My proposed US political system is better than the status quo

Pro claims that his “proposed system will still have separation of government.” While pro’s plan does leave three branches of government, it eliminates the balance of power. Remember his plan suggests that the legislative branch have to power to elect and remove Presidents from office. This ultimately gives the Legislative branch power over the Excecutive thus nullifying the checks and balance of government. Pro claims “these gridlocks lead to a very ineffective United States government.” Please refer to my rebuttal in round 3. These Checks and Balances that Pro is undermining allow the Government to fill its primary function which is to secure rights from tyranny. The Gridlock prevents tyranny and is preferable to it. Pro is arguing for the effectiveness of passing laws and no checks to power vs the effectiveness of protecting rights. Clearly it is of more value to protect rights than to allow the legislative branch to be effective tyrants.Pro’s second contention is entitled “failed promises by design.” This shows that Pro is aware that this type of gridlock was intended and is “by design.” Thus the status quo is effective as it is providing the desired and intended result. My opponent has claimed that his plan promotes democracy. This is true, it does so by removing vital restraints on congress. It removes the design of our government set up to prevent tyranny of the majority. I maintain that the Electoral College is highly democratic as all but two States have their votes tied to the popular vote through law. Pro points to four elections where the elected did not receive the largest plurality of votes nationwide. This, as he admits is rare. He also does not tie a harm to this occurrence, he just claims that it is undemocratic. While the U.S. does promote Democratic principles our government organization is necessary to prevent tyranny of the majority. Much of pro’s arguments commit the “Appeal to popularity.”Pro claims I violated the rules for round 3. Defending and address your opponents arguments are rebuttals. I did not present any new arguments in round three, I only rebutted statements made by pro. Thus I followed the rules stated in round one that “Round 3: Rebuttals only (No new arguments)”Pro says that my contention that gridlock is the very intent of the government is “comical.” This is amusing as he has conceded this point via his second contention as the gridlock is “by design.”Pro again asserts that “The government's main role is to pass laws that advance the will of the American people.” This is again untrue. Our founding documents clearly state the primary function of government to be “is to secure rights from tyranny.” (1)Overview of Debate:I have shown definitively that the status quo is preferred over Pro’s plan as 1: The Status quo keeps Checks and balances intact2: Pro’s plan removes several checks and balancesa. Limiting the filibusterb. destroying the bicameral legislative branchc. allows the Legislative Branch supreme authority over the Executive branch. The choice is simple. Pro’s proposals would remove the "balance" our government has. It would give the legislative branch such a large check on the executive branch as to undermine the separation of powers. The Status Quo provides democracy and stability in ways that pro’s proposals would mitigate. Thus the status quo should be preferred.Vote Con!(1) http://www.archives.gov...