From: mss2@ellis.uchicago.edu (Michael S. Schiffer)
Subject: Re: More elections, a victory...
Reply-To: mss2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago Computing Organizations
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 22:30:34 GMT

In article <RANDOLPH.92Nov5175918@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM> randolph@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) writes:
>"Michael, what do you think a group with actual different interests
>should do?  And what of a group that is not allowed to join your
>'majority?'"

	"I'm not sure what you mean by my `majority'.  But my whole
point is that I don't really believe that groups defined by sex or
ethnicity _have_ `actual different interests' as such.  It's true that
these groups have interests which might, due to their heritage, be
more crucial to them (women in general have a more direct stake in
combatting sexism than men do, for example)-- but I don't think that
sex equality is a women's issue, or that racial equality is a black
issue.  If they were, no discriminatory law would ever have been
repealed.  Since I think that groups like blacks, women, Hispanics and
such are politically heterogenous, I don't see what's to be gained by
ghettoizing them and giving them special black seats and women's seats
and Hispanic seats in legislative bodies.  Conversely, if you do that
there would _never_ be a black governor or a black senator (save by
creating special black states) because members of those groups would
be participating in parallel political structures with no crossover,
and never have a chance to build a broad enough base for national
office.  Basically what is being created is the political equivalent
of the Negro Leagues.

	"What groups who are _actually_ disenfranchised should do is a
different question, and not a relevant one in modern politics (unless
one is addressing the rights of children, or immigrants, or some such,
which we're not).  But I'll point out that voting rights for women and
blacks were _not_ acquired by gerrymandering them representation--
indeed, it was acquired when they were virtually unrepresented
directly, by the agency of those bodies of mostly white males we've
been discussing.  This was only the final act of a great deal of work
in which blacks and women respectively were critical, of course-- but
neither of them could have been successful if they couldn't have made
allies.

	"Now, if the question is what should be done if one represents
a minority political opinion, well, that's the oldest problem in
politics, and the reason that turning a problem over to government in
the first place should always be a last resort.  But the traditional
method is to form a coalition with other people with whom you can
reasonably ally, and exchange favors.  In the U.S., the two major
coalitions are the Democratic and Republican parties.  The two ways of
co-opting them are a) working from within to make one's interest part
of one of the parties' programs, or b) creating a third party with a
large enough base and make it necessary for one of them to co-opt
enough of the program to attract its voters (this latter phenomenon is
why third parties generally don't win, but can be influential in
politics nonetheless).  If a group can't gain allies, then it can't
gain political influence in a democracy, period, and won't be able to
do anything even if all of its voters get to vote as a block for a
single legislator (this, to belabor a point, is why democracies should
be structurally heavy on limits to government power and guaranteed
political and civil rights)."

Michael

-- 
Michael S. Schiffer, LHN, FCS	"Indeed I tremble for my country
mss2@midway.uchicago.edu	 when I reflect that God is just."
mike.schiffer@um.cc.umich.edu	 -- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
mss2@amber.uchicago.edu     Virginia (1784)