Race matters in House

[TomCollins]

I'm waiting for the Association of White Football Players to form to combat the injustices of the NFL.

[haarley]

[ QUOTE ]
Given that the power and wealth white americans enjoy is disproportionately large given their share of the population, there's been little need for whites to ally themselves on racial lines to get a fair shake. In the same way you don't need a "Male caucus", you don't really need a "White caucus".

If, at some point in the future, whites are underrepresented in the senate and house by ~40% (as blacks currently are, with 13% of the population and 8% of the total votes in the senate and house), then I'd say "more power to you White Caucus guys".

[/ QUOTE ] So I have to be "in need" of a race based club before I start one? Who determines my needs? And if I'm mixed race, which club do I join? or do I have to start a Mixed Race Caucus?

[Dan.]

You guys do realize that caucus just means "a bunch of similar people discussing issues that concern them," right? Form whatever caucus you please with whomever you please. But don't bitch and moan when an existing caucus does not want you. You're free to associate as you please.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
You guys do realize that caucus just means "a bunch of similar people discussing issues that concern them," right? Form whatever caucus you please with whomever you please. But don't bitch and moan when an existing caucus does not want you. You're free to associate as you please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you bitch if there was a White Caucus? Honestly. Especially if they excluded blacks.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You guys do realize that caucus just means "a bunch of similar people discussing issues that concern them," right? Form whatever caucus you please with whomever you please. But don't bitch and moan when an existing caucus does not want you. You're free to associate as you please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you bitch if there was a White Caucus? Honestly. Especially if they excluded blacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They're allowed to associate as they please. It's not as though blacks (or in the real case, whites) are being excluded from the political process. They are just being excluded from a special interest group within the congress.

Edit: Should blacks be angry that they are consistently excluded from the Klan?

[bisonbison]

"Underrepresented" is a loaded and misleading term, for it implies that there exists some objectively "proper" theoretical representation (usually based upon a percentage of population).

Loaded and misleading? I think the term is pretty transparent, and I provided the numbers I think establish this underrepresentation.

Whether having people of a certain race "represent" a portion of the population (not even necessarily in their state or district) is useful or moral or whatever is up for debate, but I think it's absolutely clear that in the broadest terms, blacks, asians, hispanics, women, non-lawyers, and openly gay people are all underrepresented in the halls of congress.

It may be misguided or wrong, but it's definitely not complicated or confusing.

[bisonbison]

So I have to be "in need" of a race based club before I start one? Who determines my needs? And if I'm mixed race, which club do I join? or do I have to start a Mixed Race Caucus?

You don't "have to" be in need of anything to form a caucus, I could care less. I'm just describing the historical reality.

It clearly makes sense for groups that self-identity as underrepresented in voting results to form consensual blocs in order to better leverage their total influence.

If reps felt that the interests of whites country-wide were underrepresented in congress, they'd be forming the White Caucus. But clearly reps feel that the needs of white americans are being sufficiently addressed by the actions of other voting blocs.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
"Underrepresented" is a loaded and misleading term, for it implies that there exists some objectively "proper" theoretical representation (usually based upon a percentage of population).

Loaded and misleading? I think the term is pretty transparent, and I provided the numbers I think establish this underrepresentation.

Whether having people of a certain race "represent" a portion of the population (not even necessarily in their state or district) is useful or moral or whatever is up for debate, but I think it's absolutely clear that in the broadest terms, blacks, asians, hispanics, women, non-lawyers, and openly gay people are all underrepresented in the halls of congress.

It may be misguided or wrong, but it's definitely not complicated or confusing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe you are not seeing my point, or maybe we are having a semantical difficulty (which may be my fault).

To say that anything is "underrepresented", you must first have a fixed notion of what constitutes a proper representation. I don't doubt that you do indeed have such a notion, but it is arbitrarily determined by you. There is no proof or substantiation that, in the absence of external limiting factors, all such groups would ever attain a proportional representation in every field based on their respective percentages in the population.

Hence, "underrepresented" is a loaded and misleading term in such matters as we are discussing, as it implies that a "normal" representation would necessarily conform to respective percentage of population. Yet there is neither substantiating evidence nor any provable theory that this should be the case.

It is fallacious to presume that all differences in group achievement must necessarily derive from externally imposed handicaps or from externally conferred benefits. I suspect that is from where you are drawing your "underrepresented" thesis. As noted earlier, it has been neither substantiated nor proven that all groups would achieve the same things in the absence of external limitations. Actually, such a perfect result would be highly unlikely even given a completely level playing field. So if people are looking for representations closely correlated with percentages of population, that will probably never be attained unless it is artificially organized, as it would not likely occur on its own even given many centuries from now. There are simply too many differences between groups for outcomes to be identical. Demanding equal group outcomes is a quixotic quest at best and a social engineering disaster at worst.

You may likely disagree with my assertion that human groups will not perform identically given similar conditions. However, your thesis seems to be based on the premise that without externally handicapping factors, no group will lag behind others in any field. That premise has never been substantiated or proven, so you are basing your entire argument on a self-presumed axiom. Therefore even if you disagree with my view (that groups are disparate enough to produce different results even in the absence of handicapping factors), you still cannot claim a sound basis for your own view.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
Hence, "underrepresented" is a loaded and misleading term in such matters as we are discussing, as it implies that a "normal" representation would necessarily conform to respective percentage of population. Yet there is neither substantiating evidence nor any provable theory that this should be the case.


[/ QUOTE ]

It makes perfect sense if you're riddled with white guilt. Logic and reason won't play much of a part.

[bisonbison]

It is fallacious to presume that all differences in group achievement must necessarily derive from externally imposed handicaps or from externally conferred benefits.

It's dumb to presume a lot of things. If I presume the world is round without evidence, I'm making the exact same error as someone who presumes that the world is flat without evidence.


To address your larger argument: of course there's no objective standard by which the propriety or suitability of representation should be measured. It's a subjective judgment - what should an elected official in a representative democracy represent about the voting populace? But in the US, with congressional and senatorial representation a first past the gate, district by district matter, the elected populations has been monolithic - white men, mostly protestant. A reasonable person might ask whether the perpetual underrepresentation among elected officials, sheerly in terms of pop %s, of certain groups has, perpetuated certain non-genetic hardships that these groups have endured, and by extension, perpetuated their own underrepresentation.

In 230 years, the US has elected 5 black senators and 35 female senators. If all of those senators were alive and serving now, they would be (by strict population %s) underrepresented by ~8% and ~16% respectively.

I'm not looking for equal outcomes here, but let's not pretend that vastly unequal outcomes should be presumed to be fair.