Women and Politics: The Numbers

Now this is impressive. The dazzling numerical mind behind The Pundits' Guide website  has turned its attention to the urban-rural divide re: women candidates, and has offered us a statistical analysis based on the last five federal elections.  This is, in my opinion, must-read data for any political party that declares itself to be serious about getting more women into Parliament. (Actually, the Pundits' Guide overall is an invaluable resource. Just have a look at the "list of lists" -- a goldmine of data.)

Among the conclusions of this analysis:

 Obviously, if parties are going to meet their commitments to increase the number of women candidates they run, it will be by definition in non-incumbent ridings that will therefore be harder to win. If more women are to be elected in rural ridings, it will either be because retiring Conservative incumbents are replaced by women candidates (as happened for example when Candice Hoeppner replaced Brian Pallister in Portage – Lisgar, MB), or because women candidates from the other parties can win over those seats (although the Conservatives only lost 6 seats overall last time, 2 to women, both urban).

Comments

[Bill Bell]

I live in a rural constituency, and we have a woman MP. It's Diane Finlay, a Conservative. Her inability to represent the majority of people in this riding, including women, I believe, is not an entirely personal failing. It's more a matter of the old-fashioned way in which we attempt to represent so many values, opinions and interests in Parliament.

By all means, put more women in Parliament. Just don't expect to find poor women, for example, well represented there.

[Pundits' Guide]

Hey, thanks for the link and the recommendation Susan!

[Halton GTA]

All Riatt is Good for is the likes of taking this bus & Questions

Sara Hall thinks it's curious that Greyhound travels from Toronto to Halifax, but not back. Where do the buses go from there?!

[Bryan L.]

This might be a bit pedantic, but it drives my nuts when people use the term "women candidates". It should be "female candidates". The word "woman", perhaps, is seen to be more empowering or something. Not sure. It is also misused when speaking about doctors. A "woman doctor" would only treat women as sure as a "tree doctor" only treats trees. I could go on. I will not.

[Gabby in QC]

"Her inability to represent the majority of people in this riding ..."

Bill Bell, Ms. Finley won the seat, which means she received a plurality of the votes cast by those who bothered to vote.
How can you then say she does not represent the majority of people in the riding? She may not represent your particular POV, but that doesn’t mean she cannot "… represent the majority of people in this riding ..."
Here are the results she garnered in the last three elections:
2004: 42.2%
2006: 48.3%
2008: 40.83%

One cannot expect MPs to have exact carbon copies of one's own attitudes, beliefs, concerns, etc.
It does not mean that only a poor woman would be able to advance the interests of the poor women you speak of.

[Raphael]

Why is it an imperative to have more women in politics? Do all women have the same opinions?

[Pundits' Guide]

"Why is it an imperative to have more women in politics? Do all women have the same opinions?"

I don't know, Raphael; why is it imperative they even be able to vote, you might as well ask. They'll only vote the same way as their husbands and dads, right?

The franchise was until not so long ago only available in Canada to men who owned property and were not status indians. Over time, other groups have fought for the right to vote and to partipate more fully in the polity beyond that.

Try and imagine how well you would see your concerns reflected in a democracy where only women were elected (like trying to see your point of view reflected in the Red Star if you're a conservative). Now realize that this is how women feel when they look at politics. Not that we all think the same; very evidently not. But we all share a fairly common experience that men do not, and vice versa. Also, the more people who participate in a democracy the stronger it is.

This is what the democratic struggle is about the world over, from Iran to Afghanistan to Selma to here. We're just trying to catch up with the folks who had the vote longer than us. That can't be so controversial to you now, can it?

Bryan, yes "female candidates" can sound a bit de-personalizing in a situation where the objective is to get real live bodies to step up and participate. Female rats you can do your skinnerian trials on, but women candidates are real people. And there's certainly nothing grammatically wrong with putting two nouns together, either.

Thanks for your comments fellas.

[Gabby in QC]

Further to Raphael's question "Do all women have the same opinions?" I would add: would women politicians advance only women's issues?

Personally, I do not support affirmative action in any sphere of activity. The best candidates should be the ones nominated, not based on any kind of gender or ethnic or any other kind of quotas. If the candidate happens to be a woman, and the electors in her riding find the policies she's putting forward appeal to them, then she'll get their vote. It should be as simple as that.

[Paul St. Stevens]

Would more women matter? Well, work in Canadian political science indicates that female voters and female MPs behave differently than their male counterparts. Female voters hold systematically different views on so-called gendered issues and female MPs are disproportionately active in gendered issue areas. Gender is not the primary behavioural influence, by any means, but it does have an effect. Whether or not this effect is desirable is perhaps the question to be addressed.

I can't link to articles because of subscriptions, but, to start, take a look at Tremblay's 1998 piece on female MPs and Gidengil et al.'s 2002 piece on the electoral gender gap.

[Pundits' Guide]

Gabby, who used the words "affirmative action" anywhere here? You're talking about the method by which candidates are selected. Some parties have leader appointments, some protect their incumbents, and some have open nomination meetings.

But getting more women to run usually has to happen at an earlier stage in the process (the candidate search phase), where local riding associations start to think about who might make a good local representative for them in an election. If more women were asked at this stage, more might run for the nomination.

Of course a party leader can just step in and appoint women, but one election's worth of data at least suggests that didn't improve those women's chances of getting elected (although clearly there were other factors at play which didn't help either). But also not having candidates go through a competitive nomination process can leave some of them unprepared later on for the competitive rigours of an election and the political process, too, so it can be a self-defeating quick-fix.

So if a candidate search is thorough, you can still design a system that leaves the decision about who the local candidate will be in local hands, per your preference (and mine too, by the way).

I note that there are several parties which already use such a process, including the party which has had the most historical success in both nominations and elections percentage-wise. Nothing in that process predetermines that a woman should win the nomination in certain ridings ("affirmative action"), but it just takes steps to ensure that more women consider running.

[Pundits' Guide]

Er, that should have read "the party that has had the most success in nominations and elections OF WOMEN percentage-wise". You know what I meant.

[Gabby in QC]

"... who used the words "affirmative action" anywhere here?"
Pundits' Guide, I did, in the generic sense.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2009/06/equal-voice-challenges-party-leaders-to.php
When a party leader, like the NDP’s Jack Layton, announces that “his slate for the forthcoming election would include at least 50% women” - that’s a form of affirmative action.

When a party leader, like the Liberals’ Michael Ignatieff, pledges “that no fewer than one-third of our Liberal candidates will be women in the next election” - that’s a form of affirmative action.

As previously stated, I do not support affirmative action in any sphere of activity. That the option to run for office should be open to anyone who wants to run and is qualified, agreed. But setting up artificial quotas is a form of tokenism, IMO.

[mozo]

Gabby, given your wish to abolish affirmative action of any type, can I presume you would want to severely proscribe/prosecute any actions that would give unfair advantage (old boy's club, nepotism, etc.)?

[Gabby in QC]

Mozo, I would love to be able to change human nature in order to right all the flaws and foibles which are part and parcel of our common human nature, but until such time, I'll plod along, trying to make the best of our imperfect world.

I'll leave the building of Utopia to you. You may see the value of proscription and prosecution in the realms you mentioned. I do not share that view.

BTW, what's to prevent an old girls' club replacing the proverbial old boys' club?