Does Gender Matter in Elections?

Author(s):  
Robert G. Boatright ◽  
Valerie Sperling

This chapter provides the theoretical context for the study by exploring whether and how gender usually matters in campaigns and elections, and the ways in which the 2016 election was different in this regard. The chapter presents the literature on voter preferences for male and female candidates, the impact of gender stereotypes on voting, and the way campaigns and advertisers make use of these stereotypes when trying to promote their candidates or undermine their opponents. The chapter devotes particular attention to recent claims that women are not disadvantaged in contemporary American elections, and it explores ways in which this finding might be applied to the 2016 presidential election, the first to feature a female general election nominee.

The Forum ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-135
Author(s):  
Aaron C. Weinschenk ◽  
Costas Panagopoulos

Abstract Using daily polling data collected during the 2016 election, we examine the impact of fundamental conditions, campaign events, media coverage, and other relevant events and announcement on preference dynamics. We observe shifts in voter preferences for president over the course of the campaign and find evidence that these dynamics can be explained by specific circumstances and conditions. Our findings reinforce the potency of fundamental conditions, like presidential approval, but they also demonstrate that political events like national nominating conventions and debates can affect preferences in meaningful and enduring ways. Importantly, our research also suggests that developments commonly perceived to have affected voter preferences in 2016, like FBI Director James Comey’s memo to Congress about Hillary Clinton’s e-mails in October, likely exerted a minimal impact on the election, at least once the impact of other factors are taken into account. In this respect, some of our findings conflict with conventional accounts of campaign dynamics in 2016.


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-16
Author(s):  
Brianna Morrison

The purpose of this paper is to examine gender stereotypes as a mechanism that maintains the under representation of women within elected office. Focusing exclusively on American politics, this paper will explore the barriers female candidates face in running for office. In 2019, the percentage of women holding seats is 23.7 %. This statistic indicates that women occupy 127 of the 535 seats in Congress. Although a record breaking high, this amount still remains far from achieving parity within Congress. To explore women’s under representation, I ask what is the impact gender stereotypes have on a female’s candidacy? Exploring how gender stereotypes influence both voter preferences and the attitudes of party leaders, I predict that gender stereotypes can discourage both voters and party leaders from pursuing female candidates. Based on my research findings, I argue that the gender gap in political representation is in fact largely rooted in the campaign process that has and continues to present barriers for women seeking elected office.


2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-87
Author(s):  
Nina Gorenc

The research behind this paper is set in the context of the 2016 US presidential election that has come to symbolize the post-truth era. We conducted a literature review on the 2016 election, with the aim to better understand the impact of computational propaganda on the election outcome and on the behaviour of voters. The paper opens with a definition of post-truth society and related concepts such as fake news and computational propaganda. It explores the changes of political communication in a digital environment and analyses the role of social media in the 2016 election. It probes into phenomena such as the trivialization of politics and the loss of credibility of political actors, which are both common in post-truth societies. The reviewed literature seems to indicate that social media have become strong actors on the political stage, but so far not the predominant source of political information and influence on the behaviour of voters. The paper makes two important contributions. Firstly, drawing on the concept of post-truth society, it analyses the role of computational propaganda in the 2016 presidential election, and secondly, it attempts to explain the paradox of general political apathy on one hand, and increased political activism on the other. These are some of the challenges we are now facing, and in order to be able to cope with them it is important to acknowledge and understand them.


Author(s):  
Robert G. Boatright ◽  
Valerie Sperling

The book begins by laying out a story about the impact of the presidential race on the congressional races in 2016. At the center of this story lie two unanticipated developments that characterized the 2016 election. The first of these was the unusual centrality of sexism and gender stereotypes to the presidential race in 2016. In a society that appears, by some measures, to have taken strides toward greater gender equality, what happened in Congressional campaigns when “retrograde” views on gender unexpectedly emerged in the competition for the presidency? The second unexpected occurrence was the nomination of Donald Trump as the Republican Party’s presidential candidate, and the subsequent assumption that he would lose the presidential contest to Hillary Clinton. What impact did this development have on Congressional campaigns? Congressional candidates in the 2016 election found themselves in a fairly novel situation generated by the presidential race: gender issues became central to the presidential campaign, and, in turn, to the entire election process.


Author(s):  
Robert G. Boatright ◽  
Valerie Sperling

Who is tougher? In many elections, candidates frame their appeals in gendered ways—they compete, for instance, over who is more “masculine.” This is the case for male and female candidates alike. In the 2016 presidential election, however, the stark choice between the first major-party female candidate and a man who exhibited a persistent pattern of misogyny made the use of gender—ideas about femininity and masculinity—more prominent than ever before. This book explores the Trump and Clinton campaigns’ use of gender as a political weapon, and how the presidential race changed the ways in which House and Senate campaigns were waged in 2016. The thesis of this book is that Donald Trump’s candidacy radically altered the nature of the 2016 congressional campaigns in two ways. First, it changed the issues of contention in many of these races by making gender more central to the general election campaigns of both Democrats and Republicans. Second, expectations that Trump would lose the election influenced how candidates for lower office campaigned and how willing they were to connect their fortunes to those of their party’s nominee. The fact that Trump was expected to lose—and was expected to lose in large part because of his sexist and other bigoted comments—caused both major parties to direct more of their resources toward congressional races, and led many Republican candidates—especially women—to distance themselves from Trump.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 738-749
Author(s):  
Joel Sievert

During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, American elections underwent a series of reforms that weakened partisan control over elections. The variation in the electoral rules during this period offers scholars a unique opportunity to examine how electoral institutions and reforms structure election outcomes. In this article, I examine how electoral rules translated voter preferences into outcomes for the selection of two prominent positions, governors and U.S. senators. These two elected positions offer an interesting comparison because while they are chosen to represent the same geographic constituency, there is notable variation in the rules used to elect each office. Based on analysis of more than 350 senate-gubernatorial election pairs, I find that varying levels of partisan control over elections throughout time conditioned the likelihood that the partisan outcome of these elections mirrors one another.


Author(s):  
Dennis W. Johnson

Frequent and fair elections, open to all, are fundamental elements of a democracy. The United States, through its local, state, and national contests, holds more elections, more often, than any other democracy in the world. But in recent years, there have been troubling signs that our system of campaigns and elections has become much more fragile than we had previously thought. More specifically, in the past twenty years, campaigns have changed profoundly: social media and viral messaging compete with traditional media, races once considered local in nature have become nationalized, Supreme Court decisions on campaign finance law now encourage mega-donors, voters are more polarized, party affiliation has waned, and the middle ideological ground has given way to extremist language and voter rage. Twice in sixteen years we have seen winning presidential candidates gaining fewer popular votes than their opponents. The fundamental right of every citizen to vote has been impeded by state legislatures demanding tighter access, more identification, and accusations of voter fraud. And we have faced the real threat of foreign influence in our national elections. This book offers the most up-to-date examination of campaigns and elections, including the challenges and opportunities they present. It addresses fundamental questions about who votes in American elections, how legislative districts are reapportioned and why it matters, the realities of voter fraud, the pros and cons of reforming the Electoral College, the impact of dark money on campaigns, and the role of political consultants and specialists, among other topics. Given the fragility of our election process, what are the threats to a healthy American democracy? Do the candidates with the most money always win? This is not simply a book on how campaigns are run, but why campaigns and elections are integral components of American democracy and how those fundamental elements may be vulnerable to misuse.


2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 779-791
Author(s):  
Alexa Bankert

As the 2016 election season and the Me Too movement have powerfully demonstrated, sexism is a pervasive force not just in American politics but also, more generally, in women’s everyday lives. While political scientists have focused on the impact of sexism on voters’ evaluations of female candidates and their electoral chances, we know little about the effect of personally experienced sexism on American women’s political engagement. This manuscript tries to address this gap. Using data from the 2016 ANES Pilot Study as well as a survey experiment, I demonstrate that women who have experienced gender discrimination report higher levels of political participation and a higher chance of voting in the general election. However, among conservative women, personal experience with sexism is not associated with this participatory impetus. These findings have implications for the equal representation of women from both ends of the ideological spectrum.


2021 ◽  
pp. 009365022110233
Author(s):  
Marc Jungblut ◽  
Mario Haim

Using the case of the 2019 European election, the study compares the visual self-depiction of female and male political candidates from all European Union’s 28 member states on social networking sites and their depiction in the news coverage. It thereby investigates to what degree the news coverage and politicians’ self-depiction employs visual gender stereotypes. Moreover, the study presents results on differences in the depiction of male and female candidates across party lines. With the help of computational vision, we demonstrate that, while differences between progressive and conservative candidates are scarce, there are clear differences in the depiction of female and male politicians. These differences resemble emotional gender stereotypes, especially since women are more often depicted as happy. Overall, the study demonstrates that female political communication is still distinct from male political communication for both their self-representation as well as the media’s portrayal of political candidates.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document