Suchergebnisse

AbstractResearch has consistently shown that women are less likely than men to participate in political parties as members and activists; this participation gender gap has persisted despite narrowing gender gaps in education, employment and in other types of political participation. Yet while the gaps are widespread, their size varies greatly by country as well as by party. To what extent do party organizational factors help explain these disparities? More pointedly, are there any lessons to be learned from past experiences about party mechanisms which might help to reduce these gaps? To answer these questions, this study investigates grassroots partisan participation in 68 parties in 12 parliamentary democracies, considering whether factors that have been shown to boost the number of women candidates and legislators are also associated with changing the traditionally male dominance of grassroots party politics. We find evidence of links between some party mechanisms and higher women's intra‐party participation; however, because the same relationship holds for men's participation, they do not alter the participation gender gap. Only greater participation of women in parties' parliamentary delegations is associated with smaller grassroots gender gaps. We conclude that parties which wish to close grassroots gender gaps should not rely solely on efforts aimed at remedying gender gaps at the elite level.

Despite evidence that racial diversification has increased support for the judiciary, political scientists know little about the heterogeneous effects of diversification across different population segments. Previous research illustrates that including Black judges increases judicial legitimacy among the Black population, but it decreases the legitimacy of the courts among the White population. We expand on this knowledge by examining the impact of adding Latinos to the bench. Our survey experiment compares White respondents' perception of the courts based on differing levels of Latino representation in the ruling panel. Does descriptive representation in the racialized issue area of immigration signal fairness and legitimacy to White respondents? Or does the inclusion of Latino jurists in immigration cases trigger racial animosity and decreasing support for the courts? We find that when the court rules against the White respondent's preference, they tend to penalize all-White judicial panels that rule against the perceived interest of Latinos. Additionally, we find that when presented with a Latino majority panel, White respondents who disagree with the ruling are more likely to punish the anti-Latino decisions as their levels of group consciousness increase. Ultimately, our findings illustrate how judicial diversity may affect the countermajoritarian capacity of the judiciary.

In recent decades, parties in many parliamentary democracies have radically reshaped what it means to be a party member, making it easier and cheaper to join, and giving members greater direct say over party decisions. This article explores some implications of such changes, asking whether membership costs and benefits influence which supporters take the step of joining their party. In particular, it considers the impact of net membership benefits on membership demographics and on members' ideology. The investigation examines patterns of party membership in 10 parliamentary democracies, using opinion data from the European Social Survey and data on party rules from the Political Party Database project. Our analysis shows that party supporters are more sensitive to political benefits than to financial costs, especially in terms of the ideological incongruence of who joins. As a result, parties offering higher benefits to their members have lower ideological and demographic disparities between members and other party supporters. This is a positive finding for party-based representation, in that it suggests that trends toward more inclusive decision- making processes have the potential to produce parties with memberships that are more substantively and more descriptively representative of their supporters. ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

In recent years, parties in many parliamentary democracies have radically re-shaped what it means to be a party member, most importantly by giving them more direct say over party decisions. This article explores some of the implications of these changes, asking whether the costs and benefits of membership have an effect on which supporters take the step of joining their party. In particular, it considers the impact of net membership benefits on membership demographics and on members' ideology. The article investigates these questions looking at patterns of party membership in 10 parliamentary democracies, using opinion data from the European Social Survey and data on party rules from the Political Party Database project. Our analysis shows that party supporters are more sensitive to political benefits than to financial costs, especially in terms of the ideological incongruence of who joins. As a result, parties offering higher benefits to their members have lower ideological and demographic disparities between members and other party supporters. This is a positive finding for party-based representation, in that it suggests that trends towards more inclusive decision-making processes have the potential to produce parties with memberships which are more substantively and more descriptively representative of their supporters. ; means to be a party member, making it easier and cheaper to join, and giving members greater direct say over party decisions. This article explores some implications of such changes, asking whether membership costs and benefits influence which supporters take the step of joining their party. In particular, it considers the impact of net membership benefits on membership demographics and on members' ideology. The investigation examines patterns of party membership in 10 parliamentary democracies, using opinion data from the European Social Survey and data on party rules from the Political Party Database project. Our analysis shows that party supporters are more sensitive to political benefits than to financial costs, especially in terms of the ideological incongruence of who joins. As a result, parties offering higher benefits to their members have lower ideological and demographic disparities between members and other party supporters. This is a positive finding for party-based representation, in that it suggests that trends toward more inclusive decision-making processes have the potential to produce parties with memberships that are more substantively and more descriptively representative of their supporters.

In recent decades, parties in many parliamentary democracies have radically reshaped what it means to be a party member, making it easier and cheaper to join, and giving members greater direct say over party decisions. This article explores some implications of such changes, asking whether membership costs and benefits influence which supporters take the step of joining their party. In particular, it considers the impact of net membership benefits on membership demographics and on members' ideology. The investigation examines patterns of party membership in 10 parliamentary democracies, using opinion data from the European Social Survey and data on party rules from the Political Party Database project. Our analysis shows that party supporters are more sensitive to political benefits than to financial costs, especially in terms of the ideological incongruence of who joins. As a result, parties offering higher benefits to their members have lower ideological and demographic disparities between members and other party supporters. This is a positive finding for party-based representation, in that it suggests that trends toward more inclusive decision-making processes have the potential to produce parties with memberships that are more substantively and more descriptively representative of their supporters.