The Two-Party System Doesn't Work

First lets look at why the Con wins the line by line in today's debate, and then move onto the four biggest reasons you should vote for the negative. 1. Framework: My opponent concedes that some comparison between alternatives is necessary for a valid evaluation, but for virtually all of the complaints she brings up in today's round, she fails to show you how other political systems would be less susceptible to these problems than the two party system. I wasn't asking her for a plan, or specifics, simply generalized, practical reasons that other systems would be better. She doesn't provide them. At the point when the pro cannot prove that the two party system is worse than the alternatives, she cannot win the debate. 2. My opponent concedes that the two party system is key to political stability, which has been empirically shown to bey integral to consistent economic growth. If the two party system helps grow our economy, it does "work". 3.My opponent fails to prove that the two party system undermines the executive branch and the the judicial branch. i. Under the executive branch, my opponent is unable to show you how the two party system undermines the function of important executive branch agencies--like the CIA, EPA,etc. She has also not proved how the two party system undermines the office of the president; whether we have a two party system or a system with 20 parties, the party which wins the presidency will be able to fill the cabinet, and other posts with members of their own parties. ii. My opponent further unable to prove that the two party system undermines the judicial branch. Supreme court and federal district court judges are nominated by the executive branch-- so even if there was more parties, one party would still control these nominations. My opponent hasn't given you any evidence how partisanship undermines the rulings or function of the judicial branch. Thus, she hasn't met her resolutional obligations. 3. My opponent's aren't able to show you how the two party system isn't representative of Americans political beliefs. My opponent claims that "most voters have minimal knowledge of how the economy works and will mindlessly quote their favorite pundit to pretend they do", and that "voters don't make decisions based on facts most of the time", do nothing to prove that the two party system doesn't represent people's beliefs. How is this the fault of the two party system? People aren't ignorant because we have a two party system. Having more parties would just make the debate more complicated, and harder to understand-- if people are "stupid", and can't vote properly in a two party system, people would magically become smarter and more knowledgeable if we had a 10 party system? 4. My opponent tries to prove that our two party system undermines Congress' ability to democratically represent the American people, and produce legislation which represents the views of the American people, but the Con has proved why she is wrong. a. There is gridlock and contention even in parliamentary systems, because different factions have to negotiate and fight amongsthemself to create a majority and pass legislation. No matter what political system we had, this gridlock and rancor would exist. b. My opponent flat out concedes that our representation on congress is democratic. She complains that "popular doesn't mean good...[or] that anything will actually get done. It just means someone is liked." Exactly! That is the essence of democracy! What the majority wants gets passed. Just because my opponent doesn't believe with the political mainstream in the U.S, doesn't mean that our congress doesn't properly represent the majority of Americans. c. The fillibuster isn't unique to the two party system, its not a reason to vote for the pro. If anything, the situation would be worse in a multi party system-- right now the Republicans can fillibuster in the senate. If we had five parties, the four parties in the minority could fillibuster. Would that really improve the situation? d. My opponent has no response to the fact that most Americans align themselves with the two major political parties, and that those who don't are able to vote for the party of their choice--like Ron Paul the libertarian, or Chris Dodd and Joe Lieberman, the two independent senators. e) My opponent concedes that despite our two party system, voters still take the actions of candidates into account when they vote, and not just there party. She doesn't respond to the fact that John Kerry arguably lost the 2004 elections because swing voters questioned his integrity and military service, or the fact that a myriad of congressmen and senators lost their seats in the 2010 midterms for voting for legislation their constituencies were not in favor of- like the healthcare bill and stimulus package. 6. The con also wins on the issue of the media; my opponent doesn't respond to the analysis I made earlier in the round about how if the media had even MORE political parties to cover, the American people would be even less informed. She says that the "the media would have to work, and make more time to give an equitable amount of time to ALL the party runners instead of two" , if we had a two party system, but my opponents cannot just assume that if we abolished our two party system, the same two party systems she decries for its inaudecacies now would suddenly change. 7. My opponent argues fewer voters would be for our democracy-- which is completely elitist and undemocratic. The essence of a democracy is that everyone is equal-- are less educated people less important, or not worth as much as more educated people? While uneducated people voting may create poor policy outcomes, that is irrelevant. Democracies are judged on participations, not outcomes. So, at the end of today's debate, the con clearly wins for four reasons: 1. I have proven that virtually all of the problems my opponent brings up in today's debate are present in ALL political systems, not just the two party system. 2. I have proven that the two party system is superior to multi party systems when it comes to the economy, and that citizens would be even more uninformed by a media in a multi party state. 3. I have proven that the two party system represents citizens as good, or better than multi party systems. 4. The pro has not upheld the entire resolution-- they are unable to prove how the two party system undermines the judicial branch or the executive branch.