• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gender parity in the Senate

What would happen if women and men were each guaranteed 50 Senate seats?

  • Nothing; it wouldn't affect the overall ideology of the Senate much

    Votes: 5 38.5%

  • It would drastically change the rhetoric and legislation that emerged

    Votes: 3 23.1%

  • There would be some subtle negotiating differences, but nothing major

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Other (please describe)

    Votes: 3 23.1%
  • Total voters
    13
Kandahar

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
As some of you may be aware, the gender imbalance in Congress is pretty overwhelming. There are 82 male senators and 18 female senators, for whatever reason. So I have a hypothetical question for you guys: Suppose that every state were constitutionally mandated to have one male senator and one female senator, so that women were guaranteed equal representation. How (if at all) do you think it would change the type of legislation that was passed? Would it change the way that the Senate approaches issues, or do you think female senators vote pretty much the same way male senators of similar ideologies do? Would there be any subtle gender differences in negotiating style that would affect the final composition of legislation?

I'm intrigued by this idea because some countries actually reserve a certain number of seats in the legislature for each gender. I'm not really interested in a philosophical debate over whether it's "democratic" to limit who people can vote for...I'm more interested in what the practical outcome would be of such a policy. What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
As some of you may be aware, the gender imbalance in Congress is pretty overwhelming. There are 82 male senators and 18 female senators, for whatever reason. So I have a hypothetical question for you guys: Suppose that every state were constitutionally mandated to have one male senator and one female senator, so that women were guaranteed equal representation. How (if at all) do you think it would change the type of legislation that was passed? Would it change the way that the Senate approaches issues, or do you think female senators vote pretty much the same way male senators of similar ideologies do? Would there be any subtle gender differences in negotiating style that would affect the final composition of legislation?

I'm intrigued by this idea because some countries actually reserve a certain number of seats in the legislature for each gender. I'm not really interested in a philosophical debate over whether it's "democratic" to limit who people can vote for...I'm more interested in what the practical outcome would be of such a policy. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I don't think it'd make much difference. A politician is a politician. Anyone who thinks that women would make more kinder/gentler decisions need only look to Nancy Pelosi.
 
Kandahar said:
As some of you may be aware, the gender imbalance in Congress is pretty overwhelming. There are 82 male senators and 18 female senators, for whatever reason. So I have a hypothetical question for you guys: Suppose that every state were constitutionally mandated to have one male senator and one female senator, so that women were guaranteed equal representation. How (if at all) do you think it would change the type of legislation that was passed? Would it change the way that the Senate approaches issues, or do you think female senators vote pretty much the same way male senators of similar ideologies do? Would there be any subtle gender differences in negotiating style that would affect the final composition of legislation?

I'm intrigued by this idea because some countries actually reserve a certain number of seats in the legislature for each gender. I'm not really interested in a philosophical debate over whether it's "democratic" to limit who people can vote for...I'm more interested in what the practical outcome would be of such a policy. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Because Senators are voted on it should not be changed to accommodate specific genders. It would mean other groups would require equal representation as well. Blacks, gays, lesbians, orientals, Latinos and so on. Can't happen and be fair to all the groups. Women can run for the Senate as can anyone else. If they win their race they are in and some make it.
 
I don't think it would have a significant effect on legislation since they would still be chosen based on ideology.
 
Kandahar said:
As some of you may be aware, the gender imbalance in Congress is pretty overwhelming. There are 82 male senators and 18 female senators, for whatever reason. So I have a hypothetical question for you guys: Suppose that every state were constitutionally mandated to have one male senator and one female senator, so that women were guaranteed equal representation. How (if at all) do you think it would change the type of legislation that was passed? Would it change the way that the Senate approaches issues, or do you think female senators vote pretty much the same way male senators of similar ideologies do? Would there be any subtle gender differences in negotiating style that would affect the final composition of legislation?

I'm intrigued by this idea because some countries actually reserve a certain number of seats in the legislature for each gender. I'm not really interested in a philosophical debate over whether it's "democratic" to limit who people can vote for...I'm more interested in what the practical outcome would be of such a policy. What do you think?
Click to expand...

I think this is a tough question, in general with the current nature of politics I dont know if mush would change because of the games they play so much.

if politics was just about best for people for people in the sense of rights freedoms and liberty I think a balance would help but thats not the case.
 
When reading the op I couldn't help but think of my son's essay on why boys and girls shouldn't be separated at school - applying his charming logic - women should be equally represented to the populous on account that having more of us there would be more quiet, collective order, respect and all around improved self control - meaning less fighting, bickering, partisan hackery and filibusters.

:D

But no - having been in a family of predominantly females I think those 18 women are doing just fine in getting what they want. In part because of the TYPE of woman that excels to be Senate: you don't get voted in by your male and female peers by being a pushover or real nice and sweet.

Overall: I think requiring equal-representation would falsify the numbers and actually throw off representation and cheat the electorates and states out of what's more important and the actual center of attention.

If a woman has earned the respect and consideration of her peers - she'll be a candidate and put up for consideration. . . that should matter more - not gender.
 
Kandahar said:
As some of you may be aware, the gender imbalance in Congress is pretty overwhelming. There are 82 male senators and 18 female senators, for whatever reason. So I have a hypothetical question for you guys: Suppose that every state were constitutionally mandated to have one male senator and one female senator, so that women were guaranteed equal representation. How (if at all) do you think it would change the type of legislation that was passed? Would it change the way that the Senate approaches issues, or do you think female senators vote pretty much the same way male senators of similar ideologies do? Would there be any subtle gender differences in negotiating style that would affect the final composition of legislation?

I'm intrigued by this idea because some countries actually reserve a certain number of seats in the legislature for each gender. I'm not really interested in a philosophical debate over whether it's "democratic" to limit who people can vote for...I'm more interested in what the practical outcome would be of such a policy. What do you think?
Click to expand...

Horrible idea. People should vote for whoever decides to run for office.
 
Redress said:
I don't think it would have a significant effect on legislation since they would still be chosen based on ideology.
Click to expand...

The ideology of Olympia Snowe is vastly different from the ideology of Rand Paul.
 
Personally I'm not sure. On the one hand, there do seem to be certain issues that just repulse female politicians more than male politicians (e.g. 4 of the 5 female Republican senators have criticized or voted against their own party's leadership on "women's issues" in the past month)...so I do think that having more female politicians would reduce the frequency and severity of testosterone-driven legislation, of which we have plenty. But on most issues, I tend to agree with those of you who say that there wouldn't be any overall ideological shift.

But I also think that in general, women and men have very subtle differences in the ways that we view the world, approach problems, and negotiate to solve them. These differences would inevitably alter the legislation that emerged from the Senate in very subtle ways. Maybe we couldn't point to any specific section of any specific law and say "This is different than it would otherwise be, due to the gender ratio" but I think the cumulative effect of lots of subtle changes over the long term would cause some very profound changes.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
But no - having been in a family of predominantly females I think those 18 women are doing just fine in getting what they want. In part because of the TYPE of woman that excels to be Senate: you don't get voted in by your male and female peers by being a pushover or real nice and sweet.
Click to expand...

But in most cases, those women are running against male opponents. Remember Hillary Clinton's thinking from the 2008 election, that she didn't think there was any way a woman could be elected unless she projected toughness...so Obama was able to capture the more dovish element of the Democratic Party and ultimately the nomination. I don't know if Hillary was right about that, but it's certainly not an implausible theory IMO.

If, on the other hand, there was a "female Senate seat" and a "male Senate seat" from each state, then women would always be running against other women for that seat. So I'm not sure if the same electoral calculus for female politicians (i.e. show that you have more balls than your male opponent) would apply.
 
Kandahar said:
Personally I'm not sure. On the one hand, there do seem to be certain issues that just repulse female politicians more than male politicians (e.g. 4 of the 5 female Republican senators have criticized or voted against their own party's leadership on "women's issues" in the past month)...so I do think that having more female politicians would reduce the frequency and severity of testosterone-driven legislation, of which we have plenty. But on most issues, I tend to agree with those of you who say that there wouldn't be any overall ideological shift.

But I also think that in general, women and men have very subtle differences in the ways that we view the world, approach problems, and negotiate to solve them. These differences would inevitably alter the legislation that emerged from the Senate in very subtle ways. Maybe we couldn't point to any specific section of any specific law and say "This is different than it would otherwise be, due to the gender ratio" but I think the cumulative effect of lots of subtle changes over the long term would cause some very profound changes.
Click to expand...

Having a means of referendum on the federal level would address those issues much better than requiring a male Senate seat and a female Senate seat.
 
Kandahar said:
But in most cases, those women are running against male opponents. Remember Hillary Clinton's thinking from the 2008 election, that she didn't think there was any way a woman could be elected unless she projected toughness...so Obama was able to capture the more dovish element of the Democratic Party and ultimately the nomination. I don't know if Hillary was right about that, but it's certainly not an implausible theory IMO.

If, on the other hand, there was a "female Senate seat" and a "male Senate seat" from each state, then women would always be running against other women for that seat. So I'm not sure if the same electoral calculus for female politicians (i.e. show that you have more balls than your male opponent) would apply.
Click to expand...

The thing is, though, that women are allowed to vote as well, and they may disagree politically with the women who run for office.

So you can't really say that making the system require women government representatives will actually lead to more representation of women's interests.

After all, there is just as much debate between women over contraceptives and birth control as there is between any other demographic.
 
Kandahar said:
But in most cases, those women are running against male opponents. Remember Hillary Clinton's thinking from the 2008 election, that she didn't think there was any way a woman could be elected unless she projected toughness...so Obama was able to capture the more dovish element of the Democratic Party and ultimately the nomination. I don't know if Hillary was right about that, but it's certainly not an implausible theory IMO.

If, on the other hand, there was a "female Senate seat" and a "male Senate seat" from each state, then women would always be running against other women for that seat. So I'm not sure if the same electoral calculus for female politicians (i.e. show that you have more balls than your male opponent) would apply.
Click to expand...

I'd rather all of our senators have to prove their mettle - what if at some point there are no ideal women to choose from? What if at some point there are no ideal men to choose from? I don't think it should be required to fill slots based on criteria other politics.

Genders should not be political gamepiees - I don't even like it when they refer to women in general as a voting base to be won.

Some being there on their own merit is good enough for me - I'll have concerns if there are none but we're not heading in that direction.
 
Kandahar said:
As some of you may be aware, the gender imbalance in Congress is pretty overwhelming. There are 82 male senators and 18 female senators, for whatever reason. So I have a hypothetical question for you guys: Suppose that every state were constitutionally mandated to have one male senator and one female senator, so that women were guaranteed equal representation. How (if at all) do you think it would change the type of legislation that was passed? Would it change the way that the Senate approaches issues, or do you think female senators vote pretty much the same way male senators of similar ideologies do? Would there be any subtle gender differences in negotiating style that would affect the final composition of legislation?

I'm intrigued by this idea because some countries actually reserve a certain number of seats in the legislature for each gender. I'm not really interested in a philosophical debate over whether it's "democratic" to limit who people can vote for...I'm more interested in what the practical outcome would be of such a policy. What do you think?
Click to expand...

First, I think it would be stupid to mandate gender equality for any elected office. To answer your question, I think that if that were to happen, it would probably result in much greater Senatorial interest in social policy and things of that nature.
 
samsmart said:
The thing is, though, that women are allowed to vote as well, and they may disagree politically with the women who run for office.
Click to expand...

Well, you'd still have a female Democrat competing against a female Republican for the Senate seat, so there would still be some ideological diversity. I don't see how this would be any more of a problem than it is now...if someone disagrees with their senator they can vote for his/her opponent.

So you can't really say that making the system require women government representatives will actually lead to more representation of women's interests.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily "women's interests," narrowly-defined as things like abortion, contraceptives, equal pay, etc. I'm just thinking that having more female viewpoints would probably be good for the overall balance of power in this country, due to the different thinking/communication styles men and women have. That may or may not manifest itself in ideological differences, but it would certainly change the types of issues that the Senate focuses on IMO.

After all, there is just as much debate between women over contraceptives and birth control as there is between any other demographic.
Click to expand...

Not among the ones in the Senate, it seems. 4 of the 5 female Republican senators (Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Hutchinson) have criticized or voted against their own party on these issues. I'm not saying that female politicians will never play ball when it's in their political interests to do so...but I do think that having 50 female senators would probably steer the priorities of the Senate in a different direction than 18 female senators can, and reshape the way legislation is actually negotiated and written.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
I'd rather all of our senators have to prove their mettle - what if at some point there are no ideal women to choose from? What if at some point there are no ideal men to choose from?
Click to expand...

They could still mount a primary challenge, or recruit a third party candidate who is better, or write someone in. Even the smallest state has over 500,000 people...surely there is a qualified woman and a qualified man somewhere among them. And I'd also like to point out that we ALREADY give each state two senators, regardless of whether they can dredge up two minimally competent (let alone ideal) senators. That's not always fair to the states who *do* elect good people, but hey, that's our system. ;)
 
Kandahar said:
They could still mount a primary challenge, or recruit a third party candidate who is better, or write someone in. Even the smallest state has over 500,000 people...surely there is a qualified woman and a qualified man somewhere among them. And I'd also like to point out that we ALREADY give each state two senators, regardless of whether they can dredge up two minimally competent (let alone ideal) senators. That's not always fair to the states who *do* elect good people, but hey, that's our system. ;)
Click to expand...

No - it is not up to us to go fishing, the fish must grow legs and walk on land!

That is exactly why I oppose it - the effort to run for office and be a notable working individual within our government must be fought for and proven to be won by the individual to hold the position.

If women aren't interested - then they aren't interested. This can go to other groups: religious, political and race respects. You cannot create an interest if there is none. You shouldn't force participation if it's not there already.
 
Kandahar said:
As some of you may be aware, the gender imbalance in Congress is pretty overwhelming. There are 82 male senators and 18 female senators, for whatever reason. So I have a hypothetical question for you guys: Suppose that every state were constitutionally mandated to have one male senator and one female senator, so that women were guaranteed equal representation. How (if at all) do you think it would change the type of legislation that was passed? Would it change the way that the Senate approaches issues, or do you think female senators vote pretty much the same way male senators of similar ideologies do? Would there be any subtle gender differences in negotiating style that would affect the final composition of legislation?
Click to expand...

What about racial parity? While we're at it, why don't we mandate that senators and congresscritters be “elected” in proportions that accurately represent the racial makeup of their states and districts?

And we might as well require parity on other matters, such as religion, sexual orientation, handicapped status, and so on.

Do we really even need elections? It would never be practical to assure proper fairness and parity if we leave it to the voting public. Let's just have a “Congressional Affirmative Action Commission” that appoints members to the Senate and the House in correct proportions, representative of the states and districts that they are to represent.


Kandahar said:
I'm intrigued by this idea because some countries actually reserve a certain number of seats in the legislature for each gender. I'm not really interested in a philosophical debate over whether it's "democratic" to limit who people can vote for...I'm more interested in what the practical outcome would be of such a policy. What do you think?
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you're “interested” or not in the consequences of what you propose. The consequences would be to destroy any vestige of governmental representation of the will of the people. That's the only thing that matters about your proposal. Anything else is meaningless fluff.
 
as long as they are better looking than Hillary or Diane feinswine it works for me
 
There's only one thing in any way attractive about the proposal in teh OP.

Both of my state's senators are women. They are also both idiots. They are solidly entrenched, corrupt, and have a massively inflated notion of their own importance and significance. They use their positions for their own personal gain, to the detriment of the voters that they are supposed to represent.

This isn't to say anything about women in general. Just that the two specific women who have managed to become senators from my state are idiots.

The OP's proposal would mean getting rid of one of them and replacing her with a man. If any state can come up with a male senator who is as much of an idiot as the two women who hold these positions, it would be my state, but at least this would also give us a shot at getting one senator who is intelligent and competent and who understands that his job is about representing his constituents rather than about representing his own selfish interests.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There's only one thing in any way attractive about the proposal in teh OP.

Both of my state's senators are women. They are also both idiots. They are solidly entrenched, corrupt, and have a massively inflated notion of their own importance and significance. They use their positions for their own personal gain, to the detriment of the voters that they are supposed to represent.

This isn't to say anything about women in general. Just that the two specific women who have managed to become senators from my state are idiots.

The OP's proposal would mean getting rid of one of them and replacing her with a man. If any state can come up with a male senator who is as much of an idiot as the two women who hold these positions, it would be my state, but at least this would also give us a shot at getting one senator who is intelligent and competent and who understands that his job is about representing his constituents rather than about representing his own selfish interests.
Click to expand...


its brutal when your state's CONSERVATIVE senator is Diane Feinswine

Barbara Boxer-the aging Princess whose big bucks Hubby bought her a senate seat
 
I tend to think social insurance/programs type legislation will be passed much easier with more female representation.
Not saying I want that to happen, but I believe it to be more likely.
 
samsmart said:
The ideology of Olympia Snowe is vastly different from the ideology of Rand Paul.
Click to expand...

Kelly Ayotte is even more different from Debbie Stabenow, despite being both women and senators.
 
MaggieD said:
I don't think it'd make much difference. A politician is a politician. Anyone who thinks that women would make more kinder/gentler decisions need only look to Nancy Pelosi.
Click to expand...

You really need to control that green-eyed monster on your back. Just because she raised a family first and then went into politics and her career lifted her to 3rd in line to the Presidency is no reason to be jealous. It does not become anyone. Her life is one that any woman {or man} would aspire to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom