This weeks readings include articles by Suzanne Dovi and Katherine Tate (recommended), both of which focus on representation in congress. While there are many theoretical arguments presented the debate boils down to which type of representation is best for marginalized groups: descriptive or substantive? Descriptive representatives are those who share demographic characteristics with those their constituents (i.e. a Latino congressperson is best suited to represent a Latino/a). Substantive representatives are those who focus on the interests and needs of various groups (i.e. a congressperson of any race who work substantively for what they perceive to be black issues). I would like to hear your views on this debate and more generally how our representative democracy should best represent an increasingly diverse nation.
Other food for thought that you might want to comment on include:
Substantive and descriptive representation are not mutually exclusive. Minorities can be well represented by a politician who is of their ethnicity (descriptive) and who has a better understanding of their interests and needs (substantive). However, I believe a representative who has the same ethnic background as the people they are trying to represent would gain those peoples respect much faster than another politician who doesn't share their ethnicity. If a Latino population is represented by a Latino politician, they have much more common ground and probably hold much of the same values and ideals. This is not to say that a politician who is not Latino couldn't represent those people effectively, but why not be presented by someone who is familiar with your culture and has experience as being of that ethnicity out in the world. A descriptive representative would have a better understanding of what the people he or she is representing would need and value because that representative has walked in those people's shoes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Amy. While a substantive representative could represent minorities, I think a descriptive representative is more preferred. Just by looking at the exit polls for the 2008 election you can see that the minority groups overwhelmingly voted for Obama over McCain. Also, the "first time voters" voted Obama 69% to McCain's 30%. To me that means that people voted for the first time during Obama's run because they finally had someone who they could relate to. Substantive representatives would be great if they were honestly focused on minorities needs. A lot of politicians that are desperate for votes will say whatever people want to hear, without any follow through. For that reason, I think descriptive representatives for minorities, like Amy said, are more respected because they share similarities.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I think our country would benefit more with a substantive representation, but in reality the way our country works Americans prefer descriptive. I feel that we choose this type of representation is because we feel comfortable having people similar to ourselves lead us. Like Sophia and Amy mentioned substantive representation would help minorities which would increase their representation in congress and other parts of government. Yes it is clear similarity between individuals bring people together, but sometimes we forget that differences can also bring people together and open new ideas and perspective. I found it interesting when looking at the exit polls in 2012. In the questions about Top Qualities Romney had a higher percentage on all of questions besides the "cares about people like me" this just showed if Romney targeted more to minority groups and non-republican voters he could have had a better chance of winning the election.
ReplyDeleteI feel like descriptive representatives,those who share demographic characteristics with those their constituents, are what most people what to vote for just because they would feel a little bit more comfortable with them. It would be hard for other races to trust each other even if they do say that they will work on the issue that plague them. This is especially true with people who are not that informed on politics. The less they know the more they will most likely choose people based on their looks and less on things of substance. On the other hand, substantive representatives are those who focus on the interests and needs of various groups. I feel like the more people know about politics and the issues they want to resolve, the more people will pick substantive representatives. Also, since America is getting more and more diverse I believe it will be necessary to to pick substantive representatives as there are too many different races to all be "descriptively" accounted for. As shown in the exit polls 95% of black voted for Obama in 2008 and a smaller 43% of whites voted for him. This shows that descriptive representatives are still favored but it also had to do with his stance on certain issues. This though raises the question of what other races not represented will do and who they will vote for. We will need more data and only time will tell what will happen but without a doubt people will have to pick substantive representatives and have to get more involved in politics too.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sami. We would all love for a substantive representation because that would be both beneficial for our country, but in reality, people feel that they can relate more when it comes to descriptive representation. It is sad because sometimes people are not well informed and only vote for a person based on their descriptive representation before even finding out what that person stands for and their differing political views. If people could find a mixture between descriptive and substantive representation, I believe that this would be mutually beneficial for both the voters as well as the politicians. If someone could represent a group of people based both off of their physical traits as well as their political views, people would really be able to fully relate. Unforutnately, we do not live in a perfect world, and we are going to encounter a person in every group who may look the same as everyone else, but they have views that are much different than the others. If we want to make a change, people need to start think about choosing substantive representatives versus descriptive representatives. If people want to see a change in society, they need to start voting for representatives based on the needs and interests of their various groups even if they do not relate to their race or ethnicities.
ReplyDeleteDescriptive representation offers a common ground between the representative and the minority group being represented, while substantive representation creates an ally between different ethnic groups to achieve a common goal. Both forms of representation work for the needs of the community and in my opinion I feel that it should not be limited to just one form of representation. Although speaking from personal experience minority groups tend to support not only a descriptive representative but also a substantive representative due to the common ground shared, which would be the minority status. To limit it to a group would be to limit the opportunities that could grow from the ally-ship created between the different forms of representation. An example would be that my parents voted for President Obama because of his minority status and not because of the policies that he campaigned for. This erases any political connection between the forms of representation because it basis itself on the idea of communal struggle.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Sara. I think that Minorities vote for both descriptive and substantive representation. I think that in general, we assume that people running for office who appear to be like us, advocate for issue that matter to us. I think it would be ideal for there to be people in office that represent us both substantively and descriptively. It's empowering for communities of people whether they be of ascribed characteristics, such as race and ethnicity, or geographic, to see that someone from that community is actually working for the betterment of that community. I know that in "The Black Community" a lot of people supported people like Bill Clinton and John F. Kennedy because they appeared to support issues that mattered to a lot of Black people.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to how the government should look to represent the people, there needs to be more people with ideologies other than Republican and Democrat, more people of color, more women, and more people that didn't go to Ivy League schools.
Based on the exit polls from 2008 and 2012, all minorities had a stronger vote toward Obama, the democratic candidate with descriptive representation. Rather than a white anglo-saxon protestant in office, they view Obama as a strong candidate for representing their views based on demographic characteristics. Of course, it's also important for this candidate to have substantial characteristics in order to focus on some of the interests and needs of the group. Usually, descriptive representation comes with substantial representation. For example, if there was a woman in office, policies such as birth control and contraceptives would have a viewpoint based on experience, rather than men making decisions on issues that don't pertain to them.
ReplyDeleteFurthering what Sami, Alyson, and a few others have said, I agree that substantive representation should hold more weight than descriptive representation. While there is definite truth that in our society the physical manifestation of your race, ethnicity, gender, and class does effect your experience, and therefore electing a representative who shares that same demographic profile makes sense. I think this goes with what Justice Sotomayor was saying about her interpretation of the law versus that of a white male: of course (for better or for worse) your race and ethnicity, as well as gender and class, play a role in how you perceive the world around you and how the world perceives you. On the other hand, I think to vote exclusively for representation on a descriptive level is passive. It takes more exploration and research of a candidate and the issues at hand to vote in someone who represents you substantively. I think that it is a smarter, more informed voter who votes for a candidate based on substantive factors. While politics have created a sort of "canned" identity for major party members which often manifests itself as "if you have x,y and z as your personal profile, then your policies will match a, b, and c". The problem is that there are always exceptions to rules, and to assume one's political stance based solely on a physical appearance is problematic.
ReplyDeleteTo show an increasing diverse nation I feel that descriptive representation would be best, though at the same time it is not in the best interest. For example picking people whom you feel fit your description: female, male, bi-racial, Hispanic, white, homosexual, etc. Whatever the description may be, one will obviously feel they can relate to the candidate as they too share similar descriptions. This particularity is not a "bad thing" and does show the diversity of our nation because it creates not only diversity of race but creates the diversity in opinions. However picking someone just because of the color of their skin or gender is not the best choice as one should educate themselves on their candidates stances of different topics. Substantive and descriptive representation are not mutually exclusive so one may actually find themselves voting for a person that fits both categories or one over the other. Ideally substantive representation in government is the best representation because the whole point of picking these people is for the growth of the economy and choosing people you think will best do so. When looking at the percentages of the black population voting for Obama I feel this was a result from Obama fitting in both categories. We should note, the black population showed significantly high numbers supporting the Democratic party even before the candidate was of mixed race. Some people state this was due to only descriptive representation but I feel it is not true.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alyson. I think it would be better to have a more substantive representation. This way our ideals and beliefs will be represented. But this doesn't always happen. I think we sometimes automatically assume that someone that looks like us would have the same experiences and thoughts as we do. Being Asian, I cannot say I identify with the other ethnicities within the Asian group. They might have similar experiences, but we could still differ on a lot of big issues. Like Danielle said, seeing minority representation is kind of empowering, but I don’t think it’s always the best way to decide on a candidate this way. Descriptive representation gives us the feeling of a more personal connection with our representatives, but they could still have different opinions than ours. I think it’s better to look for a substantive representative. It would be even better if that representative fits into a minority group, but it shouldn't be the deciding factor.
ReplyDeleteWhile it is true that many Americans believe descriptive representation is the only way to ensure their beliefs are represented in Congress, I think substantive representation might be best in most cases. While I would love to see a Congress that is more diverse in terms of race and ethnicity, gender, and religion, descriptive representation does not always ensure the needs of that selective group will be adequately represented. It is more important to have a body of government that cares about diverse issues, than a racially diverse body that cares about selective issues. For example, Republicans have used Marco Rubio, a Tea Party Conservative who happens to be Latino, in an attempt to attract more Latino voters. However many of Rubio's political positions alienate the Latino voter. The qualities we were born with (ei, race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation) should not dictate who we can relate to and represent or who we can vote for.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, a substantive representation would be best in this increasingly diverse nation we live in. Descriptive is more focused on the demographic characteristics. So given the example above that for descriptive representation would be for example a Latino congressperson would best suit to represent the Latino population. As this is true, there is the comfort feeling everyone has when they see their own race/ethnicity held in leadership because they could relate more with traditions and beliefs. But that is just for one particular group. This country is made up of more than just one ethnicity. Descriptive representation can somewhat turn into more bias based because of how ethnicity and race plays a role in it. It is easier to relate when there is a descriptive representation, but substantive gives the bigger picture of what we should be more focused on. Substantive focuses on the needs rather than what demographics we have. It focuses less of where we came from and more of where people are living today, in a diverse nation and sharing it together. Substantive representation I believe would give more focus on what this country needs in order to grow together as a diverse country, where as descriptive representation would narrow more into segregating ourselves with demographics even more.
ReplyDeleteI personally think that substantive representation is the best form of representation. Substantive allows for the really political issues to be the main focus in government. While descriptive representation is good in that the representatives share some characteristic (whether it be race, ethnicity, etc.) with their constituents. Like Jasmine said, I think that it is more important to have a government that cares more about a diverse range of issues, as opposed to a racially diverse body that only cares about certain issues. Issues should always be at the forefront of politics, not race. I think we as voters should listen to the issues, and not vote for people based on their race or ethnicity.
ReplyDelete-Katelyn Schweitzer
I think it is very important for Congress to better reflect the diversity of our country. While substantively non-Latinos, for example, can do plenty of good for the Latino community, nobody will understand what kinds of things that they go through except a member of that group. When it comes to subtle discrimination, white people have a harder time seeing it due to it not directly happening to them. It is easier for change to occur when you have a first hand account of life.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if a politician does not actually do anything to help their own people then it does not matter that they share the same skin color. However, I feel that there is still a higher chance of real change happening if we diversify our elected officials. we are a highly diverse country, and our government should reflect that.
I agree with my most of my classmates. Like Lilly said, “In our society the physical manifestation of your race, ethnicity, gender, and class does effect your experience, and therefore electing a representative who shares that same demographic profile makes sense.” For example my parents would vote for a president that is Indian or Pakistani just because he or she would have the same profile as them. Since we live in such a diverse country it would be nice to live in a descriptive representation. I personally think that a substantive representation is the best because it would help everyone in America. At the same time I understand why we live in a descriptive representation in todays world because people think they have more common beliefs with someone they can relate to. In the 2008 and 2012 polls more African Americans voted for Barack Obama just because he is also an African America. I think that this because they hope that some good will come out of his presidency for them. In today’s world people judge you based on your physical appearance or beliefs so it is important for us to be in a substantive representation just so everyones interests and needs are spread across America.
ReplyDeleteI agree almost everyone's comments thus far. I believe that descriptive representatives will gain the respect of their marginalized group faster; however, a substantive representative will be there to fight for the beliefs that the marginalized group is wanting to see in the campaign. Although it would be great for the marginalized group to be represented by someone who is like them; in the long run, the marginalized group is going to need someone who is going to be able to to lengths end to fight for the beliefs and issues of the group.
ReplyDeleteOn that note, I feel like our representative democracy can best represent our increasing diversity by getting more representative and substantive representatives for the extremely marginalized groups within America. Right now I believe that the parties mainly focus on the problems and beliefs of the Latinos and African Americans; where as, if they focused on the issues of every marginalized group including those poorly represented then that could open many more doors for them when it comes to votes and support.
-Tyler Betancourt
Getting the issues of the populace addressed is the reason we elect representatives in the first place. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary representatives are people who are chosen in elections to act or speak for or in support of the people who voted for them. We need people who are capable and who are actually going to represent their entire body of people which means all races and ethnicities. Unfortunately reality shows that we are stuck with the ones who say one thing and do another while being racially and financially driven to boot. Diversity is what people scream for but is that what we need? Just because a group of leaders is diverse doesn’t mean they are cultured and understand their charge’s lives or issues. I might be way off but we need truly cultured representatives to deal with real issues of real people. I’m an optimist, but is this really possible?
ReplyDelete