Should the United States eliminate their Political Parties?
Debate Rounds (3)
1) Parties help the voters
The biggest advantage to the party system is that everyone knows what that party stands for, eliminating the busywork that every American would have to go through in order to be able to vote with any certainty for what they want. We as a nation simply don't have the time for researching all the candidates that are running for that specific election. Parties help us to know what those people believe and what they would be willing to fight for.
2) Our current election system doesn't allow it
As much as people may want to revoke the parties, our election system doesn't allow it. The system we use now (first past the post) simply requires one candidate to have half of the electoral votes. We have introduced new parties, however, due to the minority of people who agree with these parties, we still get stuck with the two-party system. Our voting system makes us vote strategically so the lesser of the two evils gets the post that is up for election. Our election system is so messed up, that it is actually possible to be elected to president without the half of the national support that the candidate should have.
We are benefiting from the party system, and we should keep it strong. I urge all of you to vote in negation of this resolution.
I am excited to see what is brought up against my contentions. Good luck!
So, I really believe that these great United States of America should eliminate their political parties.
Do I think it will ever happen?
Do I wish we had never had them in the first place?
In George Washington's farewell address, he stated that he would hope that the American people would not organize themselves into political parties. He also stated that it was human nature to join with others of the same belief, but he hated the idea of political parties, because he knew that there would always be one party (or two) that would take control.
Now, I know that there are a lot of helpful things that political parties can do, as you said, eliminate the busywork (any work at all), and you also said that our current election system doesn't allow it.
What we are talking about is eliminating the Party System altogether! That would not be like our "current" system, so I am not really sure why you even brought that up...
What I am really trying to say is that it honestly wouldn't be that hard to just listen to a candidate's beliefs, go into the voting booth, and vote for just him! YOU DON'T NEED PARTIES! Sure, it might be more work, but EVERYONE has different beliefs, and one of the advantages of the U.S. is that we are multi-cultural, so you can't limit someone's thought process to a standard set of beliefs taken by everyone in that party. In fact, I am not really sure why we have debates anyway! Because all of the party beliefs are very similar, we might as well just put "Republican" or "Democrat" on the ballot, and just take the candidate's name out!
I look forward to your response. Let's have fun with this!
Point of clarification, when I said "current system", I was talking about the election system that we have currently, not the party system. Our party system is far different from our election system. The party system was a side effect of the election system we are so dependent on. Seeing as the topic is "should the US eliminate their Political Parties", stating the fact that the election system is the reason we have the parties is a valid argument, and one that needs to be addressed. Almost any election system had the problem of strategic voting, making parties the inevitable outcome.
You stated in your George Washington quote the exact reason political parties are created to start with. Human nature is to bond with people who have our same beliefs and values. As much as people may detest parties, we still need them. And it isn't that specific parties take control, it's that the parties were the ones that had the most support at the time they were created.
Your last paragraph was indicating that the average American has plenty of time on their hands to go look up all of the beliefs that this specific candidate has. People just don't have the time for a non-party system. We need to have the party system in order for the American voting system to be anywhere near as successful as it currently is or has the potential to become. People find the party they most agree with and this allow us to just look for that on the ballot. (That is what is going on with the ballots by the way, the party written by the candidates name)
Let's look at it this way, people work forty hour weeks and have families that they need to take care of. They need to have the system in order to be able to vote in the elections. Here is a good analogy: not having political parties is like communism. They are both great on paper, but both suck in practice. We will fall back to the party system no matter what. This is just the way we as a species are. We need separation of ideas. We need the political parties.
For these reasons, I urge you to vote in negation of this resolution.
During Washington's presidency, Thomas Jefferson created the Democratic-Republican Party, in order to oppose Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Party, and part of Washington's farewell address was to try and take these away.
Yes, human nature is to bond with people who have our same beliefs and values, but I think we can both agree that it isn't always a good thing. I know that no one party usually takes control, but you can't hide the fact that at any one point in time, one political party or another has been "in control".
In my first argument, I stated that I thought that it would be better if individual candidates ran, instead of one candidate running for a party. Yes, most politicians may stick behind what their party "believes", but you and I both know that despite the majority, every single person has his/her own opinion, which they would love to voice.
No, I don't think that the American people have a ton of time to just waste, looking up the beliefs of each and every candidate, but even in the current system, our candidates spend hours upon hours arguing about why they should be elected, yet we all know exactly what each of them stand for. I'm saying that it would be more beneficial for the American people to have individuals stand up for what they believe, not what people are telling them to believe.
I know about the millions and millions of people that work 1000+ hours a year, and how much they "need" the political parties. They need efficient, time saving, and productive systems, and I think that political parties are efficient, they are time saving, but they are not productive. Simply put, the two major parties have not progressed since they were created.
We need a new way, a new process, a new system for the government we already have. Keep the same government, but increase the influence that individual has, not the two simple-minded, horizontal-thinking parties that we already have. For this reason, I feel I deserve all 7 points.
Now for rebuttal.
I also didn't say he was the reason, just that your quote supports my position better than it supports yours. People bond together to be heard. This is true for political parties, unions, protests, and revolutionists. We bond to be heard. Political parties are the natural course of things, and are the most effective way to have an entire nation get their opinion out for their leaders to hear.
There are very few examples of when bonding with people who share common beliefs and views is a bad thing. The reason is your voice gets heard. And it wouldn't matter if we had defined parties or not, a party like system would occur. And your point about one group being in control is like me saying that the sky is blue. Again, it wouldn't matter if the parties existed or not, whomever held an office would have control. So instead of the checks and balances provided by parties, we have a single person deciding what they want for the district they are supposedly representing.
As nice as it would be to have as many people as we want running for office, that will never happen. The nation would divide and back a select few from the mass of options. I agree people should voice their opinion, (1st amendment) but that takes time from the candidates campaign and from the voters free time. Parties just make both of these issues easier to deal with, thereby effectively using not only their time, but the voters as well.
Even you must admit that the reason we know what candidates stand for is because of parties. The debates are simply to clarify opinions that the individual parties may not have. And to say these parties haven't progressed is blasphemy. Slavery, religion, abortion, and the LGBT community (to name a few) are proof that parties change, progress, and evolve as the "big" issues evolve with time.
Our systems match up, from governing, to electing, and they are all tied together. Change one, and you will have to change them all. I have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that A. parties are beneficial, B. a direct link exists between our election system and the party system, and C. that parties are the natural course of things. The conclusion is clear: you must vote in negation of the resolution.
Thank you to everyone who reads, votes, comments, and even helped with this debate!
In conclusion, I would like to directly disprove your first two statements, which are:
1) Parties help the voters
2) Our current system doesn't allow it.
First, the political parties definitely do not help the voters. The whole point of a democratic republic is that even the common man could rise up to lead a nation and make important decisions. In our current system, it takes a whole lot of work and time, along with knowing the right people, just to get into a local office, let alone a federal position. Those who make it into such positions often have family members in similar areas. This almost takes away the whole point of a democratic republic, so as you said, if one has to go, they all have to go.
You said that the average american would have to go through "busywork" if there were no political parties. First, I would like to know what kind of "busywork" we would have to go through, just to elect an official. Second, you said that "We as a nation simply don't have time for researching all the candidates". That is what the debates are for. Get someone on a stage, and have him tell you exactly what he believes.
Next, you said that our current system doesn't allow it, but I disagree. By "our current system", I will assume you mean the voting process. 95% of Americans use 5.8 hours in idleness, even after working the average 8.1 hours. Would it really be hard to take 5 minutes to look up a candidate that you like and find out what he believes? Yes, it would take some effort, but if it came to it, you could even just post what each candidate believes next to his box.
"A house divided cannot stand"-Abraham Lincoln. To the few, maybe tens of people reading this, our house is divided. Our house is divided between two unneeded, unproductive parties, where everyone believes generally the same thing, and no one is courageous enough to stand up for what he/she really believes. Our house is divided between those who care very little about our country and the very few that want ours to succeed. Those who care very little about our country are those who can see the perilous nation we live in, and not do anything about it. But those who want our country to go on and grow, are noticing this unseeable danger, and are trying to do something about it. One of the things we can change is the political party system.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Deadlykris 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: The voting system on this site is more robust than our political voting system.
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.