Women’s Under-Representation in United States Elective Office: Why Women are Less Likely to Run and How This Imbalance Can Be Addressed

Problem Statement

EMILY’s List has been overwhelmingly successful at achieving its mission: electing pro-choice Democratic women to office. Since its founding, EMILY’s List has helped to elect over 900 women to office. Additionally, since the 2016 election, EMILY’s List has experienced an unprecedented spike in interest of both potential candidates and others who want to help these women get elected. As EMILY’s List is at the forefront of getting women into office and is very successful at doing so, EMILY’s List has been an exciting and logical organization for these candidates, donors, and volunteers to turn to during this time. However, despite its name recognition, influence, and size, there are several reasons that EMILY’s List still will not be able to fully rectify the underrepresentation of women in elected office.

1. EMILY’s List does not address the fact that political ambition and the ambition gap are formed early.

Among college students, men were found to be twice as likely than women to say that they would be qualified to run for office after graduating and working for a while, while women were 20 percentage points more likely to say that they would not be. Therefore, although EMILY’s List successfully supports women who want to run for office when they decide to do so, it is problematic that EMILY’s List does not intervene when women are forming conceptions of whether or not they will ever seek elective office: high school and college. By not engaging women when they are forming their future goals that may inform whether or not they end up ever running, EMILY’s List is missing an opportunity to plant seeds that will grow into a larger pool of women candidates in the future. Although EMILY’s List’s Run to Win recruitment and training program has helped over 20,000 women candidates, acting as a crucial resource for women who want to learn about the nuts and bolts of running for office, it inherently only helps women who already have political ambition, likely formed during these early years.

2. Emily’s List helps women run who have made the decision to do so.

Although EMILY’s List helps women win elections, this support does little to address the fact that women are less likely to have political ambition in the first place. Women who think that they are qualified to run for office are just as likely to be interested in running. Therefore, in order to increase the representation of women in office, EMILY’s List should not only help women candidates win, but also increase the amount of women who consider running for office.

3. EMILY’s List does not increase women’s access to professional experiences that will make them feel qualified to run for office.

If a woman does perceive herself as qualified to run for office, the most likely evidence that she will cite for her qualification is her professional experiences, whereas a man who considers himself qualified is most likely to cite his passion or leadership. Understanding that women value this type of qualification most when deciding if they should run for office, EMILY’s List limits its potential candidates by not helping to facilitate these experiences.