Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-4k54s Total loading time: 0.231 Render date: 2021-11-28T23:54:57.612Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Candidate Sexual Orientation Didn't Matter (in the Way You Might Think) in the 2015 UK General Election

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 March 2018

GABRIELE MAGNI*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
ANDREW REYNOLDS*
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
*
Gabriele Magni is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 361 Hamilton Hall, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3265 (magni@live.unc.edu).
Andrew Reynolds is a Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 361 Hamilton Hall, UNC Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3265 (asreynol@email.unc.edu).

Abstract

Does sexual orientation and gender identity matter at election time? While previous literature has explored the effect of candidate gender and ethnicity on electoral results, this is the first study to quantitatively investigate the impact of sexual orientation. We build an original dataset combining individual-level data on more than 3,000 candidates in the 2015 UK election with sociodemographic indicators at the constituency level. In addition to sexual orientation and other demographic characteristics, we include candidate education, political experience, and campaign spending. We find that LGBT candidates generally do not have a negative impact on party vote share. Even in more conservative environments, LGBT candidates perform at least as well as their straight counterparts. This work is important to understand the consequences of descriptive representation and, relatedly, how rapid social change happens.

Type
Letter
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

The authors acknowledge the help and advice of Marco Biagi, Crispin Blunt, Sarah Brown, Andrew Flores, Matthew Green, Benali Hamdache, James Harper, Kieran Healy, Tim Hopkins, Zoe O'Connell, Ed Gareth Poole, Harry Prance, Ken Sherrill, Alissandra Stoyan, and Luke Young. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the APSR editor for their helpful comments. Replication files can be found on the American Political Science Review Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/CTZNJV.

References

Andersen, Robert, and Fetner, Tina. 2008. “Economic Inequality and Intolerance: Attitudes toward Homosexuality in 35 Democracies.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 942–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayoub, Phillip M., and Garretson, Jeremiah. 2017. “Getting the Message Out: Media Context and Global Changes in Attitudes toward Homosexuality.” Comparative Political Studies 50 (8): 1055–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BBC. 2015. UK Results. Accessed December 13, 2017. http://www.bbc.com/news/election/2015/results.Google Scholar
Bishin, G. Benjamin, Hayes, Thomas, Incantalupo, Matthew, and Smith, Charles. 2016. “Opinion Backlash and Public Attitudes: Are Political Advances in Gay Rights Counterproductive?American Journal of Political Science 60 (3): 625–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British Election Study. 2015. Constituency Results Version 2.2. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.1162.1844.Google Scholar
Cottrell, Catherine A., and Neuberg, Steven L.. 2005. “Different Emotional Reactions to Different Groups: a Sociofunctional Threat-Based Approach to “Prejudice”.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (5): 770–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Democratic Dashboard. Accessed December 13, 2017. http://democraticdashboard.com/.Google Scholar
Egan, Patrick J., Edelman, Murray S., and Sherrill, Kenneth. 2008. Findings from the Hunter College Poll of Lesbians, Gays and Bisexuals. New York: Hunter College.Google Scholar
Elgot, Jessica. 2017. “‘You Are a Danger to Civilization’: Gay Politicians Share Their Experiences.” The Guardian, August 31 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/31/you-are-a-danger-to-civilisation-gay-mps-share-their-experiences.Google Scholar
EVS. 1981. European Values Study. Accessed February 20, 2018. http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/page/survey-1981.html.Google Scholar
EVS. 1990. European Values Study. Accessed February 20, 2018. http://www.europeanvaluesstudy.eu/page/survey-1990.html.Google Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. 2010. Out and Running: Gay and Lesbian Candidates, Elections, and Policy Representation. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hanretty, Chris, Lauderdale, Benjamin E., and Vivyan, Nick. 2017. “Dyadic Representation in a Westminster System.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 42 (2): 235–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Terkilsen, Nayda. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, Jeffrey W. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates’ Ideological Orientations?Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. “Women, War and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (3): 479–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, Monika L. 1997. “Voting Cues in Low-Information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary US Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 270–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office for National Statistics, National Records of Scotland, and Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. 2016. 2011 Census Aggregate Data. UK Data Service. Accessed December 13, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.5257/census/aggregate-2011-1.Google Scholar
Park, Alison, Bryson, Caroline, Clery, Elizabeth, Curtice, John, and Phillips, Miranda. 2013. British Social Attitudes: the 30th Report. London: NatCen Social Research. Accessed December 13, 2017. www.bsa-30.natcen.ac.uk.Google Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn and McGhee, Eric. 2013. “What it Takes to Win: Questioning “Gender Neutral” Outcomes in US House Elections.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 439–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center. 2013. The Global Divide on Homosexuality. Accessed December 13, 2017. http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/.Google Scholar
Rainey, Carlisle. 2014. “Arguing for a Negligible Effect.” American Journal of Political Science 58 (4): 1083–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 2034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stonewall. 2013. Gay in Britain Accessed December 13, 2017. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/sites/default/files/Gay_in_Britain__2013_.pdf.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Wittenberg, Jason, and King, Gary. 2003. “CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Journal of Statistical Software 8 (1). DOI: 10.18637/jss. v008.i01.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, Tucker, Joshua A., and Wittenberg, Jason. 2002. “An Easy and Accurate Regression Model for Multiparty Electoral Data.” Political Analysis 10 (1): 6683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Heerde-Hudson, Jennifer and Campbell, Rosie. 2015. Parliamentary Candidates UK Dataset (v.1). www.parliamentarycandidates.org.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Magni and Reynolds Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Magni and Reynolds supplementary material

Magni and Reynolds supplementary material 1

Download Magni and Reynolds supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 1 MB
9
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Candidate Sexual Orientation Didn't Matter (in the Way You Might Think) in the 2015 UK General Election
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Candidate Sexual Orientation Didn't Matter (in the Way You Might Think) in the 2015 UK General Election
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Candidate Sexual Orientation Didn't Matter (in the Way You Might Think) in the 2015 UK General Election
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *