Is it racist for a minority to vote for a minority candidate based on race?

[Algher]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
I’m sorry I don’t have time to reply to all the posts in this thread, but I’ll just address this most recent one.

The argument is that, whatever experience white people living in America have in common, those experiences are already well-represented in government. Whatever experiences black people have in common are not. Therefore it is OK to vote for a black candidate in order to increase that representation, but not to vote for a white candidate for the same reason.

I take some of you to be arguing that there is no such thing as a common black experience. I can’t really speak to that, but I’ve heard a lot of thoughtful black commentators say otherwise. That it is different to grow up in America as a black kid instead of a white kid. I don’t really have any basis on which to disagree, not having had that experience.

Marley23, do you believe in colorblind politics? We ought not have any sort of racial classifications?

ETA: I would add that I think the most prevalent form of racism is the sort of implicit associations identified by the famous Harvard IA test. This racism is based on skin color, not national origin, etc., which is why I’ve been using the term “black” instead of “African-American.” If one believes the results of this test, all people with certain skin characteristics would experience some of the subtle results of this racism in their life.
[/QUOTE]

Given the vast number of attorney millionaires running our government, I disagree with the statement all whites are well represented in our government.

I am a gen X, white male, hetero, married once (still married to wife #1 that is), practicing Christian, middle class, educated (one graduate degree), father of two sons, former military, gun owning, rural raised, suburban living American.

Now white is only ONE factor in there. To claim that I am appropriately represented because a group picture of Congress shows a lot of white faces is racist. It assumes that the color of their skin is the dominant factor in representation.

I do not disagree that being a member of a minority group is not a factor. However, a poor white might do a better job than a wealthy black in truly representing all issues that our black voter might want done.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
I understand what you’re saying, but I think the implication of your statement is exactly the opposite of what you explained. Otherwise, why even bring up the concept of race?
[/quote]
It depends on the context. If there’s a case in which a black candidate faces a white candidate, it makes just as much sense to say “i’m voting for the black candidate, because I think they’re underrepresented” as it does to say “I will vote for any candidate that I believe is underrepresented”. In fact, by specifying the group the candidate belongs to, you’re providing more information; someone might take representation to mean quite different things, and a person might use the second statement to support a member of any group.

For example (I’m in an example-y mood right now): I say that I don’t like way that fruits taste, in general. Then, I say that I don’t like the way that oranges taste, because oranges are a type of fruit. It logically makes sense, but the listener can’t help but wonder if I don’t like oranges maybe because of their tartness. Or maybe because they’re messy. (IOW, I don’t like any fruits, but maybe I have different reasons for different fruits.)

But that’s not your fault. You’ve made your opinion clear - you don’t like oranges because of their taste. If I read into that something more than you’ve said, that’s my problem, not yours. If you had good reason to be specifying oranges, though, it makes sense to single them out.

But it’s not separate from their ethnicity, because the two are intertwined in your argument. The question that I’m asking in this case is: what does it mean that black people are underrepresented? Obviously, the underrepresentation isn’t related so much to the skin color, but to some other type of factor (equal rights, low-income, etc.).

My point is that in all of these scenarios, race is serving as a facade for some other trait. IMHO, people should be placing their votes based on these particular traits, and not on race (or gender, etc.).

But that’s what people are doing. They’re not voting for people because they’re black, or white, or whatever. They’re voting for candidates because they believe that black/white/whatever people are underrepresented. That’s my point. The trait people are voting for isn’t skin colour, it’s representation. If I vote on the grounds that the government should reflect a similar population sample as the overall population, i’m voting people based on their representation, not on their skin colour. Look at it this way; if Asians were the majority of government in the UK, a person with the above reason might vote for a white person. If however in the next election the government is 99% white, they might then vote for an Asian candidate. It’s not the ethnicity that’s the trait voted for, but whether the government and overall pop. have similar ethnic proportions.

[John_Mace]

Not Racist: I know Jim Smith, and I know his background, and I know his stance on the issues. I have concerns about how the government has treated people like Jim and me, and I’m voting for Jim because I believe he can do something about it.

Racist: I don’t know much about Jim Smith, but I’m voting for him because he’s the same race as me.

[LilShieste]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
It depends on the context. If there’s a case in which a black candidate faces a white candidate, it makes just as much sense to say “i’m voting for the black candidate, because I think they’re underrepresented” as it does to say “I will vote for any candidate that I believe is underrepresented”.
[/quote]

What is meant by “underrepresented” though? If I vote for someone because they have brown hair, and I say that it’s because brown-haired people are underrepresented in the Senate, people would (hopefully) look at me like I was crazy. There could be 2 explanations as to why I voted this way:

1. I think brown-haired people are smarter than blond-haired people (blatantly racist.. err.. hairist)
2. I assume the brown-haired person can relate to me, because I have brown hair (subtly hairist)

What I’m suggesting is that people choose a third option:

3. Doing some minor research, I find out that the brown-haired candidate grew up in a small town, in a low-income family. He was the first person in his family to go to college.

This would mean that I still voted for the brown-haired person, but it was not because of the color of his hair (i.e., hair color was coincidental).

@Revenant Threshold

But that’s not your fault. You’ve made your opinion clear - you don’t like oranges because of their taste. If I read into that something more than you’ve said, that’s my problem, not yours. If you had good reason to be specifying oranges, though, it makes sense to single them out.

I agree to an extent, but look at what’s happening with Don Imus.

@Revenant Threshold

But that’s what people are doing. They’re not voting for people because they’re black, or white, or whatever. They’re voting for candidates because they believe that black/white/whatever people are underrepresented. That’s my point. The trait people are voting for isn’t skin colour, it’s representation.

But it’s a representation based on skin color. It’s not a representation based on experiences. (It’s a representation based on assumed experiences.)

@Revenant Threshold

If I vote on the grounds that the government should reflect a similar population sample as the overall population, i’m voting people based on their representation, not on their skin colour. Look at it this way; if Asians were the majority of government in the UK, a person with the above reason might vote for a white person. If however in the next election the government is 99% white, they might then vote for an Asian candidate. It’s not the ethnicity that’s the trait voted for, but whether the government and overall pop. have similar ethnic proportions.

And I would argue that this is an example of discrimination, as well. The representation that the person believes they are voting for is completely arbitrary. Just because the person is white, doesn’t mean they should represent white people. IMO, this is the type of thinking that can lead to segregation. (Note: I’m certainly not accusing you of wanting segregation; I’m just explaining my point.)
LilShieste

[LilShieste]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Not Racist: I know Jim Smith, and I know his background, and I know his stance on the issues. I have concerns about how the government has treated people like Jim and me, and I’m voting for Jim because I believe he can do something about it.

Racist: I don’t know much about Jim Smith, but I’m voting for him because he’s the same race as me.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. John has accomplished in three short sentences, that which I have tried to accomplish with several paragraphs.

To me, voting for a person based on their race - because the race needs more “representation” - is just an excuse for not conducting a certain amount of research on each candidate (or even one candidate). As soon as there is another reason for the vote to be cast, this ceases (IMO) to be a race issue.
LilShieste

[Shodan]

I’m assuming that voting against a minority candidate (as a white male) is not racist, since the minority cannot be expected to represent my interests as well as a white male would.

That is to say, Obama by virtue of his race is less well qualified to represent the vast majority of the US population, and therefore should not be elected. Right?

So no blacks should be elected to the White House. And majority white states must elected white Senators, and majority white districts only white Representatives.

There is but one President at a time, and so you can never have a proportionately representative sample of a minority in that office. The only way to justify it is to include the past history of the race of those elected in your calculations (13% of the past 43 Presidents should be black, so we are overdue), in which case you are relying on a politician to represent the interests of dead voters in preference to live ones. Tough sell, to most people.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I’m assuming that voting against a minority candidate (as a white male) is not racist, since the minority cannot be expected to represent my interests as well as a white male would.
[/quote]

Sure, except that this has been dealt with twice in this thread. If you disagree with those points it might help to, you know, rebut them.

@Me

…the same rationale doesn’t apply – whites aren’t underrepresented in government.

@Me

The argument is that, whatever experience white people living in America have in common, those experiences are already well-represented in government. Whatever experiences black people have in common are not. Therefore it is OK to vote for a black candidate in order to increase that representation, but not to vote for a white candidate for the same reason.

@Shodan

There is but one President at a time, and so you can never have a proportionately representative sample of a minority in that office. The only way to justify it is to include the past history of the race of those elected in your calculations (13% of the past 43 Presidents should be black, so we are overdue), in which case you are relying on a politician to represent the interests of dead voters in preference to live ones. Tough sell, to most people.

You can have more proportionate representation in government by having a black president.

Anyway, specious *reductios *aside, I think I did overstate things in the OP. I meant to defend the use of race in specific circumstances, when the voters know that this particular same-raced candidate has shared a particular set of racial experiences (that are not the same as socio-economic experiences).

I agree with many of the points made by others in this thread. I think** John Mace ** and Revenant Threshold have put it quite well.

I’m still not convinced that there is anything inherently racist about the black vote being skewed toward black candidates.

[dgrdfd]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]

The argument is that, whatever experience white people living in America have in common, those experiences are already well-represented in government.

[/quote]

Could you elaborate on this white experience you refer to?

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
The argument is that, whatever experience white people living in America have in common, those experiences are already well-represented in government. Whatever experiences black people have in common are not. Therefore it is OK to vote for a black candidate in order to increase that representation, but not to vote for a white candidate for the same reason.
[/quote]
Well, then you are, in fact, proposing a different and lower standard for black voters than for white ones. Blacks can vote for a black candidate, because that is in their own interest. Whites cannot vote for a white candidate, even though (by your theory) their interests are not as well served as they would be by a candidate who had common experience with them. Whites have to vote for the benefit of someone else; blacks don’t have to.

You can have more proportionate representation in government by having a black president.

Nope, I don’t think you can. There is, as I mentioned, only one President at a time (Hilary’s “co-President” stuff during her husband’s term notwithstanding). Since minorities are by definition in the miinority, and if a candidate is supposed to better represent the interest of those in his or her own ethnic group, then having a minority President means that they are over-represented in the White House.

I’m still not convinced that there is anything inherently racist about the black vote being skewed toward black candidates.

Unless you agree that it is not inherently racist to vote for candidates who share your experiences regardless of who is doing it, then you are trying to put over a double standard. If it is not racist to vote for a black because she is a black, then it can’t be racist to vote for a white because she is white.

Regards,
Shodan

[Argent_Towers]

[QUOTE=dgrdfd]
Could you elaborate on this white experience you refer to?
[/QUOTE]

I’m also curious to hear it. I fail to see how a white factory worker who was just laid off from his job and lives in a trailer, or a white farmer whose farm was just foreclosed, or any number of white homeless people, have anything in common with the government. I don’t think there’s one singular “white experience” in America. Those who are wealthy are empowered. Those who are poor are not. If you’re Jewish, Irish or Italian, some people might not even see you as white. (11 Italians were lynched in New Orleans in 1890.) We can narrow it down with the term “WASP” but even then, WASP is more of an economic term than anything else (being Protestant and being descended from barbarian tribes in Northern Europe does not automatically make you rich or powerful.) The issue of race in America is ultimately superficial in my eyes. The real division is a class division.

[dgrdfd]

[QUOTE=Argent Towers]
I’m also curious to hear it. I fail to see how a white factory worker who was just laid off from his job and lives in a trailer, or a white farmer whose farm was just foreclosed, or any number of white homeless people, have anything in common with the government. I don’t think there’s one singular “white experience” in America. Those who are wealthy are empowered. Those who are poor are not. If you’re Jewish, Irish or Italian, some people might not even see you as white. (11 Italians were lynched in New Orleans in 1890.) We can narrow it down with the term “WASP” but even then, WASP is more of an economic term than anything else (being Protestant and being descended from barbarian tribes in Northern Europe does not automatically make you rich or powerful.) The issue of race in America is ultimately superficial in my eyes. The real division is a class division.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I agree with all of it. The real division in America is class - not race.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=LilShieste]
What is meant by “underrepresented” though? If I vote for someone because they have brown hair, and I say that it’s because brown-haired people are underrepresented in the Senate, people would (hopefully) look at me like I was crazy. There could be 2 explanations as to why I voted this way:

1. I think brown-haired people are smarter than blond-haired people (blatantly racist.. err.. hairist)
2. I assume the brown-haired person can relate to me, because I have brown hair (subtly hairist)

What I’m suggesting is that people choose a third option:

3. Doing some minor research, I find out that the brown-haired candidate grew up in a small town, in a low-income family. He was the first person in his family to go to college.

This would mean that I still voted for the brown-haired person, but it was not because of the color of his hair (i.e., hair color was coincidental).
[/quote]
I agree. Simply saying “so-and-so candidate can better represent me/understands my concerns better because they’re part of my group” can easily just be lazy thinking. That’s the best way to go about it, in my opinion too. And voting for a someone on those grounds only would be subtly racist. But if I do research, and find that as a whole the candidates that share my group do in fact tend to share more with me, then it’s quite reasonable to vote for them.

I agree to an extent, but look at what’s happening with Don Imus.

Good point. But interpretation of racism can be a very different thing from actual racism, and that’s what we’re talking about here.

But it’s a representation based on skin color. It’s not a representation based on experiences. (It’s a representation based on assumed experiences.)
And I would argue that this is an example of discrimination, as well. The representation that the person believes they are voting for is completely arbitrary. Just because the person is white, doesn’t mean they should represent white people. IMO, this is the type of thinking that can lead to segregation. (Note: I’m certainly not accusing you of wanting segregation; I’m just explaining my point.)

I would suggest it’s the type of thinking that leads out of segregation. If one group is looked down on, given the worst end of the stick, and so forth - surely it makes sense that a person who’s lived through that themselves would in general understand your concerns better than someone who hasn’t?

Again of course this depends on whether people do actually share your experiences and you’re not just assuming they do. But again, if you do research and find out for example that in general the lawyer candidates share your own experience as a lawyer, voting for them isn’t, er, occupationist. Like you say, you aren’t voting in terms of their occupation, instead it’s in terms of their background. But saying “i’ll be voting for lawyers” is a good way of summing it up, rather than saying “i’ll be voting for people who did this, and then this, and their families were like this, and they lived here” and so on.

[Richard_Parker]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Well, then you are, in fact, proposing a different and lower standard for black voters than for white ones. Blacks can vote for a black candidate, because that is in their own interest. Whites cannot vote for a white candidate, even though (by your theory) their interests are not as well served as they would be by a candidate who had common experience with them.
[/quote]

No, that’s not true. It is a different standard, but it is not lower. White interests are already being served, and voting for more white candidates on that basis alone only hinders those who are seeking more proportionate representation.

And no one is saying anyone “has to” vote in any way. I’m merely defending those black people you are calling racist.

@Shodan

Nope, I don’t think you can. There is, as I mentioned, only one President at a time (Hilary’s “co-President” stuff during her husband’s term notwithstanding). Since minorities are by definition in the miinority, and if a candidate is supposed to better represent the interest of those in his or her own ethnic group, then having a minority President means that they are over-represented in the White House.

But you’re ignoring my point, which is that the goal is representativeness of government, not just one branch. So having a black president overrepresents the president, but balances the overwhelmingly white congress.

@Shodan

Unless you agree that it is not inherently racist to vote for candidates who share your experiences regardless of who is doing it, then you are trying to put over a double standard. If it is not racist to vote for a black because she is a black, then it can’t be racist to vote for a white because she is white.

It is only a double standard to the extent that, because there are different circumstances, rationales, and implications behind each standard they are different. There’s nothing wrong with that.

[QUOTE=dgrdfd]
Thank you. I agree with all of it. The real division in America is class - not race.
[/QUOTE]

There is both a class division and a racial division. Racism is not dead. To the extent that there is a “black experience” independent from the correlation between race and class it is the experience of going through life with the majority of Americans making implicit or subconscious associations between your skin color and various negative traits. The strong psychological evidence shows this tendency regardless of the persons socio-economic station in life (though it is admittedly stronger for people with outward indicators of low social class).

[LilShieste]

Thanks for the responses, Revenant Threshold.

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
But if I do research, and find that as a whole the candidates that share my group do in fact tend to share more with me, then it’s quite reasonable to vote for them.
[/quote]

I think I’m getting confused by what you mean, here. If you do research on the candidates, and base your vote on that information, then I don’t see any problems. But if you take that information and extrapolate a candidate’s stance, simply because they belong to your group, I feel that that is still discrimination.

It’s like if someone had just met me, and it comes out in conversation that I’m a Christian. Then, the person assumes that I think the earth is only 7,000 years old, and that I think evolution is bunk. I would be slightly offended, because I don’t believe either of those things. (To your argument, though, I wouldn’t think that the person had made a rash assumption.)

@Revenant Threshold

Good point. But interpretation of racism can be a very different thing from actual racism, and that’s what we’re talking about here. I would suggest it’s the type of thinking that leads out of segregation. If one group is looked down on, given the worst end of the stick, and so forth - surely it makes sense that a person who’s lived through that themselves would in general understand your concerns better than someone who hasn’t?

I think you’re right. I’m just saying that you should be sure that the person actually lived through all that, rather than just assume it because of their race/group.

@Revenant Threshold

Again of course this depends on whether people do actually share your experiences and you’re not just assuming they do. But again, if you do research and find out for example that in general the lawyer candidates share your own experience as a lawyer, voting for them isn’t, er, occupationist. Like you say, you aren’t voting in terms of their occupation, instead it’s in terms of their background. But saying “i’ll be voting for lawyers” is a good way of summing it up, rather than saying “i’ll be voting for people who did this, and then this, and their families were like this, and they lived here” and so on.

I would argue that it is actually occupationist. (heh) Simply because you’re assuming a candidate’s qualifications based on their occupation.

I want to re-iterate that I don’t think that these are completely unreasonable assumptions - internally, I think they’re logically sound. Problems come from those assumptions, though, because they may not be true.

One more (out there) example…
A presidential candidate is a member of a group of people with long hair (get the idea of “hippies” out of your head, right now). It’s known that 90% of people in this group grew up in a household with an income level of about (USD) $15,000 per year. This particular candidate actually grew up in a household with an income level of about (USD) $150,000 per year.

Not knowing the facts, is it unreasonable for people to have assumed that this candidate had grown up in a low-income household? Of course not (statistically speaking, it was very likely). However, it is still discriminating to the candidate if a vote is cast against him under this assumption.
LilShieste

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
No, that’s not true. It is a different standard, but it is not lower. White interests are already being served, and voting for more white candidates on that basis alone only hinders those who are seeking more proportionate representation.

[/quote]
Actually, by most definitions altruism is a higher standard than self-interest. So you are attempting to apply a lower standard.

Blacks can vote for their own interests, but whites are supposed to concern themselves with the interests of everyone else. Concern themselves, in fact, to the extent of voting for someone who will not represent their interests as effectively as would someone who shared their background.

But you’re ignoring my point, which is that the goal is representativeness of government, not just one branch. So having a black president overrepresents the president, but balances the overwhelmingly white congress.

We are making progress, then - you see why having one black President over-represents black interests. Now apply the same standard to Senators - unless they come from majority black states, they are not representing the interests of the majority of the people of their state. Senators are supposed to represent the interests of their state, and of the country as a whole. Both their state (for the most part - is even Mississippi majority black?) and the country as a whole is, by majority, white.

I am assuming for the sake of the argument that your theory that racial background necessarily means that someone is better qualified to represent the interests of those with a similar background, is true. I will also assume, subject to your correction, that you mean “all other things being equal”.

It is only a double standard to the extent that, because there are different circumstances, rationales, and implications behind each standard they are different. There’s nothing wrong with that.

I think you are conceding here that there is a double standard, and that the “different circumstances” means essentially that it is different for blacks than it is for whites, or should be. Fair enough - if you are comfortable saying that a double standard is necessary to avoid the charge of racism when blacks vote for their interests but trot it out when whites vote for theirs, I rest content. ISTM to be fairly clearly a case of someone trying to get over on me, but pretending that what is really in their own interests is for my benefit.

It’s a good deal like the threads about how we should jigger the election process in the US so that third parties can get people elected. It always seems to come from folks who cannot otherwise muster a majority for their positions. Having failed to persuade, they turn to manipulation of the process. Likewise here, as with Lani Guiner’s notions on how best to set up elections so that the minority is guaranteed some desired outcome. Or gerrymandering, for that matter.

Regards,
Shodan

[Quartz]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
**Shodan **disagrees. He says this means having different rules for whites and blacks. It is in some sense true that the rules are different (I would call it racist for whites to vote for whites on the basis of race). However, it is because the same rationale doesn’t apply – whites aren’t underrepresented in government. Moreover, the two races have had very different histories which explain and justify different voting behavior.

What do you think?
[/QUOTE]

I think you’re mistaken. And trying to justify racism to boot. If it’s wrong for one group, it’s wrong for another.

A black person who votes for a candidate purely because that candidate is black is racist. History has nothing to do with it. You judge a candidate by their policies, personality, and character, not by the colour of their skin.

[Richard_Parker]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
Actually, by most definitions altruism is a higher standard than self-interest. So you are attempting to apply a lower standard.

Blacks can vote for their own interests, but whites are supposed to concern themselves with the interests of everyone else. Concern themselves, in fact, to the extent of voting for someone who will not represent their interests as effectively as would someone who shared their background.
[/quote]

By your logic any policy that asks for the support of some groups that are not benefited by that policy creates a lower standard for the benefited group. That’s silly. You’re also assuming that more proportionate representation doesn’t also benefit whites. But I’ll leave it there instead of assigning racist motives like so many have been quick to do here.

@Shodan

h
We are making progress, then - you see why having one black President over-represents black interests. Now apply the same standard to Senators - unless they come from majority black states, they are not representing the interests of the majority of the people of their state. Senators are supposed to represent the interests of their state, and of the country as a whole. Both their state (for the most part - is even Mississippi majority black?) and the country as a whole is, by majority, white.

We’re not making progress because three posts in you still don’t understand the basic point. Yes, you can view it in a position-by-position basis, like you keep pointing out. Our you can view it on a government-wide basis, like you keep intentionally disregarding. You’ve offered no reason why we should not do the latter.

@Shodan

I think you are conceding here that there is a double standard, and that the “different circumstances” means essentially that it is different for blacks than it is for whites, or should be. Fair enough - if you are comfortable saying that a double standard is necessary to avoid the charge of racism when blacks vote for their interests but trot it out when whites vote for theirs, I rest content. ISTM to be fairly clearly a case of someone trying to get over on me, but pretending that what is really in their own interests is for my benefit.

It makes sense to have a different standard. If it makes you feel better, we don’t even need to phrase it as two standards. We can phrase it as one standard. How about: It is only OK to take race into account in voting when you’re doing so to increase the representation of the underrepresented.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
By your logic any policy that asks for the support of some groups that are not benefited by that policy creates a lower standard for the benefited group. That’s silly.
[/quote]
In this case it does. And I suspect you realize that “that’s silly” is not much of a refutation.

You’re also assuming that more proportionate representation doesn’t also benefit whites.

I don’t see any reasons you have given that electing more black folks is of any benefit to whites - just the opposite. Your major argument is that blacks will do a better job of representing other blacks than whites would do. I haven’t seen you give any reason why blacks overall are better for whites than whites are for blacks, in elected office.

We’re not making progress because three posts in you still don’t understand the basic point. Yes, you can view it in a position-by-position basis, like you keep pointing out. Our you can view it on a government-wide basis, like you keep intentionally disregarding. You’ve offered no reason why we should not do the latter.

I understand the point perfectly - I just reject it. If you view it on a government wide basis, as I did in my last post (and at least one previous), then representatives are elected who cannot be expected to represent the interests of a majority of their constituency. They don’t have the background.

It’s perfectly simple. If whites and blacks have differing backgrounds, and if differing backgrounds necessarily imply that a person of one background cannot effectively represent the interests of someone from a different background, then it follows that whites cannot represent blacks. It also follows that blacks cannot represent whites. Thus to vote based on these reasons in one case but not in another is a double standard. Therefore it is either racist to vote based on race as a proxy for differing backgrounds, or it is not.

QED.

How about: It is only OK to take race into account in voting when you’re doing so to increase the representation of the underrepresented.

This is very much like what I mentioned at the end of the previous post. I am expected to do blacks a favor, against my own interests, because they can’t win elections on their own, and need my special help.

I’m not much on affirmative action in general, and the voting booth is no exception.

Regards,
Shodan

[Richard_Parker]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
If whites and blacks have differing backgrounds, and if differing backgrounds necessarily imply that a person of one background cannot effectively represent the interests of someone from a different background…
[/quote]

You’re making it into a stronger claim than it actually is. But I’ll leave it there and let the rest of your post speak for itself.

[mlees]

Memo <date>
From: Michael Hunt, Undersecretary Equal Opportunity Manager, State of New York
To: Richard Parker
Subj: U.S. Senatorial Election Application

Sir, this notice is to inform you that your application to be included on the 2008 Primary Election Ballot has been received by this office on <date>.

Unfortunately, it is with regret that I must inform you that the application may not be approved, based on the information you submitted.

The recent Equal Opprtunity laws passed in 2007 (HR 6765, and SB 1444) require that all races, creeds, religions and lifestyles must be represented in the US Senate on a proportion equal to that which is found in the general US population as of the most recent US and NY State census’.

It has been determined by the NY Department of EO that your qualifications do not match those required by the statutes and census’ mentioned above, and therefore your application must, regretably, be rejected.

The following areas are found to be inconsistant with fullfiling the requirements of the EO laws in the following Key Assessment Areas:

<lists your entries for ethnicity, gender, religious preference, reported income level, etc.>

It has been determined by the Secratary for Equal Opportunity Employment that the needs of the US Senate, as outlined in HR 6765 and SB 1444, would be best filled by a candidate who is a lesbian African-American Female, aged 35-45, Hindu, income level of 35-45k annually, and 45% disabled.

Very Respectfully, <signature>

Michael Hunt, #### Chestnut Avenue, Albany, New York, 12209