Darryl PaulsonOver the past several decades, there has been a growing debate about the gender gap and the role, if any, that it plays in elections.
Scholars generally agree that women are more likely to support Democratic candidates, while males lean Republican in their voter preferences. Although women are more likely to vote Democrat than males, there have been many cases where a plurality of women has voted Republican.
In 1984, 62 percent of men voted for Republican Ronald Reagan compared to 56 percent of women. The gender gap was present, but both males and females voted Republican.
Compared to 30 years ago, the gender gap seems to be growing. In the 2000 presidential election, 53 percent of men voted for George W. Bush compared to only 43 percent of women. In 2012, 52 percent if men voted for Mitt Romney, while 44 percent of women supported the Republican nominee.
If you look at the male/female vote in the 2004, 2008, and 2012 presidential election in Florida, males voted +3 Republican and females +3.67 Democrat for a gap of 6.7 percent.
In the U.S. Senate races in Florida over the same period, men voted +5.75 Republican and women +8 Democrat for a gap of 13.75 percent.
This gets back to the main question. Does the gender gap make a difference or do male and female voters just cancel out one another? If all things were equal, the male and female vote might cancel out one another, but things are rarely equal in politics.
In the 2012 presidential election, women were 53 percent of the national electorate and men 47 percent. In Florida, the turnout gap was even wider with females comprising 55 percent of the voters and males 45 percent.
Nationally, this turnout gap means that millions of more females are voting and with a distinct bias in favor of the Democrats. In Florida, the 10-point-turnout advantage by women amounts to close to a million more female voters.
Although women are more pro-Democrat in their voting behavior, there are basic divisions within the female vote. Republicans have always done well with married voters and, especially, married white females. Democrats do best with married minority women and with single female voters. A problem for Republicans is that the percentage of married voters is declining and the percentage of female-headed households is on the rise.
Beyond the difference in turnout and partisan political support, what other implications are there in the growing female vote?
First, we will continue to see significant increases in the number of female elected officials. Women continue to be among the most under-represented political groups in America.
Second, having more women in elective offices will lead to fundamental shifts in public policy. Numerous studies have shown that women are much more supportive of an expansive role for state and national government. This may pose real problems for Republicans and their philosophy of limited government.
In some area, however, women want a more limited role of government, especially in the areas of abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
Women are more likely than men to favor social programs, education and health care. Good news, perhaps, for Obamacare.
Finally, those who support an expanding role of women in politics point out that women are less likely to engage in corruption. This may be an artifact of this reality: Few women have risen to positions of political authority where they can be subjected to corrupt influences.
My guess is that women will be just like men when it comes to corrupt practices. I would love for women to prove me wrong.
