Wylted Won the 2015 DDO Presidential Election
On 12/11/2015 at 7:33:11 PM Central Time debate.org ("DDO") moderator airmax1227 ("airmax") posted a forum thread ("the thread") in the debate.org forums. The title of the thread was " *=*=DDO Presidential Election Voting=*=* ". The thread can be found here:
The contents of airmax original post were as follows:
It is now time to begin voting for the next president of DDO. Voting will be held from now, until 48 hours from now, ending on Sunday (December 13th).
The voting requirements are as follows:
The member's account must have 2 months minimum of membership on the site, and must also meet just one of the following bullet points:
- 1,000 posts
- 5 debates without any forfeits AND 100 posts
- 3 debates without any forfeits AND 50 poll or opinion topics/questions that haven't been deleted by mods AND 100 posts
- 500 posts AND 50 poll or opinion topics/questions that haven't been deleted by mods
Please make sure to BOLD your vote and please refrain from bolding anything else.
Keep in mind that once you place your vote, you may NOT change your vote.
Thank you and best of luck to all.
Thus began the 2015 DDO presidential election. Over the next 48 hours, airmax maintained a running count of the votes in the thread, assigning them to candidates and listing the disqualified votes with reasons stated. At the end of the 48 hours, airmax declared that voting was closed, and shortly thereafter airmax listed a tally of the votes here:
Airmax's closing tally listed Bsh1 as having 50 votes and Wylted as having 49 votes. Two votes for Wylted, one from user Bullish and one from user TheChristian, were not included by airmax because they were posted 5 seconds and 15 seconds after the scheduled closing time for voting, respectively. So, my argument is as follows:
P1: If both Bullish's vote and TheChristian's vote count, then Wylted won the 2015 DDO presidential election.
P2: Both Bullish's vote and TheChristian's vote count.
C1: Wylted won the 2015 DDO presidential election.
This is a valid argument. If both P1 and P2 are true, then C1 must be true. The most controversial part of this election appears to be whether or not Bullish's and TheChristian's votes count. So, I will be focusing on P2. I won't support P1 unless Con argues against it.
Support for P2 -
Lets suppose that you were invited to play a game of poker with some acquaintances. You sit down, play some hands, and eventually you get a full house. When you show your cards to claim victory, your opponent shows a flush. In poker, a full house beats a flush; That is the standard rule for poker. So you think you've won, but wait - Your opponent and the other players are ignorant of this standard rule, and some confusion ensues. Your acquaintances confer and then declare that the player with the flush has won based upon a new rule that was invented specifically for this dispute. Did you win? Yes, you won, and your acquaintances were mistaken. This is a metaphor for what happened to Wylted during the election.
Bullish's vote was posted 5 seconds after scheduled closing time and TheChristian's vote was posted 15 seconds after scheduled closing time. It takes time for a user to sign in, find the voting thread, write in their vote, review their vote, and then finally cast their vote. Given how close both Bullish's and TheChristian's votes were to scheduled closing time, both users were, in all probability, in the act of voting at the time voting was scheduled to close.
Within elections, it is a standard practice to allow voters who are either in line at a polling location or in the act of voting to be permitted to cast their ballots and have their votes count. The following state statutes substantiate this standard -
Alabama - No statute found addressing this issue.
Alaska - Every qualified voter present and in line at the time prescribed for closing the polls may vote. AS § 15.15.320
Arizona - Any qualified voter who at the moment of closing is in the line of waiting voters shall be allowed to prepare and have his ballot deposited by the election board official in the presence of the election board and himself. ARS § 16-565
Arkansas - In all counties, when the polls close, all persons who have presented themselves for voting and who are then in line at the polling site shall be permitted to cast their votes. ACA § 7-5-304
California - When the polls are closed, the precinct board shall proclaim that fact aloud at the place of election. After the proclamation no ballot shall be received. However, if at the hour of closing there are any other voters in the polling place, or in line at the door, who are qualified to vote and have not been able to do so since appearing, the polls shall be kept open a sufficient time to enable them to vote. California Elections Code § 14401
Colorado - The polling locations shall remain open after 7 p.m. until every eligible elector who was at the polling location at or before 7 p.m. has been allowed to vote. Any person arriving after 7 p.m. is not entitled to vote. CRS § 1-7-101
Connecticut - No elector shall be permitted to cast his vote after the hour prescribed for the closing of the polls in any election unless such elector is in line at eight o’clock p.m. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 9-174
Delaware - The election shall be continued open until 8:00 p.m. when it shall be closed. In closing the election the inspector and the judges shall, nevertheless, permit those electors to vote who have presented themselves and have offered to vote prior to 8:00 p.m. Delaware Code Title 15, § 4947
Florida - No statute found addressing this issue.
Georgia - No statute found addressing this issue.
Hawaii - If, at the closing hour of voting, any voter desiring to vote is standing in line outside the entrance of the polls with the desire of entering and voting, but due to the polling place being overcrowded has been unable to do so, the voter shall be allowed to vote irrespective of the closing hour of voting. HRS § 11-131
Idaho - Any elector who is in line at 8:00 P.M. shall be allowed to vote notwithstanding the pronouncement that the polls are closed. IC § 34-1101
Illinois - No statute found addressing this issue.
Indiana - (a) When the hour for closing the polls occurs, the precinct election board shall permit all voters who: (1) have passed the challengers and who are waiting to announce their names to the poll clerks for the purpose of signing the poll list; (2) have signed the poll list but who have not voted; or (3) are in the act of voting; to vote. IC § 3-11-8-11
Notes: I included 10 statutes as I thought that was sufficient to establish the gist of the law on the issue. Trying to find all 50 would have been too much work. I went alphabetically to discount the claim that I was cherry picking. Where it says "no statute found" this simply means that I didn't find the statute; This does not necessarily mean that the statute does not exist.
As can be seen from the above statutes, the standard to not be harsh with the clock, but to be inclusive and let people have a voice so long as they were either in line to vote or in the act of voting at the time a vote was scheduled to close. Notably absent from any statute is the notion that voters should be told to leave a polling location or polling booth while they were voting, or to be otherwise disenfranchised if they haven't voted by the time the clock hits a specific time. That's exactly what refusing to acknowledge Bullish's and TheChristian's vote does. That would be a house rule that wasn't disclosed at the beginning of the contest.
Bullish and TheChristian were both in the act of voting at the time voting was scheduled to close. Under contemporary standards for the conduct of elections, their votes counted notwithstanding the fact that they completed voting after the time voting was scheduled to close. Since their votes counted, Wylted won.
Hi and best of luck to Pro. I don't have time to debate much anymore , and never get to finish debates due to time constraints. However after seeing this topic, I was more than happy to take it up and catch a pretty easy snipe.
I'm not going to spend a great deal of time on this debate, as it's not needed. Con is trying to negate a truism which is practically an impossibility, so there is no purpose to put much effort into this debate. His entire case hinges of what are fundamentally bad comparisons which relate this website to real life. I will show how there is a dichotomy between his case, and what actually occurred during the election.
Wylted Won vs Should have won
I want to establish a dichotomy between what pro is actually debating, and what he should be debating in order to win. Pros entire case is not that wylted won, but essentially that wylted should have won. Pros entire case relies on his thoughts and accounts of the election being true and objectively applying to this election. Without the accounts he listed being true, he is only arguing for why he thought wylted won, not for the fact that wylted actually won. Nothing in his case shows us why wylted won, it simply shows us why pro thinks wylted should have won. This is based on the next point i'm going to make
Real Life vs DDO
Pro basically posts a whole bunch of stuff that shows why the votes that came in last minute should have counted, and relates this to real life situations and elections.
(1) DDO is not real life , and the criteria for the elections on this site are different than real life. Applying real life scenarios to a site that operates under different situations is invalid. Not only that, every election has different criteria. This elections rules are listed here ( http://www.debate.org... )
(2) Max is the absolute authority on the site and declared certain contingent factors that applied to voting. (Such as the election ending at a certain time point, again rules found above)
(3) The votes that came in, came in after the person on the site who has absolute authority said the election ended.
(4) The person whom has absolute authority determines and makes the final call on the election , which was made here in regards to the rules that he set in place ( http://www.debate.org...) and also here ( http://www.debate.org... )
(5) Wylted acknowledged and accepted his loss. Airmax gave the candidates the chance to dispute the outcome, wylted accepted it and Airmax determined that bsh won. ( http://www.debate.org... )
No examples pro can give, will possibly show that Wylted won this election. The person winning the election is determined by the rules which are subjective to the absolute authority on the site (airmax). Seeing as how airmax concluded that BSH won, and also due to the fact that wylted accepted the loss without contesting it, there is no way in which wylted actually won.
Pro can argue all day long for why wylted should have won, but that will not win him the debate. To win he must show that Wylted actually won, which leaves him with the positing of negating a fact.
Ah. He conceded after the debate started. Well if you concede you lose; That's how it is with elections. But does that rule apply to a DDO election? It is a rule from real life after all, so applying it couldn't be valid. I kid. Kudos. /concede
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|
|Who won the debate:||-|