He writes:
My understanding of the evidence is that, interesting, trouble winning elections is not a significant barrier to women getting elected to congress. Women who secure a major party nomination do, on average, just as well as men. The difficulty is that women are less likely to run for office. There are a few causes of that, but the clearest are that women are less likely to have a spouse who supports their political ambitions and women are less likely to be recruited for office by political parties.
No. No. No. NO! I can't say no enough times. It is not just about spouses. The issue is the larger risk aversion among women, and that the winner-take-all, first-pass-the-post system here in the states is not as appealing to women as it is to men.
You see, men are deluded about their ability to win elections. Women, on the other hand, are more realistic. Women, realistically evaluating the chances of a challenger to an entrenched incumbent, decide the effort is not worth it. Men, deluded about their ability and their greater penchant for risk, are not as discouraged.
Matt posted a graphic of countries with their proportion of women in parliament. I won't repost it, but here are the countries in order from highest to lowest with their method of electing parliament:
Sweden - Party list
Finland - Party list
Norway - Party list
Denmark - Party list
Netherlands - Party list
Belgium - Party list
Spain - Party list
New Zealand - Mixed Member Proportional
Germany - Mixed Member Proportional
Switzerland - Party list
Austria - Party list
Australia - Preference voting
Canada - First-Pass-The-Post
Portugal - Party list
Italy - Mixed Member Proportional
UK - First-Pass-The-Post
France - First-Pass-The-Post
United States - First-Pass-The-Post
Ireland - Preference voting
Japan - Party list
There is a definite, demonstrable, quantitative link between party list voting and women's participation. Women, as I said, are more risk averse. The party system allows them to participate in the party, working their way up the list, until they are at the top. Here in the States it's a you win, you play. You lose, you're out. Not as appealing to women as men.
Posts
4 comments:
Keep in mind that a number of parties--lefty Scandinavian ones, for instance--also now have party by-laws mandating some minimum number of women.
Candidates, that is.
In Canada, several studies have concluded the problem is winning the nomination in a single-seat district. Canadian women are not risk-averse; lots of them seek nominations. Voters say they want to elect more women (88% of men say so, and 92% of women.) It's the party members at local nomination meetings who are risk-averse, also known as "imputed prejudice" -- they say they fear voters will be less likely to vote for a woman, despite evidence to the contrary, so "we have to nominate the strongest candidate." But put these same party members in a larger room and tell them to nominate five regional candidates, and they will almost certainly nominate two women. So a mixed member proportional model with 14 or so MPs -- nine local, five regional -- would help more women get elected. Then, as happened in Germany, the woman who wins a regional seat this time will, next time, be more likely to win a local seat, and women percolate through the system.
"Canadian women are not risk-averse; lots of them seek nominations."
It's not about whether there are women who seek nomination. It's about whether they are relatively more risk averse than men, which they are.
Post a Comment