The Instigator
Norah
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
kasmic
Con (against)
Winning
1 Points

Should political parties be abolished so that we can truly vote for the individual and not a party?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
kasmic
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/27/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 383 times Debate No: 81649
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Norah

Pro

This is my first attempt at this so if I do it wrong I'll try to do better the next time. In my opinion a big reason that politics creates such division is because of the inclination for the voter to pick sides. If there were no political parties then elections would be based on the true beliefs of the individual candidate and not a party or team. I think it would also alleviate aspects of partisanship and alleviate the pressure of elected officials to follow the party line.
kasmic

Con

Welcome to Debate.org and good luck!

Resolution: “Should political parties be abolished so that we can truly vote for a person and not a party.”

This resolution requires a lot from pro.

1: “Should political parties be abolished”

Should is synonymous with “ought.” (1)

"Ought" Implies "Can" It would be unjust impose impossible obligations. Capacity to perform obligations is a prerequisite to any moral system. "[T]he point of uttering moral judgments disappears if the agents involved are not able to act as proposed."(2) Thus Pro must not only show that there is merit to abolishing political parties, but that we can.

Because ought implies can, I invite pro to show who can and how they will abolish political parties. I would argue that it is not possible to eliminate political parties.

As political parties cannot be abolished, we cannot affirm that it ought to be.

2: “so that we can truly vote for a person and not a party”

The resolution implies that if the parties were abolished that people could truly vote. This requires two things from pro…

a) Pro must show that parties keep people from “truly voting.”
b) The removal of parties would solve the supposed issue.

Thus far neither has been proven.

Conclusion:

The burden of proof on pro is enormous. As of yet, none of that burden is met.

(1) http://www.thesaurus.com...
(2) http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk...
Debate Round No. 1
Norah

Pro

I think that i'm possibly in over my head but I'll try to make my case.

I think it would be possible to abolish political parties through an amendment of some sort. I know it would be difficult for congress to vote for such a thing since 100% of congress is party of a political party, but if it can't be done through a law then it would need to be a grassroots effort from future elected officials to run without a party and to make a point of saying that they do not belong or represent a party. If enough new elected officials start that then perhaps it could catch fire so to speak.

What I meant by truly voting is that right now a candidate is basically a representative of their party and is often times funded or supported by the party itself. If you didn't have that then when we listen to candidates and their platforms it isnt based off of the party's platform but their own, and so we'd be voting for the person and not the person/party.
kasmic

Con

1: “Should political parties be abolished”

I have argued that as political parties cannot be abolished, we cannot affirm that it ought to be. To this pro responded that “I think it would be possible to abolish political parties through an amendment of some sort.” Though, she admits “it would be difficult for congress to vote for such a thing since 100% of congress is party of a political party…” To expect congress to pass such an amendment that would be contrary to their own interests as well as what has been done in the past is not a convincing argument that abolishing political parties is plausible.


I will add another argument as to why political parties ought not be abolished in this way.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (1st Amendment U.S. Constitution.)

Congress would have to violate the first amendment to abolish the right of the people to peaceably assemble in groups so named as they choose to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Remember that a political party is “is an organization of people which seeks to achieve goals common to its members through the acquisition and exercise of political power.” (1)

Pro then presents an alternative. “if it can't be done through a law then it would need to be a grassroots effort from future elected officials to run without a party and to make a point of saying that they do not belong or represent a party.” This is an interesting proposal. These “grassroots” movements typically define themselves as a group, not unlike a political party of sorts. Essentially, pro is arguing that a grassroots political party should be started to abolish political parties. Again, unlikely… but also counterintuitive.

Thus we can conclude that political parties ought not be abolished as it would violate the first amendment and is incredibly unlikely if not impossible to achieve.

2: “so that we can truly vote for a person and not a party”

Pro’s defense of “truly voting” misses the mark. She says “right now a candidate is basically a representative of their party and is often times funded or supported by the party itself. If you didn't have that then when we listen to candidates and their platforms it isnt based off of the party's platform but their own, and so we'd be voting for the person and not the person/party.”

No one is forced to vote based on party lines, nor are we forced in to political parties. People are free to vote on whatever criteria they choose, political parties are not forced as a criteria. Thus, abolishing political parties does not have the impact of “truly voting.” A vote cast based on party is as “true” as a vote cast on any other criteria.

I mentioned last round that pro must

a) show political parties keep people from truly voting. I have shown they do not.

and,

b) the removal of parties would solve that issue. I have shown this also to not be the case.

Conclusion:

We can conclude that even if, as pro suggests, abolishing parties were possible, the impact of “truly voting” does not follow. Furthermore, we can conclude that political parties ought not be abolished for two reasons. Firstly, as a violation of the U.S. Constitution, and secondly as it is an impossible task.

The resolution is negated.

(1) https://en.wikipedia.org...

Debate Round No. 2
Norah

Pro

Norah forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kasmic 1 year ago
kasmic
Bummer, I hope she did not leave because of me.
Posted by studentlegislator 1 year ago
studentlegislator
I agree with Norah because , we would have a more informed voter however instead of removing the parties we should remove the party affiliation of the candidates instead of the parties
Posted by chlln 1 year ago
chlln
This can't be done and any attempt to force it being done would be en-cumbersome and ridiculous.

The reason we have two parties: Back in the day there were many parties, 8-10. But they realized if one party smoothed over their differences with another and joined up, they would have the votes from both parties supporters! As two grouped up others had to to compete, and the eventuality is only 2 major parties.

So now we know why we only have two parties, lets envision what would happen if we "banned" parties, there would be 50 candiates, one would subscribe to the "green movement" or whatever label they want, others would recognize joining in on this "movement" would allow the votes from both supporters to team up! so they would group up ideologically even if not officially announces as same party. It would be impossible to enforce this split of the parties with freedom of speech so enshrined in our constitution.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
NorahkasmicTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round, so conduct to Con.