@freemo I can see it an easy way to partially fight discrimination by picking minorities, who have a much better likelihood of understanding the issues, a better likelihood of having experienced the problems. We have, never in history, really complained about appointing a slate of white men. This isn't something that should bother us either.

This gets a pass from me.

@JonKramer

I have quite often complained about appointing a slate of white men.

That said, if they were good picks and clearly the top priority was ability, not race, then I wouldnt care what race they are... But when you do things like pick a VP because she is a black woman AND has a horrible track record supporting bills harmful to women, then yea we have a problem them.. Assuming someone will be better with social justice simply for being a rich black person is just idiotic.

@JonKramer Also for the record the US congress matches the % of white people in the population rather well.. Both the general population, and the senate, are 75% white. So the idea that there arent enough minorities isnt true either.

@freemo , in a democracy, rule of the majority is the law. 75% white, if they vote "white" is not a good thing for society at large.

Democracy is two lions and a lamb voting on lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb resisting the outcome of that vote.

Our system is flawed. Minorities can't win, even when they deserve to.

@JonKramer By that logic the smallest minorities need to have the largest perportional representation... We need more eskimos in congress!!!

Racial politics is always a failure, the only solution is to stop giving merit points to people for their race.

@freemo , I agree with you in principle, but disagree in practice, because we have a whole bunch of bigots who win elections. I think we need to address that issue before we should complain about addressing the historic abuse of minorities. Ranked choice voting? That will undercut party power...