look at the population distribution of the United States. Even if a candidate got the top 100 cities to unanimously vote for them, from titanic New York City all the way down to mighty Spokane, the elector would only receive 19.4% of the vote, not nearly enough to win the popular vote.Also my opponent claims that making the smaller states power makes it more democratic. This is clearly false. A democratic system has equal representation, not disproportionate representation. 3. My opponent makes two claims here, that the law prevent biased voting and that it is not practiced. However, since an objective court could prosecute electors on this issue, the hypothetical is the issue here. Also, my opponent still claims that removing democratic pillars for a good reason is just, but that is simply not true. Democracy is the best system, and should be incorporated in all possibilities. 4.My opponent claims that FPTP systems are better because of their simplicity. Simplicity is not a measure of effectiveness, and this argument should be disregarded. A simpler system is not always a better one. 5. My opponent misses the point of my fifth point. The reason (at least partially) for no third party victors in US history. The example of teleportation is not effective because teleportation is not a part of physics, and the laws of the universe would have to rewritten for it to occur. The Electoral College is not as major as these laws. 6.My opponent claims that the US shouldn't focus on being too democratic since it was never based on pure democracy. Yet, those democratic aspects that they mention are the aspects being damaged by the Electoral College. My opponent again claims the large states would remain supreme, but this is the same argument he made previously, and should be disregarded with the same evidence of population distribution. 7. My opponent claims that people in swing states have an incentive to be more educated voters because their votes are more important in an election. This means my opponent agrees, some people are more important than others in the Electoral College. This is a fundamental issue that cannot be stated enough. The breakdown of democracy comes from the idea that some people are more important than others. This line of reasoning goes against all of democracy. 8.My opponent claims since the territories don't pay federal income tax, they shouldn't get a vote. Yet, not only territories don't pay that tax. In 2013, 43% of households didn't pay federal income tax, mainly the working poor, the elderly, and veterans. They all have their right to vote, and unless they are suggesting taking away their vote, this argument doesn't come into play. Also, only American Samoa or Swain"s Island have non-citizenship, the rest the territories grant citizenship. Attack 1.My opponent cross applies his argument so cross apply my attack from my second point. 2.My opponent yet again conflates simplicity and effectiveness, and also claims, that the STV is too complex. STV is a simple system that simply shifts one candidate for a ranking system. For example, say in this last election someone loved Gary Johnson but knew he was going to lose. Instead of voting for a candidate they don't like, but one that could win, they could show their support for Gary by making him the top vote. 3. My opponent claims the Electoral College is good because the end justifies the means. This is not the same as their original argument, that it would take too much effort. This is therefor a new argument and should be treated as such. If the end justifies the means, end not being the correct one in 40% of the last 5 elections, shows the means bring the wrong ends. They also claim prohibition was unjust but refuse to see that the argument about Prohibition was the precedent for removing amendments to the Constitution 4. My opponent makes the same claim that the smaller states need the boost for it to be fair. Cross apply my previous attacks on this argument,while also seeing yet again the Electoral College is inherently anti-democratic by making some people count for more than others. 5.In the obvious victor argument my opponent claims that when the votes don't match the electorate, that is good because it is efficient. Yet, my opponent still shows the ugly side of the Electoral College in this statement, since that efficiency comes at the expense of democracy. That is the core aspect of this debate, whether or not it is better to have a democratic system or an efficient one (even if the system isn't actually efficient). In my round 3 speech, point 2, I also point out how close election can occur in the electoral college, which shows that the argument about higher efficiency isn't even necessarily true. It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to imagine a race where someone won the popular vote, but lost the Electoral College. If the system is so efficient, then these problems would not occur. 6. My opponent claims they never committed a straw man, but that was the whole point of their sixth point. Their argument was the pro was against Federalism, and that is why the Electoral College is bad under the pro. Yet, as I have shown, the issues is not with its Federalism, but with the inequality and ineffectiveness of the system. In terms of the debate about the founding fathers, I never mentioned slavery, but only that they didn't believe in voting as a right in America for most people. The idea of voting is a Constitutional issue, via the 14 and 19th amendments, and so both points still remain. 7. My opponent conceded this point, while stating that this is not enough to tip the scales towards the pro. Yet, this is absolutely enough. Beyond Lincoln, there are four others who lost the popular and won the Electoral. (J. Q. Adams lost both but became president) Rutherford B. Hayes was president during the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act, Benjamin Harrison was one of the most inactive presidents ever, Bush started the War on Terror, and Trump; who hasn't actually has a presidency to judge yet, but in the election cycle constantly enforced the ideas of Stop and Frisk as well as purposeful torture and killing of Middle Eastern Civilians. None of these, save for Lincoln, were good presidents, and so we have to see that this fundamentally shows by itself why the Electoral College should be abolished. 8. My opponent claims that I engaged in a straw man when I claimed the Electoral College doesn't stop rigged elections, but makes them systematic. Yet, there was no straw man, I simply showed there was proof to fulfill the burden. Also, I mentioned how undemocratic that way of thinking is, and my opponent has no response because it is inherently stripping some people of equal voting rights. In his voting points, my opponent admits the Electoral College is less democratic, and asks why that is so wrong. Yet, the democratic aspect of equal voting rights is at stake here, and that is indeed a part of the democracy of America. Also, my opponent claims that my case was "lackluster" because it was "dismantled." They confuse attacking an argument with defeating it, as I have shown none of their attack stick when under close inspection. His voting issues are flawed. Vote Pro b/c it: 1. Upholds Equal Voting Rights 2.Is more Efficient 3.Helps the country be better

In the United States, the Electoral College should be abolished.

Alchemist for suggesting this very interesting resolution, and 1harderthanyouthink for organizing this tournament. Increases voter turnout I doubt that my opponent would challenge this argument. Compulsory Voting (CV) would lead to a significant increase in Voter Turnout. When Australia implemented CV, the voter turnout increased from 57.99% in 1922 to close to 95% in every election afterwards [1][2]. In Belgium, the voter turnout is around 90% [3]. On the other hand, the voter turnout is much lower in countries that don't have CV,. For example, UK's turnout was 66.12% in 2015 and only 35.4% for elections regarding who would represent them in the EU parliament [4]. The United States doesn't fair much better when only 36.4% voted in the elections in 2014 [5]. Low voter turnout leads to unequal participation Arend Lijphart writes that "Political equality and political participation are both basic democratic ideals. […] In practice, however, as political scientists have known for a long time, participation is highly unequal. And unequal participation spells unequal influence–a major dilemma for representative democracy […] in which the "democratic responsiveness [of elected officials] depends on citizen participation", and a serious problem even if participation is not regarded mainly as a representational instrument but an intrinsic democratic good. " [6] In a democracy, we ought to strive for equal participation. As Compulsory Voting clearly increases voter turnout, it can be seen that it easily solves the dilemma of unequal participation. Unequal participation has dire effects on the less fortunate and less represented Georg Lutz and Michael Marsh write: "The standard view is that low turnout produces a class bias in electoral outcomes. Most studies of participation have found that socio-economic status (SES) is strongly correlated to participation. Education, income, age and sometimes gender are highly significant predictors of whether somebody voted. " [7]. For example, in Switzerland, class bias between the least and most highly educated citizens was 37 percentage points [6]. It's inherently less democratic when a class of people has more influence than another. Key explains the impact: "The blunt truth is that politicians and officials are under no compulsion to pay much heed to classes and groups of citizens that do not vote. " [8] Democracy is about the "will of the people" and Compulsory Voting better achieves that will than voluntary voting. Low voter turnout leads to polarization It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that "Research and case studies show that when turnout is low, more-ideological candidates are chosen because the restricted voter pool allots disproportionate influence to more-ideological voters" [9]. Morris Fiorina writes that "But with the prospect of low turnouts, it is the most motivated—and militant—elements at the edges of the ideological spectrum who will receive the most attention. " In a democracy where everyone is inherently equal, we should strive for a system that would call for equal representation and equal attention to everyone. Compulsory Voting better achieves that goal. Also, polarization leads to legislative gridlock. David Jones writes: "party polarization, in conjunction with varying partisan seat arrangements, affects the relative inability of government to enact significant proposals on the policy agenda" [10]. He concludes that "Divided government per se does not cause gridlock. Instead, the results show that higher party polarization increases gridlock. […] On the other hand, divided government is just as productive as unified government when party polarization is low. " Less focus on getting the votes, and more focus on policy This argument is also a clear and a simple one. Joe Garecht writes: "Get out the vote operations (GOTV) can mean the difference between success and defeat on Election Day, especially for the local campaign. GOTV means those operations that your campaign performs to ensure that voters who plan to vote for your candidate go to the polls on Election Day" [11]. For example, in a provincial election in Alberta, Canada, a political scientist says that "the key to victory for the party that wins Tuesday's Alberta election will be its ability to get out the vote" [12]. In other words, the political party or candidate that is more efficient, and more organized has a better chance of representing the people than the other party, even if the people may otherwise prefer the other party. I argue that this is undemocratic. People look for representatives based on their policies and promises, and not based on their organizing skills and ability to get out the vote on election date. The pressure on candidates to Get out the vote significantly puts less funded politicians at a disadvantage as they may not have the capacity to get the vote out compared to other well funded candidates. Compulsory Voting would solve this problem. Educates and engages the public about the political process "Political parties in compulsory voting environments may expend more effort educating voters or countries with compulsory voting may also possess or develop a political culture which encourages greater engagement in politics, or compulsory voting may compel the media to place a greater effort on educating voters. There are, in other words, many plausible mechanisms by which compulsory voting may be associated with increased political engagement" [13]. A study shows that "electoral policies that increase incentives for participation […] will not only increase voter turnout; they will also motivate an increase in the types of political information that are necessary for making a good vote choice" [14]. Having a better understand of the political process suggests that people will make better informed decision when it comes to selecting who should represent them in an election. Thank you. Sources [1] . https://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.idea.int... [3] . http://www.idea.int... [4] . http://www.idea.int... [5] . http://time.com... [6] . http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu... [7] . http://www.andreasladner.ch... [8] Key, V. O. 1949. Southern Politics in State and Nation. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press [9] . http://cacs.org... [10] . http://www.baruch.cuny.edu... [11] . http://www.localvictory.com... [12] . http://www.cbc.ca... [13] . http://individual.utoronto.ca... [14] . http://cess.nyu.edu...

August Tournament - Resolved: In a democracy, voting ought to be compulsory

Opinion polls also distort the political decision making process: during elections, polls swing faster then politicians can adapt their strategies. The result: politicians are following every swing of the polls and engaging in “political marketing” instead of really developing a party philosophy and trying to honestly engage the citizens. Also, in between elections, polls ruin the process: the executive launches policy to try and create a better public opinion in stead of real policy. Symbol politics, in stead of real politics, is the result.

Opinion polls also distort the political decision making process: during elections, polls swing fast...

my case remains unrebuted.

Emotion manipulation equals votes

Earlier voting is not a solution to the low turnout problem, the electoral commission in the UK concluded .here is evidence to suggest that extending the franchise will actually create lower turnout and projections about if it would get higher cannot be sufficiently determined[1] At the moment 18-25 year olds are the least likely to cast a vote at election time. Youth membership of political parties is falling. Lowering the voting age still further is therefore likely to reduce turnout even more. Most people don’t vote because they think the election system is unfair, their vote does not count, or because they don’t trust any of the political parties on offer - lowering the voting age won’t solve these problems. Instead with a generation that is increasingly online, to take the UK 21 million households (80%) had internet access in 2012[2], and there are over 6.4 million iPhone users,[3] the answer is therefore to engage them digitally not through trying some magic bullet at the ballot box. [1] The Electoral Commission, ‘Voting age should stay at 18 says the Electoral Commission’, 19 April 2004 [2] Office for national statistics, ‘Statistical bulletin: Internet Access – Households and Individuals, 2012’, 24 August 2012 [3] NMA Staff, ‘UK iPhone users to reach 6.4m this year’, New media age, 6 August 2010

Voting at a lower age would increase participation

Voter ID cards are unfair and ineffective in preventing voter fraud. The main concern with requiring an ID card, other than voter registration card, would be the additional costs incurred just to use the inherent right granted to all Americans to vote. While not posing a strong disincentive preventing voters from paying one-time fee to exercise their future right to vote, the principle of paying to vote is unfair and should not be advocated. As a counter-plan to solve the problems of the 2000 and 2004 elections, the solution should be a federal mandate requiring paper trials for all election precincts. A paper trail would allow voter fraud to be caught most efficiently. More of a concern than having individuals vote under a fake identity is the possibility of having electronic voting booths have their votes switched without being able to prove otherwise.

A valid picture Identification should be a requirement to vote.

Thanks for the quick response Mr. Voices. Let's look to my points and whether my opponent adequately refutes them. 1) IRV increases strategic voting My original argument was that ranking your preferred candidate as number 1 can make him/her lose and ranking your least preferred candidate last can help him/her to win. This makes no sense. People have to vote strategically under IRV as well to prevent their votes from being wasted or having a counterproductive result. My opponent says that you can just leave the box blank. But this doesn't answer the argument that "ranking a candidate higher can actually cause the candidate to lose, and ranking a candidate lower can cause the candidate to win." If you leave the box blank, that's equivalent to ranking the candidate last. It doesn't change the problems with IRV. 2) Extra candidates My argument was that IRV is stupid because it's possible that candidate A beats candidate B in a head-to-head election, but if candidate C enters the race, suddenly candidate B beats candidate A. That makes absolutely no sense. Parties will run fake candidates to split the vote of popular candidates so they don't make it to the final 2. My opponent just nitpicks an assumption I make in the scenario I gave, but that's the point of giving hypotheticals: it simplifies the issue so it's easier to understand. And it's not that far-fetched. Median voter theory states that voters will prefer candidates who are closer to them on the political spectrum. So if this is the political spectrum: Liberal Conservative Then it's not that far-fetched to believe that if candidate A loses, all of his supporters will instead vote for candidate B. This proves that fielding extra candidates DOES split the vote, potentially causing the winner in a head-to-head election to instead lose in the first round of vote counting. 3) The candidate with majority support can lose My opponent's response has something to do with doing a poll under the current system. However, the point of this objection is that under ALL voting systems, the person who is preferred by a majority should win (assuming you believe in democracy). However, if you remember the example of John, David, and Peter, the majority preferred John to David, but David wins because Peter knocks John out of the race in round 1. Yet 60% of voters preferred John to David. A "first past the post" system better upholds democratic values. 4) People won't research all the additional candidates. My opponent says that this happens now. However, NOW there are usually only two viable candidates. Under instant runoff, your choice of who to rank second or third could entirely sway the outcome of the election. This requires a level of research that people do not do. The two party system simplifies the electoral process for people. I wonder how the majority of voters will choose their rankings, given that few people do research on candidates. It's a double bind: either people rank third party candidates without researching them (which undermines democracy) OR they do the responsible thing and don't rank anyone but the Democrat and Republican, which is functionally the same as the current system. Best case, my opponent is advocating for the current system. Worst case, he is advocating for people making uninformed rankings that can completely alter the outcome of the election. 5) Ballot counting My opponent advocates hand counting. However, his source's speculative claim doesn't seem to be true. You have to pay people to count the ballots by hand. You also have to print a different type of ballot than the ones we currently use with machines. I would like my opponent to prove we can afford such a system. In addition, hand counting leads to its own problems. In Republican states, it is likely Republicans would be counting the ballots. When there are marginal ballots where it's unclear who someone voted for, Republican vote counters are going to be biased and award more marginal ballots to the Republican candidate. Bryan Pfaffenberger, a professor at the University of Virginia, points out, "By taking paper out of the voting process, mechanical voting machines make it impossible for anyone to invalidate a ballot. A complex interlocking system – a technological achievement – prevents overvoting, in which a voter casts votes for more candidates than the law permits. Above all, the voting machine's virtue was precisely that it left nothing for partisan election officials to haggle over." He continues, "Returning to [hand counting] might work well in areas with lots of oversight, but in contrast to other stable democracies, this movement has made little progress in the US. Throughout most of the country, today's election system has more in common with that of the 1890s: It's inadequately supervised, insufficiently professionalized, and all too often staffed with openly partisan officials. Under these circumstances, what voting machine backers believed a century ago still holds true: It just isn't wise to let people count ballots." http://www.csmonitor.com... My opponent also doesn't answer the following arguments: *Federalism: each State has the right to adopt its own system. The federal government cannot mandate how they apportion votes. *Electoral college: IRV doesn't work well with winner take all. In states that award electors proportionate to a candidate's share of the vote, you're not "throwing your vote away" if you vote third party. That person still gets electors. If all states adopted proportionate systems, that would be preferable to IRV. *Multi-party presidential systems are bad. The Kellogg School (at Northwestern) found that in all of history, there has only been ONE stable multi-party presidential system. Most presidential systems with successful third parties stagnate because the legislature can't get anything done. We can barely get anything done with two parties who always disagree. Imagine if we had 4 or 5 disagreeing. *The Guardian's analysis of the 2010 UK election shows that IRV does NOT increase the number of third party candidates that win. So IRV doesn't accomplish my opponent's goals anyways. *If you don't want to throw your vote away, vote for one of the two major parties. This solves. Even under IRV, Ross Perot would have still lost. The only way IRV could have possibly changed the outcome is that Bush might have beat Clinton because IRV might have screwed up the election. The lack of third parties has to do with our form of government (presidential vs. parliamentary), and NOT with the way the votes are counted.

The United States should adopt Instant Runoff Voting.

The concern with mail-in voting surrounds the verification of voter identity as well as voter signatures. This requires a fairly well developed balloting infrastructure, standards, and administration. But, in the state of Florida, there is no past experience with mail-in ballots, making the risk of voter fraud very high.

A mail-in ballot system entails risks of voter fraud

This is my first debate, so forgive me if I"m not exactly sure how it works. Here is my best case for single day polling: I submit that voting should be on one day only and as a secondary statement submit that the day could be moved to Saturday, if needed. No absentee mail in ballots should be allowed either. 1. Internet access is widespread in America (about 75% at home according to US census) that people who cannot make it to a polling location on a specific day can still vote. People who do not have access to the Internet certainly have reasonable means to find access (friend, library, school, work). Anyone who claims they absolutely cannot get to the Internet for any reason probably means they did not get to a connection because they did not value the vote. http://www.census.gov... 2. A single day vote may actually increase voter turnout. If the day is made special like Super Bowl Sunday, perhaps turnout will increase over the current apathetic levels. Last year, television ratings for the Super Bowl were about twice as high as the rounds that led up to the single day game. The reason is that it was made special, the weeks preceding the game lead up to the Super Bowl, and it was limited time frame. Those factors bring in the casual fan. On an anecdotal level, ask people next year after the game who did not watch to provide you a reason. My educated guess would be they did not watch because sports does not interest them, not because they could not find a television or device to watch it on. http://www.huffingtonpost.com... http://www.usatoday.com... 3. Inconvenience is not the major reason people don"t vote. As it is now, most states have absentee ballots that allow citizens to mail in their ballots over the course of weeks in some cases. Yet, voter turnout is still low. With the option of mailing in a ballot or showing up at the polls, participation is not low because people cannot get to a physical location on a Tuesday, it is low because the non-voters don"t care to vote for a variety of reasons. Some major reasons are: people feel like the government has for whatever reason let them down, they don"t follow politics so they don"t care to vote and the Electoral College technically elects the president so why bother? 4. I would be in favor of moving the single day from Tuesday to Saturday. Since more people work on weekdays than weekends, the Saturday date could increase voter turnout as well as provide opportunities for local celebrations and parades. If an election day were ever to bring in the casual voter like Super Bowl Sunday brings in the casual sports fan, the aforementioned civic celebrations might be the only avenue. 5. I will admit that computers can be hacked and online voting on a single day could open the process up for fraud. However, I would submit that just because a problem exists does not mean the activity should always be avoided. When cars became faster, engineers designed seat belts, they didn"t avoid driving over 20 miles per hour. Election fraud is rampant now anyway (will the word Florida suffice?). Also, online identity theft occurs but people still shop online and go on social media sites, they just need to be more careful. Since we won"t be eliminating all online activity just because it can be dangerous, why would we avoid online voting?

Polling stations during Elections should be conducted over a longer period than a single day

In a nutshellWhen the electoral college (EC) and the national popular vote (NPV) produce the same outcome, EC is an unnecessary complication in the process. When outcomes differ, NPV's outcome is right and EC's outcome is wrong. Either way, you have a reason to choose NPV and none to choose EC.How to choose one system over anotherYou are choosing between policies. This calls for a well-reasoned justification that follows from the purpose of having a policy in the first place. Ruthlessly filter each of our arguments through the question: "does this persuade me that one policy fulfills its purpose better than the other policy?"You will find that NPV is justified by an uncontroversial principle and a coherent, mathematically valid argument, whereas EC is an unnecessary political compromise justified only by points that are fallacious individually and do not form a coherent argument collectively. And there is no way to derive EC from a solid theoretical foundation without doing incredible mental gymnastics.The purpose of the election is to ...... represent the will ...The purpose of any kind of election is to make a decision that represents the will of the voters. (To aggregate preferences, in more formal terms.) There is simply no other reason to have an election, except to deceive people by creating the illusion of democracy.The fairest, most obvious, and least arbitrary way to formalize "the will of the voters" is the criterion of majority rule: if over half the voters prefer option A over option B, then A should defeat B.Therefore, if NPV satisfies the criterion of majority rule when EC fails (over half of voters prefer A over B; NPV selects A over B; EC selects B over A), then you should choose NPV.... of the citizens.The difference between EC and NPV is:EC: voter = person ("elector") hired by state government to vote.NPV: voter = citizen.A system should count citizens, not hired electors, as voters.Citizens surrender their liberty to the government. In exchange, the government serves them. Why ask the citizens what they want, if not to legitimize the government's actions and to help it effectively fulfill its end of the social contract?On the other hand, there is no justification to represent the will of a few hundred state employees who were hired simply to vote. Pro might say "EC represents the will of the states themselves." If so, then why should states have electors proportional to their citizens? Because big states matter more than small states? Because issues are more important if they matter to more citizens? That is actually the intuitive idea that is formalized as majority rule. Therefore, by the same logic that justifies the design of EC, NPV is right and EC is wrong.When NPV and EC produce different results...In US history alone, it has happened 4 times, most recently in 2000 when Bush beat Gore.Simple example of how this can happen:States are X, Y, and Z; each state has 5 citizens and 1 elector; candidates are A and B.X: A A A A AY: A A B B BZ: A A B B BIn NPV, A wins 9-6. In EC, B wins 2-1 because Y and Z have their electors vote for B.Interestingly, political science textbooks use similar examples to illustrate gerrymandering.... NPV's result is right and EC's result is wrong.This is self-explanatory. The right result is the one that represents the will of the citizens. There is no reason to think that throwing away hundreds of millions of citizens' data points, and electing the president based on a smaller data set that only vaguely resembles the citizens' data set, represents the will of the citizens more accurately.Gerrymandering is a form of political corruption in which politicians creatively assign citizens to districts to win absurd victories that wildly contradict the will of the citizens. It defeats the purpose of democracy to divide citizens into groups for no purpose other than to change the outcome. What makes the electoral college any different?

Electoral college

Campaigns for ballot measures often have unfair resource advantages

Direct democracy

Norman Ornstein. "Vote - or else." New York Times. August 10th, 2006: "Mandatory voting comes with a price: a modest loss of freedom. But this would be more than balanced by the revitalization of the rapidly vanishing center in American politics."

Benefits of mandatory voting outweigh costs to freedoms.

The people would still be voting through endorsements. But Instead of an election being determined by 3% of the population, it is determined by a national congress, and everyone is weighted against each other heavily. Also if you consider an endorsement a vote this will increase turnout. One of the problems with our system is that people simply can't get to the polls on the appointed day. Then that raises the issue of does that state/ city have absentee voting or not. Also what about people who are working , can they take time off of work? With this system, endorsements are registered on your time not the governments time. Yeah the system would be robust but it would be more efficient in the lives of the individual in the long run. We all understand that sometimes people are just too caught up in life to research all of the candidate's and pick the best one. When thats the situation your faced with voting for a candidate based upon a scant amount of information, or withholding your potential harming or regrettable vote from the election. With this system when you vote for president you will be voting for your Electors whether they follow your party affiliation or they run without a party your voting for them based upon them representing your shoes in that congress. And then if you do find the time to really research into these candidates, you can go and give them your endorsement to bolster up his case before the congress, - and you do that on your own time. I think an elected congress that represents the people and is dedicated to choosing the right person for the job would do wonder for our country and take a load of the citizens, and at the same time it is more representative, because a small percent of the population isn't choosing an official that will serve the entire community.

United States should use an Elector appointment System to solve the problem of low voter turn out.

v

Technology to give all a vote

v

Technology to give all a vote