In
memoriam: Wilma rule (1925-2004)
Champion of women's representation
By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
March 24, 2004
The cause for women's political equality lost one of its
strongest voices recently with the passing of Professor
Wilma Rule. For decades Professor Rule was a leading writer
and researcher whose work resulted in a number of articles
and books challenging conventional notions about the reasons
for women's lack of political representation in the United
States.
Women still hold only 14% of seats in the United States
Congress, not much more than after the big gains made in the
"Year of the Woman" in 1992. Many advocates for
women's representation espouse the view that if more women
simply ran for office, or if women candidates had more
campaign financing, then far more women would be elected.
But Professor Rule's research of electoral methods and
women's representation around the world demonstrates the
deficiency of that viewpoint. Her research and that of
others showed unequivocally that if you want more women
elected to your legislatures, the single most important
change is to get rid of our 18th-century winner-take-all
electoral system in favor of more modern full representation
electoral methods.
This profound insight received too little attention in
the United States during Professor Rule's lifetime. And
looking at the facts, women's representation has paid the
price.
Having only 14% women representatives in the U.S.
Congress ranks the United States 57th in the world for
percentage of women elected to national legislatures,
according to the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Only 24 of 50
states have a female U.S. House member, fewer states than in
1992. The number of women state legislators and women in the
House have declined in recent years, and there is little
hope of gains in this year's largely non-competitive
legislative elections.
Women also fare poorly in executive offices. Only eight
women are governors, and nearly all large cities have male
mayors. A female presidential candidate has never won even a
single convention delegate in a primary or caucus held by
one of the major parties.
In contrast, women's representation is far higher in many
nations, even those not known for their women's movements.
Eighteen nations have double the percentage of women in the
U.S. Congress, led by Sweden (45% women representatives),
and including such nations as Costa Rica, South Africa,
Austria and Germany. Many nations have had women presidents
and prime ministers, including Ireland and India.
Given the success of American women in so many areas, why
has politics proven such hostile terrain? While
discriminatory attitudes certainly play a role, they don't
explain why women do so much better in some nations than
others. As Professor Rule's lifework demonstrates, the key
lies in our continued use of our 18th-century
winner-take-all electoral system.
A virtual laboratory is provided by nations that use both
our type of winner-take-all system and a "full
representation" electoral system. During recent
elections in Germany, Italy and New Zealand, women won three
times more seats in those chosen by full representation than
in those chosen by winner-take-all.
That's because full representation systems use multi-seat
districts where political parties (or, in a nonpartisan
election, groupings of like-minded voters, i.e. liberals,
conservatives, progressives) win seats in proportion to
their voting strength at the polls. If a political party
wins twenty percent of the popular vote in a ten seat
district, its candidates win two of ten seats, instead of
none; forty percent wins four seats, and sixty percent wins
six seats.
In such a system a political party can earn a fair share
of representation with well under 50% of the vote, and
parties run teams of candidates that broaden their appeal.
Consequently, parties promote more women as candidates, and
their candidates work together. If major parties are slow to
run more women, women candidates can turn to smaller parties
that are more responsive.
Full representation contrasts sharply with our current
method of one-on-one, mano a mano, winner-take-all contests
that reward aggressive, negative campaigning over teamwork
and issues. This method hurts women's representation
wherever it is used, both because it doesn't speak to
women's strength as coalition-builders and it gives
inordinate influence to small groups of swing voters who
prefer male leaders.
Electing more women to legislatures is not only a matter
of fairness. Practically speaking, the presence of women in
legislatures makes a measurable difference in the types of
legislation that are proposed and passed into law. Although
outnumbered 7-1, women in Congress have been successful in
gaining legislation long overlooked by men, including gender
equity in the workplace and education, child support
legislation, and laws for prevention of violence against
women. Yet policy in the United States still lags badly
behind most European nations, where many more women sit in
legislatures elected by full representation.
Given the unambiguous conclusions of Professor Rule's
research, advocates of women's political equality like the
National Organization for Women, Feminist Majority, EMILY'S
list, and the White House Project would do well to work
harder to enact full representation. Most of them have taken
the step of supporting it -- NOW even elects its national
board using full representation -- but they have yet to take
the step of building coalitions for winning full
representation with racial minorities, third party advocates
and dissatisfied major party supporters.
Women's representation is stuck, and with it the issues
women's groups care about. Professor Rule, right up to the
end of her nearly 80 years, her abilities but not her
enthusiasm or vision hampered by her infirmities, was
working on her next book, "Equal Gender Politics: 21st
Century," showing us all how much of a barrier
winner-take-all poses.
In memory of Wilma Rule, advocates of women's
representation should rededicate ourselves to the cause, and
reevaluate our advocacy. It is high time to address the most
fundamental reason why 52 percent of the population only has
14% of the representation.