Race matters in House

[aheravi]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom, are you really arguing that blacks are underrepresented in Congress, in college, in high paying jobs, etc. because they are unlucky? The sample size we are talking about isn't 2652 hands, its millions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Truthfully, they are represented as equally as everyone else in Congress--they have their representative. As such, why not let this guy caucus...he's from a black-majority district.

Unless you're implying that only a black man/woman can represent the issues of other black people.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Democrats don't allow Republicans to caucus with them. That's party-ism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your party is a choice, being born white is not a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

And joining the Congressional Black Caucus is not a right; it's a privilege. The CBC can conduct business however they please. It's their caucus.

[/ QUOTE ]

OH THE IRONY that YOU would be making THIS argument.

It's like a free ride when you're already late...

[iron81]

I should probably point out that the Congressmen in question are being stupid. The point of the Black Caucus is to advance black interests. The Congressman who was denied admittance would clearly want to advance that goal, given he represents a majority black district.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Tom, are you really arguing that blacks are underrepresented in Congress, in college, in high paying jobs, etc. because they are unlucky? The sample size we are talking about isn't 2652 hands, its millions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was merely poking at the absurdity of bison's argument. I was only talking about Congress, which is a very small sample size. 100 is a lot less than 2600. 535 is also a lot less than 2600.

Although a lot of it is the demographics of the country and our system. Geographical based representation where most blacks live in concentrated areas (read urban) at disproportionate numbers to other races. For whatever reason, blacks are more likely to be elected the higher the population of blacks in that district is. There will likely be at least 20% of the population as white in most districts (probably a lot more), but MANY MANY districts have very very few blacks (some under 1%). This means that there are fewer available candidates and also fewer voters who will vote for them based soley on race (something you are keen on doing). The senate also makes it harder, as the senate is overrepresented by small (non-black) states. How many blacks are in Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Alaska?

For a small example, consider a 10 district system where the populations of two races, A and B are as follows:
Also, assume all districts are equally sized and the overall racial makeup is 20% A 80% B.

1) 5% A 95% B
2) 90% A 10% B
3) 40% A 60% B
4) 30% A 70% B
5) 5% A 95% B
6) 5% A 95% B
7) 5% A 95% B
8) 0% A 100% B
9) 10% A 90% B
10) 10% A 90% B

Let's assume that all candidates are equally likely to be elected based on race (no racist voters). Also assume each race is equally likely to run.

In this case, there are going to be more A candidates likely to run in one district, competing with each other. However, in district 7 and 8, it is extremely unlikely they will ever have a race A candidate, simply due to no candidates in the running.

However, if it were in equal districts, all 80/20 breakdown, you will see 3 or possibly 4 race A winners a lot more often.

Saying 16% of the population is black, therefore there is an EV of 16 black seantors based on no racism is mathematically incorrect.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tom, are you really arguing that blacks are underrepresented in Congress, in college, in high paying jobs, etc. because they are unlucky? The sample size we are talking about isn't 2652 hands, its millions of people.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was merely poking at the absurdity of bison's argument. I was only talking about Congress, which is a very small sample size. 100 is a lot less than 2600. 535 is also a lot less than 2600.

Although a lot of it is the demographics of the country and our system. Geographical based representation where most blacks live in concentrated areas (read urban) at disproportionate numbers to other races. For whatever reason, blacks are more likely to be elected the higher the population of blacks in that district is. There will likely be at least 20% of the population as white in most districts (probably a lot more), but MANY MANY districts have very very few blacks (some under 1%). This means that there are fewer available candidates and also fewer voters who will vote for them based soley on race (something you are keen on doing). The senate also makes it harder, as the senate is overrepresented by small (non-black) states. How many blacks are in Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Alaska?

For a small example, consider a 10 district system where the populations of two races, A and B are as follows:
Also, assume all districts are equally sized and the overall racial makeup is 20% A 80% B.

1) 5% A 95% B
2) 90% A 10% B
3) 40% A 60% B
4) 30% A 70% B
5) 5% A 95% B
6) 5% A 95% B
7) 5% A 95% B
8) 0% A 100% B
9) 10% A 90% B
10) 10% A 90% B

Let's assume that all candidates are equally likely to be elected based on race (no racist voters). Also assume each race is equally likely to run.

In this case, there are going to be more A candidates likely to run in one district, competing with each other. However, in district 7 and 8, it is extremely unlikely they will ever have a race A candidate, simply due to no candidates in the running.

However, if it were in equal districts, all 80/20 breakdown, you will see 3 or possibly 4 race A winners a lot more often.

Saying 16% of the population is black, therefore there is an EV of 16 black seantors based on no racism is mathematically incorrect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent point.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree.

Please join me on my quest to end the obvious racism of the NFL against whites in their underrepresentitiveness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why have none of the race-baiters responded to this? Whites are clearly many times more underrepresented in the NFL/NBA than blacks in Congress.

To say nothing of the irony that Outside the Lines (ESPN tv show) has been so worried about the plight of blacks in the MLB that they have felt the need to do multiple episodes about it (when according to bisonbison's definition of underrepresentation they may in fact be overrepresented, don't have the numbers in front of me), but have curiously not done even a single piece (to my knowledge) on the gross underrepresentation of whites in the NFL/NBA.

(Hint: After you make whatever argument you're going to make about how this isn't the result of racism, isn't a problem, and doesn't need fixing, I will politely point out that a similar argument is probably equally valid for the Senate case.)

[bills217]

Also, black head coaches in the 2007 Super Bowl are over-represented by approximately 92%. RIGGED.

[aheravi]

[ QUOTE ]
I should probably point out that the Congressmen in question are being stupid. The point of the Black Caucus is to advance black interests. The Congressman who was denied admittance would clearly want to advance that goal, given he represents a majority black district.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, Iron...this is what I was getting at in my response to your earlier post.

However, this is Congress, and I read into this that the CBC is saying, "Your interests are not the same as ours." Interests being the interests of the <u>CONGRESSMEN</u>. Screw the constituents.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]

OH THE IRONY that YOU would be making THIS argument.

It's like a free ride when you're already paid...

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. And why the irony? You don't know my beliefs. I've rarely--albeit sometimes--post my actual political thoughts on here. I'm almost always just playing devil's advocate.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
I should probably point out that the Congressmen in question are being racist.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not so hard to call a spade a spade.