An increasing amount of literature has demonstrated that party leaders affect voting behavior in parliamentary elections. However, the electoral impact of female leadership of political parties has been under-researched. The gender affinity hypothesis suggests that when women run for presidential or prime ministerial office, women are more likely than men to vote for them. Using data from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project, we tested gender affinity effects between female voters and female party leaders in mixed-sex legislative elections, that is, elections involving at least one female party candidate for prime minister, in parliamentary and semi-presidential systems. We analyzed 50 elections held from 1996 to 2016 in 24 countries. The results showed that female leaders were better evaluated by women and that women were more likely than men to vote for them. However, the gender affinity effects were small and not largely conditioned or not conditioned at all by other factors, such as some voters’ characteristics and electoral setting.
AardalBBinderT (2011) Leader effects and party characteristics. In: AartsKBlaisASchmittH (eds), Political Leaders and Democratic Elections. Oxford: OUP.
2.
AnziaSFBerryCR (2011) The jackie (and jill) robinson effect: why do congresswomen outperform congressmen?American Journal of Political Science55(3): 478−493.
3.
BanducciSAKarpJA (2000) Gender, leadership and choice in multiparty systems. Political Research Quarterly53(4): 815–848.
4.
BarisioneM (2009) “So, what Difference Do Leaders Make?” Candidates’ images and the conditionality of leaders’ effects on voting. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties19(4): 473−500.
5.
BerghJBjørklundT (2011) The revival of group voting: explaining the voting preferences of immigrants in Norway. Political Studies59(2): 308–327.
6.
BescoR (2019) Identity and Interest. Race, Ethnicity and Affinity Voting. Vancouver: UBC Press.
7.
BittnerA (2011) Platform or Personality? The Role of Party Leaders in Elections (Comparative Politics). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
BriansCL (2005) Women for women? Gender and party bias in voting for female candidates. American Politics Research33(3): 357–375.
9.
BridgewaterJNagelRU (2020) Is there cross-national evidence that voters prefer men as party leaders? No. Electoral Studies67(3): 102209. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102209.
10.
CampbellRHeathO (2017) Do women vote for women candidates? Attitudes toward descriptive representation and voting behavior in the 2010 British election. Politics and Gender13(2): 209−231. DOI: 10.1017/S1743923X16000672.
11.
CareyJMShugartMS (1995) Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: a rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies14(4): 417−439.
12.
CookEA (1994) Voter responses to women candidates. In: CookEAThomasSWilcoxC (eds), The Year of the Woman: Myths and Realities. Boulder, CO: Westview, 217–236.
13.
Costa LoboM (2008) Parties and leader effects: impact of leaders in the vote for different types of parties. Party Politics14(3): 281−298.
14.
Costa LoboM (2018) Personality goes a long way. Government and Opposition35(1): 159−179.
15.
Costa LoboMCurtisJ (2014) Personality Politics? the Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
Costa LoboMFerreira da SilvaF (2017) Prime ministers in the age of austerity: an increase in the personalization of voting behavior. West European Politics,41(5): 1145−1165.
CutlerF (2002) The simplest shortcut of all: sociodemographic characteristics and electoral choice. The Journal of Politics64(2): 466−490.
19.
DassannovilleRQuinlanSMcAllisterI (2021) Female leader popularity and the vote, 1996–2016: a global exploratory analysis. European Journal of Politics and Gender4(3): 431−459.
20.
DenemarkDWardIBeanC (2012) Gender and leader effects in the 2010 Australian election. Australian Journal of Political Science47(4): 563−578.
21.
DolanK (1998) Voting for women in the “Year of the Woman”. American Journal of Political Science42(1): 272−293.
22.
DolanKA (2004) Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview.
23.
DolanKA (2008) Is there a “gender affinity effect” in American politics? Information, affect, and candidate sex in U.S. House elections”. Political Research Quarterly61(1): 79–89.
24.
Ferreira da SilvaF (2021) Party organizational change and leader effects on voting behavior: linking the electoral and party faces of presidentialization. Party Politics27(4): 803−813.
25.
FerrieraF (2019) Party organizational change and leader effects on voting behavior: linking the electoral and party faces of presidentialization. Party Politics27(4): 803–813.
GarziaD (2011) The personalization of politics in western democracies: causes and consequences on leader–follower relationships. The Leadership Quarterly22(4): 697–709.
28.
GarziaDFerreira da SilvaF (2021) Negative personalization and voting behavior in 14 parliamentary democracies, Electoral Studies71: 1961−2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.electstud.2021.102300.
29.
GarziaDFerreira da SilvaFDe AngelisA (2018) Partisan Dealignment and the Personalization of Politics in West European Parliamentary Democracies, 1961−2016. Center for the Study of Democracy, University of California Irvine.
30.
GigerNHolliAMLefkofridiZ, et al. (2014) The gender gap in same-gender voting: the role of context. Electoral Studies35: 303−314.
31.
Goodyear-GrantECroskillJL (2011) Gender affinity effects in vote choice in Westminster systems: assessing “flexible” voters in Canada. Politics and Gender7: 223−250.
32.
HolliAMWassH (2010) Gender-based voting in in the parliamentary elections of 2007 in Finland. European Journal of Political Research49(5): 598−630.
33.
KingDMatlandR (2003) Sex and the Grand Old Party: an experimental investigation of the effect of candidate sex on support for a Republican candidate. American Politics Research31(6): 595–612.
34.
McDermottML (1997) Voting cues in low-information elections: candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science41(1): 270–283.
35.
McDermottML (2009). Voting for myself: sandidate and voter group associations over time. Electoral Studies28(4): 606–614.
36.
McElroyGMarshM (2010). Candidate gender and voter choice: analysis from a multimember preferential voting system. Political Research Quality63(4): 822–833.
37.
MichonLTillieJ (2011) The Netherlands. In: BirdKSasfeldTWüstAM (eds), The Political Representation of Immigrants and Minorities: Voters, Parties and Parliaments in Liberal Democracies. Abingdon: Routledge, 76–79.
38.
O‘NeillB (1998) The relevance of leader gender to voting in the 1993 Canadian national election. International Journal of Canadian Studies17(2): 105−130.
39.
O’BrienDZ (2015) Rising to the top: gender, political performance, and party leadership in parliamentary democracies. American Journal of Political Science59(4): 1022−1039.
40.
PiletJBCrossW (eds) (2014) The Selection of Political Party Leaders in Contemporary Parliamentary Democracies. A Comparative Study. London: Routledge.
41.
PitkinH (1967). Political Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
42.
PlutzerEZippJF (1996) Identity politics, partisanship, and voting for women candidates. Public Opinion Quarterly60(1): 30−57.
43.
SanbonmatsuK (2002) Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science46(1): 20−34.
44.
SanbonmatsuK (2003) Gender-related political knowledge and the descriptive representation of women. Political Behavior25(4): 367−388.
45.
SeviS (2021). Do young voters vote for young leaders?Electoral Studies69: 102200.
46.
ShorrocksR (2018). Cohort change in political gender gaps in Europe and Canada: the role of modernization. Politics & Society46(2): 135–175.
47.
Stone-RomeroEFAndersonLE (1994) Relative power of moderated multiple regression and the comparison of subgroup correlation coefficients for detecting moderating effects. Journal of Applied Psychology79: 354–359.
48.
TeneyCJacobsDReaA, et al. (2010) Ethnic voting in Brussels: voting patterns among ethnic minorities in Brussels (Belgium) during the 2006 local elections. Acta Politica45(3): 273–297.
49.
TilleyJEvansG (2014) Ageing and generational effects on voter choice. Combining cross-sectional and panel data to estimate APC effects. Electoral Studies33: 19−27.
50.
ValdiniME (2012) A deterrent to diversity: the conditional effect of electoral rules on the nomination of women candidates. Electoral Studies31(4): 740–749.
51.
ValdiniME (2013) Electoral institutions and the manifestation of bias: the effect of the personal vote on the representation of women. Politics and Gender9(1): 76−92.
52.
Van ErkelP (2019) Sharing is caring: the role of voter-candidate similarities in intra-party electoral competition. European Political Science Review11(1): 75−89.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
