Search

Based on data from the 2011 Citizen Political Ambition Study - a national survey of nearly 4,000 "potential candidates" for all levels of office - we provide the first thorough analysis of the manner in which traditional family arrangements affect the initial decision to run for office. Despite a substantial gender gap in political ambition, and the persistence of traditional family structures and gender roles among potential candidates, our findings reveal that traditional family dynamics do not account for the gender gap in interest in running for office. Neither marital and parental status, nor the division of labor pertaining to household tasks and childcare, predict political ambition, regardless of how we measure it. This is not to downplay the fact that the gender gap in political ambition remains substantial and static, but it is to suggest that family arrangements are not a primary contributing factor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the concept of gender, family roles and political ambition in the 21st Century. It mentions that 84 percent of the members of the U.S. House of Representatives and 83 percent of members of the U.S. Senate are men. It offers information on contemporary electoral environment and female candidates in public offices.

Based on survey responses from a national random sample of nearly 4,000 high school (ages 13 to 17) and college (ages 18 to 25) students, we uncover a dramatic gender gap in political ambition. This finding serves as striking evidence that the gap is present well before women and men enter the professions from which most candidates emerge. We then use political socialization - which we gauge through a myriad of socializing agents and early life experiences - as a lens through which to explain the individual-level differences we uncover. Our analysis reveals that parental encouragement, politicized educational and peer experiences, participation in competitive activities, and a sense of self-confidence propel interest in running for office. But on each of these dimensions, women, particularly once they are in college, are at a disadvantage. By identifying when and why gender differences in interest in running for office materialize, we uncover the origins of the gender gap in political ambition, which until now had been elusive. Taken together, our results cast a cloud over prospects for gender parity in U.S. political institutions, and suggest that concerns about substantive and symbolic representation will likely remain serious for generations to come. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the second wave of the Citizen Political Ambition Panel Study, we provide the first thorough analysis of how gender affects women and men's efficacy to run for office. Our findings reveal that, despite comparable credentials, backgrounds, and experiences, accomplished women are substantially less likely than similarly situated men to perceive themselves as qualified to seek office. Importantly, women and men rely on the same factors when evaluating themselves as candidates; but women are less likely than men to believe they meet these criteria. Not only are women more likely than men to doubt that they have skills and traits necessary for electoral politics, but they are also more likely to doubt their abilities to engage in campaign mechanics. These findings are critical because the perceptual differences we uncover account for much of the gender gap in potential candidates' self-efficacy and ultimately hinder women's prospects for political equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the concept of dynamic ambition, which explains that political ambition among potential candidates are encouraged and suppressed by myriad factors. It is noted that much of the variation in levels of political ambition over time is caused by shifts in levels of external and internal political efficacy.

Based on data from the second wave of the Citizen Political Ambition Panel Study - our national survey of almost 2,100 "potential candidates" in 2008 - we provide the first thorough analysis of the manner in which gender interacts with political recruitment, from the potential candidates' point of view. Our findings are striking. Highly qualified and accomplished women from both major political parties are substantially less likely than similarly situated men to be recruited to run for public office by all types of political actors. They are less likely than men to be recruited intensely. And they are less likely than men to be recruited by multiple sources. Although our data suggest that women's organizations are succeeding in their efforts to reduce the recruitment gap, widespread gender differences in political recruitment will persist for the foreseeable future. These findings are of critical importance because women's recruitment disadvantage depresses their political ambition and ultimately hinders their emergence as candidates. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers an in-depth analysis of differences in how African Americans and Whites conceive of the initial decision to run for office in the U.S. It addresses broad questions of political representation and democratic legitimacy, as well as practical questions associated with candidate emergence. It is noted that the vast majority of elected bodies in the U.S. continue to be dominated by white men and that members of historically excluded populations may feel like the political system is not open to them.

Examines the electoral effects of female running mates in gubernatorial elections in the U.S. Literatures on voting in state level elections; Types of races where women have been selected as running mates; Assessment of the strategy of running with a woman candidate.

A critical component of a healthy democracy is that well positioned, politically astute citizens are willing to engage the political system and run for public office. The extant research pertaining to the candidate emergence process, however, virtually ignores citizens? initial decisions to run for office. Instead, political scientists tend to focus on candidates and office holders ? all of whom have already decided to run ? and explore, retrospectively, the strategic nature of their political ambition. Although these studies shed light on the cost/benefit analyses candidates and office holders employ when deciding whether to enter specific races, seek higher office, or retire from politics altogether, they do not aid in our understanding of why certain people pursue elective positions in the first place. We develop the concept of nascent political ambition and offer the first empirical assessment of well situated potential candidates? initial interest in seeking political office. We base our analysis on data from the Citizen Political Ambition Study ? our national survey of nearly 3,800 individuals in the four professions that most frequently precede a career in politics. In developing this broader conception of political ambition, we formulate several expectations from the political participation and candidate emergence literatures to test the factors that spur potential candidates to consider running for office. The results of our analysis indicate that favorable electoral perceptions and a politicized upbringing motivate their inclinations to run for office. Alternatively, status as a member of a group historically excluded from politics depresses the likelihood that potential candidates consider running. These findings shed light not only on the prospects for democratic legitimacy in the United States, but also the means by which to study candidate emergence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A glance at the top elective offices in the American political system exposes a deep gender disparity: 87% of U.S. senators, 86% of the members of the House of Representatives, 90% of state governors, 88% of big city mayors, and 78% of state legislators are currently male. Despite these large gender disparities in elective office, investigators conclude that there is little or no evidence of bias against women candidates. In terms of fundraising and vote totals, often considered the two most important indicators of electoral success, investigators find that women fare at least as well as their male counterparts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent scholarship on gender in congressional elections has found that female and male candidates perform similarly in terms of success rates, vote share and fundraising. In this paper we provide an in-depth comparison of the performance of female and male candidates in open-seat races. Open seat races are a particularly important focus of inquiry as these seats may provide the most important opportunities for increasing the numbers of women in the House. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]