Why Women Don't Run

by Cherry Crayton

When Belva Lockwood's name first appeared on the ballot for the U.S. presidency as the nominee of the Equal Rights Party, the year was 1884, and women could not legally vote in national elections. Though she received less than 2 percent of the vote, Lockwood proved what she hoped to: the U.S. Constitution was not an obstacle to women in pursuing a career in electoral politics.

Now, more than a hundred years later as the United States waits for another woman's name to appear on the ballot for the U.S. presidency, researchers Elizabeth Smith, assistant professor of political science at Furman University; Ashleigh Powers, a doctoral candidate in political science at UNC-Chapel Hill; and Gustavo Suerava, a Furman graduate; have provided evidence suggesting that another obstacle does not stand in the way of women pursuing electoral politics: voters.

Belva Lockwood, the first woman admitted to the Bar of the U.S. Supreme Court, ran for president in 1884 and 1888. Since then, no other woman has run a full-scale presidential campaign through Election Day. Photo courtesy Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division [LC-BH834-55 DLC]. Click to enlarge.

In a study examining voters' perceptions of politicians linked to an alleged transgression, Smith and Powers found that, overall, male and female politicians are not perceived or judged differently by voters. The researchers had suspected that female politicians would be judged more harshly and held to a higher moral standard than males because of the historical renderings that placed women on a "pedestal," they say. The study will be published in Political Psychology in February 2005.

"This finding is nice news for women," Powers says. "It reinforces evidence that women are not treated or perceived differently when voters are making their decisions and evaluating candidates."

The researchers base their findings on a study in which they gave 240 eligible voters a packet of fictitious but plausible news articles reporting on transgressions involving male and female politicians. These alleged transgressions included hiring an illegal immigrant, misappropriating finances, engaging in a sexual relationship with a person in a subordinate position, and engaging in a sexual relationship with a person in a superior position. After reading the news articles, the research participants completed a survey that measured general impressions of the politicians such as perceived competency level and likability.

Overall, politicians linked to financial scandals and a sexual relationship with a subordinate were judged more harshly by voters because the transgression appeared to be an abuse of power, Powers says.

The researchers also report that female politicians were viewed less harshly than males when mired in a transgression not stereotypically associated with women, such as sleeping with a subordinate. But on the whole, the voters exhibited no strong stereotyping when evaluating the politicians, as the voters seemed to be equally forgiving of both males and females.

The findings are important, Smith says, because they challenge the belief that voter bias hinders women in public office.

"Research shows that women oftentimes choose not to run for office, thinking that voter stereotypes will impede them," says Smith, a 1992 Carolina graduate."Certainly, women in electoral politics have not advanced the way we would have hoped they would.

"But the low number of women in electoral politics is in large part due to the fact that women don't run for office; it's not necessarily due to voter bias."

back to contents