Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T16:47:27.939Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women's Underrepresentation and Electoral Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Wilma Rule
Wilma Rule*
Affiliation:
University of Nevada, Reno
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Women's parliamentary representation in the 27 long-established but “unfinished democracies” (Haavio-Mannila et al. 1985) of the world varies between 2.3% in Japan's lower house to 39.0% in unicameral Finland. Women state legislators in the United States range from 4% in Kentucky to 39% in Washington in the lower house. Women are 11% of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives. The causes of this variation are primarily the electoral arrangements by which legislators are chosen and, secondarily, the political, economic, and social context.

Favorable societal conditions will not substitute for unfavorable electoral systems for women to reach their optimal representation in parliament and local legislatures. But unfavorable contextual conditions—including cultural biases and discriminatory practices—can be overcome to a great extent by alternate electoral systems. Electoral arrangements are not neutral; they are the means used to exclude or include groups. The arrangements are amenable to change faster than social biases and other barriers to women's election opportunity and fair representation.

Democracy falls short when women of whatever color or ethnic group cannot cast an effective vote to elect representatives of their choice or to enact laws they believe are critically needed. When there are higher proportions of women in parliament, for example, more laws are enacted that benefit children (Lijphart 1991).

Type
Features
Information
PS: Political Science & Politics , Volume 27 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 689 - 692
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1994

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.)

References

Darcy, R., Hadley, Charles D., and Kirksey, Jason F. 1993. “Election Systems and the Representation of Black Women in American State Legislatures.” Women & Politics 13, 2:73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, R., Welch, Susan, and Clark, Janet. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1955. The Political Role of Women. Paris: The United Nations Economic and Social Council.Google Scholar
Grimshaw, Patricia. 1972. Women's Suffrage in New Zealand. Auckland: Auckland University.Google Scholar
Grofman, Bernard and Handley, Lisa. 1992. “Preconditions for Black and Hispanic Congressional Success.” In United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Rule, Wilma and Zimmerman, Joseph P.. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Haavio-Mannila, Elina et al. 1985. Unfinished Democracy: Women in Nordic Politics. New York: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Gary C. 1993. “Congress: Unusual Year, Unusual Election.” In The Elections of 1992, ed. Nelson, Michael. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Lakeman, Enid. 1976. “Electoral Systems and Women in Parliament.” Parliamentarian (July): 159–62.Google Scholar
Lijphart, Arend. 1991. “Debate—Proportional Representation: III. Double-Checking the Evidence.” Journal of Democracy (Summer):42–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagel, Jack. 1991. “New Zealanders Chose MMP.” In Voting and Democracy Report. Washington, D.C.: Center for Voting and Democracy.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1985. “Women's Legislative Participation in Western Europe.” Westem European Politics (October):90–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1993. “Conclusions: Comparing Legislative Recruitment.” In Gender and Party Politics, ed. Lovenduski, Joni and Norris, Pippa. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Rossiiskaya Gazeta. 1993. December 28:3–6.Google Scholar
Rule, Wilma. 1981. “Why Women Don't Run: The Critical Contextual Factors in Women's Legislative Recruitment.” Western Political Quarterly 34:60–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rule, Wilma. 1987. “Electoral Systems, Contextual Factors and Women's Opportunity for Election to Parliament in Twenty-Three Democracies.” Western Political Quarterly 40:477–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rule, Wilma. 1992. “Multi-member Legislative Districts: Minority and Anglo Women's and Men's Recruitment Opportunity.” In United States Electoral Systems: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Rule, Wilma and Zimmerman, Joseph P.. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Rule, Wilma. 1994. “Parliaments Of, By and For the People: Except for Women?” In Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Rule, Wilma and Zimmerman, Joseph F.. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
Taagepera, Rein, and Soberg Shugart, Matthew. 1989. Seats and Votes. New Haven: Yale.Google Scholar
Women's Electoral Lobby and the Electoral Reform Coalition. 1993. “Women and MMP.” Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Joseph F. 1994. “The Under-representation of Women and Minorities in the United States.” In Electoral Systems in Comparative Perspective: Their Impact on Women and Minorities, ed. Rule, Wilma and Zimmerman, Joseph F.. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar