Americais is a polity, not a democracy

Republic and the Oligarchy My opponent makes a good argument that the companies wouldn't exist without the people, therefore the corporations do support the idea of a republic because the corporations are representative of the people. However this couldn't be further from the truth. While people do invest in bank and big business and have an interest in them, they don't always represent the will of the people. One empirical example is a company called CVR energy in Kansas, recently bought by Carl Ichan who's net worth is estimated at 14 billion dollars. CVR energy lobbied the Kansas legislature to consider SB 317 and HB 2501. This particular piece of legislation was back by CVR Energy and the Kansas Chamber of Commerce. SB 317 and HB 2501would redefine real and personal property in taxation. This would allow CVR energy to avoid paying taxes [1], potentially increasing the cost of of some city's property taxes in Kansas as much as 70%. It could also seriously cut funds for education [2]. And while many families are dependent on CVR energy or use their business, that doesn't necessarily mean they support the corporate Agenda. More than this most companies obfuscate where they spend their money lobbying because often times people would not longer support the companies. They depend on the ignorance of the American consumer to not only increase their profit margin, but to support the candidates that will serve their interest. Sopa/Pipa/Cispa It ultimately did get sidelined yes. But it's a clear example that 1.) The super rich have a serious influence on the political system, just that they could get anyone to support it shows the effects of the oligarchy 2.) Just because we delayed it doesn't mean they won't try again and again. I obviously can't predict the future. But if CISPA fails I guarantee there will be some similar piece of legislation in the next two years. When the political system fails, the Lobbyist will try again or find another way. NRA He talks about the NRA and how "68% of America support the NRA." When you actually look at the Ipsos poll cited in the huff post article [3], it doesn't mention that 68% number anywhere. While I'm not sure if that statistic exists or not, I don't see it from the original Ipsos poll. Even then, he talks about the 4.3 million members in the NRA that support these laws but he doesn't mention the other 313.6 million people that live in the US. 4.3 million members supporting a political lobbying organization doesn't give it legitimacy. Electoral College First, it's undemocratic because many states are left out of the process. Why would a republican candidate need to appeal specifically to states like Texas, Kansas, or many other Midwest states when those votes will pretty much always be red. Also the fact that most states are winner take all totally defies the idea of democracy when the delegates to the EC are not given out proportionally. For example, in some states, even if candidate A gets 49% of the vote in a state and candidate B gets 51% of the vote, Candidate B will get all the delegates for the state. It's not only undemocratic, it is a clear example of an oligarchy when the elite politicians say who's votes count and who's don't. There are 48 States that have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. [5] It also makes a third party nigh impossible. But this is what corporations want, it makes their lives easier. When somebody could lose by half a million votes and still be considered president t, it's obvious something is not right. Also, it's happened three times in our history. I'd contend though even having one president who was not elected take office is a clear example of neither a democracy or a republic. It happened in 1876, 1888, and 2000. Two Party Option Also, I showed it hurt the republic by giving people only two options, and two radical options at that. It creates a false Dichotomy without acknowledging the existence and undermining the legitimacy of any other candidate. The two party system also clearly lead to stagnation, I mean, look how much progress congress has been able to make. For the love of god we haven't even passed a federal budget since 2009, is that not proof enough that they can't accomplish anything because they're so ideologically opposed. Accountability This argument while based in what politicians should be doing, is not based in reality. Sure the government is supposed to hold their own members accountable, but they never do. Who held the Federal reserve accountable in 2008 when the banks collapsed? No one. Who held Eric Holder and the department of Justice accountable for giving guns to Drug cartels? No one. Sure they play their political games and hold there "investigations". But the politicians never pay the price, and it seems as if it's always the citizens picking up the price tag. Also, Lobbyist are usually in more than one pocket. So if the congressmen that is in charge of the ethics commission is controlled by a lobbyist, how often do you think he'd launch an investigation in to another congressmen who is controlled by the same lobbyist? Government accountability these days is laughable at best. Also, when was the last time a recall election or impeachment worked on a federal official. Liberties 1.) Threats to the state only under oligarchies override the "constitution" when public safety concerns arise. These are the exact same arguments used by Hitler. Some of you may think I'm being extreme but here is a direct quote Hindenburg: "This completely overrides the Constitution. It puts you in charge." Hitler: "These are troubled times." Only under Oligarchies (which Hitler with his advisers were) do we forfeit personal liberties and governmental framework for security. The law allowed the police to arrest people into "protective custody", which required no charge or trial. (indefinite detention in the US PATRIOT ACT) and In 1942, the Reichstag passed a law giving Hitler power of life and death over every citizen. (This happened in the killing of US Citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without any due process). Whenever we choose security over the rights and liberties of individuals, we become oligarchic, not a republic. 2.) Just because people believe it's okay for personal liberty to be eroded doesn't mean the still have liberty. The liberty argument is in relation to your assertion that Oligarchies don't have liberty. America doesn't have those liberties, regardless if the people support the degradation of their own rights. Conclusion The state of the nation and the nature of our political system ultimately is run by the top 1%. I don't want to sound like an occupy wall street protester but there is an Oligarchy. That Oligarchy are the rich who unfairly influence the laws to meet their needs, while ignoring the rest of us. The rich who are the only ones who can run for office because it is stupidly expensive. It's the Rich who can go to the elite schools that are the most highly respected among big business and politics. We may vote for our representatives, but do we vote because a corporate interest is telling us to? Even then, we must ponder do these politicians truly have power or are they just pawns in a larger game. Sincerely question do we actually get to choose who is in power? The answer is ultimately no. Also, as my opponent correctly notes, Vote Con. @ voters: Just because the USSR is an oligarchy, doesn't mean the US has to be just like it to also be an Oligarchy. [1] http://www.kansaschamber.org... [2] http://www.kasb.org... [3] http://www.ipsos-na.com... [4] http://www.census.gov... [5] http://www.archives.gov...