The Plan.

The numbers next to each of my responses coordinate with the order of refutations Rocky has made. (In other words, his first refutation is number one, and so on.) 1) The government cannot be flawless, but we do have a system of limitation of powers – the U.S. Supreme court gets to decide whether or not actions of the rest of the government are constitutional or not. The framers of the constitution intentionally wanted representation in government, and that is what we have – we have representatives in the House and in the Senate from our states. There really is no way that the government can run completely incorruptly unless every single citizen rules themselves instead of our republican system where we delegate power. It is with this representation that we trust the government. In your proposal, the government is strict and completely controls the United States as a unitary system, which is more like communism and has more chances of reflecting abusive power. 2) You have a great point there. However, you are misunderstanding my argument; my point is that America is supposed to be united. Splitting the country into 30 separate countries contradicts the very name of who we are: the United States of America. 3) Here is the translation of the "witty saying": by dividing up our country into 30 separate ones, it contradicts our name: the UNITED states of America. 4) Alright, I will try to give more reasoning in my other points. This proposal is unconstitutional because it gives all the power to the national government and absolutely none to the "countries." The United States is based on representation, and there will be a whole lot less representation from the people with your plan. 5) They did resolve simple problems like that: they added an amendment, and 18-year-olds who had fought and survived Vietnam had the right to vote. It has been like that ever since. 6) Rockylightning's refutation has stated no proof that setting up 30 groups of three-branched governments would be efficient. Try getting 30 groups of three people to agree on everything and run as a union. One way which the Supreme Court justices interpret the Constitution is according to today's needs: there are some "implied" powers, but because of the Supreme Court, the legislative branch cannot use the idea of implied powers to be corrupt. The Supreme Court can rule anything unconstitutional within reason. 7) You have not completely refuted my point. The people and Electoral College representatives would have to completely agree with everything that one candidate believes in order to want to vote for them. Also, because individual votes are kept completely confidential from the public, there should be no peer pressure. An adult voting for president knows that their vote ultimately leads to how the United States will be run. 8) George Washington did warn us not to create political parties. However, we have had them for a century or more, and nothing horrible has happened. George Washington was the first president, the first one to experience taking over the legislative branch. Also, I'd like to add that George Washington is a person who agrees that the current Constitution works efficiently. After all, he was the first president under our current Constitution. 9) With Ephors, there is no point in the Senate or U.S. Supreme court. With Ephors, there is no representation for any of the citizens in the United States. Ephors have biased, personal ideas and do not consult with the people who are loaning their power to allow others to govern them. You have yet to refute this. 10) No, I cannot refute an end to poverty. However, some places, such as in the south, are where all the farms are – they need these big companies to get goods that aren't readily available in their area of the country. Closing all large companies around the entire country may stop poverty in some areas, but not in other areas. These goods and these crops are needed, and we need to depend on each other as a nation to run, not on 30 separate countries. 11) A system where everyone has the same amount of wealth is Utopian, unrealistic, and unfeasible with the United States. Prices of goods vary in different places. If you're proposing this tax system instead of capitalism, then Wall Street closes down. Big companies close down. The system in which we have run the United States for hundreds of years will be destroyed, and nobody will become rich. A huge majority of our country depends on this system. All these people will lose their benefits, and everyone will be living in poverty. How can you possibly argue against that? 12) Taxpayer dollars to pay teachers? Inevitable taxes for a healthcare system? Sounds like taxation without representation to me. Your proposal is an automatic switch to an included healthcare system, and we don't even have the right to vote on it. 13) You still have not completely refuted my argument: how will we be able to tell who can vote and who can't? Keep John Steinbeck out of this, please. This has nothing to do with it. And by the way, he didn't want Coyotito to be educated to know right from wrong; he wanted him to set his people free from poverty. 14) I see your point. However, Britain was no longer in control of the United States. In your proposal, the people will not have a choice to decide whether or not the change will happen; the government will hand out jobs, and if you refuse the job because you simply want a right to choice of jobs (a power of the people), they will send you to work for the National Guard. If you think this is unreasonable, all of this was stated clearly and concisely within your first round speech. 15) I have explained in these refutations how we are taking away the right to vote, a right to representation, and the right to choice of career, which is a power of individual people. Yes, the government needs a change. However, Rockylightning's proposal is extremely radical and changes everything about our country, the way it's run, our rights, and our name. His plan is not the way to approach our current problems. My counter-proposal, however, is. Simply add amendments to correct or prevent certain major problems. This system has been working ever since this country broke off from Britain. Rockylightning's reason for changing the system, as stated first round, is because "Our government has kept certain people from voting, made 18 year olds serve for a country they did not have a say in, and more recently, the government has recorded our phone calls." Giving more power to the government and less voice to the people being governed is the way to control the government more so that they won't do these actions again? Amendments are the perfect, fool-proof way to protect the people and keep government power consistent. Thank you, and now for the third round.