The Instigator
Thegreatdebate98
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
blackkid
Con (against)
Winning
21 Points

The current US two party system isn't working

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 4 votes the winner is...
blackkid
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/22/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,122 times Debate No: 75290
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (15)
Votes (4)

 

Thegreatdebate98

Pro

This debate is on the topic of the current political system and the way our government runs it itself. Now it seems quite vague, but there's room to narrow it down throughout your arguments as well. The two party system has created a divide in the United States. Republicans are becoming more Conservative and Democrats are becoming more Liberal. With this divide, comes controversy, corruption, and irrational anger. Both parties blame the other for the issues going on in this nation. If Libertarians, Independents, and other parties were more dominant, than people would actually be able to voice their opinion. Many people don't agree with everything their party typically agrees with, but with more freedom, will come more honest politicians. Politicians do not always vote in favor of their actually viewpoint, but what the people within their party would accept. We rely heavily on our politicians and blame each and every mistake they make. They are just people who need to represent the people, instead of being in office for popularity and recognition. Without this two party system, people would realize how much more they have in common than they thought. Nowadays, people don't actually voice their opinions rationally, but instead stereotype their opposing party as if it's the root of all evil. The party's have become people's religions, almost like cults in their severe loyalty. I'm not just discussing extremists, but the party's as a whole.
blackkid

Con

The Two Party System

I propose that the bicameral system is effective simply on the grounds that all systems eventually fall to a basic set of systems and that number tends to be low with mostly black and white contrastual thinking regardless of political vantages which in turn means that while there are a myriad of issues there is not a need for a myriad of groups to represent those issues. In the case of the American bicameral scenario you find that the Democrats, whom have subgroups of many flavors, tend towards the worker while the Republicans, whom have their subgroups as well, tend towards the investor.

The interests of these two groups are usually adequately met by the two parties and morality in political science plays a role but ultimately the goals of the politicking tends to revolve around those two ideals which are key to the enterprise foundation of the country relating to Capitalism and it's foundation that "anyone can make it if they try hard enough" as an ideal. Variation of groups does tend to prevent power struggles and the like however when considering the strength of the value of the ideal ultimately it is the same problem and same bilateral condition that creates the environment. Instead of having a multiparty system that negotiates and simply tends to "even out" the effects of legislation the United States uses a system that simply punctures the issue full on with great effect.

I would say that when things get done they actually get done to great effect. Stagnation is a problem in all systems of government regardless of party number and while party number can ease the effect of stagnation the cost is often effectiveness and speed of effectiveness as well as intensity.
Debate Round No. 1
Thegreatdebate98

Pro

The necessity of a multi-party system isn't only for the sole purpose of "decisions being made faster." There may be many different subgroups within each political party, but there are still certain issues that the government as a whole agrees on, but the "big government" mindset isn't necessarily taking place within the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, etc. Now, what do I mean by that? Let's look at the issue of marijuana legalization. Even though it is legal for recreational use in the state of Colorado, it's still considered a federal misdemeanor. I'm not going to get into a completely different subject or argument on this issue, however, the main reason why the government isn't legalizing it has nothing to do with health effects marijuana causes or other external problems (high while driving), otherwise cigarettes wouldn't be legal. This seems off topic, but it has everything to do with the way our system is being run. That goes deeper than just Republican and Democrat. The government doesn't want to tax people if they're selling it legally. On the surface of things the current political system seems like a practical idea, and that's not to say that we shouldn't have two candidates running against each other, because that's the fairest system. If we had 4 candidates running against each other, the person who won wouldn't be what the majority voted for, just in the majority percentage itself. If we have a multi-party system, then shrink the candidates to two people in the primaries, it could give opportunity for voters to focus less on the particular party the candidates are in.
blackkid

Con

"I'm not going to get into a completely different subject or argument on this issue, however, the main reason why the government isn't legalizing it has nothing to do with health effects marijuana causes or other external problems (high while driving), otherwise cigarettes wouldn't be legal." This would require a citation.

However returning to the main point I'll address the fact that minor parties are not getting any spotlight. The problem here is that minor party spotlight isn't a driving force for any particular standard for instance many minor party desires are encapsulated in major parties including the legalization of marijuana (http://www.people-press.org...) with an ironic 63% of Democrats saying it should be compared to 58% Independents. Also Independents are more likely to side with jailing for possession over the same group. The notion that it is not an issue that is managed under the bicameral system is quite false and that brings me to the point where there's no substance to the idea that national issues only belong to parties and that smaller parties require a say in order to push various issues because even if a minor party is in office that is not a guarantee or even a better chance at passing anything of the sort since it is doubtable at best that an executive order could be made to legalize a substance of any sort.

"If we have a multi-party system, then shrink the candidates to two people in the primaries, it could give opportunity for voters to focus less on the particular party the candidates are in."

This is actually how it is at current. Multiple parties run but most are never really given any credible following partially because democrats and republicans as parties have not only notariety but most of the political investment of the country which is to say that most senators and congressmen are of these two parties and therefore the people have already invested in them as representatives; if more persons were from other parties in smaller elections perhaps there would be a shift in bigger elections.
Debate Round No. 2
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 2 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
==================================================================
>Reported vote: Go4thegold // Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Pro was able to defend his arguments more strongly than con.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Lack of specifics. Can be copy-pasted to any debate. Makes no mention of what those arguments are. (2) No explanation for sources.
===========================================================================
Posted by Lulzy 2 years ago
Lulzy
I plan to read and vote on this, but I have to ask...

73 DAYS FOR A VOTING PERIOD?! WHYYYYYY?!
Posted by carlosrymer 2 years ago
carlosrymer
This is a debate we as Americans have had for a very long time. We may think that the two-party system doesn't work because of the parties themselves, but doing so ignores what drives the parties to act. There are two main big sources of influence for the major parties: special interests and the public.

Everybody knows about special interests. They've been around since the inception of our nation. They might be more noticeable now because of how much communication has improved and because their influence grows as the economy grows, but nonetheless they've been around for a long time. And it's not just in Washington, D.C. They've been exerting their influence in towns and big cities across the country.

The second major source of influence for the parties is the public, who's views is largely shaped by the media, which lives off of dividing America into two sides of most debates of concern. I wrote an article that goes into how this cycle works, and I welcome comments on what people think: http://room4debate.com....

Ultimately, it really boils down to Americans bringing about the change we want. We are easy to find blame, but it is hard for us to muster the will to be responsible for real change, both in Washington and in our communities. The fact is that most of us, if sent to Congress, would do exactly what politicians are doing today. We have to change our culture if we want things to change. We have to embrace facing up to the challenges ourselves in creative ways. Otherwise, we'll keep having this age-old debate about our parties, corruption, cronyism, and our frustrations with government.
Posted by Max.Wallace 2 years ago
Max.Wallace
The two party system is working perfectly for the TWO PARTIES! Everyone else be damned, according to they, the party. We the people, thats where i'm from.
Posted by michael90000 2 years ago
michael90000
One Party State like Singapore.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Actually, I think the US government needs something like the House of Lords, only made up of professors and intellectual from top-rated American universities. Providing them with the power to craft legislation would mostly be a bonus in my eyes. It certainly wouldn't be worse than the current system we have in place, where elected officials decide the direction of the nation.

Democracy can be good . . . to a point.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Isn't*
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Yeah. I favor a parliamentary form of government, too. The two-party system is really benefiting a lot of people.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
provide*
Posted by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Democracy values freedom and people power--it doesn't value effective results.

If that's what you want, democracy has to be altered to provided that.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Henrysmolen 2 years ago
Henrysmolen
Thegreatdebate98blackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I never thought about it that way, but I guess he's right.
Vote Placed by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
Thegreatdebate98blackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm very split on this, however this was very well conducted on both parties. I'll have to toss two points to con, however, because they seem to conduct their arguments more eloquently. I still agree with pro to an extent so I'm not going to say that con won me over wholly.
Vote Placed by PericIes 2 years ago
PericIes
Thegreatdebate98blackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: There was little inherently wrong with Pro's debate; Con's was simply more polished and more convincing.
Vote Placed by CentristX 2 years ago
CentristX
Thegreatdebate98blackkidTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Poor debate overall, more rounds would have been nice. S&G goes to Pro because the Con had a lot of run on sentences that were confusing to read. Con did, however, have more convincing arguments while the Pro went on to talk about the legalization of marijuana, which I saw no evidence in doing so. Con was also the only one to give an outside source that was indeed reliable.