Amend the Constitution. Two Senators Per State: One Male, One Female

[David Zephyr]

One hundred Senators. Fifty women. Fifty men.

That's how it should be.

Every state has one male Senator and one Female Senator. No exceptions.

Anyone doubt that our national "priorities" would change?

50/50 that's how it should be.

Also, a male President must have a female Vice President, and a female President must have a male Vice President. No exceptions.

[Emboldened Chimp]

1. No, that's undemocratic

you're limiting who can get into office.

[Blue_Chill]

2. um no

by the way you puffed enough...now pass it damn it!

[Trad Bass]

3. No white folks either

We've hogged the seats WAAAAAAAAAAY TOOOOOO LOOOOOONG

[Exultant Democracy]

4. Would elected officials

Also have to break down statistically to every other subset? X amount gay, Y amount black, Z amount Jewish, and equal representation of each age group by demographic?

[Clete]

9. Fallacious argument.

Women cross all those demographics, so they would be fairly represented. Right now we still have a majority of white men running the show.

[Trad Bass]

13. So you are saying

that no white women would/should be elected??

HELL YA (and no white men like me either) !

[Clete]

20. Of course white women would be elected, lesbians too.

Admit it you guys, you just want a few feisty broads like Nancy and Barbara to salt the stew, but you are afraid of facing an equal number of women in debates that warm women's hearts that today get shoved under the pile.

[ButterflyBlood]

21. no, the problem is it takes away the right of people to vote

for whoever they want. for that matter if you have a male senator for life it means that no male can get elected in the state until he retires.

vote for whoever you think is the most qualified. period.

[Clete]

36. Excuse me but why does anyone need to be elected for life?

Isn't that why we vote. Okay let's say everyone can vote for two senators, one male and one female instead of either/or. It wouldn't change anything. There still could be two Democrats in California and two Republicans in Idaho.

[ButterflyBlood]

39. cause there's no way anyone will ever beat

Ted Stevens or Ted Kennedy or Dodd and plenty of others in lots of states.

the point is quotas put limits on who one can nominate and vote for, and it becomes unfair therefore.

[Trad Bass]

25. No white folks of EITHER-SEX n/t

[Exultant Democracy]

17. Fallacious argument?

You attacked what I said but you didn't support your condemnation it in any way.

[Clete]

31. Think about it.

Today, we are amazed that half the population wasn't allowed to vote a hundred years ago simply because of their gender, but yet you don't think half the population should have equal representation. I don't know why you think I didn't support my condemnation. I clearly said that because women come in all colors, ethnicities and sexual orientations, why wouldn't a cross section be represented?

What needs to change for both men and women from minority caucuses is the opportunity to run for office. This needs real election and campaign financing reform.

[Exultant Democracy]

42. So why would we amend the constitution

So that one under represented group was insured representation, without doing the same for the rest of the under represented groups. This is like saying women are more deserving of equal representation then the other groups.
You also need to consider that if this “amendment” passed, guess what, it would be mostly rich white women who ended up getting into positions of power. Same game different name. Rich white people in power, everyone else ignored.

[Clete]

44. Because unfortunately it's the only way it will happen.

[Muddleoftheroad]

83. Half the population

If half the population wants half the seats then it should get off its collective ass and do so. They have half the votes.

Otherwise, vote in the best candidate regardless of race, creed or color.

[redeye]

121. Uh-uh

People aged 30-40 cross all dempographics: male/female, race, straight/gay, religion...

[Clete]

5. I have been advocating that for half a century

but men still rule. It is not undemocratic. Women do not have fair representation. What if women elected their female senator and men elected their male senator, would that be more democratic?

[David Zephyr]

8. I'm Advocating It With You, Clete.

It's long overdue.

[Az]

6. Michigan already has that covered

Debbie Stabenow and Carl Levin represent Democratic strength from Michigan.

[mlawson]

7. We have that here in NC, but

it isn't working out so well.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Yupster]

24. Texas has it already too.

But Maine needs to get rid of one of those women -- California too.

[ButterflyBlood]

27. and Washington

aka Cantwell couldn't of ran against Gorton in 2000. sorry, you're screwed. don't meet the quota.

[David Zephyr]

35. California Might When the Rest of the Nation Catches Up.

Until then...California will provide only two female Senators.

Boxer and Feinstein are doing the part very well, thank you.

I only wish that they all could be California Girls.

[ButterflyBlood]

10. and let's also require 10 senators be black

and only 1 or 2 can be Jewish...kind of see the problem here?

[Alenne]

12. No

He didn't say anything about race or religion.

[ButterflyBlood]

14. it's the same concept

if you require the makeup of Congress to completely match the makeup of the country. I don't see how you can do it for gender and not for everyone else.

[Alenne]

15. race is not gender

[ButterflyBlood]

16. I don't see how putting quotas on either

is an advantage

[Alenne]

18. I didn't say it was

but the thread was not about race it was about gender.

[Exultant Democracy]

23. This thread is about equal representation

To make it only about gender reduces would undermine the whole point.

[mlawson]

19. And around 10 have to be gay or lesbian...

Or is that 20?? 7?? No one knows...

[Woodstock]

22. Yes. Amen. That's the way it should be.

Thank you.

[David Zephyr]

33. You Are Welcome. Wouldn't It Be Loverly?

I am serious about this.

Thank you for weighing in.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

26. Hey, uh David.

have you ever heard of something called democracy? it's really cool. people get to pick who they want to be their senators, and we don't have requirements like the ones proposed.

[Trad Bass]

28. But they can only pick WHITE FOLKS

So hows that for your "democracy"?

[SyracuseDemocrat]

34. last time i checked

there were no prohibitions on blacks running for office?

[Trad Bass]

37. I am ashamed that my race keeps them down

I am white

[SyracuseDemocrat]

48. Ok,

Self-deprecating Michael Moore.

[David Zephyr]

38. The Constitution Limits the Presidency to 35 Years of Age & Native Birth

No one is complaining about that.

50/50. That's how it must be.

[MiltonLeBerle]

46. "must" be??

:eyes:

any "must be" rules as to the number of Democrats and Republicans?

Blacks/Hispanics?

Jews/Catholics/Protestants?

[David Zephyr]

29. The 50/50 Gender Split Is Historically Universal Thru-Out the Planet

This is a simple one, folks.

This has nothing to do with race, orientation, religion or age.

This is very fundamental.

Approximately one-half of the planet's population is female and that is true of all 50 states.

It's fair. It's needed.

[ButterflyBlood]

32. there is nothing fair

about prohibiting someone from voting for a candidate simply because of their gender

[David Zephyr]

47. It Is Fair.

You are not prohibited from voting for a male or female.

You get to vote for the male of your choice for one Senate Seat.

You get to vote for the female of your choice for one Senate Seat.

[ButterflyBlood]

50. and if your two top picks are males

then it is unfair. also if your two top picks are females.

and I fail to see how this would make anything good since I would rather have congress consist of 100 Wellstones than 50 Wellstones and 50 Kay Baily Hutchinsons.

[David Zephyr]

53. Then You Have to Choose One Male Over the Other.

Certainly, you could find a woman that you could support for the other Senate seat from your state. I have faith in you.

[ButterflyBlood]

59. yes, I'd support Betty McCollum over Norm Coleman

but I can't think of any woman in Vermont office who'd be better than the two they have now, or any in New Jersey office who'd be better than the two they have now.

[Clete]

41. Okay guys, what if we ladies take over.

What if things were the opposite and no men were allowed to run for office. How would you like that and wouldn't you consider it unfair as well?

[ButterflyBlood]

45. it would be unfair

but considering that women ARE allowed to run for office it's not exactly an appropiate analogy.

[Clete]

52. We are allowedt. We are also allowed to have equal

wages and equal jobs, but women still have to fight for jobs and wages that men take for granted. It is the same in politics, men get the funding and support far more frequently and with less effort that female politicians. Just as many minorities had to fight for equality by passing laws, so will women have to or they will never have equal representation. IMHO

[ButterflyBlood]

60. Phyllis Schafly was one of the biggest opponents of the ERA

having more women senators won't advance women any. and thus my analogy works, having 100 ultra-liberal male senators would advance women far more than 50/50 with the parties also split.

[mndemocrat_29]

105. Huh?

There is no law that states that only men can run for the Senate. Having only women run would be gender discrimination against men. If women truly want one out of every two senators to be female, then they should vote for females. If every female in the country got out to the polls and voted for a woman, then that candidate would win. The fact is that women vote not because of gender, but because of the issues, just like men who vote for the candidate whose issues most reflect theirs, not because of gender.

Additionally, are you going to force 25 states to vote for a woman and 25 for a man in gubernatorial races? What about state offices or House delegations?

[redeye]

123. It would...

...but women are allowed to run so it's a moot point. Anyway, there's a way to increase women's representation while enlarging rather than reducingpeople's choices, namely proportional representation. It doesn't give 50%, but it does 30-40% and that's mainly because women are willing to vote for men.

[dfong63]

30. but ask yourself this

... why should females be limited to 50%?

it's nice to dream that with 50 reserved slots for women, they'd represent women's more generally more liberal views. but that's not guaranteed. there are more than enough wingnut women that the GOP could run - schlafly, coulter, (libby) dole, condi rice. heck, they could just run the wives of the male wingnut politicians.

[David Zephyr]

43. I Asked Myself.

If and when we finally get to the point where 50% of the Senate is women and either the President or Vice President is a woman, then we might begin to discuss removing what some call the "limits". Until then, it should be 50/50.

No exceptions.

[Muddleoftheroad]

84. Tokenism

Taken to its ridiculous conclusion.

[noiretextatique]

40. great idea...we have two women senators for CA

and one needs to go :D seriously...i like the idea. it's taking too damn long to 'evolve'...should have been done a long time ago.
:hi: DZ

[David Zephyr]

51. I'm Sick of Waiting, Too.

"It's taking too damn long to 'evolve'" That sums it up for me, Noiretblu! :hi:

50/50.

That's the law!

Anyone who disagrees must be forced to speak to the millions and millions of young girls across our country and EXPLAIN themselves.

50/50!

[MiltonLeBerle]

55. Why do you think that young girls don't understand democracy?

And can you explain to them why you think that having two women senators from one state is a bad idea?

[Clete]

58. It's not a bad idea today,

considering the number of states that have two male senators. If each of those male represented states though had female representation then it would make more sense to make the representation more fair in California.

[David Zephyr]

62. Young Girls Do "Understand" . They Also Deserve Better.

Until we have equal representation for women in the United States Government, which we have NEVER had (I'd like to point out), then your argument will have to wait.

Are you suggesting that having two women as Senators from California and a handful more from a few other states is preferrable to 50 women in the U.S. Senate? I hope not.

[ButterflyBlood]

65. so would you vote for a conservative woman over a liberal male?

cause you know electing the woman would come closer to "equal representation"

[David Zephyr]

72. I'd Vote for the Liberal Female for the Female Senate Seat.

And the liberal male for the Male Senate Seat.

[ButterflyBlood]

74. I was talking about in the current system

so answer this: UNDER CURRENT LAWS, WOULD YOU VOTE FOR A REPUBLICAN WOMAN OVER A DEMOCRAT MALE FOR SENATE?

[David Zephyr]

78. This Thread Not About the "Current System" Which is Broken

I voted for both of California's two sterling Senators and will do so over and over again.

Do you really think you would suffer with 50 women in the Senate?

[ButterflyBlood]

79. no

i just think it's unfair to deny me the right to vote for whoever i want in the primary.

OK, do you always vote for the woman in the primary? So you would rather have Feinstein than someone like Pete Stark?

[Muddleoftheroad]

87. Then they should f---ing vote

That way, they can get women elected the legal and constitutional way instead of some ridiculous fantasy way.

[noiretextatique]

57. personally, i think it has to be legislated

just as with affirmative action. privilege and power are not often offered up voluntarily.

[Clete]

64. You are so right friend.

We will be here a hundred years from now with unfair representation if it isn't legislated.

[noiretextatique]

68. you are right, clete...there is nothing 'democratic'

about excluding people from full access to society for centuries, then saying "hey, it's all equal now...you can compete with those of us who've had power for centuries"
well, gee fucking thanks.

[David Zephyr]

70. Frederick Douglas: "Power Concedes Nothing Without a Demand"

Absolutely, Noiretblu.

One of the greatest men in American history, Frederick Douglas, who also was an early advocate for equality for women, pretty much said the same thing you are saying. Here are his powerful words:

"Those who profess to favor freedom, yet deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without planting up the ground. They want rain without thunder or lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. The struggle may not be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will."

-- Frederick Douglas, Abolitionist and My Hero

[ButterflyBlood]

49. question, which would you rather have?

100 ultra-liberal male Democrat senators
50 male and 50 female senators, with 50 being Democrats and 50 being Republicans

[Clete]

54. Excuse but when have we ever had 100 ultra-liberal male

senators? Your statement doesn't make sense.

[ButterflyBlood]

56. no we never did

it's just a hypothetical, about which you think is more important, having an ultra-liberal congress, or "fair representation"

and it proves that having fair representation wouldn't really help women's rights any, since you can't exactly say Ann Coulter is more a feminist than Wellstone. I've heard fundie women argue that women shouldn't be allowed to vote, or if they do, vote for whoever their husbands tell them to. so i don't see what this accomplishes.

[Clete]

61. I think it's fair representation.

It's really more democratic and towards the ideal of government by the people and for the people instead of a bunch of white men and a few token, women and minorities running things for everyone.

[ButterflyBlood]

66. it's not democratic to

require that a person vote for a woman (or that matter also require that they vote for a male). and it won't help women's rights because your average woman Repuke's record on them is worse than your average male Democrat's.

[David Zephyr]

75. We've Never Had Them, Clete.

And thank you for making that point.

And I'll gladly risk losing the "opportunity" and "freedom" to have "100 ultra-liberal male" Senators for the reality of 50 women in the U.S. Senate.

Yep, I'll gladly forego that remote possibility.

[David Zephyr]

71. Answer.

Over two hundred years and where are the 100 "ultra-liberal male" Senators? Ain't happened yet. Time to correct it.

[ButterflyBlood]

73. i didn't say that it would happen

it was a hypothetical

time to correct it? if you had the 50/50 ratio it wouldn't be too different from how it is now in partisanship. the GOP could easily dig up enough Ann Coulter clones.

[indigo32]

63. I think it's a fascinating idea

I'd go for it. Really.

[David Zephyr]

82. We're Together, Then, Indigo32!

Equality Now! Operative word: NOW!

[Muddleoftheroad]

89. Never

The operative word never will happen.

[Clete]

67. One last word.

Before I go off-line for awhile. If there had been gender equality in the senate when Bush wanted to invade Iraq, there wouldn't have been enough votes to pass the resolution to give him the power. I am willing to bet that even some of the yes votes from the female members would have been no votes because of the group effect of those against it.

[David Zephyr]

81. Thanks, Clete!

Greatly appreciate your passion! :hi:

[TheDonkey]

69. No

There is no reason that women can't hold 54 seats in the Senate (or men). We should strive for a congress that fully represents the American population but I wouldn't go so far to say make it mandatory for a women, or man to be elected only.

[maxanne]

76. great idea David

Unfortunately, as you can see, even here - many of the most liberal men are so accustomed to oppressing women that they cannot concieve of losing the privilege.

[David Zephyr]

80. I Find the Response By Men Here Very Depressing.

And frankly, it pisses me off!

And the "hypotheticals" they present in defense of the status quo is truly sad.

Thanks for weighing in with me. I appreciate it. :hi:

[Muddleoftheroad]

90. Wow

How DARE we choose to vote for whomever we want. The gall!!!

[maxanne]

91. oh and how dare

anyone suggest changing the status quo? The gall! How dare anyone suggest removing some male privilege??

[Muddleoftheroad]

119. Privilige?

Women outnumber men, this is THEIR choice and they choose to vote for men.

[Heddi]

132. what choice do you have

when the only people that we can vote for are overwhelmingly male?

That's not a choice. it's selecting from what's available.

Choice means having a FULL Range of options in front of you.

So far, I've only seen rich, white, heterosexual, generally christian males as being the people that are supposed to 'represent' me.

that's not choice.

[noiretextatique]

95. the 'choice' is often pre-determined

so much for choice.

[ButterflyBlood]

96. through the primaries

vote for whoever you like most in the primaries. if this is always the woman even if it's a DLC woman against a progressive caucus guy, fine. then vote for whoever you like best in the general. very simple system that works fine.

[noiretextatique]

102. still pre-determined

are democrats ready for a female or a black candidate? is the country ready? do those attitudes affect primary votes? of course they do. no matter how great a candidate may be, social readiness for that candidate does influence how people vote. yeah...a really fine system.

[ButterflyBlood]

103. yes

Hillary could easily win the nomination if she ran, so yes, ready for a woman (even though I definatley wouldn't want her getting it since she's a DLC suckup)

Harold Ford Jr. is practically being groomed as the first black president. Most people are expecting him to pick up Frist's seat in 2006 and then possibly run for president some time down the line. He could win the nomination.

I hope you don't think Sharpton and Mosely-Braun's chances are only due to their race or gender.

[noiretextatique]

110. she ISN'T running, and neither is ford

i'll believe it when i see it...until then, talk is cheap.

[Muddleoftheroad]

120. Social readiness

It is really up to the candidates to prove how ready society is for them.

[noiretextatique]

126. apologist nonsense

how ready is america for a black presidential candidate? really...how ready is america? i doubt even a fascist like powell could win.

[Muddleoftheroad]

129. Disagree

Had Colin Powell run, I think there is little doubt he would have won. His wife didn't want him to run probably for fear of his life.

Even the crackers I know would have voted for him because he was a war hero.

[shimmergal]

128. You can't vote for anyone of your choice NOW.

To be on the ballot for Senator, they have to be 30 or older, a citizen, and a resident of the state. In some states they also have to have qualified for the ballot (some states don't count write-ins) which in practical terms means they have to have raised a certain amount of money and high-level support.

[ButterflyBlood]

77. true or false

having Ann Coulter or Phyllis Schafly in office would do more for women's rights than Wellstone.

[noiretextatique]

85. wellstone is dead

:eyes:

[ButterflyBlood]

88. then Feingold then

or look at it this way. Ann Coulter is from CT. So if she were to run against Dodd in 2004 would you support her over him since electing her would bring it closer to the 50/50 ratio?

[noiretextatique]

92. people who voted for feingold wouldn't vote for conservatives

even if they are women

[ButterflyBlood]

93. but why not?

it would bring us closer to equal representation.

point is having a 50/50 ratio wouldn't improve women's rights, since the conservative states would just elect Coulter clones.

[noiretextatique]

98. what is the difference between that

and what's happening right now? i don't think the point is to improve women's rights, per se. i think the point is equal representation. ann coulter could get elected in a conservative state...so can trent lott. what's the difference?

[ButterflyBlood]

101. there is none, and that's the point

having equal representation doesn't accomplish anything. having Coulter is no different from having Lott. Having Wellstone is no different from having Boxer. All this does is cut down on the rights of who you can vote for and who can run.

[noiretextatique]

106. it accomplishes equal representation

regardless of who is the candidate. and as far as i know, coulter is not running for anything. perhaps the democrats would have the good sense not to run fascists, or to run a good female candidate...it is actually a possibilty. maybe a female wellstone or feingold...imagine THAT. sheesh.

[ButterflyBlood]

109. name an electable one who wants the office

and it'd happen. One could say Boxer is a female Wellstone for Feingold, but neither one ever ran for president or had any plans, so I don't see what they have to do with the presidential race.

OK Coulter won't run for anything but how about Marilyn "gay marriage will be the downfall of our society" Musgrave from Colorado? It's not any different having her in office than Lott. Equal representation doesn't make things better for anyone, it just denies the rights to run for any office you want to and vote for whoever you want to.

[noiretextatique]

111. it's equal representation

a goal that has value by itself. it's not about who you prefer in office...it's about reocognizing that over 1/2 of the population is not represented in our national government if anything approaching equal proportions.

[ButterflyBlood]

but then what about requiring it for blacks and other minorities?

I just think that letting the person who the most people want elected is more important than equal representation. If you think that makes me an evil, mysoginistic troglodyte who is agains this idea only because I really really hate women, well fine, then convincing you otherwise is hopeless.

[noiretextatique]

124. what about it?!

it makes sense. white men don't have to run everything...do they? how else will power be equalized...by waiting a kazillion years for attitudes to change? a 'democracy' is not one group having hegemony over everything and everyone, while pretending it's all equal because a few tokens are present. at some point, the hegemony needs to be addressed...and not just with lip service about democracy.

[ButterflyBlood]

113. but then what about requiring it for blacks and other minorities?

I just think that letting the person who the most people want elected is more important than equal representation. If you think that makes me an evil, mysoginistic troglodyte who is agains this idea only because I really really hate women, well fine, then convincing you otherwise is hopeless.

[mndemocrat_29]

100. I'd vote for Dodd

And I think that this idea is ridiculous. Your arguments have been right on. Women control 50 percent of the electorate. If they really want to have 50 of the senators, then they should vote that way. If every woman over 18 in every state voted for a woman, they'd have 100 senators and Democracy would be working. Every state has viable women from one side of the aisle or the other who could win elections. Therefore, why not run them?

And, from a legal standpoint, consider if this were passed. What would the current senators do? You can't simply throw them out. Would we have to have John Kerry run against Ted Kennedy? Jon Corzine run against Frank Lautenberg? Patty Murray run against Maria Cantwell? And what about states like Louisiana, Michigan, and Maryland. We'd just excuse them from spending all of those millions? And since those states have already elected people of opposite genders, why don't you think that other states could elect a male and a female.

Finally, I'd like to point out some of the people we'd probably have as senators because of this: Ann Coulter, Judy Martz, and Christie Todd Whitman. And I cannot imagine anyone on the DU that would select these three over Chris Dodd, Max Baucus, and Frank Lautenberg.

[MiltonLeBerle]

86. What about Blacks? Hispanics? Asians?

you seem to be hung up on this equal representation for men and women...
what about representation along racial lines?

why is the sexual difference between people is the one that you feel matters so much that it requires legislation?

Don't minorities deserve equal representation too?

[David Zephyr]

94. Women Are Not A "Minority".

Also, there is no other demographic group or people of faith that are distributed equally geographically and historically like women and men. You know that, MiltonLeBerle.

[arcos]

97. It's more or less that way in my country...

In Costa Rica we have 57 seats in congress, elected by proportional representation in each province. The law says that 40% of the candidates on each party list must be women. Because of these there are 20 congresswoman out of 57 seats in congress.

Same in the Presidential ticket. We have two vicepresidents, and one must be male and the other female.

[David Zephyr]

99. Costa Rica Shows the Way!

Thanks for joining in here and for sharing your country's great heritage! What a thoughtful government structure you have there. You should be proud. What a great tribute it is to your grandmothers, mothers, aunts, sisters, daughters, and granddaughters! What respect! What a model!

Arcos, some reason I get the feeling that the men in Costa Rica do not feel like they have lost some great liberty with the structure of the government. Am I right?

PS: I love Costa Rica! I spent 3 wonderful months there with my backpack and guitar in the 1970's and it is one the most civilized nations on earth. :hi:

[arcos]

107. Thank you!!

It is nice to hear such words about one's country. :D

You are mostly right... Most political parties have endorsed the idea but several interpretations have been needed. When it was first approved, what they did is fill up the first few spots on the list with men and the women would go in places where they could hardly be elected.

The Supreme Electoral Court judged had to rule that the 40% rule should apply on electable places. That was defined as the average amount of seats the party has won in its history.

The Libertarian Movement Party however, has opposed this law, and since in 1998 they elected just one congressman, they were not required to present women candidates in electable places. Last year, they won 6 seats, and all of them are men.

[tom_paine]

104. No way.

Nothing against women. I often say that maybe an all-woman government might be worth a try, because look how bad the men have fucked it up.

(and then I think of some of my neurotic, borderline psychotic ex-girlfriends, and I slap myself awake :evilgrin: )

Seriously, that is extremely undemocratic and really unAmerican.

I would support a Presidential Lottery of some kind (exclusions for felons, mentally challenged, non-native-born, etc.) before I would support a mandate for a certain number of any race, gender, creed, etc.

[leftyandproud]

108. no..

if we start down this road, pretty soon it will be "one black one white"...then the hispanics will get pissed and demand an extra 10 congressional seats...It will get messy. Just let anyone run, and the people choose who they want, regardless of race/sex/etc etc

[noiretextatique]

112. thanks DZ

for a most enlightening demonstration. between this thread, the gay high school thread, and the illinois rape law thread...i think i've had my fill of 'liberals' for some time to come. thank the goddess i am progressive. peace...i need a vacation :hi:

[David Zephyr]

114. I Hear You, Noiretblu...Loud and Clear.

Isn't simply amazing how "liberal" men would become so incensed about losing 50% of the Senate and how they actually conjure up hypothetical scenarios of the great loss of liberty that they would suffer.

It's pathetic.

It's unmanly.

It's weak.

It's shameful.

And it certainly isn't "liberal".

As always, I adore you.

[ButterflyBlood]

115. it's not about that

it's just that I think whoever gets the most votes should always get the office. period. If 50 women were elected under current circumstances I wouldn't care less. I would care less if 100 were elected. Do you honestly think the ONLY reason anyone could oppose this is sexism? The same way I know not everyone against anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws for gays is homophobic (even though most are) since I have a gay libertarian friend who opposes them since they go against the libertarian philosophy. So does this for that matter, so I guess it might be the libertarian in me in this case.

[David Zephyr]

117. There's Nothing to Add to Your Post. You Make Yourself Very Clear.

I understand. You make yourself very, very clear.

"The same way I know not everyone against anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws for gays is homophobic (even though most are) since I have a gay libertarian friend who opposes them since they go against the libertarian philosophy. So does this for that matter, so I guess it might be the libertarian in me in this case."

[ButterflyBlood]

118. well for further clarification

i do support anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws. As well as the ERA.

anyway, i just want to say i'm not really upset at anyone just for supporting or suggesting this, but i am at the straw man arguments that anyone in opposition is sexist or in fear of losing male dominance, ect.

[Muddleoftheroad]

122. Incensed

No, they're just incensed that some "progressives" would attempt to manipulate the political process in such a way to totally undermine democracy and freedom. This is tokenism. This is sexism.

[noiretextatique]

125. 'undermine' your freedom to choose white men 99.9% of the time?

is that your idea of democracy? tokenism and sexism...that's as hilarious as it is pathetic.

[Muddleoftheroad]

130. Freedom

Should I so choose, I can run for either Virginia Senate seat tomorrow. I might not win, but then again who knows. I can vote for anyone I want for either seat.

Yeah, freedom. It's a bitch, ain't it?

[Catherine Vincent]

116. This may have already been said but,

I think it should always be 1 Dem and 1 Rep. And if any other party want to run, so be it. Whichever two win the majority. Of course the tiebreaker would be the VP.

[foo_bar]

127. what would Che do?

The woman as cook can greatly improve the diet and, furthermore, it is easier to keep her in these domestic tasks; one of the problems in guerrilla bands is that all works of a civilian character are scorned by those who perform them; they are constantly trying to get out of these tasks in order to enter into forces that are actively in combat.

http://www.cubaheritage.com/articles.asp?artID=89

[Zan_of_Texas]

131. It's about access and money

David,

Interesting idea. You certainly flushed out some reactions!

I've been saying for a while, hey, the fellas have f*cked things up pretty well. Ya had yer turn. Give us the next 300 years, or 2000 years, and see how the gals could do. Only fair.

We'll reverse the current representation, just to be really fair. There are now 14 women in the Senate.

So, a switch would be 86 women, 14 men.

By the way, there are now zero African-Americans. There have been four total in the history of the U.S. Senate. There are now zero Hispanics. One Asian-American, one Native American.

Most of the members of the Senate are millionnaires. I think the issue is access to money, to get there.

Jim Hightower says we could publically finance all federal elections for $1 billion. That's chicken feed -- we spend that much in less than a month in our ill-advised invasion of Iraq.

Public finance, plus federally-mandated time on all TV networks for candidates to speak.

Then, maybe the people would be represented, not just the corporations (which move offshore to avoid paying taxes, send our jobs elsewhere, and then vy for federal contracts, paid for by tax dollars WE paid).

[Woodstock]

133. Men, try this on for size - close your eyes and imagine this

You wake up tomorrow.

There's a female president. And vice president. And there have always been female presidents. From the beginning. Males don't even bother running, because they know in some parts of the country, people won't vote for them just because they are men.

In congress, about 9 out of 10 representatives are female.

You can vote, but that right only came to you late in the country's history. Used to be you couldn't own property or go to college or follow your dreams. Now you can do those things, but still, the country is being run largely by women. You still make less than women for the same work. And some of these women think they should decide whether you live or die by forcing you to do what they want you to do with your body.

The female president and the largely female congress routinely vote on what is good for your health and well being, nay, your very existence. You think maybe it would be good to have your voice in the mix, but are told, be patient, change takes time. Maybe in 50 years a man will be president. Be patient and wait your turn, it will come some day.