The Instigator
gregg0325
Pro (for)
Losing
14 Points
The Contender
wjmelements
Con (against)
Winning
51 Points

the two party system undermines democracy in U.S. presidential eletions.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/12/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,845 times Debate No: 5704
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (18)
Votes (10)

 

gregg0325

Pro

the two party system undermines democracy because most people that vote either vote democrat or republican because they don't really consider their other options in which to choose. America gets all of it's information about the presidential candidates from the media and the media has failed to inform us about the other political parties such as the pot party, the libertarian party, and many others. Why do they not deserve and equal chance to for president?
wjmelements

Con

To undermine means to ruin or make pointless.
The two party system is assumed to be refferring to the current two major parties, the Republican Pary and the Democratic Party.
Democracy is the political structure recognizing the ability to elect positions of power.

Background:
The major reason we have a two pary system in the United States is because of the two major political movemens of our current era. They are the Liberal Movement and the Conservative Movement. The Liberal Movement aims to increase the size of government and ensure all kinds of equality to everybody. The Conservative Movement aims to lessen the size of government and preserve traditional values. Other political movements, such as the Libertarian Movement and the Green Movement are not as influential as the Conservative Movement and the Liberal Movement and have a lesser following.

The Conservative Movement is mostly backed by the Republican Party, and the Liberal Movement is mostly backed by the Democratic Party.
..............................................................................................................
To answer my opponent's question, "Why do they not deserve and equal chance to for president?", it is because they have a lesser following in the first place. People join political parties parties because they believe the party's principles.

My opponent brings up the media. Yes, the media is often biased and that is often a way to get ratings. However, if one wanted to get information of other political candidates, there is the internet, which is widely availible in the U.S. Again, if there was a higher demand for coverage of these two parties, they would get more airtime.

"America gets all of it's information about the presidentail candidates from the media..."

No, it doesn't. In fact, the media provides almost no coverage on either of the candidates' stands on the issues. most of these stands can only be found on the internet, such as http://www.barackobama.com... and http://www.johnmccain.com...
These websites give a much clearer understanding of the issues than the media and many people do use them to decide how to vote.
"...and the media has failed to inform us about the other political parties such as the pot party, the libertarian party, and many others."

Often, there is a low level of interest in what goes on for each of the "other" candidates, so very, very little aritime is given to them. However, should the voter want to be educated, the voter would go to thieir websites, too.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com...
http://www.gp.org...

As an alternative point of view, the two-party system has organized and improved democracy.

Let's say there were three candidates. To keep it simple, there is only two issue at stake. They are loose vs. strict interpretation and war. The first candidate believes in strict interpretation, which further leads him to support the war, because it is constitutional. The second candidate believes in loose interpretation, and is morally against war. The third believes in loose interpretation and has no problem with war.
The people of the country think as folows: 10% oppose war and strict interpretation, 30% support war and strict interpretation, 35% support war and loose interpretation, and 25% oppose war but support loose interpretation.
So, 65% for war, 35% opposed; 60% loose, 40% strict. So, the winning candidate should be the third, right?
No. 40% go for the first, 35% the second, and 25% the third.
However, if the second and third would have been associated in a major party, there would have been a primary process that would have ran the second and not the third. Then the second would have beat the third and the majority of the population would have been happy. Instead, only 40% of the population is happy with the results. This is similar to the way political parties formed in the first place.

Therefore, the two party system improves democracy, which is based on majority rule as opposed to minority rule.

Most issues are polarizing, like abortion, in which one can either support or oppose. This makes a two party system fit the politics of today.

As an alternative to the two-party system, I propose that it is the media that undermines democracy in the presedential elections, and there is little we can do about that. Don't blame it on our two party system.
Debate Round No. 1
gregg0325

Pro

gregg0325 forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited this round. I will not debate either, then.

Extend my points throught this round.
Debate Round No. 2
gregg0325

Pro

gregg0325 forfeited this round.
wjmelements

Con

Another unfortunate debate. You should vote CON because my opponent's points fell and mine stood. The resolution was brought down hard. Any voter should default CON.

Thanks for reading, though.
Debate Round No. 3
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
All is good. It happens all of the time.
Posted by gregg0325 7 years ago
gregg0325
sorry about not rebutting but I had thing to do and I didn't have my computer at the time
Posted by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
Yep. We don't like it, but it is necessary.

And I agree; PRO should not have fell off of the face of the earth.
Posted by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
My opinion on the two-party system:

It promotes false dichotomies, which is rather unfortunate, especially because it stifles alternative viewpoints. But I think it is necessary. If the first two of three parties are relatively similar, the third party will almost undoubtedly win. The two-party system gives opposing viewpoints an equal chance.
Posted by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
This had such good potential, but it was ruined by a lack of effort on the part of PRO. Such a shame.
Posted by Revolution 7 years ago
Revolution
This one should default to PRO. PRO had forceful logic which was never directly refuted, only side-stepped. Forfeited rounds don't change the strength of an argument.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Pro forfeited both rounds without explanation.

Therefore everyone defaults CON
Posted by wjmelements 8 years ago
wjmelements
Yes, independent thinking is often abandoned for one's own party.
Posted by knick-knack 8 years ago
knick-knack
Constitution-that is how it should be done, I totally agree.
(applause)
Posted by constitutionfirst 8 years ago
constitutionfirst
Our problem in this country is that we are SO competetive that we view politics like we do a sport, choosing a side and defending them against all logic. I am still a member of the republican party but am voting for Obama because I am using logic to base my decision and not just unquestion support for one party.
10 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 7 years ago
JBlake
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Labrat228 7 years ago
Labrat228
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by MTGandP 7 years ago
MTGandP
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Volkov 7 years ago
Volkov
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:04 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 7 years ago
wjmelements
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by The_Booner 7 years ago
The_Booner
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Maikuru 7 years ago
Maikuru
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 8 years ago
jjmd280
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by magpie 8 years ago
magpie
gregg0325wjmelementsTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07