The Instigator
RicardoChaves
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
javeldc
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Do you think that a Two-party system is good enough to any country?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/26/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 915 times Debate No: 42971
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

RicardoChaves

Con

Hello and Merry Christmas to all! Welcome to this debate!

Round 1 Acceptance.

P.S I'm European and English is not my main Language so I'm sorry for any grammatical mistakes!
javeldc

Pro

Two party system can be a good thing if there are too many opinions in one governments that may cause problems. If there are two many ideas looking to be dominant than that turns out to be chaotic. When there are only two parties in a government it makes things simple while keeping things in order. Two party government also are very successful. Look at America. They have a two party government and they are also one of the world powers and have done things in a shorter amount of time than a lot of nations around the world. Two party governments are simple still give people an option between two thing they may or may not believe in. Even if they do not like either of the options in the government they are still able to pick the lesser of the two evils. Two party governments are not a bad thing and may even be a good thing.
Debate Round No. 1
RicardoChaves

Con

You start your arguments saying that the Two Party system can be good if there are too many opinions that may cause problems.

This is a scenario involves a lot of probabilities, you are not 100% sure that is better(the usage of the term can), too many opinions is one thing that doesn't really exist, in democracy, all opinions are valued the same and every citizen has the right to have his own opinion, having a society with different perspectives and experiences can only be good to a truly democratic system, if everybody had the same beliefs democracy wasn't needed.

I'm sorry but I couldn't understand what you wanted to say in this phrase: "If there are two many ideas looking to be dominant than that turns out to be chaotic."

Your next argument says that 2 parties makes things simple and in order.

In terms of being simple, 1 party countries like China are even more simple, is that good? Do you think that simple, when we are talking about democracy is a good attribute? In my opinion it isn't, democracy is the opposite of simplicity and both things cannot simply co-exist in the case of the United States although they have only 2 parties they make a big thing about the primaries which most democratic countries ignore and if the United States wanted a simple system they would have a unicameral instead of the bicameral system they have. Basically what I want to say is the Bicameral Two Party System of the USA is not more simple than the Unicameral Multi-Party System of Portugal, I would even argue that the Portuguese System is more simpler.

In terms of order you didn't specify what you mean by order, are you talking about criminal rate? In the United States the rate per 100,000 population of intentional homicides is 4.7 this is a higher value than a lot of Multi-Party System Countries(by a lot I mean there are more than 50 Multi-Party System countries with less rate of intentional homicides).
If you are talking about crime in general the USA have a bigger Crime Index than some Multi-Party Countries(Source: http://www.numbeo.com...).

Your next argument makes no sense, there are a lot of other countries with a Two Party System, for example: Jamaica, Malta, Honduras, Nicaragua, etc. they virtually have very little success if you compare them to the UK, France, Italy,Germany, etc.
Another part of your argument that makes no sense is "have done things in a shorter amount of time than a lot of nations around the world.", this is a very relative subject I'm sure you have no source for this information, you don't even specify which things you are talking about and you even admit that there are some countries doing things faster.
And if by fast you mean passing laws this is what happens in the USA that doesn't happen as much as in other parts of the globe: http://articles.latimes.com... .

"Two party governments are simple still give people an option between two thing they may or may not believe in. Even if they do not like either of the options in the government they are still able to pick the lesser of the two evils. "

You argument is interesting but how can you have this view and think it is good enough, they give you an option between two things that you might believe or not and picking the less of two evils is a very, very stupid thing in my personal opinion. You should be able to vote in the party with the more common ideology that you have and not voting to pick the less of two evils.

Here is an interesting quote:

"Herein lies the central tension of the two–party doctrine. It identifies popular sovereignty with choice, and then limits choice to one party or the other. If there is any truth to Schattschneider's analogy between elections and markets, America's faith in the two–party system begs the following question: Why do voters accept as the ultimate in political freedom a binary option they would surely protest as consumers? ... This is the tyranny of the two–party system, the construct that persuades United States citizens to accept two–party contests as a condition of electoral democracy."

Lisa Jane Disch, The Tyranny of the Two-Party System, 2002

This is a very interesting point when we are talking about consume good everybody wants to have freedom of choice between different but similar products and when it comes to politics people are not smart enough to say that they want more options when you go to the Super Market and you have to chose between 2 different types of Rice you don't pick the "less of the two evils" you want the one that you prefer the best to eat. And do you know why this happens?
Two-party systems downplay alternative views, being less competitive, encouraging voter apathy since there is a perception of fewer choices, and putting a damper on debate within a nation.

This small part of my arguments is purely based on my life experience and my views I'm an European and I was born in a Democratic Multi-Party System, I can't understand how the American people in one of the most advanced nation on Earth can be satisfied between basically 2 Right Wing Parties one more conservative(the Republican Party) and one more liberal(the Democratic Party), American people that are social-democrats must vote democratic because it is the less of 2 evils but that is plain wrong! In Portugal we have 5 main Parties : Christian Democracy Conservatives, Liberals, Social-Democrats, Socialists and Communists, it is not perfect but at least you have a bigger margin of choice, there are some other parties and unlike in the USA they have a real chance of become a main party if enough people vote for them.

Conclusion

In my opinion a Two Party system is not good enough, it has very some small advantages like stability(you didn't mention this one) but in the end it is only good for those 2 political parties, the people that lives in those countries have less freedom of choice and in some cases end up voting for "less of 2 evils".


Sources:


http://books.google.pt...
http://www.numbeo.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
javeldc

Pro

A Two Party government is a good thing. If you have to many ideas at one time it ends out being chaotic and more likely to end in something not so good. If you think about, if you have a hundred opinions in one room and they are all screaming it out which one would you hear. The point is you wouldn't hear anything except a jumble of screaming. all would want to be the most important and want to have the most control. If you want to think hypothetically people always want to be the most important so when you bring in more people and for this topic more parties and more members into a government what happens then. What would happen could be one of a couple of things. Number one would be war because the one party that is determined to be in control would most likely do anything they can to get that control. The number two thing that would happen is chaos. If you have too many people in a government and they are fighting to put laws into place and they are trying to create order but if you have too many people that's more people that laws and regulations have to go through and its a strong possibility nothing would get done. Even in America where there are only two parties they still have problems deciding and there are only two parties what would happen if there were more. This of course is all hypothetical but still very plausible.

Next I would like to point out that the untied kingdom can be considered a two party government and they are in fact successful. They have been able to hold their own much longer than I've been around. Also in the united States if I am not mistaken there are other lesser parties involved they just do not have as much power like for example the Green party.
source:http://www.princeton.edu...

MY next point is the united states is successful if you think about it there are countries that have been around for thousands of years. How long has the U.S. been around for a couple hundred years. With that being said and considering America is in fact a world power and sometimes considered the world police how do someone not consider them to be a success. On top of that. How often do you hear of countries like Portugal on the world new. America shows up daily no matter for good or bad. They fix the bad and enhance the good and they are a two partied government.

Next talking about the lesser of two evils you can't please everyone and they aren't always happy. If you have a hundred parties there will still be someone unhappy. And if you think about people in America are generally good with living there. Many countries aspire to be like the U.S. Still they are a two partied government.

Two partied government are a good thing and there are the good and bad in every government after all there is not such thing as an utopia.
Debate Round No. 2
RicardoChaves

Con

I think that you are missing huge points, one thing is to have 100 opinions in one room another is to have 5 opinions, other is to have 2 opinions and other is to have 1 opinion. Screaming 100 ideas seems chaotic, if screaming 2 ideas it is not, then screaming 3/4 or 5 it is the same. Then when parties are on the Congress/Parliament people don't even scream or fight if it happens it's a bad sign, so even if a Country have 10 parties represented on their Congress/Parliament it won't be more or less chaotic it will be exactly the same.

"Number one would be war because the one party that is determined to be in control would most likely do anything they can to get that control. The number two thing that would happen is chaos. "

This is absolutely wrong at so many levels, most of the civil wars never opposed different parties in a multi-party system and in almost all countries Civil Wars never started because of that, examples: American Civil War, Portuguese Civil War, Greek Civil War, the Spanish Civil War, etc. . And just to prove you wrong most of the Civil Wars were in Two Party System Countries, the American Civil War, the Spanish Civil War(Republicans vs Nationalists), the Portuguese Civil War(Absolutists vs Liberals), etc. And the most important reason is: there are hundreds of countries with a multi-party system do you see hundreds of civil wars? Of course not because things do not work that way.

So the best way to explain you is to define Chaos: "A condition or place of great disorder or confusion." [1].

About the disorder I already explained you, if by disorder you mean crime, homicides, etc. USA have it bigger than most of the multi-party system countries. So it only leaves confusion, I admit that for some people a Democracy is something confusing, but for most people it isn't, having more alternatives/more parties in your country only promotes good values and it doesn't promote confusion, if people are not confused by 2 parties, would they be if there is a 3rd one? The answer is of course no.

"If you have too many people in a government and they are fighting to put laws into place and they are trying to create order but if you have too many people that's more people that laws and regulations have to go through and its a strong possibility nothing would get done. Even in America where there are only two parties they still have problems deciding and there are only two parties what would happen if there were more. This of course is all hypothetical but still very plausible."

I think you are misunderstanding one thing since the beginning of the debate, when you have a multi-party system you vote for those parties, the party with more seats in the parliament/congress is invited to form a government they can form coalitions to have the majority of the parliament and that happens some times, not all the time. So you can have governments representing only 1 party and in those cases everything is exactly the same as a Two party system. When a party doesn't have the majority they form coalitions or not, if they decide, if they form a coalition everything is the same as a Two Party system, the only difference is that now the 2 parties must find a consensus and sometimes the bigger party changes some small stuff so the small party keeps supporting them. When the Party that won the elections doesn't have the majority of the Parliament and don't form a coalition to grant it, in those cases things gets a little more complex and by every law they want to pass they need to make some adjustments in order to get the support of other parties.

So, governments generally don't have many parties, generally 1 or 2, and that is not too many people, there is not a strong possibility of nothing getting done, it can only happen if the government have no majority of the parliament and in those cases they can still make coalitions. In America they have problems because the Republican Party or the Democrat tries to sabotage each other, or sometimes you have a President of X Party and X is not the majority of the congress(making everything you said good about a two party system irrelevant). For example of this day the USA have a Democrat President but a Republican Majority, House of Representatives.[2]

And you are right it is very hypothetical but not so much plausible.

"Next I would like to point out that the untied kingdom can be considered a two party government and they are in fact successful. They have been able to hold their own much longer than I've been around. Also in the united States if I am not mistaken there are other lesser parties involved they just do not have as much power like for example the Green party."

This is a great topic that you got, and it is my fault for not specify what a Two Party System really means in this conversation, what I mean by a multi-party or a two-party system is the number of parties with seats on the congress/parliament. Of course some people say that the UK is a Two-Party system because you have 2 major parties but the reality is that they in the political sense are wrong for example the British Government is constituted by 2 Parties, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats[3] and they have 1 major party in the opposition, the Labour Party and 8 small parties in the opposition, that are represented in the Lower Chamber of the Parliament of the UK[4]. Basically in the UK you have 2 Major parties(Conservatives and the Labour Party), a Third Party(the Liberals), 8 small parties and then independents. In the US House of Representatives you have only 2 Parties and Independents.

So you see the difference? When you vote in the US you basically can only choose between 2 parties with seats on the Congress and when you vote in the UK you can chose between 11 parties that have seats on the Parliament. Yes they still have 2 major parties but the system is completely different.

"MY next point is the united states is successful if you think about it there are countries that have been around for thousands of years. How long has the U.S. been around for a couple hundred years. With that being said and considering America is in fact a world power and sometimes considered the world police how do someone not consider them to be a success. On top of that. How often do you hear of countries like Portugal on the world new. America shows up daily no matter for good or bad. They fix the bad and enhance the good and they are a two partied government."

You can't compare this kind of stuff, this is the same saying that China is the second worlds economy[5] that grows almost 4x as the US economy every year[6] and they are on the news all time is a Communist System with only 1 Party and without basic freedoms, good enough? Of course not. And as I said before there are many other countries with a Two-Party system with much less success than countries with a Multi-Party system.

"Next talking about the lesser of two evils you can't please everyone and they aren't always happy. If you have a hundred parties there will still be someone unhappy. And if you think about people in America are generally good with living there. Many countries aspire to be like the U.S. Still they are a two partied government."

We can easily use your argument to the Communist China again: "You can't please everyone in China so we only have 1 party, if you had 100 parties someone wouldn't be happy. People in China are generally good living there(last poles indicate 79% of the people on China are happy with their standard of lives and their government). [7] Many Countries aspire to be like China. Still they are a one-party system country".
I ask again: is a Communist System with only 1 Party and without basic freedoms, good enough? Of course not.

And about the choosing between the less of two evils is just ridiculous, I already used this Idea but I'll try to explain it even further: So you are an heterosexual and I give you a choice to choose a sexual partner for the next 4 years, two guys one muscular and other more feminine, and you must make a decision or someone else is going to decide for you, are you going to choose the more feminime, then the less of two evils? I know this is a extreme comparison but you can make it for other things, food, health, basically everything related to our western civilization consumerism.

Having more than 2 options is always good, it promotes debate, promotes different views and a more intellectual society. I think that a Two Party System is not good enough, people need more choices even the American people realize that, this is why they give such a huge media impact for the primaries.

Sources:
[1] - http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
[2] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[4] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] - http://en.wikipedia.org...(nominal)
[6] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
[7] - http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn...
javeldc

Pro

javeldc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
RicardoChaves

Con

I won't say anything this round and wait for my opponent to expose his arguments!
javeldc

Pro

javeldc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
javeldc

Pro

javeldc forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.