The current democratic voting process was never meant to incorporate women, and as a result, women now hold the upper hand in politics. The reason being, women make up the majority of the voters. Since this is a democracy, and majority rules, something needs to be done, otherwise, women always being the majority, will always ''rule''.
Politicians know this; they know they must cater to the majority if they want to be (re-)elected, which is why they [politicians] passed laws such as VAWA which only protects women, and not men. (Note that the newer VAWA has been modified a bit and is more 'equal'.) Just like advertisers know they must make ads that cater to women, since women are the majority of consumers, especially cleaning products.
If a female tried out for president and played her cards right, she would easily be voted over other male - possibly more qualified - candidate. Sure, not *all* women are going to vote for a female president, but neither will *all* men vote for a male president. We might as well say they cancel each other out.
So right now, women are the ones who decide who’s in power.
I can already hear all the feminists saying: ‘’There isn’t as many women running for president as men!’’, but the fact is, there never will be. The reasons being that women often choose to bear children. Becoming pregnant is a big no-no for a female president. Therefore only women who do not want children will run for office. Furthermore, whether you like this one or not, women don’t find ‘’conquering %26amp; ruling the world’’ as entertaining as men. This is supported by empirical scientific evidence, since possessing a lot of power is something males want to impress the females. I could state more reasons, but I’ll stop here. (This is just to say for the feminists that we will never, ever have an equal amount of females in every job.)
A sex-based proportional democratic voting process would be a democratic voting process where voters are divided into 2 groups; males, and females.
Here is the equation for the SBPDVP to find out the % of voters voting for X candidate:
*** 100(total # of mv voters / # of mv voting for X candidate) ***
Do the same for women, then greater % wins. It would have to be done for every candidate, but it’s elementary.
Example (using simple #s): 50 men are going to be voting, and 150 women are. All those 50 men are going to vote for Barak Obama, and all the 150 women will be voting Hillary Clinton. As it stands, in our current system, Hillary would win with 75% of votes while Obama would lose with only 25% of votes, even though 100% of the men voted for him. The fair thing to do would be to make it proportional. The proportional way to do it would be: 50/50 men voted for Obama which is 100% of men while 150/150 women voted for Hillary which is 100% of women. Then, this would translate to 50% of votes go to Hillary, and 50% to Obama.
I know currently we don’t need it too much, but as the time comes, we will need it more %26amp; more.
What do you think? Would you support such a voting system? Why or why not?
Why do feminists not lobby for a sex-based proportional democratic voting process (long, long, long question)?
This sounds awfully complicated, why not just disenfranchise women?
Reply:Appropriate answer. The reason it sounds so "awfully complicated" is that it makes zero sense, is completely confused, and contains about 50 self-contradictions. Report Abuse
Reply:First, the People do not elect the president, politicians do.
Second, in the 2004 presidential election, 54% of the votes cast were by women, 46% by men. Approximately 86% of all registered voters vote.
I think voting should be mandatory for every qualified citizen and the minimum voting age should be 25 except for military personnel, which should be 18.
(I don't feel like going into why, just offering my opinion).
I also wonder if Americans would not get a better representation by selecting legislators and other politicians by means of lottery instead of ballot. Every registered voter's name placed into a drum and drawn. If drawn, they would be required to serve for 2 years, kind of like selective service works for men (when it's used) but less sexist.
Reply:The problem with your analysis is that women only make up something like 51 or 52% of the electorate. That isn't enough to swing things so dramatically, because they don't vote as a bloc.
Reply:1. This is not a democracy. It's a republic. A republic has nothing to do with "majority rule," or our legislators like the ones who attempted to ban abortion in South Dakota in spite of the fact that a referendum showed people clearly did not want it would not be wasting their time trying to pass idiotic, partisan laws while ignoring real important issues. The U.S. president is not voted for by popular vote, but by electoral college.
2. Women make up 15 percent of the whole legislature. One out of the nine Supreme Court justices is female. This is not even CLOSE to being representative of women's numbers in the actual population. "The majority" does not get to pick Supreme Court justices. One person does: the president.
3. You obviously know nothing about politics and your question sounds completely and utterly ridiculous.
______________
You are totally confused. The VAWA is an American law and, as far as I know, there has been no need for a parallel law in Canada. Why are you using American laws as examples if your system is intended for a government like Canada's?
______________
Repeat - for clarification of huge holes in argument - CANADA HAS NO VAWA. So why are you talking about a country that is a democracy with a VAWA? THE U.S. IS NOT A POPULAR OR PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY.
______________
LMFAO @ Moth %26amp; Phil #3. Seriously, do you guys just make s.hit up when you run out of things to say? Hilarious. Do you get together in fantasy dream-land and invent imaginary facts? Neither of you knows what the hell you're talking about.
Total voting turnout for the 2004 election was more like 61% (64% according to the Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/... ), down to as low as 53% for the state of South Carolina. In non-presidential year 2006, we got a WHOPPING 41%, as low as 29% in D.C.
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2...
http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2...
You guys are awesome.
__________
OK, I got it from the Census Bureau: "The voting rate of citizens who were registered rose sharply in 2000 as 86 percent cast ballots, compared with the all-time low of 82 percent in 1996, according to a report released ... by the Commerce Department's Census Bureau" (http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/... ). Still, what does the unsurprising fact that registered people usually vote have to do with anything? What about the almost half of the eligible voting population that is not voting, many of whom are apparently men?
Reply:When women actually do hold the "upperhand" maybe we could take this question a bit more seriously. How can you expect anyone to seriously worry about the state of these affairs when historically we've never even had a single female president?
I would like to see the actual statistics on just how many more women there really are than men in this country. I doubt we outnumber men by much. But even if we do, it really would take a whole lot more women voting (and all voting exactly the same way, mind you) to do as you've suggested.
What makes you think that women don't already (and won't in the future) make educated voting decisions? You seem worried that it all women were to vote, that we'd elect some idiot to run the country. I wonder how many men (vs. women) voted for Bush?
Personally, I don't see the need to divide people into gender groups to vote. We're already divided by geographical area and populace. I think that's enough. If we divide people into groups by gender, next we'll be dividing them by race, age (younger vs. older voters), or sexual orientation. What's the point? I think the system is adequate the way that it is. I think more women need to get out and vote. I think men should stop worrying that women can't make rational voting choices.
My message to women: educate yourself in politics, on the issues, on the candidates, and get out there and VOTE!
Just my opinion.
EDIT: I did read it. I just don't agree with you.
Reply:No. This makes sense only to you. You go into the voting booth, you close the curtain, no one knows whom you voted for and why. And it doesn't matter, except for the final count. 50 "people" vote for Obama, 75 "people" vote for Clinton, Clinton wins. Proportion, my a55.
Now if you wanted to eliminate the Electoral College, that's a different story. As it is, try working for the candidate you support and stop wasting time with this nonsense.
PS: you givin' 40 acres and a mule, young feller?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment