Should we reform the political parties in America?
Debate Rounds (4)
Most Americans do not align them self with a political party. Over 90% at the last poll, before 2010 census, viewed themselves as independents. So why do we force them to pick republican or democratic party? Also our beliefs are so loosely defined that it is hard to determine which party stands what. A democrat is liberal to moderate and a republican is conservative to moderate. There is high over lap in the moderate area.
Per the rules put forth in Round 1, I shall make my own arguments without responding to my opponents'. Even though my opponent is arguing for a specific kind of reform, I cannot address his proposal since that would be contradictory to the rules. Instead, I must make my own arguments for why current American political parties should stay as they are.
One positive of the current two-party system is that it allows voters to choose one candidate or the other, both of which are likely to be elected. If we had ten political parties of equal size then during each election there would more likely be ten candidates who would each receive ten percent of the vote. If one of these candidates won the election, that would leave the other 90% of voters unsatisfied since the person they cast their ballot for wasn't elected. It would create a system where the people are less happy about their new officials. This could lead to more potential protests and other means of public distress. In other countries such as Egypt, we've witnessed the people rise in revolts to overthrow the president and set a new one in office. As Americans, we want to keep our elections civil. It is important that citizens who live in a country are content with their leaders. Also, the Electoral College makes it so that if there were several equally influential parties then each would probably receive a few states' votes, only if that party has the majority vote in that state. If the state does not have the majority vote, then it would lead into a runoff election which would be a bigger mess.
America is unique in the area that it is stable in its politics. Most other democracies have dozens of parties, many with very narrow agendas. With such an amount of parties, it is hard to reach agreement on virtually anything. For example, the Prohibition Party has one main goal: to prohibit the use of drugs, alcohol, etc. The Republican Party however is focused on a wide variety of issues, ranging from immigration to cutting taxes to reducing government expansion. A candidate of either the Rep. or Dem. parties are usually focused on setting several things straight, unlike runners from the minority parties whose agendas are pitted against others. Voters are allowed to cast a ballot for third parties, but by doing so their voice is constricted to supporting the few objectives of the third parties.
I'll limit my contentions to this size for now and will resort to rebutting next round.
You look at England who normally has 70 percent or more of its population vote and it has four very strong and stable political parties. Yet there system is very good. Run offs are not bad in the sense we Americans think about it but it is bad more in the way we handle them. If the run off just simply eliminated contestants then lead into a re vote like they have in England than it would work much better. In the United States their isn't support for a system to get more than 4 parties. Side note nothing about our elections generally are not civil compared to other countries like us.
The problem with the current set up for our problems is that the Republican party stands for certain things and certain issues but people within that party can disagree on certain items or can rate items and problems in a different order. We see this now in high a teacup member in Senator Ted Cruz is running for the republican nomination for the presidency in 2016 according to reports. Yet he doesn't line up with what the official parties stance is on several issues. Here is a link that shows what the republican party stands for or what its stance is on issues, http://www.ontheissues.org.... Then you take a look at Chris Christie who also has been rumored to run for republican nomination in 2016. Their are republicans who have called him a conservative democrat.
Also, The third parties in this country do not stand for a few objectives they stand for many things but only run on what seperates them for the democrats and the republicans. This is because more of the time when there is a third party brave enough to make a run at the presidency they don't have the funds required to make a run at the President election and by the general election is on people who focus on the election don't even know you they are unless they come from a know party and were beat in the primary and then after a couple weeks they are forgotten.
Since this is the only round for refuting, I'll address both of my opponent's R2 and R3 contentions.
Pro has made several unfounded claims such as "People get mad at the government and the parties because there is a lack of trust and transparency and it annoys the populates" and has provided no sources to back these assertions. Even if this is true, Pro hasn't offered a solution to this issue and hasn't explained why reforming political parties will make this better. Also, since these parties take opposite stances on practically every issue, there is a lot that Americans can relate to. If they support drug legalization, then they can relate to the Democratic party. If they support a border fence, then they can relate to the Republican. Any controversial issue, political, social, or fiscal, has a two sides and a party for either side.
The Gallup poll asks U.S. citizens which party they affiliate with each month. As of January 2015, 29% of those polled identify as Republican, 42% Independent, and 28% Democrat. Pro is wrong about his 90% claim as we have seen, giving no sources to back it up.
Pro brings up England, France, Germany, and most Scandinavian countries but doesn't say how they were relevant to this debate, so that argument can be dismissed. After that, my opponent mentions how swings states are the ones that determine election. This may be true, but it is more of an argument against the Electoral College than the two-party system. If there were ten parties, and each party was equally influential in terms of voting, then it would be a miracle for one party to get over 50% of the vote in one state. Runoff elections take much more time and effort since it is an extra election and a lot more money is needed to pay for campaigning, voting booths, counters, etc. A two-party system is a much better way of avoiding this needless waste of time and money.
"If the run off just simply eliminated contestants then lead into a re vote like they have in England than it would work much better." -Pro
Actually, that is exactly what happens with runoff elections in the U.S. It is called the two-round system.
In the latest UK Parliamentary election in 2010, the voting turnout was 65.77%, so my opponent wasn't too far off. However, this stat does not support the argument that parties should be reformed since my opponent has not managed to provide a connection between voter turnout and the UK's political parties, which would give this argument base.
After making the baseless assertion that the U.S.'s elections are less civil than other countries like us, which can be dismissed, Pro contends that candidates inside a party don't necessarily agree with everything they stand for. While this is true, it isn't a legitimate argument against the two-party sysyem. A voter may not agree with everything the party stands for either, but will be able to vote for a certain candidate within that party that represents their views best. Two main parties allow for lots of room for candidates wthin that party to make their own objectives, goals, and views without having to revert to an entirely different party. It is better than several equally sized parties because it avoids the problems that come with elections.
Lastly, not every third party stands for a few objectives but a lot of them do, such as the Prohibition Party which I mentioned earlier. Following the link that my opponent provided just adds to my point that the Republican Party is focused on fixing a wide range of problems, ranging from international, domestic, economic, and social issues. To diminish this party and bring up other parties whose range of issues are restricted rather than one or the other would create democratic elections that are less appealing to the population.
star2017 forfeited this round.
Unfortunately Pro did not come back to finish the debate. It is proper that this result in a loss of conduct for Pro.
The current system of political parties in America has been working for many years and need not change. Two major parties allow for a broad discussion of all issues, and are nicely divided into two sides that anyone van choose from. It simplifies the system of politics and would be much better than a complicated tangle of a dozen or more parties whose objectives are pointed in random directions. There is almost no issue that is not addressed by either party. Being a member of one party does not mean you must agree with everything that party stands for; it simplifies the system as it is.
Reforming the current system would lead to more election confusion, such as issues with reaching a majority vote in the country, let alone a state. It would dissolve public appeal for candidates with little support going to each of the many runners.
I have successfully met each of Pro's points and have fully negated the resolution. Vote Con.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 2 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||1|
Reasons for voting decision: FF
You are not eligible to vote on this debate