January 2000 Commentaries
Published in January 2000, three commentaries by CVD on proportional representation and electoral competition, representation of women and voter turnout.
American women have a long way to go
By Steven Hill and Rob Richie
It has been eight years since the "Year of the Woman" nearly doubled the number of women in Congress. But it has been slim pickings ever since.
A recent study found that the United States ranks 43rd in the world in its percentage of women elected to its national legislature. Currently, women hold only 12 percent of Congress, a lower percentage than such nations as Mexico, South Africa or Seychelles. In 1998, fewer than half of our states elected women to the House of Representatives.
The study, conducted by the nonpartisan Inter-Parliamentary Union, shows Sweden leading the pack with 43 percent women in its legislature, followed by Denmark, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands, all at least three times higher than Congress. Women also fare poorly in executive offices. 47 of 50 states have male governors, and 24 of our largest 25 cities have male mayors.
Given American women's success in many areas, why has politics proven such hostile terrain? Some propose that it's women's own reluctance to sacrifice their traditional home lives. Swanee Hunt, director of Harvard University's Women and Public Policy Program, suggests that many women don't think politics is a reasonable option because they don't want to give up being mothers and wives.
Women also don't necessarily vote for other women. One recent survey revealed that both male and female voters still prefer a man over a woman for powerful offices such as governor, attorney general and president.
While discriminatory attitudes certainly play a large role, they certainly don't explain why women do so much better in some nations than others. The key lies in the rules for how elections are conducted.
A virtual laboratory is provided by nations that use both proportional representation voting systems and U.S.-style "winner take all" voting systems. Proportional representation systems use multi-seat districts where a political party or grouping of voters may need only 5% of the popular vote to win representation.
For example, in Germany, Italy and New Zealand, women are three times more likely to be elected in seats chosen by proportional representation than in those chosen by winner-take-all. Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Netherlands, the world's leaders, all use proportional representation. In their first proportional representation elections last year elected 39% women.
In fact, comparative research has shown that the leading predictor of women's success in national elections, when tested against all other variables, is use of proportional representation. When a majority of votes is needed, as in the U.S.-style single seat "winner take all" legislative districts, a small number of discriminatory voters can deny women candidates the margin they need for election. Women also are less likely to run when there is only one representative.
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 8-1, women in Congress have been successful in gaining legislation long overlooked by men, including gender equity in the workplace and in education, child support legislation, and laws for prevention of violence against women. It was Congresswomen who ensured that the offensive behavior of U.S. Senators Bob Packwood and Brock Adams were not swept under the "good old boy" carpet.
Most established democracies have rejected our "winner take all" system in favor of proportional representation because of the underrepresentation of women and other problems resulting from giving 100% of the power to candidates that win only 51% of the vote. Implementation of proportional systems in the United States at local, state and national levels does not require revising the Constitution. Changes in applicable local, state and federal laws will do. It is high time to seriously address why 52 percent of the population only has 13 percent of the representation.
Rob Richie is executive director of The Center for Voting and Democracy and Steven Hill is the Center's west coast director. They are co-authors of "Reflecting All of Us" (Beacon Press 1999). For more information, see www.fairvote.org, call 301-270-4616 or write to: PO Box 60037, Washington, DC 20039.
To the Editor:
Thank you for exposing the "dirty little secret" that few House of Representatives races offer real choices (front page, Jan. 3). But the problem runs far deeper than campaign finance and voter complacency.
House elections have been noncompetitive for decades. In 1984-90, 97 percent of incumbents won, and nearly four in five races were won by 20 percentage points or more.
State legislative races offer even less choice. This decade more than one-third of such races have been uncontested.
To have competitive elections, we must stop allowing legislators to choose their constituents by redistricting. We should also consider alternative systems that break up political monopolies, for example, proportional representation, in which groupings of voters win seats in proportion to their share of the vote.
I sympathize with Jeff Jacoby's wish (Washington Times, 12/22/9) for a society in which Americans would throng to their polling places in a public display of citizenship and faith in democracy.
But I'm skeptical. Our turnout continues to plunge. A majority of eligible Americans abstained from the 1996 presidential race. Nearly two-thirds skipped last year's national elections for Congress, and more than 80% of Virginians didn't vote in their critically important state legislative elections this year. In May, 95% of registered voters chose not to vote in Dallas' mayoral race.
If politics were a marketplace, it would be quite clear that the consumers aren't happy with their choices. Rather than blame the consumers, current leaders in the field or some energetic entrepreneur would shift gears and offer something new.
Politics isn't a free market, of course, but rather than wring our hands at well-intentioned reforms like vote-by-mail and internet voting, pundits like Jacoby should think hard about why Americans don't much like their choices these days.
For better choices, we need to expand the spectrum of credible candidacies and create incentives for candidates to be sincere and talk substantively about issues that affect people's lives on a daily basis.
Proportional representation voting systems would do the best job at bringing the principles of the market into politics. More modest steps would include instant runoff voting in order to make it possible for voters to register a first preference for a candidate even if they suspect that candidate can't win, yet still have a chance to cast a decisive vote against their greater of two evils.