• 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!

Congressional Diversity Amendment

Would you support a congressional diversity amendment?

  • Yes

    Votes: 3 7.5%

  • No

    Votes: 37 92.5%
  • Total voters
    40
Whether or not my congressperson actually represents my beliefs is far more important to me than their ethnic background or anything else. So, no.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...
Not only no, but hell no
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...

we elect people to represent us by their words and deeds, not by their race or sex.
 
Last edited:
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...

Hell no, it's not about race or sex, it's about finding the qualified individuals who best echo our personal political platforms.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...

You've found an issue on which all of us agree!

I didn't think there was such an issue. Congratulations.
 
NO. The best reform would be to get rid of gerrymandered districts and all money coming in from people or groups outside the district. Those two things would be far better than more nonsense.
 
haymarket said:
NO. The best reform would be to get rid of gerrymandered districts and all money coming in from people or groups outside the district. Those two things would be far better than more nonsense.
Click to expand...

I don't think eliminating gerrymandering would be practical. We need some way to balance population representation. We do need to seriously address *how* we gerrymander, though.

I'm all for eliminating the ability of anybody or anything from contributing if they are ineligible to vote in a given election.
 
radcen said:
I don't think eliminating gerrymandering would be practical. We need some way to balance population representation. We do need to seriously address *how* we gerrymander, though.

I'm all for eliminating the ability of anybody or anything from contributing if they are ineligible to vote in a given election.
Click to expand...

If there is no need to artificially create diversity in Congress, why is there need to artificially create diversity among the electorate?
 
AlbqOwl said:
If there is no need to artificially create diversity in Congress, why is there need to artificially create diversity among the electorate?
Click to expand...
I didn't say anything about diversity among the electorate. Where did you get that? Gerrymandering is to create balance regarding population numbers, as much as is practically possible. Demographics should not be a consideration.

But since YOU brought it up, using demographics to exclude diversity (as far as party voting goes) is why the process is as corrupt as it is.
 
radcen said:
I didn't say anything about diversity among the electorate. Where did you get that? Gerrymandering is to create balance regarding population numbers, as much as is practically possible. Demographics should not be a consideration.

But since YOU brought it up, using demographics to exclude diversity (as far as party voting goes) is why the process is as corrupt as it is.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the purpose of Gerrymandering is for no other reason than to create a specific voting bloc to ensure a safe seat for somebody.

The universal definition of Gerrymander: noun 1. U.S. Politics. the dividing of a state, county, etc., into election districts so as to give one political party a majority in many districts while concentrating the voting strength of the other party into as few districts as possible. . . .or

verb - gerrymandering: 1.manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class. 2.achieve (a result) by manipulating the boundaries of an electoral constituency:

To divide a state up into logical districts to achieve a more or less equal distribution of population in each is not gerrymandering. In New Mexico that isn't even practical. We are allowed three representatives in the House but roughly 50% of the state population is right here in the Albuquerque metro area. So District 1 includes pretty much the Albuquerque area, which is the most diverse politically while District 2 takes in roughly the northern half of the state which is mostly blue and District 3 the southern half of the state which is mostly red, but no effort is made to blur or change the boundaries of the districts to achieve an advantage for one or the other political party.

Sometime gerrymandering goes to ridiculous lengths to achieve a particular outcome. The green here represents one gerrymandered district in North Carolina:

1992_gerry.JPG
 
Last edited:
AlbqOwl said:
Sorry, but the purpose of Gerrymandering is for no other reason than to create a specific voting bloc to ensure a safe seat for somebody.
Click to expand...
That's what it has morphed to become. You're expending a great deal of energy to bolster my point.
 
Holy ****, what a stupid idea.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...

No. Terrible idea.
 
radcen said:
That's what it has morphed to become. You're expending a great deal of energy to bolster my point.
Click to expand...

No morphing was involved. That is what gerrymandering is.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...

There is no reason to legislate what is happening naturally. Congress will never look like it did in the 1950's. With each passing election Congress is becoming more diverse.

You can't unscrew a pregnant light bulb.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...
I am not a racist or sexist so I do not support this.Justifying affirmative action to combat racism or sexism is like saying to combat rape it will be legal for women to rape men or to combat purse snatching it shall be legal for women to steal men's wallets.
 
haymarket said:
NO. The best reform would be to get rid of gerrymandered districts and all money coming in from people or groups outside the district. Those two things would be far better than more nonsense.
Click to expand...

I somewhat agree with this. Districts should be bases only on the number of people in a district.Party affiliation, race, gender,nationality/ethnicity and other **** should have absolutely nothing to do with how a district is drawn up. I do agree that outside money should be banned in elections.

I would like to take it a step further and ban party affiliations on ballots and polling places with exception to party primaries. People should vote on the candidate because of their views not because of party affiliation. If that is too much for the average ignorant voter to bother researching the candidates then maybe they shouldn't vote.
 
jamesrage said:
I somewhat agree with this. Districts should be bases only on the number of people in a district.Party affiliation, race, gender,nationality/ethnicity and other **** should have absolutely nothing to do with how a district is drawn up. I do agree that outside money should be banned in elections.

I would like to take it a step further and ban party affiliations on ballots and polling places with exception to party primaries. People should vote on the candidate because of their views not because of party affiliation. If that is too much for the average ignorant voter to bother researching the candidates then maybe they shouldn't vote.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I've never thought of this before. I like it.

Of course the blind straight party line voter would be upset because they would be able to check a single box, but I've always thought that was ridiculously lazy to begin with.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...

No, it should not.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
Should the US Constitution be amended to require that the demographics of congress reflect America's racial, ethnic, gender, sexual, sexual orientational, transgender, bodily, and psychosexual diversity?

Don't worry about how members of congress would be elected. We could iron out those boring details later.
Click to expand...

Why not just outright say what you are REALLY proposing - to declare all minority citizens to be inferior and of lesser rights?

Did you pick this poll question straight off of Stormfront? :doh
 
radcen said:
Interesting. I've never thought of this before. I like it.

Of course the blind straight party line voter would be upset because they would be able to check a single box, but I've always thought that was ridiculously lazy to begin with.
Click to expand...

Yes, we need to outlaw people organizing and acting collectively. Rather, people should each pick between 54,301 candidates carefully studying each one. It could get particularly challenging deciding which of the 8,321 Lopezs and 6,704 of the Smiths to vote for. :roll:

Cool new political ideas are easy if totally detached from reality.
 
joko104 said:
Yes, we need to outlaw people organizing and acting collectively. Rather, people should each pick between 54,301 candidates carefully studying each one. It could get particularly challenging deciding which of the 8,321 Lopezs and 6,704 of the Smiths to vote for. :roll:

Cool new political ideas are easy if totally detached from reality.
Click to expand...
Way to miss the point.

:roll:, indeed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom