My proposed US political system is better than the status quo

Note to voters Con's previous argument didn't post correctly. DDO removed formatting and a section of his argument was repeated. Please don't penalize Con for this. Observation Con spent a large part of the second round explaining the legislative structure in the United States. However, I will only address the parts which pertain to the resolution of this debate. As I've stated in Round 1, each debater has the Burden of Proof to show why their preferred system, as a whole, is better or superior than the other's. Con argues that he has shown that every single proposal of mine is inferior to his. While I disagree with Con's assertion as I will show below, I want to note that Con is committing the fallacy of composition. The fallacy is based on a confusion that what is true of each part, must be true of the whole [1]. The benefits of implementing the first measure of my proposal alone, yields minimal benefits. The benefit of limiting or ending the filibuster alone is beneficial, but doesn't resolve all gridlock…etc. Therefore I will rebut the alleged benefits of that status quo, as it pertains to the system overall. Rebuttals 1. Bicameral organization is effective?! Con stated that the "bicameral organization is effective as it promotes principles of Democracy or rule of the people while mitigating tyranny of the majority." Effective means "successful in producing a desired or intended result" [2]. Con's claim is a base assertion and not supported by any evidence. How is the bicameral organization effective when I've shown that it was a key factor in the gridlock in government? The status quo actually makes the government ineffective. A political scientist explains: "Bicameralism is perhaps the most critical structural factor shaping the politics of gridlock" [3]. My proposed system will not have these gridlocks and as a result is more effective. Therefore this argument works for my favor against Con's claim. Promotes Democracy Con states that the bicameral organization "promotes principles of Democracy or rule of the people". He therefore implies that my proposed government is less democratic than the status quo. This claim is another baseless assertion. Parliamentary systems are very democratic. Is Con arguing that the parliamentary systems of Canada, UK and most west European countries are less democratic? A study by Boston University shows evidence to the contrary [8]. In addition, I demonstrated in Round 2 how the Senate and the Electoral College are undemocratic. A citizen in Wyoming has 66 times the voting power of another citizen from California, and as little as 22% of the population can elect a president. This is absurdly undemocratic. My proposed system considers each citizen to be equal, and as a result it's more democratic. Therefore this argument works for my favor against Pro's claim. Mitigates Tyranny Con argues that bicameral government tyranny, which means a "cruel and oppressive government" [4]. But Con is inferring that my proposed system doesn't mitigate or prevent tyranny. That's another baseless claim. My proposed system represents the rule of the people as each American citizen will have an equal say on who they want to represent them in government. If the American people no longer like who they elected, they can easily change the rulers in the next elections. This is democracy in its very essence. Is Con arguing that tyranny is a challenge for countries with parliamentary systems such as Canada, UK or many West European countries? That's unreasonable. In fact, the study I mentioned previously reports: "In no case examined here does parliamentary rule seem to detract from good governance" [8]. Therefore Con's argument is refuted. 2. My proposal system undermines the function of House of Representatives?! Con claims that lengthening the terms from 2 to 4 years "undermines the very function of the House of Representatives". He claims: "Frequent elections are necessary in order for this House to adequately represent and be the 'House of the people.' " Con's claim is again another bare assertion. He failed to explain why four years between elections means that the American people are not "adequately represented" or that it's undemocratic? In fact, I will turn this argument to my favor. Midterm elections (which occur two years after a presidential election) have a consistent voter turnout of less than 50% [5], with only 36.3% voting 2014. These numbers are outright embarrassing. The voter turnout for the midterms would rank below 160 in the world, only ahead of a couple of countries like Mali [6]. Not to add that the majority of Americans have no interest in the midterms, and as much as 85% didn't pay much attention [7]! This doesn't promote democracy, it undermines it. I argue that this argument tips to my favor. 3. Senate ensures equal representation of states Con explains that the senate ensures equal representation of states. Con infers that this is a good thing without offering any explanation of why that's the case. Therefore it's another bare assertion. And as always, I am delighted to tip this argument towards my favor against Con's claim. The constitution of the United Stated begins with "We the People". Democracy requires that every citizen to be considered equal. That means that no American should have a bigger say in government than another citizen. An American from Vermont is just as equal as another American from New Jersey, and therefore each person ought to be fairly and equally represented when electing a government. But I've shown in my previous round that a person from Wyoming will have 66 more times the voting power of that of a person residing in California. This is undemocratic. My proposed system will consider every citizen as equal, which is the very essence of democracy. 4. Provides checks and balances?! Con repeatedly mentioned that the current system would provide checks and balances that my proposed wouldn't have. He states: a. "Abolishing the Senate […]would destroy our bicameral legislature and with it our balance of democracy and stability" b. "Connecting the executive branch to the legislative branch [would] undermine the concept of Checks and balances" c. My proposal "would remove the "balance" our government has" I want to explain to the reader the difference between the intent of a rule or policy vs. the outcome. If a policy was intended to achieve a certain goal, but the outcome had adverse effects, then this policy ought to be changed or revoked. I agree that the bicameral legislative structure was put in place with the intent to establish checks and balances. But the reality of what's happening is that the bicameral system has become an effective tool to block legislation and is the main cause for the government gridlock. I will reiterate what I have already stated: "Bicameralism is perhaps the most critical structural factor shaping the politics of gridlock" [3]. Con also infers that parliamentary systems are inferior because the commander-in-chief is elected by the parliament (or House of Representative) and not directly by the people. Con argues that this would give too much power to the legislative branch. What are the adverse effects? Con doesn't provide any. So I would like to separate fiction from reality. The study by Boston University that compares parliamentary systems to presidential systems, evaluating the political, economic and human development concludes: "The evidence presented here suggests that, to the extent that the nature of the executive makes a difference, parliamentary systems offer significant advantages over presidential systems. In no case examined here does parliamentary rule seem to detract from good governance. In most policy areas, particularly in the areas of economic and human development, parliamentary systems are associated with superior governance." [8] Con's claim that a parliamentary system like the one I proposed would detract from good governance is unfounded and a mere pigment of imagination. Therefore I argue that this argument tips to my favor against Con's claim. Filibustering Con claims that "limiting filibustering is to limit a check that members of congress can have on the hold body of legislation" [sic]. Con doesn't seem to understand the intent of the filibuster. "The filibuster was initially conceived of as a way to ensure that minority opinions were heard and understood" [9]. I am not entirely against the filibuster, because I think debate is important. However what I am proposing is to limit the filibuster. The reasoning behind my recommendation is that the filibuster has become an effective tool to block legislation and became a catalyst for the gridlock we see nowadays [10]. Therefore my recommendation will achieve the goal the filibuster was intended for, yet at the same time allow for legislation to move forward. This argument also tips to my favor. I refuted all of my opponent's arguments, and shown that most of Con's arguments actually prove that my proposed political system is more effective and superior the current gridlocked system. Thank you. Sources [1] http://rationalwiki.org... [2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [3] Sarah Binder, "Stalemate: Causes and Consequences of Legislative Gridlock", pp. 81 [4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [5] http://www.infoplease.com... [6] http://www.idea.int... [7] http://www.pewresearch.org... [8] http://www.bu.edu... [9] http://www.nolabels.org... [10] http://benishek.house.gov...