This would make virtually no difference. The examples in the article are Siver vs Wiman and Rampage vs Machida, the guy says that the losers would have won if half points were used. It doesn't solve anything though, because they were CLOSE fights. No matter who the winners and losers are in very close fights, there is going to be big debate about the winner, 90% of it biased.
IMO it's the fight/round format that needs overhauling more so than the points system. Yes a new scoring system is definitely something that needs to happen, but that alone won't solve these issues. I think the number of rounds needs to change, the round time length needs to change, and the option for a tie-breaker round ala TUF needs to be seriously considered for the main stage.
Declining round times e.g. round 1 is 6 mins, 2 is 5 mins, 3 is 4 mins. Or even 6,4,2. Title fights could be 7,6,5,4,3. This will change fighter's attitudes for the better, they will know that the longer the fight goes on, the less time they have in each round to be impressive. This in turn will make fights more exciting, will produce the correct winner more consistantly, and will aid fighters who have trouble with cardio. The fights will be more focussed on skill/will to do damage and ability to perform under pressure, rather than giving them enough time so that the fitter man can bide his time without doing much damage, implementing a passive-aggressive strategy, and then by round 3 looking like a dominant fighter. With a declining system, when a fighter looks beat, it'll be more likely because they have been beat than because they've been outworked.
I believe all professional fighters should strive to be as fit as they can, but whether it's 2 minute rounds or 5 minute rounds, fitness is required anyway. My idea is just an example of trying to think of something different, everyone knows the judges aren't adequate, everyone knows the 10 point system doesn't work for MMA, but right now they are stuck firmly in place and introducing a half point system is like swapping a glass of water for a glass of ice IMO.
If I gave an explanation to why I'm not really in favour of the half point system it would go something like this. ^^^
I think its good that they know the system is majorly flawed and they are attempting to address it, I just don't think its the right way forward. I mean of the 155 fights, only 4% had different outcomes. Not sure if its a big enough percentage to warrant a change in an already confusing scoring system. People may argue the fact that if its a title fight then it would be all worth it to get the right winner. But what about all the other fights? Just because the fights vary in importance to us doesn't mean its the same for the fighter.