New Senate Rule to make things equal - Page 2 - Politics version 7.0 -- Two Plus Two Poker Forums

Presumably, we want people voting for reasons besides gender though. Also, what do you do about other underrepresented groups? Does a transgender person get even more votes? What if they are minority? Or have an underrepresented ideology, like if they are Muslim?

Should a Native American transgender Muslim get 100 votes? (Maybe this person can just become president automatically)

I think these are valid points, which is the rule I propose is phase I of a multi phase plan. I think this new rule is a good way to start to get an even number number of male and female. Once we've accomplished that, then I would propose similar rules to encourage minorities to be elected to the senate as well.

Finally phase III would encourage people of the LGBT community to be senators. Accomplishing a full senate of diversity and equality.

02-10-2017 , 09:48 PM

#28

TheMadcap

adept

Join Date: Aug 2011 Posts: 790

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberbrunner

Ignore my other post. I was crabby and not very clear. I think your idea does more harm than good.

Starting with something we probably agree on; things like gender, race and sexual orientation are largely insignificant factors with regard to how well a person will govern. My point was that 1. we shouldn't choose who to vote for based on these trivial features and 2. We definitely shouldn't decide certain people should get extra influence based on these trivial features.

I understand that you are just trying to right a wrong but we should attack it from the other end. Look for places where there isn't an equality of opportunity and fix that.

This will result in a very slow move to a new equilibrium since incumbents tend to be reelcted at high rates but, as others have pointed out, doing what you are suggesting is not democratic and would lead to problems.

Last edited by TheMadcap; 02-10-2017 at 09:53 PM.

02-10-2017 , 09:51 PM

#29

spanktehbadwookie

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 19,374

The idea has already done some IMO great good and no harm so far. Funny the rush to object as many ways as possible.

02-10-2017 , 10:08 PM

#30

superslug

adept

Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 701

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abbaddabba

You're assuming that working class people are uniquely capable of representing the interests of the working class just as he's assuming that women are uniquely capable of representing the interests of women.

I'd argue that it's because we give working class people as much of a voice as they have that we end up with such miserable politicians who end up hurting them the most. It's the reason why politics is just a giant PR campaign that bares almost no relationship to their actual opinions.

Institutions of higher learning might not be perfectly meritocratic either but I think we'd do a lot better if we gave weighting to peoples votes on the basis of how specialized they are in the subject matter they're voting on.

Decent point actually. Women as a group are not doing as badly as a group as working class people are though and a working class women will have more in common with a working class man than a middle class women. And im also not suggesting that a working class persons vote should be worth x amount times more than someone elses vote once they are in the senate.

In the UK (might not be the case in the US ) alot of people see politicians as part of an old boys club , alot of them go to Eton or Harrod which are top private boarding schools in London that pretty much only the super rich attend. Im arguing that we need to buck this trend and encourage more people of all backgrounds to get involved at a grass roots level. Rather than tamper with the amount of influence a person has once they actually get elected.

02-13-2017 , 06:32 PM

#31

becky88

journeyman

Join Date: Jun 2015 Posts: 289

gosh i really miss you guys

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last

...

Page 2 of 2

First

1 2

Last