My proposed US political system is better than the status quo

I will defend my contentions before concluding the debate. Contention 1: Relieves Government Gridlock Con doesn't disagree that my proposed system would relieve gridlock. He simply believes that the Gridlock is necessary. According to Con "Without this Gridlock, tyranny of the majority is likely". He quotes Montesquieu who explains that the separation of government (executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government) is necessary to prevent anyone from "acting tyrannically; and the people will have no confidence in their own security". Con sums it up: "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." First, my proposed system will still have separation of government (executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government). Canada's Supreme Court struck down many laws by the government, such as assisted suicide ban [1], prostitution laws [2] and mandatory minimum sentences [3]. British Supreme Court struck down terror finance laws [4], and Spain's Supreme Court struck down city burqa ban [5]. Second, I've also cited a study in the previous round that reports: "In no case examined here does parliamentary rule seem to detract from good governance" [6]. To assume that parliamentary systems will lead to tyranny is simply false. Finally, these gridlocks lead to a very ineffective United States government. A poll shows that the gridlock is the top reason Americans are critical of congress [7]. It states that "nearly four in five Americans […] disapprove of the way Congress is handling its job." To call this effective is a joke especially that the government is meant to represent the people. My proposed government system is efficient. Contention 2: Failed Promises by Design Con dismisses my claim that the current government leads to politician unable to deliver on their promises. When citizens elect a government, they would expect that the government would keep their promises. I will extend my argument here from Round 2: For example, Obama blames the Republicans for preventing him from bringing "the hope and change to America's political system that he campaigned on". The Republicans weren't able to fair much better. They promised Keystone XL bill, but Obama voted against it. Republicans promised to give small businesses a tax deduction, but it died in the Democrat controlled senate. If my proposed system was in place, all of these measures would have been implemented. Contention 3: Promotes Democracy Undemocratic Senate Con argues that the undemocratic Senate's unfair representation is offset by the House of Representative. But in reality, this is not the case. It doesn't change the power that some citizens of smaller states have over larger states. I've shown the example of Vermont receiving one quarter of the stimulus that New York received which is 30 times larger in population. NY Times explains that this is not an anomaly that there is a "growing disparity in [small states] citizens’ voting power" [8]. This is unproportional power of some citizens is inherently undemocratic. So Con is incorrect that the system allows for "democratic and fair representation". Undemocratic Electoral College Con argues that the Electoral College is highly democratic! What? Con actually takes my sentence out of context intentionally which is a straw man attack. I will bold the part of the sentence that was omitted initially. The Electoral College is "a winner take all system where a candidate winning 50.1% of the vote in a state collects all the Electoral College for that state". This is important. I agree that democracy means that if the majority (even 50.1%) of the population should elect the president. But the Electoral College serves no specific advantage, only a disadvantage. I've shown how it's possible that a president can be elected with only 22% of the population. That's disturbing and undemocratic. I've also highlighted four elections where the president won the elections even though he didn't have the support of the majority of the American people. Con's response dismisses my argument citing that it's uncommon so inferring it's not so bad. First of all it happened 4 times out of 57 times (which is 7% probability), and the probability would only increase if there are more parties. Con then states that my argument commits the fallacy of appealing to popularity. But this is outright false! The fallacy of appealing to popularity means that if most people approve of something, then it ought to be true [10]. Con agrees that "basic democracy is majority rule". What I'm pleading for is that the majority of the people ought to elect the president. That's basic democracy. Con's accusation that I'm committing a fallacy is ridiculous and ought to be dismissed. Violation of Rules Con violates the rules in Round 3, which was for rebuttals only, but he defended his contentions. This gives him the ability to defend his arguments twice, which is not fair. But in any case, I will respond to the claims because they are very weak. Response to "Rebuttals of Pro’s Round 3" Con argues that the gridlock is the very intent of the government. I find it comical! The status quo is very effective at being ineffective. Congratulations! The government's main role is to pass laws that advance the will of the American people. In that area, the US government has been very ineffective. Con then argues that my plan allows tyranny, and I've shown how that's not the case. So I will dismiss this point. Con then argues that my proposed system would not protect rights. What is Con talking about? My proposed system has been tested by many parliamentary system, and I repeat that "In no case examined here does parliamentary rule seem to detract from good governance" [6]. So again this point is invalid. Con accuses that my system is considered mob rule. So Britain, Norway, Sweden and Canada are all have "mob rule" systems? That's absurd! Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Canada are all ranked above the United States in the democracy index [7]. I guess this "mob rule" system is more democratic! Con's claim is invalid. Con then argues that I made a bare assertion when I argue that "4 year terms for the house undermines its function". I don't accept Con's accusation. I explained clearly the disadvantages. If Con didn't bother reading them, I'll write them here for his reference: "Midterm elections (which occur two years after a presidential election) have a consistent voter turnout of less than 50%, 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. Not to add that the majority of Americans have no interest in the midterms, and as much as 85% didn't pay much attention! This doesn't promote democracy, it undermines it." (See Round 3). That's not a bare assertion and I don't accept Con's argument. Con then argues that "there is nothing that pro has provided that indicates that changing the system would increase voter turnout". Actually there is a lot of evidence to support my argument. The stats shown in this source shows that the voter turnout in the midterms is significantly less than other elections (almost 20% less) [12]. So there's high probability that changing the system will increase voter turnout from the disappointing 33% in 2014. That's embarrassing. Conclusion The myth that my proposed system will remove checks and balance is… well a myth. My proposed system is more democratic, more effective and reflects the will of the people. Therefore I urge Con and the reader to support my type of government over the status quo. Vote Pro. Thanks! Sources [1] http://www.thestar.com... [2] http://www.cbc.ca... [3] http://www.thestar.com... [4] http://www.investigativeproject.org... [5] http://jurist.org... [6] http://www.bu.edu... [7] http://www.gallup.com... [8] http://www.nytimes.com... [9] http://www.nizkor.org... [10] http://www.nizkor.org... [11] http://pages.eiu.com... [12] http://www.idea.int...