Should we get rid of political parties?
Debate Rounds (3)
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.
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
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.
Drach forfeited this round.
Vote Con. All hail the Queen:
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dylancatlow 4 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||5|
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)
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.