CreateDebate


Debate Info

Debate Score:3
Arguments:2
Total Votes:3
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
  (2)

Debate Creator

MuckaMcCaw(1970) pic



Should the US abandon the FPTP voting system?

In the "First Past the Post" Voting System (aka "FPTP" or "Winner Take All"), all voters get one, non-transferable vote and whoever gets the most wins. Although quick and simple, it is widely criticized for having numerous problems. First, it practically guarantees a two party system. This happens because people will avoid voting for a third party that is relatively similar to one of the major parties, even if that third party is their first choice. They do this because voting for their party, which is pretty much guaranteed to lose, "steals" votes from the major party they like best. Thus, the other major party wins, even if they technically have the minority of all total votes. This can cause many people to vote against the major party they dislike the most instead of voting FOR the one they most want to win. A two-party system inevitably arrives and is maintained by people being forced to vote strategically instead of honestly, leading to many people not really being represented properly by the government.

Additionally, this system is highly suspect to gerymandering. Gerymandering almost always gives an unfair advantage either to the incumbent or to one specific party, those essentially causing the votes for those people to "weigh more" than votes for the opponent.

There are multiple alternatives. I prefer single transferable vote myself, but a google search of voting methods will give you plenty to pick from. Is it worth the effort?

Add New Argument
1 point

It'd be a hard road, and tbh I think it'd be impractical, but I feel that the current party system all together needs to be eliminated, and replaced for separate issues to eb voted on, instead of opposing ends of one political spectrum.

I guess the only way we could even get this to work though, is if they voted on it, but the only way we could even get it to the people is if it were already in place. It's a conundrum.

2 points

I'm all for a "no party" system, myself. But honestly, I don't think it is possible in any nation that uses a public vote. When you select your politicians by vote, they need to campaign. When politicians campaign, they need to form alliances to raise funds and get noticed. As soon as a few politicians make a coalition, they will have a significant advantage over everyone else. So more and more groups will form.

But, under FPTP I can ALMOST guarantee they will be down to two very large and relatively diverse parties, and any others that remain will be too small to compete with the big dogs in the big elections. Which is exactly what happened to the US some time ago.

If we can't have a "no party" system, than we should try for a "several party system", IMHO.

At least for as long as we continue to pretend to be a democracy. If we gave up a system where the public votes, we would open ourselves up to a whole new set of benefits (and potential problems).