It would be great if this could be done by aggregate Right/Left, divided by sex. So total female skew to Labor/Teal/Green would be shown, and male skew to Coalition/One Nation.
I agree. I hope in future reports they breakdown the "other" category on the graph by those other parties so that a total for Left and Right can be computed.
Do you have historical figures? I've seen them for the US and UK, but not for Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, in basically the same Anglo-Saxon culture.
It was once well-known that, in both the US and the UK, women had voted more conservatively than did men, from the onset of suffrage well into the 1970s. Republicans and Tories needed their votes to prevail in close elections. The Equal Rights Amendment in the US was shot down by a vigorous last-minute women's movement, and suffrage itself held back for decades by female opposition even stauncher than male.
UK suffragettes, having examined the western US states, warned their allies in Parliament *never* to allow women to vote on the issue itself. (Also true in the 1912 suffrage votes in California and Wisconsin; one won, the other lost.) It's claimed that the Conservatives owe all their post-suffrage 20th-century victories to the women's vote.
So what happened in the past half-century to cause women to flank their men to the left, and dramatically so? If it were solely on economic issues, it's easy to see-- women were warier of the welfare state, until the first generation that had grown up under it. Thereafter, its defence would be the "conservative" stance. (Walter Mondale made this very point in the 1984 US election.)
But this doesn't explain women's now more radical views on social and cultural issues.
Here are some historical data from the U.S. that I have published previously. However, these data are only the number of men and women who have voted over several decades in the U.S. These data don't include the party/candidate who was voted for.
There was one real-life "experiment", in 1916 Illinois. The legislature wanted to give women the vote, but that would have required an amendment to the state constitution approved by the voters. This didn't apply to minor, "statutory" offices, however, such as seats on the board of equalization, or presidential electors.
Thus, that year only men could vote for governor, but both sexes for president. 1,322,553 votes were cast for the former, 2,190,219 for the latter, suggesting for every five men who voted, four women did . There was little difference in the partisan ratio, 52-42% vs 52-43%.
Not sure what you're asking, but these figures are taken from Wikipedia, and presumably match those in many reference books, e.g. Congressional Quarterly's. The reasoning behind the constitutional/statutory distinction is in Kirk Porter's 1918 "A History of Suffrage in the United States", reprinted by Greenwood Press in 1969 and 1977. It evidently held, because 11 or 12 other states passed similar laws in 1917 and 1919, which were mooted by the 19th Amendment.
A lot of the history of the spread of female suffrage is covered up and/or biased. One history teacher recently determined that the number of women in pro-suffrage associations didn't catch up to that of those in anti-suffrage ones until about 1916. In other words, male legislators had been listening to women all along!
I didn't create the figures. The figures were taken from the 2022 Australian Federal Election Study. I believe when they say "estimates," they are referring to the fact that they didn't survey the whole Australian population. They only surveyed a subsample of 2,508 Australian voters. Therefore, the percentages of the subsample might be a bit different than when the whole Australian population is surveyed. I was unable to find data that reflected the entire Australian population.
>We can predict from previous elections, and our everyday observations, that Australian women will be more likely than Australian men to vote for political candidates on the Left, and Australian men will be more likely than the women to vote for political candidates on the Right.
Given this conclusion and given that today men and women consume different media channels; I think it is safe to say that the women's vote makes the election process for candidates way more complex.
I'm thinking about a right wing party considering the potential backlash of women when spending money in left wing media channels.
I'm pretty sure this contributes to the disappearance of the center parties.
It would be great if this could be done by aggregate Right/Left, divided by sex. So total female skew to Labor/Teal/Green would be shown, and male skew to Coalition/One Nation.
I agree. I hope in future reports they breakdown the "other" category on the graph by those other parties so that a total for Left and Right can be computed.
Do you have historical figures? I've seen them for the US and UK, but not for Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, in basically the same Anglo-Saxon culture.
It was once well-known that, in both the US and the UK, women had voted more conservatively than did men, from the onset of suffrage well into the 1970s. Republicans and Tories needed their votes to prevail in close elections. The Equal Rights Amendment in the US was shot down by a vigorous last-minute women's movement, and suffrage itself held back for decades by female opposition even stauncher than male.
UK suffragettes, having examined the western US states, warned their allies in Parliament *never* to allow women to vote on the issue itself. (Also true in the 1912 suffrage votes in California and Wisconsin; one won, the other lost.) It's claimed that the Conservatives owe all their post-suffrage 20th-century victories to the women's vote.
So what happened in the past half-century to cause women to flank their men to the left, and dramatically so? If it were solely on economic issues, it's easy to see-- women were warier of the welfare state, until the first generation that had grown up under it. Thereafter, its defence would be the "conservative" stance. (Walter Mondale made this very point in the 1984 US election.)
But this doesn't explain women's now more radical views on social and cultural issues.
Here are some historical data from the U.S. that I have published previously. However, these data are only the number of men and women who have voted over several decades in the U.S. These data don't include the party/candidate who was voted for.
https://jameslnuzzo.substack.com/p/sex-differences-in-voting
There was one real-life "experiment", in 1916 Illinois. The legislature wanted to give women the vote, but that would have required an amendment to the state constitution approved by the voters. This didn't apply to minor, "statutory" offices, however, such as seats on the board of equalization, or presidential electors.
Thus, that year only men could vote for governor, but both sexes for president. 1,322,553 votes were cast for the former, 2,190,219 for the latter, suggesting for every five men who voted, four women did . There was little difference in the partisan ratio, 52-42% vs 52-43%.
Thanks for sharing. Do you have a link to the data/story?
Not sure what you're asking, but these figures are taken from Wikipedia, and presumably match those in many reference books, e.g. Congressional Quarterly's. The reasoning behind the constitutional/statutory distinction is in Kirk Porter's 1918 "A History of Suffrage in the United States", reprinted by Greenwood Press in 1969 and 1977. It evidently held, because 11 or 12 other states passed similar laws in 1917 and 1919, which were mooted by the 19th Amendment.
A lot of the history of the spread of female suffrage is covered up and/or biased. One history teacher recently determined that the number of women in pro-suffrage associations didn't catch up to that of those in anti-suffrage ones until about 1916. In other words, male legislators had been listening to women all along!
All figures contain the note: all estimates are percentages.
I would think this is a mistake and you intended: All numbers are percentages.
If I'm wrong. (again :-() Can you explain why you use the word estimates?
And as always: thanks for your great work.
I didn't create the figures. The figures were taken from the 2022 Australian Federal Election Study. I believe when they say "estimates," they are referring to the fact that they didn't survey the whole Australian population. They only surveyed a subsample of 2,508 Australian voters. Therefore, the percentages of the subsample might be a bit different than when the whole Australian population is surveyed. I was unable to find data that reflected the entire Australian population.
Thanks for proving me wrong (again).
>We can predict from previous elections, and our everyday observations, that Australian women will be more likely than Australian men to vote for political candidates on the Left, and Australian men will be more likely than the women to vote for political candidates on the Right.
Given this conclusion and given that today men and women consume different media channels; I think it is safe to say that the women's vote makes the election process for candidates way more complex.
I'm thinking about a right wing party considering the potential backlash of women when spending money in left wing media channels.
I'm pretty sure this contributes to the disappearance of the center parties.