The Two-Party System Doesn't Work

Framework: 1. My opponent concedes that she must uphold every part of the resolution. 2. It doesn't matter whether it's your "intention" to argue solutions. The only way to evaluate anything-- a food, a person, or a political system-- is by comparing it to alternatives. For instance, if the resolution was "Chemotherapy is bad", you could talk about how it causes your hair to fall out, and you feel naseus, and a host of other problems. However, these are just minor complaints when you consider that-- most of the time-- the only alternative to chemotherapy is death. Similarly, in today's round, unless my opponent can prove that a non two party system would solve the harms that she brings up in her case better than our current system, she can't win today's debate. Covering refutations to my refutations 1. a) Just because our Per Capita GDP isn't in the top 10 doesn't make America an incredibly wealthy nation. In his book the Post American World, Fareed Zakaria explains that America's high productivity, strong service sector, and highly developed nanotech/biotec industries will ensure that we are the world's most dominant economy for the remainder of the 21st century b) Empirically, the two party system promotes political stability, which fosters sustained economic growth, according to Yi Feng in the British Journal of Political Science. 2. a)That's not true. 87% of state court judges are elected in popular elections [www.okbar.org/public/judges/judgesoutline.pdf - Similar] b) Why shoudn't we have a spoils system? If a republican electorate elects a republican to represent them in Congress, why shoudn't their congressmen appoint a judge who reflects the viewpoints of the majority of his constituents? 3. The executive branch refers to the agencies which comprise the executive branch, along with the president and vice president. If my opponent can't prove that somehow the two party system undermines the functioning of these agencies, she hasn't fully affirmed the resolution, and lose today's round. 4. a) i. Whether or not their cooperation was friendly or coerced doesn't matter. We should evaluate the legislature by the bills they pass. And there was plenty of "real cooperation". In each of these bills, the Democrats started with centre left pieces of legislation, and the Republicans obstructed these pieces of legislation until they were center right. Considering that the American electorate rewarded the Republicans for this behavior during the midterm elections, the legislature is clearly doing it's job; producing legislation which reflects the views and concerns of the American people. America's Two party system has consistently produce this bipartisan compromise. ii. Non two party systems have the same problems with antagonistic behavior; the parliament in Iraq hasn't passed a single bill in a year because of squabbling between the two coalitions, South Korea's parliament broke out into a brawl over the South Korea U.S Free Trade Agreement, and Isreal's Prime Minister Ehud Barak cannot negotiate with the Palestenians for a two party state because such actions would fracture his fragile coalition. Unless my opponent can prove that non two party systems are able to "work together better' and produce better legislation than two party systems, then she can't win this argument. 5. i. They don't win, because no one wants them to win. "The word on everyone's mind is 'Democrat and Republican'. Exactly. Because most American's identify themselves with one of those two contrasting systems of belief, and ethics. Just because there are not more third party candidates in office doesn't mean that Americans would vote more of them into office if they had more publicity. And the fact that your friend said she didn't know she could vote for someone else just proves that she is ignorant, not that the two party system is flawed. ii. When the two party system fails to reflect the viewpoints of a large minority of Americans, the minority of Americans is loud and brings attention to their cause until one of the major parties begins to adopt parts of their platform. For instance, when the tea party first emerged their beliefs were way to the right of the GOP's base. However, after the movement gained momentum, the Republican party shifted further to the right and took a harder stance on fiscal issues to appease them. The two party system is very receptive to the interests of voters who are willing to make themselves heard. 6. a) The media would be even less informative if our political landscape was dominated by feuding factions trying to build coalitions in a parliament. Making politics simple to understand is a good thing, because if it was too complicated, Americans busy with 50 hour work weeks and multiple children woudn't have time to even try to follow politics. b) i.Estonians refer to their country as a whole because they are culturally homogeneous-- a demographic factor which is correlated with unity and nationalism. America is comprised of a very heterogeneous culture, which creates conflict. Where there is conflict there is negativity, and criticism. But that is the fault of our nation's demographics, not our two party system. ii. A positive media isn't necessary good. Hitler and Stalin both presided over tame, positive medias, it doesn't mean their countries were any better off. A negative media is good if it holds the government and private corporations accountable for their actions. 7. i.Meg Whitman is not radical...I don't want to get into a semantics debate, but if you google "meg whitmans political views" you will see that she is fiscally conservative, but socially moderate-- i. ea moderate Republican. ii. My opponent complains that "once you give people labels", Americans become sheep and vote for who their friends vote for. This argument applies just as much to a non two party system as a two party system. Do you think if the "socialist party" and "american nazi party" had more members, and were prominent in the American political landscape, people woudn't stereotype them? Would abolishing a two party system lead to people researching harder? No; it's hard enough to research and understand the views of the Republicans and the Democrats on every major issue. Do you really think that if there was 20 major political parties in the United States, people would research every single on of them? b) i. The fact that it took Obama two years to pass DADT has nothing to do with him not representing you; it simply took two years to get the military establishment and the republicans on board. ii. A non two party system isn't any more representative than a two party system. To pass any legislation in a democracy you need a majority. More parties means that parties have to form coalitions to make a plurality and pass legislation. It's the exact same result as a two party system-- but a two party doesnt have to deal with all the bickering, fighting, and wasted time that comes with coalition building once candidates are in office. c) Voting on party lines isn't voting irresponsibly. Voters typically vote on the issue most important to them-- like you voted for president obama because of your concerns on LGBT issues. A two party system telegraphs what each parties position is on these key issues, so voting for a party which will reflect your most important beliefs and values isn't voting irresponsibly. e) i. Analysis and statistics do exist, like the evidence I cited under economics. ii. Cross apply my earlier analysis; if other political systems are worse than the two party system, my opponent cannot claim "it doesn't work".