Two Party System vs. Multi Party System

I would like to begin by thanking my opponent for taking up this debate. I would further like to thank him for no skewing the meaning, and remaining on topic. I accept my opponents desire to limit this topic to within the United States, though I do not admit a lack of knowledge on foreign situations and politics. I will also note that I am not for specifically restricting the nation to two parties by any law or force. Debating on these grounds would push this debate off the topic of the specific merits of the natural development of each system. Claims: 1. It is preposterous to think that the political rainbow can be summed up and represented properly by a bi-chromatic facsimile. 2. There is no appropriate way to pick the two parties. 3. A 3-or-more party system is more responsive to change. 4. There is no Constitutional basis for a two party system. Rebuttal: 1. I negate this contention. The beauty of the two party system is precisely that the political rainbow can be summed up and represented in two parties.. Within each party is a separate rainbow comprising a large number of combinations of the various issues of a certain period. This applies to the current period as well as through United States history. There are, in fact, liberals who are for gun rights, against gay rights, and pro choice (to list just a few of the contemporary issues). Conversely, there are conservatives who are for gay rights and are pro choice. If my opponent wishes for me to find specific examples I will provide them with no problem. "People come in more than two flavors; reducing our choice to two is like having every American drive either a Dodge pickup or a Honda sedan." >> This does not relate to the topic and is not analagous. Two specific car types does not allow for the many possible combinations within each political ideology. "What if you are pro-life, but support gay marriage? Or, for that matter, what if you support the right to own assault rifles but also support nationalized health care? A two party system unnecessarily and arbitrarily forces people to make concessions on their beliefs, all in the name of simplicity." >> As I noted before, the two party system does not preclude different combinations of these, or any issues. It certainly does not force people to make concessions. In fact, combinations are constantly shifting within both parties. The overall platform is a representation of the moderation of the party's views at that time. 2. The one and only appropriate way for the two parties to be selected is through the people's will. By will, I of course mean election. "what if public opinion shifts, and the parties do not?" >> That is unlikely, since the parties are made up of people elected by public opinion. The likelyhood of this occurring is the same in both systems. "Had we codified a two party system in our nation's infancy, we would today be choosing between the Democratic-Republicans or the Whigs." >> At that time, and in the very beginning of our nation, we had a two party system as well. The existence of a two party system need not be legislated (lawfully excluding other parties). 3. It is more responsive to change, but the important question here is, 'Whose change?' With three or more parties, a party has a much more likely chance of being elected without holding the same beliefs of the majority of people. The responsibility of the government is to represent the will of the people. Imagine a case where a Bolshevik or Nazi type party were to arrise in the United States. Just as in that period and among those people, the great majority of people would not support or even want to elect such radicals (I am aware that the Bolsheviks siezed power, but they were elected beforehand and we can still imagine such a party without seizing control). In this scenario it is much more likely that such a radical party would be elected that would not represent the will of the majority. This is a case of the minority enslaving the majority. It is also not always benefitial to be more responsive to change. The majority of people may not prefer such a change, as mentioned above. But government function would necessarily be more chaotic and confusing, with policy changing so schizofrenically as one party takes over and is replaced by still another with radically different ideologies. 4. I wholeheartedly agree and think it would be quite oppressive to legislate party systems. "We must allow freedom to determine how many parties there are, and it has; there are dozens of parties in this country. This is clear proof that an unrestricted, multiparty system is best... it has arisen from free exchange and choice, and thus is a direct representation of the will of the people." This is precisely what has occurred. The will of the people has thus far chosen a two party system, which is defined by the domination of two parties, usually with the existence of many smaller parties (this is not only my definition, but the generally accepted one in the U.S.). This statement further backs up my point. There do exist dozens of alternate parties whose voice often gets picked up by one of the dominant parties. These are usually single issue parties, and they are often successfull at getting their issue picked up for debate within the two parties. I would suggest to them that their ideology might fare better within one of the dominant parties, but that is outside the scope of this debate. Conclusion: The two party system is better because it moderates radical views and follows public opinion better than a multi party system would. Both parties gradually shift over time, picking up different dombinations of issues in almost every election, and following public opinion. The two party system exists through the people's will and should not be legislated in any direction. The two party system follows the majority in public opinion, the multi party system inevitibly leads to minority rule over the majority. I would like to close by thanking my oponent for sticking to the guideline of the debate and not using my poor wording in R1 to go off topic.