Two Party System vs. Multi Party System

I would like to congratulate my opponent as well. This is the most interesting debate I have found yet. Claims: 1. Two parties are insufficient precisely because two is not enough to represent the many different issue combinations. 2. To win election, each party must moderate its ideals toward centrism. Thusly, each party represents the radically moderate, and not the conservative and liberal wings. 3. This has caused voter turnout to plummet. 4. Many feel they are choosing the lesser of two evils. 5. The election system (primary, general, etc. , is "absurd"). 6. If a three way race resulted in a victor with only 40% of the vote, it is still the largest group. 7. We have a de facto legislation of the two party system. 8. Wealth buys media time. Rebuttal: 1. I disagree. I contend that two parties is sufficient to represent the many different combinations of issues. For most people it is the overall ideology of each party that attracts them (I don't think I need to go over which party has which current philosophy at this moment). The lesser issues, or "hot-button" issues are usually not enough for a person to bolt. When it does, they form the smaller parties my opponent has mentioned, such as the Prohibition Party, the Constitutional Party, the Libertarian Party, and many others. 2. This is precisely my point. Each party moderates its views to protect the nation against often and fast paced reforms brought by more radical (left or right) minority parties. History has generally shown this to be true. Look at Germany in the 1930s, Russia in the 1910s, America in the 1850s, and many others. They all resulted in swift, radical change, some positive and some negative, that the majority of people did not want. 3. It is my contention that voter turnout has not declined. When you remove those ineligible to vote from the count, there shows no decline. In fact, it has steadily risen since 1996. The study can be found here: . http://elections.gmu.edu... With an easy to read graph here: . http://elections.gmu.edu... 4. This claim does not seem to be supported, or even proven one way or another without a specific poll conducted. There is no way to measure if this statement is true. 5. I was a little confused by the wording of my opponents statements on the election system. I believe he was refering to the fact that we utilize a primary, then general election, followed by an electoral college. The usefullness of the primary and general elections should not be disputed. The primaries allow those within their party to have a say in who represents them as a candidate. Without one we would go back to the back room deals of the past. The general election is obviously important because it is (usually) the deciding factor as to who is elected. The electoral college (I believe is what he refers to as the "election itself") is another question. It does seem to hold some importance in making certain that the smaller states have a larger say in elections, but overall it seems to be mostly useless and outdated. However, this is irrelevent to the question of party systems since the same problem would exist under both. 6. Such a case would be more easy for the minority to oppress the majority. If 40% of the electorate (which would be a huge victory under a multi- party system) chose, for instance the Prohibitionist Party, then that 40% would be oppressing the desire of the 60% to, in this instance drink alcohol. This becomes even more dangerous when a minority party is one that wants dramatic change, like a completely socialist state. This leaves room for demagogues who may not necessarily follow the rules (constitution) once "elected" into power. We have seen this time and again in the short history of representative government. 7. This does seem to be the unfortunate case (gerrymandering) today. But is not the cause of two party systems appearing in the past. Changing it now (redrawing the lines in a more fair and balanced way) would not likely change the two party system. 8. This is another unfortunate result of capitalism. The media will do what is in its best interests and give time to those best able to pay for it. The only way to change this is public financing of elections, or complete public control over (some) networks. I point out again that, barring this changes, the same problem would exist in a multi-party system. Conclusion: The two party system moderates political ideology and protects the majority from the minority. It protects the nation from chaotic and rapid reforms of government that either result in an inefficient government because there is little time to realize if the reforms are positive or negative. Imagine a world where the U. S. changes from a completely free market to a completely socialist state every four to twelve years. Note: I would invite a debate on a no party system vs. a party system if my opponent wishes, since he stated a no party system as the ideal.