CDZ Men vs. Women Voters: Why the Difference?

[alang1216]

Alabama elects its appellate judges in statewide elections. If 25% of the electorate was black and there were no other factors involved then Equality of Opportunity would likely result in Equality of Result being 25% of elected judges were black.

False reasoning. But I understand your preference for a pervasive quota system. I happen to disagree.

Easy to label something as false but can you explain why my reasoning is false?

BTW, I agree with your disagreement. I have no liking for a pervasive quota system, there are much better ways to solve such problems, in this case changing the election from state-wide to local would achieve the desired result: democracy.

 

[GaryDog]

Alabama elects its appellate judges in statewide elections. If 25% of the electorate was black and there were no other factors involved then Equality of Opportunity would likely result in Equality of Result being 25% of elected judges were black.

False reasoning. But I understand your preference for a pervasive quota system. I happen to disagree.

Easy to label something as false but can you explain why my reasoning is false?

BTW, I agree with your disagreement. I have no liking for a pervasive quota system, there are much better ways to solve such problems, in this case changing the election from state-wide to local would achieve the desired result: democracy.

And in fact in the South it's the Republicans gerrymandering districts to spread out the black vote and keep them from having representation where it REALLY matters, like state legislatures.

 

[jwoodie]

Easy to label something as false but can you explain why my reasoning is false?

In a STATEWIDE election, all of the voters vote for each candidate. Therefor 25% of the electorate cannot, by itself, determine the winning candidate. In addition, there was no indication of the percentage of black candidates for these positions. Given the "under-representation" of blacks in law schools and the legal profession, it would be logical to assume that they would be underrepresented as judges. Do you recommend that their LSAT scores and bar exam results be "adjusted" to correct this deficiency?

 

[jwoodie]

And in fact in the South it's the Republicans gerrymandering districts to spread out the black vote and keep them from having representation where it REALLY matters, like state legislatures.

Another example of false reasoning: The purpose of gerrymandering is to concentrate opposition party voters into fewer districts (which they will be guaranteed of winning). If Blacks are not elected in those districts, it is because their party didn't vote for them.

 

[GaryDog]

And in fact in the South it's the Republicans gerrymandering districts to spread out the black vote and keep them from having representation where it REALLY matters, like state legislatures.

Another example of false reasoning: The purpose of gerrymandering is to concentrate opposition party voters into fewer districts (which they will be guaranteed of winning). If Blacks are not elected in those districts, it is because their party didn't vote for them.

Wrong. Very often gerrymandering is meant to spread the voters out into insignificant numbers.

But even if it is confined to concentrating, like you claim, there'd be democratic representatives that would speak for them in the state and federal levels. That there are not also speaks to disenfranchisement using insidious means to create a racially disparate outcome.

 

[alang1216]

Alabama elects its appellate judges in statewide elections. If 25% of the electorate was black and there were no other factors involved then Equality of Opportunity would likely result in Equality of Result being 25% of elected judges were black. In fact 0% of the judges are black. In one election, a black republican candidate lost when every other republican, all white, on that ballot won.​

I think this is hardly any deviation from precise statistical representation and puts the lie to Equality of Opportunity. If a government that represents all the people is the ideal then this situation requires some remediation in my opinion.

In a STATEWIDE election, all of the voters vote for each candidate. Therefor 25% of the electorate cannot, by itself, determine the winning candidate.

True enough

In addition, there was no indication of the percentage of black candidates for these positions. Given the "under-representation" of blacks in law schools and the legal profession, it would be logical to assume that they would be underrepresented as judges.

The percentage of candidates and "under-representation" of blacks in law schools and the legal profession is irrelevant since we know there was one on the ballot. It seems that the odds of the only republican candidate to lose also happened to be black would be pretty slim unless racism is taken into account.

Do you recommend that their LSAT scores and bar exam results be "adjusted" to correct this deficiency?

Absurd since the rejected justice wasn't rejected due to his LSATs. Do think it is acceptable to have an appellate system where EVERY justice is white? I don't.

 

[jwoodie]

It seems that the odds of the only republican candidate to lose also happened to be black would be pretty slim unless racism is taken into account.

I agree that opposition to Black Republican candidates indicates racism...on the part of Democrats.

Do [you] think it is acceptable to have an appellate system where EVERY justice is white? I don't.

Do you think it is acceptable to allow people to vote for judges? What alternative do you suggest?

P.S. If you are going to dribble out information regarding these elections, please be so kind as to provide a reference so that all of the factors may be examined.

 

[alang1216]

It seems that the odds of the only republican candidate to lose also happened to be black would be pretty slim unless racism is taken into account.

I agree that opposition to Black Republican candidates indicates racism...on the part of Democrats.

If you're serious, kindly explain why Democrats would vote for a white GOP candidate.

Do [you] think it is acceptable to have an appellate system where EVERY justice is white? I don't.

Do you think it is acceptable to allow people to vote for judges? What alternative do you suggest?

As I mentioned before and as the current lawsuit requests, have the elections changed from at-large to something more local.

 

[jwoodie]

If you're serious, kindly explain why Democrats would vote for a white GOP candidate.

Democrats revile (conservative) Black Republicans as Uncle Tom's (or worse).

As I mentioned before and as the current lawsuit requests, have the elections changed from at-large to something more local.

So you are in favor of gerrymandering as long as it suits your purposes?

 

[alang1216]

So you are in favor of gerrymandering as long as it suits your purposes?

NO! I think gerrymandering is hurting our democracy. Districts that are safe for either party tend toward extremism.

 

[GaryDog]

Democrats revile (conservative) Black Republicans as Uncle Tom's (or worse).

If you are going to dribble out information about what you think is inside the mind of white democrats, provide reference.

 

[anotherlife]

The voters will never ask the question why women's voting rights used to be a bad thing. Too brainwashed for asking it, hehehe.

Anyways, keeping a man is work. Replacing a man with legislatively guaranteed cash income, such as child support and welfare, is zero work. And that you can use as your personal income statement for credit applications too. Hehehe.

 

[jwoodie]

Democrats revile (conservative) Black Republicans as Uncle Tom's (or worse).

If you are going to dribble out information about what you think is inside the mind of white democrats, provide reference.

Do you seriously dispute my statement? Can you name a single conservative Black Republican who is not characterized by Democrats as disloyal to his/her race?

P.S. Before adopting my nomenclature, please consider its appropriate usage.

 

[jwoodie]

So you are in favor of gerrymandering as long as it suits your purposes?

NO! I think gerrymandering is hurting our democracy. Districts that are safe for either party tend toward extremism.

How else can you guarantee "proper" political representation?

 

[alang1216]

So you are in favor of gerrymandering as long as it suits your purposes?

NO! I think gerrymandering is hurting our democracy. Districts that are safe for either party tend toward extremism.

How else can you guarantee "proper" political representation?

There is no such thing as "proper" political representation any more than there is a "fair" tax system. But the situation would be improved if a non-partisan body was tasked with creating the districts without any political motivations.

 

[jwoodie]

There is no such thing as "proper" political representation any more than there is a "fair" tax system. But the situation would be improved if a non-partisan body was tasked with creating the districts without any political motivations.

But weren't you complaining about no Black judges being elected? How are you going to change that situation without carving out special voting districts in order to elect more Black judges?

 

[alang1216]

But weren't you complaining about no Black judges being elected? How are you going to change that situation without carving out special voting districts in order to elect more Black judges?

Probably many ways to skin that cat: quotas or affirmative action come to mind.

 

[jwoodie]

But weren't you complaining about no Black judges being elected? How are you going to change that situation without carving out special voting districts in order to elect more Black judges?

Probably many ways to skin that cat: quotas or affirmative action come to mind.

So you advocate quotas?

 

[alang1216]

But weren't you complaining about no Black judges being elected? How are you going to change that situation without carving out special voting districts in order to elect more Black judges?

Probably many ways to skin that cat: quotas or affirmative action come to mind.

So you advocate quotas?

I advocate whatever can be shown to achieve the desired goal (of diversity) while having a minimum adverse impact. In this case I'd guess some kind of affirmative action might be more successful, such as giving 5,000 votes to minority candidates.

 

[Dragonlady]

As the pollsters tell us, there is a distinct "gender gap" in voting preferences between men and women. Why is this? A few explanations which have been put forth are:

a. Objectivity vs. Emotion

b. Freedom vs. Security

c. Individual Decision Making vs. Group Consensus

d. Personal Responsibility vs. Victimhood

Which, if any, of these apply? Are there any others you would add to this list?

None of the above.

Common sense vs dogma.

The party of "family values" offers nothing for working women. No pay equity, no maternity leave, no family leave, birth control is at the whim of the religious beliefs of their employers, they have to jump through numerous expensive, useless hoops to obtain a legal abortion, no raise in the minimum wage - nothing.

This is not a family oriented economy. Employers can force employees to work long hours, for little pay - using the "management" loophole. There's no sick leave, maternity leave, or other benefits which every other First World nation provides to its workers.

Policies which benefit only men, or which benefit employers over all else, are not family friendly. Policies should be for the benefit of both workers and employers.