Study finds State Legislatures Dominated By white Men

[Ansarre]

My point is that perfect ethnic, gender, religious, political representation etc. is unlikely to ever be achieved. I'm not really too obsessed with moving that much towards it myself. I'm content with single-member FPTP constituencies, though supplementing it with PR isn't an inherently bad idea.

Aww, you really know how to talk sweet to me, don't you?

You're "content" with the system you just admitted does not represent up-to half of the voters. Then you really shouldn't have an opinion at all when it comes to whether a minority has the representation it wants. That's the lesser of two evils isn't it?

Yes I am content with it. My interest isn't in reaching the most representative system possible but providing political stability through a system more likely to yield majority governments than not. I don't believe race is a real thing so even if I cared about achieving equal representation, it wouldn't be on the list of "identities" for me to promote representation of.

[Purpelia]

1. Oh do you? How many Senators does each State get (in total, not per election)?

Irrelevant detail.

2. Which it seems you're not finished doing ...

And I newer will be. Stupid is stupid and deserves pointing and laughing at.

3. In some US states, yes. But you have to consider that registering as one party or the other is free, and it's easily changed.

That is so not a good idea. I mean, seriously, what does it tell you about your political system when people can just happily flip flop between supposedly opposed political parties? Think on that.

As it should be of course. Considering that, it's actually rather futile to try to restrict voting for one party's primaries to members only of that party.

I am not sure how you got to that conclusion as you literally provide no argumentation at all. None at all. Given that you do not I am not going to address this beyond acknowledging that fact.

You saying something does not make it true.

4. It could use reform, across all states, but I wouldn't abolish the system altogether. The idea that anyone can participate in primaries, without paying a fee or passing the purity test of a party, seems fundamentally good. The main restriction I would introduce would be that each registered voter can participate in only one party's primary. It seems enough to me, to suppress "false flag" voting to sabotage the enemy, that the voter has to give up voting in their real party's primary.

Just do what all normal nations do and have each party have internal committees that handle these things instead of making it a public show. If there is in fact so much difference within your parties that the public needs to vote on them it's time to break them up.

My mind is not settled on this, other restrictions may be needed. But that basic one, you can only vote once in primaries, is firm.

I don't really care what your mind is or isn't set on. You could be dead set on the earth being flat and that won't make it true.

5. Two-party government is something I dislike too. It follows rather strongly from single-member constituencies, which have some popular appeal and are also legally difficult to abolish. Actually you can blame the British for that system, the US House is a carbon copy and a lot of Parliaments throughout the Commonwealth are too.

Except they do not in fact have just two political parties.

6. As to the Electoral College, I see it as hardly more than an annoyance. It doesn't distort One Person One Vote really badly (the Senate is much worse) and sore losers on the Democratic side greatly exaggerate the injustice of it. If I lived in California or Texas I might feel differently.

It still exists and has the explicit purpose of being a group of wise men that "fix" the vote of the masses. To someone that actually believes in democracy the very idea is abhorrent.

7. You see what you did there? You slammed down a jargon-laden diatribe against your imaginary enemy, who you have a jargon name for, and didn't in any way address the point I made about your electoral system.

The most charitable interpretation I can make is that you're avoiding giving any details about your system of government, to protect your anonymity. Well fair enough my friend, but you could just say that. Trying to distract me was never going to work.

You did not make a point. All you did was claim that the system I live in, or rather its simplified image I presented protects me from my inner racist. Which I responded to by explaining how I in fact am not a racist.
You on the other hand have demonstrated racist thinking already. So this was likely you just projecting in order to make your self feel better by claiming everyone is like you. Well we are not.

8. I did not "literally" call you a racist. You may have inferred that, but think for a moment why you would get so angry as to borderline flame me, just at the implication you might be a bit racist without knowing it?

No, you did not. You demonstrated your self to be one. You quite literally said that you would not trust a black politician to handle certain issues because he is black. That's racism.

9. Look, I admitted that I have underlying racism which I just haven't discovered yet. Do I have to spell it out for you? To the best of my knowledge I am not a racist. But my knowledge is not complete ... I mean my knowledge of myself. Anyone who claims to know themselves completely is either a liar or a religious nut.

You just demonstrated you did. I mean, I don't know how much more racist you can be than literally asking:

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 ...

You literally, word for word, demonstrated that you do not trust black people to move against what ever AA is because they are black. That's open racism.

And before you berate me for not knowing allow me to remind you that it does not matter. You demonstrated that there is in fact a policy for which your racism demonstrably shines through. What this policy is does not matter at that point. You could equally as well have asked "Tell me you'd trust white people to go against black slavery." That sort of question only makes sense, even if used rhetorically as you did, if you believe that people vote race first and everything else second. Which is blatantly wrong, as the fact black people are not in fact enslaved any more demonstrates.

So you're not a racist. That's good, it's morally correct. But were you ever more racist than you are now? Did you ever discover, or get confronted with, racist attitudes in yourself which you have since eliminated?

No. Shocking as this might sound to you the majority of civilized people simply are not obsessed with identity in general and race in particular. That is why we have a word for the others. And it's not a nice word either.

10. No, I'm just taking your concept of "identity" which as far as I can tell is either racial or gender identity, and logically extending it to something the person notionally chooses for themselves. IE their political party. If it's wrong to identify as something you have no choice over, why would it be OK to identify as something you DO have a choice over?

It's really hard to respond to you when I have no idea which part of my text you are responding to. But best I can tell you seem convinced that if you identify as something that needs to be the one overarching element of your political thinking to the point that it determines all your political choices. And that is the part I disagree with.

Vote for people whose policies you support not those whose identity you share.

11. You identify as some particular party (because you like their policies, because you made a rational choice, blah blah it doesn't even matter), yet you conveniently fail to get my point when I say that by your own definition you are "identitarians"

Actually I don't. With a multi party system few people actually identify with one party. We just pick the least bad one.

"tldr" isn't usually followed by a big fat paragraph ...

If you call that a paragraph you should have seen what it was cut down from.

12. Some of that is good, some of it is bad. Certainly I like multiple parties, and I like parties being able to split without effectively giving up the next election. The idea that most of your legislature is composed of people selected mainly for being good followers ("toeing the party line" as you say) does not seem like the way to select the best people to actually govern.

That is because, once again, say it with me, you vote for the policy and not the individual.

To give you an analogy. If democracy was a restaurant in your system you'd be voting for your chef and getting what ever he decides to cook up. And in mine you are voting for the dish and don't really care who is cooking because you get your chosen food either way.

Btw, I appreciate that you said "toeing" because a common fault of Americans is to say "towing". Along with "off of" and "exponentially" these Americanisms never cease to annoy me.

To be perfectly honest its the Firefox spell checker. English is like my 5th language in terms of quality and I don't even pretend to post anything without it.

13. Hmm. Hillary Clinton was quite graceful in defeat. As to people protesting in the street because they lost, I really see no problem with it if they're not smashing stuff, or setting it on fire. An underappreciated aspect of free speech is that speech allows people to blow off steam and NOT be violent.

Protesting in the streets and doing their best for the last 4 years to sabotage Trump at every turn, blacken him in the media and generally all but revolt against him. Down to the point of actual legislators rebuffing his commands. And this is not something that's new in your politics either. But the "I don't care he won, I am going to disobey" attitude has been really obvious with his opposition. Which brings us to the obvious question. When he next looses why should his supporters not do the same to who ever wins? And when that inevitably happens how do you maintain a healthy democracy.

[Shofercia]

Are you asking for researches to do actual research, rather than to cut corners, slack off, and then pretend to be outraged to cover cutting corners and slacking off? You want researchers to do research? WHITE PRIVILEGE! Next thing you'll suggest is that journalists engage in journalism. Why you gotta be so radical Therm?

You know, I was gonna leave it, but it helps if you actually read the report in question and don't make shit up and lie about it.

The laziness is on your part; that or you're deliberately spreading misinformation, which I suppose is par for the course.

Having completely lost the argument, you're now attacking me? That's real mature on your part, why I should adopt your ideology and help you right away! Just kidding!

From the article:

Washington, DC (CNN) State legislatures are majority White and male, and are especially lacking in representation for first- and second-generation immigrants, according to a new report from New American Leaders, a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping naturalized citizens or their children run for elected office. Of the current 7,383 state legislators in the US more than 81% are White and over 71% are male, according to the report.

Black legislators make up just under 10% while Latinx politicians represent about a little more than 4% and Asian Pacific Islanders about 2%. Others, including Native Americans or those identifying as multi-racial, are all under 1%. Those identified as "new Americans" -- first- or second-generation immigrants -- represent 3.5% of all seats. That does not include Latinx politicians of Puerto Rican descent, who the group does not count as new Americans.

That's the unedited start of the article. From Therm's claim:

For example you have states like Washington and New Hampshire which is 80% and 94% white respectively. When you then figure in that New Hampshire has the largest house body of any state it becomes quite clear that the study might be flawed. I’d rather see a state by state representation than compared to the national population

Wow, it's as if his point addresses the very beginning of the article... oh wait, that's because it does! The OP cited the article, so Therm was addressing the source cited in the OP, and I was commenting on Therm's post. Having read the OP's article, nowhere does it mention the breakdown by states on the basis of race/ethnicity. Maybe the source does, but the OP didn't cite the source directly, and it's not my job to click on every single link in the OP's article. When I write an OP, I cite the relevant data on NSG, and provide all link directly. If you think that I have to click not just on OP's link, but on every link in the OP, you can Crimea River, cause that ain't happening.

[Shofercia]

You don't need people who have the same identity as you to represent you.

Evidence of disparity is not evidence of discrimination. And should be discarded as useless information where discovered.

How is a white person going to understand the issues facing a majority black neighborhood, community or county?

Through the art of conversation.

The same way a black person would. Skin colour doesn't mean you're stupid.

Hmm. San Lumen seems to be suggesting my votes for Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama were wrong, since both would be less understanding of my issues by virtue of not being white men.

Thanks San Lumen! I now see the errors of my ways.

It's good to admit your mistakes.

You don't need people who have the same identity as you to represent you.

Evidence of disparity is not evidence of discrimination. And should be discarded as useless information where discovered.

You don't need to be from a community to represent it, but changes are that you have better insight and understanding of its concerns if you are. Ultimately the same principle as the one behind locally-elected politicians.

So when a local politician runs for Congress and becomes a non-local politician, said politician magically loses the art of conversing with the locals to understand their issues?

Really.
Does language not work correctly where you're from?
Is the explicitly most obvious meaning to words overlooked so you can claim your not a racist arse?
It must be a fascinating place with a strong and storied history.

In what way am I racist?

You're not racist, but your claim sounds racist because you're claiming that a white person being elected instead of a black person, in certain communities, is bad for America. If that's not your claim, what's the point of this thread?

[San Lumen]

How are they not represented?

If POC aren't represented because their elected officials don't share the same skin tone as them, then everyone conservative living in a blue district isn't represented and vice versa.

That's a ridiculous argument

[La Xinga]

If POC aren't represented because their elected officials don't share the same skin tone as them, then everyone conservative living in a blue district isn't represented and vice versa.

That's a ridiculous argument

No it is not. People don't need to look like the people they represent, America needs to forget race exists, so people don't pick on skin color.

[Galloism]

If POC aren't represented because their elected officials don't share the same skin tone as them, then everyone conservative living in a blue district isn't represented and vice versa.

That's a ridiculous argument

Here’s a ridiculous argument. Was 78% of America not represented in the presidency when Barack Obama was president, due solely to him being black?

[San Lumen]

That's a ridiculous argument

Here’s a ridiculous argument. Was 78% of America not represented in the presidency when Barack Obama was president, due solely to him being black?

no

[Galloism]

Here’s a ridiculous argument. Was 78% of America not represented in the presidency when Barack Obama was president, due solely to him being black?

no

Why not? 78% of America isn’t black.

[Elwher]

I have a proposal that could lessen, if not eliminate, the situation. Get rid of election districts.

A state could determine the number of voters a legislator represents by dividing the number of legislators by the number of voters in the state. Then, any person receiving that many votes is a legislator representing those people who voted for him. If, as is almost certain, there are not enough candidates who receive the requisite number of votes, the top vote-getters would also win seats.

This has numerous benefits. First, gerrymandering is impossible as the only borders that count are those of the state, which are fixed. Second, a legislator now represents only the group of people who voted for him or her, not a population who may well include a majority of people who voted for opponents. Third, minority viewpoints, whether racial, gender, or simply political which may be geographically diverse are more likely to be able to get representation. Having a greater diversity of ideas in the legislature is likely to give new ideas a better chance.

At the heart of it, there is very little to support the idea that because a person lives next door to me, his interests and mine are best represented by the same person. Geography does not define political affiliation.

[La Xinga]

no

Why not? 78% of America isn’t black.

88% I think, is not Black.

[San Lumen]

I have a proposal that could lessen, if not eliminate, the situation. Get rid of election districts.

A state could determine the number of voters a legislator represents by dividing the number of legislators by the number of voters in the state. Then, any person receiving that many votes is a legislator representing those people who voted for him. If, as is almost certain, there are not enough candidates who receive the requisite number of votes, the top vote-getters would also win seats.

This has numerous benefits. First, gerrymandering is impossible as the only borders that count are those of the state, which are fixed. Second, a legislator now represents only the group of people who voted for him or her, not a population who may well include a majority of people who voted for opponents. Third, minority viewpoints, whether racial, gender, or simply political which may be geographically diverse are more likely to be able to get representation. Having a greater diversity of ideas in the legislature is likely to give new ideas a better chance.

At the heart of it, there is very little to support the idea that because a person lives next door to me, his interests and mine are best represented by the same person. Geography does not define political affiliation.

I dont understand. How do you determine who represents who?

[Elwher]

I have a proposal that could lessen, if not eliminate, the situation. Get rid of election districts.

A state could determine the number of voters a legislator represents by dividing the number of legislators by the number of voters in the state. Then, any person receiving that many votes is a legislator representing those people who voted for him. If, as is almost certain, there are not enough candidates who receive the requisite number of votes, the top vote-getters would also win seats.

This has numerous benefits. First, gerrymandering is impossible as the only borders that count are those of the state, which are fixed. Second, a legislator now represents only the group of people who voted for him or her, not a population who may well include a majority of people who voted for opponents. Third, minority viewpoints, whether racial, gender, or simply political which may be geographically diverse are more likely to be able to get representation. Having a greater diversity of ideas in the legislature is likely to give new ideas a better chance.

At the heart of it, there is very little to support the idea that because a person lives next door to me, his interests and mine are best represented by the same person. Geography does not define political affiliation.

I dont understand. How do you determine who represents who?

The person you voted for, if he gets in, represents you.

[San Lumen]

I dont understand. How do you determine who represents who?

The person you voted for, if he gets in, represents you.

and how do you determine who someone voted for? and only he?

[Elwher]

The person you voted for, if he gets in, represents you.

and how do you determine who someone voted for? and only he?

You count the ballots, either manually or electronically.

[Galloism]

Why not? 78% of America isn’t black.

88% I think, is not Black.

Erm, yes, correct. I think tax season was too long when I mentally think 100-12=78

[Vistulange]

I have a proposal that could lessen, if not eliminate, the situation. Get rid of election districts.

A state could determine the number of voters a legislator represents by dividing the number of legislators by the number of voters in the state. Then, any person receiving that many votes is a legislator representing those people who voted for him. If, as is almost certain, there are not enough candidates who receive the requisite number of votes, the top vote-getters would also win seats.

This has numerous benefits. First, gerrymandering is impossible as the only borders that count are those of the state, which are fixed. Second, a legislator now represents only the group of people who voted for him or her, not a population who may well include a majority of people who voted for opponents. Third, minority viewpoints, whether racial, gender, or simply political which may be geographically diverse are more likely to be able to get representation. Having a greater diversity of ideas in the legislature is likely to give new ideas a better chance.

At the heart of it, there is very little to support the idea that because a person lives next door to me, his interests and mine are best represented by the same person. Geography does not define political affiliation.

This isn't unheard of. Israel does it at the national level, for example, with the whole country being effectively a single, 120-seat constituency for the Knesset.

It's basically ending single-member constituencies. Now, whether America is ready for such radical, ground-shaking, earth-shattering, unspeakable reform is a separate story altogether.

[Marxist Germany]

I don't see the problem, skin colour does not matter. People vote based on policies, not melanin count.

[San Lumen]

and how do you determine who someone voted for? and only he?

You count the ballots, either manually or electronically.

'
Yes but how do you determine who voted for each candidate?

[Vistulange]

You count the ballots, either manually or electronically.

'
Yes but how do you determine who voted for each candidate?

You don't.

That's the point of the secret ballot, San Lumen. Shockingly, a number of countries do it the way he's proposed.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I dont understand. How do you determine who represents who?

The person you voted for, if he gets in, represents you.

Your system is multi-member constituency with a statewide list. You get a medal, because with some details attended to, it's really not bad.

Think about what happens though, if more than enough people vote for one candidate. The only option you have is to put that candidate in office, but any extra votes beyond those required are basically wasted. Those people literally aren't represented, or to put it another way, all the people who voted for them had part of their vote wasted.

This violates the common principle that all votes cast should be equal. One person one vote.

I think that problem can be solved by including preference voting. "Excess" votes (or more precisely a fraction of each vote cast for the candidate with an excess) is transferred to each of the candidates the voters gave as their second preferences.

It's actually rather complicated to count such a vote, giving up the virtue of being transparent to voters, and in practice confusing some voters, but the calculations once entered into a computer are very quick and verifiably deterministic. Being complicated doesn't bother a computer.

[San Lumen]

'
Yes but how do you determine who voted for each candidate?

You don't.

That's the point of the secret ballot, San Lumen. Shockingly, a number of countries do it the way he's proposed.

They specifically said the person you voted for represents you and only those who voted for them therefore how do you determine who voted for who? They seem to be implying no secret ballot

[Vistulange]

You don't.

That's the point of the secret ballot, San Lumen. Shockingly, a number of countries do it the way he's proposed.

They specifically said the person you voted for represents you and only those who voted for them therefore how do you determine who voted for who? They seem to be implying no secret ballot

I'm not seeing your point here. If I vote for Party A in District 1, and the candidate of Party B wins in my district, he still represents me, i.e. speaks for me in the legislative body that he or she is elected to. That's the whole point of a representative democracy in contrast to a direct democracy.

I think you're confusing the two meanings of "representative" in relation to governance. Your representative in a district isn't meant in any way to represent you fully, unless you miraculously happen to be the only person living in said district. I mean, yeah, you don't get your way when that representative does his or her job, but such is the way of the single-member constituency.

And the other fellow literally suggested multi-member constituencies, not much else. Which actually allocates representatives to your political party (or candidate) even if you don't get a majority of the votes.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I have a proposal that could lessen, if not eliminate, the situation. Get rid of election districts.

A state could determine the number of voters a legislator represents by dividing the number of legislators by the number of voters in the state. Then, any person receiving that many votes is a legislator representing those people who voted for him. If, as is almost certain, there are not enough candidates who receive the requisite number of votes, the top vote-getters would also win seats.

This has numerous benefits. First, gerrymandering is impossible as the only borders that count are those of the state, which are fixed. Second, a legislator now represents only the group of people who voted for him or her, not a population who may well include a majority of people who voted for opponents. Third, minority viewpoints, whether racial, gender, or simply political which may be geographically diverse are more likely to be able to get representation. Having a greater diversity of ideas in the legislature is likely to give new ideas a better chance.

At the heart of it, there is very little to support the idea that because a person lives next door to me, his interests and mine are best represented by the same person. Geography does not define political affiliation.

This isn't unheard of. Israel does it at the national level, for example, with the whole country being effectively a single, 120-seat constituency for the Knesset.

It's basically ending single-member constituencies. Now, whether America is ready for such radical, ground-shaking, earth-shattering, unspeakable reform is a separate story altogether.

I think if one or two states could do it for their own legislatures, that would satisfy the "it would never work in America" people and it could be proposed nationally.

It would probably need to be implemented in a majority of states though. After all the states are going to have to consent to a national system, they'll likely only do that if it's already a thing in their state.

[Vistulange]

This isn't unheard of. Israel does it at the national level, for example, with the whole country being effectively a single, 120-seat constituency for the Knesset.

It's basically ending single-member constituencies. Now, whether America is ready for such radical, ground-shaking, earth-shattering, unspeakable reform is a separate story altogether.

I think if one or two states could do it for their own legislatures, that would satisfy the "it would never work in America" people and it could be proposed nationally.

It would probably need to be implemented in a majority of states though. After all the states are going to have to consent to a national system, they'll likely only do that if it's already a thing in their state.

I find it very odd that it isn't a thing already. It's actually far more conducive in preventing the "tyranny of the majority" the "republic, not democracy" folks have their heads wrapped around, as majoritarian systems inherently lead to a 50%+1 situation in politics, which I'd say is the definition of "tyranny of the majority".

I understand that there are about several dozen reasons as to why it isn't a thing - the relationship between the state governments and the national government and so on - but it's still baffling to see such.