A libertarian’s surprising proposal: Gender quotas in the Montana legislature

[Coyotl]

We do need more women in politics, but this would not be fair to Republicans.
They would have to call a truce in the War on Women.

A libertarian man’s surprising proposal: Gender quotas!
John Marshall of Montana wants to require his state legislature to have equal numbers of men and women. Here's why
Lauren Rankin - Dec 8, 2013 - http://www.salon.com/2013/12/08/a_libertarian_mans_surprising_proposal_gender_quotas/

There are many causes associated with libertarians: austerity, privacy, small government, to name a few. But a libertarian man in Montana is pushing a less likely proposal: mandatory gender quotas in electoral representation. John Marshall, a businessman and writer, recently submitted a proposed constitutional amendment that would require both houses of the Montana Legislature to have evenly divided representation among men and women. If the proposal does pass, it could radically restructure the gender dynamics in the Montana legislature and rally the nation to increase women’s representation in every branch of government.

Marshall’s proposal has an uphill battle to making Montana the first state to institute such quotas. He submitted his plan for the constitutional amendment to Secretary of State Linda McCulloch’s office last month, and from there it will be subject to language review from both the Attorney General and the Montana Legislative Services Division. If it manages to make it through these preliminary hurdles, his proposal will have to garner 48,000 signatures of registered Montana voters in order to qualify for the 2014 ballot.

An unsuccessful Libertarian candidate for the Montana Senate, Marshall openly cites gender equality as an impetus for his proposal. Because women are the majority of the population, Marshall believes “they’re the rightful heirs to the reigns of political power in this country,” he said in a recent interview. He also notes that women’s negotiation skills helped fuel his decision to propose a gender quota amendment. “Women are better at sitting down and negotiating and compromising and coming up with legislation than men,” he said .........

[TreasonousBastard]

1. I still fail to understand...

what happens when the voters elect a majority of men? Are some thrown out and and some women who ran arbitrarily seated?

Will there be a requirement for all parties to somehow balance their tickets to run an equal number of women? How does this work when you have two major parties and one office in a district?

The article itself is of little use, but there's a worthwhile link in there that has some interesting answers:

http://www.quotaproject.org/faq.cfm

Nobody seriously argues that having more women in elective office wouldn't be a good thing, but getting there seems to be a bit more difficult than passing a law or rule.

[jamzrockz]

2. why stop there

how about other minorities, religious minorities, transgenders etc etc etc? This is why nobody should ever listen to libertarians, they rarely think through their ideas before opening up their pie holes.

Maybe this is just a joke bill to prove some sort of silly point, if that turns out to be the case then ignore the 1st paragraph.

[Voice for Peace]

4. I'm wondering though, with libertarians actually getting elected these days,

the libertarian philosophy will be undergoing some revisions
related to actually running a government.

[Coyotl]

5. An attention seeker, my guess.

He's hoping the next time he won't lose his election.
Good luck with that!

About the only serious good this can have is that some discussion of the issue must ensue.

[2naSalit]

6. We already have

religious minorities covered here... making sure women have a say is a good idea. Sure it would probably take a couple election cycles to balance things out but at least it sounds like an effort to get a start on it. Montana is basically progressive in many ways even if our legislature doesn't reflect that fact for much of the time. Sure beats the hell out of trying be a sensible person in Idaho... where there's pretty much one ruling patriarchal/misogynist religion that is also majority teabagger politically.

[jamzrockz]

7. I have no idea what you mean by religious minorities are covered

I have no idea what you mean by religious minorities are covered but my real problem with laws like these is that they are anti democratic. How can a democracy function when it is restricted from voting for the people they really want.

Btw, add presidential term limits as other anti democratic laws I hate about our political system.

[2naSalit]

8. All we seem to have up here

are religious minorities. And with a population of roughly 1,000,000 it's not likely we'll be dealing with any majorities to any significant degree. I guess it's one of the good things about a small poppulation. We HAVE to think outside the box.

[2naSalit]

3. Holeee Cow!

Indeed, the war on women will have to come to a truce. I'm not in favor of most Libertarian causes but he's on to something here. I wonder if there would be enough progressives (and hopefully, others) to sign the petition to get it on the ballot. I think that there are many voters here who are tired of the teabaggers and their enablers.

Time will tell. One good thing about it though, our AG is a woman...