Study finds State Legislatures Dominated By white Men

[The United Confederacy of Texas]

A large problem you run into is many states the legislature is part time. So if you do not have the wealth that you can get by on part time or a job that will let you take off for a a few months every year it is difficult to do.

I can attest to that: Texas legislators get about $600 per month with a per diem of $190 for every day the Legislature is in session (the per diem also applies for special sessions). For just one regular session, you get about $33,800 and $41,000 for a full term. The main problem is that the Legislature only meets once in a two-year time span (limited to 140 days), and special sessions can only last 30 days and additionally can only be called in by the Governor. For obvious reasons, the Legislature tends to err towards wealthy candidates who can afford to serve, and the racial composition tends to go white (with some Hispanic and African American legislators).

This becomes a lot more obvious when Texas's demographics are taken into account: the 2018 Census Bureau outright noted that the state is a minority-majority state with Hispanics being the leading minority. In comparison, whites compose more than half the Legislature's makeup and the 86th Legislature is imbalanced in terms of racial compositions for both parties (Democrats have a majority of minority legislators, while Republicans are almost solely white)

I got the links here if anyone wants to look further, but for the most part, it's not surprising that the state legislatures largely represent the white populace, and the majority being part-time is also not surprising (as I remember it correctly, only 10 states can be considered full-time legislatures) - https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/TX
https://apps.texastribune.org/features/ ... ographics/

[Nobel Hobos 2]

You are suggesting some grand conspiracy where whites hypothised minorities into voting for white politicians. Believe me, whites are not capable doing that.

It's not a conspiracy, it's not hypnotism, and it's probably not deliberate on the part of most people. We've just become so accustomed to seeing people who look a certain way in government we've come to accept that as normal, and anything else as suspicious. It hasn't been that long since racial segregation laws existed, and we're still feeling their effects.

Oh yeah. Being Australian you would think makes me immune to US preconceptions, but anyone who watches a good world news show here will see the President at least a couple of times a week, it's been that way as far back as Reagan that I remember.

When Obama started to rise in the debates I thought I was easily adapting to the idea of a black President. But actually it took me more than a year (after his inauguration) to stop being surprised each time I saw him. Wow, a black man really IS the President. Did I forget that? Surely not, so why am I surprised?

What reflects even worse on me is that I was repeatedly surprised to notice how smart Obama was. Why should I be surprised? Don't I know this already?

Consider how many people complain every time a gay romance is featured on TV that it's 'political', but don't when the exact same story is told with a straight couple. Many of the people saying that do not think they're homophobic, and aren't part of a grand conspiracy to keep gay people out of TV, but they're still influenced by and perpetuating a narrative that actually doesn't reflect reality.

Well that's a good point too. But to be fair, it's becoming less of an issue as everyone moves away from TV/cable towards an on-demand service. Gays will tailor their own viewing to have more or all gay romances. And unfortunately homophobes (even unconscious ones as you describe) will tailor their own viewing to see none at all. The channelization (or segregation) of entertainment will become so extreme there will be no "great movies" that everyone has seen, a point in common to chat at a party about, or perhaps even common agreement that there was an earthquake in Peru or a fire in the White House. That's pretty well advanced already, with people disagreeing on just about any news item because they've deliberately taken only the right-wing or only the left-wing source. It could evolve further to full segregation: different versions of the news that don't even have the same incidents in common.

It all sounds pretty fucked now I think about it. Almost like the old days of just a few media sources curating everything for us, was better. Well it was better for social cohesion, but that's going away whatever we do. Make the best use we can of the information power we're getting in exchange?

[Purpelia]

Your contempt for the average voter is noted. But the assumption that everyone else who votes for your favourite party votes "with their brain" while voters for opposing parties are considering only "identity" suggests that your party will hit the ditch pretty soon. Arrogant disregard for the majority will never be rewarded for long.

On the contrary. I expect and indeed demand they vote with their brains as well. Their interests are after all potentially different than mine and will therefore lead to them rationally choosing different options than I would. That makes sense. And it is not just their right but indeed their duty as a citizen of a democracy. What I am against is people voting against THEIR best interests because they get seduced by identity populism.

Democracy means you have to take both wins and looses in stride. But win or loose I want someone to actually win. And with identity politics everyone looses (aside from the guy that ran).

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Your contempt for the average voter is noted. But the assumption that everyone else who votes for your favourite party votes "with their brain" while voters for opposing parties are considering only "identity" suggests that your party will hit the ditch pretty soon. Arrogant disregard for the majority will never be rewarded for long.

On the contrary. I expect and indeed demand they vote with their brains as well. Their interests are after all potentially different than mine and will therefore lead to them rationally choosing different options than I would. That makes sense. And it is not just their right but indeed their duty as a citizen of a democracy. What I am against is people voting against THEIR best interests because they get seduced by identity populism.

Democracy means you have to take both wins and looses in stride. But win or loose I want someone to actually win. And with identity politics everyone looses (aside from the guy that ran).

Let's say you had to choose between two candidates you like, and they're both from the same party.

Wait, you say, what's with the scenario? It's not a scenario. That's exactly what US voters who are thoughtful and conscientious do: they vote in the primary, to try to get their preferred candidate in the one available place on the ballot, for their party. If they're a Democrat, they're choosing between several alternative candidates who (in most cases) is bound to win or bound to lose in the general election.

OK, suppose there's just two, and they both have exactly the same policies, they both seem equally trustworthy, except one is black and the other is white. And this is the United States remember, they will both have policies relating to race. Tell me you're not going to take the side of the one who is your own race? If they both have an anti-Affirmative Action stance for instance, tell me you'd trust the black candidate to work against AA when in office ... just as much as you'd trust the white one.

Obviously in the real world no two candidates have the exact same policies, earned reputation, appearance of trustworthiness etc. I think you'd pay attention to whatever small details differ between them, and thinking all the while you were making a "brain" choice it would all just be self-justification for going with your gut feeling ... ie the subconscious racism WE ALL have whether we know it or not. Really quite trivial differences like use of vocabulary, personal grooming, facial expressions would influence you in favor of one candidate only because they're more like you, and that gets them ahead on the trustworthiness measure.

What I said about Obama just up the page should be sufficient to show I'm not claiming to be free of racism. I'm not accusing you of anything I wouldn't admit to myself. Nobody, nobody is completely rational, we all have bias of various sorts founded in emotions that may be too faint to recognize or maybe shameful, and which influence our thinking in ways we are mortified to discover. Or have pointed out to us. And I don't believe just examining oneself will ever turn up the subconscious racism, it only ever shows itself in interaction with others, particularly others of a different race.

[Ansarre]

This is a non-issue. To quote David A. Hollinger: "By almost any index, Jews are demographically overrepresented among the wealthiest, the most politically powerful, and the most intellectually accomplished of Americans. Jewish experience since 1945 is the most dramatic single case in all of American history in which a stigmatized descent group that had been systematically discriminated against under the protection of law suddenly became overrepresented many times over in social spaces where its members' progress had been previously inhibited."

Of course I do recognize that the people who point out this most often are genuinely anti-Semitic, but I'm not (quite the contrary, I am a Semite) so I feel comfortable pointing this out. Why does it matter if certain ethnic groups are more overrepresented? State legislatures are, if memory serves, elected by FPTP? So you have, say, three candidates: GOP, Dem, Independent. GOP wins 48% of vote, Dem wins 47% of vote, and Independent wins 5%. Fifty-two percent of voters are instantly not represented. In the UK, five of our seats in 2019 were won with less than 36% of the vote, meaning 64% of voters were unrepresented. My point here is that in a FPTP election, loads of people are unrepresented and it isn't an issue of race or ethnicity.

[San Lumen]

This is a non-issue. To quote David A. Hollinger: "By almost any index, Jews are demographically overrepresented among the wealthiest, the most politically powerful, and the most intellectually accomplished of Americans. Jewish experience since 1945 is the most dramatic single case in all of American history in which a stigmatized descent group that had been systematically discriminated against under the protection of law suddenly became overrepresented many times over in social spaces where its members' progress had been previously inhibited."

Of course I do recognize that the people who point out this most often are genuinely anti-Semitic, but I'm not (quite the contrary, I am a Semite) so I feel comfortable pointing this out. Why does it matter if certain ethnic groups are more overrepresented? State legislatures are, if memory serves, elected by FPTP? So you have, say, three candidates: GOP, Dem, Independent. GOP wins 48% of vote, Dem wins 47% of vote, and Independent wins 5%. Fifty-two percent of voters are instantly not represented. In the UK, five of our seats in 2019 were won with less than 36% of the vote, meaning 64% of voters were unrepresented. My point here is that in a FPTP election, loads of people are unrepresented and it isn't an issue of race or ethnicity.

How are they not represented?

[Rojava Free State]

This is a non-issue. To quote David A. Hollinger: "By almost any index, Jews are demographically overrepresented among the wealthiest, the most politically powerful, and the most intellectually accomplished of Americans. Jewish experience since 1945 is the most dramatic single case in all of American history in which a stigmatized descent group that had been systematically discriminated against under the protection of law suddenly became overrepresented many times over in social spaces where its members' progress had been previously inhibited."

Of course I do recognize that the people who point out this most often are genuinely anti-Semitic, but I'm not (quite the contrary, I am a Semite) so I feel comfortable pointing this out. Why does it matter if certain ethnic groups are more overrepresented? State legislatures are, if memory serves, elected by FPTP? So you have, say, three candidates: GOP, Dem, Independent. GOP wins 48% of vote, Dem wins 47% of vote, and Independent wins 5%. Fifty-two percent of voters are instantly not represented. In the UK, five of our seats in 2019 were won with less than 36% of the vote, meaning 64% of voters were unrepresented. My point here is that in a FPTP election, loads of people are unrepresented and it isn't an issue of race or ethnicity.

I knew you were Jewish from the moment we first conversed. If there's one thing that holds true all these years, it's that Jewish folks can often pick out other Jews, often like a sixth sense lmao.

I wonder if any other ethnicity does that?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

This is a non-issue. To quote David A. Hollinger: "By almost any index, Jews are demographically overrepresented among the wealthiest, the most politically powerful, and the most intellectually accomplished of Americans. Jewish experience since 1945 is the most dramatic single case in all of American history in which a stigmatized descent group that had been systematically discriminated against under the protection of law suddenly became overrepresented many times over in social spaces where its members' progress had been previously inhibited."

Of course I do recognize that the people who point out this most often are genuinely anti-Semitic, but I'm not (quite the contrary, I am a Semite) so I feel comfortable pointing this out. Why does it matter if certain ethnic groups are more overrepresented? State legislatures are, if memory serves, elected by FPTP? So you have, say, three candidates: GOP, Dem, Independent. GOP wins 48% of vote, Dem wins 47% of vote, and Independent wins 5%. Fifty-two percent of voters are instantly not represented. In the UK, five of our seats in 2019 were won with less than 36% of the vote, meaning 64% of voters were unrepresented. My point here is that in a FPTP election, loads of people are unrepresented and it isn't an issue of race or ethnicity.

I knew you were Jewish from the moment we first conversed. If there's one thing that holds true all these years, it's that Jewish folks can often pick out other Jews, often like a sixth sense lmao.

I wonder if any other ethnicity does that?

Stoners can detect other stoners. And trippers can detect other trippers. Those are ethnicities right?

If you detected Jewishness from posts alone, it's probably from word choice (or total vocabulary used) though there may also be characteristic phrases there.

Tell me, do you think I'm ethnically Jewish?

[Duvniask]

I mean, this is just straight up pathetic. You're being shown real, genuine evidence that racial bias affects people, that it actually makes a substantive difference in people's lives, with clear statistical significance and control for third variable bias (such as socioeconomic status), and your response is to stick your head in the sand and continue the same line about class mattering more. That is the response of someone who is unwilling to engage with reality; anything but having to acknowledge that the efforts of those who would bring about a better world don't end with the leveling of class priviliges!

No what’s pathetic is that you have bought into something that is peddled by the capitalist class to divide the workers and the poor so they can’t be effective.

What do you mean "bought into"? It's objective reality, the evidence is staring you in the face. I get the feeling you won't even acknowledge it because your feelings as a white man are hurt by the fact that you might possibly be better off than other people in one respect, even as you are clearly worse off in others.

Workers are divided by racial and gender disparities. It's up to any genuine worker's movement to address that fact, and it is a fact, in order to effectively unite against the capitalist class. If one half of the factory is racist and looks down on the other half, that's good for the capitalist who functionally uses it as a means of divide and conquer. The problem comes with bourgeois, liberal notions of inclusiveness, which ignore intersectionality and only focus on gender or race in a vacuum, whilst perpetuating the same old power structures.

Believe it or not, it is possible to fight both racial disparities and class society. I acknowledge that simple reality - you do not, because it offends your sensibilities for whatever reason.

This has been proven with the fact that Amazon has found that more diversity classes lowers the ability to unionize.

You say, with no source. Only thing that turns up on Google is the fact that Amazon tracks unionization risk and apply a higher risk to areas of low diversity - this could easily be an instance of correlation not equaling causation. Or it could also be that, you know, workers are divided by race as a barrier in the first place, which prevents unionization - this would imply effective unionization comes down to inclusion and cooperation between people of different races... you know the thing I have consistently been suggesting is good.

You don’t want to admit that you’ve been duped so you double down and call people ignoramus and pathetic for not falling for the same trap you did.

I call someone that who doesn't know what the terms mean, doesn't want to learn what the terms mean, and throws a tantrum about the facts and insists they have no special advantage whatsoever, despite ample evidence showing otherwise.

[Duvniask]

I'm more interested in the policies and experience of individual legislators than this so-called "diversity".

That's well and good, but the policies of individual legislators will be colored (pun not intended) by their own life experience. A legislator who knows of the conditions on the ground in a certain community will be more able to address the concerns of that community than someone who has never been part of it - not by necessity, because obviously being a poor Black from the Ghetto doesn't mean you know what's best for "the Black Community", but it will probably give you a better idea than a White legislator who has never set foot in it. I mean, this is a large reason why we have local politics; because it's good that there are people from the community itself who promote its interests and help partake in its oversight, rather than outsiders who may not be entirely versed in the specific concerns of that community.

For the given topic; having lots of men in the legislature, while many may be very competent and hard-working people, will probably lead to prioritization of issues with which men are concerned. There are many reasons we might elect someone: we might like their tax policy, let's say, but if all those we elect are men, then their views on other subjects, such as those that concern women, might not be representative or particularly effective in addressing those issues.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm more interested in the policies and experience of individual legislators than this so-called "diversity".

That's well and good, but the policies of individual legislators will be colored (pun not intended) by their own life experience. A legislator who knows of the conditions on the ground in a certain community will be more able to address the concerns of that community than someone who has never been part of it - not by necessity, because obviously being a poor Black from the Ghetto doesn't mean you know what's best for "the Black Community", but it will probably give you a better idea than a White legislator who has never set foot in it. I mean, this is a large reason why we have local politics; because it's good that there are people from the community itself who promote its interests and help partake in its oversight, rather than outsiders who may not be entirely versed in the specific concerns of that community.

For the given topic; having lots of men in the legislature, while many may be very competent and hard-working people, will probably lead to prioritization of issues with which men are concerned. There are many reasons we might elect someone: we might like their tax policy, let's say, but if all those we elect are men, then their views on other subjects, such as those that concern women, might not be representative or particularly effective in addressing those issues.

What is your basis for thinking there is a prioritization of issues where men are concerned, given that men exhibit a lack of in-group bias and in fact exhibit an out-group bias in favor of women? I'd also point out to you that feminist lobbies are pretty loud, powerful, and entrenched, to the point that concerns over womens views "Not being heard" is highly questionable.

There are no billionaires in the senate. But because it suits their careers, they just don't often bother going against billionaires demands and expectations. So it goes for many men in legislatures and the feminist movement.

[SD_Film Artists]

Latinx politicians

The existence of cat people is the bigger news here IMO..

I would assume this isn’t just a US phenomenon. I would imagine it’s the case in other countries as well though I can’t speak for them without data. Your thoughts NSG on why this is the case?

First of all, State Legislators? Is that like a county council member?
Also, while race relations are an issue in Europe, they're not half the political football that they are in America.

As long as they're qualified, it shouldn't matter.

[The New California Republic]

I'd say this was as obvious as saying "water is wet."

Obvious isn't always true. Water for instance isn't wet.

[San Lumen]

Latinx politicians

The existence of cat people is the bigger news here IMO..

I would assume this isn’t just a US phenomenon. I would imagine it’s the case in other countries as well though I can’t speak for them without data. Your thoughts NSG on why this is the case?

First of all, State Legislators? Is that like a council member?
Also, while race relations are an issue in Europe, they're not half the political football that they are in America.

As long as they're qualified, it shouldn't matter.

state legislator refers to the member of a legislature of each of the 50 states in the US. What they are called can vary. Terms such as representative, Delegate and assemblymember are used.

Do you have provincial legislatures in your country? Its similar to that

I agree that qualifications should matter but to have mostly white men making policy isnt a good thing.

[Kowani]

As long as they're qualified, it shouldn't matter.

People’s race affects their life experiences. People’s life experiences effects their politics. D’you see how making sure that large sections of the population aren’t left underrepresented might be important?

[San Lumen]

As long as they're qualified, it shouldn't matter.

People’s race affects their life experiences. People’s life experiences effects their politics. D’you see how making sure that large sections of the population aren’t left underrepresented might be important?

Any many here apparently fail to see that

[Shofercia]

Because you don't get to redefine terms. Privilege means privilege. Not being beaten up by cops, not being discriminated against, is NOT a privilege, because it IS a RIGHT! You'd have a much easier time making an argument stating that people of color aren't getting their Rights, than you do of accusing poor whites of being privileged. Whoever marketed that phrase deliberately meant to keep Americans divided, because you SUPPORT RIGHTS and TAKE AWAY PRIVILEGES.

By framing the oppression of people of color as "White Privilege" rather than "Oppression of Human Rights of Human Beings" you're alienating the very people who might otherwise help you. Even if you believe that there's some reason that blacks are treated inferior to whites, you should still find allies in the class battle, because the majority of blacks are poor, and you'll have a much easier time lifting blacks out of poverty on a class basis, rather than a race/ethnicity basis.

More semantic nonsense masquerading as a point. I'm not redefining anything. People in this thread are ignoramuses who know nothing about what is meant by the term and then screech that they too get into confrontations with cops, as if that proves anything, and then continue their screeching when corrected on their erroneous use of the term. If that's how it is I'm not going to waste my time.

A social privilege is a social advantage (or entitlement) from which one can benefit. Not being brutalized by police as often as others is an advantage (duh), and having a wider range of educational options than your peers is also a privilege. Having vast sums of money is a privilege. All of these are advantages that different groups systematically posesses to different extents. It doesn't matter what we've decided to assign the status of "right", because whether someone is privileged or not is a different question to whether or not they're in full possession of their legally-afforded rights (they needn't overlap in all cases). In the situation of police brutality, for instance, the actual white privilege occurring is that while there surely are many police officers who target and harass Black and White people alike, it's also more likely that there are police officers who are especially biased against Black people, and therefore target them considerably more often.

In short, groups are privileged if they on average experience less hurdles in life - or inversely, have more opportunities, which really is the opposite side of the same coin of advantages.

You're talking about a competitive advantage, NOT a privilege. Definitions aren't semantic nonsense, and words have meaning for a reason. White privilege implies that society's more like to discriminate against Jussie Smollet than a poor white guy, which is a patently idiotic claim to make. I'm also not seeing how a poor white guy going to McShit High School benefits more than a rich black guy going to an elite private school. If you redefine a Right as a privilege, even if you add "social" in front of it, people are going to freak out, because privileges can be taken away.

When you're growing up, peeing and pooping is a Right. Playing video games is a privilege. If a kid misbehaves, most parents will take away video games, but only truly monstrous parents will prevent restroom trips. So when you define Rights as privileges, you're going against the human psyche, since we all need to pee and poop, and thus needlessly antagonize the poor white class in a time frame when poor blacks and poor whites could really use each other as allies.

[Shofercia]

No that's not how it works.

So if a state, province or city had large minority population and not a single non white person or woman sat in the legislature or city council you'd see no problem with that whatsoever?

Correct.

What is that even supposed to mean.

How would the "large minority" in your scenario not have an effect on who gets into office?

There could be gerrymandering, people of said minority not winning the primary etc.

Gerrymandering is an issue. White people fairly winning democratic elections isn't an issue. Don't conflate the two.

[San Lumen]

So if a state, province or city had large minority population and not a single non white person or woman sat in the legislature or city council you'd see no problem with that whatsoever?

Correct.

There could be gerrymandering, people of said minority not winning the primary etc.

Gerrymandering is an issue. White people fairly winning democratic elections isn't an issue. Don't conflate the two.

Why would you have no issue with that?

I didnt say white people winning a free and fair elections was an issue

[SD_Film Artists]

The existence of cat people is the bigger news here IMO..



First of all, State Legislators? Is that like a council member?
Also, while race relations are an issue in Europe, they're not half the political football that they are in America.

As long as they're qualified, it shouldn't matter.

state legislator refers to the member of a legislature of each of the 50 states in the US. What they are called can vary. Terms such as representative, Delegate and assemblymember are used.

I see, so they're like county/city council members but with a larger responsibility as the states are like small countries on thier own.

I agree that qualifications should matter but to have mostly white men making policy isnt a good thing.

It's not necessarily a bad thing either, although I do question if a room full of men-few or none of which hold a medical degree- can judge on women's health issues.

[Duvniask]

More semantic nonsense masquerading as a point. I'm not redefining anything. People in this thread are ignoramuses who know nothing about what is meant by the term and then screech that they too get into confrontations with cops, as if that proves anything, and then continue their screeching when corrected on their erroneous use of the term. If that's how it is I'm not going to waste my time.

A social privilege is a social advantage (or entitlement) from which one can benefit. Not being brutalized by police as often as others is an advantage (duh), and having a wider range of educational options than your peers is also a privilege. Having vast sums of money is a privilege. All of these are advantages that different groups systematically posesses to different extents. It doesn't matter what we've decided to assign the status of "right", because whether someone is privileged or not is a different question to whether or not they're in full possession of their legally-afforded rights (they needn't overlap in all cases). In the situation of police brutality, for instance, the actual white privilege occurring is that while there surely are many police officers who target and harass Black and White people alike, it's also more likely that there are police officers who are especially biased against Black people, and therefore target them considerably more often.

In short, groups are privileged if they on average experience less hurdles in life - or inversely, have more opportunities, which really is the opposite side of the same coin of advantages.

You're talking about a competitive advantage, NOT a privilege.

I suppose possessing something which gives you a competitive advantage could also be a privilege. However, not all privilege has to do with areas wherein we have to "compete", as not all interactions are like zero-sum games.

Definitions aren't semantic nonsense, and words have meaning for a reason.

Definitions are not nonsense, but what you're engaged in is more like word play or pointless tautological complexity, which I at the time decided to call semantic nonsense, that is, tying yourself into knots trying to define words with nonsense masquerading as something meaningful.

White privilege implies that society's more like to discriminate against Jussie Smollet than a poor white guy, which is a patently idiotic claim to make. I'm also not seeing how a poor white guy going to McShit High School benefits more than a rich black guy going to an elite private school.

It does no such thing, because you don't even comprehend what's meant by the term. It's an edge, not an absolute, for fuck sake. What it does imply is that two similarly situated people of different races are going to be treated differently on account of their race. "White privilege" is not an absolute, and certainly not the only form of privilege, so this is just a shitty strawman.

If you redefine a Right as a privilege, even if you add "social" in front of it, people are going to freak out, because privileges can be taken away.

Christ.

All people have the right to a decent education, let's say, as that is a fairly uncontroversial statement which we probably both agree on. We can then observe to whichever extent a disparity exists between groups of people and their effective attainment of this right - this becomes an empirical question; if we observe that one group has a systematic advantage even when similarly situated on account of other factors such as income, gender and family cohesion, etc. then what is it we are observing? Clearly something or other is causing this group to have better outcomes; theory can provide an explanation of causality - and one theory could be that this advantage is due to characteristics of the group itself, meaning the causal factor is social privilege (in our discussion, Whiteness, for example), which grants one an edge.

It has to do with acknowledging that outcomes differ between groups, and that rights, which can probably never be perfectly realized, aren't applied as equally/fairly as is potentially possible.

When you're growing up, peeing and pooping is a Right. Playing video games is a privilege. If a kid misbehaves, most parents will take away video games, but only truly monstrous parents will prevent restroom trips. So when you define Rights as privileges, you're going against the human psyche, since we all need to pee and poop,

More of the same wordplay. I'm not redefining rights, I am saying the extent to which people enjoy their rights is affected by their privilege, of which there are many different sorts.

and thus needlessly antagonize the poor white class in a time frame when poor blacks and poor whites could really use each other as allies.

Antagonize? This reeks of a feelings-over-facts mindset. Saying blacks suffer worse outcomes on average, which is an empirical question, isn't antagonizing (although maybe to racists it is). It's not my fault people in this thread are so offended by the suggestion that Whiteness is, ceteris paribus, an advantage. The disparity is a problem that has to be addressed somehow, deal with it.

[SD_Film Artists]

As long as they're qualified, it shouldn't matter.

People’s race affects their life experiences. People’s life experiences effects their politics. D’you see how making sure that large sections of the population aren’t left underrepresented might be important?

It sounds like a form of entrenching cultural division. If race is only skin deep then it should be proved by becoming indistinguishable from the other legislators. That said, as I mentioned earlier there is value to gained by having female or autistic legislators for example.
To be clear, I'm not saying there isn't value in having minority ethnicities being legislators; what I am saying is that one's melanin content is not a virtue in itself.

As for "large sections of the population" that's a very American-centric view to have. Not everywhere has the same demographics.

[San Lumen]

state legislator refers to the member of a legislature of each of the 50 states in the US. What they are called can vary. Terms such as representative, Delegate and assemblymember are used.

I see, so they're like county/city council members but with a larger responsibility as the states are like small countries on thier own.

I agree that qualifications should matter but to have mostly white men making policy isnt a good thing.

It's not necessarily a bad thing either, although I do question if a room full of men-few or none of which hold a medical degree- can judge on women's health issues.

In a way they are similar to to county and city council members. States aren’t like countries as their autonomy is limited

Do you have provinces or administrative divisions in your country? Whatever the legislature is for those is the equivalent of state legislatures in the US.

[SD_Film Artists]

I see, so they're like county/city council members but with a larger responsibility as the states are like small countries on thier own.

It's not necessarily a bad thing either, although I do question if a room full of men-few or none of which hold a medical degree- can judge on women's health issues.

In a way they are similar to to county and city council members. States aren’t like countries as their autonomy is limited

Do you have provinces or administrative divisions in your country? Whatever the legislature is for those is the equivalent of state legislatures in the US.

In the UK there's city mayors (some of which have more power than others) and public offices such as 'Secretary of State for Scotland' but other than that it's only councils below the central government.

There are the Scottish/Welsh/Nirish devolved governments which could be compared to state governments but it's not really the same as the UK isn't strictly a federal system.

[Purpelia]

Let's say you had to choose between two candidates you like, and they're both from the same party.

I am not sure how that's supposed to work but w/e. Let's go with it.

Wait, you say, what's with the scenario? It's not a scenario. That's exactly what US voters who are thoughtful and conscientious do: they vote in the primary, to try to get their preferred candidate in the one available place on the ballot, for their party. If they're a Democrat, they're choosing between several alternative candidates who (in most cases) is bound to win or bound to lose in the general election.

Simple. Political parties are complex nuanced bodies covering many different fields of interest. And not every wing of every party is going to put equal emphasis on every aspect of their policy. Nor is the average voter going to agree with every single point of a parties agenda. So if you have to choose one such as in your primaries pick the one whose primary focus aligns with your own most.

OK, suppose there's just two, and they both have exactly the same policies, they both seem equally trustworthy, except one is black and the other is white. And this is the United States remember, they will both have policies relating to race. Tell me you're not going to take the side of the one who is your own race? If they both have an anti-Affirmative Action stance for instance, tell me you'd trust the black candidate to work against AA when in office ... just as much as you'd trust the white one.

If both are literally identical in every single way other than their race I'd honestly not care. Because only racists care about race.

Obviously in the real world no two candidates have the exact same policies, earned reputation, appearance of trustworthiness etc. I think you'd pay attention to whatever small details differ between them, and thinking all the while you were making a "brain" choice it would all just be self-justification for going with your gut feeling ... ie the subconscious racism WE ALL have whether we know it or not. Really quite trivial differences like use of vocabulary, personal grooming, facial expressions would influence you in favor of one candidate only because they're more like you, and that gets them ahead on the trustworthiness measure.

And here we go with the identitarianism. Subconscious racism, unconscious bias. Why don't you me a passage from the red book of Mao while you are at it?

What I said about Obama just up the page should be sufficient to show I'm not claiming to be free of racism. I'm not accusing you of anything I wouldn't admit to myself. Nobody, nobody is completely rational, we all have bias of various sorts founded in emotions that may be too faint to recognize or maybe shameful, and which influence our thinking in ways we are mortified to discover. Or have pointed out to us. And I don't believe just examining oneself will ever turn up the subconscious racism, it only ever shows itself in interaction with others, particularly others of a different race.

Nobody is completely rational all the time. But each and every human being has the complete and absolute capacity to make individual choices with complete rationality if they chose to sit down and put in the required effort. It's not easy. It takes work. But it is well within our power to do so if we choose. And if you are not going to put that effort in when voting than frankly you are betraying your democracy.

Put simply voting is an intelligence test. And identitarians chose to fail.