The Two-Party System Doesn't Work

2. Yes, but implicit in every review is a comparison between that product and another product. For instance, if a certain mp3 player is said to have "a lot of memory", the only way that judgement can be made is by a comparison with other similar products. I'm not asking you to give a plan, or a specific solution-- im just asking you to demonstrate how other political systems solve better than the two party system. Refutations: 1. Whether or not America is "the wealthiest" nation or not is besides the point. The point is that America's two party system provides the political, and social stability we need to sustain long term economic growth-- which is one way the two party system "works". 2. Yes, 100% of the judges on the supreme court are nominated by the president? So? This would happen even if we didn't have a two party system. You're right, the spoils system "isn't based on political ideology", its based on favors-- favors which would occur in any political system. 3. Just because you didn't like the 2008 election doesn't mean it wasn't substantive. There were two key issues; the healthcare bill, and the economy. Since the American people thought Obama could help the economy and pass a healthcare bill he was elected. There was plenty of substance. But further more, adding more "teams" into the election doesn't solve anything-- the same negative, caustic tactics would still be used, and instead of a "two way tug of war" we would have a "twenty way tug of war", which would not in anyway improve our nations political dialogue. 4. i. Once again, forced compromise occurs in every single political system. Just because there are more political parties with more clout doesn't mean they all hold hands and sing "kumabaya" and become best buddies. ii. I am not center right. And why else would the American people vote for the Republican party? The Republicans won the House because right now, the Republican agenda is more popular than the democratic agenda-- which is the essence of representative democracy. iii. There is not "far more cooperation" in Britain; the Conservative party and the Labour party are at each others throats. It just appears like there is more cooperation because of the country's unicameral legislature, where legislation can be passed through a simple majority; which makes it very easy for the ruling coalition to push through legislation. We can't do that because the senate protects minority rights through the filibuster. 5. How can you speak for the American people? You just assume because you find faults with the two major parties everyone else should too. That's simply not true; most Americans are center left, or center right, and the Democrats and Republicans align with most of their political beliefs. When people do want a third party candidate they elect them; like libertarian Ron Paul, and Independent Senators Barney Frank/Joe Lieberman.Unless you can provide empirical evidence that a large quanity of Americans are dissatisfied with the major party platforms, this claim has no weight in today's round. And yes, presidents tend to alternate in parties, but why is that a bad thing? You yourself explain it; when people aren't happy with whats going on in the country, the voters in the middle blame the party in power and vote for the other party? How is this not democratic? And how would things be any different in a political system with more parties? 6. Only because the BBC is funded by the government. Extend my turn that the media would be even more ineffective in a non two party system because they wouldn't be able to distill the key issues for voters, because a non two party system is so convoluted and complicated. 7. My opponents response is non responsive to either of the arguments I made. 8. This is devolving into semantics. But I have four points.first, voters will vote for/against candidates on character issues, not just political ones. Second, while my opponent would like to believe the emergence of 5 or 6 major political parties would result in people researching their parties more, that's absurd-- no one has time to do deep, in depth research on 6 different parties ideologies, and stances on every important issue. And finally, not that it matters, but my opponent is completly wrong about DADT; the Republican party filibustered the bill the first time he passed it, and the pentagon obstructed the bills progress as well. Finally, my opponent doesn't respond to the fact that two party systems are just as representative, if not more, than non two party systems. Instead of having to form coalitions after they're elected, our two parties compete with each other for centrists, and non aligned voters to create what are in effect "coalitions". Sorting this out before the parties takes office saves time, and prevents caustic bickering, which is a reason you should prefer our two party system. 9. First, I think it's pretty insulting that you are implying that the American people are so stupid. People don't vote for who their pundits tell them to, they choose the pundits they listen to based on who they vote for. You confuse causation. Second, the reason people pick either the democrats or the republicans based on one or two issues is because those are the one or two issues most important to them. They are voting based on their beliefs. 10. It's a commentary based on empirical analysis of the economic growth of nations with two party systems, and nations without two party systems. 11. My opponent doesn't respond to any of my arguments about how all the problems she brings up are not unique to a two party system; no matter what political system we have there will be partisan bickering and uninformed voters.