Probably opening a can of worms here, but… what religious heritage is that, precisely?
Personally, I would say that there is no religious heritage, but rather then [del]rant [/del] add my two cents, I think I will wait and see what MaxTheVool, and others says in response to Ted’s next post. However, I would like to hear more about:
Could you please elaborate on this? How would such a system work? Why would it be needed?
If I am not mistaken, there is no statement in the US Constitution regarding the party system (what they are, how many, who decides, etc). The model is “extra-constitutional”. While I don’t like the two-party stranglehold, I don’t see putting any language in the US Constitution as a solution.
I’d raise it to 18, so we can get the +4 modifier on Fortitude Saves.
Bit of a bummer for military chaplains, that.
Arrow’s IMpossibiliyt Theorem would indicate that thsi is much harder than you might suppose.
And I fervently oppose any language allowing referendums.
Fixed link
My guess is he is referring to the fact that this country was settled by deeply religious people who were fleeing religious persecution. Or perhaps he is referring to the many mentions of God and a Creator in the writings of the founding fathers. Or many of the other things that make up our country’s obvious rich religious heritage.
:wally
Or maybe he was talking about all the Deists – basically, pre-Darwin agnostics – among the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and other such documents.
Interesting principle. But what would you want as an actual procedure? The reason that virtually all elected officials are Democrats or Republicans is because they are the people that the voters elect. So would you establish some kind of quota or handicapping system to help third party candidates get elected?
Well, yeah. But that doesn’t bother me, especially seeing the kind of shenanigans having military chaplains invites. Soldiers can visit civilian holy men if they so wish.
Or maybe he was talking about all the devout Christians who nevertheless thought it appropriate to write a godless Constitution. There’s no intrinsic reason why a believer should not believe in strict separation of church and state, even on the symbolic level.
Several of the specific reforms proposed in this thread would, theoretically, address this situation – proportional representation, automatically transferring votes, etc.
My property professor in law school, a dyed-in-the-wool Eugene Debs socialist, had some ideas about this. He advocated a parliamentary procedure where numerous parties put forward a slate of candidates, and the percentage of the votes each party got determined how deeply they went into the slate and how many people from that party ended up in the parliament. Not sure how many people would go for that, though.
Amen to that, so to speak. Americans have a rich, if often zany, cultural religious heritage. But Americans have a richer secular government heritage.
In both cases, minus a few blips, of course.
-
Separately elected Attorney General.
-
Amendment defining environmental preservation as federal responsibility.
(3.) Maybe separate, popular elections for Supreme Court Justices.
Oh, yeah.
-
Clearly defined & extremely involved process for the secession of a state.
-
Clearly defined & extremely involved process for the expulsion of a state.
-
Clearly defined & less involved process for the section of a state into smaller states, or the fusion of multiple states into a single state.
(And I’m thinking of this as amendments to the present Const. rather than a new convention.)
- I could go for prohibiting conscription, too, but it’s down on the list.
The problem facing third parties right now is that, particularly with the extreme polarization between the two major parties, anyone who is considering voting for a third party candidate has to choose between voting for the candidate they want to vote for, and voting for a candidate who might actually win. This means that almost no one votes for third party candidates, and when they do, they get accused of stealing votes away from one of the major candidates, and then everyone sees that no third party candidates got votes, so the third party continues to be unimportant, and the cycle continues. No one votes for them because they can’t win, and they can’t win because no one votes for them. Vicious cycle.
Imagine a system in which each voter didn’t just vote for a single candidate, but rather listed a first choice and a second choice. So (to use the obvious example), Floridians in 2000 could have listed Ralph Nader as their first choice and Gore as their second choice. Then if Nader didn’t have enough votes, he’d be eliminated as an option, and then those votes would all go to Gore. And note that then there might be a lot more people who’d be willing to vote for Nader first, actually preferring him, knowing that their vote for Gore would still count.
Now, if you’re used to the way the system works now, this kind of seems like cheating. But, why should it? If my opinion is “I would like to vote for Nader, because I’d truly like him to be president, but I also strongly prefer Gore to Bush”, why shouldn’t I have the ability to vote in a way that expresses that opinion? Isn’t that going to result in a result of an election which more accurately reflects that actual wishes of the people? (And please don’t interpret this as just some bitter democrat ranting. The same thing would apply to parties on the right. If a bunch of conservative Christians wanted to vote for a conservative Christian candidate, and still get to vote for the more mainstream Republican candidate, they would be able to.)
(Of course, as Gangster Octopus points out, voting is a tricky beast, and you can sometimes end up in paradoxical situations in which you have to vote wrong in order to get a better result. But if we’re going to be voting anyhow, we might as well vote in a fashion that doesn’t make it so torturously difficult for third parties to establish themselves.)
And I notice that nothing I posted was posted by anyone else.
I really am smarter than y’all.
Yes, many (but not all) of the people who founded this country were Christian. I hade to sound snide, but… so what? Should we have an amendment to the constitution saying “Note: Many of the people who founded this country were Christian. Really. They were. Just thought you should know.”? I mean, they were also universally white. Should we have “in whiteness we trust” on our coins? They were mostly farmers. They were (by today’s standards) mostly bigots. How is any of that relevant? And if they were people who were (as is at least the popular viewpoint of Pilgrims) fleeing from a repressive religious government that denied them the right to worship freely, doesn’t that suggest that the best way to honor their memory and struggles is to be VERY careful not to entangle religion and government?
Or to look at it another way, suppose we had a way to calculate the amount of Christianity (substantive or symbolic) in government, with 0.0 being none at all, and 1.0 being a complete theocracy. I imagine that you don’t want 1.0 or even 0.5 or even 0.2. But you might want 0.1 whereas I’d want 0.00003 at the highest. The question is, what causes more harm, the effect that 0.1 Christianity has on the feelings of inclusion, patriotism and citizenship of non-Christian citizens, or the effect that 0.0 Christianity has on the feelings of inclusion, patriotism and citizenship of Christians?
(And remember, 0.0 Christianity means that “under God” is removed from the pledge, it does NOT mean that “there is no God” is ADDED to the pledge.)