The Two-Party System Doesn't Work

Refutes to Framework ==== 1. Is it truly "convoluted"? It's simply an extreme statement, which I plan to fully defend. 2. I never made a statement in my resolution or my opening argument on possible solutions because there are many - it is not my intention to argue solutions today so I hold no burden to prove any solutions. Maybe another time. Refutes to Con's Opening Arguments ==== 1. First off, that's a misconception. Most powerful regarding military, certainly. However we are not the most wealthy. Ranking by GDP, the United States would be. But let's do some math here. The United States GDP is about 14,000,000,000,000 (Aneki, [1]). However, our National Deficit is equal to that number. Take into account also the recession, our limited federal and state budgets, unemployment, and many other factors, and the United States is no longer as rich as our GDP would lead you to believe (after all our GDP only measures domestic product and isn't a comprehensive look at actual wealth). Even on the GDP argument, our total GDP may be hightest, but on GDP per capita, the United States doesn't even make the top ten (CIA Database, [2]). And on your argument that the United States is "most free", it's difficult to measure, but that is incorrect too. The USA ranks at about the 8th most free country the world. Number one is Estonia, a country which runs on a multi-party, coalition government system (StateofWorldLiberty, [3]). 2. Simple. The two-party system creates an avenue (through pitting the two parties against each other and offering simple labels) for a "spoils system" which is principle of appointing people to office base on their party loyalty. 3. I wasn't talking about agencies but rather elected officials. 4. I will refute your sub-numbered points as I would agree with that definition. a. You brought up a couple of things that I believe prove my point perfectly. The use of the filibuster - this is not to keep things balance but rather to give a cop-out to the minority party. It's an antagonizer at best and has nothing do with collaboration. The second you listed, that isn't cooperation. That is coercing. Cooperation would assume that from the beginning both sides were actively working together to reach a common end. In reality both sides were working against each other and the compromise was only made to shove it through and pass. It would be difficult to find any real cooperation in how those bills passed. 5. Of course there are third parties, but how often do they win? The Republicans and Democrats do not invite them to their debates (thereby holding their power) and third parties are generally ignored. They're regarded as distractions to help other parties win (their effect is noticeable on occasions from split votes but never from actual victory). There are only two independents in our Senate. Our Senate is split into a Democratic and Republican caucus. The words on everyone's mind is "Democrat" and "Republican". I spoke with someone who doesn't vote and told them I had voted third party and their response was "I didn't know you could vote for anyone else". Third parties exist but our system is designed to ensure they will never win any big election and the Democrats and Republicans will retain most of the power and public eye. 6. I will refute the sub-numbered arguments. a. I never once said it caused anything. I said it encourages, which it does. The more simple you make something the easier it is to take advantage of. The media may ignite these party separations but the separation must exist to begin with. b. Yes, but not to the same extreme. I direct you again to Estonia. Look at some of their headlines in political news. They rarely refer to a party or even a person but rather to the country as a whole (EUPolitics, [4]). They have a much more positive media that concentrates on successes whereas American media tends to concentrate on the plight of the two parties and the negativity. 7. ... a. No, Meg Whitman was considered a very radical, stereotypical Republican candidate and that's why. It's just as difficult for you to prove they vote based on actual facts and consideration. However consider the bandwagon effect. Even if they SAY it's because of character, where do you think they learned about that character? Through media and friends who agree with them. (Not that I would use Meg Whitman as a good example since she's one big walking guffaw after another). The minute you give labels, people know where to go. When you give things names, it becomes easier for people to become attached. And then comes the ingroup bias, in which now people will take everything their candidates and media say, and take it at face value. Do you honestly think people actively research both sides. They make their decisions ahead of time and then do the work after they've already made their decisions, and then it just become a confirmation game. Of course there are no real polls or statistics on this and even if there were, they'd be about as reliable as asking a two-year-old if they stole a cookie. No one is going to tell the truth, and it's probable they've convinced themselves they're telling the truth anyway. b. Oh does it? I voted for Obama thinking he would support LGBT rights (since many consider that a principle of the Democratic party) and yet it took two years just to get Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal and he did nothing but sign the paper and then gloat. It doesn't guarantee anything. The only thing that could guarantee accurate representation would be to get candidates that have to explain more of their motivations (because they can no longer fall back on party labels) and to get voters to actually research candidates rather than assuming they'll do what their party wants. Just look at the match-ups of political ideology here on Debate.org. It's a small selection yet you'll be hard-pressed to find even three people who agree 100% on every little thing. So to assume that a major party can agree with 50% of voters (a good two million or so), is highly unrealistic. c. The primaries don't give you any selection. All those candidates are still selected by the party and I guarantee they place charisma and good looks (good looks being relative to the audience) over experience and abilities in many cases. d. I'm saying that if you can't use the power to vote responsibly, then maybe our country isn't mature enough for a democratic style of elections. e. Again, I have no interest in arguing solutions and other party systems. But I do have proof. Like I said, statistics in this area don't exist. Social studies, however, do. And I listed above only a handful of all the biases that can influence us in situations such as the two-party. I've demonstrated with the country of Estonia that freedom tends to come from multiple plausible choices (rather than two major ones and a bunch of completely unlikely ones). I believe I've adequately compared a two-party and multi-party system considering that was never the intention of the debate.