Return to Election '04 Resource Center

The Gender Gap in Voting Choices
By Diane F. Halpern

Diane Halpern, professor of psychology, is director of CMC's Berger Institute for Work, Family and Children and serves as President of the American Psychological Association.

Date Issued: 10/25/2004

If political pundits are to be believed, this year's presidential election will be a photo finish. Can we learn anything from the last election that might help us understand how Americans decide which candidate to vote for? One significant factor in this year's election is the gender gap in voting choices in presidential elections. According to the Center for the American Woman and Politics at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, significantly differently percentages of women and men vote for each presidential candidate. In the 2000 presidential election for example, women were 12 percentage points more likely to vote for Al Gore and men were 10 percentage points more likely to vote for George W. Bush.

We have every reason to believe that the gender gap will persist for the 2004 election as well. It is not difficult to make some educated guesses as to why men and women vote in different proportions for presidential candidates. Recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other sources show that the workforce is close to 50 percent female, although males still work more hours and more regularly. It does not matter whether comparisons are made for annual full-time employees or hourly workers; women still earn only a fraction of what men earn (75 percent for median annual earnings; 79.4 percent for median hourly earnings; 2003 data from Institute for Women's Policy Research). Regardless of the reason why women earn less than men (that is another paper), low-wage workers, who are disproportionately women, are more likely to have no health insurance or paid sick leave than those in higher paid employment, and are more likely to be looking for ways to move up on the pay scale. Like other women, low-wage earners who are women are also responsible for most of the child and elder care, which is often the reason why they remain in low-paid, temporary, or part-time employment.

In a survey of working women conducted by Business and Professional Women/USA, respondents said that overwhelmingly, domestic issues such as joblessness and education were more important in influencing how they vote than terrorism, international issues, and trade. When considered in the context of people's lives, it is not surprising that working women report that these are the critical issues for them; whereas, men are more likely to report that terrorism, international issues, and trade are more important in determining how they vote. These differences are found across all political parties, with Republican working women choosing domestic issues by a two to one margin and Democratic working women selecting domestic issues nearly seven to one.

When differences in voting patterns between women and men are viewed from the different average perspectives of these two groups, their choices seem more predictable. In general, women have more favorable attitudes towards reducing differences in hierarchy relationships and men have more favorable attitudes towards increasing differences in hierarchy relationships. These conclusions are supported with a large body of research in social attitudes and social dominance theory, which indicates that men exhibit more xenophobia, more punitive attitudes in general, and more predatory attitudes than women, so attitudes toward immigration, crime (e.g., three strikes law), and hunting laws, for example can be expected to also vary, on average, by sex. And they do.

Thus far, neither candidate has made health insurance, sick leave, or other work-family issues that are important to the estimated 68 million working women in the United States and undoubtedly many of the working men as well, a major part of his campaign. This is unfortunate because although these are tough problems, they are not impossible. Cost analyses show that the absence of these benefits for large proportions of the population can be costly to employers and to public health. Employees without health insurance or sick leave, for example, come to work when they are sick, and cost their employers money by not performing well at their jobs when they are present. They also spread disease, which is likely to be a major problem in the coming flu season because there is no vaccine available for workers who are not in "at risk" categories. I note here that food preparation workers are most likely to have no paid sick leave, so they are most likely to come to work when sick because they cannot afford the loss of income.

Employees without sick leave bring their children to child care centers when the children are sick because the adult cannot afford to miss work. The lack of health insurance means that routine health care will be missed, and ultimately health care costs increase because health care is sought only at more advanced stages of illness. Other costs have been estimated, such as loss of jobs causing people who are employed to go on public assistance (as documented and explained in Bureau of Labor Statistics study of FMLA). Estimates from the Institute for Women's Policy Research suggest cost savings or minimal cost, depending on assumptions that are used in the model.

So, Bush or Kerry—give me a call. You can reach me here at Claremont McKenna College. The extra 10 percentage points that I can deliver are just what you need. The next president is predicted to win by a nose. I tell no lies—listen to what working women want for themselves and their families. They want to be able to see a doctor and stay home with their runny noses when they are sick this winter. There are many possible ways to make this a reality. It is good medicine for all of us, and I am happy to tell you both about how important this is. First one of you to call and implement these policies has my vote and the other 10 percentage points that goes with it.