The Two-Party System Doesn't Work

Framework: 1.The pro made a huge mistake by making the resolution so convoluted and sprawling. The pro must prove every facet of the resolution true beyond a shadow of a doubt -- even if she didn't post an argument pertaining it-- to truly affirm it, so if she can't, don't vote for her. 2. The pro must prove that a more fragmented, parliamentary style system of representation solves every harm that she brings up better. If a faulty two party system still works better than the alternatives, you can't affirm the resolution. First, arguments pertaining to the resolution. 1. The two party system does work; how does it not work? America is the most wealthy, powerful, and free nation on earth. Earlier this year we had a midterm election for Congress, and American citizens who were worried about unsustainable were able to vote the party which best represented their interests into a majority in the House. 2. My opponent needs to prove to you how the two party system undermines the judiciary branch. 3. My opponent also needs to prove to you how the two party system undermines the executive branch-- how are the EPA, CIA, SEC, and other executive branch agencies suffering a "severe lack of results" specifically because of the two party system? 4. " Duvergers law"- for those who don't know, the theory that in two party systems, the party which wins the legislature/executive branch has free reign to govern, and ignore the worries/complaints of minority gruops. aThe winner of a two party election doesn't get free reign to govern. As we have seen the last two years, the minority party can greatly impede the legislation of the majority party through the fillibuster in the Senate. The health care bill, the jobs bill, and the Wall Street Reform Bill were all bipartisan compromises, as the democrats coudn't have passed them without Republican support. Refuting "claims" 1."two party system discourages an actual representative democracy by limiting the pool of possible and plausible candidates" a)How? There are a variety of third party candidates that exist, and run for office, including The Tea Party American Heritage Party Green Party The American Socialist Party Alaskan Independence Party American Nazi Party ... you get the point. If voters wanted these candidates to represent them, they would vote them into office. If they don't, they're choosing who they want to elect, which upholds representative democracy. It's not like John Boehner and Nancy Pelosi are hiding in voting booths with guns, telling prospective voters "if you don't vote democrat or republican we're going to blow your head off". "the two party system encourages media bias and uninformed voting by giving simple lables to large and varying social political and military ideals" a)My opponent confuses causation here-- all the problems she brings up stem from the media, not the two party system. b)Non Unique-- the problems she brings up exists in other political systems too. Countries with one party, authoritarian rule have far worse problems with media bias, stereoptying/scapegoating various groups and ideals. "don't judge on actual abilities, credentials, and promises, but rather on immediate impressions and assumptions made based by their own parties standing and the candidates party standing" a)Candidates are judged on who they are. Meg Whitman was eviscerated in the California Gubernatorial election because of her stiff demanor during debates, and a credibility sapping scandal involving an illegal immigrant she hired as a housemaid. John Kerry arguably lost the 2004 presidential elections because the infamous swift boat ads called his military service and integrity into action. Countless candidates--democrats lost their seats in the midterm elections for voting for the stimulus package and the healthcare bill. b) Voting on party lines guarantees accurate representation in Congress. When you vote for a democratic or republican candidate, you have a pretty good idea how they will vote on given social/economic/foreign policy issues. c) Primaries check. d) Are you saying that voters shouldn't choose the criterion they vote on? Why do you get to tell me how i should evaluate candidates. e) Non Unique-- my opponent has no proof that voters woudn't vote based off their preconceptions of a certain party even in a non two party system.