The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 Points

Should we get rid of political parties?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/12/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,842 times Debate No: 30214
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




George Washington said that political parties would destroy this country and so far they have done just that. This isnt America this is Democrats vs Republicans. This isthe battle that has been going on for ages. Congress gets nothing done as it is to busy battling within its self. We the people of America should demand a end to this. Instead of battling we should come together and work on solving and fixing problems together so America can be the best it can be. When you elect a Senate member your electing them to represent you, but are they really representing you? Or their party? This is my first debate and I'm sorry if there is any grammar errors.



I will be arguing that getting rid of political parties would necessitate the violation of the people's right to freedom of association. I would offer that the adoption of instant-runoff voting would ameliorate many of the more deleterious aspects of party politics by making it easier for alternate parties to win elections.
Debate Round No. 1


Political Parties have done nothing to help America but bring battle in congress. Each time congress is voting to pass a bill its mostly all democrat voting it or all republican. Nothing gets done to help the people!


My opponent has made the case that political parties are an ilbegotten and destructive construct, which I do not dispute. What he has not done is successfully argued that our government ought to have to power to stop them from forming. I would argue that giving the government the power to regulate people's association, especially people's political association, would prove disastrous for liberty. Either my opponent must argue that the gains outweigh the dangers of such a rash endeavor, or he must provide a way to destroy political parties which does not call for the application of political force.

I will be arguing that a far more effective way to ease the power of political parties would be to introduce instant-runoff voting, or IRV. IRV is a system which works in the following manner:

You receive a ballot with, say, five places, and select your five most preferred candidates, listing them in descending order from that which is most preferred amongst them to that which is least, of the aforementioned five selections, preferred.

For example, let us say that the candidates are King Henry VIII, Patsy Stone, Voltaire, Montserrat Caballe, Marie Antoinette and Elaine Benes.

Now, for my vote, lets say that my ballot would be as follows:

1. Elaine Benes
2. Voltaire
3. Patsy Stone
4. Montserrat Caballe
5. King Henry VIII

Now, lets say that the results came down as follows:

1. Voltaire: 27%
2. Patsy Stone: 24%
3. Marie Antoinette: 19%
4. Elaine Benes: 17%
5. King Henry VIII: 7%
6. Montserrat Caballe: 6%

It seems that our poor diva was unable to compete with campaign promises of champagne, cake, sponges, and alimony-free divorce and will be eliminated. However, the people who voted for her will not have wasted their votes. All of their votes will be distributed to their second choice in the next round, which may look something like this:

1. Voltaire: 28% (+1)
2. Patsy Stone: 27% (+3)
3. Marie Antoinette: 19%
4. Elaine Benes: 17%
5. King Henry VIII: 9% (+2)

Now poor King Henry is eliminated. I guess that his idea of marital commitment lost him the woman's vote. The same thing happens.

1. Patsy Stone: 31% (+4)
2. Voltaire: 29% (+1)
3. Marie Antoinette: 21% (+2)
4. Elaine Benes: 19% (+2)

Elaine Benes is eliminated. Now this was my first choice, so my vote is now redirected to Voltaire. You'll also notice that the race has a new frontrunner at this point.

1. Patsy Stone: 37% (+6)
2. Marie Antoinette: 32% (+11)
3. Voltaire: 31% (+2)

This round, Voltaire, the former front runner, is removed from the race. His votes now go to the next choice of the voters. The next name listed on my ballot is 'Patsy Stone', so my vote passes to her in the final round:

Patsy Stone: 56% (+19)
Marie Antoinette: 44% (+12)

Patsy Stone ends up winning the election, even though she was second in the beginning, because most people preferred her to Voltaire overall. By using this system one could completely neuter the two party system. Think about it: why don't people vote for third party candidates? Because they are afraid of someone whom they really dislike winning, so they vote not for whom they most support but rather for whomever will ensure the defeat of this frightening adversary. What if you could vote for a third party candidate knowing that, should they fail to win, your vote would be given to your second choice? The entire 'throwing your vote out' argument is done away with. And if two parties don't have a death grip on the system, they cannot cause the mischief that they do today. This is why I think that it is much better to introduce some competition into the political sphere than it would be to introduce some heavy-handed solution.
Debate Round No. 2


Drach forfeited this round.


Vote Con. All hail the Queen:
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con forfeited, and Con provided a reasonable alternative. Conduct: Con (forfeit) Spelling: Con (insert tautology here) Convincing arguments: Con(Posted legitimate rebuttals while Pro posted babble) Sources: tied (neither one posted any sources)