|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thursday, November 07, 2002 :::
Double standard only half explains Shannon's loss, writes Margery Eagan in today's Herald. Jay Fitzgerald (you'll note that blogspot perma-links frequently don't get you to the right part of the page) reacts by commenting, "Some women blindly voted for Shannon because she was a woman. Some men blindly voted the opposite because she was a woman. They canceled each other out, in effect." His first two points are right, though I'd like to point out that not all sexism is in favor of one's own sex. Whether the two pulls are roughly equal is a matter for debate.
Let me explain how ward committees are elected in Massachusetts; I'll be back on topic soon.
Every four years, with the presidential primary, ward committee candidates are on the ballot (as are state committee members). To get on the ballot, a candidate needs five signatures from the same party (unenrolled voters -- what most people would call independents -- might be allowed to sign, but I'm not sure) and ward. These signatures can apply to slates of candidates, so five candidates for ward committee can all sign for each other on a single form. All committee members are voted on individually, though.
For Republicans in Cambridge, if you get on the ballot, you get on the ward committee -- we never have more candidates than committee slots, so the vote totals don't really matter. If you choose to look at them, though, you'll notice a few tendencies, most notably:
- Of those candidates who were on the ballot, there's not a lot of variance within a ward. Bill Weld used to get extra votes when he was in Cambridge; David Trumbull got a few extra after he'd run for City Council and been the chairman of the city committee. Otherwise, though, people appear to vote for all of the candidates listed or none of them.
- Women consistently get about 3-5% more votes than men.
For example, here are the results from Ward 7 last time:
Wayne Drugan, Jr. - 99
Mary Samp - 104
Edward Samp, Jr. - 99
Patricia Field - 103
Frederick Meyer - 101
I tend to believe -- and this backs me up -- that there are more sexist voters going for women than going for men. I've heard it asserted that women are considered less "executive" than men. This may have an element of truth to it. I've also been told that the first female president will be a Republican, because a Republican woman will be assumed centrist, while a Democratic woman will be assumed leftist. This might be true, too, though one can hope voters will learn enough about presidential candidates that they don't have to make such assumptions. I don't offer conclusions about what factors outweigh what other factors; I'm just offering a few observations.
Romney, on the other hand, is like some 19th century throwback. He's to the manner born, gazing lovingly at the beauteous Ann, doting on the grandkids, a creature from a more civil and refined time when the phrase ``women and children first'' was seen as gentlemanly good manners - not some condescending, patriarchal plot.
This is what I took from his use of the word "unbecoming." It's not condescending so much as it is archaic.
::: posted by Steven at 11:39 AM
|
|
|
|
