The two party system is detrimental to the interests of U.S. citizens.

Thanks for the topic rogue. ==Burden of proof== As the instigator and pro, my opponent has the burden to prove that the two party system is intrinsically detrimental to the interests of U.S. citizens. If I prove that her objections are attributable to factors other than the two party system itself, then she fails her BOP. ==My case== C1) Parliamentary vs. Presidential governments The U.S. has a presidential system of government, where the people directly elect a President, a Congressman, and a Senator. Most other countries, like England, have a parliamentary system of government, where people vote only for legislators and the political parties then form coalitions; whichever party forms a coalition large enough to garner a majority of seats in the legislature gets to appoint the prime minister. Presidential governments inherently lead to a two party system, whereas parliamentary systems inherently lead to more than two parties. The two party system is not to blame and cannot change unless we change our form of government. C2) Open primaries Open primaries, like those recently passed in California by ballot initiative, solve all the problems with the two party system. My opponent cites increasing partisanship but this is due to voter apathy. Because so few people vote in primaries, organized and extreme partisan groups can easily sway a primary election and ensure that the least moderate candidate runs in the general election. This recently happened when the Tea Party ousted moderate Republican Bob Bennett during a primary in Utah, for example. Open primaries allow anyone, regardless of party, to vote for their top few candidate choices, eliminating the sway of highly polarized yet organized minorities. Rank order voting systems and public financing of elections can further curb problems in our electoral system. C3) Not even a two party system The U.S. has more than two parties. According to the Cato Institute, between 16 and 23 percent of Americans are Libertarian. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org... Even if Independents don't vote for a third party, the fact that the two major parties have to woo these 20 percent or so of swing voters means they must offer proposals that appeal to a wide variety of people. C4) Talent deficit Private sector wages have ensured that most of the best and brightest pursue CEO jobs rather than government jobs. As Robert Reich laments in the Supercapitalism, we have witnessed the death of the corporate statesmen. Few people ever make the transition from the private sector back to the public, and the people become mistrustful of the career politician. Many problems in government can be attributed to this talent deficit, rather than to the two party system itself. ==Rebuttal== R1) Partisanship My opponent says, "It causes sectionalism as regions are often divided by the two parties." But: 1. Divisions are inevitable. In a three party system, people would merely be divided three ways, rather than two. Divisions by region would still exist. 2. Adversarial systems lead to parties representing the best interests of their constituents, in the same way that our adversarial legal system leads to lawyers representing the best interest of their clients. 3. My opponent must provide evidence that people are less divided in countries with more than two major parties. R2) The myth of the rational voter My opponent says, "It causes people to vote for a candidate just because they are part of a party instead of actually knowing where the candidate stands on issues." 1. My opponent must provide evidence that people are more informed about candidate's stances on issues in countries with more than two major parties. This is her burden of proof. 2. No evidence is provided that people don't know where candidates stand on issues. Most people do know where candidates stand on the issues they care most strongly about. 3. Interest groups solve. Interest groups send newsletters and advertise on TV where candidates stand on certain issues that are important to that interest group. NARAL makes it well known when a Democrat is pro-life, for example. The AARP makes it well known when a candidate plans to cut Medicare benefits. The NRA makes candidates' stances on gun control widely available. 4. No person could ever be perfectly informed about a candidate's views. According to Barry Schwartz's The Paradox of Choice, when people have too much information, they become overwhelmed. They prefer mechanisms for simplifying their decision-making process. The two party system is a simple solution for people who don't want to do copious amounts of research into their candidates' political histories. 5. Most people voluntarily exercise their right not to vote. The problem is with low voter turnout and voter apathy. Making the system more complex (with more parties) will only raise the cost of becoming informed and voting, leading to even lower turnout. 6. My opponent must prove that people always vote the party line. This is definitely not true in local elections or for Independents. This, again, is her BOP. I personally voted for Meg Whitman for CA governor, in spite of being a Democrat, because I think Jerry Brown is an idiot who is beholden to the unions, like the CCPOA. I look forward to my opponent's response.