Hi Erick! Legislative seat quotas are, by definition, totalitarian and anti-democratic since they involve "predetermination of outcome". A democracy determines by the election process who will represent what jurisdiction for a fixed period of time. Period. I pretty much covered that in CEREBUS with the assessment of Astoria: "A thirst for governing but no stomach for election."
To cite what I consider the most notorious example of Feminist Theocracy quotas -- the attempt to "force-feed" Afghanis a constitution mandating that 25% of their legislature seats needed to be allocated to women -- I consider that a political obscenity and a sadly missed opportunity to bring democracy to a Muslim country.
ANY quota imposed in a democracy is sown with the seeds of its own destruction which, I think, is what happened/is happening in Afghanistan. ANY quota raises the question of "Why YOUR quotas? Why not OUR quotas?"
In a nation composed of a (relatively) straightforward mix of Sunni Islam and tribalism more sensible quotas than gender quotas -- to THEM because it's THEIR country -- would be Tribal Chieftains (based on influence and prominence), age (the longest-lived being the most reliable), Sunni Islamic scholarly credentials (endorsement by Saudi clerics), etc.
Which is why quotas can never be a foundational element in a democracy. Whatever you're purporting to do, what you're actually doing is "stacking the deck" or "attempting to stack the deck". All that leads to is contradictory deck-stacking (i.e. what if we allocate x number of seats to the Taliban to neutralize them?). Whatever that is (and it can be called many things, none of them flattering) it isn't democracy.
And now, CHARLES BROWNSTEIN (doesn't he look as if he was BORN to the red carpet at Comicon?):