Infographic about representation in congress

[KingNothing]

http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1104/congress/transparency.png

The biggest graph (with the dots) is just for republicans vs. democrats vs. other. But check out the smaller graphs comparing what would actually reflect the american people (on the right) and what is actually there in congress (on the left).

Particularly, the gross under-representation of females and people not affiliated with a major religion. Just thought you might enjoy this information, happy easter.

 

[Al68]

Particularly, the gross under-representation of females and people not affiliated with a major religion.

That's only if you use a very different definition of "representation" than is used in "House of Representatives". In the latter, representative means representative of their constituents' interests, not their race, gender, etc.

 

[Office_Shredder]

This graphic sucks. They incorrectly state the male/female ratio as 50/50 in the US, and their religion portion has two "Other" options.

The breakdown of proportions don't even add up to 535 - this isn't just a single error, it's all over the place and includes the 'current' side of the image.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The breakdown of proportions don't even add up to 535 - this isn't just a single error, it's all over the place and includes the 'current' side of the image.

You mean there aren't 99 transgendered members of Congress?

Look, this is not about facts. You got to look at the big picture. Facts are so..so...20th century.

 

[KingNothing]

Seems like the pundits on PF just aren't happy with any graphic.

 

[DavidSnider]

This doesn't look that bad... (other than the male/female ratio). It's pretty easy to see how the "other" gets eaten by both sides. Most independents do lean toward one camp or the other.

and I agree with Al, just because you aren't the same race as somebody doesn't mean you automatically disregard their interests.

 

[WhoWee]

http://awesome.good.is/transparency/web/1104/congress/transparency.png

The biggest graph (with the dots) is just for republicans vs. democrats vs. other. But check out the smaller graphs comparing what would actually reflect the american people (on the right) and what is actually there in congress (on the left).

Particularly, the gross under-representation of females and people not affiliated with a major religion. Just thought you might enjoy this information, happy easter.

Re-districting aside - is it possible the most diverse populations are in the largest cities - that racial and religious diversity in rural areas is less diverse?

 

[Char. Limit]

Simple way to fix the male-female problem: relocate all males to half of the nation, and all females to the other half. Make sure that half of the districts are all-male, and half of them are all-female.

There ARE no other solutions. Probably because it's not as much of a problem as people like to say it is. For example, men vastly outnumber women in congress. But guess what, women's rights are going along just fine. Gee, I wonder why?

 

[WhoWee]

Anyone know how many of those people listed as "other" describe themselves as communist or socialist?

 

[Office_Shredder]

Anyone know how many of those people listed as "other" describe themselves as communist or socialist?

In congress or the whole population?

 

[WhoWee]

In congress or the whole population?

:rofl:My guess is Congress has more communists than the general population.:rofl:

 

[drankin]

Behind every single male representative there is at least a few working women. :)

 

[Char. Limit]

Also, can someone PLEASE fix the resolution on those images? I use a 1366x768 computer and they're too big for me. That's a sign that your image size is, just like the rent, TOO DAMN HIGH.

 

[Office_Shredder]

they're too big for me.

Yeah I hear that a lot

 

[mege]

Much of the discrepancy can be accounted for by the urbanization of the coasts (and their subsequent DNC leanings).

Compare the Representatives (including Senators) per population for any heartland state versus the Reps/pop for CA or NY. You'll see that the larger the state's population the less per-capita representation they have. This is by design to prevent states throwing their weight around population wise and totally overshadowing less populated states. The only minority that the constitutional framers recognized was a local minority, and their geographic distribution of power in congress and the electoral college illustrates that.

I think, with today's culture, it's mostly self-selection that prevents women, non-religious and minorities from running for public office (all for different reasons).

 

[Char. Limit]

Here is another thought. To simplify things, let us assume a few things about this nation, none of which are actually true, but which provide a good illustration:

1. Say that the population of America is 60% Religion and 40% Non-Religion.
2. Say that the Religion and Non-Religion people are evenly distributed in the districts (that is, each district is 60% Religion and 40% Non-Religion)
3. Say that Religion people will only vote Religion, and Non-Religion people will only vote Non-Religion.

Then, although 40% of the population is Non-Religion, 100% of the Congress will be Religion. Why? Because Religion is the majority in every district.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Here is another thought. To simplify things, let us assume a few things about this nation, none of which are actually true, but which provide a good illustration:

1. Say that the population of America is 60% Religion and 40% Non-Religion.
2. Say that the Religion and Non-Religion people are evenly distributed in the districts (that is, each district is 60% Religion and 40% Non-Religion)
3. Say that Religion people will only vote Religion, and Non-Religion people will only vote Non-Religion.

Then, although 40% of the population is Non-Religion, 100% of the Congress will be Religion. Why? Because Religion is the majority in every district.

You win the prize.

Add to that the fact that the "Religion" people would cut up the districts to make sure they have a majority in every district and you get a bonus.

 

[WhoWee]

You win the prize.

Add to that the fact that the "Religion" people would cut up the districts to make sure they have a majority in every district and you get a bonus.

Do you have any support for this "fact"? Re-districting is a complex (IMO - convoluted) process.

 

[Proton Soup]

Here is another thought. To simplify things, let us assume a few things about this nation, none of which are actually true, but which provide a good illustration:

1. Say that the population of America is 60% Religion and 40% Non-Religion.
2. Say that the Religion and Non-Religion people are evenly distributed in the districts (that is, each district is 60% Religion and 40% Non-Religion)
3. Say that Religion people will only vote Religion, and Non-Religion people will only vote Non-Religion.

Then, although 40% of the population is Non-Religion, 100% of the Congress will be Religion. Why? Because Religion is the majority in every district.

yeah, the thing is though, if it's something people care enough to vote on, then it probably also affects their clustering in a population. this is clearly obvious within individual religious groups. mormons/catholics/muslim/baptists/jews tend to "congregate".

 

[Ryumast3r]

Do you have any support for this "fact"? Re-districting is a complex (IMO - convoluted) process.

Yes: Utah.

They cut up Salt Lake city into "tiny" pieces and spread it out amongst all three of the state's representatives. The only reason Utah has had 1 representative that's democrat in the last 20 years is because he got quite lucky, and then people in his district discovered that he's really more of a moderate guy and not all that bad.

There have since been proposals to cut it up more (with the 4th rep. coming in) to get rid of the dem, but Utah residents have started telling the republican party that they won't stand for it.


The "fact" as you say is also common sense: Those in power wish to keep it, most of the time. Why would they fairly re-district things (unless threatened by the people under them with recall or something similar), when they could keep the status quo (or make it unfair) and keep their power? They wouldn't. (most of the time)

 

[kraphysics]

I don't see what the big deal is. People seem to have this inherent notion that everything must be in proportion or somehow it's not right. That may or may not be true. Yes, males outnumber females but what does that have to do with anything? Perhaps it is supposed to imply some kind of discrimination? I'm not really sure but that's what is implied by the OP. Is there really discrimination against women in politics? Does this statistic mean that women's issues are being underrepresented? As a consequence, do women lack rights because of it? These are some of the facts that must be established before, a meaningful discussion as to why it's a problem can take place.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes: Utah.

They cut up Salt Lake city into "tiny" pieces and spread it out amongst all three of the state's representatives. The only reason Utah has had 1 representative that's democrat in the last 20 years is because he got quite lucky, and then people in his district discovered that he's really more of a moderate guy and not all that bad.

There have since been proposals to cut it up more (with the 4th rep. coming in) to get rid of the dem, but Utah residents have started telling the republican party that they won't stand for it.


The "fact" as you say is also common sense: Those in power wish to keep it, most of the time. Why would they fairly re-district things (unless threatened by the people under them with recall or something similar), when they could keep the status quo (or make it unfair) and keep their power? They wouldn't. (most of the time)

Is Utah representative of the entire country?

 

[Proton Soup]

Is Utah representative of the entire country?

yes. jerrymandering has been a problem across the country for a long, long time.

 

[KingNothing]

Is Utah representative of the entire country?

Yes, to some extent, just like all the other states do. We have a rich history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering" - just like every other country who's political system allows for it.

 

[KingNothing]

I'm not really sure but that's what is implied by the OP.

Just thought you might enjoy this information, happy easter.

I would appreciate if you took the time to at least read the original post before making assumptions about it.

 

[kraphysics]

I would appreciate if you took the time to at least read the original post before making assumptions about it.

Well sorry I see you didn't state that. I knew I was assuming that but I thought that was implied by the question?

 

[Ryumast3r]

Is Utah representative of the entire country?

yes. jerrymandering has been a problem across the country for a long, long time.

Yes, to some extent, just like all the other states do. We have a rich history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering" - just like every other country who's political system allows for it.

Like they said, to an extent. Of course it's not going to happen in the entire U.S. the exact same way as it does in Utah, but the general principle is the same. The states that still allow gerrymandering still do it, at least a good portion do, if not a majority, on both sides of the table (dems do it too). Like I said: It's about power, and keeping it.

 

[KingNothing]

Well sorry I see you didn't state that. I knew I was assuming that but I thought that was implied by the question?

Hi Kraphysics, I'm not trying to get in your face about it, it's just a touchy thing for me. I had an old girlfriend who would always make assumptions about what I meant or what I felt, and it drove me crazy. Though I can understand where you might make an assumption that a thread starter has an agenda, be careful of the times you may be wrong, because you may offend someone. Thanks for joining the discussion!

 

[Char. Limit]

I think a much better and more telling graph would be a graph where we see how many members of congress feel a certain way about an issue (say, abortion, but anyone will work) and then the other side shows how the general population feels about that issue. Sound good? Well, it's impossible.

 

[WhoWee]

yes. jerrymandering has been a problem across the country for a long, long time.

The claim made in post number 17 was that re-districting was done on the basis of religion.

 

[Char. Limit]

The claim made in post number 17 was that re-districting was done on the basis of religion.

Ah, actually I was using "Religion" and "Non-Religion" as just a general example of "two things that separate large groups of people". Although I don't know if he meant it the same way.

 

[Ryumast3r]

Ah, actually I was using "Religion" and "Non-Religion" as just a general example of "two things that separate large groups of people". Although I don't know if he meant it the same way.

The claim made in post number 17 was that re-districting was done on the basis of religion.

oh woahhhh no no no! Guess I should have clarified? I meant that gerrymandering was done on the basis of party politics, not religion, I was just using Char. Limit's example of religion.