Study finds State Legislatures Dominated By white Men

[San Lumen]

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.

How?

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?

Why shouldn’t we get more women and non whites to vote? why shouldn’t we have more women and non whites running for office?

[La Xinga]

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

Why shouldn’t we get more women and non whites to vote? why shouldn’t we have more women and non whites running for office?

Because caring about the race or sex of a person just leads to the minority being sexist or racist. Why should we get only more women and non whites to vote and not do the same for white males? Do they not matter? Do you actually care about a person's sex or race when he/she comes out to vote or run for office?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

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.

Well I'm OK with that kind of "favoritism". It's a party thing, and it's before the voters get to see any of the primary candidates.

[San Lumen]

Why shouldn’t we get more women and non whites to vote? why shouldn’t we have more women and non whites running for office?

Because caring about the race or sex of a person just leads to the minority being sexist or racist. Why should we get only more women and non whites to vote and not do the same for white males? Do they not matter? Do you actually care about a person's sex or race when he/she comes out to vote or run for office?

I’m not seeing how your drawing any of these conclusions from what I said

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Why shouldn’t we get more women and non whites to vote? why shouldn’t we have more women and non whites running for office?

Because caring about the race or sex of a person just leads to the minority being sexist or racist. Why should we get only more women and non whites to vote and not do the same for white males? Do they not matter? Do you actually care about a person's sex or race when he/she comes out to vote or run for office?

Do they not matter? Of course they do. They matter as much as any other candidate. BUT NO MORE.

There's a system which for some reason favors white men. To any attempt to redress that, necessarily reducing the number of white men, you will object that we're discriminating against white men. When all we're doing is reducing the positive discrimination towards white men.

It's white privilege in a nutshell. "You can't take away my right to get an unfair advantage, it's not fair"

[La Xinga]

Because caring about the race or sex of a person just leads to the minority being sexist or racist. Why should we get only more women and non whites to vote and not do the same for white males? Do they not matter? Do you actually care about a person's sex or race when he/she comes out to vote or run for office?

I’m not seeing how your drawing any of these conclusions from what I said

Why should we encourage only non whites and women to vote?

Because caring about the race or sex of a person just leads to the minority being sexist or racist. Why should we get only more women and non whites to vote and not do the same for white males? Do they not matter? Do you actually care about a person's sex or race when he/she comes out to vote or run for office?

Do they not matter? Of course they do. They matter as much as any other candidate. BUT NO MORE.

There's a system which for some reason favors white men. To any attempt to redress that, necessarily reducing the number of white men, you will object that we're discriminating against white men. When all we're doing is reducing the positive discrimination towards white men.

It's white privilege in a nutshell. "You can't take away my right to get an unfair advantage, it's not fair"

It doesn't favor men, the people CHOOSE men, that's what democracy is about. It's not necessary to reduce the number, why should it be? Do we really care about race?

White privilege? I could say the same as T the I said, that he's white and male, but he has no privileges, cuz he ain't rich. It's $, not race or sex.

[Rojava Free State]

I’m not seeing how your drawing any of these conclusions from what I said

Why should we encourage only non whites and women to vote?

Do they not matter? Of course they do. They matter as much as any other candidate. BUT NO MORE.

There's a system which for some reason favors white men. To any attempt to redress that, necessarily reducing the number of white men, you will object that we're discriminating against white men. When all we're doing is reducing the positive discrimination towards white men.

It's white privilege in a nutshell. "You can't take away my right to get an unfair advantage, it's not fair"

It doesn't favor men, the people CHOOSE men, that's what democracy is about. It's not necessary to reduce the number, why should it be? Do we really care about race?

White privilege? I could say the same as T the I said, that he's white and male, but he has no privileges, cuz he ain't rich. It's $, not race or sex.

Whites are on average more privileged than minorities. True, there are rich black and brown people and poor whites but on average more whites have access to wealth than minorities do.

[San Lumen]

I’m not seeing how your drawing any of these conclusions from what I said

Why should we encourage only non whites and women to vote?

Do they not matter? Of course they do. They matter as much as any other candidate. BUT NO MORE.

There's a system which for some reason favors white men. To any attempt to redress that, necessarily reducing the number of white men, you will object that we're discriminating against white men. When all we're doing is reducing the positive discrimination towards white men.

It's white privilege in a nutshell. "You can't take away my right to get an unfair advantage, it's not fair"

It doesn't favor men, the people CHOOSE men, that's what democracy is about. It's not necessary to reduce the number, why should it be? Do we really care about race?

White privilege? I could say the same as T the I said, that he's white and male, but he has no privileges, cuz he ain't rich. It's $, not race or sex.

A lot of times only white men run. All anyone is saying is for more women and non whites to become candidates. How that becomes what your saying is beyond me

[La Xinga]

Why should we encourage only non whites and women to vote?

It doesn't favor men, the people CHOOSE men, that's what democracy is about. It's not necessary to reduce the number, why should it be? Do we really care about race?

White privilege? I could say the same as T the I said, that he's white and male, but he has no privileges, cuz he ain't rich. It's $, not race or sex.

Whites are on average more privileged than minorities. True, there are rich black and brown people and poor whites but on average more whites have access to wealth than minorities do.

So instead of having people run cuz not white or woman MAYBE we could have poorer people run, since class does matter, unlike race or sex.

Why should we encourage only non whites and women to vote?

It doesn't favor men, the people CHOOSE men, that's what democracy is about. It's not necessary to reduce the number, why should it be? Do we really care about race?

White privilege? I could say the same as T the I said, that he's white and male, but he has no privileges, cuz he ain't rich. It's $, not race or sex.

A lot of times only white men run. All anyone is saying is for more women and non whites to become candidates. How that becomes what your saying is beyond me

And why is that a problem that only white men run?

[San Lumen]

Whites are on average more privileged than minorities. True, there are rich black and brown people and poor whites but on average more whites have access to wealth than minorities do.

So instead of having people run cuz not white or woman MAYBE we could have poorer people run, since class does matter, unlike race or sex.

A lot of times only white men run. All anyone is saying is for more women and non whites to become candidates. How that becomes what your saying is beyond me

And why is that a problem that only white men run?

You seriously can’t see the issue?

[La Xinga]

So instead of having people run cuz not white or woman MAYBE we could have poorer people run, since class does matter, unlike race or sex.

And why is that a problem that only white men run?

You seriously can’t see the issue?

No, I cannot, and I don't think I ever will, since I don't see race in a person, if I know him/her enough, I see the inside.

[San Lumen]

You seriously can’t see the issue?

No, I cannot, and I don't think I ever will, since I don't see race in a person, if I know him/her enough, I see the inside.

Then your part of the problem. Ever seen a Republican convention? Its a sea of white men but that's not an issue in any way.

[La Xinga]

Then your part of the problem.

Maybe it's yours?

No, I cannot, and I don't think I ever will, since I don't see race in a person, if I know him/her enough, I see the inside.

Ever seen a Republican convention? Its a sea of white men but that's not an issue in any way.

Of course it's not.

[Rojava Free State]

No, I cannot, and I don't think I ever will, since I don't see race in a person, if I know him/her enough, I see the inside.

Then your part of the problem. Ever seen a Republican convention? Its a sea of white men but that's not an issue in any way.

It's weird to me when I see a large group of people in America and everyone is the same race. Whether it's the Republican convention being all white, or Jay Z music videos being all black. Matter of fact the latter is kinda weirder cause New York has a shitload of hispanics and yet I never see one in his videos. I know Jay Z isn't anti esse so that only adds to the mystery.

[San Lumen]

Then your part of the problem.

Maybe it's yours?

Ever seen a Republican convention? Its a sea of white men but that's not an issue in any way.

Of course it's not.

A white man knows what its like to be pulled over and harassed by police? A man can understand what sexism and having medical decision and things like loans requiring fathers or spousal consent?

There is no issue with having mostly white men in elected office?

[La Xinga]

Maybe it's yours?

Of course it's not.

A white man knows what its like to be pulled over and harassed by police? A man can understand what sexism and having medical decision and things like loans requiring fathers or spousal consent?

There is no issue with having mostly white men in elected office?

1. To the first one, no. To all the rest, yes. And if one race is harassed more than others, even if they are not the one committing more crimes to proportion, does not mean they need more people in the gov.

2. No issue at all.

[Ors Might]

Maybe it's yours?

Of course it's not.

A white man knows what its like to be pulled over and harassed by police? A man can understand what sexism and having medical decision and things like loans requiring fathers or spousal consent?

There is no issue with having mostly white men in elected office?

As men do in fact face more violence than women in general, from both citizens and cops, I would assume that yeah, a white man would potentially know what it’s like to be pulled over and harassed by cops. As men face sexism, yeah they’d understand sexism. As for the medical thing, I think it’s highly dependent on state law but there have been instances of men requiring spousal consent to get things like a vasectomy. Can’t recall anything relating to loans though.

[Picairn]

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.

Strawman and mischaracterization. They are arguing that these politicians are voted in by their constituents' judgements on their policies and character, which is the way things should be. What it shouldn't be is voting purely on race or gender without regard to policies or character. "I'm a woman" or "I'm a Hispanic" shouldn't be the only reason to vote for a candidate.

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.

First, you need to stop lying. "Unconscious forces" that you originally cited, many are people's personal criterias on how they would vote for a politician i.e. "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?)", like what you said.

Second, don't try to portray yourself as holier-than-thou with that smug, condescending "display" of intellectual supremacy. Every single person is biased towards a candidate they like, from their own judgements and criterias on the field of candidates available. Those biases form their decisions to vote accordingly, which is a part of democracy itself. That's why I asked if you had any gripes with democracy.

Someone has misunderstood the entire point.

And someone else is lying. Stop making excuses for your own gripes with people independently making up their own minds about who to vote for.

[San Lumen]

A white man knows what its like to be pulled over and harassed by police? A man can understand what sexism and having medical decision and things like loans requiring fathers or spousal consent?

There is no issue with having mostly white men in elected office?

1. To the first one, no. To all the rest, yes. And if one race is harassed more than others, even if they are not the one committing more crimes to proportion, does not mean they need more people in the gov.

2. No issue at all.

Its quite astounding how luxurious your ivory tower is.

No one is calling for people to vote for someone because of their gender or race.

Do you know how LGBT rights came to the forefront? People like Harvey Milk became advocates and got elected to office. Without him the Briggs Initiative would have likely passed and the implications of that would have be horrifying. He inspired other LGBT people to become advocates and sometimes run for office.

The Briggs Initiative would have banned gays and lesbians from working in California's public schools and potentially anyone who supported LGBT rights

[La Xinga]

1. To the first one, no. To all the rest, yes. And if one race is harassed more than others, even if they are not the one committing more crimes to proportion, does not mean they need more people in the gov.

2. No issue at all.

Its quite astounding how luxurious your ivory tower is.

No one is calling for people to vote for someone because of their gender or race.

Do you know how LGBT rights came to the forefront? People like Harvey Milk became advocates and got elected to office.

I'm the one living in an ivory tower?

And you think only LGBT people want rights for LGBT people?

Without him the Briggs Initiative would have likely passed and the implications of that would have be horrifying.

An opinion which I disagree with.

He inspired other LGBT people to run for office.

Neither good nor bad, unless people voted specifically because he/she was LGBT.

[San Lumen]

Its quite astounding how luxurious your ivory tower is.

No one is calling for people to vote for someone because of their gender or race.

Do you know how LGBT rights came to the forefront? People like Harvey Milk became advocates and got elected to office.

I'm the one living in an ivory tower?

And you think only LGBT people want rights for LGBT people?

Without him the Briggs Initiative would have likely passed and the implications of that would have be horrifying.

An opinion which I disagree with.

He inspired other LGBT people to run for office.

Neither good nor bad, unless people voted specifically because he/she was LGBT.

I never said that only LGBT people wanted it. Milk was the first openly gay man elected to office in the United States. Had he not been assassinated he likely would have become the first openly gay mayor.

Do you know what the Briggs Initiative was? I explained above what it would have done.

[La Xinga]

I'm the one living in an ivory tower?

And you think only LGBT people want rights for LGBT people?


An opinion which I disagree with.

Neither good nor bad, unless people voted specifically because he/she was LGBT.

I never said that only LGBT people wanted it. Milk was the first openly gay man elected to office in the United States. Had he not been assassinated he likely would have become the first openly gay mayor.

Do you know what the Briggs Initiative was? I explained above what it would have done.

1. You have no evidence that f he was not elected, LGBT rights would never have happened.
2. I see, doesn't seem horrific, represents my views.

[Duvniask]

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.

Strawman and mischaracterization. They are arguing that these politicians are voted in by their constituents' judgements on their policies and character, which is the way things should be. What it shouldn't be is voting purely on race or gender without regard to policies or character. "I'm a woman" or "I'm a Hispanic" shouldn't be the only reason to vote for a candidate.

It's not a strawman. They are indeed saying politicians are voted in by constituents' judgements; they then, just as you are here, go on to say or imply that is good and just and fair and the natural outcome, without paying any heed to what informs someone's judgement, i.e. not consider unconscious biases and societal attitudes that impact our judgement. It is the just-world fallacy through and through.

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.

First, you need to stop lying. "Unconscious forces" that you originally cited, many are people's personal criterias on how they would vote for a politician i.e. "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?)", like what you said.

And these personal criteria are influenced by society. It should not be hard to understand.

A voter X feels the politician's character (which is obviously not a completely objective evaluation, it's in part a gut-feeling) is important: they like people that come across as knowledgeable, diligent and qualified. Well what determines whether or not someone is perceived to be those things? That is in the realm of influence by unconscious biases. As you should be aware if you read the articles, people are more likely to perceive men this way, because these traits are regarded as masculine. This leads, all else being equal, to voter X feeling a man is more electable than a woman, in our example.

Second, don't try to portray yourself as holier-than-thou with that smug, condescending "display" of intellectual supremacy.

I'm not smug. It doesn't please me in the least to deal with stupid bullshit from people who aren't thinking outside the box at all. And I'm calling it out because this forum deserves better.

As for intellectual supremacy, well, I respect people who know what they're talking about, not people who dismiss expert knowledge in the field without having ever bothered to understand anything about it themselves.

Every single person is biased towards a candidate they like, from their own judgements and criterias on the field of candidates available. Those biases form their decisions to vote accordingly, which is a part of democracy itself. That's why I asked if you had any gripes with democracy.

Every single person has someone they like, no doubt, but why they like them is, empirically-speaking, influenced by stereotypes.

Imagine it like this: you have two people that want your friendship - one of them is a man, the other is a woman. You might prefer one over the other, but why? Do you prefer the man because he would objectively be a better friend to you, or is it because you have a bias that makes you select him, even though the woman might actually be the one whose friendship you would enjoy the most? Extend this analogy to politics, and you should be able to see that the problem lies not in the choice itself, but that our choice is impacted by undesirable attitudes. Absent these undesirable attitudes, we would still have a preference for friendship (duh), just as we would still have a preference for certain politicians. It is not about the bias of whether we like someone or not (some people really are just better than others), but about the bias impacting our judgment of who we prefer most.

Someone has misunderstood the entire point.

And someone else is lying. Stop making excuses for your own gripes with people independently making up their own minds about who to vote for.

They are not independent. They do not exist in a vacuum. Their judgement is informed by unconscious biases.

[San Lumen]

I never said that only LGBT people wanted it. Milk was the first openly gay man elected to office in the United States. Had he not been assassinated he likely would have become the first openly gay mayor.

Do you know what the Briggs Initiative was? I explained above what it would have done.

1. You have no evidence that f he was not elected, LGBT rights would never have happened.
2. I see, doesn't seem horrific, represents my views.

That fact that you think the Briggs Initiative should have passed says it all about why you have no issue with a legislature or municipal government made up of almost all white men.

[La Xinga]

1. You have no evidence that f he was not elected, LGBT rights would never have happened.
2. I see, doesn't seem horrific, represents my views.

That fact that you think the Briggs Initiative should have passed says it all about why you have no issue with a legislature or municipal government made up of almost all white men.

I know! It says that I'm a Conservative, and certain Conservatives like me don't believe diversity ain't do nothing.