Why do some people feel the need to say something like “we need more women at the table…” or whatever demographic when referring to the political arena?
I, for one, have no interest in a candidate’s demographic when I consider them for my vote. To me, whether they have ovaries or dark skin is irrelevant to the job they will do if elected to office. It’s the ideas that matter, not their physiology. Needless to say, I also hate quotas for the same reason. I have always firmly believed the most qualified person for the position ought to have the highest consideration regardless of their physical characteristics. Am I wrong?
Does anyone out there believe what a person looks like is as important as the ideas they bring to the table?
Does having a certain physical quality make you more or less qualified for political office?
What is the obsession with politicians who point to their physical traits as being a qualification for serving in public office? Tell me your ideas, your ovaries are irrelevant to me!
Sifting Reality 
Jesus said, “Where your treasure is, that is where your heart is…” Jesus said, “By your fruit, you shall know them…” Jesus surrounded himself with women, radicals, the poor and otherwise marginalized.
I think there is plenty of biblical reasons why Christians should care if their community is too homogenous or not made up of the poor and outcast.
For people who are championing a political party in a diverse community/society/nation, I think there is also much practical reason for wanting to have a party that looks like the nation, including the poor, the marginalized, the minority, the oppressed. I would not want to be a part of a party or a church or a community that is too homogenous.
That seems reasonable to me.
Dan
Are you saying demographic is as or more important in some cases than ability?