The Two-Party System In Our Government Is Outdated And Unhelpful

General Comment on debate [non-essential for voters; they can skip to next paragraph] Okay, I thought you would go in a very different direction but I’m actual very pleased with the Rome analogy, especially given that Octavian is one of favorite historical figure in ancient near east history, and because I’ve been fascinated with Rome since college when I took a course dedicated to Rome and the historiography of Edward Gibbon’s classic: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. [Given Pro’s second round statements, Con will focus on comments related the development of parties, intentions of founders—even though my natural inclination is to get lost and meander in deconstructing the how contemporary American politics and the decline of Rome are different and share few if any clear parallels to the United States]. Con’s rebuttal to Pro’s begins in the middle paragraph, starting with “Now what is the point of all this? ” and ending with the period at the end of Pro’s round 2 statements. Con’s quick paraphrase of Pro’s central arguments: The US political system is contentious and divisive. As a result, these destructive tendencies reverberate through the rest of society, putting the country in jeopardy, and generally helping exacerbate problems and encourage political partisanship that has zero benefit or net value to anyone. Con’s argument and rebuttal: My opponent stresses the Founding Fathers failed to predict or oversee problems of the two-party system. Although this statement is partially true, it misses the much bigger and more significant facts of the system created in the Constitution and in the first three administrations (Washington, Adams, and Jefferson). Let me tackle Washington’s administration first because has little do with problems created in Article II, Section 1, Clause 3 of the Constitution. Washington made a sincere and diplomatic effort to prevent factions from tearing apart the country, especially the divide that characterized the relationship of Jefferson (Secretary of State) and Hamilton (Secretary of Treasury) and really in attempt to try to house two disparate philosophies under one roof. I do not think it’s necessary to explore the details since the Jefferson and Hamilton debate is both well-known and continues to generate interest, measured in the number of books and political science research done specifically on their relationship and the dysfunction that resulted from two individuals with two different visions trying to work to make national policy. Next, let’s look at the Twelfth Amendment… Twelfth Amendment Although I agree our current political climate appears grim and dysfunctional, it’s instructive to consider problems inherent to abolishing the party system. Thankfully, I will not have to convince voters by way of hypothetical or abstract arguments. Rather all that is required is a concrete example from our past. Some background information is necessary, but it will only take a minute or two. Before the Twelfth Amendment, the President and Vice President were selected by the most votes (in Electoral College) with whoever got the most becoming President and the second most becoming the Vice President. On the two occasions where this was tried [excluding Washington because he was unanimously elected) it failed and if implemented today would create problems that would the polarization of democrats and republicans today look about as serious as chocolate and vanilla. Like I said, I am sympathetic to the proposition my opponent began with but so far I am not convinced that he arguments if tried could work and I’m more convinced that they would be worse.