Gender Quotas On the Way - The Electoral (Amendment)(Political Funding) Bill 2011

[Panopticon]

Despite a lot of academic research into the question, I don't think much evidence has been produced of systematic bias against women by candidacy 'gate-keepers', other than the observation that a low proportion of candidates are women.
Given that women make up a higher proportion of candidates where there are 'gate-keepers' than where there aren't (i.e. self-selection as Independent candidates), isn't the balance of current evidence against that hypothesis?

'Gate-keepers' is not a useful concept when there are two groups of decision-makers with different incentives, namely, local party members and central headquarters. Local members want their candidate on the slate. Central headquarters want balanced, small slates.

There has been a lengthy discussion on the thread already about reasons why men run more as independents. The hypothesis I find most convincing is a culture/machine synthesis. On the one hand, aspects of Ireland's political culture and TD job description alienate women from applying. On the other hand, the political machine that makes a candidacy of any sort feasible is easier for men to assemble, due to the four Cs.

-

There is a weakness of that hypothesis, and I'd like people to help me out. It is important to note that this statistic about independent candidates relies on a huge bulk of no-hopers, who don't fit easily into this model, but who also aren't useful for analysing women in political parties. I'd welcome an analysis as to why this is the case: it might help us move forward. "Why do men put themselves on the ballot paper as independents in the expectation of getting 250 votes", kind of thing.

We know why party members may want to do so, e.g. raising their profile within the party, perhaps to seek an internal party office run in a different constituency another time. But for an independent, those don't matter. I also don't think the same factors explain the candidacies of an independent who expects to get 250 votes and a party member who expects to get 5,000 votes - or an independent who expects the same.

[stringjack]

There is a weakness of that hypothesis, and I'd like people to help me out. It is important to note that this statistic about independent candidates relies on a huge bulk of no-hopers, who don't fit easily into this model, but who also aren't useful for analysing women in political parties. I'd welcome an analysis as to why this is the case: it might help us move forward. "Why do men put themselves on the ballot paper as independents in the expectation of getting 250 votes", kind of thing.

We know why party members may want to do so, e.g. raising their profile within the party, perhaps to seek an internal party office run in a different constituency another time. But for an independent, those don't matter. I also don't think the same factors explain the candidacies of an independent who expects to get 250 votes and a party member who expects to get 5,000 votes - or an independent who expects the same.

First, we don't have a good handle on what the expectations of an independent candidate are, and the group probably isn't homogenous. At least, we'd want to distinguish between first-time (once-off?) candidates and repeated candidates. At a guess, many of the repeated candidates aren't actually 'independents' - they're members (de facto or otherwise) of micro-parties. Their reasons for running are essentially ideological, however many votes they get.

First-time candidates, on the other hand, may plausibly be thought to have a poor grasp of their chances of winning (which can't be said for repeated candidates). So, their candidacy is explained by asymmetric information. Alternatively, first-time candidates may be gambling. Occasionally, one of them does very well - captures a floating vote or a protest vote. The probability of doing so may be low, but the prospective payoff may be sufficiently great to justify the gamble. Or, it could be some combination of those two factors - a high-risk strategy, combined with poor information.

The question then is, why would men make up the preponderant share of these two groups? Pretty standard moves seem likely at that point - men in western societies are typically more risk-seeking, and are typically involved in radical political movements in higher numbers than women (and the latter may be particularly true of those radical political movements which exist in Ireland).

[shiel]

Quote from today's Examiner.

"If there’d been Lehman Sisters," ... "maybe we wouldn’t have had Lehman Brothers". Christine Lagard.

[Tombo]

Quote from today's Examiner.

"If there’d been Lehman Sisters," ... "maybe we wouldn’t have had Lehman Brothers". Christine Lagard.

I can't work out which way to interpret that ambiguous statement.

Given the gender of the speaker, I will make the sexist assumption that it is a sexist comment.

[DeputyEdo]

I can't work out which way to interpret that ambiguous statement.

Given the gender of the speaker, I will make the sexist assumption that it is a sexist comment.

Nah....that's not how sexism works. It's sexist if it's against a woman, if it's against a man, that's just life.

[Toland]

Quote from today's Examiner.

"If there’d been Lehman Sisters," ... "maybe we wouldn’t have had Lehman Brothers". Christine Lagard.

Ms. Lagard may be right there. Good to see you recognise innate or quasi-innate and sex-based differences in the conduct (on average) of women and men.

That's a start.

In your next, more challenging step, you will come to realise that this cuts both ways.

Risk-taking (for example) has a positive side too, you know.

Indeed, without risk-taking we wouldn't have an economy.

[ManfredJudge]

Quote from today's Examiner.

"If there’d been Lehman Sisters," ... "maybe we wouldn’t have had Lehman Brothers". Christine Lagard.

Zat comment is zo stupid perhaps Ms Lagarde might watch ze film on TG4 tonight?

[Super Snooper]

Zat comment is zo stupid perhaps Ms Lagarde might watch ze film on TG4 tonight?

great legs!!!! i would!!!!

[florin]

Quote from today's Examiner.

"If there’d been Lehman Sisters," ... "maybe we wouldn’t have had Lehman Brothers". Christine Lagard.

Maybe if it had been Smith brothers rather than a Jewish name (Lehman, Goldman, Sachs etc.) they wouldn't have been such greedy bloodsuckers. Makes about as much sense.

(mod note - i'm being sarcastic)

Ms. Lagard may be right there. Good to see you recognise innate or quasi-innate and sex-based differences in the conduct (on average) of women and men.

That's a start.

In your next, more challenging step, you will come to realise that this cuts both ways.

Risk-taking (for example) has a positive side too, you know.

Indeed, without risk-taking we wouldn't have an economy.

It's odd that those who think that the predominance of men in the top positions is entirely reflective of an injust society, rarely bother to notice that men are also dominant at the bottom of society - prisons, homeless shelters, rehab clinics etc. are all sausage-fests.

[afns1]

Quote from today's Examiner.

"If there’d been Lehman Sisters," ... "maybe we wouldn’t have had Lehman Brothers". Christine Lagard.

If somebody thinks women are "better" than men on average on certain aspects of behaviour or ability, but there are no areas where men are better than women at, they could be called a female supremacist.