The 30% Solution: Voting for Women is Only Half the Battle
Posted by: madamab on: August 31, 2009
- In: Feminism | Hillary Clinton | Human Rights | misogyny | Open Thread | Patriarchy
- Comment!
Photo By Ruven Afanador for The New York Times
If you acknowledge that there is a 30% critical mass that women need to reach in federal governments before their concerns are addressed on a societal level, you probably also acknowledge that the United States has not come close to reaching that goal. Only 17% of our Congressional representatives are women at the present time. As a result of the silencing of American women’s voices at the highest levels of government, we have a society in which misogyny is institutionalized and widely accepted by both men and women of all ages. Think about Chris Brown, who beat a woman almost to death and got probation, whereas Michael Vick, who tortured and killed animals, got jail time. Clearly a society in which this travesty of justice takes place is out of balance in a deep and fundamental way.
But as to what to do about it, well…that’s where opinions vary wildly.
When proposing a big change in public policy, I always feel it’s best to look at other countries where that goal has been reached, and then see if there is some way we could do the same thing here. It turns out that in 18 of 22 countries with 30% female representation or greater, there has been a quota system and/or a Constitutional amendment in order to enable it to happen. Not only that, but none of those countries have our bizarre two-party system, which Dr. Raymond Smith has termed “The American Anomaly” in his new book, which compares our system with other democracies around the world. (Guess what? We’re, um, an anomaly.)
So, we don’t have a quota system, a Constitutional amendment (ha! we haven’t even gotten the ERA!) or proportional representation in America, but we know that some combination of these factors seems to be necessary in order to reach that magic number of 30%. Considering the existing political climate, I believe that the best approach for American feminists is to put pressure on both parties to adopt a voluntary quota system, and agree to put at least 30% women on every ticket by 2014. In fact, that was one of the things our local PUMA group was going to do, and I think we should still try to do it at The Widdershins.
Think about it. We can vote for every woman that we see on any ticket, but what if only one Party puts women forward in your area? Or what if there are a decent number of women, but they are not qualified, or they are running against each other? Or what if there are no women on your local ballot at all? I do not think it is reasonable to expect conservative women to vote for liberal women, or vice-versa. So wouldn’t it be good if both conservative AND liberal women had a choice as to which woman to vote for? Ah, such luxury, to pick amongst many women instead of putting all your eggs in one basket, so to speak! And the more women in the system, the more comfortable men will be with voting for women as well.
I have said often that I believe that social progress in America is only going to come through women, and the men who support them. If we don’t do something to get more women in the pipeline, we are going to have some very, VERY slow social progress. With Our Girl going around the world spotlighting the cause of women’s rights everywhere, it seems as if the days of gender inequity flying under the radar are passing. Is the time ripe to work with NOW (under new, promising leadership) to start putting pressure on both parties, so we can possibly see some action in the next few years? Should we tackle single-payer first, or can we multi-task?
What do you think?
This is an open thread.
67 Responses to "The 30% Solution: Voting for Women is Only Half the Battle"
August 31, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Wow, nice one, SHV!
It’s strange the way this has all happened in America. We are still a young democracy and we have to do everything in a “uniquely American” way or we’re commie pinkos, apparently.
I don’t buy that at all. Let’s look at other countries which have done what we want to do, and then learn from their successes (and failures). Who the h@ll cares what we call it, as long as works!
August 31, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Although certainly a voluntary quota system would seem to be a pretty non-threatening way of doing it. At least, I would think so!
August 31, 2009 at 1:37 PM
That picture of Hillary is beautiful. She just keeps on getting better as she ages! No wonder Bill fell in love with her, brains and beauty wrapped in the same package.
August 31, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Is she not gorgeous, CNAK? And that pantsuit is rockin’.
I know this post is sort of academic, folks, but I think it’s important to point out why women are so poorly represented here in America (besides the oligarchy/patriarchy, of course) and to offer a means for addressing the problem.
I really wanted to go on record with these ideas, which we developed in NYPWR, and show why I disagree with other “new feminists” about voting for women being the answer to our problems.
I think conservative women should have the luxury of voting for conservative women, and liberal women should have the luxury of voting for liberal women. We should not have to accept whatever the Parties decide to put forward…they are supposed to be working for us!
To me, this is the best way to move our country forward.
August 31, 2009 at 1:57 PM
This is a fascinating post (but then, I’m of the academic sort:-).
Isn’t there a precedent of sorts in at least one party, the Dems, which did — as I recall — adopt quotas re race and, I think, gender in terms of delegates to national conventions? (Of course, how the Dems abandoned rules in their national convention is a sore point, but it’s another point.) If they did and can do so intraparty for their party conventions, why not on their party ballots?
And if my recollection is correct that Dems did this, did the GOP also do so? Btw, there also have been fascinating academic studies of why GOP women in general have moved farther and faster. It has to do, per one study, with party structure in 1920, when the GOP brought women right into party committees and such but Dems relegated them to an auxiliary. Of course, then some women GOP delegates got other poor treatment, anyway, but it’s never easy. It’s just that it can be impossible if not made possible — i.e., if not pushed.
August 31, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Cream City:
In 1919 the Executive Committee of the National Democratic Committee, anticipating the ratification of the constitutional amendment permitting women to vote, decided on September 27th, to admit women to membership. In 1920 Miss Charl Ormond Williams was elected vice chairman of the National Democratic Committee. In 1936, at the Democratic National Convention held in Philadelphia, women were named as alternates to the platform committee for the first time, with the privilege of voting when regular members were not present and now, on February 5, 1940, the Democratic National Committee meeting in Washington, has passed the following resolution:
“Whereas, it is the sense of this committee that women be given an equal voice in the affairs of the Democratic party.”
“Now, therefore, be it resolved, that this committee recommend to the next Democratic National Convention a consideration of a resolution there to be introduced, providing that each State, District and Territory shall name two members to serve on the committee on platform and resolutions, and that the members so designated by each State, District and Territory shall be of the opposite sex.”
In addition, resolutions passed provided that four delegates-at-large be chosen from each State for each Senator in Congress and it was recommended to the States that one-half of those delegates be women.
At present, in the Democratic party, women have fifty-fifty representation on the state committees in 38 States. Only 9 states in the Union do not give women equal representation on some of the political committees, either by party regulations or by law.
Even more important than these gains, however, is the caliber of women chosen for political offices. I hope that every woman is going to feel a great responsibility, not only in holding party offices, but in choosing those who are to hold these offices and who will, therefore, represent the women of their communities.
August 31, 2009 at 2:07 PM
Oh I dunno…I understand the concept of it but MB, what if we get a bunch of Sarah Palin’s and that’s what are on the ballot? Do we want to put them in office?
After what I read about in Kansas (you knew I’d get this in here!) I don’t know if we have the collective intelligence to put forth a decent list of women candidates.
August 31, 2009 at 2:11 PM
So, quotas were adopted at one point, and were very successful, at least in the DNC.
Back in the days of women’s suffrage, the parties that were most friendly to women’s rights were the Socialist Workers Party and Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose Party. The Democrats and Republicans both were fairly hostile to the cuase.
August 31, 2009 at 2:13 PM
Fredster – Why would the Democrats put Sarah Palins forward?
Why would Democratic women vote for them? Or liberal Independents, or Liberals Without a Party?
That’s why we need more women in the pipeline.
August 31, 2009 at 2:18 PM
MB: I was reading the link you had and in some countries if the list of candidates didn’t include the % of women it was rejected. I interpreted it as being for both parties.
Why would Democratic women vote for them? Or liberal Independents, or Liberals Without a Party?
So you aren’t espousing the “vote for a woman, no matter who it is” line?
Wasn’t that what some were suggesting, that you vote based on gender, no matter what or whom?
August 31, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Fredster – Did you see the title of my post? LOL
That idea of voting for women no matter what, is what I am trying to refute. I think that idea simply leads to electing certain women, not increasing women’s representation.
If your goal is increasing women’s representation, then the way you vote is only half the battle. The other half is getting more women to be put forth by both parties.
August 31, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Madamab, re your voila! post, that excerpt actually masks that the reality was the opposite, the problem that it was the Dems that relegated women to an auxiliary, which gave the party control of its budget, etc. Dems always have been good at making themselves look good in press releases and the like.
The result is that it was GOP women who were first in Congress, usually first in state legislatures, more numerous since, etc.
August 31, 2009 at 2:33 PM
MB: Gotcha. But you know the other thing was going around the blogs for awhile too and I didn’t think you had gone over to the Dark Side! 
August 31, 2009 at 2:43 PM
So what I was talking about was not the devious step of the Dems in 1920 — and those numbers were negligible on committees and used as maximums, not minimums — but the massive 1968 rules changes re delegates, at least in regard to race, though I can’t recall if or to what extent re gender, to their conventions. I’ll try to find that somewhere when I can, as it may be more applicable.
All that said, of course, I don’t trust Dems and their rules a darn bit, because we’ve seen that they abandon them at will.
August 31, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Fredster – What kinda makes me mad is that I feel like the idea “vote for all women no matter what,” which leads to craziness like TNA offering Michele Bachmann for our consideration, is a perversion of the 30% Solution, which I came up with during the primaries when I was still thinking Palin was not as right-wing as she turned out to be.
I never intended for voting for women to be the only solution for increasing women’s representation. I was hoping at one point that PUMA could be either a third party or just an independent voting bloc, which could help put pressure on the Parties to put more women on their slates. Obviously that is not going to happen, so maybe we Widdershins or whatever we call ourselves, can make it happen.
August 31, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I don’t trust either one, the Dems or the Republicans. That’s why we need a lot of people to pull this off.
Maybe working with NOW or another women’s group….
August 31, 2009 at 2:56 PM
For info. — There are now 24 countries with 30% women or more: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm The US ranks 68th in the world in the percentage of women in the national legislature. In 1997, when the Inter-Parliamentary Union first started tracking the data, the US ranked 41st: http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/arc/classif010197.htm
August 31, 2009 at 2:59 PM
Fredster – What kinda makes me mad is that I feel like the idea “vote for all women no matter what,” which leads to craziness like TNA offering Michele Bachmann for our consideration, is a perversion of the 30% Solution,
Exactly.
August 31, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Can someone explain to me where this 30% target comes from, and why we’re setting the bar so low? Women are half the population (a little more, but let’s say half for convenience). So why would it be fair for us to be represented by any less than 50% of legislators?
From what I gather, the 30% number is a formula based on some theory for achieving critical mass in legislative behavior — the idea that once there’s enough women in office, they will use their combined strength to advocate for women. OK, assuming that’s true, that’s fine for underlying strategy, but it’s a difficult idea to market to people.
For one thing, the “30% solution” requires way too much explanation. Critical mass is not a mainstream concept. What about the states that already have 30% or more women in their legislatures? Are we to consider AZ, CO, CT, HI, MD, MN, NV, NH, NJ, NM, and WA “solved?” You may say, oh, but that’s across both houses, not in the same body. But that’s just more detail that muddies the message.
To me, where we need to build critical mass is not around some obscure percentage goal, but around the demonstrable fact that women are underrepresented in government. All you have to do is show people: “Look, women are half the population, but there’s only one woman on that 7-member board.” The examples are endless and obvious. I never have any trouble getting people, including men, to acknowledge that if half of our citizens are women, that half of our leaders should be women. Sure, there can be lots of supposed “reasons” offered, but the basic fact is stark and indefensible. It’s a simple issue of fairness — a concept that comes naturally to most people.
So please, let’s not confuse people with formulas that understate the extent of the injustice.
Women are UNDERREPRESENTED.
That’s UNFAIR.
I want my HALF, dammit!
*****A
August 31, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Usually, Adrienne, I get a lot of pushback with even this modest goal. Most people, men and women, do not seem to be on board with gender equity. They equate it with affirmative action and dismiss it, not understanding the larger reasons why women must be correctly represented in any country’s legislature.
I think that if we can get this idea to more people, perhaps women’s organizations, then we will have a better idea of how to market it. The fact is that 30% is a critical mass argument which has scientifically been proven to work in all the 22 countries where it has been tried. It’s only obscure in America, really; countries all over Europe and Africa recognize the importance of 30%.
Of course, our ultimate goal would be 50% or more. So sister, we are singing from the same hymnbook! I appreciate your input very much.
August 31, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I don’t trust either one, the Dems or the Republicans. That’s why we need a lot of people to pull this off.
*********
Well, the place to start is researching who will be running in Congressional races in 2010. Pick out the women, research their bios and starting sending then some money or offer to help. I try to support challengers who are running in third tier media markets; small contributions have “more bang for the buck”. ActBlue was a good starting point for finding liberal women to support. You do need to be psychologically prepared to be in for the long haul. In 2008, I help to support ~ eight female candidates and the only “winner” was Donna Edwards and that took several tries.
August 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Seems to me, you can advocate for more representation ’til you’re blue in the face, but if you don’t have sufficient numbers of women motivated to run for office, you’re just exercising your vocal chords. Whatever arbitrary number you use to set the bar, you need that many more because the law of averages says some of those candidates are going to lose. So, if you want 30%, you need twice that number to run. How do you motivate that many women to public service at present? How do you instill the kind of wherewithal necessary in the Twitter generation? I’m not dismissing the concept, loathe as I am to instituting any more arbitrary quotas than we currently have, but, the problem of adequate political representation is complex and needs a multi-faceted approach, imo.
And, not to be unnecessarily adversary, but, I don’t see where NOW’s new leadership is so promising.
August 31, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Way O/T But maybe this explains something:
Missouri school district bans t-shirts for acknowledging evolution.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/31/evolution-missouri-tshirt/
August 31, 2009 at 4:04 PM
latda-see my first entry today on this thread.
I shared it in an email to mb late last night after I got it and then got calmed down.
I’m gonna need some good dental coverage in addition to basic health care cuz I’m grinding the shit outta my teeth when I read crap like that, especially the teacher/mother’s comments.
August 31, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I want my HALF, dammit!
And really, women should have at least half of the representation.
August 31, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Sorry, Fredster, I didn’t hit the link on your comment above. Has it all always been this bad, everyone, or is it all really getting worse?
And I thought I was nervous about going back to bigotville, LA. I could stay in AZ for this. I knew I would not get through this day without saying “Screw the Fundies”.
Arizona Pastor Steven Anderson has received national attention for dedicating an entire sermon to “Why I hate Barack Obama,”
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/31/az-pastor-brain-cancer/
Now I am listening to his sermon at his church website: “A Time to Hate” regarding Homosexuals.
Sorry, Rev, you should be preaching about masochism today because I am way into that obviously. I think I will listen to one of your sermons, Rev, the next time I’m getting it on.
August 31, 2009 at 4:36 PM
This is not a quota, it has nothing to do with the federal government.
It has to do with the DNC agreeing to bolster the field of women running for office with a goal of 30% women doing so by 2014.
I think it’s a great idea, not just because I’ve been discussing it for months with mb, but because it makes sense.
August 31, 2009 at 4:40 PM
OT..
“LOS ANGELES, California (CNN) — Pop star Chris Brown has admitted guilt and apologized for assaulting his then-girlfriend Rihanna in February, but he does not remember hitting the singer, he told CNN’s Larry King.”
(snip)
POS should have gotten at least six month to help him improve his memory. At the sentencing hearing, it was reported that the latest abuse, that he “couldn’t remember”, was at least the third “incident”.
August 31, 2009 at 4:40 PM
The parties cultivate candidates, they don’t just appear out of the blue.
And their backing to men and women is important. $$$$$$$$$$
I find it hard to believe the DNC and RNC can’t cultivate just as many qualified women to run as men.
August 31, 2009 at 4:41 PM
Maybe the percentage should be higher, Adrienne. What is the percentage now for each party, backing candidates male vs. female.
August 31, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Mad,
Now that I am awake from my nap I’ll try to be a little more academic.
Yes on multi-tasking and for those who can’t or don’t want to multi-task they can chose one issue (single Payer) and work on that. When that one is done they can join us on the other.
Like Fredsters concerns, I feel the same. If we decide to try help put forth Republican women, I’m cool, though half hearted, with that part. I will not support them, nor vote for them, help get them in the pipeline no problemo.
I will support work for and vote for a liberal/third party man who holds my principles before any Republican woman. Can’t go that far with any Republican, no way, never. Sorry. Pipeline loading I will help do.
Can we just call ourselves who we are, The Widdershins? We are who we are and I don’t like being called by another name that could easily be astroturfed. The Widdershins can not be asrtroturfed cause we won’t allow it. Kinda gives me a feeling of comfort/safety? On that, it is jmho, I’m open to discussion though.
PS: I still think that is one hot picture of Hillary, academic or not! LOL
August 31, 2009 at 4:42 PM
la-t-da permalink
Sorry, Fredster, I didn’t hit the link on your comment above. Has it all always been this bad, everyone, or is it all really getting worse?
That’s okay. What got me was the teacher/band mom saying evolution doesn’t belong in our school.
The comments on the KC Star article, thank God, reamed her a new one and rightly so. She shouldn’t even be allowed to teach!
August 31, 2009 at 4:46 PM
It has to do with the DNC and RNC agreeing to bolster the field of women running for office with a goal of 30% women doing so by 2014.
********
Unlikely to happen. How about generating a list of women candidates for House races in 2010 and if possible “throwing a few bucks” or other support to their campaigns. Even if their odds of winning are slim, the more effective the campaign the better.
August 31, 2009 at 4:47 PM
I really don’t care to much about the republicans, but it usually comes down to the states and ideology who gets elected. (Red State, Blue State)
The problem is there are not enough women running and the parties are not backing/supporting enough women candidates.
I’m cool if we focus on the DNC only! They are gonna be fuckers about it anyhow!
August 31, 2009 at 4:53 PM
SHV, I totally agree that supporting local candidates is important. I am going to do a follow-up post about Leslie Crocker Snyder in Manhattan.
Cinie, you might want to check out Women Count. They run seminars all over the country for young women who want to run for office. They are being overwhelmed with tens of thousands of applicants. So, the desire is there, especially after 2008.
And I think the leadership of NOW is promising because the ERA is back on the table. They seem to be refocusing on actual concrete goals rather then being in lurv with our Super-De-Duper Feminist Preznit.
August 31, 2009 at 4:54 PM
And, not to be unnecessarily adversary, but, I don’t see where NOW’s new leadership is so promising.
They are to new to tell right now. I am willing to give them a chance and am glad to be rid of the Gandy clusterfuck who supported Obama and his feminism.
August 31, 2009 at 4:55 PM
P.S. I am going to probably be out for the rest of the workday – am crazy busy today. Thanks to everyone for the lively discussion!
August 31, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Mad,
That is promising if they are promising to put the ERA back on the table. Bout time someone did!!!!!
August 31, 2009 at 5:00 PM
If we decide to try help put forth Republican women….
**********
Sorry not me. With Republicans, bat shit crazy supersedes gender. There are enough Dem. women running in Red districts that don’t fall into the standard liberal definition but are a sh*t load better than the Rethug that they are running against.
Here is an example: Lainey Melnick
http://www.laineyforcongress.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=frontpage&Itemid=1
August 31, 2009 at 5:07 PM
I hear ya SHV! It is tough….. how do you feel about the DNC?
August 31, 2009 at 5:16 PM
SHV,
I’m with you regarding
With Republicans, bat shit crazy supersedes gender. There are enough Dem. women running in Red districts that don’t fall into the standard liberal definition but are a sh*t load better than the Rethug that they are running against.
I am just trying to be a team player ( and I will) on that part about helping put them in the pipeline. It does sorta make me throw up in my mouth a little though. Don’t tell Madamab, ok?
August 31, 2009 at 5:31 PM
Madamab,
While we are multi tasking can we also work with NOW to help them on the ERA if it really is on the table?
August 31, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Absolutely, CarolineNAK. The ERA is my number one priority.
The new leader of NOW, Terry O’Neill, went to DC and stood beside Carolyn Maloney when she re-introduced it.
“The time is long overdue for a constitutional guarantee of equality between the sexes. Throughout the history of this country, women have faced systematic and purposeful discrimination. Women were conspicuously absent from the Constitution when it was drafted more than 200 years ago, and today, women still have no explicit legal guarantee of equal protection. As such, we know the ERA must be ratified to ensure meaningful and lasting equality for all women,” Terry O’Neill, newly-elected President of the National Organization for Women said.
August 31, 2009 at 5:47 PM
hello all homo from work or should I say your favorite Homo is homo from work….Madamab did you like my video? The fact that it began with 2 NHS EMTs singing FU was just so much here I will share it again.
August 31, 2009 at 5:57 PM
Fuzzy!
I can’t listen to videos at work. Sigh. But I’m sure it is fabu!
Check in with you all later. Mwah!
August 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM
MB-why not get federal funding for campaigns for congress to do the job? Or even put rules in place for private campaign funding?
For instance if you party does not achieve these gender and racial “goals” by 2014 for seats at the congressional and senatorial level, your candidates will be prohibited from collecting donations or donation bundles of over $ 50.00 from any individual PAC or Political Organization including the national or state party party coffers(ie DNC or RNC)?
Your Congressional and Senatorial candidates will have a Cap for fundraising of $ 1,000,000.00 for congress and $ 5,000,000.00 for senatorial candidates that are outside of the gender “goal” groups established.
for example:(names and places changed to protect the guilty)
Incumbant Senator Henry HillHater (R NC) runs against D challenger Sandra Candoit (pronounced Can do it) (in this case niether party has achieved its mandated “goal” of 30%) Sen Hillhater is limited to $ 5 million in spending while Candidate Candoit has no limits on fundraising and spending. guess who has the advantage to get there message out.
Second example 2 men run niether party has achieved goals both are limited to $ 5 million for the senate seat.
I like this system because it provides a financial insentive for the parties to run women and minority candidates…and in politcs money talks.
and if we raise the bar for goals evey 4 years day 30% 2014, 35% for 2018, 40% 2022, and 50% for 2026….it might help us get rid of the dead wood up on the hill faster than the grim reaper can!
August 31, 2009 at 6:30 PM
how do you feel about the DNC
********
POS!!!!! The Dem leadership both at the Party level and Congressional level is a disaster. The problem is: How do you change it?? Massive change in leadership usually comes after an election disaster, which could happen in 2010. But are we better off with major Rethug gains in the Congress and new leadership or same leadership and moderate Rethug wins???
August 31, 2009 at 6:33 PM
I like this system because it provides a financial insentive for the parties to run women and minority candidates…and in politcs money talks.
********
I am not quite sure how to get the number this early but I would be interested to know what % of Dem Challengers are women or minority.
August 31, 2009 at 6:45 PM
Rep. Carolyn Maloney has been reliable on ERA; she has re-introduced the legislation every Congress since the late ’90′s. Ted Kennedy had re-introduced ERA in the senate since, well, forever.
August 31, 2009 at 6:45 PM
taggles that is a good one too. I thought the 2 NHS EMTs would warm your heart as in the UK (home of “natonal healthcare” the system enjoys 70%+ popularity.)
Interestingly enough this is accross all party lines…in the UK.
Sadly the right wing conservative attacks on the British system may be angering the subjects of the UK so much that the only way for them to take out their flustration will be to vote Labor in the upcomming ellections. Costing the Torries (also called Conservatives) there best chance of retaking Commons in 15 years…
It may also strain our relations with england too if it looks like our refusal to come up with a universal healthcare system is seen a Britian Bashing!
August 31, 2009 at 6:46 PM
France is happy to nolonger be the focus of so much american hatred…
August 31, 2009 at 6:51 PM
FYI Isreal also has a very successful National Universal Healthcare System….
Oh and they have had more women leaders than the Ol’ USA
August 31, 2009 at 6:58 PM
OT…….Fundie Gone Wild..
“ristin Maguire, chair of the South Carolina State Board of Education, has resigned from her position for all the wrong reasons. She has been a religious right, and has opposed the teaching of evolution in the public schools; she has also promoted that worthless ‘abstinence only’ sex education. She should have been fired for basic incompetence. But no, that is not sufficient reason to kick someone out of office in America. What gets American politicians in trouble?
You guessed it: sex. There were unverified rumors of inappropriate behavior, but what really got her was that she has a history of publishing hard core erotic porn on the internet, under a pseudonym — ordinary stuff, of the sort you can find on all kinds of sites, like Literotica, all over the place.”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/for_all_the_wrong_reasons.php
August 31, 2009 at 7:04 PM
SHSV see that just sucks she resigned because she is ashamed that she like to have the occasional orgasm….and help others have them too I suppose…
She gets todays honorable mention for the “Fuzzybear Self-Righteous Fundamentalist Hypocritical Ingnorant Bigot Award” I am sure there is some preacher out their who deserves to walk away with the gold medal on this…
August 31, 2009 at 7:43 PM
That fundie woman has SINNED!
So, Fuzzy, I love your ideas. The “or else” has to be defined or we won’t get anywhere. We do need to grow a lot before we can actually hold anyone accountable for not living up to their agreements. I think financial accountability is a great plan.
And upon reflection and discussion with taggles, I also am willing to let the Republican women fend for themselves. Let’s face it, they steal all our good ideas, so if we are successful with the DNC, I am sure they will imitate us with the RNC.
And frankly, TNA is doing quite well pushing Repub women. Let them continue!
August 31, 2009 at 7:53 PM
we need to push harder for Liberal Democratic women in congress we cant let our woen be outnumbered by their women…that would not be right errr correct!
September 1, 2009 at 9:27 AM
[...] when feminists and PUMAs of a feminist stripe promote various means of advancing women’s political representation, most often through [...]
September 1, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Taggles, That new thread thats up continues this conversation also.
Comments are closed.
L 2012 – Support Your Local Lefties!
Recent Comments
 | madamab on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
 | Eddie on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
 | HT on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
| madamab on New Year’s Eve Widdershi… |
| madamab on Happy New Year – We… |
August 31, 2009 at 1:07 PM
(Guess what? We’re, um, an anomaly.)
*******
And the anomaly has a name..The Duverger Principle (or Law):
“In political science, Duverger’s law is a principle which asserts that a plurality rule election system tends to favor a two-party system. This is one of two hypotheses proposed by Duverger, the second stating that “The double ballot majority system and proportional representation tend to multipartism”[1]
The discovery of this tendency is attributed to Maurice Duverger, a French sociologist who observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the 1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other political scientists began calling the effect a “law” or principle. Duverger’s law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a party system and an electoral system: a proportional representation (PR) system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system.”
(snip)
wiki