Hostname: page-component-669899f699-tzmfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T05:55:15.776Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Candidate Emergence and the Success of Women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 July 2020

Benjamin Melusky Open the ORCID record for Benjamin Melusky [Opens in a new window] ,
Eric Loepp Open the ORCID record for Eric Loepp [Opens in a new window]  and
Kristin Kanthak Open the ORCID record for Kristin Kanthak [Opens in a new window]
Benjamin Melusky
Affiliation:
Old Dominion University
Eric Loepp
Affiliation:
University of Wisconsin–Whitewater
Kristin Kanthak
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

At least partially in response to Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election (Jordan and Balz 2018), 2018 witnessed a record number of women running for and winning legislative elections across the country. This candidacy surge affords a unique opportunity to evaluate why individuals choose to run for office. Extant literature identifies both individual- and institutional-level determinants of candidate entry, yet little attention has been given to a critical institutional feature that can encourage or discourage women to put their names forward: primary type. This article develops a model of candidate emergence positing that different primary systems—by virtue of including and excluding the participation of various subpopulations of a state’s electorate—will be more or less attractive to potential female candidates relative to potential male candidates. We uncover evidence consistent with our theory: women appear less interested in running in certain types of primaries (e.g., semi-closed) but find other systems more appealing (e.g., nonpartisan). The results also indicate that after considering primary type, women tend to outperform men in the subsequent general election across the board. This study provides encouraging evidence that closing the representation gap is an increasingly achievable goal but that the rules of the electoral game continue to determine who is playing.

Type
Symposium: State Legislative Elections of 2018
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 53 , Issue 3 , July 2020 , pp. 440 - 446
Copyright
© American Political Science Association 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Ambrosius, Margery M., and Welch, Susan. 1984. “Women and Politics at the Grass-Roots: Women Candidates for State Office in Three States, 1950–1978.” Social Science Journal 21 (January): 29–42.Google Scholar
Babcock, Linda, and Laschever, Sara. 2003. Women Don’t Ask: Negotiation and the Gender Divide. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400825691Google Scholar
Babcock, Linda, and Laschever, Sara. 2007. Women Don’t Ask: The High Cost of Avoiding Negotiation. New York: Bantam Dell.Google Scholar
Black, Gordon. 1972. “A Theory of Political Ambition: Career Choices and the Role of Structural Incentives.” American Political Science Review 66 (March): 144–59.10.2307/1959283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, David, Han, Hahrie, and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2007. “Primary Elections and Candidate Ideology: Out of Step with the Primary Electorate?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32 (February): 79–105.10.3162/036298007X201994Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J., and Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199322428.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 2018. “2018 Summary of Women Candidates.” November 14. Available at https://cawp.rutgers.edu/potential-candidate-summary-2018#stleg.Google Scholar
Diamond, Irene. 1977. Sex Roles in the State House. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2003. “Family Structure, Sex-Role Socialization, and the Decision to Run for Office.” Women & Politics 24 (January): 19–48.10.1300/J014v24n04_02Google Scholar
Hamm, Keith, Olson, David M., Moncrief, Gary F., and Thompson, Joel A.. 1992. “Midsession Vacancies: Why Do State Legislators Exit and How Are They Replaced?.” In Changing Patterns in State Legislative Careers, ed. Moncrief, Gary F. and Thompson, Joel A., 127–46. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Herrick, Rebekah. 1996. “A Reappraisal of the Quality of Women Candidates.” Women & Politics 15 (August): 25–38.10.1300/J014v15n04_02Google Scholar
Jenkins, Shannon. 2007. “A Woman’s Work Is Never Done? Fund-Raising Perception and Effort Among Female State Legislative Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly 60 (June): 230–39.10.1177/1065912907301682Google Scholar
Jordan, Mary, and Balz, Dan. 2018. “Women Will Decide the Election: Here’s What They Think.” Washington Post. Available at www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/national/suburban-women-midterms-2018.Google Scholar
Kanthak, Kristin, and Woon, Jonathan. 2015. “Women Don’t Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (July): 595–612.10.1111/ajps.12158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazee, Tomas A. 1994. “The Emergence of Congressional Candidates.” In Who Runs for Congress? Ambition, Context, and Candidate Emergence, ed. Kazee, Tomas, 1–22. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Fox, Richard L.. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511778797Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Pearson, Kathryn. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women’s Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics 70 (January): 67–82.10.1017/S002238160708005XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Nathan K. 2014. “Ballot Access Rules and the Entry of Women Candidates in the State Legislative Primaries.” Journal of Power, Politics, and Governance 2 (3 & 4): 1–25.10.15640/jppg.v2n3-4a1Google Scholar
Moncrief, Gary F., Squire, Peverill, and Jewell, Malcolm E.. 2001. Who Runs for the Legislature? Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1997. Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn, and McGhee, Eric. 2004. “Strategic Differences: The Gender Dynamics of Congressional Candidacies, 1982–2002.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
Pritchard, Anita. 1992. “Strategic Considerations in the Decision to Challenge a State Legislative Incumbent.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (August): 381–93.10.2307/439736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rohde, David. 1979. “Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of the US House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science 23 (February): 1–26.10.2307/2110769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Political Parties and the Recruitment of Women to State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 64 (August): 791–809.10.1111/0022-3816.00146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlesinger, Joseph A. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States . Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J., and Maisel, L. Sandy. 2003. “The Not‐So‐Simple Calculus of Winning: Potential US House Candidates’ Nomination and General Election Prospects.” Journal of Politics 65 (October): 951–77.10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Susan, Ambrosius, Margery M., Clark, Janet, and Darcy, Robert. 1985. “The Effect of Candidate Gender on Electoral Outcomes in State Legislative Races.” Western Political Quarterly 38 (September): 464–75.10.2307/448527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

Melusky et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Melusky et al. supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 125.1 KB