The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

It is time to scrap our basic political structure starting with the Two-Party System

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
StarTrek_is_Trash has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/20/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 443 times Debate No: 100098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




I present the idea that our current political structuring at the federal level is no longer the best fit for the Era we currently find ourselves in. Specifically the Two-Party system paradigm is incapable of accurately representing the diversity of ideas in America.

I don't have an exact political system to replace the Two-Party system with, but will argue that a new one should be created.

This is a free-form debate.

I will argue for the Pro

Just accept and state your argument and reasoning for why the Two-Party system can still be the most effective political paradigm.


Although its evident that our 2 parties have been idiotically tearing apart America, the existence of a party system leads to compromise of American values. It is better to have 2 or more parties in constant state of debating than to have little to no diversity in office at all. The lack of a party system wouldn't necessarily be totalitarian, but it would lack empathy. For example, take the issue of legalization of gay marriage. Its obvious the alt right supports the god- fearing view while those on the left are more open to human rights. The beauty of it is the diversity and everyone giving input to social or political issues.
Debate Round No. 1


I agree with the con completely that " It is better to have 2 or more parties in constant state of debating than to have little to no diversity in office at all". The thinking that lead to this debate topic took a step further than the point the con made and my argument is that we need more than 2 visible parties in order to more accurately represent the wide diversity in America. I should have been more specific in my opening for this topic, what I meant is, not that our Two-Party System should be reduced, but rather expanded. I was thinking more along the lines of a political system that offers the same campaign visibility to multiple parties instead of just to the traditional Democrats and Republicans and additional parties should be represented in congress.

A vague outline of what I would call a "Multi-Party System" allows equal campaign visibility, in the form of media coverage, to at least 3 established political parties in the primaries portion of the presidential election. With equal campaign visibility for 3 or more parties in the primaries, voters could cast their vote for any candidate of an established political party and the 2 candidates with the most votes would move on to the main presidential election.

I realize this system sounds very similar to what currently exists, but I want to highlight that only the Democrat and Republican Parties currently have the monetary resources to be visible enough in the media to recruit voters. Furthermore the Democrat and Republican Parties come with an implied consent of approval from our government that no other party is afforded. In this Multi-Party system our government would have to be the objective mediator of multiple parties just as the NCAA objectively looks out for student athletes. The government would be responsible for campaign visibility for multiple parties and recognize at least 3 (but 4 sounds better) political parties with genuine intentions to ensure America as a prosperous country.

The 2016 presidential election provides many examples of the flaws with in our current political system. One is how people of specific position, not intent, can easily be elected into office. A second is the observation of Hilary Clinton winning the popular vote while Donald Trump winning the electoral college vote highlights the failure of the Two-Party System to convincingly determine who America wanted as it's next president.


Alright I lost.
Debate Round No. 2


Haha. You had a good point though. We can't lose the diversity in political views if the Two-Party system was going to be reformed.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by mschechtel17 1 year ago
They could also put term limits and change the duration of political positions in the house and senate and line them up with the presidential election. Right now senates can sit for 6 years and the house sits for 2 years and can get re-elected as many times as they run. If they only allowed the senate and house to serve something like the president at two 4 year terms max, there would be more movement of the seats in congress. The people that actually wanted to hold a position to implement things they have too would only have a limited time to do so and maybe motivate them more because they would either have to go back to their regular life or try to get a higher up position in the government. this might help to alleviate some of the stagnation of political policies and force people to work more cooperatively to make something happen rather than work agaisnt the other party as their entire political career.
Posted by GrimlyF 1 year ago
The 2 party system shows that Democracy doesn't/cannot work. At the end of an election one party tries to implement the policies the majority voted for. The other party spends 4yrs actively working against the wishes of the majority whilst saying it is for the good of the majority.
Once elected the majority choice should be free to give the majority what it voted for. Why should a law be refused entry because the losing party has more members sitting in congress? The majority want this law but mere party politics will deny them their choice.
A government should be given carte-blanche for their 4yrs in office and then wait for re-election or not.
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.