Sad to say I live in a state that just preemptively banned ranked-choice voting (Missouri). (We also preemptively banned plastic bag bans when those were starting to get traction, ugh.)
I really enjoyed this Freakonomics ep about understanding our political system as a duopoly much like Coke and Pepsi are a duopoly.
ain’t a red state but I am afraid of ranked choice voting producing even more extreme candidates in the primaries and then I have two candidates in the general that are too extreme for my moderate positions
problem is that Adrienne Adams and Brad Lander got boxed out by money and attention even more than they would in the old system
I know Silwa or the other independents won’t win in the general and I am deeply happy about that, but I’m open to vote R for the first time in a decade because I’m so turned off by the local D politics machine
Great arguments, Darby. I really do believe that many of our political problems in this country could be solved, or at least addressed more fully, if we could get out of a two party system. A parliamentary system, where the party selects the leader, does seem to provide much better outcomes on the whole. The part about ranked choice voting or parliamentary systems privileging ideas and policies rather than features of individual candidates makes very good sense to me, as does the notion that people are more skeptical of electing women in the United States in a race like the presidency, which is so often driven by personality and who you want to have a beer (Chardonnay?) with.
my two cents is I am against ranked voting, horrible incentives. the street posters/art/graffiti were all “don’t rank Cuomo” which is fair as he is an ass, versus pro anyone
the second cent is the perception that the female candidates were handed the nomination versus earning it. totally understand Kamala literally had no option and she tried but there is still a lingering hubris of Hillary (whether perceived or real) appearing entitled to the nomination versus earning it
but the counterpoint to second cent is that is that we have had nepotism candidates before and look how those turned out
Good point about the second cent. Although Kamala was the VP for almost four years, so I do think there was a logic to picking her. There really should have been a primary, still.
there was logic to picking her as default! the frustration is by default versus on her own merits cuz if she could have charted her own path via a rushed competitive primary versus a continuation of Biden because he was declining
it has been some very weak and unfair positions that otherwise competent individuals have been placed in. the unfortunate thing is that Hillary and Kamala each in their own way failed to rise to the challenge and overcome
and now to be a curmudgeon, the mainstream media complaint of "but sexism" does ring hollow imho. think a man failing to show they could overcome the same weak and unfair positions would have also lost to an aggressive, predatory, opportunistic candidate as well
what I would give for Liz Warren in 2028 but she will be so old too. she really needs to run a bootcamp on how to deal with Big Business for like the Jasmine Crocketts and Jeff Jacksons
I agree. Although in Kamala's defense, she did not have a lot of time to put together a campaign AND she was hamstrung by Biden not wanting her to break with him in any way (plus her whole campaign team was Biden's team). I think she did a pretty great job with the big speeches and events. She definitely needed to do more podcasts and spontaneous interviews. And being a woman didn't help her, at least with male voters, particularly male voters of color.
Would love to see a younger Liz Warren run in 2028. I like Gretchen Whitmer, Andy Beshear, Buttigieg, Chris Murphy, and most of the other prospects. I really like Michael Bennett but he might be too old, plus he's running for governor now.
yea Kamala was dealt a bad hand. just all gotta play the hands we are dealt to the best of our abilities.
I do empathize about the hamstring tho. feels like a lot of our economy/society hamstrings people from giving out their absolute best, authentic efforts
Well look at a culturally quite similar country who kept re-electing a woman PM several times: Margaret Thatcher. Yes, everybody knows she was super conservative. Oh and the election system in the UK is a similar winner-takes-all, no ranked choice or nothing.
I think the key is not so much that Thatcher was super conservative and the voters wanted exactly that. It is possible to find conservative guys. Usually more of them.
I think it was that she was the Iron Lady. That is she was very, very good at, how to put it, masculine characteristics like toughness, courage, determination, not giving in to pressure, and a fighting spirit.
Look at some Thatcher quotes and think about whether you saw anything like that from any US female politician:
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
"If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."
"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end."
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."
If Thatcher would have been a man, the entire Manosphere would worship the greatest alpha-sigma ever :)
"The lack of female representation in U.S. politics costs us, because there’s solid evidence that countries with a greater proportion of female leaders are, on the whole, more stable, less beset by political corruption, and more likely to invest in education, healthcare, and pro-family policies like parental leave and high-quality childcare.. Female leadership is even moderately correlated (+0.40) with national GDP:"
Umm this seems extremely confounded. If there are a lot of women in government, this is an INDICATOR that something is true about a country. That it is probably developed, socially liberal, and so on. It doesn't mean that putting more women in government will make a country more like something. You can look at India, where Indira Gandhi came to power, and then what?
I think that countries with PR have more women because there are often quotas and political pressure from within the party to put more women on the list. I know that a lot of the center-left parties in Israel have explicit gender quotas. I am sure that if the US had PR, the Democrats would go put a bunch of women on their lists who are less popular, just because they are women. That's how we got Harris as Biden's VP. What is really going on is that women are less interested in becoming politicians. If anything this reflects well on women. But when politicians themselves choose the lists, you end up with more women.
I don't think it follows that implementing PR or something like that will necessary lead to more left-wing policies or more feminist. Is there evidence of that? I don't see that. The UK has a fist past the post system and it's not very anti feminist or whatever because of it. In fact the UK has had several female Prime Ministers (Thatcher, May, Truss), all from the Tories. The head of the Tories is currently a woman.
Yes - right below the passage you quoted, I made exactly that point re: confounding with a third variable explanation:
"Of course, there are plenty of terrible female politicians, here and abroad. Electing women is not an end in itself.
Rather, there may be a third variable explanation for the benefits of female leadership. That is, a political system that makes it easier to elect women comes with other advantages that improve national governance. Since they require more consensus-building and party alliances, proportional voting systems reward candidates who can find compromise."
I'm skeptical that this is the mechanism by which PR leads to more female representation. I'm familiar with the Israeli case, and there is a lot of female representation because the center-left parties have quotas. Certainly not every OECD country in this chart. Israel, which has PR, is not. I don't see Australia. Or Greece. And so on. I'd want a chart with all OECD members.
It's definitely true that some of the parties in proportional voting countries have gender quotas. But that's not because of charity - it's because it's good politics. If a party is nominating a slate of 10 candidates, making the slate gender-balanced ensures you're reaching your whole constituency, and will appeal to certain voters. So the parties are reacting to external incentives coming from voters.
Australia is on the chart! It's shaded gray because it uses a mixed voting system. I couldn't put the whole OECD on here because the chart gets hard to read but I will try redoing it with more countries.
I'm not sure it's actually good politics rather than just intra-party politics. I would expect by default that male politicians are more popular with male voters and female ones with female voters, but I'm not sure which effect is bigger. It might just be that overall people are a bit more likely to vote for a male. Not necessarily because they're sexist, but just for the same reason people prefer taller politicians, confident politicians, etcetera. Stereotypically male personality traits are more suited to entering politics. If anything this arguably reflects well on women since politicians are infamous for being bad and unethical people.
I am pretty sure Hillary and Kamala would have liked winning for ANY reason, especially given the damage that Trump did to the country btw 2016-2020 and is doing now.
But also, as the piece talks about, there are more folks who will vote specifically for the man than will vote specifically for the woman - if the latter were always the case, women would do especially well in majoritarian systems that are more identity-based.
In regards to the damage, hindsight is 20/20. So no, morning after election I don’t think either would’ve said “thank god I won because of x and y damage that was to come”. (Given the country chose him again after 1st term, this damage point loses its potency tbh)
They would like to think on that morning though that the country chose them because they were seen as the better choice, the more competent president. Not because they’re a woman. This is my claim at least.
The people voting specifically for the man, I think you’re attributing to them the notion that they voted based on gender. They probably voted based on characteristics and it happened that men showcased those characteristics they were looking for or thought the time called for, etc. (Trump is an excellent example on this point as he wasn’t a politician prior to running for the highest office.)
Other commenters here have made the case that people will vote for certain leadership attributes when they’re shown by women, such as thatcher, so it’s not given that it’s a gendered thing, nor should it be. I’ll throw in Merkel as well to the mix, realising as per your article that she governed in coalitions, but winning 4 elections is special and worthy of singling out for her personal merit.
Sad to say I live in a state that just preemptively banned ranked-choice voting (Missouri). (We also preemptively banned plastic bag bans when those were starting to get traction, ugh.)
I really enjoyed this Freakonomics ep about understanding our political system as a duopoly much like Coke and Pepsi are a duopoly.
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/americas-hidden-duopoly_radio/
Seems like a lot of red states are banning RCV - which raises the question, what are they afraid of?
ain’t a red state but I am afraid of ranked choice voting producing even more extreme candidates in the primaries and then I have two candidates in the general that are too extreme for my moderate positions
problem is that Adrienne Adams and Brad Lander got boxed out by money and attention even more than they would in the old system
I know Silwa or the other independents won’t win in the general and I am deeply happy about that, but I’m open to vote R for the first time in a decade because I’m so turned off by the local D politics machine
Great arguments, Darby. I really do believe that many of our political problems in this country could be solved, or at least addressed more fully, if we could get out of a two party system. A parliamentary system, where the party selects the leader, does seem to provide much better outcomes on the whole. The part about ranked choice voting or parliamentary systems privileging ideas and policies rather than features of individual candidates makes very good sense to me, as does the notion that people are more skeptical of electing women in the United States in a race like the presidency, which is so often driven by personality and who you want to have a beer (Chardonnay?) with.
Yes! Thanks so much for commenting. I agree...the question is just how to get there but maybe we start by getting more traction at the local level.
my two cents is I am against ranked voting, horrible incentives. the street posters/art/graffiti were all “don’t rank Cuomo” which is fair as he is an ass, versus pro anyone
the second cent is the perception that the female candidates were handed the nomination versus earning it. totally understand Kamala literally had no option and she tried but there is still a lingering hubris of Hillary (whether perceived or real) appearing entitled to the nomination versus earning it
but the counterpoint to second cent is that is that we have had nepotism candidates before and look how those turned out
Good point about the second cent. Although Kamala was the VP for almost four years, so I do think there was a logic to picking her. There really should have been a primary, still.
there was logic to picking her as default! the frustration is by default versus on her own merits cuz if she could have charted her own path via a rushed competitive primary versus a continuation of Biden because he was declining
it has been some very weak and unfair positions that otherwise competent individuals have been placed in. the unfortunate thing is that Hillary and Kamala each in their own way failed to rise to the challenge and overcome
and now to be a curmudgeon, the mainstream media complaint of "but sexism" does ring hollow imho. think a man failing to show they could overcome the same weak and unfair positions would have also lost to an aggressive, predatory, opportunistic candidate as well
what I would give for Liz Warren in 2028 but she will be so old too. she really needs to run a bootcamp on how to deal with Big Business for like the Jasmine Crocketts and Jeff Jacksons
I agree. Although in Kamala's defense, she did not have a lot of time to put together a campaign AND she was hamstrung by Biden not wanting her to break with him in any way (plus her whole campaign team was Biden's team). I think she did a pretty great job with the big speeches and events. She definitely needed to do more podcasts and spontaneous interviews. And being a woman didn't help her, at least with male voters, particularly male voters of color.
Would love to see a younger Liz Warren run in 2028. I like Gretchen Whitmer, Andy Beshear, Buttigieg, Chris Murphy, and most of the other prospects. I really like Michael Bennett but he might be too old, plus he's running for governor now.
yea Kamala was dealt a bad hand. just all gotta play the hands we are dealt to the best of our abilities.
I do empathize about the hamstring tho. feels like a lot of our economy/society hamstrings people from giving out their absolute best, authentic efforts
This is great. It's sad there isn't more evidence-based feminist policy analysis since, as you demonstrate, the evidence is on feminism's side.
Well look at a culturally quite similar country who kept re-electing a woman PM several times: Margaret Thatcher. Yes, everybody knows she was super conservative. Oh and the election system in the UK is a similar winner-takes-all, no ranked choice or nothing.
I think the key is not so much that Thatcher was super conservative and the voters wanted exactly that. It is possible to find conservative guys. Usually more of them.
I think it was that she was the Iron Lady. That is she was very, very good at, how to put it, masculine characteristics like toughness, courage, determination, not giving in to pressure, and a fighting spirit.
Look at some Thatcher quotes and think about whether you saw anything like that from any US female politician:
"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."
"If you set out to be liked, you would be prepared to compromise on anything at any time, and you would achieve nothing."
"I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end."
"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."
If Thatcher would have been a man, the entire Manosphere would worship the greatest alpha-sigma ever :)
"The lack of female representation in U.S. politics costs us, because there’s solid evidence that countries with a greater proportion of female leaders are, on the whole, more stable, less beset by political corruption, and more likely to invest in education, healthcare, and pro-family policies like parental leave and high-quality childcare.. Female leadership is even moderately correlated (+0.40) with national GDP:"
Umm this seems extremely confounded. If there are a lot of women in government, this is an INDICATOR that something is true about a country. That it is probably developed, socially liberal, and so on. It doesn't mean that putting more women in government will make a country more like something. You can look at India, where Indira Gandhi came to power, and then what?
I think that countries with PR have more women because there are often quotas and political pressure from within the party to put more women on the list. I know that a lot of the center-left parties in Israel have explicit gender quotas. I am sure that if the US had PR, the Democrats would go put a bunch of women on their lists who are less popular, just because they are women. That's how we got Harris as Biden's VP. What is really going on is that women are less interested in becoming politicians. If anything this reflects well on women. But when politicians themselves choose the lists, you end up with more women.
I don't think it follows that implementing PR or something like that will necessary lead to more left-wing policies or more feminist. Is there evidence of that? I don't see that. The UK has a fist past the post system and it's not very anti feminist or whatever because of it. In fact the UK has had several female Prime Ministers (Thatcher, May, Truss), all from the Tories. The head of the Tories is currently a woman.
Yes - right below the passage you quoted, I made exactly that point re: confounding with a third variable explanation:
"Of course, there are plenty of terrible female politicians, here and abroad. Electing women is not an end in itself.
Rather, there may be a third variable explanation for the benefits of female leadership. That is, a political system that makes it easier to elect women comes with other advantages that improve national governance. Since they require more consensus-building and party alliances, proportional voting systems reward candidates who can find compromise."
I'm skeptical that this is the mechanism by which PR leads to more female representation. I'm familiar with the Israeli case, and there is a lot of female representation because the center-left parties have quotas. Certainly not every OECD country in this chart. Israel, which has PR, is not. I don't see Australia. Or Greece. And so on. I'd want a chart with all OECD members.
It's definitely true that some of the parties in proportional voting countries have gender quotas. But that's not because of charity - it's because it's good politics. If a party is nominating a slate of 10 candidates, making the slate gender-balanced ensures you're reaching your whole constituency, and will appeal to certain voters. So the parties are reacting to external incentives coming from voters.
Australia is on the chart! It's shaded gray because it uses a mixed voting system. I couldn't put the whole OECD on here because the chart gets hard to read but I will try redoing it with more countries.
I'm not sure it's actually good politics rather than just intra-party politics. I would expect by default that male politicians are more popular with male voters and female ones with female voters, but I'm not sure which effect is bigger. It might just be that overall people are a bit more likely to vote for a male. Not necessarily because they're sexist, but just for the same reason people prefer taller politicians, confident politicians, etcetera. Stereotypically male personality traits are more suited to entering politics. If anything this arguably reflects well on women since politicians are infamous for being bad and unethical people.
By “appeal to certain voters” you’re euphemistically trying to say people who vote for a candidate because she’s a woman?
Is it wise for people to elect their leaders based on their gender and not polices, character, etc etc…qualities which aren’t genital related?
I doubt Hilary would’ve liked having won because she was a woman, and not because she was an astute politician. (Hard to say about Kamala on this).
I am pretty sure Hillary and Kamala would have liked winning for ANY reason, especially given the damage that Trump did to the country btw 2016-2020 and is doing now.
But also, as the piece talks about, there are more folks who will vote specifically for the man than will vote specifically for the woman - if the latter were always the case, women would do especially well in majoritarian systems that are more identity-based.
In regards to the damage, hindsight is 20/20. So no, morning after election I don’t think either would’ve said “thank god I won because of x and y damage that was to come”. (Given the country chose him again after 1st term, this damage point loses its potency tbh)
They would like to think on that morning though that the country chose them because they were seen as the better choice, the more competent president. Not because they’re a woman. This is my claim at least.
The people voting specifically for the man, I think you’re attributing to them the notion that they voted based on gender. They probably voted based on characteristics and it happened that men showcased those characteristics they were looking for or thought the time called for, etc. (Trump is an excellent example on this point as he wasn’t a politician prior to running for the highest office.)
Other commenters here have made the case that people will vote for certain leadership attributes when they’re shown by women, such as thatcher, so it’s not given that it’s a gendered thing, nor should it be. I’ll throw in Merkel as well to the mix, realising as per your article that she governed in coalitions, but winning 4 elections is special and worthy of singling out for her personal merit.