Be Professional, Private and Pleasant”: the Conscious and Unconscious Gendering of Campaign Messages in Canadian and Australian Local Elections

University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository

Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations

2020-12 “Be Professional, Private and Pleasant”: The Conscious and Unconscious Gendering of Campaign Messages in Canadian and Australian Local Elections

Croskill, Julie Lynn

Croskill, J. L. (2020). “Be professional, private and pleasant”: the conscious and unconscious gendering of campaign messages in Canadian and Australian local elections (Unpublished doctoral thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. http://hdl.handle.net/1880/112900 doctoral thesis

University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca

UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

“Be Professional, Private and Pleasant”: The Conscious and Unconscious Gendering of Campaign Messages in Canadian and Australian Local Elections

Julie Lynn Croskill

A THESIS

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

GRADUATE PROGRAM IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

CALGARY, ALBERTA

DECEMBER, 2020

Abstract

This dissertation examines Australian and Canadian local campaigns to investigate the extent to which gender and gendered stereotypes consciously affect candidates’ campaign messaging. The data for this study was gathered via in-depth interviews with 92 candidates who contested elections at the state/provincial level between 2010 and 2013. The data collected during the interviews included information on how candidates presented themselves in terms of their appearance, qualifications, character traits and family life; the issues that they highlighted in their local campaigns; the voters they targeted and strategies to connect with them; and information about their opponent relationships such as whether they formed civility pacts, employed negative attack messaging and how they responded if they were negatively campaigned against.

The main conclusion is that gender affects political campaigns. Women’s campaign messaging looks different from men’s campaign messaging in several ways. For example, women are less likely to share personal information about themselves and their families and less likely to target an opponent with negative attack messages despite being more likely to be the target of such attacks. Among the most competitive women candidates, the differences found between their campaigns, and men’s campaigns, regardless of competitiveness, started to diminish. In terms of understanding why campaigns are gendered, there was minimal evidence detected that candidates consciously adjusted their messaging in response to what they perceived to be either voter-held or self-held beliefs about gendered stereotypes. Thus, gendered campaign messaging is the result of unconscious gender role stereotypes. By and large, women candidates did not cue gender in their local campaigns by highlighting women’s issues in their messaging, or by appealing to voters to support a woman candidate.

Preface

I first became interested in studying gendered political campaigns when I was working on my master’s degree at Queen’s University. My supervisor, Dr. Elizabeth Goodyear-Grant, had graciously invited me to work with her on a project examining the gender affinity effect on women voters in Canada. Given my on-going study of Canadians’ voting behaviour, I understood that women local candidates were unlikely to benefit from this effect, due to the primacy of party leaders and partisanship on vote choice. What I did not expect, however, was that among flexible (Independent/weak partisan) women voters — those who theoretically should be most open to casting their vote on the basis of their local candidate, there was very little evidence that the gender affinity effect emerged. As a young woman, I was puzzled by the voting behaviour of what I optimistically (and perhaps naively) deemed to be a natural constituency for women candidates.

Dismayed but intrigued, I sought to understand why gender does not seem to be a salient political identity for women. I decided to look at women candidates to better understand the extent to which these women try to cultivate support from women voters, and the rationale that drives their reasoning and strategies compared to the approaches employed by men. The data for this dissertation primarily comes from interviews with political candidates, and these interviews complied with the Canadian Tri-Council agreement and the University of Calgary’s Conjoint

Faculties Research Ethics Board (Certificate No. 7674).

I found as my research progressed that women candidates were reluctant to cue gender as a campaign strategy, despite conveying a clear belief that women’s representation was important to them. As women remain drastically underrepresented in the world’s legislatures, this

iii dissertation is my attempt to contribute to our understanding of the barriers that continue to block their entrance. Hopefully, my work inspires a strategy or two to help future women candidates with their election campaigns.

Acknowledgements

I often joked that it would be nice if someone else wrote a few pages of my dissertation, as it felt like I was the only one contributing. In reality, this dissertation and the completion of my

PhD program is the result of a lot of effort, support and encouragement from many people and organizations.

First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Brenda O’Neill for her insightful comments, meticulous editing, and above all else, her continuous encouragement. This past fall, Dr. O’Neill began her tenure as the Dean of the Faculty of Public Affairs at Carleton

University, a well-deserved appointment. Despite moving across the country in the midst of a pandemic, and taking on a challenging new position, Dr. O’Neill was determined to see me through, working long hours for months to make that a reality. This commitment to her students is only one of the reasons why Carleton University is lucky to have her.

I would also like to thank the other members of my supervisory committee for their helpful feedback. Thank you to Dr. Lisa Young, Dr. Jack Lucas, Dr. Tracey Raney and Dr. Nancy

Janovicek, and to Dr. Joshua Goldstein for serving as the neutral chair for my defense. A special thanks is owed to Dr. Susan Franceschet for agreeing to be my co-supervisor. I wish to also thank the faculty who led my graduate courses: Dr. Maureen Hiebert, Dr. David Stewart, Dr.

Anthony Sayers and again, Dr. Susan Franceschet and Dr. Lisa Young. Additionally, I am grateful to the office staff who guided me through the administrative hurdles of my program and teaching responsibilities. Thank you to Judi Powell, Ella Wensel, Bonnie Walter, Denise

Retzlaff, Jessica Daigle and Kate Innanen.

Conducting my field work in Australia will be one of my greatest memories. I would like to thank Dr. Jill, Adam, and Penny Sheppard for housing me and providing friendship, as well as

Dr. Andrew Banfield and the School of Politics and International Relations at the Australian

National University for providing me with office space and the Aussie Politics 101 instruction!

Thanks also to Felicity Redfern and Amy Cianan for their support and friendship as I was conducting my interviews in Victoria.

Of course, the group of people to whom I owe a sincere amount of gratitude are the political candidates who agreed to participate in my study. Thank you for not only sharing your experiences with me, but for having the courage to stand as candidates, and the hard work that you put into your campaigns.

Over the years, I have been lucky to make so many new friends in Calgary. Thank you to

Adam and Val Cote, David Torre, Blake Barkley, Katrine Beauregard, Janine Giles, Paul Fairie,

Adam D’Souza, Kelly Pasolli, Chance Minnett Watchel, Anna Johnson, Dave Snow, Mark

Harding, Tim Anderson, Lauren Moslow, Ryan Dean, Elizabeth Pando Burciaga, Sara Skinner,

Andrew Basso and Evgeniia Sidorova. Thank you as well to Tracey Toner and Jenn Mansell

Murray for their continuous friendship and encouragement.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support. Finishing a PhD dissertation under the best of circumstances is not easy – finishing it at your parents’ house during a pandemic should have been impossible. It wasn’t because I had their support and encouragement every single day, and that is why I dedicate my dissertation to my mother, Lynda Croskill, my father, Jeff Croskill, and my grampa, Row Croskill.

Table of Contents

Abstract ii

Preface iii

Acknowledgements v

Table of Contents vii

Tables and Figures xiii

Acronyms xiv

Chapter One: Why So Few? Gendered Barriers to Contest Local Office 1

1.1 Different Rules for Different Candidates? 1

1.2 Democratic Health and Tyranny of the Minority? 2

1.3 The Many Causes of Women’s Continued Unequal Representation 3

1.4 Improving Women’s Representation: Inconspicuous Causes and The Efficient but 5 Controversial Solution

1.5 Research Project: Studying Gendered Messaging at the Local Level 7

1.6 Studying Political Campaigns 9

1.7 Do Campaigns Matter? 12

1.8 Gendered Approaches to Politics and Politicking 15

1.9 Gender Stereotypes and the Battle Against Public Man, Private Women Perceptions 18

1.10 Theoretical Framework: Feminist Institutionalism and the Gendered Logic of 21 Appropriateness

1.11 Chapter Overview 23

Chapter Two: Study Methodology 28

2.1 From the Horse’s Mouth: Understanding the Intentions and Strategy Behind 28 Campaign Messaging

vii

2.2 Key Concepts, Variables and Research Questions 30

2.2.1 Candidate Investment: A New Categorical Variable for Understanding Personal 32 Campaigns

2.3 Case Selection 39

2.4 Data Collection Methods 49

2.5 Data: Study Participants, Interview and Constituency Data 51

2.6 Interview Data Analysis 58

2.7 Research Design: Limitations and Strengths 60

Chapter Three: Candidate Self-Presentation in Local Campaigns 63

3.1 Hello, My Name Is … 63

3.2 Candidate Self-Presentation: Physical Appearance 64

3.2.1 Voting for Attractive Candidates 65

3.2.2 Gendered and Physical Appearance 66

3.2.3 Youthfulness and Candidate Assessment 68

3.2.4 Gendered Partisanship and Physical Appearance 69

3.2.5 Gendered Media Coverage of Candidate Appearance 70

3.2.6 Physical Attractiveness and Candidate Behaviour 71

3.3.1 Study Results: Candidate Physical Appearance 72

3.3.2 Candidate Awareness of Physical Appearance 73

3.3.3 Portraying a Professional Image 74

3.3.4 You Can Be Serious Without a Suit 75

3.3.5 Candidate Age and Professional Image 77

3.3.6 Professionalizing Green Party Candidates 80

viii

3.3.7 Dressing Down and Fitting-In 84

3.3.8 Additional Strategies Related to Appearance 86

3.3.9 Enhancing Recognizability 86

3.3.10 Gender-Specific Features and The “Standard” Politician 87

3.3.11 Occupational Countering 88

3.3.12 Party Branding and Distinct Messaging 89

3.3.13 The Sexy Politician? 90

3.3.14 Discussion: Physical Appearance 91

3.4 Self-Presentation: Qualifications for Office 92

3.4.1 Study Results: Featuring Qualifications 95

3.4.2 Featuring Work Experience 95

3.4.3 Featuring Educational Credentials 99

3.4.4 Featuring Political Experience 101

3.4.5 Local Connection and Residency as a Qualification 102

3.4.6 Discussion: Qualifications 103

3.5 Self-Presentation: Character Traits 105

3.5.1 Study Results: Communicating Character? 106

3.5.2 Communicating Character: A Disingenuous Endeavour 106

3.5.3 Discussion: Presenting Character Traits 109

3.6 Introducing Yourself: Conclusions 110

Chapter Four: Family Life Presentation 113

4.1 Featuring Families and Family Roles in Campaigns 113

4.2 Family Structure: Mothers and Fathers, but Fewer Mothers 114

4.2.1 The Evaluation of Parents: Have a Wife, or Be the Mom Who Does It All 115

4.2.2 Displaying Parenthood: His Picture-Perfect Family 118

4.2.3 Childless? Cue the Loving Daughter and Proud Auntie 120

4.2.4 A Parent’s Expertise? Being the Ideal Policy Maker for Children’s Issues 121

4.2.5 Party and Gendered Family Life Depictions 123

4.2.6 Presenting The Good Wife … but Who is The Good Husband? 125

4.3 Family Display: Study Results 128

4.3.1 Participants’ Family Composition 129

4.3.2 Family Displays: Themes and Rationality 130

4.3.3 Fathers Show Children, Some Mothers Show Children Cautiously 131

4.3.4 Is It Worth It? A Gendered Assessment 135

4.3.5 Family Display: Identifying as a Parent 137

4.3.6 Cute Kids Are Nice, but Adults Work Too: Picturing “Kids” of All Ages 141

4.3.7 Balancing Mothering and Politicking 142

4.3.8 “Single with Cats”: Childless Candidates and Family Life 145

4.3.9 Candidate Spouses: The Perceived Value of Useful Husbands and Noticeable 148 Wives

4.3.10 Messaging, or Rather Not Messaging “Singlehood” 151

4.4 Presenting Family Life: Conclusions 152

Chapter Five: Gendered Political Platforms and Voter Contact 155

5.1 Gendered Issues and Targeting Women Voters 155

5.2 What are “Women’s Issues?” 155

5.2.1 Do Women Campaign on Women’s Issues? 157

5.2.2 Legislating on Women’s Issues: Do Women Legislators Make a Difference? 159

5.2.3 Gender-Based Campaign Messaging 161

5.2.4 Promoting and Voting: Do Candidates Promote a Gender Affinity Effect? 163

5.3 Study Results: Featuring Women’s Issues and Cueing Gender 166

5.3.1 The Inclusion of Women’s Issues in Campaigns 168

5.3.2 Beyond Women’s Issues: Gender Differences Featuring Other Campaign Issues 176

5.3.3 Gendered Campaign Issues: Discussion 180

5.4 Gender Affinity: A Generally Inappropriate Message 181

5.5 Intersectionality of Sexual Orientation and Ethno-Racial Based Identity 184

5.6 Gender-Based Voter Targeting 185

5.7 Campaigning on Gender? Conclusions 190

Chapter Six: Opponent Relations and Communication 192

6.1 Opponent Messaging and Relationships in Local Campaigns 192

6.1.1 The “Civility Pact”: The Use of Informal Agreements in Political Campaigns 193

6.1.2 Gender and Levels of “Trust” 195

6.1.3 Negative Campaigning: Good Idea, Bad Idea, and What to Do When It Happens 197 to You

6.1.4 Gendered Negative Campaigning 200

6.2 Study Results: Opponent Relationships and Communication 202

6.2.1 Forging Opponent Relationships 204

6.2.2 Being Attacked 208

6.2.3 Initiating the Attack 213

6.2.4 Rationale Against Employing Attack Based Messages 218

6.2.5 Cross-gender Attacks 221

6.3 Opponent Relationships and Messaging: Conclusions 222

Chapter Seven: Making Connections 225

7.1 Here’s a Wall, There’s a Wall: Women’s Electoral Path as a Maze? 225

7.2 Contributions and Avenues for Future Research 231

7.3 Study Limitations 246

7.4 Tying Things Together 247

References 249

Appendices 291

Appendix A: Candidate Interview Participants 291

Appendix B: Interview Questionnaire 294

xii

Tables

Tables Table 2.1: Candidate Sketch by Level of Investment 36

Table 2.2: Candidate Details 54

Table 4.1: Candidate Family Composition 130

Table 5.1: Percentage of Candidates Featuring Women’s Issues in Local Campaign by 169 Candidate Gender

Table 5.2: Percentage of Candidates Featuring Education in Campaigns by Candidate 171 Party, Competitiveness and Gender

Table 5.3: Percentage of Candidates Featuring Healthcare in Campaigns by Candidate 173 Party, Competitiveness and Gender

Table 5.4: Gendered Differences Featuring Non-Women’s Isues in Campaign 176

Table 6.1: Percentage of Candidates who Deliberately Formed Positive Relationships 205 with their Opponents

Table 6.2: Percentage of Candidates Targeted by Negative Attacks 209

Table 6.3: Personal Attack Categorization Details 210

Table 6.4: Employment of Negative Attack Messaging 215

Table 6.5: Rationale Against Employing Negative Attack Messages by Gender 219

xiii

Acronyms

ALP Australian Labor Party

GOTV Get-Out-The-Vote

LNP Liberal National Party

NDP New Democratic Party

MP Member of Parliament

MLA Member of Legislative Assembly

PC Progressive Conservative Party

US United States of America

UK United Kingdom

WRP Wildrose Party

xiv

Chapter One: Why So Few? Gendered Barriers to Contest Local Office

1.1 Different Rules for Different Candidates?

A common phrase spoken by candidates at the outset of an election campaign is, “Let the best man win.” This phrase, while seemingly an indictor of good sportsmanship, also carries several assumptions about not only the competitors, but also about the competition itself. First and foremost, it assumes that the objective of the game is to win the election. Subsequent assumptions include that everyone can join a team, each candidate is given the opportunity to step onto the playing field, and that the same rules apply to all competitors. At a minimum, when women’s political candidacy is analyzed, the assumptions about elections being a fair competition would surely give any prudent scholar of democratic institutions a reason to take pause, and consider whether these assumptions are indeed true, given the gross underrepresentation of women in almost every legislature in the world. This research project zeros in on one aspect of elections – the election campaign – and examines the gendered experiences of local candidates contesting state/provincial elections in Canada and Australia through in-depth interviews. The primary research question this project tackles is: to what extent does gender and gendered stereotypes consciously affect campaign communication among local candidates? A clear finding that emerges from the data is that gender affects candidates’ campaign messaging and their campaign experience, and whether consciously held or not, gender stereotypes appear to particularly constrain women candidates’ campaign strategies in regard to both the information that they provide about themselves, and the manner in which they campaign against their opponents.

1.2 Democratic Health and Tyranny of the Minority?

Women are not only a salient political group, but one that makes up over half of the population. Virginia Sapiro argues that we would simply not see the continued pattern of male dominance if gender were irrelevant to divisions of power and authority (2003: 603). The idea that political bodies should mirror the population they represent in terms of sex, race, religion, and other salient political identities is known as descriptive representation. Barbara Burrell argues that women’s descriptive representation is important because:

Women in public office stand as symbols for other women, both enhancing their identification with the [democratic] system and their ability to have influence within it. This subjective sense of being involved and heard for women, in general, alone makes the election of women to public office important because, for so many years, they were excluded from power (1994: 151).

While it is not difficult to craft arguments for why women should be better included and represented in democratic institutions, achieving this level of equality is a much bigger challenge. Over the past 100 years, the overall movement of women’s electoral representation is best described as inching along. There has been, of course, many advancements for women’s political representation that should be noted and celebrated — in 2018, more than 50 percent of representatives elected to the lower/single house in Rwanda, Cuba and Bolivia were women; in

2015, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced the first gender-equal cabinet at the federal level in Canadian history; and while she was not ultimately victorious, in 2016 Hillary Clinton was the first woman nominee to stand for either of the two major parties in America’s presidential contest. Clinton won the popular vote by more than two percentage points but ultimately lost in the electoral college vote. Despite these steps forward, even the most enthusiastic observer of women’s political advancement must still take pause when reflecting on the stark reality that 100 years after women’s enfranchisement, the men to women ratio in most political bodies and

2 political leadership positions is far from equal, and in some cases, there even seems to be a regression in representation. As of summer 2020, only one of the 14 Canadian first ministers is a woman, despite having nearly half of first ministers being women only six years prior; 176 of the

192 countries tracked by the Inter-Parliamentary Union have less than forty percent of women sitting in their national lower house (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2019); and even when we focus on the Nordic region, long touted as the leader in women’s electoral representation, only Norway has experienced a sustained increase (albeit small) over the past 10 years in the proportion of women elected to their national legislature. Denmark, Sweden, Iceland and Finland have all experienced periods of decline (World Bank, 2019). The speed at which women are gaining representation in legislatures and other seats of political power is simply unsatisfying. Equal

Voice, a multi-partisan organization dedicated to electing and supporting women at all levels of political office estimates that it will take 90 years to reach gender parity in the Canadian House of Commons (Coletto, 2017). With the bleak outlook on the advancement of women’s representation, research that helps understand the causes of women’s under-representation, and actively proposes solutions to entice more women to actively contest elections is critically important for the democratic health of all nations. As such, gender-based research that examines all factors affecting women’s political representation — from political socialization to legislative experience, ought to be investigated to identify ways to encourage women’s political interests, activities, and their candidacies for local office and leadership positions.

1.3 The Many Causes of Women’s Continued Unequal Representation

Women’s underrepresentation is complex, there are several explanations that must be taken together to begin to gain an understanding for why this pattern of exclusion continues. From a

3 legal-theoretical standpoint, women have the same formal opportunity to run for office as men in most countries, and yet, the extreme gap in gendered political representation persists, which leads to other explanations that are somewhat harder to detect and understand, such as those that relate to socio-economic and cultural factors. For a group to have descriptive representation, they need a candidate, and a practical way to understand the likelihood of that candidate gaining an electoral seat is to examine the three stages of candidacy: the decision to run for office, winning a party nomination, and winning the actual election. Notable studies have been conducted that analyze the different experiences women have compared to men as they move through these stages. Some of the topics the literature addresses to highlight women’s differing experiences include women’s actual and perceived qualifications to run for office (for example, Fox and

Lawless, 2014; Lawless and Fox, 2005; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu, 2013; Campbell and Wolbrecht, 2006), institutional barriers such as gatekeeping and incumbency (for example,

Cross, 2016; Gauja and Cross, 2015; Krook, 2010; Cheng and Tavits, 2011; Schwindt-Bayer,

2005; Clayton and Tang, 2018; Lang, 2005; Buckley, 2020), women’s ability to fundraise (for example, Thomsen and Swers, 2017; Crespin and Deitz, 2010; Brollo and Troiano, 2016) and voter-held gender stereotypes about women candidates’ ability to act as a political representative

(for example, Lawless, 2004; Huddy and Terkilsen, 1993; Paul and Smith, 2008).

At the outset, this research project accepts that women’s underrepresentation is caused by a myriad of factors but seeks to better understand how one factor in particular – gendered stereotypes, affects the last step of the process – campaign communication and candidates’ campaign experiences. Specifically, it assesses the extent to which local political candidates consider both the gender-stereotypes they may perceive voters to have, as well as their own implicitly held stereotypes, when they are crafting their campaign messaging. There are three

4 elements to this question. The first is if political candidates believe that voters assess them differently than their opposite-gender counterparts and adjust their communications to reflect that difference. The second is whether candidates relay that they have distinctive gendered perceptions of what men and women’s campaigns should embody. The third is whether candidates also project gender stereotypes on to their voters, and target gender-based communication accordingly. By understanding the role these perceptions have, it may be the case that future women candidates can increase their level of political efficacy to battle any stereotypes that they hold themselves about the value that they can offer by running for political office; for men candidates to consider whether they are creating a culture of toxic masculinity that makes it unappealing for women to contest elections; and for all candidates to consider if there is a better way to campaign, that minimizes the stereotypical assumptions that voters may have about candidates’ ability to govern based on their gender.

1.4 Improving Women’s Representation: Inconspicuous Causes and The Efficient, but

Controversial Solution

Before venturing further into the details of this research project, it would be admittedly remiss not to acknowledge an efficient solution to achieve representative equality – the implementation of gender quotas. The use of quota systems is common, with half of all countries using some sort of quota within their electoral institutions (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, 2020). Gender quotas, and quotas in general, as they can also be applied to other political identities such as ethnicity, religion, race, or language, is when a policy is in place that reserves a portion of positions (for example, seats in a legislative body) for each group being considered. This portion tends to vary between a set proportion (for example, 30

5 percent is often touted as a “critical mass” (see Dahlerup, 2013 for a discussion on the evolution of this concept)) to the actual proportion of the population represented by the group the quota is set to represent. Similarly, there is also considerable variance in terms of whether quotas are mandatory or voluntary, and how they are enforced, which greatly affects their effectiveness.

Some states, such as Uganda, practice a system of reserved seats for women legislators, while in other states such as France, parties are mandated to run an equal (within 2 percent) number of men and women candidates. Many political parties, particularly progressive or left-wing parties also adopt voluntary quotas whereby the party itself mandates that a proportion of their candidates be of each gender, such as the Australian Labor Party (ALP), which set a quota that no more than 40 percent of preselected candidates should be either men or women.

While there are clear benefits to gender quota systems, chief among them being the expediency to which they provide increased gendered representation, there are also drawbacks that need to be acknowledged. Gender quotas do prioritize gender identity over other types of political identity that may be more salient, and they are at least to some extent undemocratic in that, depending how quota seats are organized, voters may not be given a choice of who should represent them, or the chance to run for office themselves. Furthermore, quotas can be violated in spirit. This includes placing women in uncompetitive seats, which has been found to be practiced for some elections by some parties in France (Murray, 2013). As evidenced by the few countries where the most robust form of quotas, reserved seats, are actually practiced, and the relative infrequency of changing electoral systems to more proportionately representative models among countries in general, it must be acknowledged that citizens exhibit a strong reluctance to adopt meaningful institutional changes that would increase women’s representation (see Golder et al.,

2017 for a discussion on how proportional representation electoral systems assist with the

6 election of women and other minority groups). As such, this research project focuses on analyzing how women may increase their representation within the bounds of the status quo, that is, in systems that do not institutionalize mandatory gender quotas at the candidate level, and thus women candidates compete against men candidates in elections for legislative seats.

1.5 Research Project: Studying Gendered Messaging at the Local Level

The primary question this dissertation addresses is: “To what extent does gender and gendered stereotypes consciously affect campaign communication among local candidates?” To study this research question, this project conducted in-depth interviews with 92 political candidates contesting state/provincial level elections in the Australian states of Victoria and

Queensland and the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia between 2010 to 2013.

Of these candidates, 18 were from Victoria, 35 were from Queensland, 22 were from Alberta and

17 were from British Columbia. The main reason why Canada and Australia were chosen as case studies was to assess whether the gender differences in campaign communication that has been detected amongst American candidates (for example, Herrnson and Lucas, 2006; Evans and

Clark, 2016; Wagner et al., 2017) also exists in other states. A secondary consideration was that parliamentary systems tend to have smaller campaigns in terms of professional staffing and expenditures. Provincial and state elections in Canada and Australia provide an opportunity to examine smaller campaigns, where there is a greater chance that much of the strategy guiding campaign considerations are being made by the candidate themselves, and thus there is more of an opportunity to understand how the gender of a candidate affects their campaign communication.

The interviews focused on a variety of campaign communication topics and strategies, including the personal details candidates provided about themselves, what platform topics they focused on, how they appealed to voters, and what strategies they employed regarding their opponents’ campaigns. What emerged from these discussions was a clear finding that gender affected campaign messages in terms of how candidates presented themselves, the nature of their platform topics, and how they communicated both about their opponents, and in response to how their opponents communicated about them. The main conclusion found is that gender matters — many women candidates’ campaigns do look different from men’s. For example, women are less likely to share personal information about themselves, to include issues related to law and order in their campaigns, to target an opponent with negative attack messages, or to form a civility pact. While the campaigns of those interviewed were found to be gendered in some respects, there was substantially less evidence found that candidates consciously adjusted their campaigns in response to what they perceived to be either voter-held or self-held beliefs about gendered stereotypes and how to best utilize them to their advantage. Very few of the women interviewed stated that they felt that elements of their campaigns were specifically designed to match gendered expectations from voters. Similarly, very few candidates noted that they had an actual strategy to communicate in a way that enhanced or distracted from a gender-alignment stereotype. The area in which conscious gender stereotypes did emerge to some degree, was in targeting voters by gender. For example, several of the candidates, both men and women, reported that they would direct child-based policies toward mothers, but not fathers.

Additional details about the study methodology will be presented in Chapter Two, and study results will be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters. The remainder of this chapter will present a literature review on some of the key areas that are important to this dissertation:

8 the study of campaigns, gender differences in political activity, and gendered stereotypes in the political context. Following the literature review, a discussion of the theoretical framework guiding this project is reviewed, and then an overview of this dissertation by chapter is presented.

1.6 Studying Political Campaigns

Most people likely think of campaigns as the short period of time before an election, when political candidates go on tours of their constituency, making campaign promises, criticizing their opponents, and meeting with voters. At least at higher levels of office, this period is typically characterized by a break in political proceedings, and regulations are often placed on campaign activity such as the amount of political donations that can be accepted by individuals or corporations, and the amount of expenditures candidates can make in support of their campaigning activity. To borrow the simplified definition from Brady et al., a campaign:

Is the period right before citizens make a real political choice. This common knowledge typically heightens citizens’ attention to politics in direct relation to the proximity of the event … evidence of greater salience for voters could manifest itself in, for example, media attentiveness, campaign interest, political discussion, knowledge about candidates, and strength of vote intention (2006: 2- 3).

The concept of “campaigns,” however, is not necessarily as simple as what is sketched out above. Particularly in the last few decades, campaigning has been in a constant state of flux. For example, for some elections it is no longer just candidates and political leaders who engage in campaigning on their Saturday afternoons, but rather professional teams are hired to build extensive voter databases to identify potential voters and craft targeted messaging, some candidates engage in extended periods of campaigning that last years or are even indefinite, with the line between campaigning and governing becoming blurred for incumbent activity (for

9 example, Marland and Giasson, 2017; Delacourt, 2016; Flanagan, 2014; Ornstein and Mann,

2000). It can become unclear over what activities are considered campaigning for a given election, as candidates attend all sorts of community events and even contest other elections to raise their profile.

A lot of activity happens during campaigns. Platforms are crafted and adjusted to reflect salient election issues, campaign teams are organized, voter information is collected for get-out- the-vote (GOTV) purposes, fundraising efforts are ramped up, and in some races when a candidate concludes they are unlikely to win, they will drop out of the race, and encourage their voter base to support a more viable candidate whom they deem permissible. An additional and important element of political campaigns and the focus of this project is communication, that is, the messaging that candidates employ in their campaigns.

Candidates communicate with voters in a myriad of ways about themselves, their party and leader, their policy ideas, and their political opponents. Candidates employ a variety of methods to get their message(s) across to voters. Sometimes these messages are delivered in a direct and overt manner, such as through door knocking, mailed pamphlets or making a speech at a community forum, while other types of message delivery are more indirect and subtle, such as being seen cleaning up a park on Earth Day, wearing a particular colour or style of dress, or retweeting an embarrassing message authored by, or about an opponent. The purpose of a candidate’s communication initiatives is not only to present voters with information about why they would be a good choice to elect as their political representative, but also why they are the best choice from among the contenders. This often means that candidates do not just communicate about themselves, but also about their opponents. In addition to candidates messaging on their own behalf, typically, so to does the central party operatives, party leaders,

10 and in some cases, the media and groups such as business associations or community-interest organizations. Over the past 10 years, individuals also have been given an increasingly important role in campaigns with the advent of social media websites, as these online forums provide an increased number of opportunities to participate in and shape the direction of campaign events

(Killin and Small, 2018). Taken together, devising a communication strategy during campaigns can be a momentous task.

The study of campaign messaging is expansive, and largely the focus of political behaviour and political psychology scholars within the discipline of political science. Commonly, studies explore reactions to types of communication initiatives, with their results serving as de facto advice on campaign strategy. Some examples of this type of research include: studies looking at the impact of direct voter contact such as door knocking or mailed letters on voter turnout and support (for example, Townsley, 2018; Green and Gerber, 2015; Panagopoulos, 2009); how a candidate’s appearance affects voter support (for example, Mattes and Milazzo, 2014; Berggren et al., 2017; Banducci et al., 2008); voter and candidate reactions to negative campaign advertisements (for example, Malloy and Person-Merkowitz, 2016; Brooks and Geer, 2007;

Jackson et al., 2009); and the impact of key events on vote intention using longitudinal survey data (for example, Erikson and Wlezien, 2014; Johnston et al., 1992). These studies are important for the discipline of political science for two reasons. First, they contribute to theory generation about campaign effects, and second, they have a practical contribution in that practitioners may choose to adapt their campaign behaviour based on the findings of these studies. One of the main prescriptions about devising good theories that is stressed in all introductory courses in social sciences is that a good theory should be useful!

1.7 Do Campaigns Matter?

In first-past-the-post electoral systems, the potential importance of a political campaign at the local level varies depending on the electoral context. There are essentially three types of scenarios from the standpoint of a candidate. The first is an electoral context where the candidate is unlikely to win; the second is when there is potential that a candidate may win or may lose if they are the incumbent; and lastly, there is a situation in in which the candidate is almost certain to win the seat. The first and last contexts are known as safe seat ridings, since there exists a high and known probability of who is likely to win the seat in the riding. When the electoral outcome in the riding is less certain, the riding is labelled a competitive or marginal seat. It is surely the case that in some safe seat ridings, campaign activities matter less than they do in marginal seats.

One way to think of campaign importance is by the degree of “intensity” the event generates in terms of the attention paid to it by political parties, candidates, the media, and voters themselves

(Brady et al., 2006). If the election is all but a foregone conclusion, it makes sense that those residing in safe seat ridings are less interested than those in more competitive districts. However, even for voters who have already decided how they will vote (including strong partisans), campaigns can “preserve [the voter’s] prior decisions instead of initiating new decisions”

(Lazarsfeld et al., 1948: 87) which Brady et al. (2006) assert is an important consideration when assessing the importance of campaign effects on vote choice. For non-partisan and undecided voters, the importance of the campaign is also likely to be greater, and this is especially important as studies have shown a generational pattern of decreasing partisanship among younger voters across industrial democracies (Dalton and Wattenberg, 2000).

The literature on campaign effects presents compelling evidence regarding the positive connection between local campaign activity and electoral outcomes (for example, Denver and

Hands, 1997, 1998; Denver et al., 1998; Pattie et al, 1995; Whiteley and Seyd, 2003, 1994). This includes studies that have detected a positive link between winning seats and increased campaign expenditure, and specifically winning seats and increased advertising via the likes of campaign signs, mail outs and paid advertising in newspapers (for example Forrest et al., 1999; Pattie and

Johnston, 1996; Pattie et al., 1995; Rekkas, 2007; Jacobson, 1990; Green et al., 2016; Bratt et al.,

2015; Sommer, 1979). Horserace coverage is a term that refers to when the media concentrates attention on the competitiveness of an election, rather than on policies or providing information about political candidates. Studies have also found that when the media presents a tight race that captures voters’ attention, voters are more likely to support the candidate that is perceived to win

(for example, Ansolabehere and Iyengar, 1994a; Bartels, 1987, 1988; Dahlgaard et al., 2017).

Additionally, campaign effects are important when an election is tied to a critical event, policy, or issue, such as the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement and the 1988 Canadian Federal

Election (Johnston et al., 1992). In these situations, the election acts as a pseudo referendum on the issue, with candidates and their political parties staking out positions to secure a mandate to carry out their proposed policy.

While election campaigns are generally found to matter, the importance of the local candidate and their campaign is somewhat more ambiguous to pinpoint. The share of the vote that a local candidate generates is commonly known as the “personal vote,” which Cain et al.

(1987: 9) define as, “that portion of a candidate's electoral support which originates in his or her personal qualities, qualifications, activities, and record." In parliamentary states, however, and

Westminster-style systems in particular, the focus tends to be on party leaders (Poguntke and

Webb, 2005). This is because individual legislators wield very little power of their own. This is an especially prominent characteristic of the Canadian Westminster system, as the majority of

13 decisions are not made in the legislature, or even in the executive, but by a few select members of government that Savoie (1999) refers to as “courtiers,” essentially the prime minister and a few select senior ministers and senior bureaucrats. Additionally, party discipline in these systems is stronger. Thus, it is easy to conflate a vote for an individual candidate with a vote for that candidate’s party leader. While candidates running under party banners have their campaigns controlled to some extent by their party, there is considerable variance depending both on the competitiveness of the race, and the candidate themselves. Some candidates are “high-profile” and can influence the content of their campaigns more than their lower-profile counterparts

(Sayers, 1999). This is because of the level of personal vote they carry, and resources that they can raise or contribute to not only their own campaign, but for other candidates, and even the party and party leader. Beyond these select star candidates, the situation for most other candidates is they are expected to uphold the brand their party espouses, and insofar as their persona fits with the brand, introduce elements of their personality and personal life to “offer a human persona” (Langer, 2010: 61 in Thomas and Lambert, 2017: 137, see further, Stalsburg,

2012).

Despite the primacy of the leader in Westminster systems, there is evidence of personal votes being cast (Roy and Alcantara, 2015). In the Canadian case, estimates of the percentage of votes cast for reasons that relate primarily to the local candidate range from a low of around four percent to a high of 14 percent (for example, Stevens et al., 2019; Blais et al. 2003; Cunningham,

1971). In Australia, estimates suggest that the personal vote obtained by local politicians is upwards of three percent in some areas, which has a notable influence on the outcome of elections in swing ridings (Bean, 1990). Additional evidence of the importance of the personal vote comes from studies on the incumbency effect, which is the increased vote share that

14 incumbents receive, all else being equal, compared to their non-incumbent counterparts. This effect emerges due to name recognition, experience, and previous voter contact. Krashinsky and

Milne (1986) report the incumbent advantage to be approximately five percent in Canada. This research is further supported by Black and Erickson (2003) and Rush (2001), who found that when electoral boundaries are adjusted, or when an incumbent retires, there is a substantial change in electoral outcomes. Black and Erickson argue that this is proof of the local candidate’s impact (2003).

While the personal vote received by candidates is relatively small, it certainly has the ability to affect some elections that employ the first-past-the-post electoral system, and given that the studies cited above report national averages, there are likely to be certain local elections in which votes cast on the basis of the local candidate greatly affect the results. Furthermore, while most local MPs may have a relatively small role in government decision making, in Westminster parliamentary systems it is rare for a person to be able to win a party leader election and extraordinarily rare to acquire a cabinet post without first being elected. Thus, taking the first step of being elected as a local MP is generally necessary, and can act as a springboard to further leadership opportunities (Buckley et al., 2015; Sanbonmatsu, 2005). As some candidates are indeed able to cultivate support based on their personal characteristics, understanding the dynamics of their campaigns is an important consideration.

1.8 Gendered Approaches to Politics and Politicking

The literature on gendered approaches to engaging with and participating in politics suggests that men and women have different approaches and experiences. These differences start with the experiences of children. There is a robust literature on political socialization that has

15 found that boys and girls are socialized towards politics differently from a young age and that by high school, teenage boys are more politically knowledgeable than teenage girls (for example,

Pfanzelt and Spies, 2019; Lay, 2017). As youth enter adulthood, evidence of the political engagement gender gap is clear, with women being less interested, involved, informed and efficacious in terms of traditional political activities (Cross and Young, 2008; Verba et al., 1997;

Quaranta and Sani, 2018; Morehouse and Osborn, 2010; Robinson-Preece, 2016). Examples of these activities include running for elections, joining political parties, engaging in dialogue about current governmental affairs and scoring well on political knowledge tests that focus on political actors and government institutions. It is argued however that assessments measuring political knowledge have been biased favorably towards men’s types of political knowledge. Studies have shown that when political knowledge questionnaires include practical aspects, such as knowledge about government benefits and services, then the gender gap is mitigated to a certain extent, and can even be reversed (for example, Pereira et al., 2015; Stolle and Gidengil, 2010;

Dolan, 2011). This is important because it suggest that women may “do politics” differently in terms of their engagement on political issues, such as focusing on practical topics in their conversations with other women, like how to access maternity leave benefits or whom to contact if they need to rectify a problem with a government benefit or service, such as re-ordering a lost social insurance number card.

Vote choice is also impacted by gender. Studies show a gap in vote choice between women and men. Traditionally, this gap has resulted in men being more likely to support left-leaning parties, and women being more likely to support parties on the centre-right. This was largely attributed to differences in the level of labour force participation, with men being more likely to engage in paid work, and particularly more likely to work in industries associated with unions,

16 and women having higher levels of religiosity (for example, Duverger, 1955; Butler and Stokes,

1974). This gendered voting gap has shifted, and work that is associated with the modern gender gap, or realignment thesis shows that women are now more likely than men to support the centre-left and left-wing parties of their party system. The explanation offered for this shift is that women have had extraordinary growth with their labour force participation, are gaining and even surpassing men in their level of education, and tend to be clustered in sex-segregated occupations with lower rates of pay, but also higher levels of public sector employment (for example, Erickson and O’Neill, 2002; Inglehart and Norris, 2000, 2003; Abendschon and

Steinmetz, 2014; Thomas and Bodet, 2013, O’Neill and Stewart, 2009).

When it comes to looking at gender differences amongst political candidates and elected politicians, notable gender differences continue to be identified. For women who have been elected or are campaigning for election to political office, it has been found that they “enter” the political scene differently than men. Studies looking at political pathways to office have found that women are less likely to work in the capacity of a political operative or party office holder, which are positions that often provide a “springboard” for elected positions (for example, Verge and Claveria, 2018; Verge and Astudillo, 2018). Additional studies examining the gendered behaviour of legislators have found evidence that women practice politics differently, and that their approach is characterised by “cooperation rather than conflict, collaboration rather than hierarchy and honesty rather than sleaze” (Norris, 1996: 93). Furthermore, it has been found that women legislators are more likely to seek counsel on issues and consider a wider range of information and positions before making a decision (for example, Bochel and Briggs, 2000;

Nownes and Freeman, 2019); to base political judgements on lived experiences (Blakenship and

Robson, 1995) and that they exhibit a less adversarial approach to communicating in the House

17 with a self-perceived feminine style that includes a more team-like approach to legislating

(Childs, 2004; Norris, 1996).

With evidence suggesting that at least some women have a distinctive feminine style when it comes to participating, experiencing, and doing politics, it is intuitive to ask if this style also emerges in how they campaign for office, or even whether they value running for office as a meaningful mode of participation, or an effective method to achieve political results.

1.9 Gender Stereotypes and the Battle Against Public Man, Private Women Perceptions

An additional topic identified by researchers is the concept of gendered stereotypes as they relate to the perception of political interests and abilities, and how they affect candidate beliefs about the appropriate persona that they as a candidate should present. Stereotypes are the “cognitive structures that contain the perceiver’s knowledge, beliefs and expectations about human groups”

(Hamilton and Trolier, 1986: 133 in Brooks, 2013). Stereotypes in of themselves are not necessarily problematic, and in fact, can be argued to be necessary for people to function as they

“simplify the process of having to make decisions about groups and members of those groups”

(Hoyt and Simon, 2017 in Cloutier and O’Neill, 2019). From the perspective of vote choice, stereotypes can and are used by voters, particularly those with lower levels of information, as a cognitive shortcut - they support a candidate who is most “like them,” as they perceive that this candidate will best represent their interests (Cutler, 2002). Where stereotypes are problematic however, is that when people create expectations about leaders and leadership, their expectations tend to be culturally masculine, and also favour the dominant racial groups in their society (Hoyt and Simon, 2017: 87 in Cloutier and O’Neill, 2019; see further Koenig et al., 2011). This has the

18 effect of producing a bias against women and other minority groups, and excludes them from having a seat, or at least the appropriate number of seats, at decision-making tables.

Traditionally, citizens tend to hold gendered views of candidates and officeholders, thinking of them differently in terms of the characteristics and traits that they bring to the electoral arena. Citizens are more likely to identify men as assertive, active, and self-reliant and self-confident, while they tend to identify women as more caring, compassionate, benevolent, empathetic, willing to compromise, and people oriented. In short, “women take care and men take charge” (Cloutier and O’Neill, 2019:6; see further Hoyt and Simon, 2017; Eagly et al.,

2000; Burrell, 1994; Leeper, 1991; Huddy and Terkildsen, 1993; Rosenwasser and Dean, 1989).

In terms of issue areas, men candidates are often perceived as more competent than women in terms of legislating in the areas of military crises, crime, the economy, agriculture, and other

“hard” policy issues while women tend to be perceived as having more expertise regarding issues such as gender equity, education, health care, poverty, and other “soft” policy issues (for example, Burrell, 1994; Alexander and Anderson, 1993; Huddy and Terkildsen, 1993; Leeper,

1991; Rosenwasser and Dean, 1989; Sapiro, 1982). In each of these cases, the issues and traits associated with women are linked to the traditional (private) domain of the family, whereas the policy expertise and characteristics linked to men tend to be visible in the public sphere

(Lawless, 2004: 480). While women leaders may be regarded as warmer, more caring, and likeable, the characteristics people associate with effective leadership tend to be the ones stereotypically regarded as male, thus undercutting women's leadership (Carli, 1999; Kawakami et al., 2000).While men have been found to be favoured when it comes to dealing with international issues and violence, such as terrorist activities (Holman et al., 2016), women have

19 also been found to be perceived as skilled when it comes to dealing with internal crisis situations

(Eagly and Cali, 2003).

In their study on gendered communication, Banwart and McKinney (2005) refer to “gender adaptiveness” as when women candidates adapt typically masculine attributes, and men adapt feminine attributes, into their debate style. They found both men and women would do so when appropriate to benefit from stereotypical strengths and counter stereotypical weaknesses.

Examples of this behaviour are on offer, such as US presidential candidates Joe Biden hugging children, whereas Sarah Palin would describe herself as a “Mama Grizzly”. Role congruity theory of prejudice (see Eagly and Karau, 2002) poses a catch-22 situation. A woman candidate is not supposed to act like a strong leader. If she does act like a strong leader, she may be penalized for not conforming to feminine stereotypes, but if she acts in a more feminine manner, that conforms less to strong leadership, then she may not be deemed fit to govern. For women however, there appears to be a greater double bind in that the traits associated with the ideal politician are masculine, so they must show that they can exhibit these traits, but remind people that they are doing so as a woman. Men have been found to adapt a feminine style in their campaigns to connect with women voters when the situation warrants. For example, Obama would tell stories of his grandmother, and appear on the Oprah Winfrey Show, which has a predominantly women audience (Carroll, 2010).

For women candidates pursuing candidacy or other political leadership opportunities, the implicit gender stereotypes they hold themselves can have a negative effect on their decision to run for office. Devnew et al. (2017) argue that for women who consider pursuing leadership positions, gendered stereotypes that relate to leadership can affect their behaviour in the following ways. First women may accept that good leadership conforms to masculinized styles

20 and traits and use that as a benchmark to measure their abilities. Second, women with a stereotypical feminine image of themselves may have a lower level of self-efficacy, and thus be less likely to pursue or even value leadership. Third, women may not calculate that the benefits associated with leadership outweigh the costs it takes to pursue it. Thus, it is likely that women’s political ambition is impacted both by implicit gendered stereotypes, and explicit stereotypes as exhibited by the proportionately greater number of men who serve as role models for political candidates.

In general, it is not clear to what extent stereotypes actually harm women candidates, once they decide to run for office. Different voters have different values for the qualities that they think a political leader should espouse. Similarly, different levels of governments in general, and different elections at each level specifically, have different salient issues emerge. For example, the 2004 American presidential campaign focused on foreign actors in terms of national defense, whereas the 2020 campaign focused on domestic actors in terms of government response to

COVID. Thus, it seems intuitive that sometimes stereotypes would benefit men, and sometimes women. Both men and women candidates, however, run in all elections, regardless of what the top election issue is. It is critical for the health of democracies that both men and women have adequate representation at all levels of government, across elections years, as the decisions made by representative political institutions impact the quality of life for all citizens.

1.10 Theoretical Framework: Feminist Institutionalism and the Gendered Logic of

Appropriate Action

The theoretical framework guiding this research project falls under the umbrella of Louise

Chappell’s “gendered logic of appropriate action” (2006). The study of institutionalism as a

21 means to understand phenomena has deep roots in political science as well as political economics, anthropology, sociology and psychology. In the late 1980s and 1990s, a new or neo- institutionalism emerged, stressing that institutions have normative, but dynamic characteristics

(for example, Thelen and Steinmo, 1992; March and Olsen, 1989). This perspective thus sees human action as being guided by rules of appropriate or exemplary behavior, organized into institutions. The appropriateness of rules includes both cognitive and normative components, and actors seek to fulfill the obligations encapsulated in a role, an identity, or a membership in a political community of group (March and Olsen, 2011: 478). Chappell argues that the logic of appropriateness underpinning institutions also requires a gendered perspective, because recognizing that “gender is imprinted upon and embedded within institutions helps in the assessment of the political opportunities and constraints facing feminist actors.” (2006: 224).

Chappell highlights Joni Lovenduski’s (1998) work that asserts four areas of knowledge are important for understanding the study of gender and institutions:

1) everyone in an institution has a sex and performs gender; 2) the experience of individuals in institutions varies by both sex and gender; 3) sex and gender interact with other components of identity—for example, race, ethnicity—that also have implications for models of femininity and masculinity; and 4) institutions have distinctively gendered cultures and are involved in processes of producing and reproducing gender (in Chappell, 2006: 226).

Applying these propositions to her analysis of gendered bureaucracy, Chappell thus argues that

“without women's input, policy decisions that are made at the highest level have tended to disregard (and thereby reinforce) the unequal political, economic, and social position of the two sexes, as well as make stereotypical assumptions about male and female behavior” (2006: 228).

My work builds and expands on Chappell’s argument. I argue that political campaigns should also be analyzed from this feminist institutional perspective because campaigns are shaped by political parties and electoral systems, which are both formal institutions. Political campaigns

22 have traditionally been designed by men, and reflect masculine styles of adversarial political debate, hierarchal relationships between candidates and party leaders (who are predominantly men), and the primacy of public roles over private roles (see Elshtain,1981). By exposing the myriad of ways in which campaigns are not gender neutral, we can better understand campaigns as a barrier to women’s representation because they perpetuate a traditional masculine advantage. Furthermore, it is critical to understand that this type of institutional output should be viewed as dynamic. Beckwith asserts that by understanding gender as a process, “feminists … can work to instate practices and rules that recast the gendered nature of the political” (2005:

133). By viewing campaigns as a gendered process, the barriers that exist within them that hinder women’s campaigns can be exposed, challenged and revised.

1.11 Chapter Overview

This dissertation takes a different approach from traditional models in that a comprehensive literature review will not be presented as its own chapter. Instead, the relevant literature will be laid out at the beginning of each of the substantive chapters. This has been done for both the benefit of the reader and author. By discussing the relevant literature immediately before the presentation of study results, the connections between the two are more easily drawn, and given the breadth of this study, easier for the reader to track and evaluate the overall argument and conclusions.

Chapter Two lays out the study methodology. In this chapter, I present two main arguments related to my research approach and case selection. The first is that employing a qualitative approach that relies on in-depth interviews is the best way to address the research question, “To what extent does gender and gendered stereotypes consciously affect campaign communication among local candidates?” Much of the literature that focuses on this topic

23 examines campaign materials such as pamphlets, websites and television advertisements. By speaking to candidates directly, I am better able to discern if choices related to political campaigns were made by the candidate him or herself, and if there was an underlying rationale that drove the decision. The second argument presented in this chapter is that the provincial/state elections in Canada and Australia provide an ideal comparative case selection. Much of the work that examines gendered campaign styles focuses on American elections, which differ significantly from other countries in terms of funding and, subsequently, in the use of professional campaign teams. By examining local elections in which campaigns tend to be more candidate-driven, there is an opportunity to assess whether men and women candidates approach their campaign communication strategies in different ways. Chapter Two also provides a detailed account of further methodology and analysis employed and provides as overview of each of the four elections selected as the case studies.

In Chapter Three, I examine how candidates explicitly choose to present themselves to the electorate. Specifically, I look at how they present themselves in terms of their physical appearance, personal character, and their qualifications to represent constituents. In this chapter, the interviews revealed that gender differences do emerge in this aspect of campaign communication. Women candidates are more likely than men to present a professional public image, in terms of their physical appearance, and more likely to stress their work and educational achievements as evidence of their qualification to hold public office. An important finding that emerges in this chapter and carries through the remainder of the dissertation is that gender differences between men and women’s campaigns diminish to some extent as women candidates, but not men, become more competitive. In terms of gender stereotypes, this chapter finds that most of the men and women interviewed were not conscious of gendered expectations and did

24 not deliberately design their campaign in a way that would enhance or counter any stereotypes that conformed or conflicted with their own gender-identity.

In Chapter Four, I examine a related theme of self-presentation, how candidate’s reveal details about their family life, both in terms of their children, spouses, and extended family. I find strong evidence that gender affects not only the propensity for candidates to display their family, but also clear differences in the way that mothers and fathers conceive of their obligations to their children, with women being more careful and conscientious than men in regard to their duty to safeguard the privacy of their children. This is critical as the very nature of the position that these candidates are running for is public. It well could be the case that the fact that family relationships and details about candidate’s families are likely to be exposed deters some mother-, but not father-candidates, from running for office.

In Chapter Five, an analysis is undertaken to determine if the topics that candidates feature in their personal campaigns is gendered, and if they take a gendered approach when they communicate with voters. For the later question, three angles are examined: whether candidates target voters by gender with campaign messages about certain topics, whether candidates employ a different communication style based on voter gender, and if women candidates appeal to women voters on the basis of their shared gender. In this chapter, I find that there is some evidence that platform topics are gendered, but in ways that are somewhat unexpected. While women are slightly more likely than men to include stereotypical “women’s issues” in their campaign, the gap between men and women on the inclusion of these issues is small, which is mostly because men candidates also heavily feature topics that related to education and health. In terms of applying gender stereotypes to voters, while some candidates do intentionally attempt to target voters with what they believe are gendered messages, this approach was not common.

Lastly, none of the women interviewed publicly appealed to women voters to support them based on their shared gender or as a means to increase women’s electoral representation.

In Chapter Six, I examine candidate-opponent relationships and interactions. In terms candidate-opponent relationships, I examined whether candidates agreed to civility pacts with their opponents, and generally investigated if they deliberately cultivated a good sportsmanship relationship. Regarding opponent messaging, I looked at this aspect of campaign communication from two angles, how candidates responded when they were on the receiving end of negative attacks, and whether they employed negative messages about their opponents. The interview data revealed that women candidates were more likely than men candidates to report that they had been negatively attacked by their opponents, and also less likely to report that they had initiated an attack themselves. This finding is important as the women in this study might be perceived as

“taking the high road,” which may not always be strategic in that while studies have found that voters can be turned off by negative campaigning, they also have been found to support candidates who defend themselves and punish perceived instigators. Like in the previous chapters, little evidence of a gender consciousness was relayed by the candidates interviewed regarding the opponent relationship/messaging strategies.

In the last chapter, I present my overall conclusions. My primary conclusion is that campaign communication among local candidates in Australia and Canada is gendered. In addition, I also argue that my research supports a secondary conclusion, which is that gendered campaign communication should be highlighted as a barrier for women candidates’ election and potentially the length of their tenure. Throughout my study, I found different instances in which women’s communication style was, in all likelihood, putting them at a disadvantage relative to

26 similarly situated men. At the same time, I found little evidence that women employed messages to highlight advantageous gender stereotypes in their campaign communication.

Gender consciousness was not relayed by most of the candidates interviewed, yet because their campaigns did in fact differ in gendered ways, this suggests that the implicit gender stereotypes held by candidates are unconscious. Women candidates are still constrained by expectations that they be caring, that they limit the lengths they will take to achieve power, and that they will put the interests of others, namely their party, ahead of their own. Across the dimensions of campaign messaging studied, a consistent theme that emerges is that competitive women’s campaigns look similar to men’s, regardless of whether men are competitive or not.

This finding suggests that women’s natural approach to politics likely differs from men, and it begs the question, “how does one change the rules of the game, instead of the game strategy?”

Chapter Two: Study Methodology

2.1 From the Horse’s Mouth: Understanding the Intentions and Strategy Behind

Campaign Messaging

The literature on gendered campaigning is robust and predominantly utilizes a behaviouralist approach. Alongside the proliferation of web-based campaign communication in the form of webpages, and social media forums like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram, there has been a notable rise over the last ten years in the amount of observable campaign communication, and subsequently, in the number of studies that examine them from a gendered perspective. At least in part due to the relative ease of accessing campaign material and the development of statistical and content analysis software, the predominant approach to studying the effect of gender on campaign communication has been via content analysis. These studies have provided a wealth of information in terms of describing gender differences, but with the exception of a few notable studies (for example Bocheland and Briggs, 2000 and Thomas and

Lambert, 2017), less scholarship has been directed at understanding, as opposed to surmising, the rationale for why we sometimes see differences in the way that men and women campaign for office.

A lot of literature on gendered campaigns focuses on American elections and/or electoral contests at higher levels of office. One issue that arises when trying to generalize findings from these studies is that these campaigns are not necessarily typical of campaigns at lower levels of office, and particularly compared to local campaigns in parliamentary systems, they over- emphasize the role of individual candidates compared to a unified party-based campaign that typically highlights the party leader. One way to illustrate the uniqueness of American

28 campaigns is via campaign expenditure. For the midterm elections in 2018, the average winning campaign for a seat in the United States House of Representatives spent $US 1.5 million

(Malbin, 2018). In Canada, candidates contesting elections for the House of Commons are subject to expense limits, that vary based on population. The average amount that a candidate was permitted to spend on their campaign for the 2019 federal election was CA $113,175. Thus, you could argue that making generalizations about gendered campaigning in the United States to local campaigns elsewhere is a little bit like comparing apples to oranges.

This research project fills the gap in the gendered campaign literature in two important respects. The first is via case selection. By looking at local campaigns outside of the United

States, we can gain an understanding of whether and how gender differences emerge when campaigns are largely directed by the candidate, as opposed to by a professional communications team. This arguably offers a more genuine insight into differences in the way men and women think they should conduct their campaigns. Also, by looking at campaigns in parliamentary systems, we can examine the specific context of trying to run a local campaign at the margins – that is to say, in a system whereby voters and the media largely prioritize the party leaders and the party campaign at the state/provincial-level. This is particularly pertinent for competitive races where a swing of just a few percent in vote share can determine the winner. Secondly, the data for this research project were collected via candidate interviews. By speaking directly with candidates, the focus on campaign messaging shifts from the objective view of the researcher, to the subjective view of the candidate. This better captures information about intentions, and the rationale for certain decisions. For example, if a research project was examining whether women deliberately tried to look professional, a research design employing content analysis may only code women who wore a blazer in their Facebook profile picture as conveying a professional

29 look. By speaking directly with candidates however, there is an opportunity for the candidate to indicate what “professional looking” means to them – it could well be the case that candidates have different perceptions on what that entails. For some, a professional look may well be conveyed by wearing a blazer or formal suit, while for others, it may mean wearing a new blouse and getting a fresh haircut. Thus, interviews can help us understand the campaign messaging that candidates are trying to convey, regardless of how the message is perceived by others.

2.2 Key Concepts, Variables and Research Questions

The key concept of interest in this study is the messaging that candidates employ in their campaigns at the local level. The research goal is to identify whether and how this messaging varies across women and men who run for office, and additionally, to identify whether part of this variation is dependent on gender role stereotypes. The central research question of this dissertation is: “To what extent does gender and gendered stereotypes consciously affect campaign communication among local candidates?” To answer this question, this project looks at several elements of campaign communication: the personal information that a candidate shares about themselves, including their appearance, stated qualifications for office, highlighted character traits and details about their family life; the issues that they stress in their local campaigns; how they target and interact with certain groups of voters; their approach to establishing relationships with their opponents; and whether they target their opponents with negative messaging, and how they react if they are the target. Each of these elements is presented in the chapters that follow, and more specific questions will be presented as they relate to the campaign messaging component addressed.

In addition to candidate gender, other variables or factors are also important to consider, as they likely will also have an impact, and perhaps an even bigger impact than candidate gender, on campaign messaging and style. Some of the main variables that are thus considered include a candidate’s country and state/province, their competitive status and incumbency status, their level of personal investment, age, parental status, and of course, party affiliation. While some of these variables are self-explanatory, other variables likely need a bit of clarification and explanation.

For the purposes of analysis, this dissertation categorizes parental status as being childless or a parent, with parents being further categorized as either having children under 18 still living in the home or having adult children. Candidate age was roughly categorized into young candidates, who were those about 35 and under, middle aged candidates, who were those about 35 to 65, and senior or older candidates, who were over the age of 65. While more details will be provided below about the case selection, candidate’s geographic location was categorized in a number of ways: by country (Canada or Australia), by state/province (Victoria, Queensland,

Alberta, British Columbia), and by region in terms of whether their riding was rural, suburban or urban. Party affiliation was categorized in two different ways, whether they were a member of a major party (a party that ran candidates to contest at least the majority of seats), a minor party, or an Independent. As the same parties do not operate across all the states/provinces, sometimes it was more useful to refer to their relative position on the political spectrum, such as whether they were more conservative, or more progressive. Incumbency status was categorized as whether the candidate was the incumbent Member of Parliament (MP), which is the term used in Victoria and

Queensland, or Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), which is the term used in British

Columbia and Alberta, for their riding, or if they were a challenger. Competitive status referred

31 to a candidate’s vote share. If the candidate was an incumbent, won their seat, or their vote share fell within 10 percent of the winner, they were categorizes as being competitive and if their vote share was more than 10 percent from the winner, they were categorized as uncompetitive. A number of studies (for example Mattes and Milazzo, 2014) use five percent as a benchmark for competitiveness (often referred to as a marginal race or seat), however I chose to use 10 percent because a candidate does not know their result until their campaign is finished, and most do not have the benefit of accessing targeted campaign polling for their riding. It is reasonable to think that if a candidate felt that their vote share was within 10 percent of who they deem to be the leading candidate, that they would campaign as though they were competitive. The last variable of interest for consideration is candidate investment. As no known studies have used this variable before, the following section will sketch out how I have conceptualized it in detail and set out the parameters for how it was employed for analysis in this study.

2.2.1 Candidate Investment: A New Categorical Variable for Understanding Personal

Campaigns

One way in which this dissertation contributes to the political science literature is that it offers a novel way of classifying local candidates in terms of the level of investment they provide to their own election campaigns. Specifically, I offer the concept of candidate investment as a categorical variable that helps us understand why a candidate may or may not engage in certain types of campaign behaviour, and how this variable affects their decision making when it comes to crafting their campaign communications.

Traditionally, studies analyzing the types of campaigns candidates run have focused on factors such as the degree of party involvement (Denver et al., 2003); a candidates’ incumbent or

32 challenger status (Denver and Hands, 1997); campaign expenditures (Johnston and Pattie, 1995); candidate competitiveness (Strandberg, 2009); and the types of campaigns and campaign teams that emerge from various types of nomination contests (Sayers, 1999). Each of these classifications is valuable, and depending on the context of the research question, can provide key insights to understanding the nature of a given candidate’s campaign.

As the data for this project were gathered and analyzed, comparing campaigns based on the variable of “competitiveness,” as defined by a candidate’s vote share, became somewhat unsatisfactory for two reasons. The first is that one wants to assume that competitive candidates put a lot of thought, effort and resources towards crafting their campaigns. This was not, however, always the case. In some instances, winning or very competitive candidates started their campaign merely weeks before election day. Similarly, very uncompetitive candidates may have not only crafted carefully thought-out campaign materials but may have spent a substantial amount of their time doing so for years or even decades, contesting elections often and across various levels of government. Thus, the actual effort, resources and amount of strategy put into a campaign is simply not always reflected in a candidate’s vote share. The second reason concerns a local candidate’s relatively small influence on their vote share – what was described in Chapter

One as the personal vote. Factors beyond a candidate’s control can change their electoral fortunes during or at the end of the campaign. A good example of this happened to many

Wildrose candidates in the Alberta case study. The Wildrose Party had gained a lot of momentum in the few years leading up to the election, and for many of these candidates, they had reason to believe that they would be elected considering their consistent lead in the polls.

The Progressive Conservatives (PCs), however, ended up winning a comfortable majority, at least in some part due to a few missteps made by individual Wildrose candidates and their leader

33 at the tail end of the campaign (O’Neill and Croskill, 2013). Despite their end result, many of these Wildrose candidates still ran professional campaigns at the local level. In terms of effort, strategy, sophistication and resources employed, all campaigns are simply not equal, and because of the wide variance amongst campaigns, it seems that when assessing campaign strategy on a personal level, we should compare apples to apples.

I set up personal investment as an ordinal variable with five categories of investment: low, low-medium, medium, medium-high, and high. To establish a candidate’s level of personal investment, I considered five different elements: their motivation for office, time spent campaigning, their financial contribution, their reputation, and the amount of support they received from their volunteers. The rationale and details of each element are as follows:

Motivation of Candidacy: For this element, I considered whether the candidate realistically felt that they could win the election, or if they were standing for another reason such as using their campaign to raise awareness about an issue or to raise their party’s profile. Political campaigns are a good opportunity to raise awareness about local issues due to the forums of communication provided to candidates (media interviews, candidate debates, etc.), and because of the increased attention voters direct towards issues and candidates as the election draws nearer. Standing for election without any real expectation of winning is also a tactic that can help political parties in several ways. Particularly in federal states like Canada and Australia, an air of legitimacy is credited to parties who run a candidate in each riding, even those that they have no chance of winning, so that they can claim to represent the whole population. As well, in many democracies, parties are awarded a vote subsidy based on the number of votes they receive which helps fund party operations, thus even losing candidates’ participation helps financially. Lastly, garnering some level of attention for a party can assist candidates running in neighboring districts, or for

34 another level of government such as in Australia where parties operate at the municipal level, and in Victoria, for the Senate. As this dissertation is focused on the personal campaigns of candidates, it is unlikely that a candidate who is running without a real expectation of winning is going to be as invested in their campaign as a candidate who believes they can win.

Time spent Campaigning: For this element, I considered how long the candidate had been involved in politics, such as when they joined their party, if they had contested multiple elections, and the time that they actually spent campaigning for their nomination (if applicable) and their campaign. For this variable, I also considered the candidate’s relative availability.

Spending 10 hours per week campaigning as a working mother of four is a lot more difficult than for a childless student to do the same.

Financial Contribution: I considered how much the candidate individually contributed to their campaign, as well as if they quit their job, took a leave of absence, or used their vacation time to campaign for the election. For this variable, I also considered the candidate’s relative financial position. Contributing $10 000 dollars for a candidate who earns close to $150, 000 per year is not necessarily more of a relative investment than the student candidate who contributes $1, 000.

Reputational Risk: I considered whether the candidate, or a close family member was well known in their community. This could be in terms of their status as the incumbent for any level of office, or some other notable role. Losing an election can be embarrassing, and merely standing for election requires one to make their political views and partisanship public. This can invite criticism that may be detrimental to a candidate’s continued occupational success, such as for those who own a small business, or are in a position that requires trust, such as a teacher or doctor.

Volunteer Base: For this element, I considered the number of volunteers that a candidate recruited, as well as how much assistance they offered leading up to the election. It would be hard to say that a candidate was heavily invested in their campaign if they were not able or willing to recruit volunteers from their own social network. Door knocking and fundraising are arduous, thankless tasks. Asking someone to help with these election activities requires a candidate to spend a lot of their personal capital.

Categorizing candidates into these categories is more of an art than a science because for each of the elements, there are contextual factors that require a ‘relevant’ consideration. For example, a mother of five who campaigns three days a week may be spending substantially more of her available time in the year leading up to the election than the childless student who campaigns for a few hours each evening. Similarly, an ordinal standard of measure is not available for all elements, such as reputational risk. The end result was that candidates in each category had what Wittgenstein (1968: 66) calls a “family resemblance.” A candidate may be like another candidate based on one element, and that candidate might be like another candidate based on a different element, but together, they all look like they belong in the same category.

Table 2.1 below provides a sketch of a candidate who fits each category.

Table 2.1: Candidate Sketch by Level of Investment Low Low-Medium Medium Medium-High High Motivation Do not believe Do not believe Do not believe Believes they Believes they for Office that they will win that they will that they will could win office. could win office. office. win office. win office.

Support their Support their Believe that party/policies, party/policies their party will believe that and believes win office in the voters need that their active near future or choice on the participation that increased ballot. enhances the electoral result democratic in their party’s process. policies being supported by other parties.

Time Spent A few days total. A few weeks About a month. Several months. 6 + months. Campaigning total. Financial No financial A small A small-to- A small-medium They have made Contribution contribution. financial medium financial at least a contribution financial contribution. medium level of and they may contribution. financial have used a few And contribution. vacation days to And/or campaign. They have taken And They may have at least a either used month’s worth of They have taken some vacation time off work for an extended days or taken a campaigning. leave or quit leave of absence their job in the from work for at several months least a week. leading up to Election Day.1 Reputational They are They are not They are active They have a They or a close Risk unknown in their well known in their professional job, family member community. outside a few community and and declaring is well known in community may have a their candidacy the community, groups, but they professional job. is likely to affect and their may have a their reputation. candidacy is professional For example, a likely to affect job. teacher or small their livelihood business owner. or professional reputation in some way. Volunteers They do not They recruit a They recruit a They recruit a Most of their recruit small number small number of good portion of close friends and volunteers, but of volunteers to volunteers to their friends and family are close friends and help a few help a few times family to help a helping during family may times during the each week few times in the the last month of attend their all- last few weeks during the months prior to the election, and candidates debate of the election. month prior to the election. a sizable group and help with the election. has been election day Their closest campaigning for activities. friends and at least a few family to take months on some time off weekends. work prior to election day. Their closest friends and family are taking a week or two off work prior to the election.

1 All incumbents were categorized as high-investment despite the fact that they do not take time off their job to campaign. In terms of financial outlook, these candidates have significant financial risk if they lose, as their MP/MLA salary is likely to be the primary source of income for most members.

One of the benefits of conducting qualitative research projects such as this dissertation study is that previously omitted variables may emerge from in-depth case study and interview data (George and Bennett, 2005: 109). By establishing appropriate variables for a theoretical model, it is more likely that theory-testing research studies will produce useful results. There are however two important caveats to keep in mind. The first is that when variables emerge from the data, it is more than likely that they will need to be further refined before they become a useful and reliable tool of measurement. Early studies that establish new variables should be treated as a starting, not ending point. For this study, the data gleaned to address the elements on candidate investment were not the result of direct questions, but rather the product of considering all of the information that candidates provided to the open-ended questions they were asked on related topics. For example, candidates were not asked about how many volunteers they had, but almost all of them provided an indication of their support team based on the first question asking them to sketch out their campaign events. Future studies that use “candidate investment” as a category of analysis should design questions that address each element directly, and it could well be the case that adjustments to the elements included in this variable should be made. Becker (1998:

128) advises that we often have difficulty applying concepts to real cases of social phenomena because they fit, but not exactly, due to interesting concepts usually having multiple criteria.

Thus, the criteria to establish candidate investment should be fluid, and adjusted to the context in which it is being applied in future work. A second caveat to keep in mind is that the variable of candidate investment was produced after the interviews were conducted, and because of this, there are a few candidates for whom there simply was not enough information to assign them to a candidate investment category, and they are omitted from analysis that compares candidates

38 based on the candidate investment variable. In the next section, case selection and details about the four states/provinces will be outlined.

2.3 Case Selection

As has been mentioned, a lot of the literature on gender and political campaigning focuses on American cases studies. Indeed, the United States offers a lot of opportunity in terms of case selection: fifty states for comparative purposes, a diverse population of over 325 million people,

536 elected seats at the federal level, almost 7,500 elected seats at the state level and tens of thousands of other elected positions at the municipal and judicial levels. American elections, however, tend to be unique. The large amount of funds spent on campaigns garner professional campaign teams; the mass media provides a great deal of candidate coverage to voters; the primary system alongside fixed election dates lengthens the duration of campaigns; votes are cast for specific individuals as opposed to casting votes as a proxy for head of government; and the system is dual- rather than multi-party, that changes the dynamics of voting behaviour (Shugart et al., 2005; Morgenstern and Swindle, 2005; Ennser-Jedensastik et al., 2016). With all these different and unique attributes in mind, it is appropriate to question the extent to which the findings of American case studies are applicable elsewhere.

Australia and Canada are employed as case studies to expand our understanding beyond the US case. More specifically, the 2010 election in the state of Victoria and the 2012 election in the state of Queensland in Australia and the 2012 election in the province of Alberta and the

2013 election in the province of British Columbia were chosen as the elections from which to draw a sample of candidates. My case selection was based on the following four reasons.

First, I wanted to study non-American campaigns, that took place in a Westminster-style parliamentary, multi-party system. These cases are unique compared to the American presidential system in that they tend to be party leader-focused, while the actual vote choice is based on local candidates. In these situations, campaigns need to be strategic to enhance the personal vote attributed to the candidate, while complimentary towards the overall party and party leader’s campaign. While political parties operate at the municipal level in Australia, parties in Canada operate largely at the provincial/national level, thus selecting municipal cases would have been somewhat problematic in terms of drawing comparisons between Canadian and

Australian candidates given the large impact Australian parties have on campaigns at this level of government.

Second, the main research goal is to identify whether and how campaign messaging varies across women and men who run for office. By studying more localized elections there is a greater opportunity that the candidate will play a bigger role in designing their campaign strategy, as opposed to deferring to professionalized consultants, or a full-time campaign manager. The reality of most local campaigns in Canada and Australia at the provincial/state level is that they are low budget, and while most include the likes of letter-boxed brochures and a few newspaper or radio ads, the majority of communication is interpersonal between the candidate and voters during local meetings, at community events, and via meetings on a voter’s doorstep. Another benefit of selecting cases at the state/provincial level is that it increases the chance that quality women candidates will contest these elections. The fact that women take on more domestic responsibilities and are more likely to consider and run for elected office when the legislature is closer to home is well-supported (Silbermann, 2015). As such, it seemed that selecting elections at the state/provincial level for the case studies was more appropriate than

40 selecting ones at the national/federal level, as most of the candidates in Victoria and all of the candidates in Queensland, Alberta and British Columbia would have very long commutes to the national capital.

The third reason for my case selection relates to platform issues. Categorizing issues as

“women’s issues” has long been justifiably criticized, as all issues that legislators address have the potential to impact both women and men. Nonetheless, the literature has found that this gender-categorization does happen at both the level of voters, and candidates/elected politicians.

Studies that examine gender stereotypes have found that voters may prefer men candidates when they prioritize “men’s issues,” which are typically those that are related to security and defense and the economy, and that voters may prefer women candidates when they prioritize “women’s issues,” which are typically those that are related to healthcare, education and childcare (for example, Lawless, 2004; Burrell, 1994; Alexander and Anderson, 1993; Huddy and Terkildsen,

1993; Leeper, 1991; Rosenwasser and Dean, 1989; Sapiro, 1982; Hoyt and Simon, 2017). In addition, it has also been found that amongst candidates and legislators, gender differences emerge in the type of issues that they highlight in their campaigns, or support via their bill votes and committee work (for example, Larson, 2001; Greene and O’Brien, 2016; Erickson, 1997;

Erzeel, 2011; Kittilson, 2008). In both Canada and Australia, responsibility for these “women’s issues” such as education and healthcare (and childcare in Canada) fall under state/provincial jurisdiction. Similarly, state/provincial governments also oversee public safety via policing, and regulate vast sections of the economy, such as control over oil and gas projects or regulations over tourism industries. Thus, selecting cases at the provincial/state level rather than the national level seemed ideal as this level of government is apt to be attractive to both candidates who are geared towards stereotypical feminine issues, as well as candidates who are geared toward

41 towards stereotypical masculine issue domains. Thus, there is the opportunity to assess whether candidates gravitated towards issues in a gendered way.

The last reason for my case selection is that it allows me to employ a most similar design system in my analysis. By choosing like cases, I can mitigate institutional effects on my analysis,

(Mill, 1843) meaning that differences in the campaign style and candidate’s consideration of gender stereotypes are less likely to be the product of the system in which they are working, instead of attributed to their gender. Australia and Canada share many institutional similarities such as a Westminster-style parliamentary system, a federal state, and a similar party system in terms of the number of parties, the level of party discipline (for Australia see Jaensch 1991,

1994; Sharman, 1994; for Canada see Landes 1998; Massicotte 1989; Pelletier, 2000) and placement of parties across the political spectrum. Additionally, the demographic make-up of the countries is also similar in terms of population and population density, a British colonial legacy, levels of education and per capita income. Thus, it makes them good cases for comparative analysis rather than selecting a case like India where the population per constituency is almost 25 times the size Canada’s or a case like Mexico where election corruption is a more common allegation. A hypothetical example to illustrate the benefit of most similar system design is as follows: suppose a study is being conducted on gendered fundraising, and the study compares

Australia and the United States. It may conclude that there is less of a gender difference in

America than Australia. However, when you consider that all candidates in America have to fundraise millions of dollars to be successful, as opposed to thousands, it could well be the case that the differences are caused by experience (all American candidates spend more time fundraising) rather than an innate ability related to gender.

The chosen cases also present an opportunity to examine if there was a gender difference in candidates’ communication that related to their leader’s gender. For three of the four cases, there were women party leaders – Anna Bligh led the Australian Labor Party in Queensland, Christy

Campbell led the Liberal Party and Jane Sterk led the Green Party in British Columbia, and in

Alberta, there was a novel situation in that both of the front-running parties were led by women –

Alison Redford led the Progressive Conservative Party and Danielle Smith led the Wildrose

Party. While the literature has mixed findings, there is some evidence that women will vote for women candidates at the local and party leader level, which is known as the gender affinity effect (for example, Dolan, 2004, 2006, 2008, O’Neill, 1998; Banducci and Karp, 2000; but see

Goodyear-Grant and Croskill, 2011). Thus, these cases provided an opportunity to assess whether there was a gender difference in appealing to women voters on the basis of having a woman party leader amongst men and women candidates.

In the section that follows, I provide a brief overview of each of the four case studies. More details about certain aspects of the cases are provided in subsequent chapters as they relate to the topic investigated in further detail. For example, in Chapter Six, a discussion of the notable negative campaign tactics employed in each case will be discussed.

2010 Victoria State Election

The Victoria state election was held on November 27, 2010. Victoria has a bi-cameral system, and members are elected to both the 88-seat Legislative Assembly (Lower House) via a single-member preferential voting electoral system, and to the 40-seat Legislative Chamber

(Upper House) via a multi-member, single-transferable vote electoral system. Like other

Australian states and at the federal level, voting is compulsory.

The major parties contesting the election were the Australian Labor Party led by John

Brumby, the Liberal-National Coalition Party (the Coalition) led by Ted Baillieu, and the Green

Party (Greens), who at the time of the election did not have an official leader given the long- standing tradition of eschewing this role. The Labor Party had been in power since the 1999 election, and John Brumby was contesting his first election as leader, having replaced former leader Steve Bracks in 2007. The 2006 Election had given the ALP a majority government with

55 seats, while the Liberal Party had won 23 seats, and the National Party had taken nine. One

Independent was elected. In 2010, the Liberal and National Parties ran via a coalition arrangement, which they had not done since shortly after their 1999 loss to Labor. The 2010 election removed the ALP from power, with the Coalition securing a bare majority government of 45 seats, while the ALP won 43. The Coalition also won a majority in the Legislative Council, winning 21 seats to ALP’s 16. The Greens won three seats.

The ALP’s pre-election polling results suggested a fourth term until November 2010, with the LNP inching ahead in the weeks prior to the election. The LNP campaigned heavily against the ALP on two key issues: the expensive new Myki transportation payment card system and criticizing a private partnership for an expensive water desalination plant. Additionally, education, health and increased public safety were prominent election issues. One factor that plagued the ALP was the success of the Greens. While they did not secure any seats in the 2010 election, their returns in Victoria, as well as other Australian elections, were steadily on the rise, and cut into the ALP’s vote share. In 1999, the Greens had received 1.2 percent of the primary vote share, in 2002 they received 9.7 percent, in 2006 they receive 10 percent, and in 2010, they received 11.2 percent.

The proportion of women elected rose from the 2006 election. In 2006, 29.5 percent of the

Lower House legislators were women, while the 2010 election increased the proportion to 33 percent. Similarly, in 2006 30 percent of the Legislative Council members were women, and the proportion increased to 32.5 percent for the 2010 election.

2012 Queensland State Election

The Queensland state election was held on March 24, 2012. Queensland has a unicameral system and uses a single-member preferential electoral system to elect members to the 88-seat

Legislative Assembly. Like in Victoria, voting is compulsory for the Queensland State Elections.

The major parties contesting the election included the incumbent ALP who had won every election since 1989, The Liberal National Party (LNP) which after forming in 2008 was running for the second time, the new Katter’s Australian Party, which was comprised of former

Independents and National Party members, and the Greens.

The 2009 election had awarded the ALP a majority government, with 51 of the 88 seats.

The LNP had won 34 seats, and four seats were won by Independents. The 2012 election produced the largest defeat of an incumbent government in Queensland history. The ALP was reduced to just seven seats, while the LNP took 78, and Katter’s Australian Party won two.

The ALP government had become deeply unpopular during the two years leading up the election. Issues that plagued the government included the privatization of several state-owned assets; corruption allegations towards policing, ballooning cost of government infrastructure projects and in the implementation of a faulty pay system that left many employees of

Queensland Health without their correct pay for months on end. While the ALP was decreasing

45 in popularity, the LNP was demonstrating that it was a cohesive party and had selected the charismatic and popular Brisbane Lord Mayor, Campbell Newman as its leader.

Anna Bligh took over the premiership from Peter Beattie upon his retirement in 2007.

Bligh was the first woman premier of Queensland and led her party to a majority government during the 2009 State Election. She had high personal ratings leading into 2012, in part due to her handling of the 2010-2011 Queensland flood crisis, that resulted in 90 towns being evacuated and over two billion dollars in damage. The proportion of women in Queensland’s Legislative

Assembly dipped after the 2012 election. In 2006, the proportion of women was 33.7 percent, in

2009 it was 36 percent and in 2012 it fell to 20.2 percent. One explanation for this dip is the decimation of the Labor Party, who had more women candidates and women MPs than the LNP.

2012 Alberta Provincial Election

The Alberta provincial election was held on April 23, 2012. Alberta has a unicameral system and uses a single-member-plurality electoral system to elect members to the 87-seat

Legislative Assembly. Unlike the Australian states included in this study, Alberta does not have compulsory voting. Voter turnout in 2012 was 54.4 percent, up almost 14 percent from the 2008 election.

The major parties contesting the 2012 election included the Progressive Conservative Party

(PC), under new leader Alison Redford, who was the first woman premiere of Alberta, the

Wildrose Party (WRP) under leader Danielle Smith, the Liberal Party led by Raj Sherman, the

New Democratic Party (NDP) led by Brian Mason and the Alberta Party, led by Glenn Taylor

(AP).

Coming into the 2012 election, the PCs had been in power for over 40 years. Prior to the dissolution of government, the PCs had a majority, with 66 of the 87 seats. The Liberal Party had eight seats, the WRP had four seats, the NDP had two seats and the Alberta Party had one seat.

The PCs hung on to power and would go on to have the longest standing government in

Canadian history before their 2015 defeat. The 2012 election produced another, albeit reduced, majority government for the PCs, returning them with 61 seats, while the WRP took over from the Liberals as the official opposition, winning 17 seats. The Liberals were reduced to five seats, the NDP doubled its seat share to four seats and the Alberta Party’s leader lost his race, resulting in the party having no seats in parliament.

Polls leading up to the 2012 election suggested that it was the WRP’s election to lose. The

PCs had been criticized heavily on ruining former Premier Ralph Klein’s debt-free status for the province, and they faced additional criticisms regarding the cost of healthcare, mismanagement of MLA salaries regarding payments for MLAs who did not actually conduct committee work, and alleged meddling with oil royalties. However, in the weeks leading up the election, the WRP experienced considerable backlash after some candidates made homophobic and racist remarks.

During this time, Redford was able to make inroads with labour groups, which resulted in pollsters being taken by surprise when the Party hung on to not only a government, but a strong majority government.

The 2012 election signified a big year in Alberta politics for women. Redford had become the first woman premier the previous fall, and as her main competitor, Danielle Smith was a woman, Alberta was set to receive continued woman-led leadership. The proportion of women in the legislature also increased. In 2008, 21 percent of MLAs were women, while in 2012, the proportion increased to 26 percent.

2013 British Columbia Provincial Election

The British Columbia provincial election was held on May 14, 2013. Like Alberta, British

Columbia has a unicameral system, and uses a single-member-plurality electoral system to elect members to the 85-seat Legislative Assembly. British Columbia also does not have compulsory voting. Voter turnout in 2013 was 57.1 percent, up almost two percent from the 2009 election.

Christy Clark took over leadership of the Liberal Party in 2011, making her BC’s second woman premier. Like Redford, Clark was a relatively new leader. In the 2009 election, the

Liberals won a majority government, securing 49/85 seats. The official opposition, the NDP had won 35 seats. Prior to the 2013 election, the Green Party did not have a seat in the House. The

2013 election saw the Liberals return to power with an increased majority, as their seat share jumped to 49. The NDP still formed the official opposition but with a reduced seat count of 34 seats, and the Green Party under the leadership of Jane Sterk won its first seat. While Clark was triumphant in leading her party to power, she lost her own seat in Vancouver Point Grey, and remained out of parliament until July when she won a bi-election in Westside-Kelowna, a

Liberal stronghold.

Heading into the formal election period, the BC Liberals were being polled almost twenty points behind the NDP. One key issue that led to a narrowing of the gap over the first few weeks of the election was criticism over NDP leader Adrian Dix’s reversal on the contentious Kinder

Morgan pipeline expansion. At the same time, Clark came off as charismatic, and worked the swing ridings. A high turnout of Liberal supporters and low turnout of NDP supporters is largely thought to attribute to the Liberal Party’s win, despite their pre-election poll trailing (Reid,

2013). Other key issues in the election included commitments to control government spending on

48 the part of the Liberals, while the NDP promoted reducing cost-of-living via measures such as implementing a day care program, capping the toll rates charged for bridges connecting the lower mainland, and eliminating the province’s medical service premium payments.

In addition to having two women party leaders, the proportion of women in BC’s

Legislative Assembly was on the rise. In 2005 the proportion of women MLAs was 22 percent.

This figure rose in 2009 to 29 percent and jumped again in 2013 to 39 percent. This jump is partially attributed to the NDP’s commitment to improve women’s representation. In 2011, the

Party established rules that stipulated that retiring women New Democrats who sit in the legislature must be replaced by women candidates, and for retiring men, they must be replaced by a woman, or member of an equity seeking group.

2.4 Data Collection Methods

The goal of this research project is to uncover whether, why and how campaign communication is gendered. As such, a qualitative approach is the best choice to gather and examine the data because it allows for a comprehensive in-depth account of the data, and contributes to theory generation (King et al., 1994).

To collect study data, in-person and telephone interviews were utilized for several reasons.

The first is that the concept of campaign communication is complex. Asking a candidate to reflect on their campaign communication will certainly cause them to think about their printed materials, and perhaps their social media activity. In fact, many of this study’s participants had a dossier of their printed materials ready for me to review during the interviews. However, messaging is much broader than just pamphlets, lawn signs and community newsletters. By taking the time to chat with participants about the breadth of their activity, conscious and

49 unconscious, study participants had a richer conception of all the types of campaign communication that this study was interested in examining, such as their inter-personal interactions, and subtle messages expressed via their participation, or even mere presence at a local event. Second, the scope of this research question goes beyond assessing if campaign communication was gendered and explores the rationale for why it happens. There is a fairly wide literature on the subject already that, albeit based on predominantly American cases, suggests pretty strong evidence that gender differences do exist (for example, Lee and Lim,

2016; Banwart, 2006; Larson, 2001). The purpose of this study is to understand how and why men and women candidates communicate in gendered ways. This study tackles this question in a way that few studies have adopted to date. By utilizing semi-structured, in-depth interviews, candidates were able to explain their decision, and reflect on whether they were consciously strategizing about some elements of their communication, or if a particular decision was unconscious or unplanned. Harrison (2001: 75) asserts that in-depth interviewing is “useful because they allow people to talk freely and present their perspective in their terms (emphasis hers).”

In-depth interviewing not only enhances the likelihood that questions are understood between the researcher and the participant, but also has the potential to highlight background information about the participant that may add context to their responses (Devin, 1994) or identify themes and circumstances that had not previously been considered in the planning stages of questionnaire design. Devin’s (1994) approach to interviewing via a semi-structured interview also allows participants to address questions in terms of what they were familiar with, as opposed to fitting their answers in with the pre-set expectations of the questionnaire designer (in Harrison,

2001). These benefits were particularly useful for this research project because funding for the

50 project was limited, and thus there was not an opportunity to engage in any, let alone extensive, focus group testing of the interview questionnaire that would have revealed missing themes and considerations ahead of time.

A strength of this research project is that it contributes to the generalizability of the literature as a whole on gendered campaigning because it focuses on cases that have not yet been largely studied. When patterns are found to emerge again and again, evidence for the generalizability of a theory begin to emerge. Furthermore, qualitative research like this can inform a hypothesis, highlighting important contexts and limitations (Crasnow, 2019), which is especially important when so much of the literature on gendered campaigning is based on a single country, as is the case with the gendered campaign literature’s focus on the United States.

2.5 Study Participants, Interview and Constituency Data

A purposive sampling approach guided the selection of potential participants. This was done because it was important to have participants included in the research sample that fit the key variables, such as competitiveness, incumbency, and party membership, discussed above. By over-sampling women, and having candidates that fit a variety of circumstances, I was able to analyze how gender differences emerged in a variety of contexts, such as amongst candidates with varying levels of personal investment, or amongst mothers and fathers.

Prior to recruiting candidates, this research project obtained approval from the University of Calgary Conjoint Faculties Research Ethics Board. A key qualification for the project was that participants had to have the right to remain anonymous if they so chose. All participants were offered the choice to remain anonymous, and for those who wished to do so, they were asked how they could be referenced in the study, such as specifying that they were a “female Greens

51 candidate” or a “male candidate from Victoria”. At the beginning of each interview, I proposed that the participants wait until the end of the interview to choose their level of anonymity. I explained that I would prefer that they be more candid and anonymous, than less candid and identified. At the outset of this project, it was my intention to identify candidates who granted permission to cite their participation and responses. As I began to collect and analyze the data, my position on this decision changed. Researchers have an ethical obligation to protect their research participants (Shively, 1998). Throughout my interviews, a small number of participants revealed campaign practices that may be considered controversial, or otherwise non-strategic. As such, I have chosen to increase the level of anonymity for certain participant’s comments, and exclude all participant’s names, as I deemed that their remarks had the potential to hurt their political future, or otherwise embarrass them.

To recruit participants, a complete list of all candidates who contested the four elections was created, and where possible, participants were categorized on the basis of the key variables, for example, noting gender, party affiliation and competitive status. Other variables such as age and parental status were more difficult to categorize ahead of time but were considered as the interviews were being conducted. As I was conducting my research, I realized that there was also an opportunity to include a few candidates from by-elections that had occurred since the election that cases were selected on. For example, the Queensland state election took place on March 24,

2012, and a by-election took place later that spring on April 28, 2012 because Anna Bligh, the leader of the defeated ALP, resigned. This was a positive opportunity to enhance the research project, as by-elections tend to be fought under circumstances that are different from the general election vote (Kay, 1981).

In total, this project had 92 research participants. I also conducted two informational interviews that served to enlighten my results and general understanding of local campaigns. One of these interviews was with a LNP staffer from Queensland who oversaw six campaigns for her party, and the second was with the National Coordinator for Emily’s List Australia, which is an organization that supports progressive women candidates in Australia. Table 2.2 below shows a summary of candidate research participants.

Table 2.2: Candidate Details Victoria Party Men Women Total Liberal Party 4 1 5 Labor Party 1 4 5 Green Party 2 4 6 Minor Party/Independents 2 0 2 Total 9 9 18 Competitive Candidates 4 5 9 Uncompetitive Candidates 5 4 9

Queensland Party Men Women Total Liberal National Party 13 4 17 Labor Party 7 3 10 Green Party 3 2 5 Minor Party/Independents 1 2 3 Total 24 11 35 Competitive Candidates 16 7 23 Uncompetitive Candidates 8 4 12

Alberta Party Men Women Total Wildrose Party 3 2 5 Progressive Conservatives 3 2 5 Liberal Party 3 2 5 New Democratic Party 2 3 5 Minor Party/Independents 1 1 2 Total 12 10 22 Competitive Candidates 3 5 8 Uncompetitive Candidates 9 5 14

British Columbia Party Men Women Total Liberal Party 3 2 5 New Democratic Party 1 4 5 Green Party 2 3 5 Minor Party/Independents 1 1 2 Total 7 10 17 Competitive Candidates 4 6 10 Uncompetitive Candidates 3 4 7

In total, this study included 18 candidates from Victoria, 35 candidates from Queensland,

22 candidates from Alberta, and 17 candidates from BC. In terms of candidate gender, 52 (57 percent) of the candidates were men and 40 (43 percent) were women. Regarding age group, 18 of the candidates (20 percent) were young, 36 were middle-aged (39 percent) and 38 were older candidates (41 percent). Two of the candidates identified themselves as members of the LGBTQ community, 86 of the candidates were of a white ethno-racial identity, and six of the candidates were of a non-white ethno-racial identity. In total, 41 (45 percent) candidates were successful with their election, which includes 19 women and 22 men.

One of the more difficult aspects of researching political campaigns is participant recruitment, both in terms of the feasibility of connecting with potential participants and convincing them to participate. Candidates who won their seats are relatively easy to contact as they have staffed constituency offices and their contact information is publicly available.

Unsuccessful candidates, however, are much harder to connect with, as they often used an email address and phone number specific and exclusive to their campaign, and often this contact information is no longer active at the conclusion of an election. In Victoria, I found a number of candidates included their cell phone contact information on their candidate application to the

Victoria Electoral Commission, which was publicly available, and in Queensland, British

Columbia and Alberta, I often utilized Facebook and Twitter to contact participants to ask for their email address, with a short note about my study.

In general, the order that I conducted my interviews was for those in Victoria, Queensland,

British Columbia and then Alberta, and my response rate improved as I applied less-formal approaches to interview requests (see Marland and Esselment, 2019 for a discussion on study participant recruitment) and through a bit of luck. In Queensland, non-local MPs stay in the

55 parliamentary residence when the Legislative Assembly sits. Given the number of backbencher

MPs in the LNP, this meant that there was quite a few MPs who had some spare time while I was in Brisbane. Many of the interviews with sitting MPs took place in the parliament’s café, and I became known to several MPs and their staff. This likely affected their willingness to accept my interview request and more than likely produced an unintentional sort of “snowball effect,” which is when a research participant refers the researcher on to a subsequent participant

(Harrison and Diecke, 2001). Typically, this type of recruitment is associated with improved response rates (Burton, 2000). On a few occasions, I overheard MPs vetting me to one another in the halls. As my interviews progressed, I also started to apply the “foot-in-the-door” technique

(Freedman and Fraser, 1966) with elected members’ staffs. I would call the office before I emailed my interview request, and very casually ask the constituency assistant what they thought the best way of requesting an interview was. This generally resulted in a lengthy discussion, as they pre-vetted me, and most suggested that I send the interview request materials to them directly.

Interviews were conducted between March 2013 and August 2016. Of the 92 participants,

59 candidates were interviewed in person, 29 were interviewed by telephone, one chose to respond to my questions via an emailed copy of my interview questionnaire, and three candidates had their campaign manager conduct the interview on their behalf – two over the telephone and one in person. While it would have been preferred to conduct all interviews face-to-face, financial limitations, as well as the availability and preferences of some participants did not allow for this. Given the cultural differences between Canadians and Australians, I was content that most of the Australian interviews (46/53) were face-to-face, as it better allowed for the participant to elaborate on commonly known local history and explain a number of slang terms I

56 was unfamiliar with, as I am a Canadian, and had never even visited Australia prior to conducting my field study. Most participants agreed to be tape recorded, which had the benefit of me being able to focus on the conversation and direct the attention of my short-hand notes to following up on any changes in their demeanour when answering questions and noting any hesitations, which Harrison and Deicke (2001) stress is an important benefit to in-depth interviewing.

For each interview, I started by giving a brief introduction to the participant about myself, and the purpose of the study. I also gave an overview of each of the questions I would be asking to help the participants relax, as I assumed that some may be apprehensive over what types of questions the interview would include. The tone of the interviews was conversational, which has been shown to build participant trust in the interviewer (Lane, 1962 in Harrison and Deicke,

2001). I noted that participants gained comfort as we discussed factual elements of their campaign, like the content in their web pages and printed brochures, before delving into questions about why they made the choices they did, and venturing into more controversial and personal questions, like whether they negatively campaigned against their opponents, and what details they shared about their family with the public. By and large, I kept my questions about opponent communication and negative campaign tactics until near the end of the interviews as I anticipated that this would be the most controversial of the questions. Interviews averaged about

45 minutes in length.

While I loosely stuck to the interview question schedule (meaning specific questions, asked in a certain order, see Wilson, 1996), most interviews ended up benefiting from the semi- structured, open-ended interview format I employed. I allowed participants to address questions out of order if the conversation naturally led to an applicable topic, or if they jumped to address a

57 topic after I had provided the interview overview to them. This was especially useful for building rapport with participants in terms of negative campaigning, as they would often mention being attacked, and I could naturally direct the attention from their reaction to the attack, to whether they engaged in any negative attack activity themselves. A full version of the interview questionnaire can be found in Appendix B.

In addition to the data generated from my interviews with candidates, I also collected constituency level data that included electoral return data, and incumbent electoral history from each state/provinces electoral commission’s website, and riding data such as population density from the applicable census, and lastly, did a cursory news and web search to see if there was any relevant information about a riding that I may not have known ahead of time, such as a recent emergency like a fire or flood, or a special event or festival that the area is known for.

2.6 Interview Data Analysis

My study uses thematic analysis. Smith and Firth describe thematic analysis as an interpretive process, whereby data are systematically searched to identify patterns within the data in order to provide an illuminating description of the phenomena. They note that this results in the development of meaningful themes, without necessarily generating theory (2011: 3; see further Tesch, 1990). This type of analysis primarily was employed to assess whether my data fit existing theories and provided the context to which my study supported or refuted them.

Analysis for this study was done in two stages that corresponds with the steps outlined by

Morse and Richards (2002). The first stage was to prepare the data. This involved preparing a file of each participant. These notes included information from the interview itself (e.g. transcription data, notes on demeanour, appearance, comfort level), information about the

58 candidate (e.g. their age, general appearance), constituency information (incumbent history, geographical considerations and demographical information), party information (information about their leader, the party’s electoral returns) and information about their electoral result

(percentage of votes received, vote swing from the previous election).

After I had prepared a file for each participant, I searched the files for evidence that supported or refuted findings in previous literature. I made notes on the number and context of my relevant cases, and the degree to which I felt my results should be considered in evaluating previous theory. This thematic analysis was the initial step of my analysis, and then I moved on to descriptive coding. Descriptive coding is when the researcher assigns labels to data to summarize it with a word or short phrase (Saldana, 2013). For example, when a candidate referenced their family’s participation in their campaign, the notes were tagged with the word

“family”. As the coding cycles progressed, general codes were broken down into sub-codes, which is required when the original code tags need more extensive indexing or categorizing. An example of this would be breaking down the “family” code into “mentioned spouse’s name in print materials” or “avoided including photographs of children”. I continued to sub-code the data until saturated, meaning that I no longer felt I was coming up with new codes that I thought were useful distinctions. At this point, I transferred my data to spreadsheets that reflected the general topics of my research study, such as “physical appearance,” or “response to negative campaign attack”. At this stage, I searched for emerging concepts that I could apply to categorize and explain my results, producing theory that is “grounded or rooted in the original data themselves”

(Saldana, 2013: 51).

Throughout my analysis, I focused on answering the following four sets of questions:

1. What patterns and/or themes are observed?

2. Do any of the patterns and/or themes support or contradict previous findings in the

literature? If so, what are the nuances associated with the findings?

3. Do the data present a previously unconsidered variable? Is there justification for

generating a theory that accounts for this variable?

4. How do the data answer my specific research questions? What do the results as a

whole suggest about the answer to the primary research question?

2.7 Research Design: Limitations and Strengths

All research study designs have limitations, and this project is not an exception.

Recognizing these limitations is an important exercise both for the researcher as it helps me to understand the extent in which I can be confident in my results and extent to which they can be applied to other contexts, as well as to the reader, as they too should be aware of the limitations of the research and seriously consider those limitations if they seek to rely on the findings presented here.

Perhaps the most serious limitation to this research project, and the most common problem to plague all research studies that rely on voluntary participants is what is known as the self- selection bias. This bias arises when either the researcher does not randomly select participants, or when the participants who do choose to participate do not reflect the true population

(Heckman, 1990). In this study, I specifically requested candidates to participate in the study based on the key variables outlined above. It could well be the case that those who chose to participate in the study could differ from those who chose not to (Groves and Peytcheva, 2008).

For example, an incumbent who lost their electoral race may be less inclined to discuss their

60 unsuccessful campaign than an incumbent who won, as they are likely upset by the outcome, and may want to take a break from political discussions.

A second limitation that likely affected some participants is a component related to the interviewer-effect known as social desirability bias. This occurs when a respondent feels compelled to answer a question in a way that is more socially acceptable than their true answer

(Callegaro, 2008). This bias may have been particularly prominent during the interview section that related to negative campaign tactics, as they are generally regarded to be in poor taste. An additional consideration of this limitation is that some interviews were done face-to-face, and some over the telephone, thus the degree to which this bias may have affected the survey data may vary among participants, as it has been shown that people are more honest about contentious issues when they are not face-to-face (Groves and Magilavy, 1986; Holbrook et al., 2003).

A third limitation to consider is that for some participants, there was a marked time lapse between the interview and the election that they had contested. I chose to study the most recent elections at the time that I commenced my project, which resulted in some participants reflecting almost four years. In addition, many participants had contested a number of elections, and some did appear to mix up their campaigns. The approach I took to mitigate this factor was to ask them about their election activities early in the interview, so that they would reflect on the campaign from a chronological perspective, which I believed assisted their recall prior to me asking specific questions.

While the limitations listed above should be seriously considered, there is also a major strength that I would be remiss not to elaborate upon. One of the great debates in political science research is between small-N and large-N case studies. While this research project would be considered a small-N case study in spirit, the sheer size of my sample can not be disregarded.

In total, 92 candidates participated in the study. Thus, while the study design has afforded me the insights provided by small-N studies, the large number of cases analyzed provides the basis for me to assert that the patterns emerging from the data present compelling evidence for theory generation and do warrant further research via large-N approaches to further confirm my findings.

Chapter Three: Candidate Self-Presentation in Local Campaigns

3.1 Hello, My Name Is …

After a candidate has made the decision to run for office, and if applicable, secured their party-nomination, they need to announce their candidacy, and start campaigning to their electorate. For candidates running under a party banner, the most crucial aspect of this introduction is of course, linking themselves to their party. As discussed in Chapter One, in both

Canada and Australia, the majority of voters cast their vote for reasons that pertain to partisan affiliation, or a preference for a party leader (Poguntke and Webb, 2005). Despite this fact, almost all candidates still launch personal campaigns – they polish their appearance, provide biographical information about themselves, and focus at least some of their campaign communications on local issues (Killin and Small, 2018). Ultimately, in Westminster systems, the personal vote can matter – especially in marginal races, or when a strong Independent contests the election. This chapter looks at the most basic aspect of the personal vote – candidates’ self-presentation, specifically examining their physical appearance, stated qualifications, and highlighted character traits, to assess if there is a gender difference in how candidates present information about themselves, and if so, if holding gendered stereotypes affects their decisions. The interviews from this study reveal that women are more likely than men to deliberately present a professional image of themselves, and that they are more likely to focus on stressing their occupational experience as a qualification for office, but that this is not necessarily a gendered strategy. Character traits are hard to communicate, and very few candidates were able to articulate a cohesive strategy for doing so, with gender not appearing to be a factor among those who did.

This chapter is organized into three sections. Each of the aspects of self-presentation mentioned above – physical appearance, qualifications, and character traits, is addressed by first reviewing the relevant literature, and then presenting the related study results. In the concluding remarks, a discussion of the results is offered that analyzes the overall effect of gendered self- presentation and argues that women’s campaigns do look different than men’s, but that this difference diminishes among more competitive candidates, and candidates largely did not report that they had considered their gender and gender role stereotypes when devising their messages.

3.2 Candidate Self-Presentation: Physical Appearance

An important and perhaps obvious aspect of candidates’ self-presentation is their physical appearance. This includes wardrobe choices in terms of colour, party branding and style, as well as hairstyles, facial hair grooming, make-up, and general body type such as height and weight.

From a normative perspective, this aspect of self-presentation may seem superficial and even foolish given the gravity of the issues that politicians deal with. However, as will be discussed, there is an abundance of literature that suggests that candidate appearance affects vote choice, and thus, is an important consideration for candidates, as their very image is indeed a component of the information that they convey about themselves to the electorate.

There are two sides to the literature on candidate physical appearance. The first side, which composes the majority of this field of study, concerns voter evaluation of candidates, examining how certain aspects of candidate appearance, such as attractiveness, approachability and age, impact both voter ratings of candidates, and their actual vote choice. A related field looks at the interaction between media attention and candidate appearance. The other side of the literature addresses whether candidates are aware that their appearance can affect voter evaluations, and if they tailor their appearance accordingly.

3.2.1 Voting for Attractive Candidates

The literature on candidate appearance and electoral outcomes has shown considerable evidence that physically attractive candidates are more likely than their less attractive counterparts to be favorably evaluated by voters, and as such, they are more likely to be subsequently elected.2 Moreover, these findings are consistent across developed countries and levels of government, with studies using both experimental methods, as well as evaluating electoral outcomes from real elections (Praino and Stockemer, 2018; Ahler et al., 2016; Jones and Price, 2017; Milazzo and Mattes, 2016; King and Leigh, 2009; Berggren et al., 2006; Klein and Rosar, 2005; Banducci et al., 2003). In addition to clearly showing that attractiveness can affect voter evaluations and electoral support, it has also been shown that attractiveness can drastically impact electoral outcomes. Praino and Stockemer (2018) conducted an experimental study that assessed the attractiveness of candidates running for the US House of Representatives against an “ideal” looking, computer stimulated candidate, and measured subsequent voter support. Their analysis found that for about two-thirds of marginal races, a different winner would have been triggered if the actual loser physically looked like their “ideal” candidate. For almost every marginal race, there would have been a different outcome if the losing candidate had looked like their “ideal” candidate and the winning candidate had been very unattractive.

Furthermore, they assert that the House of Representative elections are among the least competitive in Western democracies and as such, their results would be even more pronounced in competitive races.

2 Research has found that certain sex-based features are deemed as more or less attractive, such as chin size, eyebrow height and facial symmetry (for example Collins, 2000, Puts et al., 2011). However, it should be stressed that assessing attractiveness is subjective and stereotypical beauty traits can vary from culture to culture (Cunningham et al., 1995).

Politicians are by no means the only ones who receive an occupational bump if they are attractive. This advantage has been found in a number of occupations worldwide, as people who are perceived to be “beautiful” are likely to earn higher wages, especially for business people, attorneys and advertising executives (Hamermesh and Biddle, 1994; Biddle and Hamermesh,

1998; Pfann et al., 2000; Borland and Leigh, 2009; Harper, 2000; Hamermesh et al., 2002).

While politicians are not the only ones whose physical appearance affects their occupational success, it should be noted that the effect is particularly important given their very public role, and the propensity to be featured in the media not only during election campaigns, but also during the course of their tenure if elected.

While candidate attractiveness appears to affect vote choice and electoral outcomes, other factors, particularly partisanship, have a greater effect overall. The degree, however, to which candidate attractiveness matters can be important in certain circumstances and for certain types of voters. Studies have shown that candidate attractiveness plays a larger role in candidate- evaluations by voters who are non-partisan, apathetic, or have low information (King and Leigh,

2009; Ahler et al., 2016; Lenz and Lawson, 2011). Along this vein, it has also been shown that the degree to which attractiveness is relevant changes for elections where generally less information is available, such as municipal compared to national level elections (Berggren et al.,

2010). This effect also varies across candidate types, being more important for challengers than incumbents (Jones and Price, 2017; King and Leigh, 2009). In a nutshell, the less information that a voter has about a candidate or election, the more likely it is that attractiveness may affect their vote choice.

3.2.2 Gender and Physical Appearance

While candidate-gender has been shown to affect the degree to which attractive candidates receive an electoral bonus, the findings for this area of the literature are far less conclusive than for candidates in general, in terms of the extent of the bonus and who it favors.

While some studies have found that attractive women candidates receive more of a bonus than men (Berggren, et al., 2006; Klein and Rosar, 2005), others have found the opposite, with attractive men benefiting more than attractive women (King and Leigh, 2009). Similarly, not all aspects of beauty seem to affect candidate evaluations in expected ways. In terms of body shape, studies examining physique in terms of weight have found that heavier women candidates have been found to be at a disadvantage compared to their leaner counterparts, which is not surprising given that society tends to associate women’s slim figures with beauty. The opposite effect has been found for men – heavier men candidates have been found to be evaluated more positively than their leaner counterparts (Miller and Lundgren, 2010). While this seems initially surprising, other studies support the finding that weight matters more for women than men in terms of their political activity. Schuster et al., (2018) examined political activity, specifically neighbourhood engagement, and found that heavier women were less likely to be engaged, but that weight did not have an effect on men’s neighbourhood engagement. Thus, the literature suggests that body size matters more for women than men both for how they are evaluated by voters and also for their willingness to partake in at least one type of political activity – neighbourhood engagement.

Men and women voters have been found to respond to perceived attractiveness in different ways. While both are more likely to vote for candidates who appear more competent, men are more likely to vote for women candidates they deem attractive, whereas women voters are more likely to vote for attractive men who they consider to be approachable (Chiao et al., 2008). It may be the case then that while we would expect all candidates to enhance their personal

67 attractiveness, whatever that means to them, we would expect men candidates to try to appear more approachable, via open body language, smiling and casual clothing, while women may consider fashion trends for clothing and hairstyles, in conjunction with what looks best on them, in terms of colour and clothing that suits their body types.

3.2.3 Youthfulness and Candidate Assessment

One aspect of appearance that has been studied extensively is what is known as

“babyfacedness”. “Babyfacedness,” is when an adult face has infant-like qualities, and is associated with personality traits such as honesty, straightforwardness, warmth, naivety, and kindness (Berry, 1991). There are, however, mixed results both regarding whether babyfacedness has a positive or negative impact on candidate evaluations and election, and the degree to which this effect is gendered. Some studies have shown that candidates who are more baby-faced,

(meaning for their age, they look young) are evaluated more favorably than mature-faced candidates (Chang et al., 2017; Zebrowitz and Montepare, 2005). Other studies have found the opposite, with a negative correlation between how “babyfaced” a candidate is and how competent they are evaluated to be (Poutvaara et al., 2009). In terms of how gender and babyfacedness interact, some studies have shown that babyfacedness is more beneficial for women who run, given they are more likely to retain childlike features as they age than men

(Friedman and Zebrowitz, 1992; Bruce and Young, 1998; Lee, 2013), and it may be because women with more mature faces may appear “unnatural” (Masip, et al., 2004). The

“babyfacedness” advantage was not, however, found to be beneficial to men politicians (Lee,

2013), and the negative correlation between babyfacedness and perceived competence is stronger for men than women. While candidates with babyface may have been perceived to be less

68 competent, however, this did not translate into diminished electoral support (Poutvaara et al.,

2009).

3.2.4 Gendered Partisanship and Physical Appearance

Partisanship has been found to interact with gender on voter evaluations of political candidates. Looking at femininity and masculinity, Carpinella et al. (2015) found that women running for the Republican Party who appeared relatively more feminine were more likely to win their seat, while for men it was those who appeared less masculine in their appearance who were more likely to win their election. However, for Democratic candidates, electoral success was not related to the degree in which women looked feminine and men looked masculine. Carpinella et al., speculate that their unexpected findings could relate “trait trespassing” (see Hayes, 2005), which is where it is possible that adopting characteristics associated with the other party (in this case a more feminine appearance) is beneficial. This makes sense as research has shown that depending on electoral context, it may be beneficial for men candidates to soften their image

(Ditmar, 2010). Further evidence for partisan effects comes from Berggren et al. (2017) who found that right-wing candidates are generally more attractive than their centre and left-wing counterparts, and that voters use beauty as a cue for conservatism when they do not know much about candidates. As such, it is unclear what the effect of partisan affiliation will be on candidate behaviour. It could be the case that conservative candidates consider their appearance more than progressive candidates if they believe that their voting base cares more about appearance than progressive voting bases. Alternatively, we may also find that conservative women candidates are more likely than their progressive counterparts to state that they tried to portray a feminine

69 style, and that conservative men report trying to portray a more masculine style than their progressive counterparts.

3.2.5 Gendered Media Coverage of Candidate Appearance

Media coverage is an important aspect of campaign communication because it delivers information to voters. Newspapers have been found to also favour attractive political candidates.

Maurer and Schoen (2010) find that the media outlets provide more positive coverage to attractive candidates than they do to unattractive ones. During the 1990s and early 2000s, a rather extensive collection of studies on gendered media coverage found that women candidates were less likely than men to receive media coverage, and that the coverage women did receive was of a diminished quality – the substance of the coverage focused more on their personal characteristics, family life, horse-race positioning, and their physical appearance. Men, in comparison, were more likely to receive substantive coverage that focused on their policy positions, professional background and leadership attributes (Heith, 2003; Braden, 1996;

Bystrom et al., 2004; Carroll and Schreiber, 1997; Devitt, 1999; Kahn 1996; Norris 1997a;

1997b; Weir 1996 in Hayes and Lawless, 2015). While this body of work on gendered media coverage is beginning to be dated, recent studies still show that the media treats women candidates differently from men (Falk, 2010; Siegel, 2009; Watson, 2006). In a study analyzing the newspaper and television news coverage of high-profile American presidential/vice- presidential candidates - Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann – Shoaf and

Parsons (2016) found that the media do not discuss women and men candidates in neutral terms, but instead fall back on traditional gender stereotypes and emphasize women candidates’ physical appearances and family roles far more frequently than they do for men candidates. A

2012 study by Lake and Carpenter found that when the media comments on a women candidate’s appearance, even if the coverage is neutral, it still has a negative effect on her electoral outcome (see further, Carlin and Winfrey, 2009; Falk, 2010; Uscinski and Goren,

2011).

3.2.6 Physical Attractiveness and Candidate Behaviour

In terms of a general awareness of appearance, Sanghvi and Hodges (2015: 1676) assert that “Every aspect of [a candidate’s] appearance, including hairstyle, tie colour, and even footwear, is carefully selected to express a specific image designed to elicit a specific emotional response among voters.” While it may be the case that candidate appearance can affect voters’ evaluations and vote choice across all levels of political office, what is considerably less clear is the extent to which candidates contesting lower levels of political office employ a sophisticated strategy regarding their appearance, and the messaging that they want their appearance to convey. Some evidence that candidates are aware of and adapt to voter evaluations of their appearance comes from studies assessing the professionalism of candidate apparel. The

American literature on gendered dress style is robust with the finding that women political candidates dress more formally than their counterparts who are men (Bystrom, 1995; Kahn,

1996; Bystrom and Kaid, 2002; Carlson, 2001). Men candidates in the US tended to dress more casually in their television advertisements, and more formally on their websites. Outside of the

US, Finnish men politicians were found to dress more formally in their television advertisements than women, but the difference in the frequency of formal dress between the genders was far less than observed between men and women candidates in the United States (Carlson, 2001). By dressing more formally, women may be using clothing to send a clear message to the electorate

71 that they are professional, and have a role in the public sphere, whereas the softer image that men portray when wearing more casual clothes may undercut stereotypes about their public role and suggest that they have an understanding of and appreciation for issues that tend to dominate the private, or household sphere.

The literature has presented several compelling reasons to suspect that when it comes to candidate appearance, we may well expect gender differences in the approach that men and women candidates take in presenting themselves. What is less clear however, is the extent to which candidates are conscious of voter effects related to their appearance, and particularly at the local level where most candidates lack a sophisticated campaign team to manage their appearance, whether they actually do anything to enhance these effects in their favour. A notable contribution that this study makes to the literature is that it adds to our limited understanding of candidate awareness of their physical appearance and offers some insight into how this process is gendered and strategized. In the next section, the results from this study will be presented.

3.3.1 Study Results: Candidate Physical Appearance

For this study, candidates were asked to consider the physical image that they communicated while they were campaigning and asked to think of the clothes that they wore as well as their overall appearance, such as their hairstyle, facial hair for men and make-up for women. In addition, candidates were asked to consider if they were conscious of their appearance, and if they adjusted it depending on the type of campaign event at hand, such as whether they were door knocking, participating in a candidates’ debate, or selecting photographs for their print or web-based communication materials (the exact wording of the interview questions is found in Appendix B). As physical appearance has the potential to be a sensitive topic, this section of the interview was addressed early and approached with a jovial tone. Most

72 candidates were amused by the question, and offered a detailed, yet light-hearted response, which helped to build rapport. Almost all candidates were able to easily recall their appearance choices during their campaign.

3.3.2 Candidate Awareness of Physical Appearance

One of the primary findings of this research study is that both men and women candidates considered their appearance. Almost every candidate interviewed gave some thought to how they wanted to look for their election campaign, and they were able to clearly articulate a conscious strategy behind their clothing/hairstyle and other grooming decisions. While no candidate rhymed off studies during their interview about voter evaluations of candidates based on attractiveness, it was evident that there was an awareness that candidates think they are evaluated based on their appearance. However, these strategies were relatively unsophisticated compared to the political marketing approaches detailed by Sanghvi and Hodges (2015), who assert that political operatives employ a sophisticated, psychologically based initiative in dressing their candidates to convey certain messages and elicit specific responses from targeted voting groups.

Almost all the candidates interviewed for this study made their own decisions when it came to their physical appearance. In terms of professional assistance, only one candidate, a young ALP woman from Queensland noted that she had hired a stylist.3 One man, a Wildrose candidate from Alberta said that his party offered some of their candidates a body language coach to give advice after accompanying them door knocking in their electorates.4 Apart from these candidates who had some level of professional guidance, only a handful of other candidates noted that they had received general advice from their parties about their appearance, such as

3 Interview, May 15, 2013. 4 Interview, July 29, 2016b.

73 removing facial hair, dressing to match other people in the picture for brochure photographs, and what colour of clothing to wear or avoid wearing while attending campaign events. This advice, however, was not consistently reported by candidates across all parties and states/provinces included in this study. While some candidates reported that their party had offered advice or direction on their appearance, other candidates from the same parties and regions did not report that they had received the same advice. In terms of appearance-related advice for women candidates, a few candidates from the NDP in Canada and the ALP in Australia noted that they attended a candidate school, where the topic of physical appearance had been addressed. Special training specific to men’s appearance, was not reported by any of the men interviewed.

Despite the lack of professional sophistication towards a physical image strategy, the interviews provide evidence that gender affected how a candidate chose to present their physical image.

3.3.3 Portraying a Professional Image

In terms of projecting a professional image, the strategy of “dressing up” was reported by almost half of the participants interviewed. To be clear, “dressing up” did not necessarily mean wearing one’s Sunday best in terms of formal suits or dresses, but rather, this was relative to the individual candidate, and refers to them reporting that they had deliberately done something – worn special clothing, applied make-up or even got a haircut, in a deliberate attempt to improve their appearance to either look more proper or professional than they otherwise would. Those who were most likely to report that they purposefully portrayed a professional appearance were challengers and uncompetitive candidates, women, candidates representing green parties, and candidates who were either younger or older as opposed to middle-aged. This is an expected but significant finding in that those who were most likely to “dress the part” of a stereotypical

74 politician, i.e. a middle-aged man, were those who are least likely to be one. For middle-aged men, it makes sense that they were less likely to dress formally as they already fit the stereotype of a leader and do not have to worry as much about conveying their fit for this role.

3.3.4 You Can Be Serious Without a Suit

A striking finding among the participants interviewed is that there is a correlation between those who dress up and competitiveness, and this was found across a variety of candidate-types.

When looking at the competitive versus the uncompetitive candidates, about three quarters of the uncompetitive candidates interviewed reported that they had deliberately dressed up, compared to only one quarter of the competitive candidates. Similarly, while less than twenty percent of incumbents reported dressing up, over half of challengers did so. Across levels of candidate investment, three quarters of low-investment candidates reported dressing up, while less than one third of the high-investment candidates did so. Clearly, dressing up is not the strategy employed by the majority of serious, successful, competitive candidates.

What is concerning however, is that dressing up as a strategy to portray professionalism was more likely to be reported by women. Just over half of the women interviewed (55 percent) reported dressing up, compared to only 42 percent of men, supporting existing research in this regard (Bystrom, 1995; Kahn, 1996; Bystrom and Kaid, 2002; Carlson, 2001). Among the incumbents, competitive candidates, and those with the highest level of candidate-investment, this gender difference became even more pronounced, as about half of the percentage of men reported dressing up across each of these types of candidates compared to their women counterparts. When looking at just the women candidates, the relationship between not dressing up and being a competitive candidate remains: two thirds of competitive women do not dress up compared to one third who do; three quarters of incumbent women do not dress up compared to

75 one quarter who do; and among the high-investment candidates, 60 percent do not dress up compared to 40 percent who do. In short, when comparing men against women among the types of candidates who are most likely to be successful, fewer men than women dress up.

When examining placement across the political spectrum, almost two thirds of progressive candidates dressed up compared to one third of candidates representing conservative parties, and the trend remains even when candidates from green parties, who have a de facto policy of dressing up, are excluded from the analysis. This pattern remains when candidates are analyzed by gender, but the pattern diminishes when competitiveness is accounted for, as competitive candidates tend not to deliberately dress up.

In terms of understanding why candidates chose to dress up, two main strategies were clearly articulated. The first was that doing so was an attempt by younger candidates to look older, and the second was that candidates from green parties relayed that dressing up countered negative stereotypes that they perceived voters held of their party. These strategies will be discussed in more detail below.

Among the remaining strategies offered, no one overwhelmingly dominant strategy or rationale was articulated. Rather, additional responses can be roughly categorized into four broad rationales, each having a handful of about five candidates, both men and women, whose responses aligned with the strategy. The first rationale reported was that there was something about the candidate that needed to be countered as it did not mesh with what they thought people expected of a politician, such as coming from a non-traditional occupational background such as trades, farming or the entertainment industry. This strategy was relayed by mostly competitive candidates. A farmer from rural Alberta merely laughed when asked why he dressed up, explaining that what he normally looks like during a busy work week is not appropriate in terms

76 of clothing or facial hair,5 whereas a candidate from a trades background in Queensland stated that, “people need to know I will put a tie on if I have to.”6

The second strategy offered was that dressing up relayed a sense of seriousness. This was articulated by unsuccessful candidates, with a candidate from the newly formed Katter’s Party saying, “We wanted to be a professional party with a serious outlook,”7 and a NDP candidate from BC noting, “I think I dressed this way because in my view wearing a suit conveys a certain seriousness about the endeavour.”8 The third strategy articulated was that dressing up showed respect, a strategy noted by some older candidates. A PC candidate from Alberta explained that the one time that she shows up on someone’s doorstep may be the only chance to see them, and she would dress up for door knocking by wearing a nice scarf and make-up, and purposefully forgoing a hat and sunglasses.9 A candidate from BC explained that her “Banana Republic professional look” differed drastically from her normal bohemian artist style, but that she had to dress up because doing so “shows respect for the office and for the public.”10 The last strategy that was articulated was to dress slightly above the crowd you are with. This strategy was again reported by older candidates, who felt that it was expected that politicians would dress more formally. Some examples included wearing a blazer or even just long sleeves when everyone else was in short sleeves.

3.3.5 Candidate Age and Professional Images

5 Interview, June 27, 2016. 6 Interview, May 1, 2013b. 7 Interview, May 2, 2013a. 8 Interview, August 7, 2014b. 9 Interview, June 14, 2016b. 10 Interview, August 21, 2014a.

The interviews revealed that younger candidates employed image as a mechanism for appearing older and relatedly more experienced. As noted above, when looking at candidates by age group, the interview data reveal that age was a factor. Three quarters of young candidates reported dressing up, compared to just over half of older candidates, and just under one third of middle-aged candidates. As there was a relatively large number of candidates representing green parties, a check was made to ensure that the pattern remained without their inclusion in the analysis, and this was the case.

In terms of gender differences by age, the proportion of younger candidates, and middle- aged candidates who reported dressing up did not differ drastically by gender. Among the older candidates a bigger gap emerged, however, with less than half of older men reporting that they dressed up compared to almost three quarters of older women candidates. Among the older candidates, no clear gendered rationales emerged in terms of why they dressed up. Rather, both men and women largely articulated, as mentioned above, that they felt that it was a sign of respect and that they believed that it was expected of them as politicians.

When looking at the rationale for dressing professionally among the younger candidates, two clear rationales emerged. The first, reported by about a third of the young candidates, was a perceived obligation to represent their party in a professional manner, and this rationale was reported by both young men and women. A candidate from Victoria noted that she never wore jeans, often choosing a skirt and heels instead because she was “representing the party,”11 while another candidate from Queensland noted that he dressed up because, “you just have to be professional” and that his father had even made him a professional looking name tag which he was “proud to wear”.12

11 Interview, March 27, 2013b. 12 Interview, May 2, 2013b.

The second rationale, also offered by about a third of the young candidates, was that they dressed up as a strategy to look older. The literature on babyfacedness provides mixed evidence on whether it has a more negative effect on men than women, but both young men and women interviewed in this study attempted to mitigate any negative effects that could be associated with their perceived youth. For a few of the candidates this included elevating their normal casual clothes to business casual. A candidate from Victoria noted that he would wear a collared, tucked in shirt at festivals,13 a candidate from Queensland said that she would wear a black dress with make-up and straighten her hair,14 and a candidate from Alberta explained that he was told by voters that he looked young, and so he deliberately wore slacks and a tucked in shirt instead of blue jeans while door knocking because, “I was battling an age bias.”15 Two women, both from

Australia, and representing the ALP, noted that their efforts went beyond adapting to a business causal look. One candidate was in her mid-twenties, and while she was not competitive, she had expected to be, given the previous vote in her riding. She hired a stylist, and explained that she wore more mature clothing, such as collared shirts with darker, patterned colours, and avoided pinks. She also noted that she always wore make-up and straightened her hair. She said that she did not like this style, but deliberately chose it to appear older.16 The other candidate, from

Victoria, also in her mid-twenties, explained that her riding was fairly conservative and that her party wanted to “run her in a suit”.17 While she was not successful in her campaign for state office, she was successful in her campaign a few years later for a municipal seat. The boundaries for the municipal seat included progressive pockets of Green Party supporters, as well as

13 Interview, March 20, 2013. 14 Interview, April 29, 2013a. 15 Interview, June 16, 2016a. 16 Interview, May 15, 2013. 17 Interview, March 13, 2013b.

79 students. For this campaign, she adopted a much less formal style of dress, choosing to wear clothing with more florals and colours than in her state campaign. She even noted that she was surprised by the fact that her party did not advise her to remove her nose piercing for the municipal election campaign. Thus, for this campaign, her youth was perceived to be more of an asset than a liability. This candidate’s experience suggests that the “ideal” looking politician varies by electoral context.

3.3.6 Professionalizing Green Party Candidates

Candidates from the green parties in both Australia and British Columbia consistently reported that they adopted a professional image to counter what they claimed were voter-held stereotypes that Green candidates were “hippies, “tree folk,” or “tree huggers.” This strategy was consistent across age, gender, and competitive status, and within both countries. An older woman candidate from Victoria explained:

Sometimes I wore suits, I’m a lawyer, and sometimes I looked smart casual. The image I tried to get across is professional, reliable, dependable. Greens have been criticized for being hippies – and I’m an old hippy. I looked more serious and conservative than I am, to counteract the hippy stereotype. Also, to give people - to be reassuring to some voters - to see someone who looked professional and responsible. I know that some people might think that ‘she’s too posh’ but I tended to think that that’s the group that we wanted to engage with, so be unintimidating to that group.18

The idea that image could be a barrier was also articulated by another senior member of the

Greens, who explained that you, “don’t want your image to be something that is a barrier to people voting for you.”19 She too noted that a professional image was a departure from her usual appearance. While looking over her campaign brochures during the interview, she pointed to a

18 Interview, March 25, 2013a. 19 Interview, March 24, 2013.

80 photo of herself wearing a business suit and exclaimed, “That’s not me! I hardly ever wear makeup. I’m wearing lipstick there, and my hair is a little bit too fluffy!” When Green Party candidates did dress more causally for certain campaign events, they noted that they still elevated their look. One woman from Victoria stated that, “As a Greens, there is a whole layer of perceptions that people put on us, that we are hippies, so I worked to counter them. I might wear jeans, but I would wear heels. I would never dress down.”20 A candidate from Queensland explained that she wanted to convey a business look, which was different from what is normally associated with the Greens. She noted that she never wore casual clothes unless everyone else was, and then wore a business casual style.21 One of the senior Green Party members reported that all their candidates were advised to convey a more professional image,22 and it appears that at least in Victoria, the party assumed some control over this. A young woman recalled that the party had organized professional headshots for her campaign material. She reported that she had had an asymmetrical cropped hairstyle which was fashionable at the time, and without consulting her, the party had edited her photo so she would have a symmetrical cut, which had the effect of making her look more professional.23

The strategy to look professional was reported by men candidates as well, reporting that they also dressed more professionally than they otherwise would. One young candidate from

Queensland reported that he, “put on all the parts of a suit I owned,”24 tied back his long hair, and shaved more often than he otherwise would. He admitted that he was not keen on this appearance, but that, “I thought it was something that I should do. You shouldn’t lose a vote

20 Interview, March 28, 2013. 21 Interview, May 22, 2013. 22 Interview, March 24, 2013. 23 Interview, March 27, 2013a. 24 Interview, April 29, 2013c.

81 because people look at you and think that you’re a scruffy rift-raft!” Another man said that he too, “bit the bullet, and was clean shaven and cropped [his] hair … so I didn’t look like a hippy

…and get portrayed as tree folk.”25 An older candidate from a particularly warm region in

Queensland noted that while his volunteers wore their Greens logo t-shirts while they were out campaigning, he had a collared shirt made with his name and the Greens logo embroidered on it, which he felt offered a more professional look. He also noted that despite the heat in his riding, he always wore slacks instead of shorts, thinking that it was better to dress up slightly than to dress down.26 Likewise, another older man said that while he would wear a party branded t-shirt when everyone else was, he wore a suit and tie in photos for his printed materials and website.

He said that this was to counter the tree-hugger stereotype and to show his background as a businessman. He further surmised, “I know you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, but people do.”27

Candidates from the Green Party in British Columbia also reported attempting to convey a professional look, without explicitly noting that they were countering the negative, hippy, tree hugger image reported by their Australian counterparts. One candidate, with significant experience and seniority in the party, noted that she not only wanted to portray a professional image, but also that she did so by wearing colours other than the Green Party brand, like reds and blacks, to avoid the “Just Green stereotype.”28 This approach was echoed by another candidate from British Columbia who had had success contesting a municipal level seat. He noted that he purposely chose more professional dress to convey a professional image. Similarly, a Green candidate from BC explained that she had purchased several coloured collared Oxford shirts to

25 Interview, March 12, 2013b. 26 Interview, April 30, 2013a. 27 Interview, April 18, 2013b. 28 Interview, July 27, 2016.

82 send a professional message when she was door knocking and would never wear a t-shirt. She also noted that she only wore her green Oxford shirt when she was with other Green candidates, with the intention of sending a message of solidarity.29

Enhancing a professional image was not necessarily echoed, however, across provincial lines. A senior Green Party candidate from Alberta reported that while she certainly would not wear jeans with holes in them, she did not go out of her way to dress up and that she advised candidates to be authentic. She noted that some younger members of the party choose to dress up because they wanted to be taken seriously, but that this was not mandated by the party. She further said that she would have, “Studiously avoided the suit’ish sort of thing. We are not the establishment, we are not. In every way that we can convey that, is something that we should explore.”30

In Australia, Greens have become increasingly competitive over the last twenty years, and as of the beginning of 2020, have one elected representative in each of the federal House of

Representatives and Senate, 11 representatives in the state and territorial lower houses, and 12 representatives in the state and territorial upper houses. Canada by contrast has three Green representatives in the federal lower house, and 15 representatives across the provincial legislatures. British Columbia was a clear leader in electing Green Party candidates at the provincial level, with a few candidates being elected for each of the provincial elections held during the past ten years. Given the cohesive strategy articulated by the Green candidates interviewed from this province, alongside those from Australia, it may be the case that as green parties become more competitive, they will start to adopt a more professional appearance in

29 Interviews, August 2, 2016b; August 21 2014b. 30 Interview, June 9, 2016.

83 order to break down the perceived barriers that Greens candidates described to get their message across.

3.3.7 Dressing Down and Fitting-In

While “dressing up” was articulated to be a strategy, so too was “dressing down”. About

40 percent of the candidates interviewed indicated that they had deliberately dressed down during their campaigns. When looking at these results by gender, almost half of men compared to a third of women noted that they had done so. Dressing down was more likely to be reported among the candidates who were more successful. This contrasts to the finding that dressing up was more likely to be a strategy adopted by less successful candidates. Comparative analysis shows that the strategy of dressing down was reported by 43 percent of incumbents compared to

39 percent of challengers, 46 percent of competitive candidates compared to 33 percent of uncompetitive candidates, 49 percent of high-investment candidates compared to 22 percent of the medium-investment candidates and 17 percent of the low-investment candidates. Across these successful candidate types, women were less likely than men to report having had deliberately dressed down.

There were five main strategies offered as a rationale for dressing down: fitting in, being authentic, being approachable, being practical, portraying an anti-politician look, and presenting an image of their authentic self. Six of the eight candidates who noted that they dressed down to

“fit in” with the crowd were men, and the two women who reported this strategy were elected

LNP MPs in Queensland. A candidate from Alberta explained that in his rural riding, “People expected you to have a bit of shit on your boots, so you don’t dress up too much.”31 A long-term

31 Interview, July 20, 2016a.

ALP MP from Victoria noted that after about four years of being an elected member, and always wearing suits, he had been visiting a kindergarten class and was pulled aside by the teacher, who told him, “people don’t dress that way” and thereafter, deliberately dressed down.32

Another strategy that had a gendered dimension was dressing down as a means to present authenticity, with seven men and two women reporting that this is why they dressed down. A campaign manager for a Wildrose MP recalled that he and the candidate had had a meeting about the candidate’s appearance, and he told him, “You’re a farmer – be a farmer.”33 A rationale that more women than men (four women and one man) reported was that they dressed down because it was practical. An Independent from Queensland explained, “I wear practical clothes because any day in this job, you never know where you’re going to be.”34 Similarly, an MLA from

Alberta noted that she actually dressed more causally in her role as an MLA than she had for her previous job and was quick to mention the sheer amount of walking that she does in a day.35

Another group of elected conservative MPs, four women and two men, noted that they dressed down so that they would appear more approachable. A woman from Queensland said that she tones down her look so that, “people don’t feel intimidated - if I’m in a power suit, or something like that,”36 while another MP from Queensland said that dressing “‘Brisbane business’ would put her people off.”37 A man explained, “There is no point turning up to a house wearing a suit in an area where people can’t relate to you, you create a barrier, where people can’t relate to you. It’s important to present yourself professionally, but also warmly.”38 The

32 Interview, March 22, 2013a. 33 Interview, July 27, 2016a. 34 Interview, May 26, 2013. 35 Interview, June 14, 2016a. 36 Interview, May 6, 2013. 37 Interview, April 15, 2013. 38 Interview, April 9, 2013a.

85 literature suggests that among voters, women prefer men candidates who are attractive and approachable (Chiao et al., 2008). It appears that there was not a gender difference among the candidates who worked to achieve this. Five candidates, four of them from progressive parties noted that they deliberately dressed down to avoid looking like a politician. This included looking like a “working mom,” instead of “sleek and stuffy,”39 showing up in work clothes to

“bring some realist perspective”40 and deliberately not wearing a tie because, “I was 24 years old, and a young guy in a tie provokes a formal politics image which I didn’t want to do.”41

3.3.8 Additional Strategies Related to Appearance

There were a few additional strategies that related to candidates’ physical appearance that were reported, including enhancing recognizability, considering what a “standard” politician looks like, using appearance to counter an occupational image, wearing party branding, and cultivating sex-appeal.

3.3.9 Enhancing Recognizability

Enhancing recognizability was reported as a strategy by a group of four elected conservative men, and one elected conservative woman from Queensland. A few of these men reported that they had a basic uniform structure to their clothing choices in terms of colour, and clothing type, like slacks or a collared shirt. One elaborated that, during campaigns, and on all his campaign material, he wore black slacks and a white shirt. He referred to this style of dress as his “uniform” and described the style as “looking like a Mormon.”42 He felt that by using the

39 Interview, May 3, 2013a. 40 Interview, March 12, 2013a. 41 Interview, May 1, 2013d. 42 Interview, April 10, 2013a.

86 same clothes all the time, people would recognize him. As an MP, he had ventured away from this uniform a little bit, but said that for the next campaign, he would be back to wearing the black and white outfit. Another man described his approach to wearing the same colour as, “Be consistent, be consistent, be consistent.”43 Two of the candidates noted that they had previously removed their glasses for photographs, but given that they always wear their glasses, they would not make the decision again, because “people wouldn’t know it was me.”44

3.3.10 Gender-Specific Features and The “Standard” Politician

Eight of the men interviewed relayed that facial hair was a strategic consideration, with half reporting that they had a clean-shaven appearance on purpose, and the other half thinking that their facial hair sent a strategic message. A Member from Queensland explained that he had previously worn a beard, which he liked, but that the “political wise-heads” had told him that it made men look untrustworthy.45 A candidate from rural Alberta with a rural background noted that the decision to be clean shaven was partially deliberate and partially just because he was sick of it. He went on the say that, “I wasn’t unsophisticated when it comes to knowing that you have to be somewhat appealing to the public.”46 Another candidate from Alberta reported that he too had been advised to shave his facial hair, however he felt that because he was young, it would be perceived as stylish.47 A candidate from Queensland noted that he had been advised to shave his goatee, but did not do so because he thought that it was a strength in his working-class electorate where other men wore them, and he felt that it helped him when talking to “blokey-blokes.”48

43 Interview, March 22, 2013b. 44 Interviews, April 11, 2013; April 16, 2013b. 45 Interview, April 16, 2013a. 46 Interview, July 20, 2016b. 47 Interview, June 16, 2016a. 48 Interview, April 10, 2013b.

Five of the women interviewed, all from Australia, conveyed that they felt it was more professional to have a straight rather than curly hairstyle. Of these women, only one of them, an

MP with short hair, noted that she was unable to change her look to conform with this image, saying with dismay that her hairstyle, “is the way it is.”49 This shows that perceptions of what a certain politician looks like are held by candidates, and also reflects wider studies on women from minority groups that examine pressure to conform to Eurocentric hairstyles, and voter’s preference for the same (for example, Dawson et al., 2019; Lemi and Brown, 2019).

3.3.11 Occupational Countering

For a few candidates, adopting their understanding of a professional image was their strategy to counter any negative perceptions related to their occupational background in an industry not typically considered professional. This suggests that these candidates hold an ideal stereotype in their head of what the appropriate background is for a candidate. This included a few candidates with backgrounds in the entertainment industry and candidates whose occupational background was in one of the trades. One profession that had a very specific strategy as it related to image was agriculture and could best be described as attempting to wear nice, but practical clothing for visiting a farm. Both men and women running in rural constituencies placed a great deal of emphasis on striking the correct balance. One member who had a rural area in his riding, but did not come from a farming background himself, explained that he made a conscious effort to adjust his appearance, purchasing an iconic country brand of boot and pairing them with a checked shirt and either denim or chino type pants when in that area of his electorate.50 A younger ALP candidate from Queensland noted that he worked in the

49 Interview, April 15, 2013. 50 Interview, April 16, 2013b.

88 agriculture sector and crafted a deliberate conservative image of “Farm boy done good” via a business shirt with tan pants, and no tie.51 A candidate from Alberta said that while she used a business look on her campaign materials, she always wore blue jeans to farms.52

3.3.12 Party Branding and Distinct Messaging

While coloured branding was not a major feature expressed in candidates’ image strategy, a few did report that they specifically either wore a colour that matched their party’s branding, or that they deliberately avoided a colour that coincided with their opponents’. This strategy was reported by both men and women. Two Liberal candidates from British Columbia, a man and a woman, noted that they should not wear orange, which is affiliated with the NDP, with the man explaining that he had one day and was chastised for it.53 Similarly, an LNP woman from

Queensland noted that she does not wear red, which is affiliated with the ALP,54 and a LNP

Member from Queensland stated that he was glad that blue was associated with his party because he thought it looked good on him.55 A few of the Greens candidates in Australia noted that they would wear their Greens logo t-shirts when appropriate, but outside of this party, it was not common for candidates to report wearing a party-branded t-shirt. A few candidates noted that they used their clothing to appeal to a distinctive group. A few men candidates from Australia reported that they would wear their sports jerseys, and while women candidates also reported attending sporting events, they did not specially mention that they wore sports team apparel to

51 Interview, May 1, 2013d. 52 Interview, June 28, 2016. 53 Interviews, August 25, 2014b; October 17, 2014. 54 Interview, May 6, 2013. 55 Interview, May 2, 2013c.

89 trigger any support from sports fans. One candidate from Alberta noted that the vibrant colours in his necktie was a deliberate nod to the LGBTQ community.56

3.3.13 The Sexy Politician?

Only a few candidates referenced their physical appearance in terms of how looking good would help them be attractive to members of the opposite sex. A man from Victoria said that while he did not mean to come off as arrogant, he knew he looked good, and he deliberately referenced his physical fitness background in his communications to convey a message of being a “healthy specimen.”57 A Member from Queensland relayed that he thought that his looks provided an electoral advantage amongst the women voters in his riding, and said that he was conscious of staying sporty while also deliberately trying to cultivate a shy persona to be appealing to women. He felt that this shyness was also beneficial as people in his rural riding did not like “tall poppies.”58

A young woman from British Columbia also noted that she felt that her looks provided her an electoral advantage. She relayed that while she thinks it is cynical, she knows that voters

“vote for attractive vibrant people” and she would play this up by wearing skirts to show off her legs and deliberately “look female”.59 A Greens candidate from Victoria reported that some of her friends were handing out her ‘How to Vote’ cards on election day and were told by men voters that they would vote for her because she was pretty.60 While it may be the case that women candidates receive confirmation of how their sex appeal is beneficial to their vote share,

56 Interview, June 21, 2016. 57 Interview, March 22, 2013b. 58 Interview, May 1, 2013c. 59 Interview, August 21, 2014b. 60 Interview, March 27, 2013a.

90 this study finds a small amount of evidence that both men and women candidates are willing to emphasise their attractiveness to attract votes from members of the opposite sex. Furthermore, while there is ample evidence to suggest that voters are more likely to support attractive looking candidates (Praino and Stockemer, 2018; Ahler et al., 2016; Jones and Price, 2017; Milazzo and

Mattes, 2016; King and Leigh, 2009; Berggren et al., 2006; Klein and Rosar, 2005; Banducci et al., 2003), it also appears to be the case that at least some candidates know this and try to look their best.

3.3.14 Discussion: Physical Appearance

The findings in this study related to candidate appearance contribute to the literature in four key respects. First and foremost, there is a dearth in the literature in terms of whether candidates are aware of the effects that physical image can have on voter support and if candidates take this into account in their campaigns. This study contributes to filling this gap.

Almost every candidate interviewed for this study reported that they had considered their image and felt that their look communicated a message. It is clear that candidates are aware that appearance matters and they act accordingly. While candidates may not have necessarily employed strategies as sophisticated as those detailed by Sanghvi and Hodges (2015), the presence of a conscious strategy related to appearance-based messaging is evident at the level of local candidates for state/provincial election in Canada and Australia.

Second, the interviews provide modern findings in support of the literature that finds that women dress more professionally than men (Bystrom, 1995; Kahn, 1996; Bystrom and Kaid,

2002; Carlson, 2001). However, the findings from this study also provide an important caveat: this difference decreases somewhat among competitive candidates. A few important implications from this can be drawn. First, “dressing up” does not appear to be a wise strategy, as the majority

91 of the most competitive candidates do not do it. The fact that women were more likely than men to do so suggests that women hold a different stereotype than men about what a candidate looks like and perhaps they do not feel that they naturally fit this role. Because the stereotype for a successful politician is a man; it makes sense that they have trouble figuring out how to navigate what they should do given this stereotype. Second, it appears that once elected, women gain confidence, and are more likely to adhere to the same strategy employed by men which is to relax their professional appearance to enhance their approachability and connect with voters.

Third, this study provided scant evidence that women deliberately attempted to look feminine and men deliberately attempted to look masculine, in conformity with gender stereotypes, which makes sense in this context as the goal is to look like a leader, without straying too far from gender stereotypes. While Berggren et al. (2017) found this to be true among candidates representing conservative parties, only one candidate of 92 interviewed mentioned enhancing this type of sex-based attribute, and she was a Green Party candidate.

Fourth, it is clear that most of the candidates in this study did hold a stereotype of what a politician “looks like,” as evidence by the number of candidates who indicated that they altered their appearance in some way, whether it be by dressing up, dressing down, or even just adjusting their hair styles.

3.4 Self-Presentation: Qualifications for Office

The second aspect of self-presentation that this chapter examines is qualifications for political office. The concept of “qualification” in this regard is somewhat ambiguous. What exactly qualifies a person to represent constituents in parliament? Is it that they reflect a typical constituent in terms of socioeconomic status? That they have good communication skills or impressive levels of higher education? Perhaps an in-depth knowledge of legislative procedures?

While any number of skills and areas of experience may be offered, two areas that are commonly studied on candidate qualifications are education and professional background.

Much of the literature that looks at candidate quality analyzes this factor from the perspective of traditional political pipeline career experience and educational qualifications. The literature is robust in its finding that women candidates and legislators are disproportionately more qualified than similarly placed men (Black, 2008; Black and Erickson, 2003; Carrol and

Strimling, 1983; Anzia and Berry, 2011; Fulton; 2012). Yet, there is evidence that when women run for office, they are just as likely as men to win (Sevi et al., 2019; Darcy and Slavin

Schramm, 1977; Burrell, 1994; Clark et al., 1984, Seltzer et al., 1997; Sanbonmastu, 2006,

Tremblay, 1995). Despite women’s electoral success, Sarah Fulton (2012) argues in her ground- breaking study on candidate quality that the reason why women perform as well as men when they run for office is because of the gender gap in political quality. In a nutshell, women win at similar rates to men when they run because they are more qualified players, not because the match is equal. Similarly, there is also evidence that once elected, women outperform men and continue to work harder while in political office (Anzia and Berry, 2011; Rickard, 2016).

The factors that explain a quality gap between men and women candidates relate to three related causes: voter evaluations, gatekeeper evaluations, and self-evaluations. First, it is not surprising given the extensive work on gender stereotypes that because voters are more likely to see men as fitting the politician role, they are also more critical of women’s qualifications for office. Simply put, voters hold women candidates to a higher standard than men (Bauer, 2019;

Mo, 2015; but see de Geus, forthcoming).

The second mechanism is gatekeeper evaluations. Gatekeepers are only associated with political parties, but as the vast majority of serious candidates run under a party banner,

93 gatekeepers play a critical role in women’s ability to contest political office. Gatekeepers can include party leadership at the national/state level as well as constituency level executive members. In general, in most Westminster parliamentary systems, parties do not practice an open primary system nomination contest. Thus, candidates who wish to run under a party banner must obtain approval from their party’s constituency association or even the party leader before they can participate in a party nomination contest. Typically, this process involves vetting a candidate.

The candidate provides information about their personal and professional backgrounds and answers questions on their political opinions. This step is undertaken to ensure that the candidate is a good fit with the party, that they are likely to align with the party’s policies, and to check for skeleton’s in one’s closet. Studies have shown that some party leaders/gatekeepers may have misperceptions about women’s electability and fear that voters will not support them, which can be a detriment to women candidates who require party nomination support to run for office

(Niven, 1998; Sanbonmatsu, 2006a, 2006b; Kunovich and Paxton, 2005; Norris and Lovenduski,

1995)

Lastly, women themselves are responsible for some of the gendered gap in political quality. Women perceive their own qualifications differently than men do. In a landmark study on political ambition, “The Citizen Political Ambition Study,” Lawless and Fox (2005, 2010,

2011) have found that women are significantly less likely than men to view themselves as qualified to run for office and their level of political efficacy is substantially lower than men’s.

Women who are identically matched to men in terms of their qualifications to run for office are less likely to perceive of themselves as qualified, even though both men and women rely on the same factors when evaluating themselves as candidates – women are simply less likely than men to believe that they meet these criteria (see also Pearson and McGhee, 2013).

When women candidates do communicate about their qualifications, it has been found that women challengers are more likely to make appeals based on their qualifications to run for office, while women incumbents are less likely than men incumbents to make appeals for re- election based on their qualifications (Larson, 2001). In terms of party differences, there is also evidence that the qualifications offered by women candidates differ. Republican women are more likely than Democratic women to make appeals to stereotypical “female qualifications” such as those that relate to family, time spent with children, charities, church, community activities, garden groups and women’s clubs (Larson, 2001).

3.4.1 Study Results: Featuring Qualifications

The candidates that were interviewed were asked what they considered to be their qualifications to run for office, and whether they strategically messaged those qualifications in any way, either stressing their qualifications as part of their campaign or avoiding an experience if they did not feel that it would be perceived as a positive attribute. The exact wording of the question is presented in Appendix B.

3.4.2 Featuring Work Experience

A clear finding of this study is that candidates communicate about their work-related qualifications but are also strategic about how they present this aspect of their life. Just under two thirds of the candidates interviewed included information about their work experience, and there was a gender gap. Among the women, 68 percent mentioned their work experience compared to 60 percent of the men. Candidates who believe that highlighting their occupations would win them votes – either because the occupations themselves are positively evaluated or

95 because they offer the types of skills considered integral for politics – strategically highlighted their occupations. Of the candidates interviewed, almost two thirds articulated a strategy during the interview regarding what they said, or did not say, about their work qualifications. Of those candidates who did not consider their work qualifications strategically, three quarters of them did not include this type of information in their campaign, and one quarter stated their job as a pro- forma type of information contained within the biographical sections of their campaign materials.

There were some notable differences in who was more likely to discuss their work qualifications. Women were slightly more likely than men to do so. In terms of age groups, half of young candidates discussed work, a third of older candidates did so, and about 70 percent of the middle-aged candidates did so. In terms of party placement on the political spectrum, just over half of conservative candidates referenced their work experience, compared to almost 70 percent of progressive candidates. The difference between competitive and uncompetitive candidates discussing work was minimal, with uncompetitive candidates only being slightly more likely to do so. While some differences emerged in terms of actually referencing their work experience, the differences disappeared among candidates when looking at whether they were strategic about including work information - there was no real difference noted based on gender, age, level of competitiveness, or position on the political spectrum.

When tapping into the strategy behind communicating about work experience, a few trends emerged. The first is that there were some occupations that candidates considered to be beneficial because they were perceived to be universally liked: teachers, healthcare workers, and military workers. One candidate from Canada explained that, “People still like and trust

96 physicians. People will tell you personal things when you say you are a doctor.”61 On the flip side, there was also one occupation that Australian candidates specifically did not mention: working in a political capacity as a staff member for a political party. One candidate who worked for a senator prior to running herself noted that she was accused of not having any “real experience”.62 In addition to those candidates who had this background, a few other candidates also relayed that they did not think that this type of background experience was appropriate for candidates. A young candidate from Queensland noted that he stressed his experience working in his family business because be felt that people were, “sick of having 20-year-old ALP staffers run in areas like this, where there is no chance of winning.”63 Candidates who were lawyers provided mixed reviews regarding whether their occupation was a positive or negative attribute to stress as a qualification for office. About half of the candidates relayed that they did not think that it was strategic to identify this aspect of themselves, while the other half noted that being a lawyer inferred specific skills such as “communication and negotiation,”64 and one Canadian woman explained with pride, “I’m a lawyer. And when you hear the trigger word lawyer, you know that person knows about legislation, being tough, and being adversarial.”65

Candidates with a business background noted they discussed this experience because they felt that it was a transferable skill; running a small business showed that they could “keep the books,”66 that they understood the need to “eliminate red tape,”67 and for those with an accounting background, that they understood the economy. A candidate from Alberta explained

61 Interview, October 17, 2014. 62 Interview, April 11, 2013. 63 Interview, May 1, 2013d. 64 Interview, August 25, 2014b. 65 Interview, June 13, 2016. 66 Interview, April 12, 2013. 67 Interview, May 6, 2013.

97 that he referred to himself as an entrepreneur, and “stressed the need for entrepreneurial spirit in government.”68

In terms of those who strategically avoided discussing their work qualifications, a few trends emerged. First, a number of young candidates noted that they did not want to call attention to the fact that they were still a student, so they would stress the work experience that they did have, such as a few candidates focusing on the fact that they worked for a few years before starting their studies, or that they had meaningful part time jobs in addition to their studies. Thus, it makes sense that younger candidates were more likely than the oldest candidates to stress their work qualifications, as they were doing so as means to prove themselves. Avoiding mentioning being a student was only pronounced among young candidates; the few candidates interviewed who had returned to school later in their lives were proud of the fact. While a couple of the candidates with a background in the entertainment industry did not think of their job as an attribute, a handful of candidates noted that their unique experience working outside the standard political pipeline industries was at attribute and offered a fresh perspective. A candidate with a background in auto-mechanics said that talking about this experience helped him relate to “real people,”69 while a young candidate from Canada noted that he did not feel that information technologists were well represented on the right side of the political spectrum, so that it was good to share his voice as a candidate for a party that lies on right side of the spectrum.70

A handful of candidates noted that because they had experience working in multiple sectors, they couched this as having broad-based appeal and could speak with many people. A candidate from Queensland with a background in trades and teaching explained that because she

68 Interview, June 21, 2016. 69 Interview, April 9, 2013a. 70 Interview, August 4, 2016a.

98 has her, “foot in two major sectors of the economy, I can identify with a lot of people. I could talk with them about their own industry and lives, so talking about my qualifications was more than just an introduction.”71

3.4.3 Featuring Educational Credentials

While almost two thirds of the candidates interviewed referenced their work qualifications as a part of their campaign communication, less than one quarter explicitly referenced their level of education. Of the small number who did, slight differences emerged with certain types of candidates being more likely to communicate about this aspect of their qualifications – women were more likely to do so than men, uncompetitive candidates were more likely to do so than competitive candidates (only two incumbents did so) and candidates representing progressive parties were more likely to do so than candidates representing conservative parties.

In terms of age, the results make sense. Young people were the least likely to reference their education, most likely because they wanted to distract from their age or student status.

Young candidates across parties noted that while they personally thought that their age groups should be represented, the occupation of “student” was not a qualification to highlight, even though some of them were working on advanced degrees. Both a man and a woman in their mid- twenties from Victoria noted that they stressed that while they were students, they had gone back to school and had gained professional experience prior to their return to studies.72 Additionally, two of the student candidates would mention to constituents while door knocking that they were in their final year if their student status came up,73 and almost all of the student candidates

71 Interview, May 2, 2013a. 72 Interviews, March 13, 2013a; March 13, 2013b. 73 Interview, May 1, 2013d; April 29, 2013c.

99 reported that they stressed their occupational qualifications gained from their part-time or former jobs in their campaign messages. Middle-aged candidates were the most likely to reference their education, which makes sense as they are of an age in which it is typical to be advancing in their careers, and thus they have no incentive to hide their education as it is not likely that they would be considered too young to run for office. The older candidates were the least likely to reference their education, which again makes sense as for many older candidates, having advanced levels of education is not as common among their age demographic as it is for younger generations.

One clear finding that emerged was that those with advanced levels of education did not highlight their achievement in this regard. An incumbent explained that when he was first elected, he never mentioned that he was a professor, as he thought that at best, the position would receive a neutral response from voters. While he knew that his credentials were valid when it came to policy once he was established as an elected Member, it was not what he stressed while running as a local MP.74 This sentiment was also echoed by an Australian Minister, who explained that her university degrees were more useful in her Ministerial role than in her role as local MP.75 A candidate from Alberta thought that her PhD could be a barrier between her and voters, and thus left the ‘doctor’ designation off of her campaign materials.76 A candidate from

British Columbia was dismayed by the fact that education was not better received by the voting public, and said, “Being qualified doesn’t translate into votes … I think I have presented myself as a well qualified person that has spent much of my career in public service and education … but, you know, I just don’t think that the population gives a shit.”77

74 Interview, July 20, 2016a. 75 Interview, April 30, 2013c. 76 Interview, August 2, 2016a. 77 Interview, July 27, 2016.

100

A few candidates, both women from Canada, also received backlash when they highlighted their education. One woman, who was a non-practicing medical doctor was accused of being a

“fake doctor,”78 while the other held a PhD in science and technology studies. She had thought that promoting her designation would be respected among immigrant communities, but instead faced backlash, and was accused of being elitist. She thought that this was, “disingenuous, unfair and sexist,”79 especially because the leader of the federal Liberal Party at the time, Michael

Ignatieff, who holds PhD in history, would refer to himself as “Dr. Ignatieff”. It is unclear to what extent there is a gendered dynamic to the backlash experienced by these women candidates, as none of the men interviewed who held a PhD designation featured this qualification in their campaign.

3.4.4 Featuring Political Experience

In addition to the 16 incumbent members interviewed, another 17 of the candidates had relevant elected political experience in another capacity, such as being elected for municipal level office or a school board position. In terms of referencing political experience, all the incumbents indicated that their main message of qualification for re-election related to their achievements as an elected member. An MP from Queensland explained that prior to becoming elected, his focus was on his qualifications to be a member – after his election, he only mentioned what he achieved as a Member.80 A member from Victoria noted that he would give examples of things he got done, “Enormous amounts of funding for the hospital in various stages, money for schools. It can even be a pothole!”81 A minister in Canada who faced a tough

78 Interview, August 7, 2014a. 79 Interview, July 29, 2016a. 80 Interview, April 16, 2013b. 81 Interview, March 22, 2013a.

101 race stressed that as a senior member of government, he could deliver goods to his riding, and two Independent women MPs stressed that they had and could continue to deliver results for their constituencies because they were not constrained by party politics.82

For candidates with other political experience, a slight gendered dimension emerged when it came to referencing their experience. While three quarters of the men who had been elected at the municipal-level discussed this experience in terms of a qualification to run for state/provincial-level office, only about half of the women with the same experience did so. One woman explained that she was hesitant to link herself to her council as it was not popular with all residents, and while she was an ALP candidate, the mayor of her council was a Liberal.83

Another candidate from Victoria noted that she did not think that people necessarily saw municipal council as valid experience for state office,84 and this experience was echoed by a candidate in Queensland who noted that she was accused of not having enough experience to run for state office, and she had had to defend herself saying that, “The closest experience to being a

MP is to either be a councillor or work for senator, so she actually had the most (emphasis hers) relevant experience.”85

3.4.5 Local Connection and Residency as a Qualification

The last notable finding about qualifications to run for office concerns local residency. Just over one third of the candidates interviewed considered being a resident of their constituency as a qualification to run for office. In terms of the types of candidates who are more likely to highlight this as a qualification, there were no real differences found based on party or age,

82 Interviews, May 26, 23; May 8, 2014. 83 Interview, April 3, 2013a. 84 Interview, March 24, 2013. 85 Interview, May 15, 2013

102 however men were slightly more likely than women to bring up this attribute as qualification, and so too were competitive compared to uncompetitive candidates. The gap widened when looking only at women, as competitive women candidates were twice as likely to discuss their local candidacy than non-competitive women, with no similar differences found between competitive and uncompetitive men.

For many candidates, highlighting their residency not only meant that they would talk about their own lived experience, but also would mention their family’s history in the area, referring to themselves as being a fourth or even fifth generation local. To convey this, candidates would include in their brochures information about the actual number of years their family had lived in the riding, with a candidate from Victoria boasting 120 years,86 or pictures of them with their grandparents, identifying their parents and grandparents as long term residents in the photo caption.87 A woman MP from Queensland even included a childhood picture of herself, in a school uniform standing in front of a local school that still operated in her riding.88

While being born and raised in a riding was clearly an attribute identified by many candidates, those who had moved into the riding still highlighted their residency, stressing their work connections, community group participation, and for some, drawing on their family connection by saying that their kids were born and raised in the area.

3.4.6 Discussion: Qualifications

Typically, gendered candidate quality is studied in terms of whether women or men are more or less qualified in terms of their occupational and educational background to run for

86 Interview, April 29, 2013b. 87 Interviews, March 13, 2013b; May 3, 2013a; May 15, 2013. 88 Interview, May 3, 2013a.

103 office. This study examines the issue from a different perspective and looks instead at how these qualifications are communicated. A key finding and contribution to the literature is that while the interviews suggest that women are more likely than men to explicitly state their work background as a qualification for office, they are no more likely to strategically consider whether they should. For both men and women, some candidates noted reservations about highlighting this background, because they did not necessarily believe that their qualifications would be perceived in a positive light. In addition, there was no gendered dimension to the industries that caused candidates to take pause. Among lawyers, those who worked in entertainment industry, and those with a trades background, there were both men and women who felt that their experience was either not valid or ought not to be the highlight of their campaign.

The findings on citing educational qualifications were somewhat perplexing. The literature suggests that women are more likely to have a higher education than the men they run against (Black, 2008; Black and Erickson, 2003) and while the women that were interviewed were more likely than men to reference their education, this was not a strategy that was practiced by the majority of competitive candidates. In fact, those with the highest levels of education were hesitant to highlight their achievements, as it was thought that it could be seen as elitist or create a barrier between them and their constituents.

There is some evidence that the interview data support the findings from Lawless and

Fox’s seven-year panel study, “The Citizen Political Ambition Study.” Lawless and Fox (2005,

2010, 2011) note that even though both men and women rely on the same factors when evaluating themselves as candidates, women are simply less likely than men to believe that they meet these criteria. While there were only 13 candidates interviewed with experience as a

104 municipal-level candidate, women were clearly less likely to highlight this experience as a qualification to run for office compared to the men who had the exact same experience.

Lastly, this study found no evidence that women were more likely than men to draw on

“typical female experience” (Larson, 2001) such as their experiences related to time spent with children, charities, church, community activities, garden groups and women’s clubs as a qualification for public office. In fact, very few of the candidates stressed their experience working in an extra-occupational capacity, and for those who did, there was no gender difference evident.

3.5 Self-Presentation: Character Traits

A character trait is a distinguishing quality or aspect of a person’s behaviour. There are hundreds of character traits, some of which are generally considered positive like caring, strong, loyal and empathetic, some of which are considered negative such as impatient, weak, unfaithful or jealous, and some that are relatively neutral such as predictable, or quiet. In general, for many character traits, whether they are positive or negative is context-dependent and subjective. This study sought to assess whether candidates strategically emphasized character traits in a gendered way, and found that among the candidates interviewed, the answer was largely no. While many candidates could rhyme off character traits that they thought they had, relatively few considered how they could actually communicate a specific element of their character, let alone devise a clear strategy to do so.

As discussed in Chapter One, the literature on character traits associated with politicians tends to draw three important conclusions: that characteristics voters associate with politicians tend to be stereotypically masculine (Hoyt and Simon, 2017; Lawless, 2004); that context

105 matters - sometimes the electoral context is suitable for stereotypically feminine attributes to be identified as important, and sometimes the electoral context is suitable for stereotypically masculine attributes to be identified as important (Burrell, 1994; Alexander and Anderson, 1993;

Huddy and Terkildsen, 1993); and that both men and women face a catch-22 situation when the traits that they feel they should emphasised for their election contradict their gender, as role congruity theory suggests that they could face a backlash for doing so (Eagly and Karau, 2002).

3.5.1 Study Results: Communicating Character?

Candidates were asked specific questions about how they conveyed their character during their campaign. Initially, I asked what the main character traits were that they tried to convey, and I followed up this question by asking if they had deliberately tried to convey certain characteristics such as “toughness,” “compassion,” “fellow citizenship” and “leadership.” It became apparent as the interviews progressed that the majority of candidates interviewed for this study did not carefully consider the character traits that they wanted to convey. Interviews were conducted first in Victoria, then in Queensland, BC and lastly in Alberta. By the time the

Canadian interviews were conducted, I raised the question to ensure that Canadian candidates did not have a radically different response but did not probe deep into this line of questioning as it was apparent that like their Australian counterparts, Canadians did not strategically consider or communicate aspects of their character.

3.5.2 Communicating Character: A Disingenuous Endeavour

As stated, a clear finding from this study is that in terms of communicating about one’s character, most candidates simply do not consider this aspect of themselves as something to

106 communicate about during their campaign. While almost all candidates articulated that they had put thought into how they presented their physical appearance, this was not the case for displaying character traits. About a third of candidates could provide an example of a specific character trait that they thought they had, such as being a good listener, approachable, or competent, but only half of them were then able to articulate how they conveyed this trait. The other half were offering their responses as a reflection of their behaviour and communication, as opposed to reporting that they had a predetermined consideration that the character trait they mentioned was important and an active strategy to convey it.

Of the candidates who could articulate a strategy, it was more commonly reported by competitive candidates, and there is some evidence that gender may have been a factor. A few women stressed that they had conformed to women’s gender stereotypes, such as being caring or empathetic, and displayed this by including photos in their campaign materials of them helping others.89 Similarly, a young woman noted that her team had decided to run her as a nice candidate, and to let the retiring member do all of the negative attacks on her main opponent.90

In terms of contradicting gender stereotypes, one man, an MP from Queensland explained that because of his size and occupational background, he needed to soften not toughen his image. He said that he did so by showing pictures of him with his children, talking about helping people in need, and never giving an aggressive speech.91 Meanwhile, one woman, an NDP candidate from

Alberta noted that she would specifically note that she was a lawyer because she knew that people associated that with being tough, which worked in her “rustic” riding.92 Beyond these examples, two NDP candidates from Canada, both a man and a woman relayed that they

89 Interviews, March 27, 2013b; April 30, 2013c. 90 Interview, May 15, 2013. 91 Interview, April 12, 2013. 92 Interview, June 13, 2016.

107 specifically conveyed that they were listeners. The man communicated this by practicing active listening when speaking with constituents, repeating back what they said to him, 93 and the woman remarked that she knew before getting to a doorstep that she wanted to convey this characteristic and would deliberately, “shut up and listen.”94 Two Members, a woman from

Alberta and a man from Queensland said that they conveyed “integrity”. The man said that he did so by being authentic and not posting disingenuous photos such as him “kissing babes,”95 while the woman noted that she printed the word on her campaign brochures.96 Similarly, a

Liberal candidate from Victoria who wanted to be known as having “community values” also explicitly printed this on his materials.97

A handful of candidates reacted in a somewhat defensive manner to these questions, and their response was conveyed in a way that they thought highlighting character traits was disingenuous or dishonest. When asked if they did anything to appear compassionate, a Liberal

MP from Queensland replied, “Not knowingly. But it’s just who I am. I don’t have to manufacture it.”98 Similarly a Victorian man replied, “I don’t think I tried (emphasis his) to do anything. People see through that bullshit so easily.”99 A Liberal woman MP from BC said, “I didn’t worry about [communicating being tough]. I think that the reason that Gordon Campbell approached me is because I project gravitas. I speak very directly and forthrightly. I think I come across as plain speaking. That’s just how I am.”100

93 Interview, August 25, 2014a. 94 Interview, August 7, 2014b. 95 Interview, May 8, 2013. 96 Interview, June 15, 2016. 97 Interview, April 4, 2013. 98 Interview, April 10, 2013b. 99 Interview, March 12, 2013a. 100 Interview, October 17, 2014.

108

For a few of the Greens candidates, they felt that their membership with the Green Party indicated that they were a compassionate person as that was a value that the Green Party as a whole espoused. One candidate explained that “As Greens, we are always conscious about caring for people. Other political parties might be tough on crime, asylum seekers and the economy. We take more of a friendly, participatory, approach.”101 Another said that they “didn’t need to engineer that kind of perspective. In Australia, Greens are seen as compassionate to a fault.”102

However, one Greens candidate from Victoria who was in a very competitive seat noted that she had worked with a communications professional to ensure that she was conveying the correct balance between compassion, and economic realism.103

3.5.3 Discussion: Presenting Character Traits

The main finding from this study on communicating character traits is that the majority of candidates do not do it. While candidates clearly have self-perceptions of certain character traits that they believe they espouse, very few messaged about their character as a deliberate, preconceived strategy.

A few of the candidate interviews deliberately manifested feminine stereotypes, while two candidates deliberately engaged in countering gendered stereotypes – a man indicated that he tried to soften his image because he was concerned that he appeared too tough, while a woman deliberately highlighted her occupation as a means to convey that she was tough.

101 Interview, March 13, 2013a. 102 Interview, March 12, 2013b. 103 Interview, March 28, 2013.

109

A handful of candidates perceived this type of communication to be disingenuous, believing that a character trait was something innate and demonstrated, as opposed to being communicated about.

3.6 Introducing Yourself: Conclusions

In this chapter, several aspects of candidates’ self-presentation were identified and examined to assess if gender differences emerged in how they presented themselves. These aspects included candidate physical appearance, stated qualifications to run for office, and character traits. The research question that this project seeks to answer is: To what extent does gender and gendered stereotypes consciously affect campaign communication among local candidates? A few findings lend themselves to clearly supporting an answer to this question, while others are more ambiguous.

In terms of observable differences, evidence from the interviews clearly show that in many ways, men and women communicate similarly. For example, both men and women stressed their local residency as a qualification to run for office, for the majority of men and women, character traits were not identified nor strategically portrayed, and many of the candidates interviewed relayed that they attempted to blend their personal and party image – by wearing (or not wearing) party branded colours, and among green party candidates, conveying a professional demeanour to counter perceived negative stereotypes. However, this study also finds that men and women do also communicate differently in certain respects. Women candidates are more likely than men to display a professional image in terms of their appearance, and they are more likely to explicitly reference their occupational and educational backgrounds as a qualification for office. However, there are two important caveats to these findings.

110

The first is that when the analysis focuses on competitive candidates, while gender differences in self-presentation do not disappear, they do lesson. Thus, by being in a competitive position, and especially once elected and running as an incumbent, women’s campaigns start to look like men’s. What is less clear however, and warrants future research, is whether this is because women discover that conforming to men’s approaches is correlated with winning, or whether these women gain confidence, and feel that they can relax their level of professionalism and focus on making connections with voters, to be re-elected. Approachability in terms of appearance, breaking down barriers between Member’s perceived “elite-ness” and constituents, and relatability as an ordinary member of a community were all relayed by competitive candidates and importantly, by incumbents as important communication strategies.

Addressing the aspect of gender stereotypes, and how they affect campaign communication is more challenging. For example, while women were more likely than men to dress professionally, not a single woman interviewed articulated that they did so because they thought society expected more from them because they were woman. In fact, of the handful of candidates who relayed that they felt politicians should look more professional than the company they were with, half were men. Similarly, while women were more likely than men to stress their occupational and educational background, which may suggest that they are trying to prove themselves, further investigation revealed that candidates – men and women, avoided discussing certain backgrounds precisely because they were seen as elite, such as was the case for some lawyers, and most of those who held advanced educational degrees and worked for universities as professors.

111

In the next chapter, a related aspect of candidate identity, their family life, is discussed.

This aspect of candidate identity may be the most important, particularly for parent candidates, as it concerns communicating about those with whom they have the closest relationships with.

112

Chapter Four: Family Life Presentation

4.1 Featuring Families and Family Roles in Campaigns

The smiling politician with his wife, three children and bandana-sporting golden retriever is a stereotypical image that comes to mind when thinking of candidate campaign materials.

Sharing and even focusing on family details in political campaigns is, however, on the face of it, somewhat peculiar. Families are not elected – individuals are. Despite this, the role that spouses and children play in political candidates’ campaigns is far from trivial. For the most publicly displayed office in the world, the President of the United States, candidates’ family members are routinely included in their campaign events, and if elected, their spouse is allocated an office and office staff. In recent years, the issue-priorities identified by this office have been a major feature of the White House agenda, even though the person occupying this office is neither elected, paid, nor constitutionally recognized (see Burns, 2008; Eksterowicz and Paynter, 2000). Outside of the

US, the spouses of party leaders are also featured in campaigns, albeit to a lesser extent, and the same is true for many candidates contesting lower levels of office; their family members are often included in candidate brochures, reported on by the press when they attend events, and once elected, various family members accompany or even represent them at political events.

The last aspect of candidates’ self-presentation focuses on whether and how they feature their family life. This chapter examines if there are gender differences in the way that candidates depict their family status and analyzes the extent to which these decisions are consciously strategized. This aspect of self-presentation is perhaps the most personal for candidates, as it concerns the display of individuals from their closest relationships, and potentially exposes their family members to criticism via unwanted negative attention from the media, their political

113 opponents, and voters. The main finding of this analysis is that while both men and women candidates generally think that presenting a “normal” family is a good way to connect with voters, women were more reluctant than men to display their children via revealing mediums such as photographs or to provide too many of their personal details. A clear sentiment that emerged from the interview data was that women were more likely than men to feel that featuring their children in their campaigns was a violation of their children’s right to privacy.

While gender seemed to affect the content of candidates’ campaigns, what is less clear is the extent to which candidates consciously crafted their family-based messaging as a result of considering gender stereotypes. While a few mothers noted that they had prepared communication strategies about their children’s care, it was also found that several mothers deliberately featured their young children.

4.2 Family Structure: Mothers and Fathers, but Fewer Mothers

One of the key differences between men and women politicians’ personal lives concerns their family composition. Politicians are more likely to be married and have children than not

(Stalsburg and Kleinberg, 2016: 297). Despite this, among politicians, men are more likely than women to have children and particularly young children still living in the family home, and women are more likely to be divorced or never married than men. This difference in family composition has existed since women started entering into legislatures in greater numbers during the 1980s and 1990s, and it continues to persist across developed democracies (Campbell and

Childs, 2014; van Zoonen, 1998, 2006; Thomas, 2002; Burrell, 1994; Lawless and Fox, 2005:

61; Black and Erickson, 2000:11; McGlen and O’Connor, 1995; Studlar and McAllister, 1991;

Considine and Deutchman, 1996).

114

Recognizing differences in family composition is important for gendered campaign analyses because candidates do feature their families in campaigns, and the concept of “the family” has become an important political issue. The women who run, however, are substantially less likely to have a young family to present, and for those who do, they may face a conundrum about featuring their family life. This is because while gendered stereotypes may expect young women to have children, they also expect women to be the primary caregiver to those children, which is largely incompatible with the perceived job description of a politician.

4.2.1 The Evaluation of Parents: Have a Wife, or Be the Mom Who Does It All

Like stereotypes regarding gendered political abilities, women political contenders also face different expectations than men regarding their domestic roles and responsibilities. First, women are expected to be mothers, and there is some evidence that childless women are evaluated more negatively than childless men. In a study of parenthood and candidacy, women candidates without children were found to be rated the least favorably behind candidates who were mothers, who were fathers, and who were childless men (Stalsburg, 2010). Furthermore, voters prefer candidates with traditional household profiles such as being married and having children than less traditional ones (Teele et al., 2018). This leaves women candidates in a double bind in that they are expected to have children, i.e., as conforming to their gender, to be evaluated positively. At the same time, however, they are also expected to be the primary caretaker of those children, which for mothers of younger children, requires, among other things, a commitment of time as well physical, emotional, and social support. The skills required of primary caregivers are not normally seen as part of a legislator’s job requirements and a mother’s ability to work and care for children is often raised as an issue when women seek political and

115 related opportunities. A recent example of this was illustrated by the media’s focus on Amy

Coney Barrett’s ability to serve as a Supreme Court Justice given that she is the mother to seven children (Keating, 2020). For fathers, it is assumed – very often correctly – that they have a partner who provides this care (Thomas and Lambert, 2017; van Zoonen, 1998, 2006; Stalsburg,

2012).

The reality that women are the primary source for domestic labour and childcare affects their potential for and actual candidacies of political office. Despite women’s entrance into the paid work force, women, and especially mothers, continue to be responsible for the bulk of domestic labour in the home, especially childcare (Davaki, 2016; Pew Research Centre, 2013;

Bianchi et al., 2012; Eagly and Carli, 2007), and mothers have been found to think that they should be the primary caregiver to their children, experiencing guilt as they struggle to balance their time constraints (Bianchi et al., 2006; Guendozi, 2006; Holcomb, 1998; Parker, 2009 in

Stalsburg and Kleinberg, 2016). In terms of even considering running for office, a report by the

Inter-Parliamentary Union investigated perceived barriers to entry and found that for women, their domestic responsibilities were the greatest deterrent to them entering politics, as well as a lack of support from their family (Ballington, 2008). For men, neither of these considerations ranked amongst their top five barriers. Other studies have also found that children are a significant barrier to women’s, but not men’s, political candidacies. Lawless and Fox’s (2005) research on potential political candidates shows that a majority of women (65/100) thought that children make running for office more difficult, while only a small minority (3/100) of men felt the same. The perceived obligation to be close to family is further evidenced by Silbermann’s

(2015) research that finds women are less likely to run for legislative office in districts further from state capitals. Even amongst very young women, she found that they hold an expectation

116 that they will need to work close to home. Silbermann further found that when faced with a hypothetical decision to run for office, women students weigh the proximity of their home to the legislature twice as heavily as men students do. Given the real and perceived barriers that young children create for women’s candidacy, it is no wonder that when a mother of young children runs for office, the need to communicate about childcare arrangements become a consideration, or even a component of her campaign.

From the early days of women’s political candidacies, it has been common enough that those with younger children have had to communicate their childcare arrangements. Women candidates are more likely than men to be asked about childcare provisions in the event of electoral success, and as such, they need to anticipate that having young children will require them to defend themselves and communicate that they are not “abandoning” their children

(Kirkpatrick, 1974; McGlen, and O’Connor, 1995). These occurrences are hardly out-dated. In

2014, Lisa Madigan, Attorney General of Illinois, was rumoured to be running for governor of

Illinois. In a single interview, she was asked three times if she could raise her children and be an elected official (McKenney, 2012 in Thomas and Bittner, 2017: 3). Similarly, Jacinda Ardern,

Prime Minister of New Zealand, was 37 years old, married, and childless when elected. While she initially entertained questions about her plans to have children, the questioning was relentless, resulting in her taking a stand against the intrusive questioning during one of the first media interviews following her win, telling the reporter, "It is totally unacceptable in 2017 to say that women should have to answer that question [about childbearing] in the workplace. It is unacceptable, it is unacceptable" (Ainge Roy, 2017).

In addition to candidates’ self-perception about the incompatibility of their candidacy and motherhood, and reporters inquiring about childcare arrangements, voters have also been found

117 to have concerns. A study conducted by the Barbara Lee Foundation (2001) found that a focus group of voters expressed anxiety about women running for higher levels of office because of the time constraints between their familial and office responsibilities, a concern not raised for men candidates (in Stalsburg and Kleinberg, 2016:288). Similarly, a study by the Pew Research

Center found that the American public generally believes that the trend of mothers working outside the home is bad for society, an opinion more pronounced amongst Republican voters

(Taylor, et al., 2007 in Stalsburg and Kleinberg, 2016:288). If women candidates are aware of this perception, it may be the case that they deliberately try to hide a young family, particularly among women running for more conservative parties.

4.2.2 Displaying Parenthood: His Picture-Perfect Family

Studies show that candidates respond to familial stereotypes concerning their domestic roles via their campaign communications. Men candidates have been found to be more likely than their women counterparts to discuss and present their family life through various mediums including family presence at political events and displaying pictures of their families in their print- and film-based advertisements, as well as on their websites (Thomas and Lambert, 2017; Kunovich and Wall, 2012; Sapiro et al., 2011). When mother candidates and politicians mention their family life, they are more likely to explicitly mention that their children are grown, to avoid the terms “wife” and “mother” compared to men’s use of “husband” and “father”, and for mother candidates who have younger children, to provide a vague and ambiguous description of their family life (Kunovich and Wall, 2012; but see Campbell and Cowley, 2018 who find that men and women politicians in the UK are equally likely to display their family life).

118

By virtue of being male, men candidates already fit the desired political leader stereotypes of a tough, strong leader. There are contexts, however, in which a softening of this image may be to their benefit, such as when the electoral context is focused more on domestic matters relating to compassionate issues, such as education or health, or if the candidate is perceived as too aggressive and needs to humanize their image. Dittmar (2010) argues that when father candidates present their children and family life, it can have the effect of softening their image and appeal to voters who are averse to too much masculinity. In addition, family presentations also convey that men candidates are “normal” in terms of being heterosexual and that they can reproduce (Hird and Abshoff, 2000; Thornton and Young-DeMarco, 2001 in Stalburg and Kleinberg, 2016). In terms of facing a negative reaction from voters regarding their concern for who might care for their small children, father candidates are relatively unaffected by this family display because it is assumed that they have a (female) spouse to care for the children (Stalsburg, 2012; van

Zoonen, 1998, 2004, 2006 in Thomas and Lambert, 2017: 139). In addition, a father candidate’s family is seen as a support system, while for women, their family is seen as in need of, rather than offering, support to the mother candidate (Carroll and Dittmar, 2009: 46 in Stalsburg and

Kleinberg, 2016). The general conclusion from most studies on gendered presentations of family life is that women politicians are reluctant to remind voters of domestic roles because of media coverage and voter beliefs about the incompatibility of the roles (Banwart, 2006; Bystrom et al.,

2004; Larson, 2001; Niven and Zilber, 2001a, 2001b).

It may be the case that mother candidates will explicitly mention their children if they are older or adults, so that they can still receive the motherhood “bonus”. Mothers with younger children may be careful to either avoid mentioning them in a way that reveals their youth, or they will consciously show them alongside their spouse, or grandmothers so that the question of who

119 will care for the children is not an issue that voters consider. For father candidates, it may be the case that they are less likely to specifically reference the age of grown children, and for those with young children, it would be unlikely that they have devised a strategy to communicate that the children have a caregiver in place.

4.2.3 Childless? Cue the Loving Daughter and Proud Auntie

Managing communications about younger children can be difficult for younger women candidates, but so too is communicating about being childless. As mentioned, childless women have been found to be evaluated the least favourably among parents and childless men by voters

(Stalburg, 2010; Kaufmann and Bell, 2015, but see Sacco, 2007). An explanation for this is that motherhood is seen as natural for women, and when women violate this cultural stereotype, expectancy violation theory, which focuses on how individuals react when confronted with an unanticipated violation of a social norm (see Burgoon, 1976) explains that they may be subject to backlash, particularly from those “who perceive non-traditional women as a threat to individual self-esteem or group opportunities” (Beirnat et al., 1999; Rudman and Fairchild, 2004 in

Kauffman and Bell, 2015).

There is an abundance of examples that show the negative ways in which childless women candidates are depicted and attacked by the media, their opposition, and voters. In Germany in

2005, Chancellor Angela Merkel was attacked by her predecessor’s wife, Doris Schröder-Köpf, who alleged that she did not share the experiences of most women, referring to the fact that she was childless (Connolly, 2005). In Australia, then Deputy Leader of the Australian Labor Party,

Julia Gillard, was accused of being “deliberately” barren by an opposition senator, Bill

Heffernan. During the United Kingdom Conservative Leadership race in 2016, Andrea Leadsom

120 asserted that she had, “a very real stake” in the country’s future because she was a mum, which was interpreted as an attack against her childless opponent, Theresa May. Also, in 2016, The

Sunday Times in Britain published an article regarding the miscarriage suffered by Nicola

Sturgeon, leader of the Scottish National Party. Alongside the story ran a side panel that pictured childless politicians, but only displayed women rather than any of their childless men colleagues

(Nagesh, 2016). When it comes to facing criticism for being childless, it is very difficult to find examples in which childless men have faced as harsh of coverage as their childless women counterparts.

What may be expected to be seen in this study is that childless candidates regardless of gender may hide their family status, so as to not draw attention to the fact that they lack children and are thus deviating from what is considered “normal”. Gender differences might emerge in that childless women, who are evaluated more harshly than childless men, may try to fill the

“nurturer” stereotype expected of them by emphasizing their role in another caring capacity such as featuring their role as an aunt, loving daughter, or their experience working with vulnerable populations that require care. It may be the case that both childless men and women candidates avoid highlighting platform issues that pertain to children, specifically to ward off accusations of lacking the empathy or life experience to support these initiatives compared to parent candidates.

4.2.4 A Parent’s Expertise? Being the Ideal Policy Maker for Children’s Issues

Becoming a parent presents a radical life change, and it is not surprising that this change in identity and circumstance has an effect on the behaviour of both legislators and voters. Being a parent, and particularly a parent of young children, affects the legislative activity of both men and women politicians. Bryant and Hellwege (2018) have found that parent legislators are more

121 likely than their non-parent counterparts to introduce legislation related to parents and children, and it is particularly pronounced amongst congressional mothers of young children. Having daughters has also been found to influence legislative behaviour, with legislators more likely to vote liberally on issues, particularly those that concern reproductive rights when they have daughters compared to only sons (Washington, 2008; Bryante and Helwege, 2019, but see Costa et al., 2019 for contradictory findings). This effect also has been found to exist on the related activity of those in other professions, such as judges who have been found to consistently vote in a more feminist fashion than their counterparts who have only sons, and corporate chief executive officers who lead their companies towards more socially responsible behaviour when they have daughters (Glynn and Sen, 2015; Crongyist and Yu, 2017).

Parenthood impacts voters as well, but the literature regarding the impact on fathers is somewhat mixed. Once women become mothers, they are likely to liberalize their opinions, adopting a form of “maternal thinking,” wherein they become more likely to be supportive of government policies that aim to help others, particularly those who are disadvantaged in some way (Elshtain, 1981; 1983; 1987; Ruddick, 1989; Sapiro, 1983 in Elder and Green, 2007, see further Elder and Green 2012, 2016). For men, the relationship between parenthood and political opinion is more complicated. When men become fathers, it has been found that there are conflicting pressures; on the one hand, their children would benefit from social programs, while on the other hand, they are faced with the pressure of feeling that they need to be the primary provider for their family, and social programs that increase their tax burden is in contradiction with that responsibility (Iversen and Rosenbluth, 2006 in Elder and Green, 2016). Recent findings, however, have suggested that a more liberal attitude toward government spending is affecting fathers as well (Elder and Green, 2016) which may be explained by today’s fathers

122 having a desire to be more, “emotionally responsive and nurturing parents” (Dick 2011, 107;

Miller 2010 in Elder and Green, 2016).

What we may expect to find is that candidate parents are more likely to present their role as a parent if they represent parties on the left-side of the spectrum, which traditionally have tended to include more children-oriented social programs in their party platforms and legislative agendas. For father-candidates, and particularly those running for conservative parties, it may be the case that they use their family as a way to couch their stance of fiscal management and responsibility, citing their experience dealing with the economic pressures related to the cost of raising a family.

4.2.5 Party and Gendered Family Life Depictions

An important intersection that emerges when studying campaigns is that between party, gender and family depictions. Studies that analyze family presentation by party have found that women from conservative parties use their motherhood in distinctive ways, ones suggesting that the experience of mothering children is a legitimate qualification for public office.

A number of contemporary examples are available. Former New Zealand Prime Minister

Jenny Shipley was willing to display and discuss her children to highlight her motherhood role in comparison to her childless opponent (Sawer, 2012b; Dore 1999). Sarah Palin, the 2008

Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, often used her mothering role as justification for her qualification to run for office, presenting herself as a “mama grizzly” who protected children’s welfare.

In a study of candidate brochures, Republican women were found to be more likely than

Republican men to include pictures of themselves in a nurturing role (such as caring for children

123 or the elderly), while Democratic women were less likely than Democratic men to do the same

(Larson, 2001: 112-13). Thus, it appears that while women candidates generally are less likely than men to present their own family and domestic roles, differences emerge when party is included in the analysis, with some conservative women candidates using their motherhood experience as a type of qualification for why they should be elected to office. An exception is a study by Schreiber (2012) who found that Republican women shied away from their gendered identities and support for “women's issues.” Additionally, she did not find a difference between the family life presented on the websites of Democratic and Republican women. It may be the case that conservative mother candidates’ rationale for featuring their children in their campaigns is because they can link the responsibilities of motherhood with the responsibilities and skill sets that being a legislator requires.

For father candidates, there may be an emphasis on their role as a father in heterosexual, nuclear families to appeal to a voting base that values this type of family structure, compared to candidates representing more progressive parties, who tend to be more fluid with how they conceive of family relationships (Gillepsie, 2000; Critchlow, 2005; Freeman, 1993 in Stalsburg and Kleinberg, 2016). Additionally, it could be the case that men candidates from conservative parties highlight their fatherhood role to present a softer image. High-profile men conservative politicians such as David Cameron and Tony Abbott have used their family life to battle public sentiments about their parties being less in touch with family, by featuring them in domestic roles, such as with their families, doing household chores and promoting family causes (Yates,

2009: 92; Smith, 2008: 564 in Johnson, 2013). For the participants of this study, a softer image may be beneficial because they are contesting seats at the provincial/state level, and at this level,

124 the majority of budget items relate to caring public sectors like education and health, as opposed to the security related sectors of policing, or defense.

In terms of voter evaluations, Kaufmann and Bell (2015) have found that women candidates who violate gender norm expectations, i.e. that they are married and have children, are evaluated more negatively by voters who hold traditional values towards a woman’s role in the household. As such, we may see that women candidates representing conservative parties may make a special effort towards communicating their mother and wife status, but for those with younger children, they may be discrete as to not reveal that there are young children in the home who require care. For women candidates from progressive parties, it may be the case that they are more willing to showcase younger children, so that they can benefit from being seen as the natural choice to represent the children-friendly policies that their parties are more likely to include in their platforms and legislative agendas.

4.2.6 Presenting The Good Wife … but Who is The Good Husband?

Much of the literature on candidates’ family displays focus on the presentation of children, and voter evaluations of parents, rather than how they feature their spouse, and their own role as a husband or wife. Despite the literature gap, spouses are also prominently featured in many candidates’ campaigns, generally accompanying the coverage that features their children if they have them. Relative to the gendered use of children amongst political candidates, less scholarship is focused on the presentation of spouses, and the role that they play, with the notable exceptions of analyses that focus on the spouses of American presidential candidates (Burrell et al., 2009; MacManus and Quecan, 2008; Winfield and Freidman, 2003). Outside of the US, some scholarship has been devoted to spouses of party leaders during election campaigns in the UK,

125

Germany and France (for example see Oscar Reyes, 2003, Holtz-Bacha, 2004 and Kuhn, 2004); but for political contests at lower levels of office, analyses focusing on how spouses are displayed in campaign communications has not been a major focus of the literature on candidate family displays. As such, this research project provides a contribution to the literature for not only addressing the inclusion of spouses at a lower level of office, but also for specifically analyzing how this inclusion is gendered.

In general, for men candidates, the “political profitability of wife and family rests upon their association with ordinariness and the capacity for empathy, good character, and moral worth” (Smith, 2008 in Higgins and Smith, 2013). With the notable exception of Dennis

Thatcher, Todd Palin, Bill Clinton and most recently, Douglas Emhoff, there has been far fewer instances to assess the role of political women’s spouses at high levels of office, and what type of association is most beneficial to a women leader. It is likely that as women increasingly take on leadership positions, the role of their spouses will be examined more thoroughly. To date, rigorous scholarship that compares the gendered use of spouses, and the depiction of same-sex couples, has not been conducted.

At the level of American presidential candidates, VanHorn (2010) examines the political activity of candidates’ spouses from 1940 – 2008 and finds that candidates’ wives have and continue to act as an effective surrogate for their husband, campaigning with them, and on their behalf with the result of relaying his authenticity as a human being to the electorate. These wives have taken on increasingly important roles, making more appearances and speeches, however they tend to stay within the traditionally feminine sphere of influence when giving speeches and interviews. Furthermore, it has been shown that public opinion on the role of wives favors their

126 embodiment of the traditional First Lady role rather than as a policy advocate or “co-president”

(Loizeau, 2015; Burrell et al., 2009).

As mentioned, at the level of the local candidate, relatively little scholarship has been conducted on the presentation of spouses and the role they play in their partner’s campaign. One notable exception is Harmer (2016) who examines the reception of candidates’ wives by the press in the UK from 1918 to 2010. She finds that in the post-war years, wives played an important role, communicating with women voters and symbolized the type of man their husband was. She references an article from the Daily Mail in 1923 that reports women voters would, “feel instinctively that they will learn more about their candidate by studying the sort of woman he has married than by listening to his devastating lists of import and export statistics”

(Daily Mail, 1923 in Harmer, 2016: 859). Setting aside the sexist direction on what women’s political interests ought to be, wives were initially an important aspect of political campaigns in that they had a symbolic role, as well as were charged with outreach toward a sizeable voting demographic – women. By the 1950s, however, coverage was devoted to only the party leaders’ wives, and by the late 1980s, leaders’ wives who took on more than a passive role were criticized for interfering (Harmer, 2016). Still, Harmer found that the spouses of party leaders remained an important focus of leaders’ campaigns for the 2010 UK election, and were featured more prominently by the media than women candidates. White (2010) noted that, “The Sunday Times reported that there were far more column inches devoted to the leaders' wives during the election than to all of the women candidates added together (White, 2010 in Higgins and Smith, 2013).

While the role of candidate wives in campaigns has changed over the years, for at least some candidates – party leaders, their spouse is still an important feature of their campaign.

127

In terms of voter evaluations on the marital status of political candidates, it has been found that married candidates receive more positive evaluations than their single counterparts, and that this is especially true for women candidates (Kaufmann and Bell, 2015; Teele et al.,

2018). This aligns with role congruity theory, in that women are expected to be married, so that they can have children (see Eagly and Karau, 2002). What we may expect to find in the study is that women candidates will mention in a biographical reference that they have a husband, while men candidates may be more likely to feature their wife more prominently, but in a passive role as a supporter of him and their family, rather than in terms of a partner that will help represent the constituency.

4.3 Family Display: Study Results

Respondents were asked if and how they used their family members during their campaign.

For those who had a partner and/or children, they were asked about how much their family members assisted with campaign activities; whether they were featured in campaign communications and, if yes, the details of how they were featured; and what considerations or reservations they had about involving their family members. Parents were asked to what degree they would talk about their children directly with voters, presenting themselves as a parent. For candidates who either did not have a spouse or children, they were asked if they would theoretically use them in a future campaign if their family structure were to change. Candidates who chose not to include and feature their family in their campaign were asked why. Given the literature on women politician’s reluctance to feature their family life, it was anticipated that the women interviewed would be somewhat reluctant to share information about their family life. As family is a very personal matter, the questionnaire was structured to address family displays

128 toward the end of the interview, so as to benefit from rapport building. All interviewees were willing to share details about their family composition during the interview. As many of the candidates had their family help with their campaign activities, once they mentioned a family member, the opportunity was used as a leeway to discuss their family’s involvement.

4.3.1 Participants’ Family Composition

For the participants of this study, being a parent was the norm, as Table 4.1 details below.

About three quarters of all candidates interviewed were parents, and the proportion of mothers and fathers was similar. In terms of having younger children still living in the home, just over a third of all respondents had either young children still living in their home for their most recent campaign, or they had had the experience of having young children during one of their earlier campaigns, which they reflected on during the interviews. Of those participants who had experience running for an election while having young children, just over half were women candidates. While having children and young children is the norm for men candidates, the proportion of women interviewed who had the same experience is relatively more than what the literature suggests is true of candidates and legislators generally. Amongst the childless candidates, of the 13 childless men, nine were under 30 and four were over 30, while for the childless women candidates, five were under 30, while six were over 30. In terms of having a partner, over three quarters of the candidates were in a relationship during their campaign, and again, the proportion of men and women is very similar. Compared to studies that have analyzed the marital and parental status of legislators in western democracies (see for example Campbell and Childs, 2014), the proportion of women candidates who are married and have children, and specifically, young children, in the current study is high. The increased number of women

129 candidates that fit into the wife/mother category provides a rich opportunity to examine the rationale behind women candidates’ inclusion or exclusion of their family life in their campaign communications.

Table 4.1: Candidate Family Composition Parental Status Marital Status Men Women Total Men Women Total Parent 39 28 67 In Domestic 42 32 74 Partnership Childless 13 12 24 Single 10 8 18 Total 52 40 92 Total 52 40 92 Parent to Young Child(ren) 19 15 34 During Most Recent Campaign

4.3.2 Family Displays: Themes and Rationality

When it comes to displaying a candidate’s family life, the overall finding on this aspect of campaigning is that if a candidate is a parent, at the very least, they say so in a biography section of their campaign materials and this is true for both men and women. Where gender differences do emerge in family display, they largely regard the type of candidate who is willing to share photographs.

For local candidates in Canada and Australia, TV coverage of family and/or media interviews featuring a candidate’s family members is a rare occurrence. As such, what tends to be the highest degree of information that candidates commonly share about their family is a photograph. Photographs are extremely revealing pieces of information because they identify the family members, which opens them up to being recognized and approached by members of the public. At the very least, candidates suggested that they provide information about the size and composition of their family, as well as the gender and approximate age of their spouse and children. For the candidates who provided more detail, they would tend to include photographs,

130 with captions that identified each family member by name, and their relationship with the candidate. The main findings related to sharing family photographs are as follows:

1. Sharing a family photo is common amongst parent candidates, but men candidates

are slightly more likely to do so than women candidates.

2. Partisanship and gender seem to interact, as conservative women are less likely

than men and progressive women to display their children.

3. Considerations about children’s interests drive the decision about whether to share

their photograph, rather than considerations about the parent’s image.

4. Candidate investment affects the likelihood of women, but not men candidates,

sharing a photo.

5. The rationale behind referencing children through text is similar to the rationale of

sharing a family photograph, for both men and women candidates.

6. Children’s ages did not seem to affect the likelihood of candidates including a

photo, regardless of gender.

Of those interviewed, 39 percent of the candidates with children included a family photograph as a component of their campaign materials, and there was a slight gender difference in that a few more of the father candidates (41 percent) did so than mother candidates (36 percent). This aligns with previous studies that have found that men candidates are more likely than their women counterparts to display their family life (Thomas and Lambert, 2017); however, for the interviewees of this study, the gap between men and women is relatively small.

4.3.3 Fathers Show Children, Some Mothers Show Children Cautiously

131

In terms of an interaction between party and gender, no differences emerged amongst the men, but party did seem to affect women candidates’ family display. Of the men who shared a family photo, they represented parties across the political spectrum. A similar number of women compared to the men from progressive parties also shared a photograph of their children.

Contrastingly, only one woman from the conservative side of the spectrum reported sharing a photo of her children,104 who were adult men. These findings echo a study conducted by Thomas and Lambert (2017). In one of the only studies that closely examine gendered family display amongst legislators in Canada, they too found that relatively few conservative women shared photographs of children, and often only when they were older. The results differ, however, in that they also found that conservative men were the most likely to share photographs, while the results from the interviewees of this study find no party effect amongst men candidates.

Candidates who did not share a family photograph were asked why. When analyzing the rationale behind conservative women’s decision to exclude their children’s photographs, two of the main reasons offered related to concerns for their children’s privacy and security. A MP from

British Columbia explained, “I don’t talk about them personally … It’s just privacy. My kids are grown. All the kids of politicians that I’ve met personally have a pretty negative view of the job.

It’s exploitive, and it should be their choice about what they support and think about.”105

Similarly, a MP from Queensland noted, “I have two older kids, who weren’t keen to be photographed. They didn’t want their mates to see.”106 Other conservative mothers noted that that they were concerned about the well-being of their children, a MP from Alberta explained, “I

104 Interview, June 14, 2016b. 105 Interview, October 17, 2014. 106 Interview, May 6, 2013.

132 chose to keep her completely out of the limelight because I didn’t think that was very healthy for her. Even though I talk about her, I don’t refer to her by name or include any photos of her.”107

While women representing conservative parties were less likely to feature a photograph of their children amongst their campaign materials, the actual rationale for doing so was not specific to these women. By and large, the same reasons for excluding children from campaign materials were offered by all the candidates, including men, who excluded photographs – they had concerns for their children’s privacy and security, and relayed a general sentiment that they felt it was unfair to involve children when it was the parent’s decision to run. A Greens candidate from Victoria explained that she was not really concerned about her children’s security, but rather kept her children out of the campaign because they were young and may not want to be associated with her party’s politics. She further noted that it was her decision to run for office, not her children’s.108 A father ALP candidate from Queensland noted that his grown children,

“aren’t partisan like me.”109

A rationale for excluding photographs that one might have thought would be present was strikingly absent: how mothers considered their role as a parent would be perceived by voters.

Only one of the 28 mother candidates interviewed, an older Greens candidate from Alberta, made any reference to what voters would think about her experience as a parent. She noted that when she presents her qualifications to run for office, she opts for discussing her work experience and education, and stated that, “Mentioning I have a family and understand those issues is important …but it’s not where I want people to start. Is it because I’m a woman? No doubt, no doubt.”110 The literature on gendered family displays is robust with the conclusion that

107 Interview, June 14, 2016a. 108 Interview, March 25, 2013a. 109 Interview, May 1, 2013a. 110 Interview, June 9, 2016.

133 mothering young children conflicts with the strenuous job demands of a legislator, and as such, a general conclusion offered to explain the difference between mother and father candidates’ family display is that mother candidates and legislators may think it is beneficial to “hide” their mothing role (Banwart, 2006; Bystrom et al., 2004; Larson, 2001; Niven and Zilber, 2001a,

2001b). The mothers interviewed in this study, however, largely did not convey that that they were hiding their motherhood, but rather, that they were thinking about the best interests of their children.

Further evidence for the heightened awareness that mother candidates compared to father candidates feel about their children’s security and privacy is found when analyzing the rationale for why candidates did include family photographs. When discussing the reasons for using family photos, only one man mentioned that displaying photographs was okay because there was neither a security nor privacy issue. He noted that that his children were already known in their small town, and that his opponent would not have attacked his family life because he was a divorced himself.111 Two other father MPs who used photographs discussed that there had been security concerns in which their children were directly targeted, yet the fathers, both of whom had contested multiple campaigns, nevertheless continued to include photographs of their children in campaign materials. These incidents included sending a bible to a toddler after an abortion debate in which her father was pro-choice; and a teenage son being accused online of affiliation with a bike gang.112

No mothers who included photographs of their children reported having a security concern in which her children were targeted, let alone relayed that she then continued to share photographs of her children. Furthermore, four of the 11 women who included family

111 Interview, April 12, 2013. 112 Interviews, March 22, 2013a; April 8, 2013.

134 photographs took it upon themselves to mention during the interview that there were no security or privacy concerns. The justification for this lack of concern varied, such as noting that the candidate and their family lived in a small town,113 that their children would not be recognized, and that the political environment was not overly contentious.114 A woman MP from Victoria justified using her child because he was too young to be recognizable and noted that she likely would not include a photograph of the child as they got older.115 A long-term woman MP from

Australia who was careful not to include her own children’s photos in earlier campaigns noted that she did include a photograph with her new grandchild but asserted that the baby would no longer be recognizable.116 None of the men interviewed who included photographs of their children mentioned whether they had considered if their children might be recognized in public.

These findings reflect Thomas and Lambert’s study on legislator displays, in that they too found that mothers, but not fathers, noted security and privacy issues when asked about sharing images of their children (2017: 148).

4.3.4 Is It Worth It? A Gendered Assessment

The level of candidate investment also seems to have a gendered effect when it comes to sharing photos of children. Sharing a photo is somewhat common amongst invested candidates, regardless of gender. When looking at candidates with a medium-high or high level of investment, about half of them displayed their children via a photograph. Fathers, however, were also equally likely to share a photo if they had a low-medium level of investment (eight men), while only three women with medium levels of investment shared a photograph, and no women

113 Interview, June 16, 2016b. 114 Interview, May 3, 2013a. 115 Interview, April 3, 2013a. 116 Interview, May 26, 2013.

135 at a low to low-medium level of investment did so. Thus, for mother candidates, it appears that exposing children to the public eye is only deemed worthwhile if they have a reasonable chance of being elected, or if they are extremely active in politics.

The medium level of investment mothers who shared a family photo were all Canadian candidates from small towns. The rationale for why they included their children’s photo varied.

One mother who had teenage daughters noted that she did not think that there would be any danger given that they live in a small town.117 A Green Party mother asserted that protecting her son’s future was a big part of the reason why she was running.118 The last mother, who had been contesting elections for over twenty years, proudly explained that her daughters had always been supportive of her, and furthermore, she had no concern that they would be targeted. This mother also relayed that there was a strategy behind including a family photograph. She thought displaying that she was a mother conveyed that she was responsible, and given her small town, it was likely that if people did not recognize her, they might recognize her family members, which included the family dog, who she said was always included in her candidate brochure.119

Seven of the nine highly invested women who included family photos also cited a strategic rationale for including a photograph of their children. While their decisions were made from a strategic standpoint, they varied somewhat. A few women noted that their families were already known in the area, and the association was useful, and a few others thought that voters liked to see young families. One of these women, an MP from Queensland, stated that she thought visuals confirmed messaging, and that applied to showing family values via a family photograph.120 An MP from Victoria felt that showing a photo of her holding her baby

117 Interview, June 16, 2016b. 118 Interview, August 21, 2014b 119 Interview, June 13, 2016. 120 Interview, May 3, 2013a.

136

“humanized” her,121 while a grandmother noted that including children in her photograph showed that she was still an active person, despite being in her sixties.122 Only one mother referred to the credibility her children offered her. A Greens candidate from Victoria said that showing family conveyed that you, “Have the usual experience juggling kids.”123 As stated earlier, all the mothers who showed pictures of their young children were candidates representing progressive parties.

Candidate investment, like party affiliation, did not seem to impact men’s propensity to display family photos, nor their rationale for doing so. The reasons offered included thinking that it was just a standard thing to do, to make a connection with voters by showing that they were

“like them” in terms of having a family, and lastly, the assertion by five of the fathers that running for office was a family decision. These men, all of whom were fathers to children under the age of 10, noted that they had the support of their wife and children, and a few of them said that their kids loved campaigning with them. While many of the mother candidates also reported that their children had helped them with their campaign, only one of the women who included a photograph of her adult children asserted that her candidacy was a “family decision”124 and no women reported that their children actually enjoyed campaigning.

4.3.5 Family Display: Identifying as a Parent

While less than half of parent candidates shared a photograph of their children, almost all of them did refer to the fact that they had children in their campaign materials, typically in the

121 Interview, April 3, 2013a. 122 Interview, July 27, 2016. 123 Interview, March 24, 2013. 124 Interview, June 14, 2016b.

137 biography section. This aligns with previous research that has shown that MPs are more likely to cue their parental status through text, rather than photos (Thomas and Lambert, 2017).

The majority of parents, whether they shared a photograph of their children or just mentioned them in their biography section, did so because they thought that it was a way to convey to voters that the candidate also had a family, and to make a connection based on being a parent. One father, an MP from Queensland, stated that it was about connecting with the parent group of voters,125 while a woman MP from British Columbia said that she would use her children more for her next campaign because the purpose of campaigning is to, “connect with people on a personal basis. It’s not so much to convince people of positions, but to make a personal connection with people so that they trust and like you.”126

Even amongst the parents who were adamant that they would not display photos of their children, they still felt that their family connection had to be mentioned. A Greens mother from

Victoria explained that while she would not picture her own kids, she chose to include photographs of her with children that looked like they “could be hers.”127 A mother MP from

Queensland said that she would mention her children’s birthdays on Facebook because, “It’s important to show that you’re a normal person;”128 while a father MP from Queensland, who had decided to stop sharing photographs of his children, would still use social media to acknowledge his family life, somewhat surreptitiously, by writing posts along the lines of, “Congratulations to number two son for getting into medical school.”129 Given that almost every parent communicated that they had children, at the very least, in the biography section of their

125 Interview, April 8, 2013 126 Interview, July 25, 2014. 127 Interview, March 28, 2013. 128 Interview, May 6, 2013. 129 Interview, April 16, 2013b.

138 campaign brochure or website, it is clear that parents consider this aspect of themselves as part of their identity that needs to be shared, whether they are mothers or fathers. While the literature notes that men candidates may display their parenthood to show that they are “normal” (see

Langer, 2010; Stalsburg 2012), the same appears to be true for mothers, which aligns with more recent research that has found that voters do not “punish” women politicians with children

(Campbell and Cowley, 2018).

Only a few candidates were able to articulate a more detailed strategy beyond making a connection with voters as a reason for mentioning their kids. As previously mentioned, a mother from Alberta would include her children in photographs, as they had their own social networks and thus might be recognized by voters. A few of the Australian men interviewed noted that referencing specific schools in their electoral districts was important, and their children provided a means to make that connection. A few older MPs from Queensland felt that by including information about their children, they signified that they had a connection to local schools,130 while a middle-aged MP noted that his children went to three different schools in the electorate which he was able to reference.131 The strategy of drawing on children’s school connections was further explained by a father MP from Victoria. He noted that he always referred to every school in his electorate somewhere in his campaign materials, because both parents and children like their school to be acknowledged.132

In terms of mentioning children to underscore a candidate’s credibility on children’s issues, this motivation was only mentioned by a couple progressive candidates, a mother who won her race and a long serving incumbent father who lost his race.133 While it may be the case that

130 Interviews, April 10, 2013a; May 13, 2013c. 131 Interview, April 12, 2013. 132 Interview, March 22, 2013a. 133 Interviews, March 22, 2013a; March 27, 2013b.

139 parent legislators are more likely to initiate legislation that relates to children’s issues than their non-parent counterparts (Bryant and Hellwege, 2018), it does not appear that candidates at the local level connect being a parent to having authority on children’s issues in their campaign materials. Once elected, there is some evidence from these interviews that parent incumbents may draw on their experience raising children when speaking with voters about children’s issues.

The literature suggests that fathers may consider cost of living pressures in their voting calculus on conservative policies (Iversen and Rosenbluth, 2006). Three candidates noted that they would connect with voters based on their shared experience with child-rearing costs. These candidates were all conservative, but among them was a woman candidate, which suggests that this may be more of a conservative parents’ than a conservative fathers’ communication strategy.134

While the literature suggests that mother candidates may hide their children for strategic reasons related to the incongruency between raising children and serving in elected office, the only candidates who mentioned that their children could be a detriment to their campaigns were men. One father, a PC candidate from Alberta, lived outside of the riding he was running in. He noted that stressing his family life might highlight the fact that his community involvement took place in another riding, and he was concerned that he could be labelled a “carpetbagger.”135 A

LNP candidate from Queensland explained that the optics of showing his family fairly clearly displayed that he was on his second marriage given the age difference between the two sets of children;136 and a Greens candidate from Queensland noted that it was unusual for men of his age to have such young children, something that he did not want to emphasize, and so his children

134 Interviews, April 16, 2013b; April 30, 2013b; May 2, 2013a. 135 Interview, July 20, 2016a. 136 Interview, April 9, 2013a.

140 were not prominent in his campaign.137 Thus, while the literature focuses on why women may hide their family life, this study reveals that men candidates are also conscientious about the optics associated with displaying fatherhood, and for some candidates, providing too many details about their family life was considered a poor strategy.

4.3.6 Cute Kids Are Nice, but Adults Work Too: Picturing “Kids” of All Ages

When considering the age of the children whose photographs are employed in campaign material, about half of the candidates who shared a photo had young children and half had teenaged or grown children. No gender differences emerged based on the age of candidates’ children. This finding was somewhat surprising, as the literature suggests that mothers of younger children may be somewhat reluctant to remind voters about their childcare responsibilities (Banwart, 2006; Bystrom et al., 2004); and that fathers of younger children have been found to be more likely than fathers of older children to display children on campaign websites (Stalsburg and Kleinberg, 2016).

There are a few possible explanations for this. The first is that all of the mothers interviewed who included pictures of their younger children ran in a riding that was within commuting distance of the legislature. Thus, while winning the election would certainly make them very busy mothers, they could also conceivably be home every night to tend to their children’s needs. This coincides with Silbermann’s (2015) findings that women are more likely to contest political office if they reside close to the legislature, and that they weigh this distance more heavily than men in their decision to run for office. An alternative or additional explanation for why the women interviewed displayed their family is that almost all of the women who

137 Interview, April 18, 2013b.

141 showed pictures of their children represented progressive parties; it may not have occurred to them that displaying their children would hurt their electability amongst their supporters.

Progressive parties tend to put forth policies that relates to children and having children would be likely to extend them credibility as a supporter of those initiatives.

The grandparents interviewed in this study relayed that they were proud to show off their grandchildren, and in fact, five candidates (three women and two men) who clearly articulated that they would not show their children via a family photograph, said that they did, or would, include a photograph of their grandchildren. Thus, for both men and women candidates, there is something different about displaying grandchildren versus their own children, even though for four of the five grandparents mentioned, they had indicated that they did not include family photographs of their children because of reasons that related to privacy or security. A similar finding was noted by Thomas and Lambert (2017) who found that grandparents were more likely than parents to post multiple photos and dedicate more space to children in their holiday cards

(2017: 146). An explanation for this perplexing finding is that grandparents may have a sense of pride that overrides their concern for privacy and security. A woman MP from Queensland who was adamant about not publicly exposing her own children to the public explained that she had to say that her “status” had changed now that she was a grandmother, and even directed the question back and asked, “Wouldn’t you be proud to be a grandma?”138

4.3.7 Balancing Mothering and Politicking

The results from the interviews conducted in this study suggest that there is some room for optimism about the future of young mothers taking a role in representative democracy. As

138 Interview, May 26, 2013.

142 mentioned, mothers comprised half of the candidates interviewed who had experience campaigning while their children were young, and mothers were equally likely to display photographs of younger children as they were of grown children. Furthermore, for the most recent election contested, three of the women participants of this study, including an MP, had a very young child. Beyond the participants included in this study, the trend of electing mothers of young children to legislatures is on the rise (Gibson, 2019). Additionally, some legislatures have recently begun to develop maternity/paternity leave policies for representatives (Ibrahim, 2016).

While the number of mothers contesting and entering legislatures is increasing, at the very least, there appears to be a gendered bias in that mothers are expected to acknowledge the burden that children cause, while fathers largely are not. Four Australian mother candidates mentioned that while it was not suggested that they should not, or would not, be able to raise children and simultaneously run for/hold public office, they did receive some bewilderment and amazement from women voters, asking how they could “do it all?” In response, the candidates all said that they politely acknowledged that they were busy, but that they could manage it. A woman MP from Queensland who had a background working for a senator reported that she would say, “It is a lot of work, but I’m used to it.”139

On the face of it, being asked how one does it all can be interpreted as a compliment, suggesting that someone does a good job of managing a large workload. There are, however, gendered issues associated with these comments. Women have to manage the assumption that they are in fact, “doing it all”, when it may well be the case that they are sourcing out some of their domestic responsibilities to hired help or have a partner who takes on responsibility for these obligations. Unlike men, women are expected to be the primary caretakers (Taylor et al.,

139 Interview, May 3, 2013a.

143

2007), and are thus faced with two options: let voters know that they are very busy and provide a convincing reassurance that they can manage the workload; or violate gendered expectations and risk increasing voters’ negative evaluations of them. No father candidates or MPs reported that they were approached by voters expressing amazement that they could “do it all.”

In terms of directly asking candidates about childcare arrangements, more mother candidates than father candidates reported that they had been questioned on their ability to raise children while in office. A woman Greens candidate from Victoria noted that she had been asked in one of her nomination contests about childcare and replied, “I can’t believe that you’re asking me that. You wouldn’t ask me that if I was a man.”140 Likewise, a Liberal candidate from Alberta reported that during one of her nomination interviews, she had also been asked if she had or was planning on having children.141 A woman candidate from Australia who lost her state campaign but won a seat on her local council reported that she had once been told, “You must not have kids” because of how busy she was perceived to be, and that it was widely assumed that she was replacing an outgoing councillor who had recently become a mother.142 Another woman candidate, from Queensland, who also sat on her municipal council recalled that some voters had actually told her that it was good that she did not have children so that she would not be distracted.143 Only one of the men interviewed, an ALP candidate from Queensland, reported that he had been asked who would care for his children if he was to be elected.144 A new father, an

MP from Queensland, noted that no one asked who would take care of his new baby. He said that

140 Interview, March 28, 2013. 141 Interview, July 29, 2016a. 142 Interview, March 13, 2013b. 143 Interview May 15, 2013. 144 Interview, May 1, 2013b.

144 his inner circle talked about it, but it simply was not a public concern that was relayed to him at all.145

In terms of delaying candidacy, four older mother candidates reported that they would not have run for public office when they had younger children. Two said that they would not have wanted to give up the time they had with their young children,146 one noted the toll it would have taken to travel to the legislature from her home district,147 and one explained that she would not have been able to manage the children and her political candidacy without giving up her professional occupation in healthcare.148 All four of these women had a high level of candidate investment, and three of the four had experience sitting as a representative at the provincial/state level. Thus, they were not only reflecting on what they thought life would be like balancing children if they were elected, but actually had the experience to draw on. Interestingly, two of the four women lived within commuting distance to their state/provincial legislature, which suggests that while certainly important, proximity alone does not explain these mother candidates’ barrier to entry. No fathers interviewed suggested that they had waited until their children were older to enter politics.

4.3.8 “Single with Cats”: Childless Candidates and Family Life

As discussed earlier in this chapter, several of the younger candidates interviewed were concerned that being childless and/or single might be a detriment to their campaigns, or otherwise require some sort of messaging to establish that they do in fact, espouse family values or were part of a larger family in a meaningful way. This situation not only affected younger,

145 Interview, May 8, 2013. 146 Interviews, July 25, 2014; August 21, 2014. 147 Interview, March 24, 2013. 148 Interview, October 17, 2014.

145 local candidates, but was also a major campaign event in Alberta’s 2012 election between

Premiere Alison Redford, and Wildrose party leader, Danielle Smith. During the campaign,

Amanda Wilkie, a staffer in Redford’s Calgary office, tweeted:

If @ElectDanielle likes young and growing families so much, why doesn’t she have

children of her own? #wrp family pack = insincere.

The Wildrose campaign included a collection of campaign pledges that were geared towards young families. This statement suggested that because Smith did not have children of her own, even though she did have a teenage stepson, she would not be genuinely interested in promoting the welfare of young families. In response to this attack, Smith revealed that she and her husband were not able to have children, and reasserted that she had a relationship with her stepson. While

Redford was quick to issue her own statement clarifying that the tweet was inappropriate, that she had accepted the staffer’s resignation, and that she would be apologizing to Smith personally, the tweet and response highlight two important facets about the culture of expected motherhood.

First, that there is something negative about women who do not have children of their own, and second, that when a woman is childless, she needs to defend herself by demonstrating the ways in which she is caring, preferably towards children, or otherwise fulfills a nurturing role.

Being attacked for being childless was also experienced by a few local candidates that I interviewed. A LNP woman MP noted that while the issue of children did not come up with voters, it was highlighted by her opponent. In her case, she also referenced her role as a caring family member, by mentioning the large number of nieces and nephews she had, and that she was part of a large extended family.149 A woman incumbent also pre-empted this line of attack, and would start conversations about children’s issues by saying, “Although I don’t have children

149 Interview, April 9, 2013b.

146 of my own, I am close with my nieces and nephews …and I listen to those who do [have children].”150 Another incumbent reported that because she did not have children, she had been viciously accused of being bi-sexual, a lesbian and in a sham marriage.151 One of the women interviewed, who featured her baby in her campaign materials, reported that her childless opponent, whom she was friendly with, had admitted to her that she had posted a photo of her young nephew in response to the photo.152 Only one childless man, a MP from Victoria, noted that he had been questioned about his ability to manage family-related issues prior to becoming a father. Rather than couch his ability to legislate in this regard by taking stock of his family connections, he took a different approach and said, “I would [respond] in the same way as being asked how can you represent pensioners? If you’re good and capable, you can do that.”153

Contrary to Stalsburg and Kleinberg’s (2016) study, who did not find evidence that childless women would reference their roles as aunts, a few of the childless women in this study did tend to reference their relationships to children as either a direct response, or pre-emptive distraction from, their childless status. All but one of the childless young men interviewed indicated that they avoided talking about children’s issues because they lacked a family of their own. The exception, who was recently engaged to be married, used his engagement as a means to discuss that he was looking forward to getting married and raising children in the area.154 The finding aligns with Stalsburg and Kleinberg’s (2016) research that finds that childless men de- emphasize family themes but contradicts their findings that childless women do not draw on other family relations to demonstrate a caring persona.

150 Interview, May 8, 2014. 151 Interview, June 15, 2016. 152 Interview, April 3, 2013a. 153 Interview, March 26, 2013. 154 Interview, May 1, 2013d.

147

Four of the childless women, but none of the childless men noted that they had deliberately included information about their pets when referencing their living situation. One young woman, an ALP candidate from Australia, noted that she had participated in a newspaper’s “meet the candidates” questionnaire, and in regard to family life, one of the pre-determined answers was

“Single, with cats,” which she selected because it accurately depicted her situation, and she found it humorous.155 A Greens candidate from Victoria indicated that she had mentioned her dogs because, “people like to know who you live with,”156 while an ALP candidate from

Queensland included a picture of herself alongside her partner and two dogs, to seem “more mature.”157 These findings suggest that for women candidates, it may be the case that they are using pets to relay that they are caring, whereas men childless candidates did not feel the need to fill in that particular void, but rather just avoided the issue.

4.3.9 Candidate Spouses: The Perceived Value of Useful Husbands and Noticeable Wives

In terms of having a partner, over three quarters of all candidates interviewed were married or lived with a partner, and the proportion of coupled men and women was similar. Like the proportion of mothers, the sample of married women relative to men included in these interviews was higher than what has been typically found amongst candidates and legislators.

A clear gender difference emerged in the way in which candidates employed their spouses’ connections in a strategic fashion. While the literature suggests that women may hide their marital status (e.g., Campbell and Childs, 2014), seven of the women interviewed enthusiastically noted that their spouse provided a connection or appeal to a very specific

155 Interview, March 13, 2013b. 156 Interview, March 27, 2013a. 157 Interview, May 15, 2013.

148 demographic. This included two women who noted that their husbands had connections to sporting communities,158 two who had husbands who had their own political experience and profile,159 two who were running in rural areas but not working in the agricultural industry but had a spouse who was,160 and one whose husband was a well-known (and assumingly liked) shop keeper.161

Only one man mentioned that his wife gave him an “in” amongst a specific demographic.

This conservative Canadian candidate admitted that he had underestimated the number of people who worked in the public sector in his riding, and quickly found that it was useful to refer to his wife’s work in education.162 Another of the men interviewed, an MP from Queensland noted that he used his wife to speak to other women but did not articulate any further strategy beyond a shared gender connection.163

Among the women candidates, the strategy to draw on their spouses’ connections was used by both Australians and Canadians, and they represented both progressive and conservative parties. Only one of the women had a low level of candidate investment, which again suggests that exposing family, whether it be a child or partner, is a tactic that women only use when they have a chance of winning the election. Sending a spouse to events to act as a proxy was not a common tactic reported by candidates interviewed, with only two candidates making reference to using their spouse in this way, one a Liberal man MP from Victoria and a long-term Australian

158 Interviews, April 3, 2013b; June 14, 2016b. 159 Interviews, July 25, 2014; June 15, 2016. 160 Interview, May 22, 2013; August 2, 2016a. 161 Interview, May 6, 2013. 162 Interview, July 29, 2016b. 163 Interview, April 17, 2013a.

149

MP who said that after her kids had grown and moved out of the house, her husband began attending more functions with her and a few on her behalf.164

A second gender difference that emerged from the interviews concerned accounting for absentee spouses. Eight of the men interviewed specifically mentioned that their spouse was a private person who did not want to be prominently featured in their campaign. While it occurred to these men to explain their partner’s whereabouts, none of the women candidates who omitted their spouse from their campaign materials indicated that they had a private partner or even felt the need to account for their whereabouts. Along a similar vein, amongst the candidates who chose to exclude family photographs from their campaign materials, four of the fathers, but none of the mothers, referred to their partner’s desire for the children’s privacy. As women tend to be the primary caregiver to their children (Davaki, 2016), it makes sense that some of the men referenced their wives’ decision to keep their children out of campaign materials. For women candidates, the decision may well have been primarily made by themselves. Related to the literature that notes the prominence of, and preference for a supportive, but non-active female spouse for party leaders (Loizeau, 2015; Burrell et al., 2009), it may be the case that amongst local candidates, men place a greater importance on the image of a political spouse than women.

One of the commonly cited themes in the literature about father candidates’ imaging is that they may use their children to soften their image (Dittmar, 2010). Only one father reported that he did so. While this candidate did mention his daughters, it was the presence of his wife, with her strong religious background, that he stressed as the key for doing so. He explained that the “four handsome girls in his life who are the roses around the thorn”165 gives the imagery of a strong family and he thought that he needed the family imaging. He further explained that he

164 Interviews April 4, 2013; May 26, 2013. 165 Interview, April 16, 2013a.

150 knew full well that his prospects for electoral success were very modest, and he would need

“every tick in the box”. He noted that his image needed to be softened because he had a large stature, a military background, and the reputation of having a drink in his earlier days.

4.3.10 Messaging, or Rather Not Messaging “Singlehood”

Candidates who were single parents and/or divorced noted that there was some consideration in how they presented themselves and gender did not seem to affect this communication strategy. Three single mother candidates noted that they let people assume that they were married to their current partner, and one noted that she strategically referred to her boyfriend as her “partner” in her family biography section.166 This candidate thought that being a single mother was a worthy reason for her to run for office, saying otherwise, “We would only be represented by men with wives!” Despite this sentiment, she did not make any reference to her experience raising her children as a single mom. One of the men interviewed, a Greens candidate from Queensland who was separated from his wife, noted that he would say, “my wife and I have two children”167 to distract from his current marital status. Another of the men interviewed, a candidate from Victoria, explained that at the time of his campaign, he had just reconciled with his wife after a year-long separation, so he avoided referencing her altogether in case their marital issues were to be raised by anyone.168 A candidate from Alberta noted that his divorce did not come up, and he did not mention it, while another man from the same party, who was running in a very conservative riding, expressed regret that he had not made reference to his main opponent’s divorce.169

166 Interview, March 28, 2013. 167 Interview, April 18, 2013b. 168 Interview, March 12, 2013a. 169 Interviews, June 27, 2016; July 20, 2016b.

151

Only two single parents came across as being nonchalant about their marital status. A man

MP from Queensland and woman MP from Alberta, who both said that it was not a secret they were single parents, but neither did any messaging on the issue, even though the woman thought that this experience offered her a unique perspective as a political representative.170 By and large, the interview data suggest that while not all candidates may feel that being a single parent is a detriment, it is not a common strategy to broadcast this experience in campaign communications.

This coincides with Teele et al.’s (2018) findings that voters have a preference for candidates with traditional family structures.

4.4 Presenting Family Life: Conclusions

When looking at campaign communication from the perspective of showcasing family life, the data from the interviews conducted for this study clearly show that men and women’s campaigns look different in this regard. While all candidates would mention their family, the men were more likely than the women interviewed to provide an increased level of detail, including a family photo. Furthermore, mothers, but not fathers, of young children had messages prepared to communicate that their children would be cared for if they were elected.

Assessing the strategic advantage of showcasing a candidates’ family is beyond the scope of this study, as voter evaluations on the individual candidates were not collected. However, candidates provided antidotal evidence that they felt that positioning themselves as a mother or father relayed that they were “normal,” and thus they clearly held stereotypes about what families in their constituency looked like, and what society expected in terms of having a representative be a family member. Further to this point, candidates without children shied away

170 Interviews, April 18, 2013a; June 14, 2016a.

152 from calling attention to family matters, or in the case of women, highlighted their caring capacity in a related role, which again demonstrates a clear difference in the way that men and women approach communicating about family life in their campaigns.

A clear finding that emerged from the interview data was that publicly displaying family life via photographs was neither a normal nor desirable feature of campaign communication for women. If it were, there would not have been a difference in the propensity of women to increase the amount of family detail that they shared as their level of competitiveness and investment increased. Family privacy was a trade-off for electoral success. A clear sentiment from both the men and women interviewed was that revealing family-life details was something that politicians were expected to do. However, if women were unlikely to be elected, then they did not sacrifice the privacy and security that they felt that they owed to their family. A woman MP from

Queensland noted, “If your message is contained in graphics, it is more likely to be shared or progressed.”171 Thus, it could well be the case that women candidates are at a disadvantage relative to the men they run against in that they are reluctant to display their family life in this regard.

A finding that emerged from this study suggests that the conventional wisdom expressed in the literature may need to be reassessed. There is a notion that women hide their families because of the incongruency between the busy role of a legislator and the busy role of a parent (Banwart,

2006; Bystrom et al., 2004; Larson, 2001; Niven and Zilber, 2001a, 2001b). The findings from this study found no evidence that this was the case. Rather, women who omitted providing a lot of detail about their children in their campaigns were doing so for an entirely different reason – to protect their privacy and security. Thus, it was about the children, not the candidate. Related to

171 Interview, May 3, 2013a.

153 this finding, while no women indicated that they hid family details to avoid messaging on some aspect of their own identity – a few of the fathers interviewed did. For these fathers, mentioning their children relayed that some aspect of their life was not standard – whether it was that they were on a second marriage, that they were considerably old to be a parent, or simply that they did not have family ties to the community they were campaigning to represent.

In terms of featuring spouses in campaigns, the interview data reveal that coupled women were not reluctant to call attention to their marital status, and in fact, many of them used their spouse’s connection to their advantage. These findings make sense given that the literature has consistently found that voters prefer candidates who are married with children, i.e. reflect traditional family structures (Kaufmann and Bell, 2015; Teele et al., 2018). A gendered finding that did emerge however, was that women were more comfortable than men when it came to omitting their partner from pictures or other detailed campaign messaging. It was obvious that the men interviewed felt that having a spouse was expected of them, and when their spouses was not featured or was otherwise absent, they either tried to explain the situation or avoided highlighting their single status altogether.

154

Chapter Five: Gendered Political Platforms and Voter Contact

5.1 Gendered Issues and Targeting Women Voters

Political campaigns are crafted to highlight a myriad of factors about candidates – who they are as individuals, the parties they belong to, and their positions on key election issues.

Chapters Three and Four addressed how candidates presented information about themselves to the electorate and found that, in some instances, gender affected candidates’ self-presentation.

Women were more protective of information concerning their family life, and generally presented a more professional image in terms of both their appearance and stated qualifications for office. In this chapter, the focus shifts from examining how candidates present themselves to investigating the types of issues that they highlight in their campaigns and whether they make gender-based appeals on certain issue topics. The interview data from this study reveal scant evidence that either men or women make explicit appeals for a voter’s support based on their shared gender. There is, however, some evidence that both men and women candidates do cater their messages, in terms of both issue content and delivery, based on voter gender. In the next section, a literature review is presented that addresses three key areas: defining “women’s issues” and examining how they are featured by candidates in their campaigns and by legislators in their legislative activity; reviewing gender-based targeting in campaigns; and lastly, looking at gender affinity from the perspective of candidate appeals and voter effects.

5.2 What are “Women’s Issues?”

Defining women’s issues is a rather contentious endeavour, apt to be met with some degree of hostility by those who do not appreciate being pigeonholed based on socially

155 constructed gender roles. Yet, there is a long history of seeking to understand which issues are of importance to women, and how their opinions differ from men’s. In one of the earliest works on women’s voting behaviour, Ogburn and Goltra (1919) conclude from their study of public opinion on the 1914 election referendum measures in Oregon that women favoured prohibition, and were opposed to the eight-hour work day for women, a single tax, proportional representation, the abolition of the State Senate, and spending public money. More recent work focusing on women’s issues clarifies that the types of issues “can be based either on something inherent in a policy matter or attitudinal differences between genders on a policy matter” (Klotz and Broome, 2008: 68). Klotz and Broome cite Carroll’s (1994) research as an example of the first type. Carroll (1994:15) asserts, “Women’s issues will be defined as those issues where policy consequences are likely to have a more immediate and direct impact on significantly larger numbers of women than men” and she specifies that these are the issues that concerned the feminist movement during the 1970s, including abortion, the Equal Rights Amendment, and childcare provision (15-19). In reference to the second type, attitudinal differences, Klotz and

Broome refer to Blocker and Eckberg’s (1989) study that finds that women have different opinions than men on local- but not national-level environmental policy, as well as the converging opinions of men and women on abortion (which clearly has a larger impact on women than men). They argue that Carroll’s operational definition is more useful, as public opinion does not necessarily always lend itself to “inherent substance” (69). As such, Klotz and

Broome include the following issues in in their study of candidate’s online attention toward women’s issues: abortion, affirmative action, early childhood care, gender pay disparity, rape, sexual harassment, and women’s health (2008:69). The issues that this study classifies as

156 women’s issues are similar, and include issues related to children (education, childcare); healthcare; women’s equality; domestic violence; and abortion.

This project also draws on Herrnson et al.’s conceptualization of “gender issue ownership”.

They build their concept on Petroik’s (1996) conceptualization of issue ownership, in which he argues that some issues are positively associated with a given party, and when voters focus on issues that are “owned” by a party, that party's candidates derive significant benefits at the polls.

They adapt this theory to gender issue ownership, meaning that as women are seen to be more competent than men on certain issues (for example, Ansolabehere and Iyengar, 1994b), they are increasingly likely to receive electoral benefits when voters care about the issue and women campaign on them (2003: 246-247).

5.2.1 Do Women Campaign on Women’s Issues?

A substantial amount of literature has shown considerable evidence that the issues that men and women focus on in both their campaign and legislative activity is gendered to a certain extent. In terms of campaign issues, Larson’s review of the literature from the 1990s indicates that not only was there evidence found that women run on women’s issues, which she notes are those that relate to education, the environment, health care, family issues, social welfare, and women’s rights, but also that women were less likely to emphasize issues that she notes are traditionally labeled as “men’s issues, like foreign affairs, defense, economy, agriculture, crime, and jobs” (2001: 109; see further Dabelko and Herrnson, 1997; Iyengar et al., 1997; Kahn, 1993,

1992; Kahn and Goldenberg, 1991; Kahn and Gordon, 1997; Witt, Paget, and Matthews, 1994;

Iyengar et al., 1997; Williams 1998). Larson also found support for the gendered inclusion of women’s issues in her own analysis of candidate campaign brochures for those contesting the

Pennsylvania Assembly in 1996 and 1998.

157

More contemporary studies provide mixed evidence. In an analysis of messages posted to

Twitter during the 2016 presidential race (Evans et al., 2017: 118), Hillary Clinton was found to tweet about women’s issues more than Donald Trump (and when he did, his messages tended to be negative attacks on Obamacare and Ms. Clinton). Evans and Clark (2016) analyzed candidates running for the US House of Representatives in 2012, and found that among winning candidates, Democratic women were more likely than Republican women to include messages about women’s issues in their tweets, but that women from both parties were more likely than the men from each party to do so. Furthermore, Evan’s follow up research supports her and

Clark’s earlier findings, but clearly presents the caveat that women do not only message on women’s issues (2016).

Similarly, at the state level in the US, Herrick’s analysis of the races in Alaska, Colorado and Minnesota shows that for the 2012 election, context matters. Women, and candidates with women opponents focus more on women's issues in their campaigns than do men candidates and those running against men candidates. Additionally, there was not any gender difference in the degree to which candidates focused on “men’s issues,” but that Republicans were more likely to do so than Democrats (2016). Similar to the the research that stresses that women do not exclusively talk about women’s issues in their campaigns, other research has also found that there is no evidence that the women running for congress in 2000 and 2002 had different issue priorities highlighted on their websites than men (Dolan, 2005, see further Sapiro et al., 2011).

Thus, historical, and modern studies continue to find that while women tend to discuss women’s issues more than men, but it is not always the case that these issues are highlighted in their campaigns. Issue salience and the presence of a mixed- or same-gender opponent contextualizes the gender differences on featuring “women’s issues”.

158

Considerably less literature focuses on the gendered issues covered by men and women’s campaigns in Australia and Canada, than the USA. Sawer’s analysis of the 1980 federal election found that women candidates in winnable seats dodged identification with specifically feminist positions (1981); findings that are largely echoed by McAllister and Studlar (1992) who find that party, not gender, dominates policy attitudes. In Canada, Erickson (1997) finds evidence that women candidates do have different opinions than men on issues particularly related to women.

Relative to the literature examining US elections, the lack of literature on campaign issues in

Canada and Australia makes sense, at least at the local level, given that these campaigns tend to be inter-personal, and not featured on television or heavily covered by the media. However, as campaigns increasingly adopt a social media presence, it is likely that the number of studies will significantly increase, as there is more campaign content to readily examine. This study’s examination of local candidates’ campaign issue content offers an important contribution to the literature on the prevalence of gendered campaign issues outside of the US, and how local candidates connect featuring such issues in a way that complement’s their party’s messaging.

Considerably more literature focuses on the gendered content of legislative activity, which makes sense given that votes and debates are better documented.

5.2.2 Legislating on Women’s Issues: Do Women Legislators Make a Difference?

Like the literature on the gender differences among political candidates, the literature on the gender differences on legislators’ activity presents a similar message: women are more likely than men to focus on women’s issues across levels of elected office, but do not focus all, or even the majority of their efforts towards doing so. In Canada, Manon Tremblay conducted one of the most notable studies on gendered legislator activity during the mid-1990s. Through her analysis

159 of both the Hansard Index to assess what topics legislators debate, and a survey of MPs to identify their issue priorities, she finds that while women are more likely than men to both focus on women’s issues, and state that these issues should be given a relatively high level of importance, she finds that women’s impact on politics is limited (1998). Additional studies reflect her findings concerning women legislators’ increased likelihood over men’s to engage with women’s issues, and these findings are consistent across developed and developing democracies (for example, Taylor-Robinson and Heath, 2003; Bektas and Issever-Ekinci, 2019;

Power and Berardone, 1998; Saint-Germain 1989; Welch and Thomas, 1991; Vallance, 1988;

Trimble, 1993, 1997; Gotell and Brodie, 1991). Studies have also shown that in addition to women being more likely to discuss women’s issues in legislatures, when increased numbers of women are elected, they are also more likely to achieve success when it comes to advancing policy in support of women’s issues through legislatures, regardless of partisanship (for example,

Sawer, 2012a; Kittilson, 2008, 2011; Celis, 2008; Greene and O’Brien; 2016).

A related theme concerns the perception held by women legislators regarding their role as a women’s representative. There is overwhelming evidence that this is the case. A survey by the

Inter-Parliamentary Union covering 65 countries found that 89% of the 200 women legislators interviewed reported that they believed that it was their mandate to “represent the needs, demands and interests of women” (Waring et al., 2000 in Tremblay, 2010:216). Tremblay’s analysis of women legislator’s opinions in this regard finds that in both Canada and Australia, while the majority of women note that their primary duty of representation is directed towards their geographical territory, when directly asked, an overwhelming majority state that they feel that they have a mandate to represent women (2003). She notes that her findings coincide with other Canadian (Tremblay, 1992; Tremblay and Pelletier, 1995), Australian (Sawer 1986; Whip

160

1991), European (Sineau 2001, 239; Vallance and Davies 1986; Wangnerud, 2000) and

American (Dodson and Carroll 1991; Reingold 1992, 2000; Thompson 1980) studies on the matter.

The literature on candidate and legislators’ gendered issue priorities leads to mixed expectations. While women candidates and legislators clearly have an increased interest in women’s issues over the men in their parties, it is also true that other representational priorities such as territory and their party’s priorities demand their attention. As such, while women may be more likely than men to campaign on women’s issues, it is also likely the case that gender differences will be relatively small, and party affiliation will largely direct candidate’s inclusion of these issues.

5.2.3 Gender-Based Campaign Messaging

Targeting certain identity groups with specific campaign messages that are apt to appeal to them is a consumer marketing technique (Bailey, 2004, Issenberg 2012) that is often referred to as micro-targeting, or dog-whistling (Hillygus and Shields, 2008). The collection of voter data is becoming increasingly common in political campaigns, as parties become, “electoral machines

… [transforming] how they use research, data, and communications for strategic purposes”

(Marland and Giasson, 2017: 357). In terms of connecting voters with these messages, strategies can be indirect or direct. Indirect strategies are those in which a message is crafted for a certain identity group, and while either included with messages crafted for other identity groups or left as a stand-alone piece, it is nevertheless distributed to everyone. Some examples of this type of distribution include standard campaign brochures mailed to all households or postings on candidate websites. Direct strategies are more sophisticated in their delivery, and entail crafting

161 messages for certain identity groups, and then using voter-information databases to contact them directly via the telephone, email or regular mail to deliver the message. Additional methods include posting an advertisement to a social media website like Facebook which enables the sponsor to specify demographical parameters for who should be shown an advertisement, or by specifically posting advertisements in media that are likely to be consumed by the group of interest.

Much of the literature on gender-targeting in political campaigns affords itself latitude in methodological design, often inferring that because women voters have been found to favor liberal positions and have an interest in certain issues, (Koch, 2000) the mere presence of women’s issues on campaign websites were strategically meant, or could be treated as, a message targeting women (Schneider, 2014; Holman et al., 2015; Schaffner, 2005; Campbell and

Childs, 2015; Harmer and Southern, 2020). Considerably less scholarly work conducted either directly asks candidates about their targeting strategies or systematically analyzes media to objectively uncover issue-based targeting strategies. There are a few notable studies in this regard. The first is a study by Herrnson et al. (2003). In their project, they connect with close to

2,000 American candidates across a variety of office levels – US House, state legislative, local and judicial races, between 1996 and 1998. They sought to understand if women did better, i.e. won their race, when they ran on women’s issues and targeted a women’s group with their campaign messaging. In this study, they utilized a survey that included a question asking candidates to identify which groups their campaign targeted most heavily. They found that women do indeed gain a strategic advantage when they target women’s groups with their messages that stress the issues that voters associate favorably with women candidates.

162

Bennet and Gordon (2020) studied advertisements on Facebook utilizing the Facebook political advertising public archive. They found that despite the broad range of targeting abilities

Facebook has to offer, for the 2015 Canadian Federal Election, micro-targeting by demographic factors was only employed in a minority of advertisements, by both parties, and individual candidates. Some examples of gender based targeting they detected included the Liberal Party’s advertisements directed at young women from Ontario, connecting the challenge of climate change to parenting, and the Conservatives directing their messaging on their new maternity tax plan to young women across the country.

As the prevalence of voter-identification database software is increasing (Bennett and

McDonald, 2019), it is to be expected that the candidates in this study will utilize the data for at least the most basic demographical factors, such as location, age and gender. Given that social media was in its infancy during the elections under study, it is unlikely that candidates will report having used sophisticated strategies to target voters using these mediums.

5.2.4 Promoting and Voting: Do Candidates Promote a Gender Affinity Effect?

Gender affinity is closely intertwined with the concepts of descriptive versus substantive representation. Descriptive representation is the idea that political bodies should mirror the population they represent in terms of sex, race, religion, and other salient political identities.

Substantive representation, on the other hand, focuses on the degree to which representatives provide meaningful representation of group interests. The gender affinity effect is a phenomenon whereby voters are likely to vote for a candidate based on their shared gender. In terms of women’s gender affinity, the predominantly American-based literature is mixed. In some elections, the effect has been strong, with women even switching parties to support a woman

163 candidate (Brians, 2005; Cook, 1994; Fox, 1997; Plutzer and Zipp, 1996), while in other elections, there has been no evidence of such an effect on vote choice (King and Matland, 2003;

McDermott, 1997; Thompson and Steckenrider, 1997). In some elections men were found to be more likely than women to support women candidates (Dolan, 2004). Outside of the United

States, evidence of gender affinity between women party leaders and women voters has been found in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia (O’Neill, 1998; Banducci and Karp, 2000;

Denmark et al., 2012). There has yet to be any evidence of gender affinity found between local candidates and women voters in Canada, and no known research has been conducted in other

Westminster system states (Goodyear-Grant, 2010; Goodyear-Grant and Croskill, 2011, Cutler and Matthews, 2005; Landa et al., 1995; Murakami, 2014). However, experimental studies have found some level of affinity detected on the basis of ethnicity (Besco, 2015a, 2015b; Bird, 2016;

Tolley and Goodyear-Grant, 2014), which suggests that at the local level, this form of support may be prevalent if gender as a conscious identity is heightened.

In terms of offering an explanation for a gender affinity effect in the elections where it does emerge, the literature suggests that there are several reasons to account for this affinity, which align with descriptive and substantive representation. First, women may support women simply because they have a desire for descriptive representation (Sanbonmatsu, 2003). A second explanation offered is that women elect women to further a feminist agenda (Tolleson-Rinehart,

1992). This argument assumes that women are less likely to believe that men can represent their interests, and that women legislators are more likely to advance a feminist agenda. A third explanation is that women support women candidates because it is in their material interest to do so. As already mentioned, women candidates are often stereotyped, and the thought is that they will support the welfare state to a greater extent than men. As women tend to be proportionally

164 more reliant on, and more often employed by the welfare state, it is in women’s material interests to elect someone who will protect their services and jobs (Gidengil, 1995, see further, Erickson and O’Neill, 2002). Lastly, women have been found to be less politically knowledgeable than men (Stolle and Gidengil, 2010). As such, in instances when a voter lacks political knowledge, they have been shown to take cognitive shortcuts. They identify the person who is most like them (often in terms of sex or race) and support that candidate as they assume that their interests are most closely aligned (Popkin, 1991; Cutler, 2002).

The absence of a gender affinity effect between women voters and women local candidates in Canada is a puzzling finding, given that the effect has been found between women leaders and women voters in Canada, and between women local candidates and women voters in some elections in the United States. Some explanations for the lack of gender affinity in Canada may be strong partisanship and the relative unimportance of the local candidate to vote choice. While voters may or may not have gender affinity affect their vote choice at the local level in parliamentary systems, this study seeks to understand whether candidates are aware of the potential for this effect, and if it affects their campaign communication. While it is doubtful that men candidates would make blatant appeals to men voters on the basis of gender affinity, a question that does emerge is whether men are conscious of the potential for women’s gender affinity when faced with a woman opponent, and if so, whether they employ any strategy to mitigate the potential for such an effect. Similarly, one can question to what extent women candidates consider whether they are likely to experience a backlash from men voters for campaigning on the basis of gender affinity and how that might affect their campaign communication.

165

Recent campaigns provide evidence that supporters of women candidates are more likely than the candidates themselves to make a direct appeal to women voters to vote based on descriptive representation. Hillary Clinton stated during her appearance on PBS NewsHour in the lead up to her 2016 campaign, “I’m not asking people to support me because I’m a woman, I’m asking people to support me because I think I am the most qualified, experienced and readied person to be the president and commander-in-chief.” Similarly, Nancy Pelosi stated, “I don’t think that any woman should be asked to vote for someone because she’s a woman” (Moscatello,

2019). However, supporters of these women do not share the sentiment. Madeline Albright has said, “There is a special place in hell for women who don’t support other women,” (2016) while

Michelle Obama has stated:

Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice. . . . What does it mean for us as women? That we look at those two candidates, as women, and many of us said, “That guy. He’s better for me. His voice is more true to me.” Well, to me that just says you don’t like your voice. (in Scott, 2017)

The literature suggests that the women running for office are likely aware of a gender affinity effect, but that they may not attempt to cultivate such a following given their contest at the local level. However, for those running under a woman party leader, we may expect that they are more likely to tout descriptive representation of either themselves or their party leader. They also may have some concern about calling for representation based on their identity given the findings that women legislators, who are closely linked to women candidates, note that their first representational priority is based on geographical territory, not gender identity.

5.3 Study Results: Featuring Women’s Issues and Cueing Gender

166

Identifying issues that are important to local candidates requires a broad examination.

Studies that commonly investigate matters related to important campaign issues adopt a content analysis approach that examines campaign materials such as television advertisements, websites, social media posts and campaign brochures. For many local candidates in Canada and Australia, however, this type of analysis may not accurately depict issue priorities, as both the party-centric nature of the candidates’ political systems, as well as for many, limited political resources to dedicate to personalized campaign material, leaves candidates with primarily party-produced material. To better understand candidates’ issue priorities, the interview questions utilized in this study framed the discussion on campaign issues in two important ways. The first was to acknowledge that campaigning goes beyond printed materials, and candidates were asked to think about not only the messages conveyed via their printed materials, but also about the content of their conversations with voters whilst door knocking, during telephone calls, via their email communications and newsletters, and in their web-based communication such as postings about issues on their social media pages, and on their website. The second way in which the discussion was framed was by the level of issue. Candidates were directed to consider all of the issues that they addressed, and note which issues were party-centric issues, which issues were local or constituency-based, and which issues were personal to them. For some candidates, their local or personal issues overlapped with key platform issues identified by their party, while for others, the issues across the three levels of analysis were distinctive.

Candidates were also specifically asked about whether stereotypical “women’s issues” were included in their local campaign communications. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, these issues were selected for analysis because they coincided with the issues previously investigated in the extant literature that have “inherent substance” (Klotz and Broome, 2008) and

167 include: issues related to children (education, childcare); healthcare; women’s equality; domestic violence; and abortion. Further details about the exact wording of the questions can be found in

Appendix B.

After discussing candidates’ main platform items and whether they addressed stereotypical

“women’s issues,” interview participants were asked to reflect on whether they made any gender-specific appeals to voters. This included both targeting either women or men with information about a specific issue or generally adopting a different approach when speaking with a voter based on their gender. Women candidates were specifically asked if they had made any direct appeals to gender affinity – suggesting that women voters should vote for them because of their shared gender.

5.3.1 The Inclusion of Women’s Issues in Campaigns

The women’s issues that garnered the most attention and had the most significant gap along gender lines were healthcare, education, and domestic violence. Table 5.1 below details issue inclusion by gender. While the literature largely treats health and education as “women’s issues,” it has to be acknowledged that these two items are among the biggest expenditures for state/provincial governments, so it is to be expected that they will attract the attention of both men and women candidates.

168

Table 5.1: Percentage of Candidates Featuring Women’s Issues in Local Campaign by Candidate Gender172 Issue Men Women Education 38% 45% Healthcare 31% 40% Childcare 10% 10% Domestic Violence 4% 10% Abortion 2% 2% Women’s Equality 0% 3% Total No. of Candidates 52 40

For education, just over 40 percent of candidates interviewed reported that this topic was a major component of their campaign. In terms of gendered differentiation, women were more likely to discuss education than men. Almost half of the women candidates interviewed included education, compared to 38 percent of the men. In terms of understanding who included this topic, a few notable trends emerged. First, more Australians featured education in their personal campaigns than Canadians. While almost half of the Australian candidates did so, just over one third of Canadians did the same.

When candidates are broken down by party position and competitiveness, a few additional gendered trends emerge, as detailed in Table 5.2 below. First, when comparing progressive versus conservative candidates, more progressive candidates talked about education than conservative candidates. Almost half of the progressive candidates compared to 35 percent of the conservative candidates featured education. Party affiliation continued to affect candidate’s when the results are broken down by gender. Both progressive and conservative women were more likely than the men from their parties to discuss education, however the gender gap was bigger for progressive candidates. This coincides with Petrocik’s (1996) conceptualization of issue

172 Note: When analyzing small samples, small variances can result in large percentage gaps.

169 ownership, in that progressive parties are generally deemed to be more supportive on issues related to education.

In terms of competitive status, an almost equal proportion of competitive versus uncompetitive candidates talked about education. However, gendered trends again emerge. Over half of the competitive women candidates discussed education, compared to just over a third of the uncompetitive women. For men however, the gap reverses, with 44 percent of the uncompetitive men messaging on education compared to one third of the competitive men. These findings lend support to Herrnson et al.’s (2003) gender issue identity thesis, that it is strategic for women to include issues that they are perceived to be competent on in their campaigns.

170

Table 5.2: Percentage of Candidates Featuring Education in Local Campaigns by Candidate Party, Competitiveness and Gender

Party Affiliation Progressive Conservative Feature 47% 35% Education Did Not 53% 65% Feature Education Total 100% 100% N 49 43

Party Affiliation by Gender Progressive Progressive Men Conservative Conservative Women Women Men Feature 50% 43% 36% 34% Education Did Not 50% 57% 64% 66% Feature Education Total 100% 100% 100% 100% N 26 23 14 29

Competitive Status Competitive Uncompetitive Feature 42% 40% Education Did Not 58% 60% Feature Education Total 100% 100% N 50 42

Competitive Status by Gender Competitive Uncompetitive Competitive Men Uncompetitive Women Women Men Feature 52% 35% 33% 44% Education Did Not 48% 65% 67% 56% Feature Education Total 100% 100% 100% 100% N 23 17 27 25

Healthcare was a key component of many candidates’ campaigns but was not as commonly featured as education. Like education, the issue was more prevalent in Australia, where about 40

171 percent of candidates included it in their campaigns compared to just under a third of Canadian candidates.

Below, Table 5.3 details the inclusion of healthcare by gender, party and competitiveness.

A few notable trends emerge. First, healthcare was featured more by competitive than uncompetitve candidates, 42 percent of competitive candidates included messages about healthcare in their local campaigns compared to just over a quarter of uncompetitive candidates.

Second, gender had a big effect. Competitive women were more likely to feature healthcare in their campaigns than uncompetitive women, by a 2:1 ratio, while for men, competitiveness was not much of a factor. In terms of party affiliation, conservative candidates were more likely to feature healthcare than progressive candidates, and the gap was wider for women, as more than double the number of conservative women featured healthcare than progressive women.

Similarly, when looking at candidates’ level of investment, for both men and women, as candidate’s level of investment increased, they were more likely to discuss healthcare, and the gap was slightly larger between low-investment and high-investment women compared to men.

One explanation for this is that in both Australian states, prior to the election being considered, progressive parties were in power, and thus were in the position of defending their contributions to healthcare as opposed to making promises about future initiatives. Additionally, the healthcare system in Queensland had been affected by a serious payroll issue. An IBM-provided payroll system had been adopted the year prior to the election that resulted in serious flaws, leaving many healthcare workers unpaid or incorrectly paid for months (the same payroll system would ironically be adopted by the Canadian government to pay their public service a few years later) and thus, this was an issue that was best avoided by ALP candidates in Queensland.

172

Table 5.3: Percentage of Candidates Featuring Healthcare in Local Campaigns by Candidate Party, Competitiveness and Gender

Party Affiliation Progressive Conservative Feature 31% 40% Healthcare Did Not Feature 69% 60% Healthcare Total 100% 100% N 49 43

Party Affiliation by Gender Progressive Progressive Men Conservative Conservative Women Women Men Feature 27% 35% 64% 28% Healthcare Did Not Feature 73% 65% 36% 72% Healthcare Total 100% 100% 100% 100% N 26 23 14 29

Competitive Status Competitive Uncompetitive Feature 42% 26% Healthcare Did Not Feature 58% 74% Healthcare Total 100% 100% N 50 42

Competitive Status by Gender Competitive Uncompetitive Competitive Men Uncompetitive Women Women Men Feature 52% 24% 33% 28% Healthcare Did Not Feature 48% 76% 67% 72% Healthcare Total 100% 100% 100% 100% N 23 17 27 25

Childcare is an issue traditionally included in the literature as a women’s issue, and largely thought to be of importance to women because they take on the bulk of childcare duties. This issue was largely not discussed in the candidates’ campaigns, with some candidates from

Australia noting that there is an overlap in jurisdictional responsibility for childcare between the

173 state and federal governments. In Canada, it is a provincial issue. Only nine candidates indicated that they featured childcare messages in their campaign, and few differences emerged based on gender or competitiveness. There was a slight party effect on the issue, with six candidates representing progressive parties, and three representing conservative parties.

Domestic violence was not a main feature of any candidate’s campaign, and only six candidates reported that it had come up in any capacity during the campaign period. These candidates were all Australian and included four women and two men. For one candidate, the issue was prominent because of a recent serious assault on a young women in her electorate, while others appeared to be influenced by their experience engaging in the White Ribbon Day events, which took place two days prior to the 2010 Victoria State Election. White Ribbon Day started as an effort by Canadian men in the early 1990s to draw attention to violence against women after 14 women were massacred at École Polytechnique in Montréal, Québec and has since become a global initiative that has expanded to also include awareness about family violence.

Issues pertaining to women’s equality were almost completely absent from candidates’ local campaigns. Only one candidate, a Liberal Party candidate from Alberta mentioned that women’s equality was a part of his campaign message, noting that he specifically promoted women’ pay equity.173

Like domestic violence and women’s equality, issues that related to abortion were mostly absent from local candidates’ campaigns, and only Australian candidates noted that the issue had come up. Two candidates, a man and women, mentioned that they had deliberately made their position known. Both were conservative MPs from Queensland. When asked why she included

173 Interview, July 27, 2016.

174 the matter in her campaign, the woman MP noted that, “I want people to know what my views are. People who have been in the electorate for any amount of time know that I have a stand on moral issues. I do couch it in terms that are understandable, but not confronting or contentious.”174 A few other candidates, all from conservative parties relayed that their pro-life position was known, but that their stance was not a key part of their campaign. This included a woman MP from Queensland who stated that her position as a practicing Catholic was known, a man MP from Victoria that had made a comment during a forum that he thought recent changes about the timeframe for when abortion is permitted had went too far, and a candidate from

Victoria who would just say that it was best to exhaust all other options first.175 Amongst candidates who supported pro-choice positions, none of them reported that they had went out of their way to message on the issue. Several candidates did note that they would directly answer the question when asked, including a doctor from Queensland who reported, “I’ve publicly stated my position, which is the same as all doctors. It’s not up for anyone else to discuss, I can’t say that anyone else has a role in it.”176 A woman Greens candidate from Victoria noted that when pressed on the issue at a forum, she tried to stress that no one takes the issue lightly and thus compassion was needed to understand the pregnant woman’s position, and a man ALP candidate from Queensland said that while he answered honestly, he did not bring the issue up as he did not want to upset anyone in his conservative riding.177 In general, the wisdom conveyed on this topic was to avoid bringing the matter up. Given that abortion is legal, and has been legal in

Canada since 1969, it makes sense that Canadian candidates largely reported that they did not have their stance on the issue questioned. In Australia, abortion regulations had changed in

174 Interview, May 26, 2013. 175 Interviews, March 26, 2013; April 4, 2013; April 11, 2013. 176 Interview, April 8, 2013. 177 Interviews, March 25, 2013; May 1, 2013d.

175

Victoria in 2008, and most recently, they were updated in Queensland in 2018. Thus, it is understandable that candidates faced these questions given the issue-saliency.

5.3.2 Beyond Women’s Issues: Gender Differences Featuring Other Campaign Issues

In addition to looking at stereotypical women’s issues, an analysis of whether there was a gendered dimension across other topics was also conducted. Besides health, education and childcare, the other main topics that were identified by candidates as being a component of their campaigns included the environment, economy, cost of living, law and order issues, public transit, infrastructure, quality of governance issues, and social support services. Table 5.4 below provides a summary of the gender differences among candidates in including these issues in their campaigns.

Table 5.4: Gender Differences Featuring Non-Women’s Isues in Local Campaign Issue Percent of Candidates Gender Differences Discussing Issue Environmental Issues 20% No Gender Differences Infrastructure 22% No Gender Differences Economy 22% Slightly More Women Cost of Living 9% More Men Law and Order 13% More Men Public Transit 13 % More Men Social Support 5% More Men Quality of Governance 21% More Men Total Number of Candidates 92

Around 20 percent of all candidates interviewed included issues related to the environment, infrastructure and the economy in their campaigns. No gender differences emerged in terms of featuring the environment or infrastructure, while a slight difference emerged for featuring the economy, with women being more likely than men to do so. Of the candidates interviewed, 18 noted that they included environmental issues in their campaigns. Topics included in this category included messages about items such as climate change, protecting a wetland, anti-

176 pipeline positions and anti-fracking stances. When green party candidates are excluded from the analysis, as the environment is the foundation for many of their participation, ten candidates spoke about the environment, and it was featured by an equal amount of men and women.

Environmental issues was mainly featured by progressive candidates, as only one conservative candidate discussed environmental issues in her campaign, a woman LNP member from

Queensland. Only one third of the candidates who mentioned the environment were competitive, which was largely a function of so many candidates representing green parties, who tend to be uncompetitive.

Twenty candidates included messages about infrastructure in their campaigns. These messages related to items such as building better roads, improving sewage treatment plants, and building bridges. There was no perceived gender difference on featuring this issue. Infrastructure was more likely to be mentioned by conservative candidates. Among women candidates, party affiliation did not matter, but for conservative men, there was a gap: 27 percent of conservative men featured infrastructure projects, compared to 17 percent of the progressive men. For this issue, level of candidate investment was a gendered factor. Proportionately more men were likely to talk about infrastructure if they were highly invested, but this was not the case for women. In fact, the highly invested women candidates were less likely to include these messages compared to the medium-and low- investment women candidates.

Twenty of the candidates interviewed included a message about the economy in their campaign. These messages included items such as criticizing a high unemployment rate, advocating for assistance or attention to be given to a certain sector, general support for small business, and promoting economic diversification. For this topic, an equal number of men and women included economic messages in their campaigns, but as more men than women were

177 interviewed, it is the case that proportionately more women discussed the economy than men.

Slightly more competitive than uncompetitive candidates mentioned the economy. In terms of party affiliation, an equal number of men and women conservative candidates stressed this topic

– about a third of those interviewed. However, among progressive candidates, more women than men discussed the economy. Progressive women candidates were almost twice as likley to discuss the economy compared to progressive men.

Men were more likely than women to feature the following issues in their campaigns: cost of living, law and order, public transit, social support issues and messages related to quality of governance. Of the eight candidates who featured cost of living, only two were women. Given that cost of living is closely related to the economy, this finding somewhat rectifies the finding that women were more likely to discuss economic issues than men, which contradicts existing literature (Larson, 2001). Both of the women who discussed the economy represented conservative parties. Among the men, only one represented a progressive party. All of the candidates who message on this topic were highly invested.

Twelve candidates included messages about improving law and order in their campaigns.

Only two were women, one of which, an ALP candidate from Queensland, noted that she did not want to talk about crime, but felt she had to because of the crime rate in her area. Among the men, there was not a real gap in party position on the issue, as four men represented progressive parties and 6 represented conservative parties. There was, however, a difference based on country – none of the candidates interviewed from Canada reported that they included these issues in their campaign.

Women were expected to discuss public transit and social support more than men, given these issues are generally deemed to be related to servicing under-privileged people (see for

178 example, Huddy and Terkildsen (1993) regarding gendered perceptions of compassion), but this was not the case for the candidates interviewed. Public transit was featured by 12 candidates, eight of who were men. For this topic, competitiveness mattered, as only three candidates who included these messages were competitive. This topic was more likely to be mentioned by progressive candidates, and level of investment did not appear to be a factor. Social support issues related to helping those in need, such as seniors, people living with disabilities and enhancing the amount and quality of public housing. Nine candidates included messages that related to social support as a part of their campaign. Of these candidates, seven were men, and only two were women, both who represented progressive parties. There was not a huge party difference in support for these issues among the men. Featuring these issues was reported by more low- than high-investment candidates. Double the number of low-investment candidates had a message about social support than the high-investment candidates.

The last issue that was prevalent was somewhat unexpected given that it had not emerged in the literature on gendered campaign issues. Of the candidates interviewed, 19 included messages in their campaigns about general government quality and democracy. This included items such as stressing that it was time for change, making government more transparent, cutting government waste, and being available to represent all constituents. For this issue, there was a gender difference with 25 percent of men candidates including it in their campaigns compared to

14 percent of women. For this issue there was a heavy presence from Alberta, with 10 of the 19 candidates who included these messages coming from this province. This is likely a function of the fact that at the time, the Progressive Conservative Party had been in power for 41 years. All but one of the candidates who messaged on improving democracy were challengers – the lone incumbent was an Independent woman from Canada. The nature of this topic is necessarily

179 negative as it infers that the current government has not been doing a good job. As will be discussed in the next chapter on negative campaign messages, more men than women negatively campaign, which may be reflected by the inclusion of this topic as well.

5.3.3 Gendered Campaign Issues: Discussion

The degree to which the results from this study mesh with the existing literature is somewhat mixed. With the exception of health and education, women’s issues were largely not a feature of most candidate’s campaigns, regardless of gender, which has been found in other studies that analyze campaign issue content (Evans, 2016). This was to be expected as studies have found that while women are more likely than men to include women’s issues, they also primarily identify geographical territory as their primary identification for representation, as opposed to representing women (Tremblay, 2003; Sawer, 1981). Regarding gender differences in featuring health and education, expectations were borne out: women were more likely than men to do so, but the gap was small. This makes sense given that the majority of provincial and state budgets are focussed on these two areas. In terms of competitiveness, however, competitive women were more likely than uncompetitive women to feature these issues, whereas for men, competitiveness was not a factor. In fact, more uncompetitive men than competitive men featured education. This may suggest that for women, including issues in their campaigns in which they are deemed to have “gender issue ownership” (see Herrnson et al., 2004), is a competitive strategy.

In terms of gender differences in featuring other issues, Larson’s (2001) findings are supported with men being more likely to feature issues that relate to law and order, but refuted on the issue of the economy; both men and women featured this issue among the candidates

180 interviewed. A somewhat puzzling finding emerged in that men were more likely than women to report featuring public transit and social assistance.

5.4 Gender Affinity: A Generally Inappropriate Message

A very clear finding emerged regarding women campaigning on gender affinity – not one single woman interviewed reported that she made a public appeal in her own campaign to women on the basis of their shared gender. Additionally, they neither reported referencing women’s unequal rate of representation in the legislature, nor said that more women were needed in government. Only two candidates made statements of this nature in a private capacity. Both were competitive, highly invested women candidates for the NDP in British Columbia. One noted that when she was speaking with a women voter who felt strongly about women’s issues, she felt that she was able to link the conversation to the fact that she was a woman candidate, that women represent 52 percent of the population, and that more women were needed in the legislature.178 The other woman, an incumbent, reported that she was helping a new woman candidate campaign in a nearby riding, and whilst door knocking, she would say, particularly to women voters, that it was, “great to have a woman representing the riding.”179

While women were not likely to make appeals based on gender affinity, the women that were interviewed nevertheless felt that gender representation was important. Ten of the 40 women interviewed noted that equal gender representation and women’s participation was important. Of these women, nine represented progressive parties and one represented a conservative party; and five of them were competitive candidates. Two of the Australian women, one from the Green Party and one from the Katter’s Party even specified that getting more

178 Interview, August 7, 2014b. 179 Interview, July 25, 2014.

181 women into office was their motivation for running. The Green Party candidate noted that if she did not run, then only men would, so she “had to take one for the team.”180 The Katter’s Party candidate said that older male candidates in her party did not resonate with her as a younger woman.181

These findings largely reflect Tremblay’s (2003, 1998) findings in that she found that while women felt that it was their mandate to represent women and women’s issues, it was not their primary focus. While appeals to gender affinity were not made by the candidates, three of the women noted that the conversations were happening internally with their parties. A Greens candidate from Victoria explained that while her party is committed to affirmative action, the issue is that they do not have enough women involved, and she thinks that they need to change their culture to be more attractive to women who want to participate.182 A former ALP Minister from Queensland reported that she had pushed her party to contrast themselves against the

Liberal National Party via their state-level messaging. She had wanted the ALP messaging to highlight that their party does a “better job on women’s issues” and that they had “better female representation within the party.”183 This example demonstrates that not even high-ranking women with strong opinions feel comfortable appealing for descriptive representation, but rather want their party to make these sorts of appeals as part of their central messaging.

While women candidates were not making appeals on the basis of a shared gender, a few reported that they felt that they had support from women voters. This included a young ALP candidate who had heard that older woman were happy to see her run, a NDP candidate from

Alberta who noted that she felt that woman were pleased for her that she was doing well in life,

180 Interview, March 28, 2013. 181 Interview, May 2, 2013a. 182 Interview, March 24, 2013. 183 Interview, April 30, 2013c.

182 and a few older conservative religious women reported that they knew that they had support from their own demographic group.

While not many women were comfortable making connections with other women because of their shared gender, there was seemingly more comfort in making a connection as a mother. When asked about their gender-based communications, eight of the women interviewed noted that they had an “in with moms,” and of these, half represented conservative parties. One mother, a conservative candidate from Queensland even noted that voters would approach her over trivial matters like wanting to ask where she got her child’s clothes, and as a result she was able to facilitate a connection with them.184 A Green Party candidate from Victoria noted that when a voter “pushed her in a gendered way” to talk about children’s issues, she felt that she was strong on the issue because she had the experience of having kids, and dealing with children- related issues by serving on a childcare committee and on her children’s school’s parent council.185

A few candidates from Australia expressed negative opinions about gender-based representation. This included two elected women conservative candidates, a young Greens candidate, and one man, who was an incumbent. One of the elected members noted that she did not support a gender-based quota because she worked hard to get the job and would, “hate to think that it was ever thought that it wasn’t because of merit.”186 The incumbent, a man from the

ALP, echoed this sentiment, saying that he did not have time for quotas for minorities or women,

“My attitude is that if you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”187 The other elected

184 Interview, May 2, 2013. 185 Interview, March 24, 2013. 186 Interview, May 6, 2013. 187 Interview, May 3, 2013c.

183 woman said that she felt that “age and gender don’t matter,”188 and the Greens candidate felt thinking about a candidate’s gender was “backwards.”189

5.5 Intersectionality of Sexual Orientation and Ethno-Racial Based Identity

As mentioned in Chapter Two, two of the candidates self-identified as being members of the LGBTQ community. While both of these candidates were proud to run as members of the community, neither relayed that this aspect of their identity was a major component of their campaigns. One of the candidates was a gay young man, and he noted that one aspect of this identity that he felt likely impacted his communication was that voters assumed he did not have children, whereas he felt that if he had been a young women, questions about his family life would have been raised more often.190 The other candidate relayed that her partner was transgender, and she noted that while she would mention that she lived with her partner and two children, she “wouldn’t go on about it,”191 nor participate in media interviews on the matter, noting that the tabloids had wanted to frame the situation as an example of the “Greens being weird.”

None of the candidates who had a non-white ethno-racial background relayed that they had consciously strategized their campaign in a way to highlight this aspect of their identity, although a few of the Filipino candidates from Canada noted that they were proud to run for office as they felt that their ethnic group was underrepresented. In terms of communicating about race and ethnicity, a handful of candidates, both white and non-white, noted that they had prominent ethnic groups in their ridings and as such, translated their brochures, and a few

188 Interview, April 11, 2013. 189 Interview, April 29, 2013. 190 Interview, July 26, 2016. 191 Interview, March 24, 2013.

184 mentioned that they had reached out to ethnic groups to meet them, such as visiting a mosque.192

One candidate noted that he had started to learn Cantonese because of the large number of

Chinese-speaking voters in his riding.193 In British Columbia, three NDP candidates reported that they had been accused of being racist – one for not attending a Chinese community association’s debate, one who said that their comments on the Israel-Palestine conflict were taken out of context, and one relayed that the name of her video-gaming team was perceived as racist, while she noted that she was not the one who named it. In all three cases, the candidates publicly defended themselves and clarified their support for the community in question.194

While sexual and ethno-racial identity, and the intersection between these identities and gender, has been a part of the public consciousness for a number of years, there has been an increased focus on race, sexual orientation and intersectionality recently. The heightened focus on ethno-racial identity as a consequence of the Black Lives Matter movement, and the inclusivity-seeking work of the LGBTQQIP2SAA community will no doubt influence the content of future political campaigns. It is likely that future campaigns in both Australia and

Canada will increase the amount of attention paid to candidate identities, and party policies in support of these tradititionally marginalized and ignored identity groups.

5.6 Gender-Based Voter Targeting

Although making reference to gender affinity, or appealing to voters to increase women’s representation was not found to be a component of the interviewed candidates’ messaging, significantly more of them reported that they had engaged in some form of gender-based

192 Interview, August 7, 2014. 193 Interview, August 4, 2016. 194 Interviews, August 21, 2014; August 25, 2014 and August 7, 2014.

185 targeting towards their voters. Just over a quarter of the candidates interviewed indicated that they had either included a message that they thought specifically resonated with men or women in their communications, adopted a different tone or body language behaviour that was specific to the gender of the voter they were talking to, or directly targeted a voter based on their gender with a gender-specific message and the use of a constituent database system. Of these candidates, no real differences emerged in who was most likely to partake in this kind of targeting - just under half were women, slightly more were competitive than uncompetitive, and a similar number represented conservative and progressive parties.

Eight of the candidates interviewed indicated that they intentionally targeted women with information about child-related policies, such as education and childcare. Of these eight candidates, four directly targeted women via phone calls or direct-mail, while the other four felt that the messages in their communications about these policies were meant for, or likely to be picked up on by women. One of these candidates, a young man from the ALP party in

Queensland noted that his literature on childcare was deliberately written in the first person, contained personal pronouns, and was relatively short, which he thought was a good way to connect with women.195

A few of the candidates indicated that they naturally felt that both men and women had different interest areas when they were engaging directly with voters. No clear pattern emerged on who felt this, as the perception was relayed by men and women candidates that were competitive and uncompetitive, and from both left and right leaning parties. For these candidates, they reported that they were more likely to talk to women about education and children, while men were more interested in topics that related to the economy and infrastructure, which

195 Interview, May 1. 2013d.

186 coincides with the gendered division of issues identified by Larson (2001). A conservative candidate from Queensland explained that this happened in her experience because,

“realistically, kids rule women’s attention, because they make choices on them.”196

A common response to the questions about gender targeting was echoed by a number of green party candidates. Five of the candidates, among them four men, reported that they thought that their party in general was appealing to women. In a sense, these candidates were almost dismissing the need for gender targeting. One candidate from Victoria stated, “Gender equality and stuff like that become Green’s mainstays. Because we are the Greens, it is kind of obvious,”197 while a candidate from Queensland stated, “We are for pretty much all the women’s issues, so it’s not about gender.”198

While some of the women had connected with other women as a mom, six of the men candidates interviewed also thought that showcasing their family connection would be appealing to women voters. Five of these men mentioned that they thought that women voters liked seeing their family picture, which they included with their literature. A MP from the LNP noted that while he did not do gender-based appeals, he did make sure that there were pictures of him “with his family and talking to women” which he thought was a gentle side of him that women would like to see.199 Another man reported that, “a close commitment to family is something that established female voters in my electorate appreciate.”200 All but one of the men who reported this tactic were from conservative parties, and all but one of them sat as a sitting MP or was an incumbent candidate.

196 Interview, May 2, 2013a. 197 Interview, March 12, 2013b. 198 Interview, April 29, 2013c. 199 Interview, April 12, 2013. 200 Interview, April 29, 2013b.

187

Twelve of the candidates interviewed indicated that gender was a consideration in how they delivered their message. In terms of their physical presence, two of the men noted that when they door knocked, they stood well back from the door so as not to intimidate a women voter.

One of the men from Alberta stated that, “Door knocking in the middle of the day in rural areas is kind of a waste of time. Of the ones that are there, a single lady might come to the door, and it’s a little uncomfortable with two men [him and his campaign manager] standing there.”201

Similarly, a woman candidate noted that her physical presence was an advantage for her when speaking to voters, as she thought that women voters would be more likely to open their doors to her and that it would be hard for a man to approach a woman voter in this respect.202 Conversing face-to-face also reveals a gendered disadvantage. A few of the women noted that safety was a consideration. An NDP candidate from BC explained that she always had an escort when she was out door knocking in her constituency,203 while a Green Party candidate, also from BC, reported that she was constantly “getting in trouble” from her campaign team for entering people’s houses.204

A few of the men reported that they adjusted their tone and language, presenting a gentler demeanour when they were speaking with women. An example provided by one candidate was that he would refer to kids as “children” when speaking to older ladies, and another reported that he would be “a little more Aussie,”205 meaning boisterous, when speaking with men. One woman, an NDP candidate from BC noted that she had the opposite experience when speaking with men, and that she would have to be bold and cut them off when speaking as they assumed

201 Interview, June 27, 2016. 202 Interview, May 2, 2013a. 203 Interview, August 7, 2014b. 204 Interview, August 21, 2014b. 205 Interview, March 22, 2013b.

188 her position on matters.206 A MP from Queensland relayed that he felt that women read the details of his message, and that men read the headlines, and adjusted each for that purpose.207

Only one candidate, an MP from Alberta, relayed that she was strategic in how she directly targeted gender-identity groups, noting for example that Facebook was a useful forum to connect with middle-aged women.208 This meshes with the findings of Bennet and Gordon (2020) who noted that only a minimal number of the campaign advertisements they studied appeared to use a sophisticated delivery system delivered by demographic factors, including gender. However, a few of the candidates were less than forthcoming about how they used their voter-information database. Even though political parties are increasingly adopting voter database tracking systems

(Marland and Giasson, 2017; Bennett and McDonald, 2019), most candidates either did not, or were reluctant to admit that they had employed micro-targeting techniques to directly connect with voters.

In terms of explaining why they had not engaged in gender-based messaging, just over three quarters of the candidates interviewed noted that gendered messaging simply was not something that they had deliberately thought to do. Three candidates, all men from Australia reported that this type of messaging was inappropriate. Two conservative candidates relayed that they thought that it was inappropriate to highlight peoples’ differences or treat a group of people in a different way,209 while an Independent candidate relayed a normative feminist stance, that it was not good to direct policies like childcare specifically to women because they should not be gender-issues.210

206 Interview, August 7, 2014b. 207 Interview, April 8, 2013. 208 Interview, June 14, 2016b. 209 Interviews, March 22, 2013b; May 15, 2013. 210 Interview, March 12, 2013a.

189

Of the candidates interviewed, 12 relayed that they felt that campaigning along gender lines either was not strategic or they cautioned that it could backfire. Of these candidates, slightly more were men than women, and more concern was reported by progressive than conservative candidates. An equal number of competitive as uncompetitive candidates offered caution. The main messages against this line of campaign messaging was that some candidates felt that the people in their electorates did not care about “women’s issues” relative to the other issues going on in their electorate. A campaign manager for a rural-based candidate in Alberta commented,

“There’s not a whole lot of the sexism stuff happening out here. If you’ve ever worked on a farm you would see why. It doesn’t matter who does the work; someone has to do it.”211 Others felt that it was unwise to marginalize yourself and only appeal to half the electorate when every vote counts. One candidate, a conservative women from Canada who had experience training women professionals noted, “The female thing I skirted around. I ran a charity that looked at training female professionals, so I had to be careful that I didn’t come off as a bra-burner. Who I am doesn’t matter, but rather, how am I going to represent your view.”212

5.7 Campaigning on Gender? Conclusions

The findings on gendered issue inclusion and gender targeting show that men and women’s campaigns do look different to some degree, as there is some variation in the types of issues that candidates stress based on their gender. Additionally, there is some evidence that men candidates deliberately attempt to soften the content and delivery of their messages when engaging with women voters. In terms of appealing to voters on the basis of identity, however, neither men nor women make explicit appeals on this basis, which largely reflects earlier findings that assert that

211 Interview, July 27, 2016a. 212 Interview, June 14, 2016b.

190 party and geographic location are the primary drivers of representation for local political candidates and elected members (Tremblay, 2003, Sawer, 1981, McAllister and Studlar, 1992).

This study found that men’s expected issue inclusion differed more than women’s based on the literature. More men than women talked about childcare, close to 40 percent of men discussed education and almost one third included messages about healthcare in their local campaign. These findings can be explained. Childcare is expensive in both Canada and Australia, and men linked it to cost of living. Furthermore, education and healthcare comprise the majority of government budgets at the state/provincial level, and thus it would be perplexing if men candidates did not focus on the big-budget items in their campaigns.

The findings also provide some support for Herrnson et al.’s (2003) “gender issue ownership” theory, in that women who discussed education and healthcare were more likely to be competitive than uncompetitive, which may indicate that they receive an electoral bonus for doing so, whereas the effect for men is smaller, which is puzzling given that these items are such large expenditures by state/provincial governments.

In terms of a gender consciousness, no candidate relayed that they felt that they should include an issue in their campaign because of their gender. However, a gender awareness did emerge in terms of some candidates changing the content and tone of their messages based on the voter’s gender that they were or were trying to engage with in an attempt to gain rapport and support. A puzzling finding among women candidates that were interviewed was that while they were aware of gender and the importance of descriptive representation, they chose not to stress these issues in their campaigns. This discrepancy can largely be explained by the fact that politicians have been found to identify geographical territory and party affiliation as their main representative function.

191

Chapter Six: Opponent Relations and Communication

6.1 Opponent Messaging and Relationships in Local Campaigns

In 2016, the first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump was watched by an estimated 84 million Americans, the largest ever television audience in US debate history, and pulled an even bigger audience than the first debate in 2020 between Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden (Stelter, 2020). While the recent campaigns run by President

Trump may well be the epitome of negative campaigning, it is also true that campaigns tend to involve some level of opponent interaction and there is evidence that voters tune-in to campaigns that feature controversial relationships amongst the contenders (for example, Mutz, 2015). Thus far, this research project has focused on components of campaign communication that concern candidates individually, such as how they present their qualifications for public office, details about their family life, and what issue(s) they highlight as part of their local campaign.

Communication during political campaigns does not, however, happen in a single-candidate vacuum. For most candidates, especially challengers, considerations of their opponent(s) factor into their communication plan to some extent. This includes comparing themselves to their opponents, reacting to what their opponents say, or what they anticipate they might say, and in some cases, blatantly attacking an opponent based on a negatively perceived personal of professional attribute.

This chapter investigates gender differences in candidates’ approach to opponent relationships and opponent-based communication. Three broad areas of analysis will be addressed. The first examines direct relationships between candidates and their opponents, such as wishing one another luck or notifying each other of intentions to enter the electoral race;

192 working together to organize campaign events such as debates; and establishing informal agreements, which I will call civility pacts, that set the tone and appropriate conduct for the ensuing campaign. The second area regards negative attacks experienced by candidates, and analyzes the gendered experience of these attacks, and assesses the degree to which candidate reactions to negative attacks are gendered. The last area of analysis concerns attacking opponents. This area of analysis examines the target and nature of attack, as well as the rationale behind choosing not to employ negative messages.

Based on the interview data, there is clear evidence that when it comes to opponent relations, women and men have different experiences and their campaign communications are gendered. Women candidates are less likely to form civility pacts, they are more likely to be the target of strong personal attacks, and their campaigns are less likely to negatively attack an opponent. A surprising finding to emerge was that there is little evidence that the men who were interviewed adjusted their communication strategy when faced with a woman opponent. The next section reviews the literature on opponent relationships, including civility pact agreements and the initiation of and response to negative attack messages.

6.1.1 The “Civility Pact”: The Use of Informal Agreements in Political Campaigns

A civility pact is a non-binding, generally verbal agreement between two parties to either engage, or refrain from engaging, in a certain type of behaviour. In the case of election campaigns, this kind of agreement may typically occur at the beginning of a campaign to lay out the ground rules surrounding the types of activity or communications that are permissible. For example, candidates may agree to speak only about policy stances, rather than one another’s fitness for office, or to avoid communicating about their opponent’s personal life. While there is relatively little research focussed on these types of agreements, there are known examples of

193 candidates who have established such agreements. For example, it was widely reported that the

2020 Democratic presidential nominee candidates in the US, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie

Sanders, formed a non-aggression pact that held for almost a year, whereby the two senators refrained from attacking one another and instead focused their criticisms on their moderate opponents (Debenedetti, 2019; Riley-Smith, 2020). There is also evidence that supporters of parties are known to adopt informal agreements, and as such, candidates may be expected to follow suit if the agreement garners a large media following or significant online support. An example of this may have occurred during the 2015 Canadian federal election. As the election was underway, an “Anyone but Conservative – Vote Together” initiative took to the online airwaves, whereby voters were encouraged to consider the first-past-the-post electoral system and vote strategically against their Conservative Party of Canada (CPC) candidate. Casting a vote for the strongest progressive candidate (Green, NDP, or Liberal), the one with the best chance of beating the CPC candidate in their riding, was encouraged (Kilpatrick, 2015).

There are many good reasons to either initiate or accept a good-faith agreement. The rationale behind such a proposal may relate to a desire to suppress information about oneself that could be embarrassing, a fundamental discomfort towards criticizing or hurting others, or a general desire to enhance the democratic process by focusing on ideas rather than people.

Regardless of the reason, the concept of trust is important for the establishment of the agreement.

Candidates must trust their opponents for the agreement to work, but to some extent, it could also be argued that for an agreement to be proposed or accepted in the first place, some degree of initial distrust must be present. While there is a dearth of literature on good faith agreements in political campaigns, let alone how gender affects such agreements, a number of studies have

194 been conducted on gender and trust, which relates to the rationales and likelihood that candidates may have towards initiating or accepting an invitation to participate in a civility pact.

6.1.2 Gender and Levels of “Trust”

The concept of trust, a belief in the reliability, truth, ability or strength of something or someone, is studied first at the level of the individual; from a psychological perspective, trust is treated as a core personality characteristic (Glanville and Paxon, 2007: 234) that is learned in early childhood and only modified later in life by “hard experience and trauma” (Newton et al.,

2018: 38, see further Allport, 1961; Cattell, 1965; Erikson, 1950; Rosenberg, 1956, 1957). A person’s level of trust is not static, but rather differs according to context. As Newton et al.

(2018), explain, “Trust involves a risk that others will not betray our trust and so we develop and change our sense of trust according to experience, which teaches us whom to trust and in what circumstances” (39). Bauer and Freitag (2018) argue that it is important to differentiate “trust” and “trusting behaviour” as “mixing the two conflates trust with cooperative behavior” (15).

Thus, trust does not just mean that one expects not to be betrayed; it can also mean that one expects to be betrayed. The concept of expectation is critical.

A substantial literature addresses the connection between trust and electoral behaviour.

Some examples include the association between high levels of political trust and participation in elections (Dalton, 2004; Smets and Van Ham, 2013; Grönlund and Setälä, 2007); low levels of trust and decreased voter turnout (Cox, 2003); the propensity to vote for an incumbent if one has a high level of political trust (Hooghe, 2018: 622); how right-leaning voters show higher levels of trust in political institutions, while left-leaning voters are more critical of them (Newton and

Norris, 2000; Hetherington, 2005); and that voters who support winning candidates have more

195 trust in government than those who support candidates who fail to get elected (Anderson and

LoTempio, 2002). The level of trust felt by political candidates toward their opponents is however, less well understood. Despite the lack of scholarship, the literature on gender and social trust might be insightful.

Studies have shown mixed results on the effect of gender on trust. There is some evidence that American and Swiss women have sometimes been found to be significantly less trusting than the men in their country (Patterson, 1999: 173; Delhey and Newton; 2003: 110). Gender has been found to make little difference, however, in trust levels in other western countries (Delhey and Newton; 2003: 110; Whiteley, 1999: 41; Newton, 2001). Delhey and Newton (2003) posit that where there is a gender difference in trust, an explanation could be that “perhaps gender discrimination makes women less socially successful and satisfied with their life than men, or perhaps women with dependent children are inclined to be cautious and distrustful as a result of their responsibility to protect their offspring” (100). Women were not found to be less trusting than men in Australia or Canada.

Additionally, theoretically, the women who contest office would have high levels of internal political efficacy, and it is known that those who participate politically tend to have higher levels of efficacy and political trust (for example, Dalton, 2004). Given that candidates, and especially women candidates because they tend to have higher qualifications when running for office than men (Black, 2008; Black and Erickson, 2003; Carrol and Strimling, 1983; Anzia and Berry, 2011; Fulton; 2012), likely are not relying on an electoral victory for their livelihood, it is not clear that the explanations for women’s low level of trust are applicable here. Based on social trust, we would not expect to see a gender difference in anticipating being attacked by a political opponent.

196

6.1.3 Negative Campaigning: Good Idea, Bad Idea, and What to Do When It Happens to

You

When thinking about the relationship between political rivals, what is likely to come to mind for most people is the exchange of raw bards and witty insults, the conveniently timed discovery of an embarrassing photo or video, and the mysterious source behind the release of devasting information about a candidate’s family life, shady business deals or behaviour that seemingly crosses ethical lines or the present-day bounds of political correctness. Typically referred to as negative campaigning or attack advertisements, famous examples of these types of communications are abundant: US President Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 “Daisy Girl” advertisement insinuated that his opponent, pro-military advocate Barry Goldwater, would perpetuate nuclear war; the 1993 advertisement by the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada that seemingly ridiculed Liberal Leader Jean Chretien’s partial facial paralysis; and US President Barrack

Obama’s 2012 tongue in cheek advertisement asserting that Republican Nominee Candidate Mitt

Romney was vilifying Sesame Street’s beloved Big Bird through his proposed funding cuts to the US Public Broadcasting Service.

A great deal of literature examines negative campaigning in general, and particularly investigates whether it is an effective campaign strategy from the perspective of the candidate who launches the attack. The effectiveness of negative campaigning is commonly assessed by conducting experimental laboratory studies that analyze participant reaction to attack advertisements based on theoretical candidates, or by examining public opinion poll ratings of candidates before and after the release of an attack advertisement. The literature on the effectiveness of negative attacks as a campaign strategy has mixed findings. At times, attack- style advertisements can negatively affect the evaluations of the targeted candidate

197

(Baumgartner, 2013; Lau et al., 2007: 1182; Faber et al., 1993; Tinkham and Weaver-Lariscy,

1993; West, 1993); at other times negative attacks have no impact (Lau et al., 1999); and on occasion they can create a backlash against the actual or assumed perpetuator (Roese and Sande,

1993; Garramone, 1984).

In terms of the types of candidates who are likely to employ negative campaign messages, studies have shown that in the US, Republicans have been more likely than Democrats to do so

(Benoit et al., 1998). Additionally, challengers rather than incumbents have been found to be more likely to employ these types of messages (Benoit, 2001; Benoit et al., 1998; Airne and

Benoit, 2005). This stems no doubt from the fact that incumbents have a record to defend, whereas challengers, or at least those facing an incumbent, have a record to criticize.

One reason why negative campaigning is effective is because it attracts attention. Simply put, people are entertained by political conflict because it violates the norms of polite communication (see Mutz, 2015). When voters see political conflict among candidates, their attention is heightened which results in an increased amount of interest, memory retention, and self-directed learning (for example, Mutz, 2015; Schuck, et al., 2016; Baumgartner, 2013;

Diamond and Bates, 1984; Pyszczynski and Greenberg, 1981; Greenwald and Leavitt, 1984;

Homer and Yoon 1992; Lau and Pomper, 2002; Clinton and Lapinski, 2004; Dinzes et al., 1994;

Lau et al., 2007).

A related effect of negative campaigning is its impact on electoral participation. While the findings are mixed, there is some evidence that a highly negative campaign will offend some voters, who will choose to abstain from the election (for example, Ansolabehere and Iyengar,

1995; Ansolabehere et al., 1994c; Kahn and Kenney, 1999; Gronbeck, 1992; Diamond and

Bates, 1994). Other studies, however, have found no evidence of depressed turnout due to

198 negativity (for example, Wattenberg et al., 1999; Goldstein and Freedman, 2002; Finkel and

Geer, 1998; Goldstein, 1997; Clinton and Lapinski, 2004; Krasno and Green, 2008; Garramone et al., 1990; Franz et al., 2008). There is evidence that attempting to affect overall voter turnout via negative ads could be a political strategy, as a number of studies have found that a lower voter turnout is beneficial to more conservative parties (Gomez et al, 2007; Fowler, 2015; Arnold and Freier, 2016). In its role in local campaigns, the benefits associated with negative campaigning depend on context for potential impact because while voter turnout could affect the electoral fortunes of candidates in Canada based on party, it is unlikely to matter in Australia given the country has mandatory voting.

While negative campaigning has been shown to be an effective strategy in some contexts, the decision to “go negative” must be made strategically because of what is known as the

“backlash effect.” If a negative attack is perceived as having gone too far, instead of lowering voter evaluations of the target of the attack, evaluations for the target could remain unchanged or actually improve, while the overall evaluation of the sponsor of the attack could decline. A famous Canadian example of this effect occurred during the 1993 federal election. A television ad released by the Progressive Conservative Party was thought to unfairly portray the Liberal leader, Jean Chretien, by revealing his face in a manner that highlighted his facial paralysis, a result of childhood Bell’s palsy. The ad resulted in a significant public backlash, public criticism from high-ranking PC candidates, and the eventual pulling of the ad (CBC Archives, 2019).

Outside of this Canadian example, the literature has also found evidence that a backlash effect can negatively impact not only the candidate who is behind an attack, but also a candidate who is perceived to be responsible for an attack, lowering their voter evaluations (Meirick and Nisbett;

199

2011; Baumgartner, 2013; Jasperson and Fan, 2002; Garramone & Smith, 1984; Merritt, 1984;

Sonner, 1998).

As important as is the decision to go negative, so too is the response when a candidate finds themselves to be the target of an attack. In terms of a defensive or counterattack, that is attacking an opponent after they attack you, there has been evidence to show that this is an effective strategy, as support is often offered when candidates stand up for themselves, particularly if they are favored in the polls. At times, the target of the attack can find that their voter evaluations after they have countered the attack are higher than they had been previously

(for example, Carraro et al., 2012; Calantone and Warshaw, 1985; Sonner, 1998, Roddy and

Garramone, 1988; Pfau and Kenski; 1990).

6.1.4 Gendered Negative Campaigning

Negative campaigning has been analyzed from a gendered perspective in a number of respects. Two of the main questions addressed are: do women candidates negatively campaign, and how do voters react to those who do? De facto, the second question assesses whether negative campaigning is a good strategy for women candidates. There is some evidence that in general, women candidates are more disproving of negative campaign tactics than men

(Herrnson and Lucas, 2006). In addition to being more opposed to negative attack advertising, some studies have also found that women candidates are also less likely than men to use negative attacks (Larson, 2001; Johnston and White, 1994; Kahn and Gordon, 1997, but see Khan, 1993 for an alternative finding that women were more likely to “go” negative).

When women do use negative communications, it is most likely to happen when the issue at hand relates to women’s issues (Herrnson and Lucas, 2006), and like men, women challengers are more likely to attack than women incumbents (Ridout and Searles, 2011, Larson, 2001). In

200 addition, when comparing the use of negative communications between men and women candidates, women candidates have been found to be more likely than men to initiate attacks based on their opponent’s personal character (Bystrom, 2010).

In terms of voter evaluations of negative attacks, there is some evidence that women are more disapproving of negative attacks than men (King and McConnell, 2003). Negative advertising by women candidates has been found to be most effective when women present themselves in a way that contradicts gender stereotypes when discussing issues that are typically perceived to be masculine strengths. By making such an attack, women candidates can close the gap on the perceived abilities of men and women to legislate on these issues (Lee, 2013;

Krupnikov and Bauer, 2014; Gordon et al., 2003).

When women do employ negative communications, there is some evidence that they receive more of a backlash for doing so relative to men (Herrnson et al., 2003; Hitchon et al.,

1997). In particular, women receive poorer evaluations for going negative when the women candidate is perceived to be the instigator or to have conducted the first negative strike and when the woman negative campaigner is from a different party than the voter exposed to the negative communication (Krupnikov and Bauer, 2014).

One last area of the literature on gendered negative attack strategies concerns the behaviour of men, specifically those who find themselves in mixed-gender races. For men candidates, openly and aggressively attacking a woman opponent can lead to a major backlash, as this strategy appears to elicit a greater negative response in voters than when women attack men (Lawrence and Rose, 2010: 124; Dolan, 2008b; Nagourney and Connelly,

2000; Hitchon and Chang, 1995). In terms of strategically using negative attacks on women candidates, some men candidates specifically wait to unleash negative attacks until after their

201 opponent strikes first in mixed-gender races in order to avoid the perceived appearance of bullying (Fox, 1997 and 2000; Dolan, 2008; Tolleson-Rinehart and Stanley, 1994; Tolleson-

Rinehart, 1994; Renner, 1993).

The literature thus offers a mix of expectations. First, as women have been found to be less likely to employ negative campaign strategies than men, we expect to see that reflected in the interview data. However, women are also more likely to be challengers than incumbents. Thus, while we expect that gender difference to remain when looking at incumbent’s campaign behaviour, looking at challengers is more challenging. The fact that women are more likely to be evaluated negatively than men for initiating attacks suggests that even as challengers, they may be less likely to do so out of fear of a backlash effect This is a clear disadvantage for women, as it is the challenger’s job to attack incumbent records; if the incumbent is not presented as doing a poor job while in office, then there is little perceived need to replace them. When women do use negative attack messages, it is unclear what to expect because women have been less likely to employ negative attacks on their opponents, (Larson, 2001; Johnston and White, 1994; Kahn and

Gordon, 1997) which suggest that if they do, the attack will be relatively tame, however

Bystrom’s (2010) study has found that when women do go negative, there are more likely to make personal attacks. Additional expectations are that conservative candidates will be more likely to employ attack messages than progressive candidates, and that all candidates will defend themselves when attacked. Lastly, we should expect men to reveal heightened reservations about attacking women candidates.

6.2 Study Results: Opponent Relationships and Communication

202

As noted earlier, this study provides a novel contribution to the literature in its use of interviews to better understand the campaign decisions made by political candidates.

Interviewing political actors is not in itself a novel approach (for example, see Sayers 1999; Fox,

1994). The study of negative campaigning, however, tends to be approached via content analysis, which rely on examining available campaign materials and inferring causality. While this type of analysis provides an excellent account of the types of candidates who engage in negative campaigning, and even the circumstances in which they may be more or less likely to do so, what this type of approach fails to offer is an understanding of the rationales for why a candidate may engage in or refrain from negative campaign communication, the circumstances under which they would be willing to adopt a negative approach to opponent relations, and whether there is a gendered dimension to these considerations.

Study participants were asked several questions about their opponents. To trigger their memories about their opponents, I clarified the names and parties of the other candidates and asked candidates if they thought their competitors had any major strengths or weaknesses. I then asked about whether they themselves has been the target of negative campaigning, and if so, what their reaction was to the attack. I then asked whether their campaign communication included messages about any of their opponents, and if so, how they conveyed that message and what, if any, considerations they had given to negative campaigning. For candidates who reported that they had not communicated about their opponents, they were questioned about this decision, and if there were circumstances in which they would change their communication strategy to include messaging about opponents. Details about the wording of these questions can be found in Appendix B.

203

As mentioned in Chapter Two on study methodology, I anticipated that discussing opponent relations could be a contentious topic for the participants because for at least some of them, I was asking for them to confess to what could be considered poor campaign behaviour. To help mitigate the effects of these questions, I employed three strategies to encourage an open and honest discussion. First, I placed the interview questions about opponents towards the end of the interview so that I had an opportunity to build a rapport with the candidate. The second was that

I started by asking candidates if they themselves had been the target of negative communications. This generally opened the door, as candidates could explain what had been done to them, before providing details about what they had done to others. Lastly, all candidates were offered anonymity, which likely encouraged those who had attacked their opponents to reveal their campaign strategies in this regard.

6.2.1 Forging Opponent Relationships

The majority of candidates interviewed indicated that they had not approached their competitors nor been approached to establish any sort of civility agreement on the tone, content or conduct of their ensuing campaign. Of the 19 candidates (20 percent) who reported having some sort of friendly relationship or agreement with at least one of their competitors, just over half (11 candidates) indicated that they had formed or attempted to form a firm agreement about campaign conduct, while the remaining candidates reported that they had reached out to their opponents to announce their candidacy and wish one another good luck.

While the candidates who engaged in these positive opponent relationships were relatively few in number, a clear gender difference did emerge, which is detailed in Table 6.1 below.

Among the candidates who had made any sort of civility pact or were intentional about having a

204 friendly relationship with their opponents, 12 were men and seven were women, thus this sort of relationship was slightly more common among men than women.

Table 6.1: Percentage of Candidates who Deliberately Formed Positive Relationships with their Opponents Men Women Intentionally Friendly Relationship 6% 13% Civility Pact 17% 5% No Agreement/Relationship 77% 82% Total 100% 100% Total No. of Candidates 52 40

Amongst these candidates, gender interacted with party affiliation and competitive status.

Party affiliation was not a factor for women candidates, but for men, three quarters of those who reported having an intentionally friendly relationships or formal agreement with their opponents represented progressive parties. To some extent, for the men candidates, these findings coincide with the literature that has found that progressive leaning candidates are less likely to engage in negative messaging (Benoit et al., 1998) in that these men were more likely to attempt to engage in a positive campaign. In terms of competitiveness, five of the seven women who reported this type of relationship with their opponent were competitive, while two thirds of the men were uncompetitive. In terms of explaining the gender difference based on competitiveness, it should be noted that of the seven women who were intentionally friendly and/or engaged in civility pacts, four of the women contested open seats and two were incumbents. Thus, only one of the women was a “challenger” in the respect of forgoing an opportunity to criticize a sitting opponent’s record. This woman, a Green Party candidate from British Columbia, knew that she was unlikely to win her race and was anxious about being criticized on the basis of her relatively

205 young age.213 Given the high number of open seats among the women, it is not clear to what extent competitiveness and gender interact when analyzing the type of candidate likely to form such a relationship.

Another clear gender difference that emerged was that men were more likely than women to have made a civility pact about campaign conduct with their opponent(s). Of the 11 candidates who reported such an agreement, nine were men and only two were women. One of the women, a Green Party candidate from BC,214 said that she had a firm agreement in place with one of her opponents and had accepted the invitation because she was concerned that she would be attacked on the basis of her age. The other women who formed the agreement was the initiator. This woman explained that this sort of behavior was “just how she conducted herself.”215

Of the nine men who reported that they had made formal agreements, six reported being the initiator and three relayed that they had been approached by one of their opponents. For all but one of these candidates, they indicated that the agreements had been kept. One candidate even explained that because he had made an agreement with his competitor, it had prevented an attack at the party level from taking place in his riding.216 Of the candidates who engaged in formal agreements, this LNP candidate from Queensland had the most detailed agreement in place with his opponent, who happened to be a member of his church. Their relationship was very friendly - to the extent that the candidate interviewed relayed that had his opponent ran as an Independent instead of as an ALP candidate, then he would not have contested the race. Their agreement included not messaging about past mistakes in their personal lives, and they even established a shared time arrangement for a popular roadside location to wave campaign signs at

213 Interview, August 21 2014b. 214 Interview, August 21, 2014b. 215 Interview, June 14, 2016b. 216 Interview, April 10, 2013b.

206 passing motorists. Despite the detailed agreement, negative campaigning did ensue in this candidate’s riding, as a supporter of his opponent’s party drove a car around their riding that was outfitted with a negative billboard ad against the LNP. The candidate explained that due to their agreement, he was able to contact his opponent, who then called off the attack. All of the candidates who reported participating in a civility pact suggested that their experience had been a positive one, with some insisting that a positive approach was the only way that they would participate in politics.

Rather than civility pacts, the women candidates who reported friendly relations were more likely to mention that they had deliberately reached out to their opponents to wish them luck or that they made specific attempts to be friendly during campaign events with the intent of promoting a positive democratic experience. One woman, an NDP candidate from Alberta, reported that she and her opponents had worked together to organize a debate on First Nations territory, which was an area of their riding that had long been ignored by political candidates, and she was clearly proud of this initiative. A woman from Queensland noted that her approach to forge a friendly relationship was noticed and appreciated by the public.217 This candidate was running in an open riding, and as the long-time MP for her riding was retiring, she took the opportunity to thank her for her service via an advertisement in her local newspaper, and then called up the candidate who was running to replace the retiring MP to wish him luck.

One interesting finding on formal agreements that may warrant further study is that men and women candidates may experience them differently. Two of the candidates who participated in this study were running for the same seat, a man from and a woman. Both of these candidates were involved in politics locally, sitting as elected members for their municipal council. The man

217 Interview, May 6, 2013.

207 reported in his interview that a contentious issue had come up during the course of the provincial campaign that would have been inappropriate for either of them to campaign on, given their role as local councillors. He reported that the two of them had spoken about the issue and agreed not to include it in campaign communications as it was a municipal issue that should be addressed by municipal council. Interestingly, however, while the man saw this agreement as a strategy that was mutually beneficial, the woman candidate never mentioned the occurrence.218

A final finding to note about the candidates who engaged in intentionally friendly relationships and civility pacts with their opponents concerns candidate location. About half of the men who reported these relationships were Australian, and half were Canadian. Only two of the seven women who reported engaging in these relationships were Australian. As the overall number of candidates and especially women who reported these types of relationships was small, additional research into potential country-level differences, and the factors that affect engaging in these agreements, would be helpful.

The men who were interviewed for this study were more likely than the women to report participating in a civility pact with their opponent(s). These agreements are interesting because by and large, the candidates who engaged in them reported having a positive experience. As will be discussed in the next section, women candidates were the target of negative attacks more often than men, and it may be the case that entering into such agreements could be of greater benefit to women candidates if it reduces the likelihood of being the target of negative attacks.

6.2.2 Being Attacked

218 Interviews, August 7, 2014b; August 11, 2014.

208

Being the target of a negative attack, in some capacity, was the norm for most participants in the study, as detailed in Table 6.2 below. Almost two-thirds of the candidates interviewed detailed at least one event in which they perceived that they were the target of a negative message. Of these candidates, three quarters noted that the nature of the attack against them was personal, as opposed to a more general attack about their party, party leader, or specific policy.

Table 6.2: Percentage of Candidates Targeted by Negative Attacks Incidence and Nature of Attack Men Women Total Candidate Was Targeted by a Strong Personal Attack 13% 25% 18% Candidate Was Targeted by a Medium Personal Attack 10% 18% 13% Candidate Was Targeted by a Minor Personal Attack 13% 20% 16% Candidate Was Targeted by a Non-personal Attack 21% 13% 17% Candidate Was Not attacked 42% 25% 35% Total 100% 100% 100 N 52 40 92

The nature of the personal attacks reported by candidates varied widely, and as such, these attacks were further categorized into minor, medium and major attacks based on the details provided by the candidates on the nature of the attack and the medium and frequency of which it was made. Table 6.3 below provides a sketch of how attacks were categorized.

209

Table 6.3: Personal Attack Categorization Details Level of Personal General Description Examples Attack • Mentioning a Green Party • Attack is a flippant or one-off remark candidate’s absence at an • Attack does not refer to a serious flaw Earth Day event Minor in the candidate’s character • Mentioning that the • Attack unlikely to seriously hurt candidate lives in the candidate’s reputation neighbouring riding • Attack is intended to embarrass a • Calling an NDP candidate a candidate communist in the media • Attack is of a public nature, or more Medium • Posting a video in which a public than hear-say, or a single social candidate appears to pick media post their nose • Attack may hurt candidate’s reputation • Spreading rumors that a • Attack is intended to seriously harm a candidate has declared candidate bankruptcy • Attack is public and repeated multiple • Repeatedly calling a Major times candidate racist • Attack refers to or alleges a serious • Alleging that a candidate’s character flaw, moral shortcoming, or professional credentials are lapse in judgement or bad behaviour fake

Over half of candidates who faced a strong personal attack were competitive. Ten of the 17 candidates who fit into this category either won their race or were a sitting incumbent. In terms of level of investment, 14 of the 17 candidates are categorized at the highest candidate- investment level. As highly competitive and serious candidates, it makes sense that these candidates are most likely to be a target as they are likely to be perceived by their opponents as the frontrunner and/or as a serious threat, and thus there may be an incentive to seriously harm the candidate’s reputation in an effort to hurt their electoral prospects.

The interviews made clear that personal attacks were gendered. Of the women interviewed, just over 60 percent reported a personal attack compared to just over one third of the men interviewed, which is almost a 2:1 ratio. When looking at each level of attack (minor,

210 medium, and major), the gender differences became increasingly pronounced as the level of attack increased in severity: 20 percent of all women candidates compared to 13 percent of men reported being targeted in a minor personal attack, 18 percent of women compared to 10 percent of men reported being targeted in a medium level attack, and 26 percent of women compared to

13 percent of men reported being the target of a major attack. Thus, at the most severe level of attack, women experienced being attacked by a 2:1 ratio over men. The actual nature of attacks did not seem to be impacted by gender – both men and women reported attacks based on their family lives (e.g. that candidate was spending government funds on her child; that a candidate’s child was involved in a bike gang), business dealings (such as allegations of bankruptcy; and mismanagement of a charity’s funds), alleging racism, and misconstruing policy positions (such as repeated assertions that a mis-spoke comment inferred that a progressive candidate did not support pro-choice legislation).

No real difference emerged among candidates who experienced major level attacks in terms of party affiliation, either for men or for women, although only one candidate from a green party was the target of an attack at this level.219 At the medium level of attacks, party affiliation was also not a factor, however at the level of minor attacks, party affiliation emerges as a factor in that progressive candidates were more likely to report such occurrences - no women and only two men who represented conservative parties reported being the target of a minor-level attack.

In terms of responding to personal attacks, three quarters of the candidates who faced a strong personal attack reacted to the criticism. For these candidates, responding to the criticism was important because they perceived that the attack was based on a lie, or at the very least, was deeply unfair. Both men and women responded to attacks at this level. This coincides with the

219 Interview, August 2, 2016b.

211 literature which largely suggests that candidates are perceived positively when they defend themselves (for example, Carraro et al., 2012; Calantone and Warshaw, 1985; Sonner, 1998,

Roddy and Garramone, 1988; Pfau and Kenski; 1990).

Gender emerges as a factor for candidates who were the target of a medium or minor level attack. Only one of the five men who experienced an attack at the medium level responded, compared to three of the seven women. At the level of a minor attack, five of the eight women targeted responded compared to three of the seven men.

Overall, what these results suggest is that the most egregious personal attacks are reserved for very competitive candidates. Women candidates, however, seem more likely than men to face a personal attack, and gender differences are more pronounced as the level of personal attack increases, with women more likely than men to experience these attacks by a 2:1 ratio. In terms of responding to attacks, while gender does not seem to affect whether a candidate responds to a major attack, women candidates appear to be more likely than similarly situated men to respond to less severe attacks.

When considering gendered reactions to attack messages, two questions emerge that arguably warrant further study. The first is to understand what impact negative attacks have on political candidates. It may be the case that negative attacks have differing effects on men and women. If these experiences negatively affect their likelihood of contesting future elections, then it is important to understand how these negative experiences might be mitigated to retain experienced women candidates. It may be the case that if women attempt to form civility pacts with their opponents, then the incidence of negative attacks targeting women candidates may decrease. This may particularly be the case if the agreements are made public, as the literature shows that voters evaluate candidates positively when they defend themselves, and particularly

212 when the attack is considered to be unfair and of a personal rather than policy nature (Jamieson,

2000; Shapiro and Rieger, 1992). Thus, if a man defects on a known civility pact with a woman opponent, this defection can be highlighted publicly, likely to his detriment.

A second question relates to campaign strategy. Women reacted to minor and medium levels of attacks more than the men who faced similar attacks. It is not clear whether this is a wise strategy. A number of the candidates interviewed noted that they did not respond to negative attacks because they did not want to give their opponent “any oxygen.”220 Thus, it could be the case that there is a delicate balance between receiving an electoral boost for defending oneself, versus keeping an attack piece alive beyond the 24 hour news-cycle or worse, giving an opponent free publicity in campaign contexts in which local candidates are already relatively ignored compared to party leaders and state/provincial level campaigns.

6.2.3 Initiating the Attack

Just over half of the candidates interviewed admitted that they had attacked at least one of their opponents in some way. As expected, candidates were not as candid about the attack messages that they employed as they were about providing the details of how they were attacked.

This is not surprising given an assumed social-desirability bias, as it is certainly the case that employing negative messages may be perceived as poor campaign behaviour. Additionally, the interviewer-effect has been shown to affect people’s level of honesty for in-person and telephone interviews (see Tourangeau and Smith, 1996 for a discussion on how the medium of interview affects participant responses). As such, the nature of attacks launched by the candidates were only categorized as being personal or directed at an opponent’s policy, association with their

220 Interviews, March 28, 2013; April 10, 2013; May 3, 2013b.

213 party or party leader. I did not feel that I could reliably categorize attacks as being of a minor, medium or major level given the details provided, and because of the incidence of contradiction that occurred.

Some examples of attacks directed at opponents in terms of policy or party/party leader affiliation include the following: a LNP candidate from Victoria made sure that when speaking of his opponent, he always reminded voters that he was affiliated with the ALP, as he had noted that his opponent was trying to distance himself from the party;221 a woman representing the

ALP in Victoria would criticize her Green Party opponent on the basis of not including a fully- costed version of the Party’s proposed budget and policy initiatives;222 and a woman candidate from Alberta would highlight that her opponent was a member of the governing party that cut funding for women’s reproductive healthcare.223 Some examples of personal-level attacks included an Independent highlighting the fact that her opponent was never present in their riding;224 a LNP incumbent from Queensland would deliberately park one of his A-frame election signs on the back of a truck in front of his opponents’ campaign office;225 and a candidate running against the Minister of Environment in their state wrote a letter to the editor, criticizing the Minister’s previous performance, and said they, “hoped she would be the Minister for the Environment instead of the Minister for [their party].”226 Table 6.4 below details the occurrence of these attacks.

221 Interview, March 22, 2013b. 222 Interview, April 3, 2013a 223 Interview, July 29, 2016a. 224 Interview, May 8, 2014. 225 Interview, May 2, 2013c. 226 Interview, April 29, 2013a.

214

Table 6.4: Employment of Negative Attack Messaging Men Women Total Candidate Reported Employing a Personally Based Attack 40% 20% 32% Candidate Reported Employing a Party/Party Leader/Policy Based 23% 17% 30% Attack Candidate Reported That They Had Not Attacked in any Capacity 42% 50% 45% Total 100% 100% 100% N 52 40 92

The gender difference in use of negative campaigning was not as large as the predominantly American literature suggested it might be: exactly half of the women candidates reported employing negative messaging towards their opponents compared to 57 percent of the men candidates. However, when looking at the number of candidates who launched an attack of a personal nature on their opponent, a prominent gender gap emerges, which aligns with previous research (Larson, 2001; Johnston and White, 1994; Kahn and Gordon, 1997). Of the candidates interviewed, close to one third reported that the attack that they launched was personal. The gap between men and women was sizable: 20 percent of the women candidates made a personal attack, whereas double that figure – 40 percent – of men candidates did the same, which contradicts the expectations of women being more likely to make a personally based attack than men (Bystrom, 2010). This is a notable finding because of the magnitude of the gap. Little of the literature examines local level campaigns in Canada and Australia, thus the data from this project provide compelling evidence that a strong gender gap exists in terms of men being more likely than women to employ a personally based attack.

Party affiliation also seemed to matter for women’s willingness to employ negative attacks, but not men’s. For the men, the percentage of men who attacked were strikingly similar: 43 percent of the men representing green parties launched a personal attack, 45 percent of the men representing progressive parties did so, and 42 percent of the men representing conservative

215 parties did so. For the women candidates, a notable difference emerged between progressive and conservative candidates. Twenty percent of candidates representing green parties attacked, just under a third of the other progressive candidates attacked, and only 10 percent of the conservative candidates attacked. Benoit et al. (1998) found that in the United States,

Republicans are more likely to attack than Democrats. In Canada and Australia, the progressive/conservative pattern was not supported for either men or women, and in fact, for women, it was reversed.

In terms of attacks based on incumbency status, incumbents were found to be as likely to attack as not attack, and no gender differences emerged. Among challengers, an equal number of women attacked versus refrained from attacking, however, more men attacked than refrained.

This echoes the literature regarding challengers being more likely than incumbents to employ negative messages (Benoit, 2001; Benoit et al., 1998; Airne and Benoit, 2005) for the men who were interviewed, but not for the women. This was not unexpected as it coincides with previous findings that women candidates are more disproving of these attack messages than men

(Herrnson and Lucas, 2006) and meshes with the literature that women voters are more disproving than men of these tactics (King and McConnell, 2003).

Lastly, the country in which the election occurred also seemed to matter, Australians were more likely to employ a personal attack. Just over a third of the Australian candidates compared to a quarter of Canadian candidates did so. While Canadian and Australian men are equally as likely to attack, Australian women were more likely than Canadian women to attack by a ratio of almost 2:1.

The level of investment also seemed to have a much higher impact on women, but not men candidates’ propensity to launch a negative personal attack. For men candidates, the level of

216 personal investment they had in their campaign did not affect whether they attacked their opponent on a personal level. For women candidates, none of those with less than a medium level of candidate-investment launched a personal attack, while those with higher levels of investment were more likely to attack.

A few conclusions can be drawn from these findings. First, the findings suggest that women candidates are more risk-averse when it comes to personally based exposure than men.

Much like women candidates tend to only risk exposing their families at the highest level of personal investment, the same can be said of negatively attacking opponents. Attacking an opponent is risky, because when one does so, they should expect to be counterattacked. Thus, it is a gamble to assume that the attack one has on their opponent is going to be more detrimental to their opponent’s reputation than what might be rallied in return.

A secondary consideration is that, as noted earlier, women candidates were more likely than men to report that they had responded to medium and minor level attacks against them.

Further research should investigate if women and men have different perceptions on the severity of attacks. It is possible that women are more sensitive to attacks. For example, a Wildrose candidate from Alberta reported that his opponents had referred to his wealth (inferring that he was out of touch) and he had not responded to the attack because he did not want people thinking that he was “whining.”227 A woman NDP candidate, also from Alberta, reported that at an all- candidates’ debate, one of her opponents had inferred that she was out of touch, calling her an elitist because of her advanced education and use of big words; she noted with dismay that she had not been able to respond to that comment because her opponent was allocated the final position for closing remarks at the debate.228

227 Interview, July 29, 2016b. 228 Interview, August 2, 2016a.

217

6.2.4 Rationale Against Employing Attack Based Messages

While less than half of the candidates interviewed indicated that they had not negatively campaigned, three quarters indicated that they either had not negatively campaigned at all or had not negatively campaigned against some of their opponents. This is to be expected in a multiparty setting, as different candidates will have a different number of competitive opponents in their riding. Most of the candidates could offer a clear rationale for their decision. The rationales provided by the candidates were coded as either being moralistic, strategic, both moralistic and strategic, or unclear if the candidate was not able to provide a reason for why they had not employed a negative message in their campaign. Details are presented in Table 6. 5 below.

Table 6.5: Rationale Against Employing Negative Attack Messages by Gender

Rationale Men Women Total Personal/Moralistic 33% 23% 29% Strategic 43% 20% 33% Both 8% 33% 19% Unclear 15% 23% 19% Total 100% 100% 100% N 39 30 69

Percentage of Candidates Referencing a Moral or Strategic Rationale Men Women Total Moral Reasoning 48% 74% 59% Strategic Reasoning 60% 70% 64% N 33 23 56

Some examples of moralistic rationales include a NDP candidate from British Columbia stating she would not attack because she did not want “blood on her hands;”229 a Liberal candidate from British Columbia who noted that his campaign, “[w]as one of integrity. That’s

229 Interview, August 7, 2014a.

218 the kind of person I am,”230 and a candidate from Victoria who noted that she would not attack her opponent because she knew her opponent personally and thought that she was a decent person.231

Some examples of strategic reasons offered included an incumbent LNP from Queensland who stated that his advice on negative campaigning was “Don’t give them any oxygen. Too much of the campaign is sucked up by presidential stuff;”232 a candidate who was a municipal councillor from Alberta advised that, “People that don’t burn bridges don’t have regrets in that way. There is no building back afterwards …down the road, you might be in a room where you have to cooperate with them;”233 and an ALP candidate from Queensland who discovered that unbeknownst to him, the central party had negatively campaigned against the LNP leader in his riding. He noted:

I said at the time that Queenslanders do not react well to these sorts of smear campaigns. I won’t be touching any of that. Normally Australians are pretty good at detecting shit. When people are saying things, their antenna goes up and can detect a nonsense line. When you’re going directly after someone [for their] personal life, and getting down into the gutter to do it, they see through it and know that it is a threat.234

As Table 6.5 above outlines, women were more likely than men to provide just a moral reason for not employing negative campaigns, and less likely to present just a strategic reason.

However, more women than men provided both a moralistic and a strategic reason, which complicates comparing the gendered rationale behind refraining from negative campaigning. To try to better understand gender differences, I removed the candidates who were not able to provide a reason for why they had not campaigned, and I noted the number of candidates who

230 Interview, August 4, 2016a. 231 Interview, April 3, 2013a. 232 Interview, April 8, 2013 233 Interview, June 16, 2016b 234 Interview, April 16, 2013a.

219 referenced a moral reason within their response and did the same for those who referenced a strategic reason within their response. Looking at the results this way, we see that while women were significantly more likely than men to reference a moral reason (three quarters versus half), women were actually more likely than men to offer a strategic reason for choosing not to employ a negative attack on one of their opponents. Thus, a distaste for negative campaigning alone does not explain women’s propensity to withhold attack messages.

In terms of exhibiting an awareness of gendered stereotypes and expectancy theory, only one of the women who was interviewed, an ALP candidate from Victoria, noted that negative campaigning may not be a beneficial strategy for women to adopt. She stated, “From a public persona perspective, I think it’s true that women candidates can be framed to look too aggressive.”235 Another ALP candidate from Queensland noted that it was her campaign team’s, rather than her decision to avoid going negative. This candidate was particularly proud of the attacks her team launched against her LNP opponent because she claimed that it was a good way to create awareness for the type of person her competitor was. However, she was not the sponsor of the attacks because her team had strategized that it was best to keep her positive. Instead, as the sitting member was retiring, the attacks on the LNP candidate came directly from the member. The candidate noted that she regretted the strategy, because she believed that taking an aggressive stance against her competitor would have made her look stronger and that the negative attacks would have been unlikely to cause backlash as she thought they were supported by evidence.236

While many of the candidates interviewed were candid about launching an attack on their opponents, a number of them denied, justified and attempted to downplay their actions. One

235 Interview, March 13, 2013b. 236 Interview, May 15, 2013.

220 finding that emerged was that most candidates did not consider their messages “negative” if they were talking about the opposition’s policies or party leader. Particularly in terms of communicating about an opposition party leader, this was considered fair game as they were the person leading the party.237 Thus, for at least some of the candidates, describing this type of communication as negative campaigning was not something they were comfortable with. About twenty percent of the candidates interviewed were caught contradicting themselves in that they claimed that they had not engaged in negative campaigning and then later in the interview revealed that they had in fact done so. Of these candidates, men were more likely to do so, and of these 14 candidates, two thirds represented progressive parties. It may be the case that as progressive parties tend to represent social programs that focus on helping people, that this type of messaging goes against the image that they have of their self, and thus, it is uncomfortable for them to admit that they employed such tactics.

6.2.5 Cross-gender Attacks

Only three of the candidates interviewed indicated that they had given any consideration to their opponent’s gender regarding the decision to negatively attack. All three of these candidates were men and the opponents that they were referencing were women. One candidate, a LNP incumbent from Queensland, noted that it was not in his nature to negatively attack anyone, but thought that it would be especially wrong for him to negatively attack a woman.238 A Liberal candidate from Canada noted that his opponent was a single mother and social worker.239 He chose not to negatively campaign against her even though he thought that she was a weak

237 Note: A party leader disagreed with this sentiment! 238 Interview, April 10, 2013a. 239 Interview, July 21, 2016b.

221 candidate when it came to economic issues, and despite the fact that she had launched an aggressive negative campaign against him, alleging that he was a wealthy businessman that was out of touch with the constituents in their riding. Lastly, an incumbent gave a detailed account of how his opponent’s gender affected his strategic decision to go negative in an earlier campaign.

He explained that at the time, his opponent was a sitting MP and had a reputation of being absent from parliament. His strategy was to direct attention towards her absence and lack of productivity in parliament. However, as his criticism ramped up, she started to “unravel publicly,” so he and his team decided to back off. They did not want him to be viewed as, “the male bully-boy […] who does not like a woman with a tear in her eye.”240 He further noted that,

“When you’re a male up against an unbalanced female, everything becomes about whether it looks like you’re taunting her or putting over the edge.”

While only a few candidates mentioned that they had considered their opponent’s gender regarding their decision of whether to employ negative messages, a few conclusions can be drawn. The first is that it was only men who indicated that this was a strategic consideration. No women reported that they had considered their opponent’s gender in any way. This coincides with the literature that suggests men may face a specific backlash effect for negatively campaigning against a woman (Lawrence and Rose, 2010: 124; Dolan, 2008; Hitchon and

Chang, 1995). However, as only a few men reported this gender-based consideration, it is not clear that the results from this research study find strong findings in support of the above.

6.3 Opponent Relationships and Messaging: Conclusions

240 Interview, April 16, 2013b.

222

The findings from this study show that the men who were interviewed were more likely than the women to forge intentionally positive relationships with their opponents. As women are more likely than men to be the target of attack messaging, and especially more likely to be the target of severe personal attacks, this finding suggests that it may be in women’s interest to initiate these relationships publicly. None of the men interviewed indicated that they had refused to enter into such an agreement that was proposed, and the literature has found that voters evaluate perceived aggressors negatively when the attacks are not deemed to be fair (Shapiro and

Rieger, 1992).

The interviews also suggest that there is a gender difference in responding to relatively minor attack messages, with women being more likely to do so than men. Further research is warranted to better understand why women respond. It could be the case that they perceive attacks as more offensive than men who experience attacks, or perhaps that women know that as they are more likely to be attacked on a more serious basis, it is a good strategy to respond to attacks early to prevent them from escalating.

While a similar number of men and women interviewed reported initiating attacks, gender emerges as a strong factor when it comes to initiating a personally based attack. In addition, this research finds that only the most serious and competitive women launch attacks.

These findings are notable because they relate to the findings that women candidates are only willing to display their family life when they are serious and competitive. Thus, taken together, these results suggest that women are risk-averse, and only deem violating gender role norms about keeping family private and relationships kind when there is a likelihood of success.

In terms of refraining from employing negative messages, women were found to be more likely than men to include a moral reason in their rationale for avoiding these types of messages.

223

However, it is also the case that women were more likely than men to note a strategic reason.

Thus, it is not the case that women’s distaste for negative messaging alone explains the gender differences in employing negative attacks.

Lastly, while a few men were found to have considered the optics of attacking a woman opponent, this was not a commonly cited consideration. More research at the local level, that examines more mixed-gender races is required to form a better understanding of this gender- based negative campaign strategy.

224

Chapter Seven: Making Connections

7.1 Here’s a Wall, There’s a Wall: Women’s Electoral Path as a Maze?

A swath of literature on women’s electoral fortunes is funneling to an optimistic conclusion – when women run for political office, women are starting to win at the same rate as men in many electoral contexts (for example, Sanbonmatsu, 2006a; Lawless and Pearson, 2008;

Fox, 2006). As women are grossly underrepresented in most of the world’s legislatures, these findings are welcome, as they suggest that some day, women may achieve equal political representation. There is, however, an important caveat to this, and it casts a dark shadow over an optimistic outlook. Praising women’s achievement for becoming electorally viable distracts from the fact that the governing system itself, let alone the current practice of elections as a means to win government, are structured in favour of men given the nature of existing gender role socialization.

In the introductory chapter, I argued that there are three stages of the candidacy process that ought to be considered for identifying barriers to women’s entry: the decision to run for office, which is commonly referred to as political ambition; the process of winning a party nomination to stand for election; and candidate viability. Studies of these stages, which commonly utilize a feminist institutionalist lens, seek to understand the barriers of entry that affect women candidates at each stage, and are invaluable for improving our understanding of the path forward to improve women’s representation. They not only tap into methods to help women adopt new and modify existing strategies to progress through each stage of the process in the in the status quo system, but also highlight structural and institutional changes that ought to be considered. One such example is Schwindt-Bayer’s (2005) study that demonstrates

225 incumbency as a cyclical disadvantage. Men are more likely to be incumbents and incumbents are more likely to win. As such, she recommends considering term limits as an approach to rectify the systematic disadvantage faced by women. The work by Schwindt-Bayer and others in this regard has undoubtably affected party nomination policies such as the NDP in British

Columbia, that mandated that as of 2013, constituencies where a woman NDP MLA is retiring were required to nominate another woman in her place.

This research study focuses on the third stage of the candidacy process, election campaigning. There are two areas of scholarly work that investigate barriers at this stage. The first concerns voter’s gendered perceptions of political candidates (for example, Holman et al.,

2016; Eagly and Cali, 2003). The second concerns gendered campaign messaging. Many studies have laid the groundwork for identifying the ways in which women message differently than men (Bystrom, 1995; Larson, 2001). The contribution that I make to the literature in this regard is my investigation of what drives these differences, and how viewing campaign communication through the framework of a “gendered logic of appropriateness” (Chappell, 2006) reveals the double bind faced disproportionately by women candidates. Specifically, I ask: to what extent do gender and gendered stereotypes consciously affect campaign communication among local candidates? I primarily chose to study this question at the state/provincial level in Australia and

Canada because I wanted to verify that the differences detected by a predominantly American- based literature could be generalized to other systems, and because these elections offered an increased likelihood that campaign decisions were being made by the candidates themselves as opposed to professional campaign teams. Thus, when candidates are left largely to their own devices, I would have a greater likelihood of detecting the gender differences that might naturally emerge. By speaking to candidates directly though in-depth interviews, I could

226 potentially learn the extent to which gendered stereotypes and considerations affected campaign message strategy.

There are four central conclusions that I draw from my study of local candidates. The first is that there is clear evidence that at this level of office, campaign communication is gendered. Women’s campaigns look different from men’s campaigns. To be clear, there are many similarities as well. Both men and women largely defer to their party’s state/provincial level focus on the leader and major party platform items, no gender differences were detected in terms of their presence at campaign events such as debates, and every candidate interviewed had typical materials such as brochures and lawn signs.

Striking differences emerged, however, when the analysis focused on the candidate at a personal level. For one, women were more likely than men to be severely attacked on a personal level during election campaigns. This is problematic because it puts women on the defensive and sends a message to other women that this type of behaviour is typical, which could deter them from seeking office themselves. Additionally, women were more likely to present themselves in a professional manner than was true of men. It is not clear to what extent this more professional image either harms or helps women candidates. Correlation does not equal causation, yet it is not easy to disregard the finding that of those interviewed for this study, competitive candidates were more likely than uncompetitive candidates to present a less formal image. The need to present an image that challenges traditional gender stereotypes might have deleterious effects on a woman’s ability to get elected. Women were also less likely than men to feature their family life in their campaigns. Again, it is not clear whether this omission helps or harms women running for office, given the limits of the present research study. As women candidates became more competitive, however, they were more likely to provide details of their families in their campaigns. Many

227 candidates indicated that they felt that voters wanted to see their families to be able to make a connection with the candidate. Although it may well be the case that candidates who display this information fare better than similarly situated candidates who do not, more research is required to offer a firmer conclusion.

The second conclusion is directly linked to the first conclusion. The findings herein make clear that gender role socialization and stereotypes directly affect the behaviour of the women and men who stand as candidates in elections. Importantly, the effect of these stereotypes is largely unconscious. Only a handful of candidates indicated that they consciously considered their gender when they were devising their campaign strategy. As an example, one woman reporting that she purposefully wore skirts to look feminine. Another stated that she was not sure that voters responded well to women’s use of negative messaging. A third indicated that she did not want to stress feminist messages too much for fear that as she would be labelled a bra burner.

Additionally, a couple of men noted a form of gender awareness in terms of the optics of attacking a woman opponent. These were, however, the exceptions. In over ninety interviews, very little evidence emerged that candidates consciously considered gender in terms of self- presentation. While a few candidates did say that they had targeted voters on the basis of gender, in terms of message content and delivery, this too was not commonly reported.

The first two conclusions largely mesh with the body of literature that theorizes women candidates practice a “feminine style.” As Bower (2003) asserts,

For women to fully enjoy the possibilities of the public domain, they must be able to demonstrate their ability with masculine personality traits, since the male stereotypical traits dominate in most public venues. Therefore, a woman who runs for political office must display a balance of masculine and feminine traits in order to convey an ‘acceptable’ image (108).

228

Clear examples from this project included mothers relaying in their campaigns that they had children, and many of the childless women messaging their caring capacity by showing young family members or even pets. There is, however, a double bind at work. Women were more likely than men to convey that they were a parent without the use of photographs. As the main rationale offered for excluding pictures was to protect children’s privacy, women faced two conflicting responsibilities. Women felt that for the good of their campaign they should convey their parental status to connect with voters, but they also felt a duty to protect their children as a mother. Gender role stereotypes of men align with a public, professional and political image

(Lawless, 2004) and thus the conflict between public and private roles is less problematic.

A second example is that women were more likely than men to defend themselves against minor personal attacks. Again, women need to show that they are tough and can defend themselves but were also less likely to offensively attack their opponents. Thus, women strike a balance. An example of this balance demonstrated at higher levels of office exists as well. Sarah

Palin was a “Mama Grizzley;” she was tough, but only in the sense of protecting her children.

Similarly, Parry-Giles and Blair (2002) argue that Hillary Clinton’s “writing of It Takes A

Village presented [her] as relying on diverse resources of knowledge regarding the welfare of children (e.g. developing ideas inductively) rather than presenting herself as an expert at raising kids” (in Winfrey and Schnoebelen, 2019: 122).

The third conclusion is that women’s messaging starts to reflect men’s the more competitive they become. Three clear examples of this include that competitive women were more likely to dress informally, more likely to display their family life, and more likely to target an opponent with an attack the more competitive and invested they became. For men, however competitiveness appears to matter less. Two plausible explanations for this emerge. The first is

229 that there is less variance in men’s approach to campaigning based on competitiveness because the system is built in a masculine style. For women, adapting their style to revealing more personal information and being more adversarial is something that may have to be learned. The second is that women may well know which messages to use, but that gender role socialization constrains their behaviour, something that is not the case for men. Women perceive the worth in breaking these expectations only when they have a chance of winning their seat, whereas men are not required to violate gender expectations to appear as worthy candidates, and so there is no cost-benefit analysis associated with their messaging in terms of violating gender role expectations.

The last major conclusion is that campaigning on the basis of gender appears largely to be a strategy that is avoided, regardless of whether the candidate is a man or a woman. The differences between men’s and women’s willingness to include discussion of traditional

“women’s issues” in their campaigns was small, and the issues that did get stressed, health and education, are arguably of a less “inherent substance” (Klotz and Broome, 2008:69) than issues such as reproductive rights, women’s pay equity or domestic abuse. Additionally, not a single woman reported that she had made an explicit public appeal to women voters to support her on the basis of their shared gender, and only two of the forty women interviewed said that they had done so privately. These findings are despite the fact that quite a few of the women interviewed felt that women’s issues and women’s representation were important.

There are two explanations to offer for this incongruence. The first is that because women are elected on a geographic basis, they may be reluctant to cue their gender identity because half of the population is men. Support for this speculation is that over a third of candidates highlighted their local residency as a “qualification” for office, a finding that did not differ much

230 between the women and men that were interviewed. Thus, representation at the constituency level is just that: based on the constituency. The second is that local candidates are expected to uphold the party’s brand and focus on the party’s messages. Candidates can highlight their persona to the extent that it fits with their party’s message (Langer, 2010: 61 in Thomas and

Lambert, 2017: 137). Thus, it makes sense that many candidates leave “women’s issues” to their party, as suggested by some interviewees. Evidence of this issue ownership can be gleaned from the candidates representing green parties, who articulated that they thought that their party affiliation alone was sufficient for offering a clear indication of where they stood on women’s issues. One problem with this incongruence that might arise, however, is that elected women may be members of parties who do not support women to the extent that these legislators think they ought to. Studies have shown elected women feel they have a mandate to represent women, so it may be the case that they become dissatisfied with their role as a representative when they lack the ability as a backbench member of parliament or member of legislative assembly to provide substantive representation to their women constituents. Further study to investigate job satisfaction in this regard is warranted.

7.2 Contributions and Avenues for Future Research

One of the contributions my research adds to the literature on gendered campaigning is by way of my methodology. In Chapter Two, I asserted that the best method for learning about candidates’ campaign content and the strategies that they employed was to interview them directly. Much of the literature on campaign communication employs content analysis, which reveals if and when campaigns are gendered, but not whether candidates consciously consider their gender and gender stereotypes when crafting their messages. This is important, as

231 understanding the extent to which women compared to men adjust their messages relays the degree to which political expectations about what ideal politicians should say and do are gendered. While interviewing candidates and politicians is in and of itself not a novel contribution to the literature (for example, Thomas and Lambert, 2017, Sayers, 1999), few studies take this approach when studying the content of campaigns. The data collected on candidates’ subjective intentions toward employing campaign messaging, as opposed to the subjective analysis of consumers of campaign messaging, thus contribute a different set of explanations of gendered campaigning.

An additional contribution to the literature from a methodological standpoint is the collection of interview data from such a large sample of candidates. In total, 92 candidates participated in in-depth interviews, which provides the quality of a small-N case study contribution for a sample size that encroaches on large-N territory. Where strong gendered findings emerged from the interview data, further investigation via theory confirmation study designs is warranted.

In Chapter Three I examined candidates’ self-presentation: how they present themselves to their electorate in terms of their physical appearance, their stated qualifications for public office, and the character traits that they portray. Several key findings emerged from the interview data.

The first is that candidates are aware of the effects that their appearance can have on voter support, and regardless of gender, most of the candidates interviewed relayed that they had adjusted their appearance in some way to communicate a message. This finding also demonstrates that candidates hold stereotypes about what ideal politicians look like, and these stereotypes are gendered. As noted above, dressing up as a strategy to convey professionalism was reported by more women than men, which reflects the extant literature (Bystrom, 1995;

232

Kahn, 1996; Bystrom et al. 2004; Carlson, 2001); and the contrasting strategy of dressing down was reported by more competitive than uncompetitive candidates, which is opposite to the admittedly dated findings of Kaid and Davidson (1986) who found that incumbents were more likely than challengers to dress formally. This is the first juncture in this research project where a question arises about whether women approach and view the role of an elected official differently from men. Bystrom et al. (2004) surmise from their findings on candidate dress styles that women may dress more formally than men because they face the challenge of portraying themselves as “serious and legitimate candidates” (2004: 43). A number of candidates interviewed who dressed professionally indicated that they did so to convey respect for voters, and because they felt that an elevated professional appearance was expected of them. The results from my study somewhat muddy our understanding of why there is a gender difference in dress style. As incumbents and competitive candidates were found to dress less formally, an argument could be made that perceptions of the role of a political representative are changing. Thus, it may be the case that men are more likely to liken themselves to a “man of the people,” whereas women approach the role in a professional capacity in terms of serving rather than reflecting their constituents.

In terms of stated qualifications to run for office, an interesting finding emerged. Women were more likely than men to highlight their professional and educational backgrounds. This was expected given the literature on political ambition that suggests that women evaluate their own credentials more harshly than do men (Lawless and Fox, 2004, 2011); and there is a robust literature that suggests that the women who do run for office are more qualified than men (Black,

2008; Black and Erickson, 2003; Anzia and Berry, 2011; Fulton; 2012). However, several of the candidates with advanced levels of education reported that they did not feel that highlighting

233 their qualifications in this regard would be to their benefit, as it presented an elitist image. A couple of the women who did highlight their education reported that they had received somewhat of a backlash effect for doing so. Alongside the findings on dressing down, this suggests that perceived winning strategies are often ones that seek to reflect ordinary citizens, even though the women who run for office are in many ways extraordinary.

As women who run for office have been found to be more qualified in terms of professional credentials than men, and more likely to dress professionally to convey respect and professionalism, it is worth pondering whether women act different because they are compensating or if the women who run genuinely believe that the position itself is a professional occupation that should be treated accordingly. Thus, in the present climate, there is a catch-22 situation, either women with fewer credentials should be encouraged to run, and may do so as a

“woman of the people” or those with more credentials should be encouraged to omit this professional aspect of their identity. A former minister from Queensland noted that her advanced education helped her in her ministerial role, but not in her role as a local MP.241 However, in

Canada and Australia, to be one, you nearly always need to be the other.

In Chapter Four, I investigated gender differences in displaying family life in campaigns. A point of departure that my study has from the literature is that all candidates, regardless of party or gender, reveal that they have a spouse and child(ren) if they have them. In terms of the degree to which this family life is displayed, the literature has shown that women candidates and legislators are less likely than men to display their family life through a revealing medium like a photograph (Thomas and Lambert, 2017; Kunovich and Wall, 2012; Sapiro et al., 2011), and the results from my study reflect these findings at the level of local candidates.

241 Interview, April 30, 2013c

234

One of the additional contributions my research provides is the introduction of a new variable/typology for understanding types of candidates, candidate investment. As the analysis of the interviews progressed, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the variable of candidate competitiveness. Even by extending the parameters to include candidates whose electoral support fell within 10 percent of the winner, I still found myself coding serious candidates as uncompetitive. This did not reflect the reality of candidates’ campaign behaviour or message sophistication. In response, I created and conceptualized the variable of candidate-investment, one that considered a candidate’s motivation for office, their reputational risk, their relative financial contributions, their social capital expenditures, and the relative amount of time that they spent campaigning. This variable better captured who was running a serious campaign versus who was running for the good of a party or out of general political interest.

Candidate-investment was especially revealing when it came to looking at gender differences in the use of families in campaigns. For men, the level of candidate investment did not affect whether they pictured their family – candidates who were not seriously invested and had no real expectation of winning included family photos for the same reasons that serious candidates did: to make a connection with voters and because they felt it was a pro forma part of their election materials. Women, however, only showed their family life when they had at least a medium level of candidate investment, and it was more common still among the high-investment women. Thus, for mother candidates, it appears that exposing children to the public eye is only deemed worthwhile if they have a reasonable chance of being elected, or if they are extremely active in politics. Women’s reluctance to share family photos combined with the opinions conveyed from candidates that sharing a photo was strategically advantageous and a general expectation of candidacy suggests that women may be more likely than men to have reservations

235 about running for office, if they feel that doing so requires them to share their family details, and they are not comfortable doing so. Similarly, a few candidates noted that their children were negatively targeted, and a woman MP from British Columbia had shared her opinion that featuring children was exploitive and that the children of politicians that she personally knew had negative views of the job.242 Research has shown that women legislators are less likely to have children than men and enter politics later in life (for example, Schwindt-Bayer, 2011; Freeman and Lyon, 1992). These trends are shifting, as more women with younger children are being elected than in times past (Gibson, 2019).

A major finding of this research project concerns the rationale expressed by women for omitting family details. The literature suggests that women candidates hide their families because of the incongruency between the busy role of a legislator and the busy role of a parent

(Banwart, 2006; Bystrom et al., 2004; Larson, 2001; Niven and Zilber, 2001a and 2001b). This is a logical explanation as despite women’s entrance to the paid work force, they are still primarily responsible for domestic duties including childcare (Davaki, 2016; Bianchi et al., 2012). Layered with this finding, research has also shown that mothers think that they should be the primary caregiver to their children (Bianchi et al., 2006; Guendozi, 2006; Holcomb, 1998; Parker, 2009 in Stalsburg and Kleinberg, 2016). Again, my research is a contribution to the field because while the explanations outlined above make sense, they did not match the rationales offered by the women interviewed. This study found that women were not hiding details about their family life out of a strategy to counter gender stereotypes; rather, all women with families mentioned at least via a textual description that they had children. The reason for not showing their children in their campaign communications was based on a concern for their children’s welfare, to safeguard

242 Interview, October 17, 2014.

236 their privacy and security. None of the mothers interviewed indicated that they hid their children because there was something that differed about their family from the ideal nuclear standard model; a few fathers, however, did note that they did so because of being an elderly parent or having a blended family due to second marriages.

A few avenues for future research could investigate these findings further, such as understanding the extent to which showing younger children remains gendered as it becomes common for young moms to be political representatives and if women delay or avoid running for office because of reservations about exposing their children to the public eye.

A wealth of literature has examined the positive effect of women legislators on women’s political engagement, and political participation as candidates (for example, Wolbrecht and

Campbell, 2007; Reingold and Harrell, 2010; Gilardi, 2015). Brookman’s analysis of this role model effect in America concludes that the election of women candidates is no longer influencing women’s participation at the elite level. He contrasts this to the case in India where a role model effect is stronger (for example, Beaman et al., 2009; Bhavnani, 2009; Bhalotra et al.,

2013). He surmises that the role model effect in American has reached its peak capacity to recruit more women to elected office because of the presence of other barriers to entry (2014:

92). The data from my study on self-presentation, qualifications and displaying family life pose a question for future analysis of this type of research. Is it likely to be the case that if the women who run for office better reflect women citizens, in terms of their family status, average professional qualifications, appearance as an ordinary citizen, and friendly campaign style, that the role model effect might provide a stronger encouragement for women to run?

Chapter Five examined the issue content of candidates’ personal campaigns and assessed whether candidates made appeals to voters based on either candidate or voter gender. The

237 findings mirrored those in the literature in that women were more likely than men to discuss some issues, namely education and healthcare, but the gap was a relatively small one (for example, Evans and Clark, 2016, Larson, 2001). An explanation for closing the gap on campaigning on education and healthcare is that these are the largest expenditures in state/provincial budgets, and thus, all candidates are likely to recognize their importance. While some candidates mentioned childcare, very little attention was paid to other issues traditionally categorized as women’s issues, such as domestic violence, reproductive rights and women’s equality. This was particularly puzzling in Australia where states have been adjusting their reproductive choice legislation in recent years. Most Australian candidates made it clear that they would answer questions about their stance on the pro-choice/pro-life spectrum of rights, but because it was such a contentious issue, it was not strategic for them to bring the matter up at the constituency level.

The literature examining women’s “feminine style” of campaigning notes that women face a double bind when it comes to gendered stereotypes because they have to strike the correct balance of exhibiting the feminine traits that are seen as their strength while also displaying that they can manifest typically masculine traits as well because those are the traits that are associated with leaders (Carli, 1999; Kawakami et al., 2000). Only one of the women interviewed noted that she had to be careful not to be viewed as too much of a “bra burner.”243 The remaining women who were interviewed did not relay that they were conscious about gender-issue ownership when it came to messaging their gender with either issues that stereotypes dictate that they should be strong on (Herrnson et al., 2003) or issues that they would be stereotypically weak on. Thus,

243 Interview, June 14, 2016b.

238 where candidates stress issues that match or conflict with their perceived gender strengths, they are doing so unconsciously, or genuinely because they have an interest in the topic.

In addition to the lack of attention paid to these especially women-specific issues, women candidates did not report making any appeals to women voters on the basis of gender affinity.

Rationales offered for this varied from either thinking that it was not a winning strategy to pigeonhole oneself as a representative of only half of the electorate, asserting that gender was not relevant to campaigns or having hostile reactions that it would be undesirable to be seen as being elected on the basis of gender as opposed to merit. The lack of gender affinity makes sense – past research notes that legislators’ first priority for representation is geographic territory – i.e. electoral district (Tremblay 2003, Sawer, 1981). However, a major disconnect emerges when one considers that a number of studies have shown that women legislators do feel that they have a mandate to represent women (Tremblay, 2003; Waring et al., 2000; Tremblay, 1992; Tremblay and Pelletier, 1995; Sawer 1986; Whip 1991; Sineau 2001, 239; Vallance and Davies 1986;

Wangnerud, 2000; Dodson and Carroll 1991; Reingold 1992, 2000; Thompson 1980) and that they are more likely than men to indicate that women’s issues should be a high priority

(Tremblay, 1998). Thus, while it is understandable that women candidates may feel concerned about their electoral prospects if they highlight women’s issues and make appeals on the basis of descriptive representation, it may also be the case that women leave office more dissatisfied than men as they struggle to provide the level of substantive representation to women constituents that they feel they have been elected to provide.

Some candidates, men and women, indicated that they did target gender with their campaign advertisements to some degree, although they reported using indirect methods, such as including issues they thought would appeal to women, more than direct methods such as

239 contacting women directly via mail or telephone to deliver their message. Political parties are developing and using sophisticated voter-identification database systems (Marland and Giasson,

2017; Bennett and McDonald, 2019), and social media platforms offer the opportunity to direct advertisements to specific demographic groups at a relatively small cost compared to traditional advertisement mediums like television, newspapers or radio. It may be the case that as these options increase in their availability, women candidates may feel more comfortable making gender-based appeals and highlighting women’s issues when they can target women voters privately, directly and without too much expense.

In Chapter Six I investigated candidate-opponent relationships, and the incidence of being targeted by and employing negative campaign messages. A number of revealing findings emerged from this analysis that suggest that women candidates are at a disadvantage. First and foremost, the interview data from this study reveal that at the level of the local candidate, women are not only more likely to be the target of a negative attack but are also more likely to be the target of severe personal attacks. Women are also less likely than men to employ attacks, and half as likely to employ attacks of a personal nature. These findings largely reflect two bodies of literature. First, in terms of women being less likely to employ attacks, this coincides with the gender role stereotype literature on how women are expected to conduct themselves. Trent et al.

(2011), summarize these expectations as,

When women speak, they are expected to exhibit characteristics such as sensitivity to the needs of others, concern for family and relationships, compassion, emotionality, affection, and nurturing. They are not expected to employ harsh language or to be overtly assertive, either verbally or physically (164-65).

Thus, when women candidates employ aggressive attacks, they do so at the risk of violating gender expectations about what is appropriate behaviour. While antiquated, there is

240 some evidence that these gendered prescriptions are still held by some voters (Dolan, 2014).

However, while these gender role stereotypes might exist, and women candidates may unconsciously adhere to them, there is less evidence that “going negative” actually harms women candidates in some contexts, such as when they are responding to an attack or in how they are viewed by voters of the same partisan affiliation when they do so (for example, Craig and

Rippere, 2016, Brooks, 2013).

It is reasonable to assume that anyone who is attacked on a personal level is going to have a more negative reflection of their experience campaigning (and legislating) than people who do not experience these occurrences. Coupled with this fact is that women have been found to be less adversarial than men in their approach to conducting political relations once elected (Norris,

1996; Childs, 2004). Thus, it may be the case that women candidates are more turned off by negative style campaigning than men, and that this can have effects not only on their likelihood of winning a campaign, but also on their experience as a legislator and on what being attacked signifies to other women about their likely experience if they run for office. Of the candidates interviewed for this study, the candidate who was the most viciously attacked was a woman. This first-time candidate was accused of falsifying her professional credentials, of using sex to secure her party nomination, and of being a racist. While she won her race regardless, she did not seek re-election.244 Other incidences of extreme aggression, and specifically gendered aggression, are numerous. In Canada, Environment Minister Catherine McKenna has been continuously referred to as “Climate Barbie” and has been the target of a sufficient number of threats to warrant extra security (Rabson, 2019). In Australia, former Prime Minister Julia Gillard was the subject of constant sexually based bullying, including having a LNP fundraising dinner menu describe their

244 Interview, August 7, 2014a.

241 quail dish as “Julia Gillard quail with “small breasts, huge thighs and a big red box”” (Jabour,

2013). These are but a few examples. Cheryl Collier and Tracey Raney provide an extensive review of sexism and sexual harassment in the Canadian, Australian and British Parliaments, and detail dozens of examples of the continual sexual harassment that has plagued women since their entrance to legislatures. Collier and Raney argue that this type of behaviour is normalized and institutionalised. It is problematic because, “The institutional context within which female politicians work matters to their personal well-being as individuals and to their abilities to participate meaningfully and fully in democratic policymaking processes” (2018: 433). A future avenue for research should investigate the degree to which legislators retire from politics because of personally based attacks. This is particularly problematic for women as they are more likely to enter politics later in life than men, and thus the incidences of negative attacks could reduce the number of experienced women legislators.

While forming non-aggression or civility pacts was not commonly reported by the candidates who participated in this study, it was the case that a gender difference emerged amongst those who did, with men being more likely than women to do so. Entering into these agreements is likely to be beneficial to women for several reasons. First, women are the most likely to be personally attacked, so it is likely that if these relationships become more common, this incidence will decrease. Second, the candidates who reported being involved in these agreements by and large reflected that their campaign experience was positive – even if they lost their race. Third, these types of agreements and way of doing politics likely better reflects women’s stereotypical approach, which has been shown to be less adversarial than men’s. The

British Columbia Nurses Union, an organization that is predominantly women, conducts election campaigns for well-paid union executive positions. Their election campaign by-laws state that

242 candidates are not permitted to “interfere with the campaigns or campaign materials of another candidate” nor “make statements or take actions that are unduly personal or malicious” (British

Columbia Nurses Union, 2020). While it is unlikely that rules such as these will ever be adopted for public office campaigns, it may well be the case that if women set publicly expected precedents for good behavior, via publicising attempts to form agreements, and the details of civility pacts, they may have a more positive campaign experience. The “#metoo” and

“#TIMESUP” movements have given women a window through which to call out the poor behaviour that they endure on a continuous basis. It is possible that if men do not agree to civility pacts, they can be publicly pressured into good, or at least reasonable behaviour by public exposure. A few women in this study reported that they had published and highlighted their opponent’s sexist remarks via campaign advertising and by re-tweeting sexist attacks.245 It may well be the case that exposing bad behaviour is a better defense for women than counterattacking given the incongruency of women’s gender stereotype expectations and negative campaigning.

Further research in this regard could investigate this strategy in terms of both defense, and deterrence tactics.

The last notable finding that emerged from the investigation on employing negative attacks concerns the type of women who made these attacks. Similar to the propensity to display family life via photographs, only the most invested women candidates employed negative attacks, whereas investment was not a major factor for men. The same explanations for this type of behaviour by competitive women are offered again. Only in the most competitive circumstances does it appear that women are willing to contravene gender stereotypes and risk exposing

245 Interviews, May 15, 2013; June 14, 2016a.

243 themselves to a counterattack, whereas for men, this type of behaviour does not appear to contradict expected behaviour and can be employed without consequence.

One of the surprising omissions that I noted from my research study was that very few of the candidates relayed how party discipline impacted their campaign communication. A few instances of subtle indirect control were, however, relayed. In terms of their personal appearance, candidates from green parties in Victoria, Queensland and British Columbia noted a deliberate strategy to appear professional, and one candidate even noted that unbeknownst to her, the professional headshot photograph her party organized had been altered to make her look more professional.246 Only a few candidates from other parties reported that they had been given any guidance in this regard, and it appears that these messages were not consistently offered, as candidates from the same party and region did not report receiving the same instructions. Similar to these findings, only a couple of candidates mentioned that they would send any of their materials, such as press releases, to their party for approval prior to releasing them.

The only other instances where party discipline can be gleaned indirectly from the interview data concerns financial resources, negative campaigning, and issue priorities. For some candidates, financial resources were scarce, and thus they relied on their party to provide printed campaign literature and a website, which were centrally crafted. Regarding negative campaigning, some candidates relayed that their party controlled negative communications, such as one candidate from the ALP in Queensland noting that his party had distributed negative attack ads in his riding against the LNP leader without his knowledge (and against his wishes),247

A Liberal candidate from British Columbia reported something similar, that while he ran a clean

246 Interview, March 27, 2013. 247 Interview, April 16, 2013.

244 campaign, his party had run attack ads against the NDP leader.248 In terms of the campaign issues that candidates chose to highlight, a message that was consistently relayed from candidates was not that they could not speak about certain issues, but rather that they did not want to promise action or funding when their party had not, or had not yet, made a commitment. Instead, they would strategically state that the issue at hand was something that they would work or advocate for.

A second omission that was perplexing concerns some of the state-specific elements related to electoral systems. I had initially expected that Canadian candidates would detail a sophisticated GOTV strategy, but only two candidates mentioned voter turnout. One candidate, a

Liberal Minister from BC, merely stated that voter suppression occurs, and it is unfortunate, but did not detail any ways in which she tried to bolster turnout herself.249 The second candidate, a man from Alberta, noted his team had not spent too much time campaigning in the poll areas that tended to have historically low turnout.250 A few Canadian candidates did note that they tracked their reception at the doors, and categorized voters by the surety of their support. Thus, it appears that at least among the candidates interviewed, they largely leave the GOTV tasks to either their party, or their team rather than tackling the challenge themselves. In Australia, I had expected that candidates would report strategic messaging about their voter preferences given the use of a ranked ballot. However, the candidates interviewed consistently relayed that they had left this decision to their political parties, even though a few of the LNP/Coalition candidates noted that the decision to preference the ALP ahead of the Greens sometimes worked against their fortune once the preferences were tallied. Due to the use of a single member plurality electoral system in

248 Interview, August 4, 2016. 249 Interview, October 17, 2014. 250 Interview, June 21, 2016.

245

Canada, I had anticipated some minor party candidates to include campaign messages about the benefits of showing support for their party. A few of the Green Party’s candidates noted that they had experienced some voters telling them that a Green vote was a wasted vote, and thus they tried to educate and persuade voters that showing support for the Green Party was still important in a first-past-the-post system.

7.3 Study Limitations

One of the biggest study limitations concerns self-selection. This bias, which is common to most social science research involving voluntary participation, likely affected the type of candidate who agreed to be interviewed. Likely examples of candidates who would have declined invitations are competitive candidates who lost because they may be embarrassed or especially disheartened, very prominent candidates who went on to win and hold busy ministerial positions, and candidates who employed campaign strategies that may be poorly viewed by the voting public, such as very negative personal attacks.

A second limitation refers to the unit of analysis. In only a couple of the ridings included in this investigation was I able to interview more than one candidate, thus offering two perspectives about what the local issues were and about the candidate-opponent relationship. By looking at a race as opposed to individual candidates’ campaigns, a better understanding of opponent relationships and the complexity of targeting relevant identity groups within ridings may emerge. In addition, this kind of analysis might better reveal how agenda-setting affects campaign communication. As discussed earlier, a candidate who was friendly with one of her opponents reported that her childless opponent posted a photo with her nephew after the candidate interviewed had posted a photo with her baby. It would be interesting to understand

246 how gendered considerations affected the opponent, and what the exact message was that she was trying to convey via this photograph.

A third limitation is that most of the data on campaign messaging was collected via candidates’ own accounts. This design was purposeful, and I felt that candidates needed to reflect more on their door knocking and interpersonal conversations, rather than what was professionally produced, especially considering that for many candidates, the bulk of this material is designed by their parties. Nonetheless, a complete dossier of all printed or archived candidate communications would have been useful to examine alongside the interviews to provide a subjective assessment of how well candidates relayed their intended messages, as well as understanding the types of messages that are relayed in-person as opposed to various forms of media.

7.4 Tying Things Together

A famous phrase employed by the feminist movement of the 1960s was, “the personal is political” however my analysis of local candidate’s campaigns suggests that women candidates do not stress women’s issues in their campaign, are less likely than men to feature their most personal relationships, and avoid making attacks of a personal nature against their opponents.

Thus, while one of the feminist movement’s goals has undoubtably helped to shift women into elected official positions, it does not seem to be the case that it is a common occurrence to stress gender identity and gender-based priorities in election campaigns.

My research has shown that women face barriers at every step of the candidacy process. I also theorized that due to the level of negative attacks and inability of women to promote women’s issues and interests once elected, it is likely to be the case that women voluntarily

247 depart from elected office quicker than similarly situated men. This forms the basis of a new hypothesis, that women’s campaign and legislative experience also create a barrier to their entry and re-entry into legislatures.

248

References

Abendschön, S. and S. Steinmetz. 2014. “The Gender Gap in Voting Revisited: Women's Party Preferences in a European Context.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 21 (2): 315–344. Ahler, D. J. Citrin, M. Dougal and G. Lenz. 2015. “Face Value? Experimental Evidence that Candidate Appearance Influences Electoral Choice.” Political Behavior 39 (1): 77-102. Ainge Roy, E. 2017. “Unacceptable': New Zealand's Labour Leader Asked About Baby Plans Seven Hours into Job.” The Guardian. August 2. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/02/unacceptable-new-zealands-labour- leader-asked-about-baby-plans-six-hours-into-job Airne, D. and W. L. Benoit. 2005. “Political Television Advertising in Campaign 2000.” Communication Quarterly 53 (4): 473–492. Albright, M. 2016. “My Undiplomatic Moment.” New York Times. February 12. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/13/opinion/ New York Times madeleine-albright-my- undiplomatic-moment.html Alexander, D. and K. Andersen. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 527 – 545. Allport, G. W. 1961. Pattern and Growth in Personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Anderson, C. and A. LoTempio. 2002. “Winning, Losing and Political Trust in America.” British Journal of Political Science 32(2): 335–351. Ansolabehere, S., S. Iyengar. 1995. Going Negative: How Political Advertisements Shrink and Polarize the Electorate. New York: Free Press. Ansolabehere, S. and S. Iyengar. 1994a. “Of Horseshoes and Horse Races: Experimental Studies of The Impact of Poll Results on Electoral Behavior.” Political Communication 11 (4): 413-430. Ansolabehere, S. and S. Iyengar. 1994b. “Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership Over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns.” Public Opinion Quarterly 58 (3): 335–357.

249

Ansolabehere, S., S. Iyengar, A. Simon. 1999. “Replicating Experiments Using Aggregate and Survey Data: The Case of Negative Advertising and Turnout.” American Political Science Review 93 (4): 901–909. Ansolabehere, S., S. Iyengar, A. Simon and N. Valentino. 1994. “Does Attack Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?” American Political Science Review 88 (4): 829–838. Anzia, S. and C. Berry. 2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 478-493. Arnold, F. and R. Freier. 2016. “Only Conservatives are Voting in the Rain Evidence from German Local and State Elections.” Electoral Studies 41: 216-221. Bailey, H. 2004. “Where the Voters Are: The Line between Politics and Marketing Blurs as New Software Makes Canvassing More Sophisticated Than Ever.” Newsweek, March 29, 67. Ballington, J. 2008. Equality in Politics: A Survey of Women and Men in Parliaments. No. 54. Inter-parliamentary Union. https://www.ipu.org/resources/publications/reports/2016- 07/equality-in-politics-survey-women-and-men-in-parliaments. Banducci, S. and J. Karp. 2000. “Gender, Leadership and Choice in Multiparty Systems.” Political Research Quarterly 53 (4): 815–848. Banducci, S., J. Karp, M. Thrasher, and C. Rallings. 2008. “Ballot Photographs as Cues in Low- Information Elections.” Political Psychology 29 (6): 903-917. Banducci, S., M. Thrasher, C. Rallings and J. Karp. 2003. “Candidate Appearance Cues in Low‐ Information Elections.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA. Banwart, M. 2006. “Webstyles in 2004: The Gendering of Candidates on Campaign Web Sites.” In The Internet Elections: Perspectives on the Web Campaign 2004, ed. Andrew Paul Willams and John c Tedesco. Toronto, ON: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Banwart, M. and M. McKinney. 2005. “A Gendered Influence in Campaign Debates? Analysis of Mixed-Gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial Debates.” Communication Studies 56 (4): 353 – 373. Bartels, L. 1987. “Candidate Choice and the Dynamics of the Presidential Nominating Process.” American Journal of Political Science 31:1-30. Bartels, L. 1988. Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

250

Bauer, N. 2019. “Shifting Standards: How Voters Evaluate the Qualifications of Female and Male Candidates.” Journal of Politics 82 (1): 1-12. Bauer, P. and M. Freitag. 2018. “Measuring Trust.” In The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust ed. E. Uslaner. Toronto: ON: Oxford University Press. Baumgartner, J. 2013 “Internet Political Ads in 2012: Can Humor Mitigate Unintended Effects of Negative Campaigning?” Social Science Computer Review 31:5: 601-613. Beaman, L., R. Chattopadhyay, E. Duflo, R. Pande, P. Topalova. 2009. “Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (4): 1497 – 1540. Bean, C. 1990. “The Personal Vote in Australian Federal Elections.” Political Studies 38 (2): 253-268. Becker, H. 1998. Tricks of the Trade: How to Think about Your Research While You're Doing It. Chicago, Il: University of Chicago Press. Beckwith, K. 2005. “A Common Language of Gender?” Politics & Gender 1: 128–37. Bektas, E. and E. Issever-Ekinci. 2019. “Who Represents Women in Turkey? An Analysis of Gender Difference in Private Bill Sponsorship in the 2011–15 Turkish Parliament.” Politics & Gender 15 (4): 851-881. Bell, M. and K. Kaufmann. 2015. “The Electoral Consequences of Marriage and Motherhood: How Gender Traits Influence Voter Evaluations of Female Candidates.” Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 36 (1): 1-21. Bennett, C. and J. Gordon. 2020. “Understanding the “Micro” in Micro-Targeting: An Analysis of Facebook Digital Advertising in the 2019 Federal Canadian Election.” Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3589687 Bennett, C. and M. McDonald. 2019. “From the Doorstop to The Database: Political Parties, Campaigns and Personal Privacy Protection In Canada.” In Big Data, Political Campaigning and the Law: Democracy and Privacy in the Age of Micro-targeting, ed. N. Witzleb, M. Paterson and J. Richardson. Abingdon UK: Routledge. Benoit, W. 2001. “The Functional Approach to Presidential Television Spots: Acclaiming, Attacking, Defending 1952–2000.” Communication Studies 52 (2): 109-126. Benoit, W., J. Blaney and P. Pier. 1998. Campaign ‘96: A Functional Analysis of Acclaiming, Attacking, And Defending. Westport, CT: Praeger.

251

Berggren, N., H. Jordahl and P. Poutvaara. 2006. “The Looks of a Winner: Beauty, Gender and Electoral Success.” IZA Discussion Paper 2311. Bonn: IZA. Berggren, N., H. Jordahl and P. Poutvaara. 2010. “The Looks of a Winner: Beauty and Electoral Success.” Journal of Public Economics 94 (1): 8-15. Berggren, N., H. Jordahl, and P. Poutvaara. 2017. “The Right Look: Conservative Politicians Look Better and Voters Reward It.” Journal of Public Economics 146: 79-86. Berry, D. 1991. “Accuracy in Social Perception: Contribution of Facial and Vocal Information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61: 298–307. Besco, R. 2015a. “The Causes of Co-Ethnic Affinity Voting: Ideology, Interests, and Identity.” Paper presented at the Midwest Political Science Association Conference, April 16- 19, Chicago, IL. Besco, R. 2015b. “Rainbow Coalition or Inter-Minority Conflict? Racial Affinity and Diverse Minority Voters.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 305–328. Bhalotra, S., I. Clots-Figueras, and L. Iyer. 2013. “Path-Breakers: How Does Women's Political Participation Respond to Electoral Success?” IZA Discussion Paper 7771. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2363272 (November 7, 2020). Bhavnani, R. 2009. “Do Electoral Quotas Work After They Are Withdrawn? Evidence from A Natural Experiment in India.” American Political Science Review 103 (1): 23 – 35. Bianchi, S., J. Robinson, and M. Milkie. 2006. Changing Rhythms of American Family Life. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. Bianchi, S., L. Sayer, M. Milkie, J. Robinson. 2012. “Housework: Who Did, Does or Will Do It, and How Much Does It Matter?” Social Forces 91 (1): 55–63. Biddle, J. and D. Hamermesh. 1998. “Beauty, Productivity, and Discrimination: Lawyers' Looks and Lucre.” Journal of Labor Economics 16 (1): 172– 201. Biernat, M., T. Vescio, and L. Billings. 1999. “Black Sheep and Expectancy Violation: Integrating Two Models of Social Judgment.” European Journal of Social Psychology 29(4): 523–542. Bird, K. 2016. “Understanding the Local Diversity Gap: Supply and Demand of Visible Minority Candidates in Ontario Municipal Politics.” In Just Ordinary Citizens? Towards a Comparative Portrait of the Political Immigrant, ed. A. Bilodeau. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

252

Bird, K., S. Jackson, R. McGregor, A. Moore, and L. Stephenson. 2016. “Sex (And Ethnicity) in the City: Affinity Voting in the 2014 Toronto Mayoral Election.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 359 – 383. Black, J. 2008. “Entering the Political Elite in Canada: The Case of Minority Women as Parliamentary Candidates and MPs.” Canadian Review of Sociology 37(2): 143-166. Black, J. and L. Erickson. 2000. “Similarity, Compensation, or Difference?” Women and Politics 21 (4): 1–38. Black, J. and L. Erickson. 2003. “Women Candidates and Voter Bias: Do Women Politicians Need to be Better?” Electoral Studies 22: 81–100. Blais, A., E. Gidengil, A. Dobrzynska, N. Nevitte, and R. Nadeau. 2003. “Does the Local Candidate Matter? Candidate Effects in the Canadian Election of 2000.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 657-664. Blakenship, J. and D. Robson. 1995. “A “Feminine Style”; in Women’s Political Discourse: An Exploratory Essay.” Communication Quarterly 43 (3): 353-366. Blocker, T. and D. Eckberg. 1989. “Environmental Issues as Women’s Issues.” Social Science Quarterly 78: 841 – 858. Bochel, C., and J. Briggs. 2000. “Do Women Make a Difference?” Politics 20 (2): 63–68. Borland, J. and A. Leigh. 2009. “Physical Beauty and the Labour and Marriage Markets” Australian National University CERP Discussion Paper. Canberra. Bower, C. 2003. “Public Discourse and Female Presidential Candidates.” In Anticipating Madam President, ed. R. Watson and A. Gordon. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc. Braden, M. 1996. Women Politicians in the Media. Lexington: University of Kentucky Press. Brady, H., R. Johnston and J. Sides. 2006. “The Study of Political Campaigns.” In Capturing Campaign Effects, ed. H. Brady and R. Johnston. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Bratt, D., J. Brown and J. Santos. 2015. “Sign Wars: Exploring the Relationship between Campaign Yard Signs and Voter Behaviour.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Prairie Political Science Association, Banff, AB, September 11- 15. Brians, C. 2005. “Women for Women?: Gender and Party Bias in Voting for Female Candidates.” American Politics Research 33 (3): 357-375.

253

British Columbia Nurses Union. 2020. “Candidate Responsibilities.” https://www.bcnu.org/about-bcnu/elections/candidate-responsibilities (November 7, 2020). Brollo, F. and U. Troiano. 2016. “What Happens When A Woman Wins an Election? Evidence from Close Races in Brazil.” Journal of Development Economics 122: 28-45. Brookman, D. 2014. “Do Female Politicians Empower Women to Vote or Run for Office? A Regression Discontinuity Approach.” Electoral Studies 34: 190–204. Brooks, D. 2013. He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Female Candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Brooks, D. and J. Geer. 2007. “Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on The Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 1–16. Bruce, V., and A. Young. 1998. In The Eye Of The Beholder: The Science Of Face Perception. Oxford University Press. Bryant, L. and J. Hellwege. 2019. “Working Mothers Represent: How Children Affect the Legislative Agenda of Women in Congress.” American Politics Research 47 (3): 447–470. Buckley, F. 2020. “Going Alone and Taking the Independent Route: New Insights on Female Candidate Emergence.” European Journal of Politics and Gender 3 (3): 349 – 370. Buckley, F., M. Mariani, C. McGing, and T. White. 2015. “Is Local Office a Springboard for Women to Dáil Éireann?” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 36 (3): 311-335. Burgoon, J. and S. Jones. 1976/Reprint 1980. “Toward A Theory of Personal Space Expectations and Their Violations.” Human Communication Research 2: 131– 146. Burns, L. 2008. First Ladies and the Fourth Estate: Press Framing of Presidential Wives. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press. Burrell, B. 1994. A Woman’s Place is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbour, MI: University of Michigan. Burrell, B., L. Elder and B. Frederick. 2009. “From Hillary to Michelle: Public Opinion and the Spouses of the Presidential Candidates.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, ON. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1451021. Burton, D. 2000. “Sampling Strategies in Survey Research.” In Research Training for Social Scientists. London: SAGE Publications.

254

Butler, D. and D. Stokes. 1974. Political Change in Britain: The Evolution of Electoral Choice. London: Springer. Bystrom, D. 1995. Candidate Gender and the Presentation of Self: The Video Styles of Men and Women in U.S. Senate Campaigns. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma. Bystrom, D. 2010. “Advertising, Web Sites, and Media Coverage: Gender and Communication along the Campaign Trail.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. S. Carroll and R. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bystrom, D., M. Banwart, L. Kaid, and T Robertson. 2004. Gender and Candidate Communication. New York, NY: Routledge. Bystrom, D. and L. Kaid. 2002. “Are Women Candidates Transforming Campaign Communication? A Comparison of Advertising Videostyles in the 1990s.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. C. Rosenthal. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press. Cain, B., J. Ferejohn, and M. Fiorina. 1987. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Boston: Harvard University Press. Calantone, R. and P. Warshaw. 1985. “Negating the Effects of Fear Appeals in Election Campaigns.” Journal of Applied Psychology 70: 627–633. Callegaro, M. 2008. “Social Desirability.” In Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods, ed. P. Lavrakas. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Campbell, D. 1975. “Degrees of Freedom and the Case Study.” Comparative Political Studies 8 (2): 178-193. Campbell, D. and C. Wolbrecht. 2006. “See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents.” The Journal of Politics 68 (2): 233-247. Campbell, R. and S. Childs. 2014. “Parents in Parliament: ‘Where's Mum?’” Political Quarterly 85 (4): 487-92. Campbell, R. and S. Childs. 2015. “To the Left, To the Right’: Representing Conservative Women’s Interests.” Party Politics 21 (4): 626-637. Campbell, R. and P. Cowley. 2018. “The Impact of Parental Status on The Visibility and Evaluations of Politicians.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20 (3): 753–769. Carli, L. 1999. “Gender, Interpersonal Power and Social Influence.” Journal of Social Issues 55: 81-99.

255

Carlin, D. and K. Winfrey. 2009. “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage.” Communication Studies 60 (4): 326-343. Carlson, T. 2001. “Gender and Political Advertising across Cultures: A Comparison of Male and Female Political Advertising in Finland and the US.” European Journal of Communication 16 (2): 131-154. Carpinella, C., E. Hehman, J. Freeman and K. Johnson. 2015. “The Gendered Face of Partisan Politics: Consequences of Facial Sex Typicality for Vote Choice.” Political Communication 33 (1): 21 – 38. Carraro, L., L. Castelli, I. Breazu, G. Campomizzi, A. Cerruto, M. Mariani, & I. Toto. 2012. “Just Ignore or Counterattack? On the Effects of Different Strategies for Dealing with Political Attacks.” European Journal of Social Psychology 42: 89–797. Carroll, S. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics. 2d ed. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Carroll, S. 2010. “Voting Choices: The Politics of the Gender Gap.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics 2nd ed., ed. S. Carroll and R. Fox. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Carroll, S. and K. Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. Oxford. Carroll, S. and R. Schreiber. 1997. “Media Coverage of Women in the 103rd Congress.” In Women, Media and Politics, ed. P. Norris. New York: Oxford University Press. Carroll, S., and W. Strimling. 1983. Women's Routes to Elective Office: A Comparison with Men's. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Center for the American Woman and Politics, Rutgers. Cattell, R. 1965. The Scientific Analysis of Personality. Baltimore: Penguin. CBC 2019. “The Attack Ad that Backfired Badly in 1993.” CBC Archives October 15. https://www.cbc.ca/archives/the-attack-ad-that-backfired-badly-in-1993-1.5291777 Celis, K. 2008. “Substantive Representation of Women: The Representation of Women's Interests and the Impact of Descriptive Representation in the Belgian Parliament (1900– 1979).” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 28 (2): 85-114.

256

Chang, C., Y. Lee and Z. Cheng. 2017. “Baby Face Wins? Examining Election Success Based on Candidate Election Bulletin Via Multilevel Modeling.” Asian Journal of Social Psychology 20: 97-112. Chappell, L. 2006. “Comparing Political Institutions: Revealing the Gendered “Logic of Appropriateness.”” Politics & Gender 2 (2): 223–235. Cheng, C. and M. Tavits. 2011. “Informal Influences in Selecting Female Political Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (2): 460-471. Chiao, J., N. Bowman, H. Gill, and L. Santos. 2008. “The Political Gender Gap: Gender Bias in Facial Inferences That Predict Voting Behavior.” PLoS ONE 3.10: E3666. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0003666&type=print able Childs, S. 2004. New Labour’s Women MPs: Women Representing Women. New York, NY: Routledge. Clark, J., R. Darcy, S. Welch, and M. Ambrosius. 1984. “Women as Legislative Candidates in Six States.” In Political Women: Current Roles in State and Local Government, ed. J. Flammang. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Clayton, A. and B. Tang. 2018. “How Women’s Incumbency Affects Future Elections: Evidence from A Policy Experiment in Lesotho.” World Development 110: 385-393. Clinton, J. and J. Lapinski. 2004. ““Targeted” Advertising and Voter Turnout: An Experimental Study of the 2000 Presidential Election.” Journal of Politics 66 (1): 69–96. Cloutier, M. and B. O’Neill. 2019. “Gender and Political Leadership: The State of the Field.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 4-6, Vancouver, BC. Coletto, D. 2017. “Finding Parity: Canadian Opinions About Women in Politics” Abacus Data https://abacusdata.ca/finding-parity-canadian-opinions-about-women-in-politics/ (November 1, 2020). Collier, C. and T. Raney. 2018. “Understanding Sexism and Sexual Harassment in Politics: A Comparison of Westminster Parliaments in Australia, the United Kingdom, and Canada.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 25 (3): 432 – 455. Collins, S. 2000. “Men's Voices and Women's Choices.” Animal Behaviour 60: 773–780.

257

Connolly, K. 2005. “Schroder’s Wife Says Rival Failed Working Women.” The Telegraph. September 8. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1497935/Schroders-wife- says-rival-failed-working-women.html Considine, M. and I. Deutchman. 1996. “Instituting Gender: State Legislators in Australia and the United States.” Women and Politics 16 (4): 1 – 19. Cook, Elizabeth. 1994. “Voter Responses to Women Candidates.” In The Year of the Woman: Myths and Realities, ed. E. Cook, S. Thomas, and C. Wilcox. Boulder, CO: Westview. Costa, M., J. Greenlee, T. Nteta, J. Rhodes and E. Sharrow. 2019. “Family Ties? “The Limits of Fathering Daughters on Congressional Behavior.” American Politics Research. 47 (3): 471-493. Cox, M. 2003. “When Trust Matters: Explaining Differences in Voter Turnout.” Journal of Common Market Studies 41 (4): 757–770. Craig, S., and P. Rippere. 2016. “He Said, She Said: The Impact of Candidate Gender in Negative Campaigns.” Politics & Gender 12 (2): 391-414. Crasnow, S. 2019. “Political Science Methodology: A Plea for Pluralism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science. Part A 78: 40–47. Crespin, M. and J. Deitz. 2010. “If You Can’t Join ’Em, Beat ’Em: The Gender Gap in Individual Donations to Congressional Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (3): 581–593. Cronqvist, H. and F. Yu. 2017. “Shaped by their Daughters: Executives, Female Socialization, and Corporate Social Responsibility.” Journal of Financial Economics, 126 (3): 543-562. Cross, W. 2016. “The Importance of Local Party Activity in Understanding Canadian Politics: Winning from the Ground Up in the 2015 Federal Election.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 601-620. Cross, W. and L. Young. 2008. “Factors Influencing the Decision of the Young Politically Engaged to Join a Political Party.” Party Politics 14 (3): 345–369. Cunningham, M., A. Roberts, A. Barbee, P. Druen and C. Wu. 1995. “Their Ideas of Beauty Are, On the Whole, The Same as Ours: Consistency and Variability In The Cross-Cultural Perception Of Female Physical Attractiveness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68 (2): 261–279.

258

Cunningham, R. 1971. “The Impact of the Local Candidate in Canadian. Federal Elections.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 4 (2): 287-290. Cutler, F. 2002. “The Simplest Shortcut of All: Sociodemographic Characteristics and Electoral Choice.” Journal of Politics 64 (2): 466–490. Cutler, F. and J. Matthews. 2005. “The Challenge of Municipal Voting: Vancouver 2002.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 359–382. Dahlerup, D. and M. Leyenaar. 2013. “Breaking Male Dominance in Politics.” In Breaking Male Dominance in Old Democracies, ed. D. Dahlerup and M. Leyenaar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Dahlgaard, J., J. Hedegaard Hansen, K. Hansen, and M. Larsen. 2017. “How Election Polls Shape Voting Behaviour." Scandinavian Political Studies 40 (3): 330-343. Dalton, R. 2004. Democratic Challenges, Democratic Choices: The Erosion of Political Support in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dalton, R. and M. Wattenberg, eds. 2000. Parties Without Partisans: Political Change in Advanced Industrial Democracies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Davaki, K. 2016. “Differences in Men’s and Women’s Work, Care and Leisure Time.” Directorate General for Internal Policies, Policies Department C: Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs, Gender Equality, European Parliament, Brussels. Dawson, G., K. Karl and J. Peluchette. 2019. “Hair Matters: Toward Understanding Natural Black Hair Bias in the Workplace.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies 26 (3): 389-401. Dabelko, K. and P. Herrnson. 1997. “Women’s and Men’s Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly 50 (1):121-135. Debenedetti, G. 2019. “Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren Had a Secret Nonaggression Agreement. Is It Falling Apart?” Intellegencer. June 20. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/06/sanders-and-warren-had-a-non-aggression-deal- is-it-over.html de Geus, R., J. McAndrews, P. Loewen, and A. Martin. Forthcoming. “Do Voters Judge the Performance of Female and Male Politicians Differently? Experimental Evidence from the United States and Australia.” Political Research Quarterly.

259

Delacourt, S. 2016. “Permanent Marketing and the Conduct of Politics.” In The Harper Factor: Assessing a Prime Minister’s Policy Legacy, ed. J. Ditchburn and G. Fox. McGill Queen’s University Press. Delhey, J. and K. Newton. 2003. “Who Trusts? The Origins of Social Trust in Seven Countries.” European Societies 5: 93 – 137. Denmark, D., I. Ward and C. Bean. 2012. “Gender and Leader Effects in the 2010 Australian Election.” Australian Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 563 – 578. Denver, D., G. Hands. 1997. Modern Constituency Electioneering. London: Frank Cass. Denver, D. and G. Hands. 1998. “Constituency Campaigning in the 1997 General Election: Party Effort and Electoral Effect.” In Why Labour Won the General Election of 1997, ed. I. Crewe, B. Gosschalk, J. Bartle. London: Frank Cass. Denver, D., G. Hands, J. Fisher and I. MacAllister. 2003. “Constituency Campaigning in Britain 1992–2001: Centralisation and Modernisation.” Party Politics 9 (5): 541–559. Denver, D., G. Hands, S. Henig. 1998. “Triumph of Targeting? Constituency Campaigning in the 1997 Election.” British Elections and Parties Review 8: 171–190. Devitt, James. 1999. Framing Gender on the Campaign Trail: Women’s Executive Leadership and the Press. New York, NY: Women’s Leadership Fund. Devnew, L., A. Berghout Austin, M. Janzen Le Ber, and M. Shapiro. 2017. “Women’s Leadership Aspirations.” In Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership, ed. S. Madsen. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Diamond, E. and S. Bates. 1984. The Spot: The Rise of Political Advertising on Television. Cambridge. MA: MIT Press. Dinzes, D., M. Cozzens, and G. Manross. 1994. “The Role of Gender in ‘Attack Ads’: Revisiting Negative Political Advertising.” Communication Research Reports 11(1): 67-75. Dittmar, K. 2010. “Negotiating Gender: Campaign Practitioners’ Reflections on Gender, Strategy, and Campaigns.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC. Dodson, D. and S. Carroll. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in State Legislatures. New Brunswick: Center for the American Woman and Politics, Rutgers - State University of New Jersey.

260

Dolan, K. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview. Dolan, K. 2005. “Do Women Candidates Play to Gender Stereotypes? Do Men Candidates Play to Women? Candidate Sex and Issues Priorities on Campaign Websites.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (1): 31-44. Dolan, K. 2006. “Women Candidates in American Politics: What We Know, What We Want to Know.” Paper presented at the 2006 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, April 20-23, Chicago, IL. Dolan, K. 2008a. “Is There a ‘Gender Affinity Effect’ in American Politics? Information, Affect, and Candidate Sex in U.S. House Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 61 (1): 79–89. Dolan, K. 2008b. “Running Against a Woman: Do Female Opponents Shape Male Candidate Behaviors?” Social Science Quarterly 89 (3): 765-779. Dolan, K. 2011. “Do Women and Men Know Different Things? Measuring Gender Differences in Political Knowledge.” The Journal of Politics 73 (1): 97-107. Dolan, K. 2014. “Gender Stereotypes, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting for Women Candidates: What Really Matters?” Political Research Quarterly 67 (1): 96–107. Dore, C. 1999. “Mother of a Challenge.” The Australian. November 26. Duverger, M. 1955. The Political Role of Women. Paris: UNESCO. Eagly, A. and L. Carli. 2003. “The Female Leadership Advantage: An Evaluation of the Evidence.” Leadership Quarterly, 14(6): 807-834. Eagly, A. and L. Carli. 2007. “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership.” Harvard Business Review https://hbr.org/2007/09/women-and-the-labyrinth-of-leadership (September 12, 2020). Eagly, A. and S. Karau. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (3): 573–598. Eagly, A., W. Wood, and A. Diekman. 2000. “Social Role Theory of Sex Differences and Similarities: A Current Appraisal.” In The Developmental Social Psychology of Gender, ed. T. Eckes and H. Trautner. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Eksterowicz, A. and K. Paynter. 2000. “The Evolution of the Role and Office of the First Lady: The Movement Toward Integration with the White House Office.” The Social Science Journal 37 (4): 547-62.

261

Elder, L. and S. Greene. 2007. “The Myth of “Security Moms” and “NASCAR Dads”: Parenthood, Political Stereotypes, and the 2004 Election.” Social Science Quarterly 88 (1): 1- 19. Elder, L. and S. Greene. 2012. “The Politics of Parenthood: Parenthood Effects on Issue Attitudes and Candidate Evaluations in 2008.” American Politics Research, 40 (3): 419– 449. Elder, L. and S. Greene. 2016. “Red Parents, Blue Parents: The Politics of Modern Parenthood.” The Forum 14 (2): 143-167. Elshtain, J. 1981. Public Man, Private Woman: Women in Social and Political Thought. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Ennser-Jedenastik, L., M. Dolezal, and W. Müller. 2017. “Gender Differences in Negative Campaigning: The Impact of Party Environments.” Politics & Gender 13 (1): 81-106. Erickson, L. 1997. “Might More Women Make a Difference? Gender, Party and Ideology Among Canada's Parliamentary Candidates.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 30 (4): 663-688. Erickson, L. and B. O’Neill. 2002. “The Gender Gap and the Changing Woman Voter in Canada.” International Political Science Review 23 (4): 373-392. Erikson, R. and C. Wlezien. 2014. The 2012 Campaign and the Timeline of Presidential Elections. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Erikson, E. 1950. Childhood and Society. New York, NY: Norton. Erzeel, S. 2011. “Explaining Legislators' Acting on Behalf of Women in the Parliamentary Party Group: The Role of Attitudes, Resources and Opportunities.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, WA. Evans, H. 2016. “Do Women Only Talk About “Female Issues”? Gender and Issue Discussion on Twitter.” Online Information Review 40 (5): 660-672. Evans, H. and J. Clark. 2016. “You Tweet Like a Girl!”: How Female Candidates Campaign on Twitter.” American Politics Research 44 (2): 326- 352. Evans, H., K. Brown, and T. Wimberly. 2017. “Gender and Presidential Elections: How the 2016 Candidates Played the “Woman Card” on Twitter.” In The Internet and the 2016 Presidential Campaign, ed. J. Baumgartner and T. Towner. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

262

Faber, R., A. Tims, K. Schmitt. 1993. “Negative Political Advertising and Voting Intent: The Role of Involvement and Alternative Information Sources.” Journal of Advertising 22: 67- 76. Falk, E. 2010. Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns, 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Fielding, N. 1993. “Qualitative Interviewing.” In Researching Social Life, ed. N. Gilbert. London: Sage. Finkel, S. and J. Geer. 1998. “A Spot Check: Casting Doubt on The Demobilizing Effect of Attack Advertising.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (2): 573–595. Flanagan, T. 2014. Winning Power: Canadian Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century. McGill Queen’s University Press. Forrest, J., R. Johnston and C. Pattie. 1999. “The Effectiveness of Constituency Campaign Spending in Australian State Elections during Times of Electoral Volatility: The New South Wales Case, 1988–95.” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 31(6): 1119–1128. Fowler, A. 2015. “Regular Voters, Marginal Voters and the Electoral Effects of Turnout.” Political Science Research and Methods 3 (2): 205–219. Fox, R. 1994. Women Candidates and the Men They Ran Against: The Role of Gender in the 1992 California Congressional Elections. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. Fox, R. 1997. Gender Dynamics in Congressional Elections. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Fox, R. 2006. “Congressional Elections: Where are We on the Road to Gender Parity?” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. S. Carroll and R. Fox. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, R. and J. Lawless. 2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (1): 59-73. Fox, R. and J. Lawless. 2014. “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review 108 (3): 499-519.

263

Franz, M., P. Freedman, K. Goldstein, and T.N. Ridout. 2008. “Understanding the Effect of Political Advertising on Voter Turnout: A Response to Krasno And Green.” The Journal of Politics 70: 262–268. Freedman, J. and S. Fraser. 1966. “Compliance Without Pressure: The Foot-In-The-Door Technique.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: 4 (2): 195–202. Freeman, P. and W. Lyons. 1992. “Female Legislators: Is There a New Type of Woman in Office?” In Changing Patterns in State Legislative Careers, ed. G. Moncrief and J. Thompson. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Friedman H., L. Zebrowitz. 1992. “The Contribution of Typical Sex Differences in Facial Maturity to Sex Role Stereotypes.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 18 (4): 430-438. Fulton, S. 2012. “Running Backwards and in High Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap and Incumbent Electoral Success.” Political Research Quarterly 65 (2), 303–314. Garramone, G. 1984. “Voter Responses to Negative Political Ads.” Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 61 (2): 250–259. Garramone, G. and S. Smith. 1984. “Reactions to Political Advertising: Clarifying Sponsor Effects.” Journalism Quarterly 61 (4): 771-775. Garramone, G., C. Atkin, B. Pinkleton and R. Cole. 1990. “Effects of Negative Political Advertising on The Political Process.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 34 (2): 299–311. Gauja, A. and W. Cross. 2015. “The Influence of Party Candidate Selection Methods on Candidate Diversity.” Representation 51: 287 -298. George, A. and A. Bennett. 2005. Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gibson, C. 2019. “A Record Number of Congresswomen Are Mothers. Here’s A Glimpse Inside Their First-Ever Caucus.” The Washington Post. April 16. https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/on-parenting/a-record-number-of- congresswomen-are-mothers-heres-a-glimpse-inside-their-first-ever- caucus/2019/04/16/b563b964-5c77-11e9-842d-7d3ed7eb3957_story.html Gidengil, E. 1995. “Economic Man - Social Woman? The Case of the Gender Gap in Support for the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement.” Comparative Political Studies 28 (3): 384–408.

264

Giger, N., A. Holli, Z. Lefkofridi, and H. Wass. 2014. “The Gender Gap in Same-Gender Voting: The Role of Context.” Electoral Studies 35: 303-314. Gilardi, F. 2015. “The Temporary Importance of Role Models for Women's Political Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 957-970. Glanville, J., and P. Paxton. 2007. “How Do We Learn Trust? A Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis of The Sources of Generalized Trust.” Social Psychology Quarterly 70 (3): 230–242. Glynn, A. and M. Sen. 2015. “Identifying Judicial Empathy: Does Having Daughters Cause Judges to Rule for Women's Issues?” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 37-54. Golder, S., L. Stephenson, K. Van der Straeten, A. Blais, D. Bol, P. Harfst and J. Laslier. 2017. “Votes for Women: Electoral Systems and Support for Female Candidates.” Politics and Gender 13 (1): 107-131. Goldstein, K. 1997. “Political Advertising and Political Persuasion in the 1996 Presidential Campaign.” Paper Delivered at The Annual Meeting of The American Political Science Association, Washington DC. Goldstein, K. and P. Freedman. 2000. “New Evidence for New Arguments: Money and Advertising in the 1996 Senate Elections.” The Journal of Politics 62 (4): 1087-1108. Goldstein, K., and P. Freedman. 2002. “Campaign Advertising and Voter Turnout: New Evidence for a Stimulation Effect.” Journal of Politics 64: 721-740. Gomez, B., T. Hansford, and G. Krause. 2007. “The Republicans Should Pray for Rain: Weather, Turnout, and Voting in US Presidential Elections.” Journal of Politics 69 (3): 649-663. Goodyear-Grant, E. 2010. “Who Votes for Women Candidates and Why?” In Voting Behaviour in Canada, ed. C. Anderson and L. Stephenson. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press. Goodyear Grant, E. and J. Croskill. 2011. “Gender Affinity Effects in Vote Choice in Westminster Systems: Assessing “Flexible” Voters in Canada.” Politics and Gender 7 (2): 223-250. Gordon, A., D. Shafie, and A. Crigler. 2003. “Is Negative Advertising Effective for Female Candidates? An Experiment in Voters’ Use of Gender Stereotypes.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 8 (3): 35-53. Gotell, L. and J. Brodie. 1991. “Women and Parties: More Than an Issue of Numbers.” In Party Politics in Canada, 6th ed., ed. H. Thorburn. Scarborough, ON: Prentice-Hall Canada.

265

Green, D. and A. Gerber. 2015. Get Out The Vote: How to Increase Voter Turnout. 3rd ed. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press. Green, D., J. Krasno, A. Coppock, B. Farrer, B. Lenoir, and J. Zingher. 2016. “The Effects of Lawn Signs on Vote Outcomes: Results from Four Randomized Field Experiments.” Electoral Studies 41: 143-150. Greene, Z. and D. O'Brien. 2016. “Diverse Parties, Diverse Agendas? Female Politicians and The Parliamentary Party's Role in Platform Formation.” European Journal of Political Research 55 (3): 435-453. Greenwald, A. and C. Leavitt. 1984. “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels.” Journal of Consumer Research 31: 11-32. Gronbeck, B. 1992. “Negative Narratives in 1988 Presidential Campaign Ads”. Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (3): 333–346. Grönlund, K. and M. Setälä. 2007. “Political Trust, Satisfaction and Voter Turnout.” Comparative European Politics 5 (4): 400–422. Groves, R. and L. Magilavi. 1986. “Measuring and Explaining Interviewer Effects in Centralized Telephone Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 50: 251-266. Groves, R. and E. Peytcheva. 2008. “The Impact of Non-Response Rates on Non-Response Bias: A Meta-Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 167-89. Hamermesh, D. and J. Biddle. 1994. “Beauty and the Labor Market.” American Economic Review 84 (5): 1174– 1194. Hamermesh, D., X. Meng and J. Zhan. 2002. “Dress for Success – Does Primping Pay?” Labour Economics 9: 361– 373. Harmer, E. 2016. “Public to Private and Back Again: The Role of Politicians' Wives in British Election Campaign Coverage.” Feminist Media Studies 16 (5): 852-68. Harmer, E. and R. Southern. 2020. “Girly Swots’ and the Most Diverse Parliament Ever: Women’s Representation, Voters and Issues in the 2019 Election Campaign.” Parliamentary Affairs 73 (1): 243–258. Harper, B. 2000. “Beauty, Stature and the Labour Market: A British Cohort Study.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 62 (1): 771– 800. Harrison, L. and N. Startin. 2001. Political Research: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge.

266

Harrison, L. and W. Deicke. 2001. “Conducting Interviews in Political Research.” Political Research: An Introduction. New York, NY: Routledge. Hayes, D. 2005. “Candidate Qualities Through a Partisan Lens: A Theory of Trait Ownership.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 908–923. Hayes, D. and J. Lawless. 2015. “A Non-Gendered Lens? Media, Voters, and Female Candidates in Contemporary Congressional Elections.” Perspectives on Politics 13 (1): 95-118. Hayes, D., J. Lawless and G. Baitinger. 2014. “Who Cares What They Wear? Media, Gender, and the Influence of Candidate Appearance.” Social Science Quarterly 95: 1194-1212. Heckman, J. 1990. “Selection Bias and Self-selection.” In Econometrics, ed. J. Eatwell, M. Milgate and P. Newman. London: Palgrave. Heith, D. 2003. “The Lipstick Watch: Media Coverage, Gender and Presidential Campaigns.” In Anticipating Madam President, ed. by R. Watson and A. Gordon. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Herrick, R. 2016. “Gender Themes in State Legislative Candidates Websites.” The Social Science Journal 53 (3): 282-290. Herrnson, P., J. Lay and A. Stokes. “Women Running “as Women”: Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-Targeting Strategies.” The Journal of Politics 65 (1): 244 – 255. Herrnson, P. and J. Lucas. 2006. “The Fairer Sex? American Politics Research 34: 69 – 94. Hetherington, M. 2005. Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Higgins, M. and A. Smith. 2013. “My Husband, My Hero: Selling the Political Spouses in the 2010 General Election.” Journal of Political Marketing 12 (2-3): 197-210. Hillygus, D. and T. Shields. 2008. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Political Campaigns. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hitchon, J. and C. Chang. 1995. “Effects of Gender Schematic Processing on the Reception of Political Commercials for Men and Women Candidates.” Communication Research 22 (4): 430–458. Hitchon, J., C. Chang, and R. Harris. 1997. “Should Women Emote? Perceptual Bias and Opinion Change in Response to Political Ads for Candidates of Different Genders.” Political Communication 14: 49-69.

267

Holbrook, A.L. M.C. Green and J.A. Krosnick. 2003. “Telephone Versus Face-to-Face Interviewing of National Probability Samples with Long Questionnaires: Comparisons of Respondent Satisficing and Social Desirability Bias.” Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79- 125. Holman, M., J. Merolla and E. Zechmeister. 2016. “Sex, Stereotypes and Security: A Study of the Effects of Terrorist Threat on Assessments of Female Leadership.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 32 (3): 173-192. Holman, M., M. Schneider, and K. Pondel. 2015. “Gender Targeting in Political Advertisements.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (4): 816-829. Holtz-Bacha, C. 2004. “Germany: How the Private Life of Politicians Got into the Media.” Special Issue of Parliamentary Affairs 57 (1): 41–52. Homer, P. and S. Yoon. 1992. “Message Framing and the Interrelationships among Ad-Based Feelings, Affect, and Cognition.” Journal of Advertising 21 (1): 19-33. Hooghe, M. 2018. “Trust and Elections.” In The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust ed. E. Uslaner. Toronto: ON: Oxford University Press. Hoyt, C. and S. Simon. 2017. “Social Psychological Approaches to Women and Leadership Theory.” In Handbook of Research on Gender and Leadership, ed. S. Madsen. Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd. Huddy, L. and N. Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37: 119- 147. Ibrahim, M. 2016. “Committee takes baby steps towards implementing maternity leave for pregnant Alberta MLAs.” February 10. https://edmontonjournal.com/news/politics/wildrose-makes-family-friendly-proposals-for- legislature-at-all-party-committee-meeting Inglehart, R. and P. Norris. 2000. “The Developmental Theory of The Gender Gap. Women’s and Men’s Voting Behavior in Global Perspective.” International Political Science Review 21 (4): 441–463. Inglehart, R. and P. Norris. 2003. Rising Tide. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. International Institute for Democratic and Electoral Assistance. 2020. “Gender Quotas Database” https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas (October 15, 2020).

268

Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2019. “Monthly Ranking of Women in National Parliaments.” http://archive.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm (July 2, 2019). Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2015. “Women in Parliament: 20 Years in Review.” http://archive.ipu.org/pdf/publications/WIP20Y-en. (November 22, 2020). Issenberg, S. 2012. The Victory Lab. New York, NY: Random House. Iversen, T. and F. Rosenbluth. 2006. “The Political Economy of Gender: Explaining Cross- National Variation in the Gender Division of Labor and the Gender Voting Gap.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (1): 1- 19. Iyengar, S., N. Valentino, and S. Ansolabehere. 1997. “Running as a Woman: Gender Stereotyping in Political Campaigns.” In Women, Media, and Politics, ed. Pippa Norris. New York: Oxford University Press. Jabour, B. 2013. “Julia Gillard’s “Small Breasts” Served Up on Liberal Party Dinner Menu.” The Guardian. June 12. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/gillard-menu-sexist- liberal-dinner Jackson, R., J. Mondak and R. Huckfeldt. 2009. “Examining the Possible Corrosive Impact of Negative Advertising on Citizens’ Attitudes Toward Politics.” Political Research Quarterly 62 (1): 55–69. Jacobson, G. 1990. “The Effects of Campaign Spending in House Elections: New Evidence for Old Arguments.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 334-62. Jaensch, D. 1991. Parliament, Parties & People: Australian Politics Today. Melbourne: Longman Cheshire. Jaensch, D. 1994. Power Politics: Australia’s Party System. 3rd ed. St Leonards: Allen & Unwin. Jamieson, K. 2000. Everything You Need to Know About Politics and Why You’re Wrong. New York: Basic Books. Jasperson, A., and D. Fan. 2002. “An Aggregate Examination of the Backlash Effect in Political Advertising: The Case of the 1996 U.S. Senate Race in Minnesota.” Journal of Advertising 31 (1): 1–12. Johns, R. and M. Shephard. 2007. “Gender, Candidate Image and Electoral Preference.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 9 (3): 434 - 460. Johnson, C. 2013. “From Obama to Abbott: Gender Identity and the Politics of Emotion.” Australian Feminist Studies 28 (75): 14 - 29.

269

Johnston, R. and A. Blais. 1992. Letting the People Decide. McGill-Queen's University Press. Johnston, R. and C. Pattie. 1995. “The Impact of Spending on Party Constituency Campaigns at Recent British General Elections.” Party Politics 1 (2): 261-273. Johnston, A. and A. White. 1994. “Communication Styles and Female Candidates: A Study of The Political Advertising During The 1986 Senate Elections.” Journalism Quarterly 71: 321-329. Jones, T. and J. Price. 2017. “Information and The Beauty Premium in Political Elections.” Contemporary Economic Policy 35 (4): 677-683. Kahn, K. 1992. “Does Being Male Help? An Investigation of the Effects of Candidate Gender and Campaign Coverage on Evaluations of U.S. Senate Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 54: 497-512. Kahn, K. 1993. “Gender Differences in Campaign Messages: The Political Advertisements of Men and Women Candidates for U.S. Senate.” Political Research Quarterly 46: 481–502. Kahn, K. 1996. The Political Consequences of Being a Woman: How Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences of Political Campaigns. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Kahn, K. and J. Geer. 1994. “Creating Impressions: An Experimental Investigation of Political Advertising on Television.” Political Behavior 16 (1): 93–116. Kahn, K. and A. Gordon. 1997. “How Women Campaign for the U.S. Senate.” in Women, Media, and Politics, ed. P. Norris. New York: Oxford University Press. Kahn, K. and E. Goldenberg. 1991. “Women Candidates in the News: An Examination of Gender Differences in US Senate Campaign Coverage.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55: 180–199. Kahn, K. and P. Kenney. 1999. “Do Negative Campaigns Mobilize or Suppress Turnout? Clarifying the Relationship between Negativity and Participation.” American Political Science Review 93 (4): 877–889. Kaid, L. and D. Davidson. 1986. “Elements of Videostyle: Candidate Presentation Through Television Advertising.” In New Perspectives on Political Advertising, ed. L. Kaid, D. Nimmo and K. Sanders. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

270

Kaufmann, K. and M. Bell. 2015. “The Electoral Consequences of Marriage and Motherhood: How Gender Traits Influence Voter Evaluations of Female Candidates.” Journal of Women Politics and Policy 36 (1): 1-21. Kawakami, C., J. White and E. Langer 2000. “Mindful and Masculine: Freeing Women Leaders from the Constraints of Gender Roles.” Journal of Social Issues 56: 49-63. Kay, B. 1981. “By-Elections as Indicators of Canadian Voting.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 14 (1): 37-52. Keating, S. 2020. “NY Times Magazine Journalist Lambastes Barrett for Being a Working Mother, Then Backtracks.” Just the News. September 28. https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/new-york-times-magazine-journalist- lambastes-barrett-being-working-mother Keonig, A., A. Eagly, A. Mitchell and T. Ristikari. 2011. “Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms.” Psychological Bulletin 137 (4): 616-642. Killin, J. and T. Small. 2018. “The National Message, The Local Tour: Candidates’ Use of Twitter During the 2015 Canadian Election.” In Political Elites in Canada: Power and Influence in Instantaneous Times, ed. A. Marland, T. Giasson and A. Lawlor. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Kilpatrick, S. 2015. “Veterans Group Starts ‘Anyone but Conservative’ Campaign, Plans to Picket in Uniform.” National Post. August 18. https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/veterans-group-starts-anyone-but-conservative- campaign-plans-to-picket-pro-harper-events-in-uniform King, G., R. Keohane and S. Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. King, A. and A. Leigh. 2009. “Beautiful Politicians.” Kyklos 62 (4): 579-593. King, D. and R. Matland. 2003. “Sex and the Grand Old Party: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate.” American Politics Research 31 (6): 595-612. King, J. and J. McConnell. 2003. “The Effect of Negative Campaign Advertising on Vote Choice: The Mediating Influence of Gender.” Social Science Quarterly 84 (4): 843 – 857. Kirkpatrick, J. 1974. Political Woman. BasicBooks.

271

Kittilson, M. 2008. “Representing Women: The Adoption of Family Leave in Comparative Perspective.” The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 323-334. Kittilson, M. 2011. “Women, Parties and Platforms in Post-Industrial Democracies.” Party Politics 17 (1): 66–92. Kittilson, M. and K. Fridkin. 2008. “Gender, Candidate Portrayals and Election Campaigns: A Comparative Perspective.” Politics & Gender 4 (3): 371-92. Klein, M. and U. Rosar. 2005. “Physische Attraktivität und Wahlerfolg. Eine empirische Analyse am Beispiel der Wahlkreiskandidaten bei der Bundestagswahl 2002” Politische Vierteljahresschrift 46 (2): 266– 290. Klotz, R. and A. Broome. 1998. “Discussion of Women's Issues in the 1996 Internet Campaign.” Women & Politics 19 (4): 67-86. Koch, J. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates' Ideological Orientations?” Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–429. Krashinsky, M. and W. Milne. 1986. “The Effect of Incumbency in the 1984 and 1985 Ontario Elections.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 19: 337–343. Krasno, J. and D. Green. 2008. “Do Televised Presidential Ads Increase Voter Turnout? Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” The Journal of Politics 7: 245–261. Krook, M. 2010. “Why Are Fewer Women Than Men Elected? Gender and the Dynamics of Candidate Selection.” Political Studies Review 8 (2): 155-168. Krupnikov, Y. and N. Bauer. 2014. “The Relationship between Campaign Negativity, Gender and Campaign Context.” Political Behavior, 36 (1): 167-188. Kuhn, R. 2004. “‘Vive la difference’? The Mediation of Politicians’ Public Images and Private Lives in France.” Special Issue of Parliamentary Affairs 57 (1): 24–40. Kunovich, S. and P. Paxton. 2005. “Pathways to Power: The Role of Political Parties in Women's National Political Representation.” American Journal of Sociology 11: 505–552. Kunovich, S. and A. Wall. 2012. “Internet Autobiographies: Female Politicians' Representations of Gender.” Research in Political Sociology 20: 49-72. Lake, C. and R. Carpenter. 2012. “An Examination of the Impact of Media Coverage of Women Candidates’ Appearance.” Name It. Change It. http://www.nameitchangeit.org/page/- /Name-It-Change-It-Executive-Summary-Appearance-Research.pdf (October 18, 2020).

272

Landa, J., M. Copeland and B. Grofman. 1995. “Ethnic Voting Patterns: A Case Study of Metropolitan Toronto.” Political Geography 14 (5): 435–49. Landes, R. 1998. The Canadian Polity: A Comparative Introduction. Scarborough: Prentice Hall Allyn & Bacon Canada. Lang, R. 2005. Making Waves: Women in Newfoundland Politics. Masters thesis. Memorial University of Newfoundland. Langer, A. 2010. “The Politicization of Private Persona: Exceptional Leaders or the New Rule? The Case of the United Kingdom and the Blair Effect.” The International Journal of Press/Politics 15 (1): 60-76. Larson, S. 2001. “Running as Women?” Women & Politics 22 (2): 107-124. Lau, R. and G. Pomper. 2002. “Effectiveness of Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 47–66. Lau, R., L. Sigelman, C. Heldman and P. Babbitt. 1999. “The Effects of Negative Political Advertisements: A Meta-Analytic Assessment.” The American Political Science Review 93 (4): 851–875. Lau, R., L. Sigelman and I. Rovner. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment.” The Journal of Politics 69 (4): 1176–1209. Lawless, J. 2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the post- September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57: 479-490. Lawless, J. and R. Fox. 2005. It takes a Candidate. Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Lawless, J. and R. Fox. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lawless, J. and K. Pearson. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women's Under-Representation: Re- Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics 70: 67 -82. Lawrence, R. and M. Rose. 2010. Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics & Media on the Campaign Trail. Boulder: Lynne Reinner Publishers. Lay, J. 2017. “She Was Born in a Small Town: The Advantages and Disadvantages in Political Knowledge and Efficacy for Rural Girls.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (3): 318-334.

273

Lazarfeld, P., B. Berelson and H. Gaudet. 1948. The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Lee, J. 2013. ““You Know How Tough I Am?” Discourse Analysis of US Midwestern Congresswomen’s Self-presentation.” Discourse & Communication 7 (3): 299-331. Lee, J. and Y. Lim. 2016. “Gendered Campaign Tweets: The Cases of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.” Public Relations Review 42 (5): 849-855. Lee, Y. 2013. “Babyfacedness, Sex of Face Stimulus, and Social Context in Face Perception and Person Evaluation.” Psychological Reports. 112 (3): 800-817. Leeper, M. 1991. “The Impact of Prejudice on Female Candidates: An Experimental Look at Voter Inference.” American Politics Quarterly 19 (2): 248-261. Lemi, D and N. Brown. 2019. “Melanin and Curls: Evaluation of Black Women Candidates.” The Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 42 (2): 259 - 296. Lenz, G. and C. Lawson. 2011. “Looking the Part: Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 574 – 589. Loizeau, P. 2015. ““First Lady But Second Fiddle” or the Rise and Rejection of the Political Couple in the White House: 1933-today.” European Journal of American Studies 10 (1): 1- 11. Lovenduski, J. and P. Norris. 2003. “Westminster Women: The Politics of Presence.” Political Studies 51 (1): 84–102. MacManus, S. and A. Quecan. 2008. “Spouses as Campaign Surrogates: Strategic Appearances by Presidential and Vice-Presidential Candidates' Wives in the 2004 Election.” PS: Political Science and Politics 41 (2): 337–348. Maier, J., and A. Renner. 2018. “When a Man Meets a Woman: Comparing the Use of Negativity of Male Candidates in Single- and Mixed-Gender Televised Debates.” Political Communication 35(3): 433–449. Malbin, M. 2018. “Campaign Finance Institute: Massive Amounts Were Spent by the Candidates and Independent Spenders in the Races That Decided the 2018 Midterms.” FollowTheMoney.org. November 13. https://www.followthemoney.org/research/blog/massive-amounts-were-spent-by-the- candidates-and-independent-spenders-in-the-races-that-decided-the-2018-midterms

274

Malloy, L. and S. Pearson-Merkowitz. 2016. “Going Positive: The Effects of Negative and Positive Advertising on Candidate Success and Voter Turnout.” Research & Politics 3 (1): 1-15. March, J. and J. Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press. March, J. and J. Olsen. 2011. 2011. “The Logic of Appropriateness.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Science, ed. R. Goodin. New York: Oxford University Press. Marland, A. and T. Giasson. 2017. “From Brokerage to Boutique Politics: Political Marketing and the Changing Nature of Party Politics in Canada.” In Canadian Parties in Transition, 4th ed., ed. A. Gagnon and A. Tanguay. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press. Marland, A. and A. Lennox-Esselment. 2019. “Negotiating with Gatekeepers to Get Interviews with Politicians: Qualitative Research Recruitment in a Digital Media Environment.” Qualitative Research 19 (6): 685-702. Masip, J., E. Garrido and C. Herrero. 2004. “Facial Appearance and Impressions of Credibility: The Effects of Facial Babyishness and Age on Person Perception.” International Journal of Psychology 39: 276–289. Massicotte, L. 1989. “Quebec, the Successful Combination of French Culture and British Institutions.” In Provincial and Territorial Legislatures in Canada, ed. G. Levis and G. White. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Mattes, K. and C. Milazzo. 2014. “Pretty Faces, Marginal Races: Predicting Election Outcomes Using Trait Assessments of British Parliamentary Candidates.” Electoral Studies 34: 177- 189. Mattes, K., M. Spezio, H. Kim, A. Todorov, R. Adolphs, and R. Alvarez. 2010. “Predicting Election Outcomes from Positive and Negative Trait Assessments of Candidate Images.” Political Psychology 31 (1): 41-58. Maurer, M. and H. Schoen. 2010. “Der mediale Attraktivitätsbonus.” KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 62: 277-295. McAllister, I. and D. Studlar. 1992. “Gender and Representation among Legislative Candidates in Australia.” Comparative Political Studies 25 (3): 388-411.

275

McDermott, M. 1997. “Voting Cues in Low-Information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 270–283. McGlen, N. and K. O’Connor. 1995. Women, Politics and American Society. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Meirick, P., and G. Nisbett. 2011. “I Approve This Message: Effects of Sponsorship, Ad Tone, and Reactance in 2008 Presidential Advertising.” Mass Communication and Society 14 (5): 666–689. Merritt, S. 1984. “Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings.” Journal of Advertising 13: 27–38. Milazzo, C. and K. Mattes. 2016. “Looking Good for Election Day: Does Attractiveness Predict Electoral Success in Britain?” British Journal of Politics & International Relations 18 (1): 161–178. Mill, J. 1843. A System of Logic: Ratiocinative and Inductive. New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers. Miller, B. and J. Lundgren. 2010. “An Experimental Study of the Role of Weight Bias in Candidate Evaluation.” Obesity 18: 712-718. Mo, C. 2015. “The Consequences of Explicit and Implicit Gender Attitudes and Candidate Quality in the Calculations of Voters.” Political Behavior 37: 357–395. Morehouse Mendez, J., and T. Osborn. 2010. “Gender and the Perception of Knowledge in Political Discussion.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (2): 269–279. Morgenstern, S. and S. Swindle. 2005. “Are Politics Local?: An Analysis of Voting Patterns in 23 Democracies.” Comparative Political Studies 38 (2): 143–170. Morse, J. and L. Richards. 2002. Read Me First for A Users Guide to Qualitative Methods. Sage Publications, London. Moscatello, C. 2019. “Vote for the Woman Because She’s a Woman.” Time. August 22. https://time.com/5658428/VOTING-FOR-WOMEN/ Murakami, G. 2014. Candidates’ Ethnic Backgrounds and Voter Choice in Elections. Doctoral dissertation, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC. Murray, R. 2013. “Towards Parity Democracy? Gender in the 2012 French Legislative Elections.” Parliamentary Affairs 66 (1): 197-212.

276

Mutz, D. 2015. In-Your-Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Nagesh, A. 2016. “Shocking Expose Reveals That These Politicians Do Not Have Children.” Metro. September 4. https://metro.co.uk/2016/09/04/shocking-expose-reveals-that-these- politicians-do-not-have-children-6109099/ Nagourney, A. and M. Connelly. 2000 “In Polls, Mrs. Clinton Makes Gains Among Women from the Suburbs.” New York Times September 21: A1. Newton, K. 2001. “Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, And Democracy.” International Political Science Review 22 (2): 201–214. Newton, K. and P. Norris. 2000. “Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture, Or Performance?” In Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?, ed. S. Pharr and R. Putnam. Princeton. NJ: Princeton University Press. Newton, K., D. Stolle and S. Zmerli. 2018. “Social and Political Trust.” In The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust ed. E. Uslaner. Toronto: ON: Oxford University Press. Niven, D. 1998. The Missing Majority: The Recruitment of Women as State Legislative Candidates. Westport, CT: Praeger. Niven, D. and J. Zilber. 2001a. “Do Women and Men in Congress Cultivate Different Images? Evidence from Congressional Web Sites.” Political Communication 18 (4): 395 – 405. Niven, D. and J. Zilber. 2001b. “How Does She Have Time for Kids and Congress? Views on Gender and Media Coverage from House Offices.” Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 23 (1): 147 – 165. Norris, P. 1996. “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” In Women in Politics, ed. J. Lovenduski and P. Norris. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Norris, P. 1997a. “Introduction: Women, Media and Politics.” In Women, Media, and Politics, ed. P. Norris. New York, NY: Oxford. Norris, P. 1997b. “Women Leaders Worldwide: A Splash of Color in the Photo Op.” In Women, Media, and Politics, ed. P. Norris. New York, NY: Oxford. Norris, P. and J. Lovenduski. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

277

Nownes, A. and P. Freeman. 2019. “Gender-Based Differences in Information Use and Processing among State Legislators.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 40 (4): 473 – 497. Ogburn, W. and I. Goltra. 1919. “How Women Vote.” Political Science Quarterly 34 (3): 413- 433. O'Neill, B. 1998. “The Relevance of Leader Gender to Voting in the 1993 Canadian National Election.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 17 (2): 105–130. O’Neill, B. and J. Croskill. 2013. “The Wild, Wild West? The 2012 Alberta Election” paper presented the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, June 4-6, Edmonton, Alberta. O’Neill, B. and D. Stewart. 2009. “Gender and Political Party Leadership in Canada.” Party Politics 15(6): 737–757. O'Neill, D., H. Savigny, and V. Cann. 2016. “Women Politicians in the UK Press: Not Seen and Not Heard?” Feminist Media Studies 16 (2): 293-307. Ornstein, N. and T. Mann. 2000. The Permanent Campaign and Its Future. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute. Panagopoulos, C. 2009. “Partisan and Nonpartisan Message Content and Voter Mobilization: Field Experimental Evidence.” Political Research Quarterly 62(1): 70–76. Parry-Giles, S. and D. Blair. 2002. “The Rise of the Rhetorical First Lady: Politics, Gender Ideology, and Women's Voice, 1789-2002.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs 5 (4): 565-599. Patterson, O. 1999. “Liberty Against the Democratic State: On the Historical and Contemporary Sources of American Distrust.” In Democracy and Trust, ed. M. Warren. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pattie, C. and R. Johnston. 1996. “The Value of Making an Extra Effort: Campaign Spending and Electoral Outcomes in Recent British General Elections—A Decomposition Approach.” Environment and Planning 28 (11): 2081-2090. Pattie, C., R. Johnston, E. Fieldhouse. 1995. “Winning the Local Vote: The Effectiveness of Constituency Campaign Spending in Great Britain, 1983–1992.” American Political Science Review 89 (4): 969–983. Paul, D. and J. Smith. 2008. “Subtle Sexism? Examining Vote Preferences When Women Run Against Men for the Presidency.” Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy 29: 451-476.

278

Pearson, K. and E. McGhee. 2013. “What It Takes to Win: Questioning 'Gender Neutral' Outcomes in US House Elections.” Politics and Gender 9 (4): 439-462. Pelletier, R. 2000. “Responsible Government: Victory and Defeat for Parliament.” In Responsible Government in Canada, ed. F.L. Seidle and L. Massicotte. Ottawa, ON: Canadian Study of Parliament Group. Pereira, M., M. Fraile, and M. Rubal. 2015. “Young and Gapped? Political Knowledge of Girls and Boys in Europe.” Political Research Quarterly 68 (1): 63–76. Petrocik, J. 1996. “Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study.” American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–50. Pew Research Centre. 2013. “Chapter 5: Americans’ Time at Paid Word, Housework, Child Care, 1965 to 2011.” March 14. https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/03/14/chapter-5- americans-time-at-paid-work-housework-child-care-1965-to-2011/ Pfann, G., C. Bosman, J. Biddle and D. Hamermesh. 2000. “Business Success and Business Beauty Capital.” Economic Letters 67 (2): 201– 207. Pfanzelt, H. and D. Spies. 2019. “The Gender Gap in Youth Political Participation: Evidence from Germany.” Political Research Quarterly 72 (1): 34–48. Pfau, M. and H. Kenski. 1990. Attack Politics: Strategy and Defense. New York: Praeger. Pfau, M., R. Parrott and B. Lindquist. 1992. “An Expectancy Theory of The Effectiveness of Political Attack Television Spots: A Case Study.” Journal of Applied Communication Research 20 (3): 235–253. Phillips, J., J. Urbany and T. Reynolds. 2007. “Does Confirmation Trump Valence? Confirmation and the Effects of Negative and Positive Political Advertising.” Advances in Consumer Research 34: 208. Pinkleton, B. 1997. “The Effects of Negative Comparative Political Advertising on Candidate Evaluations and Advertising Evaluations: An Exploration.” Journal of Advertising 26: 19– 29. Pinkleton, B. 1998. “Effects of Print Comparative Political Advertising on Political Decision- Making and Participation.” Journal of Communication 48 (4): 24–36. Plutzer, E. and J. Zipp. 1996. “Identity Politics, Partisanship, and Voting for Women Candidates.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (1): 30–57.

279

Poguntke, T. and P. Webb. 2005. The Presidentialization of Politics: A Comparative Study of Modern Democracies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Popkin, S.1991. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Poutvaara, P., H. Jordahl and N. Berggren. 2009. “Faces of Politicians: Babyfacedness Predicts Inferred Competence but Not Electoral Success.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (5): 1132-1135. Power, M. and M. Berardone. 1998. “Speaking in Parliament: First Speeches of Men and Women.” Journal of Applied Social Behaviour 4 (2): 42-55. Praino, R. and D. Stockemer. 2018. “What Are Good‐Looking Candidates, and Can They Sway Election Results?” Social Science Quarterly 100 (3): 531 – 543. Praino, R., D. Stockemer and J. Ratis. 2014. “Looking Good or Looking Competent? Physical Appearance and Electoral Success in the 2008 Congressional Elections.” American Politics Research 42 (6): 1096 – 1117. Robinson-Preece, J. 2016. “Mind the Gender Gap: An Experiment on the Influence of Self- Efficacy on Political Interest.” Politics & Gender 12 (1): 198-217. Puts, D., J. Barndt, L.Welling, K. Dawood and R. Buriss. 2011. “Intrasexual Competition Among Women: Vocal Femininity Affects Perceptions of Attractiveness and Flirtatiousness.” Personality and Individual Differences 50: 111–115. Pyszczynski, T. and J. Greenberg. 1981. “Role of Disconfirmed Expectancies in The Instigation of Attributional Processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 (1): 31–38. Quaranta, M. and G. Dotti Sani. 2018. “Left Behind? Gender Gaps in Political Engagement Over the Life Course in Twenty-Seven European Countries.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 25 (2): 254 – 286. Rabson, M. 2019. “Threats, Abuse Move from Online to Real World, McKenna Now Requires Security.” CBC News. September7. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/threats-abuse-move- from-online-to-real-world-mckenna-now-requires-security-1.5274766 Reid, A. 2013. “What Went Wrong with The Polls in British Columbia?” Macleans July 8. Reingold, B. 1992. “Concepts of Representation among Female and Male State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (4): 509–537.

280

Reingold, B. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Reingold, B. and J. Harrell. 2010. “The Impact of Descriptive Representation on Women’s Political Engagement: Does Party Matter?” Political Research Quarterly 63 (2): 280–294. Rekkas, M. 2007. “The Impact of Campaign Spending on votes in Multiparty Elections.” Review of Economics and Statistics 89 (3): 573-585. Renner, T. 1993. “Lynn Yeakel Versus Arlen Specter: The Year of the Woman in Pennsylvania.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Washington, DC. Reyes, O. 2003. “Cheriegate! Celebrity, Scandal and Political Leadership.” Mediactive 2: 26–43. Rickard, V. 2016. “The Effects of Gender on Winnowing in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Politics and Gender 12 (4): 807-834. Ridout, T. and K. Searles. 2011. “It’s My Campaign I’ll Cry if I Want to: How and When Campaigns Use Emotional Appeals.” Political Psychology 32(3): 439-458. Riley-Smith, B. 2020. “The End of Sander’s and Warren’s Non Aggression Pact Could Hurt the Left.” The Telegraph. January 16. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/16/us- 2020the-end-sanders-warrens-non-aggression-pact-could-hurt/ Roddy, B. and G. Garramone. 1988. “Appeals and Strategies of Negative Political Advertising.” Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media 32: 415–427. Roese, N. and G. Sande. 1993. “Backlash Effects in Attack Politics.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23 (August): 632-53. Rosenberg, M. 1956. “Misanthropy and Political Ideology.” American Sociological Review 21 (6): 690–695. Rosenberg, M. 1957. “Misanthropy and Attitudes Toward International Affairs.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 1 (4): 340–345. Rosenwasser, S. and N. Dean. 1989. “Gender Role and Political Office: Effects of Perceived Masculinity /Femininity of Candidate and Political Office.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 13 (1): 77 – 85. Roy, J. and C. Alcantara. 2015. “The Candidate Effect: Does the Local Candidate Matter?” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 25 (2): 195–214.

281

Rozin, P., and E. Royzman. 2001. “Negativity Bias, Negativity Dominance, and Contagion.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5 (4): 296–320. Rush, M. 2001. “The Impact of Redistribution and Candidate Change on Canadian Voting.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco: CA. Sacco, J. 2007. “How the Public Evaluates Candidates' Messages about Family and Gender Roles.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of Western Political Science Association, Las Vegas. Saint-Germain, M. 1989. “Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in Arizona Legislature.” Social Science Quarterly 70 (4): 956 – 968. Saldaña, J. 2013. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. SAGE. Sanbonmatsu, K. 2002a. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 20–34. Sanbonmatsu, K. 2002b. “Political Parties and the Recruitment of Women to State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 64: 791–809. Sanbonmatsu, K. 2003. “Gender-Related Political Knowledge and the Descriptive Representation of Women.” Political Behavior 25 (4): 367–388. Sanbonmatsu, K. 2005. “State Elections: Where do Women Run? Where do Women Win?” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, ed. S. Carroll and R. Fox. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sanbonmatsu, K. 2006a. “Do Parties Know That “Women Win”? Party Leader Beliefs About Women's Electoral Chances.” Politics & Gender, 2 (4), 431-450. Sanbonmatsu, K. 2006b. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Sanbonmatsu, K. 2006c. “The Legislative Party and Candidate Recruitment in the American States.” Party Politics 12: 233–256. Sanghvi, M. and N. Hodges. 2015. “Marketing the Female Politician: An Exploration of Gender and Appearance.” Journal of Marketing Management 31 (15-16): 1676–1694. Sapiro, V. 1982. “If U.S. Senator Baker were a Women: An Experimental Study of Candidate Images.” Political Psychology 3: 161-183.

282

Sapiro, V. 2003. “Theorizing Gender in Political Psychology Research.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, ed. D. Sears, L. Huddy, and R. Jervis. Toronto, ON: Oxford University Press. Sapiro, V., K. Cramer Walsh, P. Strach, and V. Hennings. 2011. “Gender, Context, and Television Advertising: A Comprehensive Analysis of 2000 and 2002 House Races.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (1): 107-119. Savoie, D. 1999. “The Rise of Court Government in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 32(4): 635‐664. Sawer, M. 1981. “Women and Women's Issues in the 1980 Federal Elections.” Politics 26 (2): 243-249. Sawer, M. 1986. “From Motherhood to Sisterhood: Attitudes of Australian Women MPs to their Roles.” Women’s Studies International Forum 9 (5): 531–41. Sawer, M. 1996. “Challenging Politics? Seventy-five Years of Women’s Parliamentary Representation in Australia.” International Review of Women and Leadership 2 (1): i–xv. Sawer, M. 2012a. “What Makes the Substantive Representation of Women Possible in a Westminster Parliament? The Story of RU486 in Australia.” International Political Science Review 33 (3): 320–335. Sawer, M. 2012b. “Managing Gender: The 2010 Federal Election.” In Julia 2010: The Caretaker Election ed. M. Simms and J. Wanna. Canberra, ACT: Australian National University Press. Sayers, A. 1999. Parties, Candidates and Constituency Campaigns in Canadian Elections. Vancouver, UBC Press. Schaffner, B. 2005. “Priming Gender: Campaigning on Women's Issues in U.S. Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (4): 803–817. Schneider, M. 2014. “Gender-Based Strategies on Candidate Websites.” Journal of Political Marketing 13 (4): 264-290. Schreiber, R. 2012. “Mama Grizzlies Compete for Office.” New Political Science 34 (4): 549-63. Schuck, A., R. Vliegenthart, and C. De Vreese. 2016. “Who's Afraid of Conflict? The Mobilizing Effect of Conflict Framing in Campaign News.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 177-194.

283

Schuster, R., S.Yong Han, A. Brewis, A.Wutich. 2018. “Increasing Overweight and Obesity Erodes Engagement in One's Neighborhood by Women, But Not Men.” Preventive Medicine Reports 10: 144-149. Schwindt-Bayer, L. 2005. “The Incumbency Disadvantage and Women's Election to Legislative Office.” Electoral Studies 24 (2): 227-244. Schwindt-Bayer, L. 2011. “Women Who Win: Social Backgrounds, Paths to Power, and Political Ambition in Latin American Legislatures.” Politics & Gender 7 (1): 1 – 33. Scott, E. 2017. “Millions of American Women Disagree with Michelle Obama: Donald Trump Is Their Voice.” The Washington Post. September 28. http://wapo.st/2yJilYQ?tid=ss_twbottom&utm_term=.dde91b84d0d3 Seltzer, R., J. Newman, and M. Vorhees Leighton. 1997. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters in U.S. Elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner. Sevi, S., V. Arel-Bundock, and A. Blais. 2019. “Do Women Get Fewer Votes? No.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 201-210. Shapiro, M. and R. Rieger. 1992. “Comparing Positive and Negative Political Advertising on Radio.” Journalism Quarterly 69 (1): 135–145. Sharman, C. 1994. “Discipline and Disharmony. Party and the Operation of the Australian Federal System.” In Parties and Federalism in Australia and Canada, ed. C. Sharman. Canberra: Federalism Research Centre, Australian National University. Shively, W. 1998. The Craft of Political Research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Shoaf, N. and T. Parsons. 2016. “18 Million Cracks, but No Cigar: News Media and the Campaigns of Clinton, Palin, and Bachmann.” Social Sciences 5 (3): 1-15. Shugart, M., M. Valdini and K. Suominen. 2005. “Looking for Locals: Information Demands and Personal Vote-Earning Attributes of Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 437-449. Siegel, J. 2009. “Thank You, Sarah Palin, for Reminding Us: It’s Not About the Clothes.” Virginia Journal of Social Policy and the Law 17: 144 – 180. Silbermann, R. 2015. “Gender Roles, Work-Life Balance, and Running for Office.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 10 (2): 123-153. Sineau, M. 2001. Profession: femme politique: Sexe et pouvoir sous la Cinquieme Republique. Paris: Presses de la Fondation nationale des sciences politiques.

284

Smets, K. and C. Van Ham. 2013. “The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-Analysis of Individual-Level Research on Voter Turnout.” Electoral Studies 32: 344–359. Smith, A. 2008. “‘New Man’ or ‘Son of the Manse’? Gordon Brown as a Reluctant Celebrity Father.” British Politics 3: 556–575. Smith, J. and J. Firth. 2011. “Qualitative Data Analysis: The Framework Approach.” Nurse Researcher 18 (2): 52–62. Sommer, B. 1979. “Front Yard Signs as Predictors of Election Outcome.” Political Methodology 6 (2): 237–240. Sonner, B. 1998. “The Effectiveness of Negative Political Advertising: A Case Study.” Journal of Advertising Research 38 (6): 37–42. St. George, D. 2007. “Despite ‘Mommy Guilt’ Time with Kids Increasing: Society’s Pressures, Own Expectations Alter Priorities.” The Washington Post. March 20. A1. Stalsburg, B. 2010. “Voting for Mom: The Political Consequences of Being a Parent for Male and Female Candidates.” Politics & Gender 6 (3): 373 – 404. Stalsburg, B. and M. Kleinberg. 2016. “A Mom First and a Candidate Second: Gender Differences in Candidates' Self-Presentation of Family.” Journal of Political Marketing 15 (4): 285-310. Stelter, B. 2020. “Trump-Biden Clash was Watched by At Least 73 Million Viewers.” CNN Business. September 30. https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/30/media/first-presidential-debate- tv-ratings/index.html Stevens, B., M. Mujahedul Islam, R. de Geus, J. Goldberg, J. McAndrews, A. Mierke- Zatwarnicki, P. Loewen, and D. Rubenson. 2019. “Local Candidate Effects in Canadian Elections.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 83-96. Stolle, D. and E. Gidengil. 2010. “What do Women Really Know? A Gendered Analysis of Varieties of Political Knowledge.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 93-109. Strandberg, K. 2009. “Online Campaigning: An Opening for The Outsiders? An Analysis of Finnish Parliamentary Candidates’ Websites in the 2003 Election Campaign.” New Media & Society 11(5): 835–854. Studlar D. and I. McAllister. 1991. “Political Recruitment to the Australian Legislature: Toward an Explanation of Women’s Electoral Disadvantages.” Western Political Quarterly 44 (2): 467-485.

285

Taylor P., C. Funk and A. Clark. 2007. “Generation Gap in Values, Behaviors: As Marriage and Parenthood Drift Apart, Public Is Concerned About Social Impact.” Pew Research Center. http://pewresearch.org/pubs/526/marriage-parenthood. (September 12, 2020) Taylor-Robinson, M. and R. Heath. 2003. “Do Women Legislators Have Different Policy Priorities Than Their Male Colleagues? A Critical Case Test.” Women & Politics 24 (4): 77-101. Teele, D., J. Kalla, and F. Rosenbluth. 2018. “The Ties That Double Bind: Social Roles and Women's Underrepresentation in Politics.” American Political Science Review 112 (3): 525-41. Tesch, R. 1990. Qualitative Research: Analysis Types and Software Tools. London: Falmer Press. Thelen, K. and S. Steinmo. 1992. “Institutionalism in Comparative Politics.” In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, ed. S. Steinmo, K. Thelen, and F. Longstreth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, M. and A. Bittner. 2017. “The ‘Mommy Problem’? Gender, Parental Status, and Politics” In Mothers and Others: The Role of Parenthood in Politics, ed. M. Thomas and A. Bittner. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Thomas, M. and M. Bodet. 2013. “Sacrificial Lambs, Women Candidates, and District Competitiveness in Canada.” Electoral Studies 32 (1): 153 – 166. Thomas, M. and L. Lambert. 2017. “Private Mom versus Political Dad? Communications of Parental Status in the 41st Canadian Parliament.” In Mothers and Others: The Role of Parenthood in Politics, ed. M. Thomas and A. Bittner. Vancouver, BC: UBC Press. Thomas, S. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Politics 53: 958-76. Thomas, S. 2002. “The Personal Is the Political: Antecedents of Gendered Choices of Elected Representatives.” Sex Roles 47 (7): 343 – 353. Thomas, S., G. Miller, and L. Murphy. 2008. “Gender, Guns, And Legislating: An Analysis of State Legislative Policy Preferences.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 29 (4): 477- 495. Thompson, J. 1980. “Role Perceptions of Women in the Ninety-fourth Congress 1975–6.” Political Science Quarterly 95 (1): 71–81.

286

Thompson, S. and J. Steckenrider. 1997. “The Relative Irrelevance of Candidate Sex.” Women & Politics 17 (4): 71-92. Thomsen, D., and M. Swers. 2017. “Which Women Can Run? Gender, Partisanship, and Candidate Donor Networks.” Political Research Quarterly: 70 (2): 449–463. Tinkham, S. and R. Weaver-Lariscy. 1993. “A Diagnostic Approach to Assessing the Impact of Negative Political Television Commercials.” Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 37 (4): 377–399. Todorov, A., A. Mandisodza, A. Goren and C. Hall. 2005. “Inference of Competence from Faces Predict Electoral Outcomes.” Science 308: 1623– 1626. Tolleson-Rinehart, S. 1992. Gender Consciousness and Politics. Routledge. Tolleson-Rinehart S. 1994. “The California Senate Races.” In The Year of the Woman: Myths and Realities, ed. E. Cook, S. Thomas, and C. Wilcox. Boulder, CO: Westview Tolleson-Rinehart, S. and J. Stanley. 1994. Claytie and the Lady: Ann Richards, Gender, and Politics in Texas. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Tolley, E. and E. Goodyear-Grant. 2014. “Experimental Evidence on Race and Gender Affinity Effects in Candidate Choice.” Paper Presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference, May 27 – 29, St. Catharines, ON. Tourangeau, R. and T. Smith. 1996. “Asking Sensitive Questions: The Impact of Data Collection Mode, Question Format, And Question Context.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60 (2): 275– 304. Townsley, J. 2018. “Is It Worth Door-Knocking? Evidence from a United Kingdom-Based Get Out The Vote (GOTV) Field Experiment on the Effect of Party Leaflets and Canvass Visits on Voter Turnout.” Political Science Research and Methods 6 (4): 1-15. Tremblay, M. 1992. “Quand les Femmes se Distinguent: Feminisme et Representation Politique au Quebec.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 25(1): 55–68. Tremblay, M. 1995. “Les femmes, des candidates moins performantes que les hommes? Une analyse des votes obtenus par les candidates et candidats du Québec à une élection fédérale canadienne, 1945-1993.” International Journal of Canadian Studies 11: 59-81. Tremblay, M. 1998. “Do Female MPs Substantively Represent Women? A Study of Legislative Behaviour in Canada's 35th Parliament.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 31 (3): 435 – 465.

287

Tremblay, M. 2003. “Women's Representational Role in Australia and Canada: The Impact of Political Context.” Australian Journal of Political Science 38 (2): 215-238. Tremblay, M. and G. Boivin. 1991. “La question de I'avortement au Parlement canadien: de l'importance du genre dans l'orientation des debats.” Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 4 (2): 456-476. Tremblay, M. and R. Pelletier. 1995. Que font-elles en politique? Sainte-Foy: Presses de l’Universite´ Laval. Trent, J., R. Friedenburg and R. Denton. 2011. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices, 7th ed. Lanham, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. Trimble, L. 1993. “A Few Good Women: Female Legislators in Alberta, 1972-1991.” In Standing on New Ground: Women in Alberta, ed. C. Cavanaugh and R. Warne. Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press. Trimble, L. 1997. “Feminist Politics in the Alberta Legislatures, 1972-1994.” In In The Presence of Women: Representation in Canadian Governments, ed. J. Arscott and L. Trimble. Toronto: Harcourt Brace & Company. Trimble, L., J. Curtin, A. Wagner, M. Auer, V. K. G. Woodman and B. Owens. 2019. “Gender Novelty and Personalized News Coverage in Australia And Canada.” International Political Science Review (November 22, 2020). https://journals-sagepub- com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192512119876083 Uscinski J., and L. Goren. 2011. “What’s in a Name? Coverage of Senator Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic Primary.” Political Research Quarterly. 64 (4): 884-896. Vallance, E. 1988. “Do Women Make a Difference? The Impact of Women MEP on Community Equality Policy,” in Women, Equality and Europe, ed. M. Buckley and M. Anderson. Houndmills: Macmillan Press. Vallance, E. and E. Davies. 1986. Women of Europe: Women MEPs and Equality Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. VanHorn, A. 2010. Candidate Wives: Spouses as Strategic Surrogates on the Presidential Campaign Trail. Doctoral Dissertation, Purdue University. Van Zoonen, L. 1998. “Finally, I Have My Mother Back: Politicians and their Families in Popular Culture.” Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics 3 (1): 48 – 64.

288

Van Zoonen, L. 2006. “The Personal, the Political, and the Popular: A Woman’s Guide to Celebrity Politics.” European Journal of Cultural Studies 9 (3): 287 – 301. Verba, S., N. Burns, and K. Lehman Schlozman. 1997. “Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement.” The Journal of Politics 59 (4): 1051-1072. Verge, T. and J. Astudillo. 2018. “The Gender Politics of Executive Candidate Selection and Reselection.” European Journal of Political Research 58 (2): 720-740. Verge, T. and S. Claveria. 2018. “Gendered Political Resources: The Case of Party Office.” Party Politics 24 (5): 536–548. Wagner, K., J. Gainous and M. Holman. 2017. “I Am Woman, Hear Me Tweet! Gender Differences in Twitter Use among Congressional Candidates.” Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 38 (4): 430 – 455. Wangnerud, L. 2000. “Testing the Politics of Presence: Women’s Representation in the Swedish Riksdag.” Scandinavian Political Studies 23 (1): 67–91. Waring, M., G. Greenwood and C. Pintat. 2000. Politics: Women’s Insight. Inter-Parliamentary Union. Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union http://archive.ipu.org/pdf/publications/womeninsight_en.pdf Washington, E. 2008. “Female Socialization: How Daughters Affect Their Legislator Fathers.” American Economic Review 98 (1): 311-32. Watson, R. 2006. “Madam President: Progress, Problems, and Prospects for 2008.” Journal of International Women's Studies 8 (1): 1. Wattenberg, M. and C. Brians. 1999. “Negative Campaign Advertising: Demobilizer or Mobilizer?” American Political Science Review 93 (4): 891–899. Weir, S. 1996. “Women as Governors: State Executive Leadership with a Feminist Face?” In Women in Politics: Outsiders or Insiders, 2nd ed., ed. L. Lovelace Duke. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Welch, S. and S. Thomas. 1991. “Do Women in Public Office Make a Difference?” In Gender and Policymaking: Studies of Women in Office, ed. Debra Dodson. New Brunswick: Rutgers. West, D. 1993. Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns, 1952-1992. Washington, D.C: CQ Press.

289

Whip, R. 1991. “Representing Women: Australian Female Parliamentarians on the Horns of a Dilemma.” Women & Politics 11 (3): 1–22. White, R. 2010. “Never mind the Ballots” The Sunday Times, May 9. Whiteley, P. 1999. “The Origins of Social Capital.” In Social Capital and European Democracy, ed. J. van Deth, M. Maraffi, K. Newton and P. Whiteley. London: Routledge. Whiteley, P. and P. Seyd. 1994. “Local Party Campaigning and Voting Behaviour in Britain.” Journal of Politics 56 (1): 242–51. Whiteley, P. and P. Seyd. 2003. “How to Win a Landslide by Really Trying: The Effects of Local Campaigning on Voting in the 1997 British General Election.” Electoral Studies 22 (3): 301–24. Williams, L. 1998. “Gender, Political Advertising, and the Air Wars.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press. Wilson, M. 1996. “Asking Questions.” In Data Collection and Analysis, ed. R. Sapsford and V. Jupp. London: Sage. Winfield, B. and B. Friedman. 2003. “Gender Politics: News Coverage of the Candidates’ Wives in Campaign 2000.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 80 (3): 548–566. Winfrey, K. and J. Schnoebelen. 2019. “Running as a Woman (or Man): A Review of Research on Political Communicators and Gender Stereotypes.” Review of Communication Research 7: 109 – 138. Witt, L., K. Paget, and G. Matthews. 1994. Running as a Woman: Gender and Power in American Politics. New York: The Free Press. Wittgenstein, L. 1968. Philosophical Investigations. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Wolbrecht, C. and D. Campbell. 2007. “Leading by Example: Female Members of Parliament as Political Role Models.” American Journal of Political Science 51 (4): 921-939. World Bank. 2019. “The Proportion of Seats Held by Women in National Parliaments.” https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS (July 2, 2019) Yates, C. 2009. “Masculinity, Flirtation and Political Communication in the UK”. In Emotion: New Psychosocial Perspectives, ed. S. Day-Sclater, D. Jones, H. Price and C. Yates. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Zebrowitz, L. and J. Montepare. 2005. “Appearance DOES Matter.” Science 308: 1568 – 1566.

290

Appendices Appendix A: Candidate Interview Participants

Participant State/Province Interview Date Interview Method Number 1 Victoria, Australia March 12, 2013a In person 2 Victoria, Australia March 12, 2013b In person 3 Victoria, Australia March 13, 2013a In person 4 Victoria, Australia March 13, 2013b In person 5 Victoria, Australia March 20, 2013 In person 6 Victoria, Australia March 22, 2013a In person 7 Victoria, Australia March 22, 2013b In person 8 Victoria, Australia March 24, 2013 In person 9 Victoria, Australia March 25, 2013a In person 10 Victoria, Australia March 25, 2013b In person 11 Victoria, Australia March 26, 2013 In person 12 Victoria, Australia March 27, 2013a In person 13 Victoria, Australia March 27, 2013b In person 14 Victoria, Australia March 28, 2013 In person 15 Victoria, Australia April 2, 2013 *In person interview with campaign manager on behalf of candidate 16 Victoria, Australia April 3, 2013a In person 17 Victoria, Australia April 3, 2013b In person 18 Victoria, Australia April 4, 2013 In person 19 Queensland, Australia April 8, 2013 In person 20 Queensland, Australia April 9, 2013a In person 21 Queensland, Australia April 9, 2013b In person 22 Queensland, Australia April 10, 2013a In person 23 Queensland, Australia April 10, 2013b In person 24 Queensland, Australia April 11, 2013 In person 25 Queensland, Australia April 12, 2013 Telephone 26 Queensland, Australia April 15, 2013 In person 27 Queensland, Australia April 16, 2013a In person 28 Queensland, Australia April 16, 2013b In person 29 Queensland, Australia April 17, 2013a In person 30 Queensland, Australia April 17, 2013b In person 31 Queensland, Australia April 18, 2013a In person 32 Queensland, Australia April 18, 2013b In person 33 Queensland, Australia April 29, 2013a In person 34 Queensland, Australia April 29, 2013b In person 35 Queensland, Australia April 29, 2013c In person 36 Queensland, Australia April 30, 2013a In person 37 Queensland, Australia April 30, 2013b In person

291

38 Queensland, Australia April 30, 2013c Emailed Questionnaire 39 Queensland, Australia May 1, 2013a In person 40 Queensland, Australia May 1, 2013b Telephone 41 Queensland, Australia May 1, 2013c In person 42 Queensland, Australia May 1, 2013d In person 43 Queensland, Australia May 2, 2013a Telephone 44 Queensland, Australia May 2, 2013b In person 45 Queensland, Australia May 2, 2013c In person 46 Queensland, Australia May 3, 2013a In person 47 Queensland, Australia May 3, 2013b In person 48 Queensland, Australia May 3, 2013c Telephone 49 Queensland, Australia May 6, 2013 In person 50 Queensland, Australia May 8, 2013 Telephone 51 Queensland, Australia May 15, 2013 In person 52 Queensland, Australia May 22, 2013 In person 53 Queensland, Australia May 26, 2013 Telephone 54 Alberta, Canada June 9, 2016 In person 55 Alberta, Canada June 13, 2016 In person 56 Alberta, Canada June 14, 2016a Telephone 57 Alberta, Canada June 14, 2016b In person 58 Alberta, Canada June 15, 2016 Telephone 59 Alberta, Canada June 16, 2016a In person 60 Alberta, Canada June 16, 2016b Telephone 61 Alberta, Canada June 17, 2016 Telephone 62 Alberta, Canada June 21, 2016 In person 63 Alberta, Canada June 27, 2016 Telephone 64 Alberta, Canada June 28, 2016 Telephone 65 Alberta, Canada July 20, 2016a In person 66 Alberta, Canada July 20, 2016b Telephone 67 Alberta, Canada July 21, 2016a Telephone 68 Alberta, Canada July 21, 2016b Telephone 69 Alberta, Canada July 26, 2016 Telephone 70 Alberta, Canada July 27, 2016a *Telephone interview with campaign manager on behalf of candidate 71 Alberta, Canada July 27, 2016b Telephone 72 Alberta, Canada July 28, 2016 Telephone 73 Alberta, Canada July 29, 2016a Telephone 74 Alberta, Canada July 29, 2016b Telephone 75 Alberta, Canada August 2, 2016a Telephone 76 British Columbia, Canada May 8, 2014 *Telephone interview with campaign manager on behalf of candidate 77 British Columbia, Canada July 25, 2014 Telephone 78 British Columbia, Canada August 7, 2014a In person 79 British Columbia, Canada August 7, 2014b In person

292

80 British Columbia, Canada August 8, 2014 In person 81 British Columbia, Canada August 11, 2014 In person 82 British Columbia, Canada August 21, 2014a In person 83 British Columbia, Canada August 21, 2014b In person 84 British Columbia, Canada April 22, 2014 Telephone 85 British Columbia, Canada August 25, 2014a In person 86 British Columbia, Canada August 25, 2014b In person 87 British Columbia, Canada October 17, 2014 Telephone 88 British Columbia, Canada July 27, 2016 Telephone 89 British Columbia, Canada August 2, 2016b Telephone 90 British Columbia, Canada August 4, 2016a Telephone 91 British Columbia, Canada August 4, 2016b Telephone 92 British Columbia, Canada August 10, 2016 Telephone

293

Appendix B: Interview Questionnaire

Section One: Campaign Events and Campaign Team Dynamics

A. The first set of questions that I have for you is about your campaign timeline and team:

• When did you make the decision to contest the election?

• When would you say that you actually started campaigning?

B. Can you tell me what events and communications were included in your campaign? By this I mean things such as a website, literature mail-out, participation in a debate or advertisements.

Section Two: Character and Physical Image

A. The second set of questions that I am about to ask relate to how your image and character was portrayed to voters.

The first questions are about any conscious style choices that you might have made during the campaign.

• Was there a particular outfit or style of dress that you wore? What was it? Why was this

chosen?

• Did you have different looks depending on the type of campaign activity you were

engaged in? If so, what were your different “looks”? Why were they chosen?

• Did you include images of yourself in your campaign materials? For example, a photo on

your website or perhaps on a personalized piece of literature. What were you wearing?

What were you doing in the photo?

• Would you say that your dress was as a deliberate part of your campaign strategy? If so,

what was the message that you were trying to convey? If not, why not?

294

B. Now I would like to ask some questions about the personal character that you might have tried to convey to voters. By character I mean characteristics such as friendly, tough, serious, or compassionate.

• What would you say were the main character traits that you tried to convey? Why did you

choose to emphasize these?

• How did you try to communicate these traits?

• Were there any character traits that you tried to specifically avoid, or counter? What were

they?

Section Thee: Qualifications

A. These next few questions are what you believed were your qualifications to run for office:

• What did you consider to be your qualifications to run for office? What do you think

made you as good a candidate for office as others that were running?

• Did you strategically attempt to communicate these qualifications in your campaign? If

yes, why? And then how exactly?

• If not, why did you choose to downplay your qualifications?

Section Four: Campaign Content and Women’s Issues

A. This set of questions is about the issues that you chose to highlight in your election campaign.

• What do you think were the key issues in your political party’s platform during the

campaign?

• Did you also stress these issues in your personal campaign?

295

• Did your personal campaign focus on any additional issues than these? What were they?

• If yes – why did you focus on these issues? How did you communicate them?

• If not, why not?

B. I would like to ask about issues that are often considered “women’s issues”. For the following issues, can you tell me if you focused on the issue, why or why not, and what strategic considerations play into these decisions?

• Healthcare

• Childcare

• Education

• Abortion

• Domestic violence/violence against women

• Women’s equality rights

C. These last questions are about which issues you were the most and least comfortable with during your campaign:

• Thinking about your website, which issue or issues did you find it the easiest to

communicate about? Why do you think you found it so easy? And what issue did you did you

find it easiest to talk about when having conversations with voters?

• Which issues did you find to be the most difficult to communicate about? Why do you

think it was difficult?

Section Five: Targeted Gender Communication

296

A. The next set of questions that I have for you is about the types of voters that you specifically targeted in your campaign and the type of people that you think most supported your campaign:

• My first question is pretty broad – not thinking about partisan support, who do you think

– generally – was the most supportive towards you and your campaign, for instance was

it women? The working poor etc.?

• Were there any groups that you specifically targeted for support? Who were they and

what did you do to garner their support?

• Did you ever consider making specific appeals to women? What about men? Why or why

not? If so, how did you attempt to do this?

• Did you ever suggest that a woman voter should vote for you because you had something

in common with them? Was there any other way that you appealed to women

specifically? Did you do anything special to appeal to men voters?

• Thinking back to when you were door knocking, or speaking with voters one-on-one,

would you say that your discussion varied with the gender of those you were speaking

with? That is did you make assumptions about what voters thought was important based

on their gender? For example, when talking with women were you more likely to talk

about education, health care and children’s issues? Or with men about taxes, economical

reforms or policing?

Section Six: Campaign Style

A. Thinking about your campaign communications (speeches, conversations with voters, literature) did you do any of the following?

297

• Did you use personal anecdotes or tell stories about your past experiences doing

something? If so, what did you tend to talk about in this regard?

• Did you deliberately use humor in your campaign? If so, what did you joke about?

• Would you say that you presented yourself as a fellow citizen to voters, or more of a

leader? How did you do so?

• Did you ever suggest that you would be able to “get something done”? If so, what was it,

and did you give details about how you would get it done?

• Did you specifically talk about how you would help others to achieve goals or access the

power necessary to do something?

Section Seven: Opponent Communications

A. This set of questions deals with how you strategized against your opponents.

• Did your opponents launch any attacks towards you or your campaign? What were they?

How did you react?

• Did you strategically decide to directly discuss one or more of your opponents in your

campaign? If so, why? What were your main messages about each opponent?

• How did you talk about your opponents during the campaign? Did you mention them in

the likes of a literature mail out, in conversations with voters or in some other way?

• [If the candidate discussed opponents] Was there anything about your opponent that

affected your attack strategy? For example, were they a member of a stereotypically

vulnerable group, or perhaps worked an occupation that is typically well liked by the

public?

• Did you personally want to use discuss your opponent? Was it a good strategy?

298

• [If candidate did not discuss opponents] Why didn’t you discuss your opponents?

Section Eight: Family and Parental Status

A. The last set of questions that I have today is about your family life, and how it impacted your

campaign.

• Can you tell me about your family? Are you married, do you have children? If there are children, how old are they?

• Were you ever asked about whether or not you were married or had children? How did you respond?

• [If candidate has family] Did you reveal your family status during your campaign? For example, did you include information about your family on your website or a family photo in your campaign literature?

[If candidate presented their family life]

o Specify how they presented spouse and what information they provided about him/her.

Why did or didn’t they use their spouse?

o Were there any special considerations about the use of their spouse?

o Specify how they presented children and what information was provided about the

children (specifically age). Why did or didn’t they present the children?

o Were there any special considerations about the use or non-use of their children?

• [If candidate did not present their family] Why didn’t you present your family?

• [If candidate is a parent] Did voters or the media ever ask you about your children or

spouse? What did they ask and how did you respond?

• [If candidate has young children] Were you ever asked about your childcare

arrangements? How did you respond to these questions?

299

Section 9: Social Media:

In what ways, if any, did you use social media in your campaign? What directed your decisions?

300