Fillibuster and Senate Demographics

A quick look at the senate roster shows a general male bias (yeah, not a newsflash). I count 15 women and 85 men (though if it were my call I'd give Lindsey Graham honorary ambiguous status). Put another way, the Republicans are 5/55 female and the Democrats are 10/45. Neither stat is anything to write home about, but props to the Dems for being a little better.

Here's where it gets interesting. Despite having a 9% presence in the senate Republican women are well represented in opposition to abolishing the fillibuster. Olypima Snowe (Maine) is on-the-record and one of only 3 Republicans to be so. Other key swing votes may come from Susan Collins (also Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (AK). So there you have it, 60% of female Republican senators have the capacity for independent thought...or future planning...or basic common sense...or basic ethics. For any of you who may have accused me of sexism (and yes, I believe there are intrinsic differences between the sexes) here is proof that women make better public officials. At least 11 of 15 and possibly 13 of 15 women in the Senate oppose this unorthodox rule change. Is it just these individuals? Are women better senators? Or perhaps centuries of mistreatment and the fact that they are outnumbered makes them wary of stripping minority rights.

Side note 1: Ms. Murkowski is an interesting politician. I believe her father was a senator or governor and the Democrats cried nepotism even louder than usual (cough cough Kennedy, Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Bush...whatever). The curious bit: Alaska has the lowest percentage of women of any state (48.3%) yet manages to gain a rare female senate seat. (Extremely rare for a "Red State")

Side note 2: I still love New England. I would vote for Snowe in a heartbeat.