November's elections has me thinking about diversity in 2010:

[newtothegame]

Are we at the point where we can start expanding the definition of "diversity" when it comes to elected positions? Up until now, diversity has for the most part meant more women and more African-Americans.

It has rarely meant GBLT.
It has rarely meant adding Asian-Americans, or Native Americans, or single mothers, or AIDS or cancer victims.
It has never meant adding victims of abuse, or citizens who could never afford college, or artists.

Why is that? If your goal is truly diversity of experience, with someone bringing a different perspective than the usual, wouldn't a single mother's perspective be more distinct than someone whose skin tone just happens to be a bit darker? Or how about someone who is battling AIDS, or cancer?

As a black male, I can certainly appreciate the initial intent here. But again, if the goal is truly diversity of EXPERIENCE, we probably ought to look beyond race and gender.

[RKP5637]

1. Yep, ALL excellent points!!! n/t

[handmade34]

2. yup... shake it up

but that is a bit disconcerting for the white man in control

[Skidmore]

3. Agreed. Currently, the right wing is actively seeking to splinter

groups which should have common cause and which have traditionally been part of the left wing. We need to understand that they have all of us fighting over not the same pie or even the same piece of pie, but over the crumbs on the floor. We need to band together and ceding this election to them is not the way to do it.

[Romulox]

4. Many (most?) advocates of diversity will actively fight to exclude diversity of class

:shrug:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. And, perhaps more importantly, economic diversity.

The problem is that upon election one is catapulted into the top 6% of income.

Maybe Congress should be paid the median household income, adjusted annually. The better they do their job, the better they're paid.