The Plan.

Thank you for a quick response. I will have the same system of refuting points as I did last round. 1) You state that in your plan, the government is strict, but for the constituents' own good? Allowing the citizens of our country absolutely no say in solving any of the problems which our nation has fallen across is for our own good? With your proposal, there is absolutely no representation. You have stated that the Ephors are biased just like the Supreme Court Justices, but what will the Ephors do that that the U.S. Supreme Court can't already? Also, the House of Representatives already does the impeaching, so allowing these Ephors to take over that power crosses the border by taking the legislative branch's power. This is completely inappropriate. 2) "Who cares what we call ourselves?" The founding fathers of our country and the citizens who were proud and still are proud of being American care. How does our size make terrorists see us as a menacing figure? Wouldn't splitting up into 30 different countries make us seem more vulnerable? Your example of Europe being divided into many different countries is not a good comparison to use – not all European countries are strictly under one government. I do not know where you come from when saying that Europe is the happiest place on earth, but last time I checked, people are happy to have a say in government decisions, not constant monarchy. 3) The name our country has taken for over two centuries proves that though we all have different opinions, we are the United States of America, and as our nation with liberty and justice for all, we have a say in government by vote. Yes, the party with the most votes wins. However, the party with the most votes wins because of the choices which the people make according to how they want to be governed. Not everyone can get what they want. However, with your plan, nobody can even express their choice. 4) I did not misread your plan, Rockylightning. Your plan is too complex to run. If one country broke the alliance, it would be like another world war. You even admitted yourself that in your proposed plan, there would be no representation. These rich people in suits are called the Electoral College members, and ultimately, you get to vote for the people who are in the Electoral College. Our current system is more organized than your proposed plan to split up the nation into thirty countries and try to keep them all under one alliance. 5) I see your point. However, as I have stated in all my refutations and points, your proposal will have problems in the future. There is no such thing as a system of government that is perfect. But I can tell you one thing; your proposed plan is a lot farther from it than the current system. 6) Rocky, I would appreciate it if you used more professional conduct than calling me dumb. To refute your point, we are split up into fifty states. However, are we split up into thirty different countries within one alliance with a legislative, executive, and judicial branch within each one with no representation? These fifty states aren't different countries, nor are they ones where we have no say in our government. With an electoral college in each "country," what would they elect? Do not say they will elect the five presidents; thirty countries can't decide on representatives from only five different countries. 7 & 8) If you were part of a group, of course you would favor it more. You favor more what you believe in. Your refutation is weak and does not show how people are pressured by peers to vote for a certain party. There are Conservatives who know what the healthcare bill is about, as well as liberals who know what good George Bush has done. However, without political parties, people will still have a black and white view of the way government is run overall, and that would split people up into groups, whether or not you want to call them political. Taking away political parties would do absolutely nothing. 9) Rocky, I am saying the following as peer advice, not to offend you: instead of attacking the little parts of the arguments such as examples, try to attack the part of the argument which means the most. By attacking a tiny George Washington example, you are showing that you do not know enough about this topic which you are debating to refute the point which I brought up, which is this: We have had political parties for centuries, and nothing horrible has happened with them. Without them, nothing would change. Please refute this next round. 10) Ephors who are not elected by the people do not represent the people at all. Their ideas of constitutionality would not be proportional to the ideas of the people unless we elected them. In your proposal, they are appointed. If a biased president appoints an Ephor with his views, then this is the complete opposite of our current system, which allows the people to choose the way they are governed. Our Republican system of government is what makes our country so unique, and your proposal simply takes that away. 11) We won't be able to trade easily. With thirty different countries, each with their own laws on trade and tariffs with no regulation, we will have to set up a completely new complex system to keep track of goods going in and out of the different countries. 12) The plain idea of narrowing wealth within the entire country reflects communism: everyone gets close to the same amount according to "what they need." Miniature Wall Streets are a crazy idea – let's say there are a KFC in Kentucky, and then a KFC in California at the moment. Split into thirty countries, you cannot have a separate wall street per country for the same restaurant chain. Restaurant chains would not spread country-wide. With different supply and demand levels for goods and services in various areas, you cannot simply just split up our country into separate little places. Think of our current country like cookie dough – your plan is the cookie cutter that separates the dough and gets decorated in a different way. There is no way to pull these all together. 13) If you represent yourself, you will not be heard. Everyone else will be representing themselves, and there is no such thing as a system that listens and responds to everyone in any country for what they want. It is just simply impossible to give everyone what they want. 14) Alright, we will make tests. We will make thirty separate tests, one for each country, to see if they understand the government. Do you have any idea how much money ant time this will take out of our country? 15) Some people are unemployed because they need to stay home to take care of their children, not because they are looking for a job and can't find one. Your proposal is not feasible with people with these needs. England thought our plan was radical, but we weren't changing a plan for their government; we were creating a plan for our own. Your proposal ultimately will change the current system without the choice of the people, leave no choices for the people, and create an even bigger hole for our country. This is why the simplicity of adding amendments is far better than your proposed plan. Thank you, and I wish you good luck for the last round.