Two Party System vs. Multi Party System

I would like to open by congratulating my opponent on his novel approach to the rebuttals; I had not seen those responses coming. I will, however, address them (his rebuttals) first. In his first rebuttal, he claims, "The beauty of the two party system is precisely that the political rainbow can be summed up and represented in two parties..[sic] Within each party is a separate rainbow comprising a large number of combinations of the various issues of a certain period." I contend this point. In his own argument, he later goes on to say, "[that] 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." This is exactly my point; this is precisely why two parties are insufficient. Not all conservatives are politically similar, and thus not all properly Republican; conversely, not all liberals are politically similar, and thus not properly Democrats. Multiple parties on each side, conservative and liberal alike, better reflect these differences than does one 'blanket party.' Furthermore, in order to garner more votes each party must moderate itself towards a central viewpoint to compete for the "on the fence" vote. Thusly, each party truly best represents the outcroppings of highly centrist group and not the more conservative or liberal voters, who must moderate their vote (and thus leave behind more leftist or right-wing positions) in order to support a larger party that has, in their mind, a better chance of electing somebody remotely similar to themselves. Perhaps this is why Americans feel so alienated from politics, and why voter turnout has consistently gone down in recent years. They feel like they are choosing the lesser of two evils because they are farther left or right than the centrist, moderated Republicans or Democrats. In addressing his second rebuttal, I would like only to point out how absurd it is to first vote on which two parties ought to run in a particular election, then in the primaries for that anointed pair, and then finally in the election itself. You may as well have a runoff election, where all parties are represented and then the top two or three are balloted in a runoff election a few weeks later (obviously, I am not running a counter-plan here; I don't want to debate about this plan and get off topic, I'm just throwing it out there). In reference to his third rebuttal, this is simply irrelevant. Even if a three way race results in the victor only representing 40% of the population, it is still the largest group; and thus, his or her policies and actions will represent the greatest group of people. I contend that this is better than a two party system that moderates opinion and thus really represents only the most moderate and centrist of its voter base. While I agree that no legislation is appropriate in the regulation of the number of parties I would contend that we have de facto legislated a two party system in our country. Laws such a campaign finance reforms and sly tactics like gerrymandering have caused support for potential third (or fourth of fifth) parties to flounder. Therefore, the "two party" system we have is not a direct representation of the people, as my opponent claims, but an artificial construct of the ruling class. The people in this country believe that they have only two choices; the media blandly supports this by showing only the two candidates represented by the most wealth and corporate interest that only established political connections can buy; in other words, the two mainline party candidates. The ideal situation is the one that most of our founders supported; a system with no parties. Failing this, a multi party system is the second best.