"The Year of The Woman"
The proportion of women in Congress increased from six percent in 1991 to ten percent in 1993 (King, 36). As a result of this increase 1992 has often been coined "The Year of the Woman". There were more women in this year running for, and winning, public office than there ever had been in the past. There was an expectation that this political victory for women would be a turning point in history and would further advance their goals toward political parity in United States government. Unfortunately, this triumph was in fact more of a milestone than it was a turning point.
Plateau of Female Representation
Since 1992, women have made only modest overall increases in both national and state elections. In Congress the proportion of women remained at about ten percent through 1995 and increased slightly to eleven percent after the 1996 elections, and then rose again after 1998 to twelve percent, indicating only a modest increase was made (Faucheux, 1). Statewide elections showed similar findings. In 1992 twenty-two percent of the state legislators were women (Faucheux, 1). The proportion rose through 1995 to twenty-six percent, and by 1999 only a modest increase was made, from twenty-six to twenty-eight percent (Fauchuex, 1). As former U.S. Representative Pat Schroeder noted in a 1998 interview, "I'm stunned at how slow women's progress has been. I look at the House of Representatives, and here we are in the turn of the century and we have fifty-five women out of 435!"(King, 36).
The "Winner Take All" Voting System
Sadly, the most "democratic" nation in the world has not yet achieved proportional representation of women in its democratic institutions. In 1998, the United States ranked fiftieth among the 132 countries surveyed by the United Nations. In this critical indicator of women's empowerment, just 12.9 percent of the seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, and nine Senate seats were occupied by women (King, 36). The United States style "winner take all" voting system has hindered minority groups from winning elected office, including women. Comparative research has shown that the leading predictor of women's success in national elections, when tested against all other variables, is the use of proportional representation (Hill and Richie, 2). When a majority of votes is needed, such as in the United States, a small number of discriminatory voters can deny women candidates the margin they need for election.
Incumbency
Another factor contributing to women's slow political progress is the obstacle of defeating an incumbent legislator. In the 1998 election not a single woman won who ran against an incumbent of the U.S. House or Senate (Christian Science Monitor, 72). Historically, more than ninety percent of all congressional candidates who run for reelection win, and most win easily (Greene and Herrnson, 46). This is caused by the number of advantages incumbents have over their opponents. They enjoy greater name recognition among voters and better access to the media. They possess tremendous fundraising advantages with political action committees, wealthy donors and even individuals who make small contributions. In addition, incumbents typically assemble more professional campaign organizations and almost always have more political skill than do their opponents. Given these advantages, in comes as little surprise that barring illness, scandal, or sheer incompetence, most incumbents are virtual shoo-ins for reelection (Greene and Herrnson, 46). Incumbency creates an entry barrier for women since a large percentage of incumbents are men because they currently hold most of the seats in legislature. In 1992, there were 93 open seats in the 435-member House, compared to 42 in 2002 (LaVelle, 1).
Term Limits
Contrary to the expectations of scholars, a number of women serving in term-limited states actually decreased following the 1998 and 2000 elections. During these two years more women were forced to vacate seats because of term limits than were elected to seats that were open as a result of term limits. Across the six states that implemented term limits for state house races in 1998, forty-seven incumbent women were forced to leave office as a result of term limits while only forty-three women won election to house seats vacated by term-limited incumbents (Carroll, 3). Similarly, across the eleven states in which term limits were in effect for house seats in 2000, seventy women who served in term-limited seats left office while only sixty-five new women were elected to seats that were open as a result of term limits (Carroll, 3).
Facing a Double Standard
A recent study conducted by the White House Project focused on female candidates for executive positions such as governor, which can be the toughest for women to win. The project put together a bipartisan team of pollsters, media consultants, and political strategists to analyze four hundred television ads, and test responses from focus groups. The research found that female candidates faced a complex task of striking the right balance between projecting competence and personal appeal. Democratic pollster Celinda Lake said, "Women are judged more harshly than male candidates and a challenging double standard exists for women." Voters often start with more questions about whether female candidates were tough, effective, and had a proven record. The study found that women running for office need to be dressed formally and appear in more formal settings. And they should talk about issues, like crime and the economy, not just issues like education and healthcare. The study also found that female candidates must avoid appearing too casual or too glamorous because those images undermine credibility in voters' minds (Bakst, 16).
The number of women running for state legislature has continued to drop. In 1998 there were almost one hundred fewer than in 1992. In 2002, there was a higher number of women running against women state legislatures, but the overall number of women running for those offices still was fewer than in the elections of 1998 and 1996 (McLaughlin, 1). One reason fewer women are running is there are now more lucrative opportunities in the private sector for women than in the government. Also, some of the reasons fewer women than men get involved in state government are rooted in our culture. Women still do the majority of the work in running households and raising children, and few also can find time to run for state office. Even those women who are elected, few can afford to take several months away from their families and jobs to work for what are often low wages at state capitals often far from their homes (Cowan, 11).
As a result, women are more likely to run for political office when they are older, after their children have grown. Statistics found that while twenty-four percent of men made their first run for office by the age of thirty, only six percent of women did. By the age of thirty-nine, that figure was sixty percent for men but only forty-one percent for women (Cowan, 11). Men are also more likely to self-start their own political careers, whereas, many women are often persuaded to run for office.
Perhaps one of the most ironic reasons why more women have not run for state office is that many simply are not interested. Although many have entered and been successful in fields such as business, law, and medicine, not as many have entered politics. This may be due to the fact that politics has changed greatly in the past thirty years. Campaigns on the state level can cost millions of dollars and serving in office does not hold the same appeal as it once did (Cowan, 11).
Works Cited
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |