I need advantages. Can anyone please please give me some really really good pts for the advantages of two party system in the future.

PLease just any points that is extremely good and might lead to a win.

Cuz im fighting these experienced debators and im just a beginner. I really need your help ahhh..

thxthx

let me get this straight, they are arguing that a two party system is bad and you are arguing that a two party system is good?

Take a look at two party systems and one party systems in the past, namely Russia, Italy, Germany, Britain, the US, and a few other countries.

__________________
Some people love their country because of what it is, because of the principles it is built on, because of its prosperity and freedom. Then others love their country because it is their country, and will destroy all that is actually good about it to silence those who disagree. Which do you think you are? - Symbiote

this is what i got now.

two party system is good because

gives us more point of views. Not only from one side.

equilibrium - no sudden rapid changes

prevent extreme ideas from happening, often leads to disstablization

fact: because of the two party system USA is one of the most political stable country in the world

fact: the two party system didnt affect USA from becoming the strongest and weathest country in the world.

two party system is time tested. It was here since the beginning of USA republic. It is proven to be useful. At least not affecting USA from becoming the best.

Are you only comparing a two-party system to a one-party system or will you be considering multiple party systems?

One benefit with a two party system is that it encourages majority democracy. This in turn strengthens the ability to claim responsibilities from the political parties. If one party fails, the voters can easily vote for the other party.

In a system with many parties, this ability to claim responsibility is slightly more problematic. Which party is the cause of the failiure? How can you expect the parties to keep their promises if they don`t get majority? After all, they have to negotiate with other parties and in this negotiation process they are bound to lose some of their original intentions and programmes.

Another advantage with a two party system is that it creates strong majorities. This in turn makes the system more reliable and isn`t as vulnrable to disruptions. It also improves the governments ability to rapidly respond to a crisis. The system is more efficent in this regard.

A third advantage is that it polarizes the debate. This in turn makes the whole political process and the parties more transparent. It encourages discussion and debate.

Hope it helps. Personally I prefer multi-party systems, but there is always pros and cons with different systems.

__________________
Knowledge is power. Hide it well.

This is exactly why the 2 party system stinks.
One party ALWAYS fails in the eyes of the other.
Elections and debates devolve into a blame game.
That's all they do, "he voted for this and funded that, didn't vote for this and didn't fund that. That's why we are in the mess we are in."
There is little if any substance to these kinds of debates.

Then, when it's obvious that one party really screwed up, you only7 have one option to turn to. What if you don't agree with that option either? You are screwed.


This is based on a failure-based political philosophy. It implies that there is one right and one wrong way to govern. If one party did it "wrong" (at least in some people's eyes) then the other party must be "right."
Why would political parties have to negotiate and placate each other?

Yeah, and when the system is in serious need of "disruption" it's almost impossible to change anything significant.

Again, this is not an advantage, but a disadvantage. Simply polarizing the debate doesn't make anything more transparent. Two parties simply have their polarized positions and neither need to be transparent about it. As long as one side can muddy the debate so that the other side doesn't have a clear win, then that's all their constituents need to hear.



.

__________________
You don't go changing horsemen in the middle of the apocalypse.

hey thx for the reply, but i need advantages. my team is going to fight the against team on sunday. Can someone type something really contructional.

Heres what i got now( for my part of the team)

two party system is good because

- efficient actions can be made just by going through two parties. And both parties are similar in direction, therefore actions can be made fast and accurate.

- transparent - there is only two parties so, every citizen in american have a deep understanding of both parties. Poeple does not need a lot of time to understand two main direction of the two parties.

experiences - since the beginning of the two party system, it havent failed USA. USA became the most dominant economically and politically in the world. If the two party have any negative effects on USA, im sry I cannot see it.

knowlegable - the two party system in the states have very long history. The two main parties have many years of knowledge of how to run a country smoothly. We see here the strongest and the wealthiest country in the world. We can prove the two parties knows what they are doing.

Watching each other - Because we have two big dominate parties, the losing party can watch over the leading party. This creates a equilibrium effects where the two parties can compliment on each other or spotting each other's errors. As a result creating a better idea.

That is one side of it. The other side is that you avoid situations where the voters have actually know who decided what. You should see what mess we have with some of our issues...

But this can also happen in a multiparty system. Most often there are stable coalitions between the communists, social-democrats and enviromentalists on one side and liberals, conservatives and sometimes, fascists on the other. While these coalitions are pretty stable, some issues are negotiated above the coalition borders. For example, the Social-democrats negotiated with one conservative party and enviromentalists to deconstruct the nuclear power plants in Sweden. This negotiation cannot be changed through vote. The communists will never rise into power alone (or with the conservatives for ideoogical reasons). And the rigth wing alliance will never achieve majority without the one conservative party that engaged in negotiations with the Socialdemocrats. The voters have no power over this issue.

Isnt that how most voters view it?

They always do in multi-party systems. No single political party can achieve majority on its own and must either form a government with other parties to gain their support or one of the parties can form a government and hope they will be supported by their closest political allies. In both cases, the government rellies on the parliament that have the actual legislative power. And unlike in the US, in the european multi-party system government who proposes a bill that is rejected by the parliament is in a deep crisis and is expected to resign. Negotiations is the only way to ensure you have enough support from your political rivals to actually pass laws.

This is true. A two-party system is quite conservative (in its original meaning).

But the position are clear and defined. And the parties are constantly challanged over the issues by their opponents. Not like in Sweden where 6 parties can have wildly differing views about a certain issue, but since they would be forced to join coalition with at three of the others to achieve majority, they don`t address the issue at all. The issue is buried and is dealt with behind closed doors.

__________________
Knowledge is power. Hide it well.

thanks for replies guys. can someone comment on my supporting details i posted earlier today.

Thanks

Two party system is not what America has, it's a consequence of the way things work.

how:

In a free country, once "power" has had time to find roots, a two party system is almost inevitable, unless prevented by law.

Think of the country as a big, semi-random system, where humans are striving for power (money, ego-boost, etc.) To achive those ends they often work together to gain an advantage. Naturally, a second party allows opposition to differentiate themselves from the party in power, and become an attractive alternative. Many issues are EITHER/OR.

For war.
Against a war.

For welfare
Against welfar

For tax cuts
against tax cuts

This naturally allows two positions, i.e. two parties, each supporting opposing positions.

A third party would generally agree with part of one, and part of another, not differentiated sufficiently to be very attractive.

A third party poses another more important problem however. The 1st and 2nd party have no use for a third party, it reduces their odds of winning/gaining power.

At two parties each power base has a 50% chance, all other things equal, of gaining power.
Party A: 50%
Party B: 50%
Chance of gaining power.

A three party system makes 2 losers, reduced from 50% to 33%, and one winner, who goes from 0% chance to 33% chance.

Party A: 33% < reduction in power, not good
Party B: 33% < reduction in power not good
Party C: 33% > increase in power

That's 2 against 1.
The 2 parties will take out the third party at any opportunity as a team, it's in their best interest to maintain their 50/50 chance of winning.

That's the #1 reason a multi-party system doesnt' last in a country like America.

It's not about advantage, it's a natural result of our freedom.

-Mach

__________________
"Philosophy is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat. Metaphysics is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there. Theology is like being in a dark room and looking for a black cat that isn't there and shouting 'I found it!'"