Study finds State Legislatures Dominated By white Men

[San Lumen]

In order to change the voting system you need a referendum and it some states that's not easy as you can't just collect signatures and submit. In Some states only the legislature can place a referendum on the ballot.

Yeah, but it hardly makes a difference. You need one or both of the major parties onboard to win the referendum. Too many voters won't go against what their party recommends. All the party has to say is "it's bad for our party" ... and if both parties do ... the referendum has a big problem.

Though maybe I'm projecting the Australian situation, where national referenda are rare and fail unless they have support of both major parties. More relevant would be the 2011 UK referendum.

That's not true. Sometimes referendums pass even if the party doesnt want it. The US doesn't have national referendums. They are done at the state and local level.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Yeah, but it hardly makes a difference. You need one or both of the major parties onboard to win the referendum. Too many voters won't go against what their party recommends. All the party has to say is "it's bad for our party" ... and if both parties do ... the referendum has a big problem.

Though maybe I'm projecting the Australian situation, where national referenda are rare and fail unless they have support of both major parties. More relevant would be the 2011 UK referendum.

That's not true. Sometimes referendums pass even if the party doesnt want it. The US doesn't have national referendums. They are done at the state and local level.

I imagine parties don't always advertise a strong position or perhaps don't even take one. If the referendum is less important to them than maximizing their own vote. This one would be very important, I expect BOTH parties to be against it.

Do you have examples of referenda that were opposed by both parties?

[San Lumen]

That's not true. Sometimes referendums pass even if the party doesnt want it. The US doesn't have national referendums. They are done at the state and local level.

I imagine parties don't always advertise a strong position or perhaps don't even take one. If the referendum is less important to them than maximizing their own vote. This one would be very important, I expect BOTH parties to be against it.

Do you have examples of referenda that were opposed by both parties?

I don't. In New York we only vote on constitutional amendments that have gone through the legislature. There is no gathering petitions to get one on the ballot as we are not whats known as Initiative and Referendum state. The only way to change election law would be to elect people who support changing it.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

The gravest issue lies where different proportions first becomes statistically significant. If the proportion in a high institution is within a statistical confidence interval of the proportion in the previous institution, then there is no evidence of bias. Otherwise, it is worth looking in to (but not conclusive yet). Assuming that lawyers/attorneys are qualified for entry into politics at the state level, then there is probably not much evidence of bias somewhere between being qualified and being elected, for many states. If you change the qualification to simply a certain income or wealth, then there is probably even less evidence of bias somewhere between being qualified and being elected, for racial/ethnical bias, but probably a bit more evidence for gender-based bias.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

The gravest issue lies where different proportions first becomes statistically significant. If the proportion in a high institution is within a statistical confidence interval of the proportion in the previous institution, then there is no evidence of bias. Otherwise, it is worth looking in to (but not conclusive yet). Assuming that lawyers/attorneys are qualified for entry into politics at the state level, then there is probably not much evidence of bias somewhere between being qualified and being elected, for many states. If you change the qualification to simply a certain income or wealth, then there is probably even less evidence of bias somewhere between being qualified and being elected, for racial/ethnical bias, but probably a bit more evidence for gender-based bias.

That is a really good point. In theory there are no qualifications necessary to get into US politics. In practice ... there obviously are.

[Duvniask]

I swear, most people who reply to this with the mindset of "so-what" lack the sociological imagination. Vaush is completely right when he says it changes your perceptions of everything, because you come to understand how our society is a product of complex historical forces, instead of only being able to describe things through the just-world fallacy; that the world is influenced predictably and tends toward a moral balance where well-meaning people naturally bring about well-meaning results.

So much jargon, so little evidence and clarity.

The fuck are you talking about? People in this thread consistently display it. They see the makeup of elected officials and then immediately assume it's natural and the way things should be. No thought given to how it got to that point.

You people don't conceive of the possibility that people vote for old white men, because there's a social bias towards viewing elders, men, and whites as natural leadership figures; this in addition to other factors such as wealth inequality between groups that mean white men have a disproportionate change of acquiring the resources that allows them to campaign in the first place (which is not a cost-free activity, at least in America) and thus get into power.

Citation needed for this alleged "social bias" towards viewing elders, men and white as natural leadership figures. And even if white men have the resources to campaign, that doesn't necessarily mean they will be elected. The fact that they were indeed elected speaks volumes.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/am ... woman-but/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... white-men/

People's choices of who they vote for aren't made in some objective vacuum either, they're influenced by who the voters believe can win, who the voters view as accurately representing their interests, who the voters view as being better on the issues (i.e. issue ownership) along with other things such as the person-factor (what kind of person is the candidate?).

And that IS democracy: people deciding who they vote for based on their personal criterias and vote accordingly with their conscious decisions. Do you have any gripes with democracy that you need to vent?

First, you need to practice your reading comprehension. I think it should be pretty clear from what I said that I was especially talking about forces that are unconscious. People may be disinclined to admit they prefer male leaders, but their attitudes toward leadership says otherwise. That and the structural barriers in the form of political gatekeepers.

Second, it has nothing to do with gripes about democracy, you just don't understand what the issue is. The issue is that election results are influenced by biases in voter preferences and biases in candidate selection on the part of parties, meaning the result could have been different, and our politics more representative, if these biases did not influence the outcome. It's like asking a doctor if they have an issue with your healthy body when they diagnose a disease impeding the functions of said body; no, they're telling you there is a problem with it that needs to be fixed for it to run optimally.

To suggest things are fine because people were voted in is to miss the complex picture presented by actual research into voting patterns. It is also, as I said above, to miss the complex picture of the social forces that allow people to become candidates in the first place.

Those "social factors" you raised are mostly people deciding who to vote for based on their own personal criterias, which is the embodiment of democracy. Anything else that doesn't give me the vibes of anti-democracy?

Someone has misunderstood the entire point.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Question: If men and women combined vote for male governance, do gender quotas that stack the deck against men and women's combined votes for this constitute disenfranchisement of those who voted for male governance?

[La Xinga]

81% are white. The amount of people in America that are white I THINK was 78%. Soooooo.......3% more makes SUCH a big difference?!?!

[Thermodolia]

Do you honest to God think any representative or senator in Congress would fucking listen to actually change the system? Let me tell you something, they fucking wouldn't, no one, no Democrat or Republican would get rid of FPTP they hate third parties, they hate compromise they, and people like you who support the status quo are the sole reason our system is trash. I'd rather support Therm and forcing them to change it through actual force than just asking nicely, because just asking them will do nothing.

how else is it going to change? Some states don't allow the citizenry to place a referendum on the ballot. It can only be done through a constitutional amendment passed by legislature and then a statewide vote. If your state is a initiative and referendum state get a petition together and start collecting signatures

Congress. Congress can pass a law that can alter how elections are run. The constitution says as much.

As to why they haven’t it’s because nobody wants their party to lose power. Implementing Party list PR or STV, or MMP means that the parties would have to comprise in order to get things passed and would have to govern in coalition with other parties. Something the democrats and the republicans do not want to do.

[Rojava Free State]

81% are white. The amount of people in America that are white I THINK was 78%. Soooooo.......3% more makes SUCH a big difference?!?!

78% of Americans are Caucasian. We're using white in a social sense, in which case white is more like 61% of Americans since we're excluding Arabs and Latinos from that category. Hispanics are 17% of America, but they are not 17% of congress. Black folks have more representation in congress than hispanics do.

[La Xinga]

81% are white. The amount of people in America that are white I THINK was 78%. Soooooo.......3% more makes SUCH a big difference?!?!

78% of Americans are Caucasian. We're using white in a social sense, in which case white is more like 61% of Americans since we're excluding Arabs and Latinos from that category. Hispanics are 17% of America, but they are not 17% of congress. Black folks have more representation in congress than hispanics do.

I'm pretty sure people run form Democrat or Republican rather than black or white.

[Rojava Free State]

78% of Americans are Caucasian. We're using white in a social sense, in which case white is more like 61% of Americans since we're excluding Arabs and Latinos from that category. Hispanics are 17% of America, but they are not 17% of congress. Black folks have more representation in congress than hispanics do.

I'm pretty sure people run form Democrat or Republican rather than black or white.

You seriously don't think it's kinda strange that hispanics make up 17% of Americans but nowhere near 17% of congress?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I'm pretty sure people run form Democrat or Republican rather than black or white.

You seriously don't think it's kinda strange that hispanics make up 17% of Americans but nowhere near 17% of congress?

Probably due to wealth (and influence like inheriting a business). That would explain why blacks have nearly-fair representation.

[La Xinga]

I'm pretty sure people run form Democrat or Republican rather than black or white.

You seriously don't think it's kinda strange that hispanics make up 17% of Americans but nowhere near 17% of congress?

Newer immigrants maybe?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Question: If men and women combined vote for male governance, do gender quotas that stack the deck against men and women's combined votes for this constitute disenfranchisement of those who voted for male governance?

More than half the seats women run for, they do not win. But the reason for that is that Democratic and Republican parties are more inclined to select (through primaries) women for seats that party has a disadvantage in.

Even without that, quite often the general election voters don't get a choice between a man and a woman. Very often it's two men.

As I said before, the solution is at the party level. Parties like the Democrats which have a basic policy of inclusion, should make that real with scholarships and mentoring for potential candidates who are female or of a minority. This might have the added benefit of giving below-average-income people a chance. But no favouritism in primaries. Give them a head-start but it stops at the primaries which is where democracy cuts in. It's not good in principle, nor does it look good, to try biasing the primary election.

If Republicans want to do that too, I'd be very surprised. But maybe they should look ahead to a day when the whole Democrat field are representative of the population, and the Republican field is not, and think how the voters are going to see that.

[San Lumen]

Question: If men and women combined vote for male governance, do gender quotas that stack the deck against men and women's combined votes for this constitute disenfranchisement of those who voted for male governance?

No one is talking about quotas. What we need is more women and non whites running for office and your seeing a record number run this year and getting nominated

[La Xinga]

Question: If men and women combined vote for male governance, do gender quotas that stack the deck against men and women's combined votes for this constitute disenfranchisement of those who voted for male governance?

No one is talking about quotas. What we need is more women and non whites running for office and your seeing a record number run this year and getting nominated

WHY DO WE NEED? Who really cares what kind of race or sex people have when they run for office?! America needs to forget race for good and forever, and focus on POLITICS, not the race or sex of the person running.

[San Lumen]

No one is talking about quotas. What we need is more women and non whites running for office and your seeing a record number run this year and getting nominated

WHY DO WE NEED? Who really cares what kind of race or sex people have when they run for office?! America needs to forget race for good and forever, and focus on POLITICS, not the race or sex of the person running.

So if a legislature or caucus was entirely white men you would have no issue with that whatsoever

[La Xinga]

WHY DO WE NEED? Who really cares what kind of race or sex people have when they run for office?! America needs to forget race for good and forever, and focus on POLITICS, not the race or sex of the person running.

So if a legislature or caucus was entirely white men you would have no issue with that whatsoever

Indeed.

[San Lumen]

So if a legislature or caucus was entirely white men you would have no issue with that whatsoever

Indeed.

Wow ok. Herein lies the problem. This smug arrogant attitude of who cares

[La Xinga]

Indeed.

Wow ok. Herein lies the problem. This smug arrogant attitude of who cares

As long as they were not elected cuz of being white, I am fine with all of them being white. Compulsory diversity is anti-democratic.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Question: If men and women combined vote for male governance, do gender quotas that stack the deck against men and women's combined votes for this constitute disenfranchisement of those who voted for male governance?

No one is talking about quotas. What we need is more women and non whites running for office and your seeing a record number run this year and getting nominated

If no one owes you a job, then no one owes any walk of life an employee.

There are plenty of women running for office who women tended not to vote for. Voters as a whole are either neutral on the hormones of their representatives or prefer testosterone-driven decisions. My guess would be "slightly prefer."

[San Lumen]

Wow ok. Herein lies the problem. This smug arrogant attitude of who cares

As long as they were not elected cuz of being white, I am fine with all of them being white. Compulsory diversity is anti-democratic.

No one is talking about it being compulsory. Merely getting more woman and non whites to run. It’s up to the people to decide who they want

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

But no favouritism in primaries. Give them a head-start but it stops at the primaries which is where democracy cuts in.

Head start = favouritism. It's still stacking the deck in favour of a particular candidate.

[La Xinga]

As long as they were not elected cuz of being white, I am fine with all of them being white. Compulsory diversity is anti-democratic.

No one is talking about it being compulsory. Merely getting more woman and non whites to run. It’s up to the people to decide who they want

Why should we get more women and non whites to vote? Why should we care about race?