Vote a split ticket?

[estesbob]

The Bishop’s conference voting guide lists several critical issues; abortion is one of them.
It doesn’t appear to give a hierarchy as to which is more important than the other
(e.g. opposition to preemptive war, the death penalty, etc are given equal billing with opposition to abortion.as are social justice issues)

It unfortunately also doesn’t appear to give guidance as to what specifically to do about candidates with different positions on each of the issues.

So like I said we have to look at all the issues and the office involved.

The Pope, however, made it crystal clear that abortion takes precedent over evreything else. No issue or combination of Issues trumpos abortion

 

[estesbob]

The Bishop’s conference voting guide lists several critical issues; abortion is one of them.
It doesn’t appear to give a hierarchy as to which is more important than the other
(e.g. opposition to preemptive war, the death penalty, etc are given equal billing with opposition to abortion.as are social justice issues)

It unfortunately also doesn’t appear to give guidance as to what specifically to do about candidates with different positions on each of the issues.

So like I said we have to look at all the issues and the office involved.

There is a hierarchy-no issues or combination of issues trumps abortion:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

Cardinal Ratzinger

“Is it possible to vote for any politician who persistently — publicly, defiantly and in the face of repeated pastoral efforts at reproach — continues to support Roe v. Wade?” asked the Rev. Richard J. Neuhaus, editor of First Things magazine, referring to the landmark 1973 Supreme Court decision. “Rome has made it clear that abortion is not one issue among others … it is intrinsically evil. That cannot be said of any other issue in mainstream U.S. politics today.”

**Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? **None of the reasons commonly suggested could even begin to be proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for such a candidate. Reasons such as the candidate’s position on war, or taxes, or the death penalty, or immigration, or a national health plan, or social security, or aids, or homosexuality, or marriage, or any similar burning societal issues of our time are simply lacking in proportionality.

Bishop Rene Gracida

“According to Father Stephen Torraco, chairman of the theology department at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusettes the interpretation of the phrase “proportionate reasons” to mean that one can vote for a candidate based on any “serious issue that the voter cares about” such as the war in Iraq or the death penalty, regardless of whether or not they are pro-abortion, is mistaken. Father Torraco explains that in order for a vote for a pro-abortion candidate to be based on “proportionate reasons,” it must be done so in order to prevent an intrinsic moral evil of the scale of abortion. Therefore issues such as war or the death penalty do not qualify as “proportionate reasons” because they are not intriniscally immoral according to Catholic teaching.”

 

[didymus]

There is a hierarchy-no issues or combination of issues trimps abortion:

Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion.

Our diocesan newspaper, TheEvangelist, had a poll from the Pew Foundation asking Catholics if they had heard their pastors preach on the following subjects in the past year. A footnote said the y polle Catholics who attended Mass at least once a month. I can’t lay my hands on the paper right now but as best I can remember the results were:

95% Poverety & social justice

75% Abortion

50% War in Iraq

40% Death penalty

35% – out of the remaining issues, euthanasia, IVF, stem cell research, &c. a couple were tied at 35% and the rest were even lower.

It’s obvious that Catholics are not being well catechised on these issues. I’ve heard pastors who, when they do preach against abortion feel obliged to tie it together with anti-war and anti-death penalty rhetoric. Better they should “tie it together” with IVF, stem-cell research and euthanasia so folks will understand that it’s all one.

 

[estesbob]

Our diocesan newspaper, TheEvangelist, had a poll from the Pew Foundation asking Catholics if they had heard their pastors preach on the following subjects in the past year. A footnote said the y polle Catholics who attended Mass at least once a month. I can’t lay my hands on the paper right now but as best I can remember the results were:

95% Poverety & social justice

75% Abortion

50% War in Iraq

40% Death penalty

35% – out of the remaining issues, euthanasia, IVF, stem cell research, &c. a couple were tied at 35% and the rest were even lower.

It’s obvious that Catholics are not being well catechised on these issues. I’ve heard pastors who, when they do preach against abortion feel obliged to tie it together with anti-war and anti-death penalty rhetoric. Better they should “tie it together” with IVF, stem-cell research and euthanasia so folks will understand that it’s all one.

Agreed. The problem is that for most of the 20th Century Catholicism and the Democrat Party were intetwined. When the Democrat Party embraced infanticide and promiscouity as core pricinciples the Catholic Church was way to slow to react.

We are making progress, however, wintess Bush getting over 50% of the Catholic vote. As Catholics begin to abandon the Party of their Parents hopfeully the Democrat Party will be forced back to once again caring for the weakest and most vulnerable among us.

 

[chicago]

Well, that depends
If all seats were hotly contested every 2 years that would provide very little continuity in government.
It would also suggest that the system, the people who are elected, and perhaps even the voters are seriously flawed.

Polls show that while most voters don’t like "congress” in the abstract, they usually are satisfied with their own congressman.

(probably some variation of the “He may be an SOB but he’s MY SOB” rule)

But a couple of dozen seats out of 435 is a little low

You have to remember that legislative maps are designed to ensure that most districts are “safe” for one party or the other. It is not typically the norm that there are a whole lot of swing districts or candidates from generally safe districts who can garner enough support from voters to cross over and vote for a member of the other party.

 

[didymus]

You have to remember that legislative maps are designed to ensure that most districts are “safe” for one party or the other. It is not typically the norm that there are a whole lot of swing districts or candidates from generally safe districts who can garner enough support from voters to cross over and vote for a member of the other party.

This is exactly what I mean by the game being rigged. It is State legislatures who draw these districts and they can all do math. Districts are made to avoid real competition between parties which perpetuates them both in power. Add to that the fact that what most people care about is “their SOB” bringing home the goods from Washington or the State capital and you’re almost guaranteeing a huge re-election rate.

One solution might be to have some independent body draw districts with the goal of creating districts that are 50-50 by party as much as possible. OR create super-districts with multiple Representatives and use PR to elect them.

I’d go for just about anything to break the Demopublican grip on power.

 

[steveandersen]

Would I like to see more turn over? Sure

But I still stand by my contention that if every seat was hotly contested or if a congressman’s life span was only one term that would be an indication of a system that chronically failed to keep the voters happy.

Anyone out there from Delaware or Wyoming or some other state with only one congressman? In those states district lines don’t matter. I wonder if there is a significant difference in satisfaction with the system there.

When you look beyond individual districts and at state-wide or nation wide voting totals you see that the difference can be only a few percentage points which means several things
Parties will contest over a few sway voters in the middle which will make them appear similar.
A failure of significant number of people can mean that significant points of view are not counted.
The victor may only reflect the wills of 51% or less of the voters.

In a proportional representation system every district would send multiple representatives. So even if a district has been gerrymandered to give 51% to one party, others would still get a voice in proportion to their numbers. I suppose it could be done “at large” across a state to get away from tinkering with districts.

To get back OT, a proportional system could give rise to viable third parties so that Pro-life Democrats or Pro-choice Republicans could differentiate themselves and get us away from personal moral dilemmas.

 

[chicago]

Anyone out there from Delaware or Wyoming or some other state with only one congressman? In those states district lines don’t matter. I wonder if there is a significant difference in satisfaction with the system there.

Don’t all states have like at least 2-3 Congressmen in the House?

In a proportional representation system every district would send multiple representatives. So even if a district has been gerrymandered to give 51% to one party, others would still get a voice in proportion to their numbers.

I might be wrong, but I thought that a federal court somewhere had ruled against proportional voting.

I suppose it could be done “at large” across a state to get away from tinkering with districts.

Isn’t this how is used to be done, before everybody ran to the districting system in order to “provide better representation” for certain populations?

To get back OT, a proportional system could give rise to viable third parties so that Pro-life Democrats or Pro-choice Republicans could differentiate themselves and get us away from personal moral dilemmas.

I would agree with that assessment. In Illinois, our state legislature used to have like 2 or 3 representatives from each representative district. It led to much more collaboration among legislators and viable alternative party candidates in areas where there were traditional one party strongholds.

 

[gilliam]

Don’t all states have like at least 2-3 Congressmen in the House?

No, states like: Wyoming, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Delaware only have one.

Isn’t this how is used to be done, before everybody ran to the districting system in order to “provide better representation” for certain populations?

Yes

 

[steveandersen]

Don’t all states have like at least 2-3 Congressmen in the House?

No, there are several states with 2 senators and only one congress man (and with the number of congressmen now fixed and as prairie states and the mid-west loose population relative to the coasts and the south I can see more coming in the future.
A citizen from a small state has far more clout in congress (especially the Senate) than one from a large one. This also wildly distorts the votes in presidential elections where states get votes in the electorial college equal to their house and senate votes.
Any President who claims to have a popular mandate aught to look really closely at which states voted for him.

Of course the original Constitution allowed 1 seat per 30,000 citizens and the 435 number was set in the 20th century so things could change again.
Otherwise we will continue to see the actual majority of the population subject to the will of the minority.

I might be wrong, but I thought that a federal court somewhere had ruled against proportional voting.

I don’t know.
I know most of the English speaking world follows the winner take all model. But IIRC there was a proportional system here in South Carolina for certain local elections through at least the 40’s (?) other states may be similar.

Anybody know?

Isn’t this how is used to be done, before everybody ran to the districting system in order to “provide better representation” for certain populations?

IIRC, it varied from state to state. So depending on where you live that may be the way it was always done…or not.

I would agree with that assessment. In Illinois, our state legislature used to have like 2 or 3 representatives from each representative district. It led to much more collaboration among legislators and viable alternative party candidates in areas where there were traditional one party strongholds.

Every once an a while my brain spits out a worthwhile thought

 

[grahampoor]

1. A Republican who is for criminalizing abortion, but who is not in a position to change the supreme court. AND who’s policies increase the number of abortions
   christiancentury.org/404.lasso

VS

1. A Democrat who is not for criminalizing abortion, but is apposed to abortion and says it is wrong though he feels making it criminal would not be effective . AND who has policies that bring abortions down by 50% through increased adoptions and care of pregnant women who need support to carry babies to term.

Shouldn’t we all agree neither party follows the Churches teaching very well? Anyone in this forum wants to vote from a Catholic perspective and is just coming to different conclusions about how to do that.

Note I do think abortion should be criminal and follow the Churches teachings in married life. I really don’t see Republicans as effectively “Pro-Life”.
Kerry made me shiver when he called abortion “a constitutional right”. If I saw a consistent “Pro-Life” candidate I would support him.