awesome
Meme Lord
camarilla's pretty much proven in here that he has no idea what he's talking about.
Leaving out Spain is like leaving out England, or Egypt, or America, or Greece. It just makes no sense.
First, to answer the maya question: Inca and Aztecs have been in Civ already, Maya haven't. That's the reason. Adding all three would be an overkill except if we had more than 30 civ-slots. I'm not sure which SA native culture is the worthiest. You may open a thread about natives from both Americas if you like, it would be interesting.
As it is, the voting is skewed in favor of the civs that most people are familiar with
camarilla's pretty much proven in here that he has no idea what he's talking about.
Yes, "orient" means "middle east" in German. It's the traditional medieval expression, when Europe sometimes was called "occident" and other parts of the world were hardly known. They are similar to "Abendland" (evening land, europe) and "Morgenland" (morning land, the middle east). In modern news reports, they use "Naher Osten" (Near East) frequently.
Giordano Léonce;9034479 said:"IMO", Spain must be in civ, if not in vanilla, and least an expansion pack.
Why the emphasis on *constitutional* democracy? There are plenty of democracies throughout the world that do not rely on a formal written constitution - ex British Empire in particular.
If the US had not happened, then Britain would have continued to liberalize and democratize further. The English Crown had been losing power for centuries, and would have continued to do so, particularly with the industrial revoluation (which would have happened without the US) which put wealth and power into the hands of nouveau riche capitalists. This could easily have happened elsewhere too, with British liberal democracy as a functional example. Who can say?
There are many modern commentators who argue that the US Constitutional system is increasingly becoming an albatross, because it is too hard to change and leads to sclerosis. Legal debates all focus on "what was the intent of the founders" rather than "what is a rational policy for us to have today". A constitutional focus has the risk of making everything backward looking rather than forward looking.
[Obviously, this is also sometimes an advantage.]
But no argument from me on huge impact.
The constitution is what keeps the mob in check. Plain democracy is an unworkable system.
You'll note that you quoted me as saying "Obviously, this is sometimes an advantage". Yes, there are some advantages to legislative inertia particularly in a large country. But there are very large costs as well.Far from being an albatross the constitution protects us from adopting every latest political and social trend that becomes popular in the international community. If that means we seem "behind the times" in some social aspects every once in a while, it's a small price to pay.
Hardly. The US gets stuck where it is because of how out-dated historical reasons. The Electoral College makes little sense in a modern setting (why should the votes of only a few swing-staters really matter?), as does the over-representation of small states in the Senate. But its basically impossible to change them because of the constitution, and because amendments require massive super-majorities (and a number of states - so the power of small states is permanently entrenched).Besides, American government is dominated by clever and manipulative lawyers, it can find a way to get where it wants to go in spite of the constitution....it just takes a little bit longer to get there.
Please demonstrate to me how the mob is rampaging wild in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the many other liberal democracies that do not have a formal written constitution, and that these places suffer from it.
You'll note that you quoted me as saying "Obviously, this is sometimes an advantage". Yes, there are some advantages to legislative inertia particularly in a large country. But there are very large costs as well.
Hardly. The US gets stuck where it is because of how out-dated historical reasons. The Electoral College makes little sense in a modern setting (why should the votes of only a few swing-staters really matter?), as does the over-representation of small states in the Senate. But its basically impossible to change them because of the constitution, and because amendments require massive super-majorities (and a number of states - so the power of small states is permanently entrenched).
Key policy debates (like "should we let people walk around in public with handguns" or "should we allow or ban women from getting abortions" or "should we do something to reduce corporate power in politics") are derailed and turned into constitutional debates about what the "founder's intent" was in their militia formation amendment, whether or not the constitution allows a right to privacy, or whether the constitution endows corporations with unlimited free speech.
I'm not saying that a democracy has to be one way or the other on these issues, but these should be policy debates on their merits and on the will of the people today, not just on what some guys 230 years ago might have intended.
But I take your point, in that ways around constitutional prohibitions on cruel and unusual punishments (torture, for example) and rights to an attorney have been waived by people when they wish them.
[sarcasm]It's not like the constitution of the United States hasn't had a direct impact on political theory, which has had global reprecussions still felt to this day, not at all[/sarcasm]
I don't think you understand just how radical a concept a written constitution ratified by the citizens of a state and formalizing the political ideology of "Consent of the Governed" was. And you certainly don't comprehend what an impact this has had on history and global politics.
Also small player before 1942? The automobile, the Airplane, the Telephone, the Television.... What about the Spanish-American War, do you really think this had little impact on the globe? Or what about opening up Japan, you really think the history of the world wouldn't have been drastically altered had Commodore Perry not forced Japan's hand to opening up to the west (such a historical turn would have meant not Meiji reformation for instance).
Sorry but to claim the US hasn't had a profound impact on global history shows either ignorance, or bias; both of which don't square with the facts.
Its the only offhand example I can think of *your* point - that clever and manipulative legislators can get around the constitution if they wish.I'll ignore the intentionally inflammatory nature of your last paragraph
When I speak of the mob I am not talking about riots in the street, I am talking about the ability of the short term trends and whims of the mob(group think) to dictate social policy. The majority does not have total power, it must be kept in check by the limits imposed upon it by the constitution.
How so? Having a constitution has advantages, it has disadvantages, I'm happy to concede both.You are essentially dismissing as rather insignificant one of the major aspects of America's national identity
How terrible the idea that places *where the people live* matter more than places where they don't. Why do voters living in New Hampshire get more effective say in the outcome of the presidencies than those living in Texas? Why do voters in Colorado get more say than those living in California or New York? If you live in a non-swing state, your vote doesn't really matter much.If that were not the case, then a few select regions would essentially dominate our national politics.
Yeah, but these are more fun. Its not like we really get to pick which Civs show up in the game.realize this is not the direction the author of this thread wanted this thread to go in. These types of threads almost always end up this way though....don't they?
I like to play Earth map alot, and it sucks to see them pretty much useless the entire game. Just finished up a civ4 earth map (18 civ one), the only purpose they serve is to be vassalized by the aztecs.
Please demonstrate to me how the mob is rampaging wild in the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the many other liberal democracies that do not have a formal written constitution, and that these places suffer from it.
You are incorrect here. The Mayans were in both Civ3: Conquests and Civ4: Beyond the Sword.
It's not overkill to have all three, because the Americas are underrepresented as it is. In fact, I would say that that the Mayans are more "civworthy" than either the Aztecs or Incans in both their accomplishments and longevity (not to say that Aztecs and Incans shouldn't be in because of that, however).
Anyway, I get the feeling that this thread and poll might have been better served by being two polls; one for which civs you want to come back that have already been in Civ, and one for which new civs you want. As it is, the voting is skewed in favor of the civs that most people are familiar with, the favorite ones they've played with in BtS already. It was a good idea in principle though. Thanks for the name recognition too.
Fail.
No, not at all. These are not explicit written constitutions.
A bunch of separate Acts, that can be repealed with a simple majority vote the same as any other law, is not a Constitution in the generally accepted sense.
Did you read the pages before you linked to them?
"Canada; the country's constitution is an amalgamation of codified acts and uncodified traditions and conventions"
"The constitution of New Zealand consists of a collection of statutes (Acts of Parliament), Treaties, Orders-in-Council, Letters patent, decisions of the Courts and unwritten constitutional conventions. There is no one supreme document — the New Zealand constitution is not codified or completely entrenched"
Australia I'll withdraw as an example, I don't know enough about the details, but Canada, New Zealand and UK I will retain. These are *not* governed by a single supreme law constitution, in the manner of the United States.