My proposed US political system is better than the status quo

Rebuttals of Pro’s round 2Contention 1: Relieves Government Gridlock Contention 2: Failed Promises by DesignMy opponent claims that “the biggest problem in the current US legislative system is the gridlock in government.” Concluding that “A good legislative system ought to be effective.”As stated in my Opening argument The bicameral organization is effective as it promotes principles of Democracy or rule of the people while mitigating tyranny of the majority. Pro states that “. In my proposed system, no such hurdles will exist, and the government will enact the will of the people and pass legislation for their benefits.” This is dangerous. Essentially my opponent is proposing removing the checks and balances of our government. Without this Gridlock, tyranny of the majority is likely. Montesquieu is credited with the concept of checks and balances that the Founders of the U.S. adopted. In his own words "constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it ... it is necessary from the very nature of things that power should be a check to power”(1) He argued that “This (balance) is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government. If different persons or bodies exercise these powers, then each can check the others if they try to abuse their powers. But if one person or body holds several or all of these powers, then nothing prevents that person or body from acting tyrannically; and the people will have no confidence in their own security.”(1)Pro’s plan opens the door wide open to abuses of power resulting in tyranny. This “Gridlock” as pro calls it was the vision of the founders and has proven very effective at mitigating tyranny. Contention 3: Promotes Democracy Pro claims the Senate is undemocratic as states have equal representation. In the status quo this is offset by the lower house being linked to population size. This allows for democratic and fair representation. Pro claims that the Electoral College is undemocratic because “, it's a winner take all system where a candidate winning 50.1%” This is amusing as basic democracy is majority rule, which the Electoral college implements. My opponent mitigates his own argument by stating that “this is extremely unlikely.” Interestingly enough, the states are awarded electoral votes based on the number of representatives in the legislative branch. This is highly democratic as the larger and lower house is based off of population. Pro points to four elections where the elected did not receive the largest plurality of votes nationwide. This, as he admits is rare. He also does not tie a harm to this occurrence, he just claims that it is undemocratic. While the U.S. does promote Democratic principles our government organization is necessary to prevent tyranny of the majority. Much of pro’s arguments commit the “Appeal to popularity.” (2) Rebuttals of Pro’s Round 3Pro contends the status quo is not “effective.” Saying “How is the bicameral organization effective when I've shown that it was a key factor in the gridlock in government?” This is amusing because pro defined effective as "successful in producing a desired or intended result" This is exactly what the status quo does. The primary function of government is to secure rights from tyranny. (3) This gridlock was the very intent. Thus the status quo prevents a tyranny of the majority making the status quo effective. Pro’s plan on the other hand allows tyranny and is thus ineffective. Pro is arguing for the effectiveness of passing laws and no checks to power vs the effectiveness of protecting rights. Clearly it is of more value to protect rights than to allow the legislative branch to be effective tyrants. Pro claims that I implies that his “proposed government is less democratic.” This is untrue and an interesting attempt at a straw man. Rather I have argued that the status quo promotes democracy while mitigating tyranny of the majority. Pro’s plan is so democratic as to allow such tyranny. John Adams once said "Democracy... While it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide."(4)The kind of democracy that pro is proposing is also known as mob rule.Pro argues that my claim of 4 year terms for the house undermines its function as a bare assertion. Actually I clearly explain that frequent elections promote public opinion and democracy. He argues that due to low voter turnout this can’t be true. There is nothing that pro has provided that indicates that changing the system would increase voter turnout, thus his rebuttal is hollow. Pro seems to not understand that the federal government represents both the citizens and the States respectively. The House represents the citizens as a whole, the Senate represents the States as a whole. Thus it is necessary that the Senate have equal representation from the states. Conclusion:My opponent mistakes removing checks as effective. This removal takes balance of government with it. This misconception seems due to the focus being on passing laws. The function of government as indicated in the U.S. founding documents is to secure freedom from tyranny. This requires checks and balances. These include a bicameral House, the Filibuster, equal representation for States in the Federal Government, preventing tyranny of the majority (unchecked democracy.) Due to these issues of Pro’s plan it is clear that the status quo is preferred. (1) http://plato.stanford.edu...(2) http://www.debate.org...(3) http://www.archives.gov...(4) http://www.brainyquote.com...