The Instigator
Dave_82
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
THEBOMB
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

The two party system should be abolished.

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 5 votes the winner is...
THEBOMB
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/15/2012 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,732 times Debate No: 20416
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (5)

 

Dave_82

Pro

I am holding the position that the two party system has failed and causes more harm than good. My opponent should support the two party system and show evidence of it benefiting the country.
THEBOMB

Con

Alright I accept this debate and will allow my opponent to fire the opening shots. First, I want to make an observation.

O1. My opponent must provide what the two party system will be replaced with. Otherwise the contention is null and void as just abolishing the two party system is abolishing American politics.
Debate Round No. 1
Dave_82

Pro

First off let me apologize to my opponent for the short debate. I haven't been on this site for a while and I forgot that the acceptance counted as a round. With that out of the way, my opponent challenged me to come up with a replacement for the two party system. I think it would be better with a regular democracy. Don't get me wrong, I don't adhere to the Democratic viewpoints, I just think the populace should elect their own leaders, without the "help" of an electoral college. As to my reasoning for the claim that the two party system has failed is because all it does is give people a reason for infighting within the government. Politicians are more worried about beating the other side than actually getting anything done. As long as there are multiple political labels compromise will always take a back seat to competition.
THEBOMB

Con

My opponent still has not provided another system that will replace the two party political system, a more democratic system does not mean there are more than two major political parties. Furthermore, what is a "regular democracy?"

C1. The United States has had a two party system. Why change something which works?

Since the days of George Washington, there have always been two political parties. It first started as the Federalists and the Democratic Republicans (with the exception of the era of good feelings). Now it is Republicans and Democrats. This is part of the United State's tradition. The United States has had it's ups and downs but, the United State's government does work. The two party system only allows for two separate platforms to be in the government and actually have a chance for running for government. Imagine what would happen if you have 3 or 4 completely separate platforms all in Congress. The United States government would be much less efficient. Furthermore, I ask my opponent to answer the question of how can you ban the two party system, even if it was wanted.
Debate Round No. 2
Dave_82

Pro

First of all, my opponent seems to think that I support more than two parties. This is not the case. I agree that more parties would lead to less efficiency. It stands to reason, however, that if more parties make it less efficient then no parties would be more efficient. As to the statement that I didn't offer an alternative, that's it. Similar to our current government, but without the individual labels or the electoral college. A "regular democracy" is a system of government in which the people decide who to elect with a system of voting. Imagine our current voting system, but without the interference of an electoral college. Furthermore, my opponent claims that the current two party system works, but that is simply not the case. All you have to do is look at what's going on in Washington. Congress is in a constant stalemate because the two parties are more worried about the success of their party instead of the success of the country.
THEBOMB

Con

My opponents alternative is to have no political parties at all. But, the problem is, the framers absolutely hated political parties. They despised them. The constitutions intent was to set up a government, not set up political parties. But, they formed anyway because Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson had opposing views about the powers of the federal government, Jefferson wanted a limited government, Hamilton a more powerful one. There was never anyway to get around the fact that political parties will develop no matter what as long as groups of people oppose each others views.

Furthermore, my opponents suggestion is to abolish political parties and elect the 535 members of Congress plus the president in a democratic matter. But, wouldn't this mean instead of 2 prevalent views in Washington there are 535 prevalent views? This means LESS will get done. Not more. And let's say 200 of these people have similar views. Would they not band together to try to pass their legislation and control Congress? That is what a political party is. A two party system works better than the alternative.

I wish to have a longer debate on this topic with my opponent if he wishes to.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
Not that I'm part of this debate, but your point is flawed; people join parties because the party matches their political beliefs. Plus, it's not the labels that cause the fighting, it's the differing views. People will still have differing views. Besides, there are 4 sides to the political diamond, not 2:

Authoritarian on top
Liberal on the left
Conservative on the right
and Libertarian on the bottom.
Posted by Dave_82 5 years ago
Dave_82
Con asked how the party system could be banned, and I forgot to answer in my argument. The facts is, all you really have to change is to drop the individual labels and the electoral college. Imagine how much less fighting there would be if there were no Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, or any of the other labels that cause the fighting. Just people with opinions that are actually theirs, not opinions they have to have because that's what their party believes.
Posted by Dave_82 5 years ago
Dave_82
Abolishing the electoral college won't directly get rid of the two party system but it is the main difference between our dual party system and straight democracies. It is just one of the steps in getting rid of the party system.
Posted by debateme 5 years ago
debateme
I'm a bit confused as to what Pro is saying. Abolishing the electoral college doesn't mean that the two-party system will be abolished too.

I personally think that over time the Democratic Party will move more toward the authoritarian side and the Republican Party will move toward the libertarian side
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by larztheloser 5 years ago
larztheloser
Dave_82THEBOMBTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Debate was wildly abridged. Pro made an awesome argument for the abolition of electoral colleges. Trouble is, that wasn't the motion! Pro had BOP and failed miserably. Con's rebuttal was on the mark, but the good stuff was saved till last, which was a real shame. Close but clear conclusion - 3:1 neg win.
Vote Placed by Double_R 5 years ago
Double_R
Dave_82THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Neither side was compelling, but Con made more valid points. Pros only argument is that Washington is in constant stalemate because of the two parties, but Pro pointed out why both parties exist and pointed to the fact that America has been very successful with the two party system. Pro claims that more parties would be less efficient, therefore no parties would be better. Con however refutes this by showing that no parties = 535 separate opinions to contend with. Clear victory for Con.
Vote Placed by E.BurnumIII 5 years ago
E.BurnumIII
Dave_82THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Sub par debate but Pro made the only convincing argument and that is that the two party system is corrupt. "All you have to do is look at what's going on in Washington. Congress is in a constant stalemate because the two parties are more worried about the success of their party instead of the success of the country."
Vote Placed by Stephen_Hawkins 5 years ago
Stephen_Hawkins
Dave_82THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as imabench
Vote Placed by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Dave_82THEBOMBTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: really bad arguments by both sides, no sources used, no clear difference in conduct or grammar, bad debate...