Resolved - A Multiparty Political System is preferable to a Two-Party System
It is with great pleasure that I take on the affirmed side of this debate topic. Through my research, I have found a great many sources on either side of this debate, so I can promise that if my opponent is willing to bring his "A-game" this week the way I intend to, we could have the foundation of an epic on our hands.
It is my goal and intention through the next 7 days to show, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that a multiple party system is overall preferable to a two-party system.
I. Definitions of the Party Systems
1. Two-party system:
A two-party, or "bi-partisan" political system exists where two political parties dominant to such an extent that electoral success under the banner of any other party is almost impossible. Such is the case in the USA, Jamacia, and Ghana. (insert "well, at least Kofi Kingston has ALL Of his characters covered" joke here.) The two parties tend to be opposite in a great many ways, and one party is generally left wing, whereas the other is generally right wing. Within each of the parties is a varying degree of moderatism based on individual feeling.
2. Multi-party system:
A multi-party political system exists where three or more political parties have the capacity to gain control of government separately or in coalition. Some examples of multi-party systems include nations such as Australia, Canada, Pakistan, India, the Republic of Ireland, Norway, and the United Kingdom. The three parties tend to be more specific, and two parties may agree on one issue, but vary a great deal on another. In a multi-party system, a band of smaller parties may form a coalition to win seats on decision making bodies from larger, more united parties.
For purposes of simplicity, "Two Party Systems" will heretofore be referred to as "TPS's" and Multi Party Systems" will heretofore be referred to as "MPS's."
I. Reasons in Favor of a Multi Party System
1. An MPS increases levels of political checks and balances by ensuring one party has less chance to seize control of govenment.
In the United States, the democratic party currently has control of the White House (President Obama), the House of Representatives (258 - 177), and the Senate (60-40). The democrats seized this overwheling control of these three major decision making bodies largely because of the perception of mis-management and poor leadership by Bush-era Republicans. With no viable third or fourth party options, the balance of power tilted in the opposite direction, rather than being dispersed to multiple decision makers.
In an MPS, there would be a minimum of two other parties acting as "watch-dogs" to the party in plurality power, in addition to the media. Furthermore, in the case of a representative being removed from office for whatever reason, a vote would not instantly be transfered to the opposing party, since there would be greater competition for the seat.
2. An MPS forces elected officials and politicians running for office to focus on the issues rather than depending on their identification with a particular party to campaign for them.
"Line-voters" or "column-voters" are those voters who pay little or no attention to the names of the candidates they are voting for or the issues for which they stand. They vote an entire party ticket in an effort to consolidate power within one party. This naive form of voting is a voters way of saying "I blindly trust this party to represent my views, and whomever they deem worthy to put up for election is good enough for me."
This practice enables politicians running for office to minimize campaigning, seeking only to earn the votes of a few moderate and independent voters. An MPS places more of those votes "up for grabs," and with a wider voter base, places far more emphasis on particular issues, clarity of a platform, and transparancy of voting record.
3. An MPS engages more of the populous, encouraging a larger base of voters representing a wider range of interests.
The voting demographic with the highest voter turn-out, year after year, are seniors. The voting demographic with the lowest voter turn-out, year after year, are the 18-35 year olds and college students. As a result, the two party system allows candidates to cater almost exclusively to unions, the rich, and the elderly.
Third and Fourth parties such as the Green party, Libertarian party, and Independent party tend to garner more support from college aged voters who are largely disenfranchised by the two-party system. Having a third or fourth party would engage these younger voters, forcing the dominant parties to also campaign to and consider them, creating a wider and vastly more representative voter base.
4. An MPS creates more intense, issues-driven debates, and forces candidates to be more prepared for each opponent.
For decades, a candidate for an office merely had to prepare to battle back the platform of one opponent from the opposing party. These debates have been largely sterile and highly incubated. A third or even fourth participant, as the US saw in the Presidential primaries in 2007, places even more emphasis on the subtle differences in each candidate's plans to tackle specific issues important to the wider voter base.
II. Reasons Against a Two-Party System
1. A TPS forces enfranchised voters to "pick one side or the other," regardless of their feelings on individual issues.
The Simpsons satirized this fact a long time ago when two aliens ran for office by winning the Democratic and Republican primaries. The two aliens stated that either way, the people were screwed. When (I believe) Homer said "maybe we'll just vote for a third party candidate," one of the aliens proclaimed "go ahead! THROW YOUR VOTE AWAY!" A caricature of Ross Perot slammed his hat to the ground, frustrated.
Cartoon satire though it was - it represents a massive problem in the US political system. A vote for a third party is a vote wasted in a two-party system, so even if voters feel one candidate is more qualified than either of the two major party candidates, there is a feeling of "why waste my vote?" in such a case. In 2000, I cast my first ever Presidential vote in favor of Ralph Nader, and I was soundly accused of "costing the democrats the presidency, since a vote for Nader split the democratic vote and wouldn't accomplish anything anyway."
A TPS makes many voters abandon their actual voting conscience and fall into one of the two major buckets just to feel as though their vote matters, regardless of who they'd actually like to vote for.
2. A TPS can potentially disenfranchise voters, causing a feeling of "neither party represents how I feel, so I will simply not vote."
This is an extension of point #1. Those individuals who do not fall into party lines with either of the two dominant parties may decide not to vote at all, cheating them out of one of their undeniable rights as a citizen and a tax payer. This also keeps those individuals from voting on major referrendums and tax decisions, which often do not fall under party lines.
3. A TPS creates a climate in which one or two major issues become the end-all, be-all of an election, at the expense of other issues.
The examples I see most often in the US are taxes and abortion - one financial and one social.
The polarizing nature of the tax and abortion debates, and the hard-line stance each of the two major parties takes on the issue, make these issues the central, overwhelming focus of elections. Furthermore, a candidate who goes against party lines on one of these major issues may be ostracized from the party, for example, a Republican who is pro-choice, or a Democrat seeking tax cuts and scaled back government spending.
Unfortunately, a TPS paints too much in black and white, and fosters a "you're either with us, or you're against us" attitude, and puts a disproportionate emphasis on a few issues that have come to define each party.
I have created a list of the potential arguments my opponent will make, but rather than debunk them at this time, I will patiently await the response of my opponent. I wish him luck.
