Someday they Might even Resort to Democracy

Having never been any good at Engineering lately, the twitter-ati of the UK tries social engineering. It doesn’t say much for the state of democracy when people want to forcably impose racial quotas on “elected” officials in an effort to take away political choice from 99% of the population (humans) to pander to an elite amounting to 1% of the population who have such a low view of the public, that they don’t think anyone else can see past their own naïve view of people as easily compartmented tribes and factions.

More to the point is the sporting joy that elite of Islington exiles take in evoking a reaction of a few people in order to characterize something negative about the 92.4% of the population that’s Caucasian, and make the 2.4% of the population which is black, and the 5.2% that’s Asian feel to them like their helpless political wards who would otherwise be incapable of having among them a range of political views.

For that matter, the tiny, but morally repugnant elite that imagines that pluralism is so utterly disposable to a degree that you can limit who can run to begin with. The fact that they already have party lists shoved down their throats is sad enough.

There has to be some sort of distraction that the good people of Britain, the real Benetton ad crowd can offer these clueless “social overlords” that will make them believe that they’re indispensible to humanity, but keep them in the corner where that can’t do that much harm. I sort of though that this is what Radio 4 and “eco-tourism” were for, but apparently it’s a case of “today Parliament, tomorrow your last shred of liberty”.

Operation Black Vote, which conducted the research, recommends all-minority shortlists are used for four consecutive elections, in a bid to help BME candidates "get past go".

Report author Simon Wolley said: "The change in the law is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut; it's not forcing parties to use all-black shortlists.

Except when it is. If the same bullying meets the standard used to MEPs that don’t fit the dominant paradigm, or to call any number of things “constructing a climate of urgency”, then why not this?

Note the creative use of the word “we”. I don’t think they mean the public at large.

"But unless we take positive action measures we are not going to have a representative democracy for more than 75 years. It's not that we don't have [Barack] Obamas, but we don't have the mechanisms for them to see the light of day."

We have a Barack Obama precisely because we DO have a democracy, and DON’T compromise it as badly as they propose by force and coercion.

Making stupidity sound banal, one of it’s proponents managed this bit of brilliance too:

"The creation of ethnic-minority shortlists will undoubtedly see more ethnic minorities taking up seats in Parliament, which will mean a Parliament that mirrors the society it represents," he argued.

His Race Relations (Election Candidates) Bill would be a voluntary measure for parties to adopt in some seats but would remove legal obstacles surrounding the discrimination, as Labour had to do when its all-women shortlists were found to be illegal.

Note that “election candidates” has to remain in ellipses.