NationStates

Picairn wrote:

San Lumen wrote:You don’t see a problem here? A legislature not reflecting the demographics of its constituency? The previous congress which Republicans controlled their caucus was almost entirely white men. Same goes for republican majority in state legislatures it’s almost all white men. But that is no issue right?

Uh, politicians are voted in by their constituents, not their party members. If the legislature is dominated by white men then it's quite clear these white men were voted in by the people, and I don't see any fault with democracy making its voice.

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.

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.

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?). 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.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:You don’t see a problem here? A legislature not reflecting the demographics of its constituency? The previous congress which Republicans controlled their caucus was almost entirely white men. Same goes for republican majority in state legislatures it’s almost all white men. But that is no issue right?

Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it's because the majority of the population in each constituency is in fact white?

That’s your answer? Seriously? There are plenty of state legislative districts that are majority or plurality white and someone not Caucasian represents it.

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Have you ever stopped to think that maybe it's because the majority of the population in each constituency is in fact white?

That’s your answer? Seriously? There are plenty of state legislative districts that are majority or plurality white and someone not Caucasian represents it.

So you're saying that a white person should be representing that district instead?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:That’s your answer? Seriously? There are plenty of state legislative districts that are majority or plurality white and someone not Caucasian represents it.

So you're saying that a white person should be representing that district instead?

How did you come to that conclusion?

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:That’s your answer? Seriously? There are plenty of state legislative districts that are majority or plurality white and someone not Caucasian represents it.

So you're saying that a white person should be representing that district instead?

That would be the case if you follow the line of reasoning that says that a community’s interests would best be served by someone that looks like it.

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:So you're saying that a white person should be representing that district instead?

How did you come to that conclusion?

How did you come to the conclusion that a black individual would be the most capable of representing a black community as opposed to an old white dude? It’s the same line of thinking.

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:So you're saying that a white person should be representing that district instead?

How did you come to that conclusion?

You're the one who thinks that the representative should reflect the demographics of their constituency...

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:How did you come to that conclusion?

You're the one who thinks that the representative should reflect the demographics of their constituency...

I meant the legislature not the district. I used constituency to refer to the state as a whole

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:You're the one who thinks that the representative should reflect the demographics of their constituency...

I meant the legislature not the district. I used constituency to refer to the state as a whole

Well that's just plain not gong to happen without at-large seats.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I meant the legislature not the district. I used constituency to refer to the state as a whole

Well that's just plain not gong to happen without at-large seats.

Which he’s against. Even though at large seats with proportional representation has been shown to increase minority and female representation.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I meant the legislature not the district. I used constituency to refer to the state as a whole

Well that's just plain not gong to happen without at-large seats.

At large seats aren’t allowed by the voting rights act. And there are plenty of state legislatures such as in New York that aren’t dominated by white men. Our assembly speaker is African American and the majority leader in both chambers is a black woman

Ors Might wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:So you're saying that a white person should be representing that district instead?

That would be the case if you follow the line of reasoning that says that a community’s interests would best be served by someone that looks like it.

Sounds eerily close to segregation to me

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Well that's just plain not gong to happen without at-large seats.

At large seats aren’t allowed by the voting rights act. And there are plenty of state legislatures such as in New York that aren’t dominated by white men. Our assembly speaker is African American and the majority leader in both chambers is a black woman

Then maybe we should change the VRA.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ors Might wrote:That would be the case if you follow the line of reasoning that says that a community’s interests would best be served by someone that looks like it.

Sounds eerily close to segregation to me

Indeed.

San Lumen wrote:

The Two Jerseys wrote:Well that's just plain not gong to happen without at-large seats.

At large seats aren’t allowed by the voting rights act. And there are plenty of state legislatures such as in New York that aren’t dominated by white men. Our assembly speaker is African American and the majority leader in both chambers is a black woman

The Voting Rights Act is an act of Congress, not sacred scripture. Stop treating it like it's some irrevocable force.

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:At large seats aren’t allowed by the voting rights act. And there are plenty of state legislatures such as in New York that aren’t dominated by white men. Our assembly speaker is African American and the majority leader in both chambers is a black woman

Then maybe we should change the VRA.

Tell your representative in Congress that.

The Two Jerseys wrote:

San Lumen wrote:At large seats aren’t allowed by the voting rights act. And there are plenty of state legislatures such as in New York that aren’t dominated by white men. Our assembly speaker is African American and the majority leader in both chambers is a black woman

The Voting Rights Act is an act of Congress, not sacred scripture. Stop treating it like it's some irrevocable force.

Never said it was. At large voting does not help increase the number of non white representatives. Studies have shown this

San Lumen wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Then maybe we should change the VRA.

Tell your representative in Congress that.

What a cop out answer

The Two Jerseys wrote:The Voting Rights Act is an act of Congress, not sacred scripture. Stop treating it like it's some irrevocable force.

Never said it was. At large voting does not help increase the number of non white representatives. Studies have shown this

Not when you keep FPTP voting system. If you have at large districts plus proportional representation or MMP then you will have an increase in minority and female representation.

If you don’t think it would happen then that says more about the democrats, greens, and other left wing parties in the US than you want it to

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Then maybe we should change the VRA.

Tell your representative in Congress that.

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.

Dresderstan wrote:

Thermodolia wrote:Tell your representative in Congress that.

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

Thermodolia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Tell your representative in Congress that.

What a cop out answer

Never said it was. At large voting does not help increase the number of non white representatives. Studies have shown this

Not when you keep FPTP voting system. If you have at large districts plus proportional representation or MMP then you will have an increase in minority and female representation.

If you don’t think it would happen then that says more about the democrats, greens, and other left wing parties in the US than you want it to

A proportional system should work to get women and minorities elected. Democrats would probably run 50% women on principle (they in fact do this choosing members of the DNC), and Republicans would run a few too. Their candidates being mostly white men doesn't really stand out, when there's a primary process to legitimize it. But on a list they would surely put a few women, and minorities if the list was long enough.

Duvniask wrote: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.

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.

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?

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?

Dresderstan wrote:no Democrat or Republican would get rid of FPTP they hate third parties

This is sort of true. I think Republicans like the Green party (taking votes from Dems), and Democrats like the Libertarian party (similar).

, they hate compromise they,

They do in fact compromise. Earlier this year the biggest spending bill (since WW2?) was a compromise and it didn't take long.

If the major parties can compromise even with their deadly enemy, I'm quite sure they would prefer to have third parties represented where they can compromise with them instead, in order to form a majority.

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:

Dresderstan wrote:no Democrat or Republican would get rid of FPTP they hate third parties

This is sort of true. I think Republicans like the Green party (taking votes from Dems), and Democrats like the Libertarian party (similar).

, they hate compromise they,

They do in fact compromise. Earlier this year the biggest spending bill (since WW2?) was a compromise and it didn't take long.

If the major parties can compromise even with their deadly enemy, I'm quite sure they would prefer to have third parties represented where they can compromise with them instead, in order to form a majority.

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.

Thermodolia wrote:

Ors Might wrote:That would be the case if you follow the line of reasoning that says that a community’s interests would best be served by someone that looks like it.

Sounds eerily close to segregation to me

Segregation is enforced. "Self-segregation" perhaps, but if we're opposed to that we'll have to start bussing adults!

San Lumen wrote:

Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
This is sort of true. I think Republicans like the Green party (taking votes from Dems), and Democrats like the Libertarian party (similar).



They do in fact compromise. Earlier this year the biggest spending bill (since WW2?) was a compromise and it didn't take long.

If the major parties can compromise even with their deadly enemy, I'm quite sure they would prefer to have third parties represented where they can compromise with them instead, in order to form a majority.

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.