November 16, 2003

Electoral Reform for Stronger Democracy

The debacle in Florida in the Fall of 2000 seems to have disappeared from the radar screens of most Democrats. After that shameful episode, most Democrats were talking about abolishing the Electoral College since, by all reckonings, Vice-President Gore had garnered the majority of the votes cast while losing the Electoral College vote. On another front, it seems that the recent re-districting efforts in most U.S. states have resulted in Federal Congressional districts that are more gerrymandered than ever before, with very few Congressional races being at all competitive.

Bearing this in mind, I think that it is time for a Constitutional amendment that accomplishes two electoral reforms: the abolition of the electoral college and the replacement of single-member districts with all candidates running on a statewide slate similar to Senators.

With the abolition of the Electoral College, the President and Vice-President would simply be whoever received the majority of votes for each office. If no one received a majority, instead of the current system where the choice would go to the House of Representatives, there would be a runoff election including only the top two vote recipients.

For the election of candidates to the U.S. House of Representatives, all candidates would be voted on state-wide, with the top vote recipients being elected to Congress. For example, if a state had eight seats in the House of Representatives, the top eight vote recipients would become the eight members of Congress from that state. Additionally, each voter would get eight votes to cast, which they could put on a single candidate, on eight different candidates, or in any distribution the voter wanted.

I believe that both of these reforms will provide for a stronger expression of democracy in our nation.

July 26, 2003

Uniting Mainline Protestants

As a Protestant Christian, I continue to be dismayed by the fact that the mainline denominations continue to remain separate instead of merging into a more cohesive force to promulgate their views and to put their faith into action. I see no reason that the major mainline denominations (except for the Baptists) should not merge into a single denomination. I would even like to suggest a name for this church -- the United Protestant Church in America.

The denominations that would merge to become this church would be the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Christ, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the Disciples of Christ, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), and the Protestant Episcopal Church. This denomination would be the second largest Christian body after the Roman Catholic Church and, as such, I believe that this denomination should take as its task the role of being one of the principal shapers of American religious life. Fundamentalists and Pentecostals will certainly not want to join in with this denomination, but there is no reason that those Protestant Christians who feel that their religious faith is part of their life, but not all of it, should not have a single source to meet their religious needs instead of a disarming choice of virtually indistinguishable denominations.

For example, take the typical unchurched, Christian, non-Catholic American. Imagine that he or she has some crisis event in their life that prompts them to seek the advice of clergy or sends them to a church service. Sometimes they will just go to the nearest mainline Protestant church. Sometimes they will go to a church in the denomination that their parents went to. Sometimes a friend will bring them to a church of their denomination. But really, for a person such as this, there should be no need to choose. It's kind of like your typical fast-food Mexican restaurant -- it's all the same food, just re-arranged a little differently. Why couldn't they just say I'm Protestant, so I'll go to the local Protestant church? (Yes, I know Baptists are usually considered Protestant, but the fundamentalists among them just do not fit into a body with the rest of the Protestants.)

To put it simply, to be a member of the United Methodist Church as opposed to the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) is today a distinction without a difference. Most would probably say that the distinction is harmless. I disagree. Promoting meaningless distinctions lessens the ability of people to see themselves as participating in a common experience.

Make no mistake, where there are true differences, I see no problem with denominations remaining distinct. After all, people do need to be able to associate with like-minded people sometimes.

But, when these distinctions inihibit us more than empower us, isn't it time to get rid of them?

July 06, 2003

Human Freedom Amendment

If some people believe that they can get a constitutional amendment passed to guard against gay marriage, why can 't those of us who disagree work for the passage of the ultimate constitutional amendment -- the Human Freedom Amendment.

This amendment would replace the piecemeal efforts to find a right of privacy in the current constitution with a holistic amendment to the constitution that would enshrine the following principle: whatever gives the individual more power over their own life while not harming anyone else is good. Conversely, the things that would be deemed bad would be those things that inhibit the freedom of the individual to lead their own life (while not harming others) or those things that allow people to bring harm to others.

A possible wording for this amendment would be:

Neither Congress nor the states shall make any law that abridges individual freedom, except for laws prohibiting acts that bring harm to other individuals.

As now, it would up to judges to determine if laws passed by legislatures would be in accordance with this amendment.