The Instigator
Senator
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Juris
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

A bill to amend voting options

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Juris
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/5/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 511 times Debate No: 38495
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)

 

Senator

Pro

A Bill to Amend Voting Options
Be it enacted by this Student Congress here assembled that:
All registered voters throughout the United States shall be given the option of selecting "none of the above" when voting in local, state and national elections.
If more than 20% of the voters choose the options, then all competing candidates shall be withdrawn and replaced by their respective parties with new candidates."
New elections shall be scheduled for new candidates to adequately present themselves to the voting population. New elections must be held within 6 months of previous vote, with previous people retaining their office until the new person gets elected.
This Bill shall take effect on"January 1,2015."
Juris

Con

Sir, may I remind you that failure to provide a clear, definite, and practical proposal means that the status quo, which is the current situation regarding voting, will still be upheld.

I will pinpoint the flaws of your proposal.

Be it enacted by this Student Congress here assembled that:

Can you please elaborate what you mean by this? Please check the constitution first.


All registered voters throughout the United States shall be given the option of selecting "none of the above" when voting in local, state and national elections.

What is the purpose for this?


If more than 20% of the voters choose the options, then all competing candidates shall be withdrawn and replaced by their respective parties with new candidates."

Why 20%?


New elections shall be scheduled for new candidates to adequately present themselves to the voting population.

When will it be? Why new candidates?

New elections must be held within 6 months of previous vote, with previous people retaining their office until the new person gets elected.

"Within 6 months" is different from "after 6 months." So when is it? why retain office?



Reasons why your proposal is a complete failure:

1. You did not check the Constitution.
2. You failed to state the purpose of your proposal. (The proposal is intended for what purpose?)
3. You also failed to explain things like “20% of voters,” and “Definite election schedule.”

Overall, the proposal is not clear and very impractical.

Debate Round No. 1
Senator

Pro

Senator forfeited this round.
Juris

Con

what happened?
Debate Round No. 2
Senator

Pro

Senator forfeited this round.
Juris

Con

well, please vote!:D
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
Disappointing; it really is an interesting idea. Basically a vote of no-confidence in the candidate running. The implementation proposed here has flaws, but I'd be in favor of being able to force all the candidates for a particular seat to drop out and new ones to be found. I have seen elections when only crooks and slimesters ran for particular offices, and there were no good choices; this would have come in handy then.
Posted by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
This should be on a per-race basis. Withdrawing ALL of the candidates on the ballot will hinder this from being implemented.

Where did 20% come from?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 years ago
Chrysippus
SenatorJurisTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: PRo failed to argue in favor of his resolution. Con's counter attack was quite weak, but under the circumstances adequate. Conduct and arguments to Con, for Pro's double forfeit and failure to uphold his resolution.