Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

Proposition: The United States should implement gender quotas in elections (Affirmative)

GENERAL BACKGROUND

- Women have never been a minority in the United States, but have always been a minority
in the government
- There are three different types of gender quotas: party quotas, legislative quotas, and
reserved seats. The U.S. needs to adopt reserved seat quotas, which require that a certain
amount of the legislature has to be composed of women
- Quota systems aim for a critical minority (30-40%) or a gender neutral, 50-50 quota
implementing a maximum for both sexes (IDEA)
- Women hold 22.8% of all legislative governmental positions as of June 2016 (UN
Women)

ARGUMENTS

Argument 1: Quotas will allow the U.S. to become a better representative democracy
- Fair and equal representation is one of the characteristics of a rep. dem. (common
knowledge)
- A government is only effective, fair and equal, and well received if it represents
the diversity/demographics of its people
- “Time and time again, from corporations to government and other civic
entities, we see missteps by leaders and organizations because they fail to
consider how people of various backgrounds might view their message or
be affected by a given policy… personnel is policy. Policy will be shaped
by who gets to lead our government at the local, state, and federal level,
and what they do and don’t know and who they choose to put on their
teams will have an impact on each of our lives… Men cannot speak for
women” (Mariani).
- 50.8% of the U.S. population is made up of women while only 49.2% is made up
of men (U.S. Census Bureau)
- Women hold between 19% and 26% of government offices in the US
(CAWP)
- National legislature is only 19.4% women (Brown)
- State legislatures in the U.S. combined are about 24.8% women
(Brown)
- Men represent 70-80% of the country through the House and Senate
(Catalyst)
- Representation in legislatures in the U.S. is not equal or representative of
demographics in the slightest
- According to Dahl’s Traditional Democratic Theory, citizen control of the agenda
is a big characteristic of a rep. dem.
- Effective participation: Members of the electorate must have equal
opportunities to express their preferences; if the issues they find important
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

are not covered or talked about within the legislature, they aren’t
technically given equal opportunities
- Citizen control of the agenda: The people shape policy, and if one group
takes control of said policy, then it’s not truly reflective of the people; if
men make up an overwhelming majority (currently 80%) of those who
create and enforce policy, then it’s not truly representative of what the
people want
- With more women present in government, everyday women will be encouraged to
vote and become an active part of the political process, furthering the democracy
- “Along related lines, the election of more women through quotas may
signal inclusiveness and provide new role models, inspiring ordinary
women to get more politically involved. Various case studies find, for
example, that quotas increase the rate at which female voters contact their
political representatives. Others find, further, that the adoption of quotas
has the effect of encouraging women to begin a political career, acquire
political skills, and develop sustained political ambitions. At the same
time, it may also help build support for women’s movement organizing”
(Krook)
Argument 2: Quotas will raise attention to women’s issues in policymaking
- Many current but non-mainstream issues that pertain specifically to women, like
educational rights, prison reform for females, and parental leave, are overpassed
or not discussed adequately, both in the U.S. and globally
- Involving women in the political process will allow them to bring these issues to
the table and make progress by introducing a firsthand perspective
- “...having clear bureaucratic procedures by which candidates are chosen
can be a distinct advantage to women. Clear and open rules provide
women the opportunity to develop strategies to take advantage of those
rules” (Matland 4)
- “With explicit nominating procedures, women can identify crucial points
around which they can mobilize support and press for their demands”
(Matland 4)
- Having women be a part of the decision-making process is essential to actually
seeing development in women’s issues
- “Women's equal participation in decision-making is not only a demand for
simple justice or democracy but can also be seen as a necessary condition
for women's interests to be taken into account. Without the active
participation of women and the incorporation of women's perspective at
all levels of decision-making, the goals of equality, development and
peace cannot be achieved” (UN Women)
- Studies have shown that women are highly more likely to bring up
gender-specific issues than men are, so without women in the process, the
pressing gender-based issues will not be adequately addressed
- “Studies of both state legislatures and Congress find that legislation on
issues of particular importance to women was more likely to be introduced
by women than by men… For example, a foundational study… in 1988…
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

found that women were more likely to make bills dealing with women’s
issues and children and family issues a priority. Similarly, national studies
of state legislators conducted by the Center for American Women and
Politics [CAWP] in 1988 and 2000… reveal that women legislators were
more likely than their male colleagues to list a women’s rights bill or a bill
affecting children and families as a top priority… Research on Congress
also finds a different issue emphasis by gender. Michele Swers, for
example, found that women were more likely to sponsor women’s issues
bills in both the 103rd and 104th Congresses” (Political Parity)
- In general, overall legislation and performance have been better with a greater
number of women in legislative seats
- “Women govern differently than men do in some important ways. They
tend to be more collaborative and bipartisan. They push for far more
policies meant to support women, children, social welfare and — when
they’re in executive positions — national security… Women in Congress
sponsor and co-sponsor more bills than men do, and bring 9 percent more
federal money to their districts, according to a study in the American
Journal of Political Science. Those bills are more likely to benefit women
and children or address issues like education, health and poverty” (Miller)
Argument 3: Quotas help break down barriers that prevent women from having an active
role in politics
- Prevents violence/harassment upon taking office
- The Political Representation Strategy of the Bolivian Association of
Councilwomen (ACOBOL) aims “to promote actions and operational
instruments to defend against harassment and political violence against
women, maintaining their political, civic and civil rights” (UN Women);
since its introduction in 2000, intervention strategies and preventative laws
have been enacted, such as the Law against the Harassment of and
Political Violence against Women
- ACOBOL is one of the organizations that evaluates the effects of
Bolivia’s gender quotas and does additional work to ensure female
representation in the government
- Women will no longer be held to a higher standard than their male counterparts
- “Almost all observe that the women who accede to office via quotas have
less overall political experience than their non-quota counterparts, both
male and female. While this might be taken as evidence that quota women
are less ‘qualified’, it might also be viewed in the light of the fact that the
exclusion of women from electoral politics has not afforded them the
opportunity to accumulate similar levels of political experience. Further,
many of these women bring with them backgrounds in community
organizing, suggesting that women may simply have different kinds of
political experience” (Krook)
- One of the reasons women are held to a higher standard in terms of
politics is simply because they are excluded from electoral politics
and haven’t had opportunities to accumulate political experience
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

- With quotas, women will be exposed to the political process and

therefore gain more experience
- “By encouraging women to participate in politics, quota introduction may
legitimize women as political actors, altering traditional gendered views.
Some evidence bolsters this claim by showing that exposure to female
leaders as a result of quotas can weaken gender stereotypes, a well as
eliminate negative bias in how the performance of female leaders is
perceived among male constituents” (Krook)
- By assimilating more women into legislative seats, gender
stereotypes and judgement will start to become less common in
politics
Argument 4: Quotas allow the U.S. to comply with international law and precedents that
require women to have equal opportunities in regard to government
- 1953: A contract created at the UN’s Convention on the Political Rights of
Women established in Articles II and III that women deserve equal political
opportunities as those of men
- “Women shall be eligible for election to all publicly elected bodies,
established by national law, on equal terms with men, without any
discrimination… Women shall be entitled to hold public office and to
exercise all public functions, established by national law, on equal terms
with men, without any discrimination”
- 1995: At the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, the participants of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women upheld
that women are required by law to have equal political opportunities as those of
men. They also came to a consensus that women’s empowerment in politics is
required for democratic governance. All these (Miranda)
- “States/Parties shall take all appropriate measures to eliminate
discrimination against women in the political and public life of the country
and, in particular, shall ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the
right… to participate in the formulation of government policy and the
implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public
functions at all levels of government” (CEDAW)
- And many more laws, which we won’t name for the sake of time but which all
uphold that women and men deserve equal opportunities to hold political offices
at all levels of government, including legislative.
- Keep in mind that over half the countries in the world use quotas in some form
and the U.S. should take its place among the progressive nations of the world and
implement quotas too. Prime examples include… (The Quota Project)
- Rwanda (64% of govt. is women)
- Mexico (42% of govt. is women)
- Bolivia (53% of govt. is women)
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

FIRST AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE (1AC, Shifra)

My partner and I affirm the proposition that the U.S. should implement gender quotas in
politics. I’ll start by providing some background. Women have never been a minority in the
United States of America. However, they have always been a minority in government,
specifically in the national and state legislatures. And that needs to change. Although women,
such as Jeannette Rankin, the first female Congresswoman, have been running for office since
before they received the right to vote, the number of women in legislative seats across the
country has always been severely lacking. Currently, over half the countries in the world
implement gender quotas in some form in their respective governments. There are three existing
types of gender quotas — voluntary party quotas, legislative candidate quotas, and reserved seat
quotas. Most countries use legislative candidate or reserved seat quotas, and we argue that the
U.S. should adopt one of the two methods as well. We contend that implementing gender quotas
in politics will 1) allow the U.S. to become a better representative democracy, 2) raise attention
to women’s issues in policymaking, 3) help break down barriers that prevent women from
having an active role in politics, and 4) allow the U.S. to comply with international law and
precedents that require men and women to have equal political opportunities. This morning, I
will be elaborating on the first two of these four arguments, while my partner will be elaborating
on the other two in her speech.
First, we argue that instituting gender quotas in legislative elections would allow the U.S.
to become a stronger democracy. It’s common knowledge that one of the characteristics of a
representative democracy, the type of government that the U.S. operates under, is fair and equal
representation. And numerous individuals have agreed that a government is only fair, equal, and
effective if it accurately represents the diversity and demographics of its people. According to
the most recent census, the U.S. is 50.8% women and 49.2% men. However, despite the fact that
women make up more of the population, they only hold 19.4% of seats in Congress and 24.8% of
seats in state legislatures altogether. Men, on the other hand, make up about 80% of the country’s
legislative seats. Although our country was founded by men for men, it’s clear that that’s no
longer the case. Tyra Mariani, the Vice President of the New America organization, writes that
“Personnel is policy. Policy will be shaped by who gets to lead our government at the local, state,
and federal level, and what they do and don’t know and who they choose to put on their teams
will have an impact on each of our lives… Men cannot speak for women.” Let’s put aside
statistics and expert opinions and also examine Dahl’s Traditional Democratic Theory.
According to the theory, a key part of a successful democracy is citizen control of the agenda, or
the principle that the people shape the policy. If one group, in this case men, takes control of
policymaking, then the outcomes will not be truly reflective of what the people actually want.
This is because, as I will discuss in depth in our second argument, the issues male legislators
discuss are different than the ones female legislators emphasize. Another aspect of Dahl’s
Democratic Theory is effective participation, or the principle that members of the electorate must
have equal opportunities to express their preferences. With the institution of gender quotas,
effective participation will be amplified — research has shown that putting a larger number of
women in government positions inspires and encourages everyday women to vote, therefore
allowing them to become an active part of the political process and receive more opportunities to
expresses their opinions. Clearly, instituting gender quotas would help make the U.S.
government more representative, democratic, and effective.
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

Secondly, we argue that implementing gender quotas will raise attention to often
overlooked women’s issues in policymaking. Many current issues that pertain to women, like
parental leave and female prison reform, are rarely discussed in national and state legislatures.
Numerous studies have shown that women are more likely to bring up gender-specific issues like
these than men. The organization Political Parity states that “National studies of state legislators
conducted by the Center for American Women and Politics [CAWP] in 1988 and 2000… reveal
that women legislators were more likely than their male colleagues to list a women’s rights bill
or a bill affecting children and families as a top priority.” In addition, according to the
Washington Post, the women in Congress have been shown to sponsor and co-sponsor more bills
than their male counterparts; most of the bills benefit women and children and address
otherwise-ignored issues like education, health, and poverty. Involving a greater number of
women in the political process will allow them to bring women’s issues to the table and make
progress on legislation regarding said issues by offering a firsthand perspective. Richard
Matland, a political science professor at University of Houston, writes about quotas and
policymaking, stating that “With explicit nominating procedures, women can identify crucial
points around which they can mobilize support and press for their demands.” It’s clear that
having women as part of the decision-making process is crucial to seeing development in
gender-specific legislation. UN Women acknowledges that “without the active participation of
women and the incorporation of women's perspective at all levels of decision-making, the goals
of equality, development and peace cannot be achieved.”
It’s evident that instituting gender quotas would create a better democratic society and
government in the United States and create more progress and attention around women’s issues
and policies, and as my partner will discuss shortly, would break down barriers facing women
and allow the U.S. to comply with international law and precedents. The U.S needs to end the
gender gap in its legislatures by setting a minimum requirement for the number of women in
office. Thank you.
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

SECOND AFFIRMATIVE CONSTRUCTIVE (2AC, Siana)

Earlier in this debate, my partner discussed our first two arguments, one being that
implementing gender quotas would allow the U.S. to become a better representative democracy
and the other that they would raise attention to women’s issues in policymaking. She provided
evidence of these issues by including statistics about the overall low percentage of women in
legislative government. She supported our second argument by saying how even this small
fraction of women tend to bring up gender related issues that are important to but not commonly
discussed in our country’s legislature. I will now be discussing our third argument, which is how
the implementation of gender quotas would help break down barriers that prevent women from
having an active role in politics. After that, I’ll be supporting our last argument, which is how
gender quotas would allow the U.S. to comply with international law and precedents.
First, in the unfortunately rare instances where a woman takes office, she is often
confronted with violence and harassment. For example, consider this instance in the Iowa state
legislature, outlined in a USA Today article by Joel Ebert — Republican Senate Caucus member
Kirsten Anderson filed a memo detailing her concerns about sexual harassment in the Iowa
Statehouse, and was promptly fired, purely because of the fact that she was a woman attempting
to end the terrible experiences that she and others like her faced on a daily basis. Anderson’s
experience simply goes to show that implementing gender quotas would normalize the presence
of women in government and therefore help their complaints be taken seriously. This is not just
an American issue; in Bolivia, for example, reports of the harassment and abuse against women
council members were staggering. That is, until the Political Representation Strategy of the
Bolivian Association of Councilwomen or ACOBOL was implemented. UN Women defines the
organization as an aims to “promote actions and operational instruments to defend against
harassment and political violence against women, maintaining their political, civic and civil
rights” (UN Women); since its introduction in 2000, intervention strategies and preventative
laws have been enacted, such as the Law against the Harassment of and Political Violence
against Women. ACOBOL effectively supports our argument because it is an example of a case
in which gender quotas have in fact worked to ensure female protection in government.
Another issue that women face during elections and throughout their political careers is
how they are held to a higher standard than their male counterparts. One of the reasons women
are held to a higher standard in terms of politics is simply because they are excluded from
electoral politics and haven’t had opportunities to accumulate political experience. In her book
The Impact of Gender Quotas, ​Mona Lena Krook writes that “By encouraging women to
participate in politics, quota introduction may legitimize women as political actors, altering
traditional gendered views. Some evidence bolsters this claim by showing that exposure to
female leaders as a result of quotas can weaken gender stereotypes, as well as eliminate negative
bias in how the performance of female leaders is perceived among male constituents.​” ​As a
whole, gender quotas will allow women to have a more active role in politics by preventing
gender based political violence, encouraging women to participate in politics, assimilating more
women into legislative seats, and exposing a wider audience of women to the political process,
which will allow them to therefore gain more political experience.
Our fourth and final argument for the affirmative implementation of gender quotas in US
legislative politics outlines how they will allow the U.S. to comply with international law and
precedents that require women to have equal opportunities in regard to government. The
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

following are examples of international legal actions which have demanded equal political rights
for men and women.
- In 1953, a contract created at the UN’s Convention on the Political Rights of Women
established in Articles II and III that women deserve equal political opportunities as those
of men.
-In 1995 at the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, the participants of the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Violence Against Women upheld that
women are required by law to have equal political opportunities as those of men. They
also came to a consensus that women’s empowerment in politics is required for
democratic governance.
Many more laws, which I won’t name for the sake of time, similarly uphold that women and men
deserve equal opportunities to hold political offices at all levels of government, including in
legislatures. It is also important to remember that over half the countries in the world use quotas
in some form. The U.S. should take its place among the progressive nations of the world, follow
the precedents of these international powers, and implement quotas too. Prime examples,
according to the Quota Project, include Rwanda, where 64% of the government is women,
Mexico, where 42% is women, and Bolivia, where 53% of government is women. All these
countries maintain reserved quotas which have been shown to effectively further gender equality.
Our opponents might make the arguments that quotas won’t create significant change,
aren’t the best option, and won’t improve political equality. However, we have proved through
numerous pieces of evidence, on which we will further expand during our rebuttals, that quotas
will, in fact, create change and give all women equal political opportunities. It’s clear that
implementing gender quotas as my partner and I have been arguing, will allow the U.S. to
become more representative, will raise attention to women’s issues in policymaking, will break
down political barriers, and will allow the U.S. to comply with international law and follow
precedents. Therefore, gender quotas in politics are ultimately worth it. Thank you.
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

POSSIBLE RESPONSES TO COUNTER ARGUMENTS FOR FIRST AFFIRMATIVE

REBUTTAL (1AR, Shifra) and SECOND AFFIRMATIVE REBUTTAL (2AR, Siana)

- Quotas will facilitate access to political offices for unqualified women with little
interest in promoting women’s concerns
- “Almost all observe that the women who accede to office via quotas have less
overall political experience than their non-quota counterparts, both male and
female. While this might be taken as evidence that quota women are less
‘qualified’, it might also be viewed in the light of the fact that the exclusion of
women from electoral politics has not afforded them the opportunity to
accumulate similar levels of political experience” (Krook)
- As we stated in our second constructive speech, the impression that quotas
will pave the way for unqualified political actors stems purely from the
fact that women have not had adequate opportunities to be part of the
political process as of yet. With increased exposure to government,
women who are elected will become more qualified. Additionally, quotas
will tackle and solve the root of the problem — by requiring that a certain
number of women become involved in politics, they will give women
more opportunities for exposure and therefore end the “unqualified” issue.
- Lauren Leatherby, a writer for Journalist’s Resource, wrote about a 2016 study in
the American Political Science Review: “Having a gender quota strengthened the
pool of qualified women eligible for party leadership roles. More qualified, better
educated women entered politics after the quota was implemented relative to the
number of qualified men” (Leatherby)
- This study shows that quotas do not, in fact open the door for unqualified
women, but actually allow more qualified women to take office. In
addition, most of the women who actually run for office in quota countries
have some sort of political experience
- In general, quotas won’t actually lead to a better democracy
- Take Belgium, a country that implements legislative quotas and has a bicameral
parliament, similar to the United States’ bicameral legislature. Before 1999, when
the Tobback-Smet Act enforced quotas, approximately 16% of governmental
positions at a sub-national level were held by women. After 1999, when quotas
were implemented, the percentage of women in sub-national political offices rose
to 25% and has been steadily increasing ever since. Currently, it is at about 39%
(Why Quotas Work)
- There are many other countries where quotas have worked (​see below for
specifics if needed​), which is a good indicator that they will work in the United
States as well
- There are several countries (ex. Argentina, Iraq, Egypt, Brazil) where quotas
haven’t worked
- Brazil and Argentina have ​voluntary​ party quotas, meaning they depend on
individual party nomination decisions and are optional/not actually enforced in
law (The Quota Project) — by implementing other types of non-partisan quotas
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

(reserved seat, legislative candidate), the U.S. could actually increase the number
of women elected into office
- In Argentina, instituting quotas actually did lead to reform — many of the critical
actors that were involved in the country’s sexual health reform were women who
emerged from the pool of those put in office by quotas; women who would not
otherwise be in office
- “A large cohort of female legislators allows individual woman to emerge
as critical actors” (Piscopo)
- There are many countries where quotas have not only helped women gain more
political power but have also helped advance progress in important legislative
areas
- Examples of countries where quotas have led to improvement and
furthered equal opportunities in politics — if quotas have worked in this
many countries, it’s likely that they will work in the U.S. (The Quota
Project)
- Rwanda (64%)
- Mexico (42%)
- Bolivia (53%)
- Sweden (43.6%)
- Belgium (38%)
- Finland (42.5%)
- The number of countries where quotas have worked outweighs the countries
where they haven’t, meaning that it is far more likely for quotas to have a positive
impact in the United States than a negative one
- Quotas will reinforce stereotypes about women’s inferiority as political actors (even
when women are in office, they have been assigned to cover stereotypical issues
regarding families, etc.)
- In quota countries (as well as in the U.S. in regard to women who already hold
seats in Congress), women have not so much been assigned to cover
gender-specific issues, but rather, have happened to focus on them in terms of
legislative action. This isn’t necessarily perpetuating stereotypes about women’s
roles, but rather, bringing attention to otherwise-overlooked issues that pertain
specifically to women and children
- “By encouraging women to participate in politics, quota introduction may
legitimize women as political actors, altering traditional gendered views. Some
evidence bolsters this claim by showing that exposure to female leaders as a result
of quotas can weaken gender stereotypes, a well as eliminate negative bias in how
the performance of female leaders is perceived among male constituents” (Krook)
- Quotas have actually been shown to break down stereotypes rather than
reinforce them by legitimizing women as political actors and normalizing
the fact that they should be viewed on equal basis to men in the political
playing field
- Quotas will deter ordinary women’s political participation
- “The development of gender quotas as a mechanism for promoting female
political engagement and representation has gathered international momentum
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

over the last few decades as ‘one of the most effective strategies for increasing the
number of women in parliament’ by promoting a ‘level playing field between men
and women in political life’ (Bennett)
- According to the Australian Institute of International Affairs, studies prove
that quotas have been shown to encourage women’s political participation
by introducing more women in office and therefore acting as a form of
women’s empowerment for other females and encouraging them to
run/become involved in political activities
- “The election of more women through quotas may signal inclusiveness and
provide new role models, inspiring ordinary women to get more politically
involved. Various case studies find, for example, that quotas increase the rate at
which female voters contact their political representatives. Others find, further,
that the adoption of quotas has the effect of encouraging women to begin a
political career, acquire political skills, and develop sustained political ambitions”
(Krook)
- As we stated in our first constructive speech, everyday women will view
the involvement of more women in politics as an indicator that they too
should become engaged and involved. Implementing quotas is a form of
women’s empowerment, not a deterrent
- Quotas will only give an elite group of women access to political offices
- This argument conflicts with the argument that quotas will pave the way for
“unqualified” women to take office — elite most likely means
high-class/well-educated, which conflicts with the terms unqualified/uneducated
- Several studies observing quotas have shown that “In terms of the kinds of
women elected… others find… that quotas promote greater diversity in candidate
selection, with those benefiting from quotas being relatively young and often
coming from marginalized groups” (Krook)
- Not all quotas promote or lead to elitism — in fact, most countries have
seen an improvement in the types/classes of women elected with the
enforcement of quotas
- While elite women won’t contribute to diversity in terms of class and race, they
won’t necessarily ignore issues that are important to lower-class women or
women of color
- According to Claire Miller of the New York Times, “Women… push for
far more policies meant to support women, children, and social welfare…
Women in Congress sponsor and co-sponsor more bills than men do…
Those bills are more likely to benefit women and children or address
issues like education, health and poverty” (Miller)
- Quotas prevent/deter qualified males from running for/holding political offices and
go against the principle of equal opportunity for all
- With the establishment of quotas that are 50-50, gender-neutral, or require that
women only make up a critical minority (as most reserved seat quotas do), neither
women nor men are being discriminated against. Rather, the quotas aim to create
an equal ratio of men to women in the legislature(s)
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

- Quotas don’t prevent any candidate, regardless of gender, from running. Rather,
they just dictate the minimum number of women who need to be elected. With
this principle in place, the enforcement of quotas doesn’t take opportunities away
from men, since all candidates are still allowed to run for office initially
- Quotas won’t end gender-based discrimination/break down all barriers
- This is true of quotas alone. However, quotas are a single step that will help the
fight to give women equal rights — they focus specifically on advancing
women’s rights in politics — and have been proven to create at least some
progress. There is no single solution to ending gender-based discrimination, but
rather, a series of steps, of which this is one. Even one area of women’s rights
where improvement is seen is an indicator of discrimination being tackled to some
extent (​refer back to countries where they have worked if needed​)
- Quotas are not stand-alone or meant to be an individual/freestanding solution to
gender-based discrimination; they are built on other anti-discriminatory policies
and will only help reinforce the steps that are being taken to end discrimination
- “While quotas signify a novel solution to the problem of women’s
under-representation in electoral politics, they often build on existing state
initiatives to improve the lives of women – like laws forbidding sex
discrimination, sexual harassment, or domestic violence, or laws
mandating paid parental leave or the provision of public daycare – which
scholars have labeled ‘state feminism’” (Krook)
- There are better alternatives to gender quotas
- Electoral financing of women, or equipping them with resources to make them
more accessible to voters
- Women receiving more money does not equal them being elected —
negative perceptions of women in society will not change regardless of
how much money women are given, and since voters aren’t required to
vote for them, they likely won’t
- “While electoral financing can avoid certain disadvantages of
gender quotas, it may not be possible to overcome negative
perceptions of women in politics” (Muriaas)
- Only Malawi uses this system — if it’s a “better alternative,” how come
over half the countries in the world have seen success with gender quotas
and aren’t using electoral financing?
- Other methods like targets
- Electoral financing is the only alternative proposed at a government level
— targets and the like are simply for businesses, which don’t function the
same way as legislatures
- Quotas only raise attention to women’s issues and don’t create meaningful change,
which isn’t enough
- Attention is the first step to change
- Quotas actually have created change in governments similar to ours
- Argentina — “[In 2001] ​as women entered the legislature in greater
numbers, they attained leadership positions on the key
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

committees—health, budget, and family—that would work together in

redacting a sexual health program with cross-partisan support” (Piscopo)
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

Works Cited

Brown, Anna. "Despite gains, women remain underrepresented among U.S. political and

business leaders." ​Pew Research Center​, 20 Mar. 2017, pewrsr.ch/2nsRZr2. Accessed 27

Nov. 2017.

"Current Numbers." ​Center for American Women and Politics​, 2017,

www.cawp.rutgers.edu/current-numbers. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017.

Dahlerup, Drude. "Gender Quotas Database." ​International Institute for Democracy and

Electoral Assistance​, edited by Stockholm University, International IDEA, 2009,

www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas/quotas. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017.

Erbert, Joel. "Sexual harassment troubles mount in statehouses around the country." ​USA Today​,

20 Nov. 2017, usat.ly/2zmleCJ. Accessed 28 Nov. 2017.

"Facts and Figures: Leadership and political participation." ​UN Women​, July 2017,

www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/

facts-and-figures. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017.

Franceschet, Susan, et al., editors. ​The Impact of Gender Quotas​. New York, Oxford University,

2012. ​Google Books,​ bit.ly/2AbiCHB. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017.

Krook, Mona Lena. "Quota Laws for Women in Politics : A New Type of State Feminism?" U of

Bristol, 14 Apr. 2005, ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/

a3e15191-c680-4481-96c2-92181807b829.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov. 2017.

Manuscript.
 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

Leatherby, Lauren. "Gender quotas: Do they increase the number of women in politics, party

leadership positions?" ​Journalist's Resource​, edited by Harvard Kennedy School's

Shorenstein Center and Carnegie-Knight Initiative, 15 June 2016, bit.ly/2ztEVVf.

Accessed 28 Nov. 2017.

Matland, Richard. "Enhancing Women’s Political Participation: Legislative Recruitment and

Electoral Systems." Stockholm University, 2002,

www.onlinewomeninpolitics.org/beijing12/Chapter3_Matland.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov.

2017. Working paper.

Miller, Claire Cain. "Women Actually Do Govern Differently." ​The New York Times​, 10 Nov.,

www.nytimes.com/2016/11/10/upshot/women-actually-do-govern-differently.html.

Accessed 28 Nov. 2017.

Miranda, Rosa Linda. "Impact of Women’s Participation in Decision-making." ​Impact of

women’s participation and leadership on outcomes​, 12 Dec. 2005,

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/egm/eql-men/docs/EP.7_rev.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov.

2017.

Muriaas, Ragnhild Louise. "Alternatives to gender quotas : electoral financing of women

candidates in Malawi." ​Counter-Mobilization against Child Marriage Reform in Africa​,

vol. 50, 2014. ​CHR. Michelsen Institute,

www.cmi.no/publications/6096-alternatives-to-gender-quotas. Accessed 28 Nov. 2017.

Pacific Standard Staff. "Why Meaningful Diversity in Government Matters." ​Pacific Standard,

Social Justice Foundation, 27 Feb. 2017,

 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

psmag.com/news/why-meaningful-diversity-in-government-matters. Accessed 27 Nov.

2017.

Piscopo, Jennifer. "Women, Representation, and Policy Change in Argentina." ​Panoramas​,

edited by University Center for International Studies, Center for Latin American Studies

at the U of Pittsburgh, 11 Oct. 2016,

www.panoramas.pitt.edu/news-and-politics/women-representation-and-policy-change-ar

gentina. Accessed 28 Nov. 2017.

Political Parity. "Why Women? The Impact of Women in Elective Office."

www.politicalparity.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Parity-Research-Women-Impact.pd

f. Accessed 28 Nov. 2017. Manuscript.

"Quota Database." ​Quota Project​, edited by International IDEA et al., 2015,

www.quotaproject.org/. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017.

Turan, Güler. "Why quotas work for gender equality." ​Observer​, OECD Yearbook, 2015,

oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/4891/

Why_quotas_work_for_gender_equality.html. Accessed 28 Nov. 2017.

United Nations. "16.1 Convention on the Political Rights of Women New York." 31 Mar. 1953,

www.un.org.ua/images/Convention_on_the_Political_Rights_of_Women_eng1.pdf.

Accessed 27 Nov. 2017. Manuscript.

United Nations General Assembly. "Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Discrimination against Women." ​UN Women​, United Nations, 18 Dec. 1979,

 Shifra Dayak and Siana Park-Pearson

www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm#article7. Accessed 27 Nov.

2017.

UN Women. "Bolivia: Gender Based Political Violence." ​Advancing Gender Equality:

Promising Practices​, United Nations, 2013, www.unwomen.org/mdgf/C/Bolivia_C.html.

Accessed 28 Nov. 2017.

Wellford, Susannah. "A Quota Worth Making." ​US News & World Report​, 21 Feb. 2017,

bit.ly/2kZupSs. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017.

"Women in Government." ​Catalyst: Workplaces That Work for Women​, Catalyst, 15 Feb. 2017,

www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women-government. Accessed 27 Nov. 2017.