CreateDebate


Debate Info

4
4
yes no
Debate Score:8
Arguments:7
Total Votes:8
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 yes (4)
 
 no (3)

Debate Creator

FUNMUN(130) pic



Are you for or against political parties?

yes

Side Score: 4
VS.

no

Side Score: 4
1 point

While I personally am an Independent, I believe that for a democracy to work there needs to be a limit to the number of choices which the populace has to vote between.

Side: yes
1 point

I rather fancy the way we elect our leaders in the UK as compared to how you Yanks do it. Ya see, in England we don't elect the man--or woman--but instead we elect the Party. In the end I s'pose it rather boils down to much the same, since when you chaps elect a man you get his Party, like with that wanker Trump, ya got the GOP. But we don't hand as much power to just one bloke like you Yanks do. Right now we have Labor as the Party, which is akin to what you call your Democrats. And what we be callin' our Conservative or Unionist Party is like your Republicans. Our parties tend to not be as hostile towards one another as yours do also. overall me thinks this is a better kit, and also we don't have near as much bloody name-calling and personal attacks in our campaigns as you Colonists.

Side: yes
Lopilulu(274) Disputed
1 point

US elections themselves are near identical to UK's. The difference is that in USA elections have a primary stage where the 'alpha' of parties get voted on (and resultantly the elections lose their authentic anonymity as any voters for a particular party leader get 'registered' as their particular party. This is done to prevent non-supporters of parties from voting on who gets to be the frontrunner.

Where they are identical is what he calls the secondary (AKA actual) elections. Here, unless your region's candidate happens to be the frontrunner, your vote goes to the seat in debate from your district. This is then taken to be the strongly preferred candidate of your district.

Now comes the real difference:

Similar to UK, the actual vote number means next to nothing. On the other hand, even with majority of seats a party can lose (which cannot happen in UK bar a coalition). An organization named the Electoral College which is considered to be unbiased decides the vote based on combining primaries with seats. If the primaries showed a lot of initial support for one party but the other ended with more, or equal seats then this is co directed to be a well-desered win and most of the EC will vote for the comeback party (this happened this election). Usually no significant comeback is observed so the EC are a lot harder to predict.

Side: no
1 point

Yes. Although I am against ANY political parties having complete control. We are in danger of losing our democracy, as we did in the mid to late 1800's. A Republican saved U.S. then. There are none left today.

Side: yes
2 points

I'm neither for or against political parties existing. I'm for individual candidates, and those candidates may or may not belong to parties. And I'm against having just two political parties having a choke hold on everything in US government.

Side: no
JatinNagpal(798) Disputed
1 point

It doesn't matter if you have hundreds of parties either.

At the top of attention will still be 2 or 3.

Side: yes
1 point

I believe political parties will always exist as long as people disagree on anything, however, George Washington said the downfall of America would come from creating separate parties and from foreign interaction and both of those things are happening and causing issues in the U.S. I find it best the eradicate political parties if we want to truly live as equal human beings since equality cannot be achieved if we continuously divide ourselves.

Side: no