'The "two party" system is bad for the US.'
[ support:45% : certainty:65 ] · [30 replies] · [1 comment]
arguments · summary
style: sort by: reverse:
supporting arguments 0% · [make argument]
no supportive arguments over 0%
opposing arguments 100% · [make argument]
100% · stability
by metric on 2004-12-18 09:58:41
the two-party system produces stable governments, rather than stable democracy, and the latter is what should be desired.
0% · germany
by metric on 2004-12-18 09:59:48
two-party systems are not intrinsically any more stable, citing such examples of stable democracies as Germany, which has a multi-party system through proportional representation.
0% · Coalition
by anonymous on 2005-12-16 09:06:16
I disagree that coalition is highly unlikely. As long as a given party controls the executive branch and has a solid majority in both houses of Congress, they essentially have achieved coalition.
by anonymous on 2005-12-21 15:46:52
This weak argument can be further taken to say facism/dictatorships are even more stable, and thus, everyone should be ruled by one man, for coalitions sake. This is a ridiculous argument. The more people discussing points the better. It may take longer, but agreements reached will have greter support, unlike the "democratic" US, who would go against the majority, and applaud others for going aginst the majority of their peoples. Example, Turkey, who was criticised for following the democratic beliefs of its people, inn not helping the US illegally invade a country. At the same time, the US applauded people who joined them despite democratic agreement of less than 10% The US and its two party system care nothing about democracy or fairness, but in its unilateral self-serving hegemon.

Powered by Debatepoint.