A one party system works better for America, instead of a two.
Debate Rounds (5)
I want you to tell me why our current two party system is doing great!!
Well first, BoP is on pro, because he is holding a positive assertion. I shall just offer a few thoughts in this first round.
" A single-party state, one-party state, one-party system or single-party system is a type of state in which a single political partyhas the right to form the government, usually based on the existing constitution. All other parties are either outlawed or allowed to take only a limited and controlled participation in elections."
Well what's wrong with this system. It sounds like totalitarianism to me. Well how has totalitarianism done in the past?
Well let's ask the survivors of the USSR, Mao's China, Pol Pot's Cambodia, and Nazi Germany. The death toll of these states are over 100 million.
Well what does the UN's declaration of human right's say regarding totalitarianism?
If there's a one party system, not everyone can participate and be freely chosen.
The one party system also negates clause 3.
Consequential Moral Argument Against One Party-states:
P1) We should behave morally
P2) That which promotes well being is moral,
P3) One party states don't promote well-being
P4) One party states are not moral
C1) We should not institute a one party system.
P2: Throughout history one party states oppress the citizens. The state arbitrarily starves and kills citizens.
I suppose my main point is that historically a one-party state does not work.I shall offer more arguments next round. I shall remind my opponent that he has the BoP to show that a one-party system will work better than the two party system. The point of the debate is not to bash the two-party system.
I am not arguing that democracy is wrong. So let that be clear I am not saying democracy is bad, actually it is the greatest form of government to this day.
Especially in America the two party system does the opposite of what it should do.
Compromise, no stalemate is given. How? Look:
In 2008 Obama (D), House (D), Senate (D), took action, G.I. Bill expanded, Cash for Clunkers, Student Loan reform, partial immigration reform, Repealed Don't Ask, Don't tell system in our Army. They also finished S.T.A.R.T. between US and Russia with nuclear arms. Also they followed through with Stimulus helping the middle class.
After the House became (R), not one piece of significant legislation has been passed, why? Because the president and Senate is democrat.
Our supreme court now acts more politically than following the constitution. Our 'invisible government' like C.I.A. and N.S.A. have become stronger with each shift of party power.
Two party causes finger-pointing and nothing really to be done.
I am a strong left winged minded individual. I hate conservatism for all it stands for. But I much rather see a conservative one party government than a two liberal-conservative one. With two parties a country is divided, a house divided cannot stand. Mr. Washington warned of the evils of a party system at all. Our 1st president said so.
Look I understand history is not one my side, but wait. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pot were not just liberals, they were AUTHORITARIAN LIBERALS. If I was in charge or had my way I would love to see a libertarian liberal take over the one party system. Like Jesus, or Gandhi, or MLK. These men were bad men and you can still have a democracy with a two party system and they don't have to be communist, take socialism for example. Ask how Denmark, and Sweden are doing. They're doing just fine, and have some of the highest Atheist population, a lot of people here should start to think about moving there ;)
Thanks Con back to you!
"Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally—either directly or indirectly through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws."
Well given that everyone in America obviously doesn't have the same thoughts, I don't see how democracy and a one party state can coincide.
Also Denamrk, Norway and like countries are not socialist in any traditional sense. They are social democracies.
America is becoming increasingly polarized. So if you have increasing polarization, but only one political party, a lot of citizens are getting cut of the loop, which the declaration of human rights prohibits.
Obama’s success rate in winning congressional votes on issues was an unprecedented 96.7% for his first year in office.
So the point is that a one party state seems to be prohibited by the UN. Also the population would be in a FRENZY because of the increasing polarization. This would result in a some of the population not being represented. Once again this would negate participation in government.
The current conservative-republican party is dying, breaking into smaller parties, they cannot ever win presidency by the way the election is ran. You then have to be soon a democratic supreme court that will surly sway to a harsh left political decisions than a constitutional one. Soon a one party system will become of America with the new more liberal generation. Our country has become more easy on marijuana, gay rights, sex discrimination and very less religious. All things the right fear and hate.
If the party that has sole power upon a country that is very supportive of all people, like a new modern liberal or socialist party. Many if not all will benefit. No more struggle between state and federal governments. No chance for a civil clash or war. Like I said a one party can be so much better than a two party system if the party is correct. Legislation will be passed more and with ease.
I totally understand the point of Democracy and an one party cannot exist. You may be right, but I beg to differ that soon this country shall no longer be a two party but a multiparty system under one umbrella of a more liberal-democratic side.
Those countries I stated earlier are socialist dominated government that do well with redistribution, health care for all and amazing beneficial welfare systems. Also the best education systems as prison and so on..
Now, I am a liberal, but lots of citizens are not.
Now I agree with everything you are saying. I'd love to have a fully liberal government, but via the ToM( the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires, and intentions that are different from one's own.) People are allowed to think differently. The liberal population is growing, however it will never become extinct. And these people(who's views are ridiculous) deserve to be represented. You're proposing a liberal totalitarianism, which I guess would be cool for liberals, but really not cool for others.
Now I'm gonna throw a curve-ball? What if by some miracle the tea-party get's really popular and there's and becomes the only party? That would really really suck. So the resolution isn't specific to liberals. So I think our current two-party or even add a 3rd party like in the time of the framers, but a single party always leads to problems.
Well I just want to put forth a few thoughts
" “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
George Washington seems to have been larely wrong. I'd say on balance we are more free(especially minorities).
What have we gained since Washington's time/
Voting rights for all
George Washington had just had an encounter with a tyrannical state, so he was a tad paranoid.
The bottom line is on any foreign or domestic issue "X" , one might have a differen't opinion than you.
What if you're view is contrary to the one-state party? Well your view is irrelevant, and that's not right. All views are supposed to be heard, that's why democracy is so great.
We are great liberal minds that think somewhat alike. The bottom issue is if we want a one party dominated (Hopefully a liberal-democratic party) we must do it the American way. We first must wake up out of the stupid Reaganomics and out of date conservative ideas. We must then take action to get the true better leaders into office.
I am always stuck on this. People like Gandhi and Jesus and M.L.K. and other great equal rights activist that support equality and acceptance for all are stuck under the same umbrella as Stalin and Hitler. If a person like one the first great men got into power of a similar type government ruled like Stalin or Hitler what would it be like? I think the country would prosper with Socialistic ideas and nationalization. A more stronger welfare system and environment protection system. A more logical immigration policy. A administration that brings job programs back like F.D.R. Civil rights fighter and minority protector like L.B.J. The country would be amazing and a outstanding look upon the earth. This could only be achieved with little to none optimal force. You would need a strong one party system to get these goal. Or have a country that is somewhat like minded and doesn't have Mississippi, or any other radical state.
The sad issue is that these opportunists have been seized by evil Authoritarian men that persecute and kill those opposed. A libertarian liberal would not persecute or compromise but do what is really better for the lesser even if they don't agree at that time.
We have a democracy and you really can't go wrong but it truly sucks...
I would also like to thank pro for this debate.
Now, I largely agree with you. However, within one-party states opression and hate seem to always follow. A one-party state is un-American. A one-party state seems to be prohibited by the UN. Also in a one-party stae, a lot of citizens wouldbe unrepresented.
Now pro failed in his BoP, mostly because the resolution is ambigious. Not only is a one-party state pretty much impossible, but if it was instituted,a lot of citizens would cause a RIOT.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.