Voting Blocks

If I was going to hire a senior executive for my company, and chose to disregard the candidates’ qualifications and make my decision based solely on their race, religion, or gender, that would not only be unwise, but illegal.

But that’s exactly the way many people approach “hiring” their elected representatives in state and federal government: they weigh candidates not on their qualifications, but on their gender, ethnicity, and religion.

Before I go too far, let me state that my underlying assumption is that in the ideal state we would elect the candidates who are most qualified to do the job, rather than demonstrably inferior candidates who match our individual religion, gender, or ethnic background.

In the most extreme example of this, once upon a time the only person you were allowed to vote for in America was a white male. Even when that stopped being the case, a white male would often vote for a white male just because he was a white male, rather than vote for a woman, a Black, or a Jew.

At the same time, when members of these marginalized groups began voting, they would also vote for their own: women felt it their duty to elect female representatives, Blacks usually voted for Blacks, and Jews often voted for Jews.

Since then, many Americans have accepted the idea that one should base one’s vote on the candidates’ experience and qualifications and not their gender, ethnicity, or religion. Yet specialized voting blocks based on gender, ethnicity, and religion have persisted.

Let me use Massachusetts’ recent US Senate primary as an example. I have to admit that I was surprised by how many women vocally supported the one female candidate, even though she was clearly not the most qualified candidate, nor the most progressive, nor the most business-oriented.

In the end, that woman, Martha Coakley, won the election by a very substantial margin. What criteria did voters use to inform their decision?

In some cases, it was popularity. As state attorney general, she was one of the two candidates who had statewide name recognition. I don’t want to underestimate the role of popularity, even though it too is not a valid qualification for office.

However, I suspect that a percentage of female voters made their “hiring” decision based primarily on the candidate’s gender. It amazes me that this a perfectly acceptable way to hire elected officials, while people consider it sexual discrimination when used by private companies.

My point isn’t to detract from Ms. Coakley, nor to single out women for this behavior. As I’ve said, this kind of shortsighted partisan politics is demonstrated by several ethnic and religious groups, as well.

I just find it interesting, ironic, and sad that some percentage of voters still hire government officials based on criteria that we consider morally repugnant and which would be prosecuted as illegal discrimination in the private sector. That is odd, no?