What happens when women win elections 

Note: Ayanna Pressley from Massachusetts and Jahana Hayes from Connecticut are the first black women elected to congress from New England. We mistakenly left out Hayes. We regret the oversight.

At 1:21 the sign for GREATER than is used instead of LESS than 1%...

I don’t care if there’s a man, woman or hotdog in charge just as long as they are good at their job

Oh boy these comments are long

"And eventually, a video like this won't even be necessary." Oh honey, it wasn't necessary today.

I judge politicians on how well they do when in office, not their gender or skin color.

Oh boy. Here we go in the comments

I am not voting for someone, because of their gender, race, or age. I am voting for that person, because of their ideas/ beliefs.

We have a lack of zebras in the senate I’d like to apply Free hay for everyone

0:22 when even vox doesn't believe elizabeth warren

THIS GUY IS PLAGIARIZING MY VOICE

how about this crazy idea - a lot of women got voted in because a lot of them actually stood for progressive policies.

I love how lot of people don't even understand the video, but they are really angry about it... Vox is not saying that you should vote based on the fact that they are women, but that people (minorities or majorities) from all over the county should be represented in the senate and house of representatives. And I think that women will better represent women 🤔 or maybe I'm wrong...

This is pointless. People shouldn't vote based on how many minority points people have. Vote based on what people stand for, and what they have done and plan to do. Whether we have more men or more women elected doesn't matter.

It’s not about the color of your skin, it’s about the content of your character- paraphrasing some smart dude.. GET MONEY OUTTA POLITICS!

What is your point with these stats? There are NO legal or even cultural barriers for women to run for office. If more women to run, more could be voted in.

Shout out to the people patting themselves and each other on the back for calling out 'identity politics' like its an insightful critique to begin with and pretending they've given it more than a few minutes of thought beyond that. Theres so much more nuance to the reason we care about identity, and although i wish Vox would go into that more, I also wish people would be more open to giving some credit to things they oppose on a surface level.

I knew this video's comments are gonna be horrifyingly bad as soon as i saw the title. So lets all just sit down, grab a snack and enjoy the ride

INSERT VOX PROPAGANDA AND Scientific looking graphs.

A video like this will always be necessary because it will always be something to highlight

Seen through the statistical lens that women who run for elected office win at roughly the same rate that men do, this video really makes it clear that the problem is that women just don't run as often as men. If they did, they'd have roughly the same number of seats. I'm glad more women are running high-profile campaigns. I don't think the increased discussion of those three listed issues is because they're women specifically. The main thing that got women out there more this time (as well as other less-represented portions of the population like scientists and teachers) were populist grassroots campaigns like Justice Democrats and Brand New Congress, which hold those as their agenda. If you looked at the male candidates running through those organizations, you'd see a similar degree of those specific topics. That's not even mentioning that these candidates also ran on universal healthcare and anti-corruption platforms. So yeah. Women can do just as well as men, and it sucks that they perceive themselves as having less of a chance because that's what they keep being told over and over. I wish it were framed in more of a "You're fine. Just go for it" way instead of a "You have the entirety of human history against you" way.

1:21 Should you really be making these political videos if you cannot distinguish a “less than” from “greater than” sign?

This video doesn't say you should vote someone cause they're a woman, it's just analyzing the number of women in the US government over the years

Stop denying it, stereotypes and racism still exist; do not think America is free from all this, just decades woman fought for their rights

"LGBT women..." I honestly have no problem with that but if we try to find someone who represents everyone to get elected in our government, we wouldn't have any space. I'm a straight, male, Asian-American young adult with anxiety. Also, I wear glasses. I want someone to exactly represent me in the future. Where does it stop? Yeah, my elected officials may not exactly represent me but that's fine. Gerrymandering aside, what people should be looking at is the best person for the job, regardless of race, gender, creed, etc. You know, that stuff employers tell you when you apply for job. The government is a job too - shouldn't they be treated the same? Who cares if you're dem or rep, male or female, white, black, asian, etc. As long as you're honest about your platform and I feel you're a _good enough_ representation of me, go for it. And if you fail, we'll pick a different person. PS. Yes, this is an overt generalization and there are tons of problems, both big and small. I'm just saying pick the right person for the job and stop looking at labels.

I mean I like representation, but policy substance matters far more and unfortunately some of these women have terrible ideas

Five states are now represented by two women in the senate. California, Washington, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and now Nevada!

If women talk more about climate change then I hope 2020 Bernie Sanders is the only male in the government

I love the comment section.

Everyone in the comments is missing the point of this video. Yes, you should vote on quality > race, gender, orientation etc... BUT for centuries women have been oppressed in general. This trend toward women being more represented is a victory for everyone.

I wish them luck and hope they will represent their groups and their communities well.

Sooo you will be talking than about underrepresentation of disabled people? I think I can see where all US problems come from /s

This video seemed to have rustled a lot of jimmies, people who claim gender doesn't matter but are also overtly defensive about it.

Can we just elect someone who will help the country and the citizens please ?

I see a video like this, and I look at the number of dislikes, and I'm like... What the heck is wrong with some Americans? I don't see an issue with the data presented, and it's all very positive, presented in what appears to be a neutral way, not favouring any political view, other than climate change I guess? But on the whole, it's a video presenting information, being pretty positive about it, and discussing the state of American politics. Why is this divisive?

Thousands of people, didn't watch this video all the way through. Thousands more, didn't mull over the information in their minds.

Can someone explain to me why representation of women in the House of Representatives decreased so sharply in 1975?

As much as I'm for all demographics getting more representation, I'm beginning to see why a lot of conservative people constantly mock liberals & the media for "playing identity politics." From the channels I frequent, to the articles I read and the videos I watch, there's a constant need to always point out someone's skin color, their sexuality, their religion, their gender, etc. Women are becoming elected more & more to serve in public office, awesome! How many were black? How many were Jewish? How many were lesbian? How many were trans? "There's X percent of each in our population, but not X percent in this area (political office for this video), so this country *NEEDS* more!" Why is it just a numbers & labels game? Just because 50% of my household is men, doesn't mean I am equally qualified to do everything my wife does, nor does it mean I even want to. She's also more qualified in certain fields than I am, and that's because she has a passion for it that I do not share. At some point, people's interests, personal investments, personal choices, and goals need to intersect appropriately with the the statistics people throw out there. For example, in the US in 2017, about 77% of all teachers were women, which is actually up from 76% in 2012. Also, 80% of teachers are white, which is a slight decrease from the 82% in 2012. Do we need to champion "more male teachers!" just because they're not accurately "represented," in our educational institutions? Not necessarily, as it shows women have more of an inclination to go into that field. It's not that they're better, nor is it that an unseen force is holding men down, it's that as of right now more women have expressed a desire to become teachers, and more have shown they're better qualified to be one. That's not saying that's how it works in every field everywhere, and I'm not saying men have shown to be better qualified at governing, only that at this point in time there are more men dedicating their career paths to politics. Just going by college majors, nursing & business administration are far and away the most popular fields women pursue. In terms of political science professors, only about 25% are female, and only about 38% of political science majors are female. Men tend to dominate the electrical engineering and computer sciences majors too, with upwards of 85% of those choosing to pursue those paths being male. But does that mean women can't do those things? No, just that currently their interests lie elsewhere. Psychology and communication are offered favored degrees by women, while degrees for criminal justice & corrections, and marketing are pretty evenly split. Point being, not all fields are going to be a perfect representation or split of the nation's demographics. Though 4.5% of the US population identifies as LGBT, that doesn't mean 4.5% of meteorologists will be LGBT, or 4.5% of lawyers will be LGBT, or 4.5% of taxi drivers will be LGBT. Can we do better & have more diversity in politics and other areas? Of course! I want that! But too often lately we just throw out there's ________ % of whatever demographic in the US and only __________% of whatever demographic in whatever field, and just assume it's that simple. It's not, and the other part of the problem is that we are constantly looking at these labels as the only barometer for good vs bad, and even tout a person's labels above their actual qualities as a person. This obsession has spread to everything...Hell, I was reading some review of a WWE event (I know, I was bored) on IGN, and in discussing a match they said "So yeah, Nia Jax took this one, after the final four were her, Ember, Zelina Vega, and Tamina (all women of color, which was also awesome!)" as a remark for a match. Seems innocent enough right? But while watching, I didn't notice that at all, and it had no baring on the actual quality of the event. But because this person was kind enough to identify each person wasn't white, then followed it by saying "awesome," it means they equated their skin color & ethnic background to "positive or negative." Otherwise, why remark "awesome?" He just labeled these real human beings and this moment/match's quality not based on their efforts, their technique, their work ethic, their performance, their characters, etc. but something they had no control over, and were born into. Would it be less "awesome," if only 3 of the 4 were women of color? Would the awesomeness go down based on the number of white people remaining? Does that seem like a good direction for the human mindset? Anyway, I wrote too much for a RU-vid comment, and I doubt people will take the time to read it, so I'll just end with I hope the best for everyone and hope society becomes more inclusive & diverse for everyone. Only that we need to dial back the identity politics and pointing out every non-white-straight-male for being a non-white-straight-male each and every time anything happens. These people are more than a non-white-straight-male, and they deserve to be recognized as such.

"...they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

As i saw your high dislike rate, I had to write that you get like 1000 extra likes from me! Then I read a view of the komments and thought that they might have not even seen or listend to the video... Go Vox!

Love this, thank you!

Taxes go up and people loose freedom.

Popularity shouldnt be the reason you win, your ideals and what you bring to the table is, doesnt matter if youre a man or woman, so if women in this case arent bringing what is needed, they wont be chosen, that isnt sexism, that is democracy

Women killed it in the House races. Say hello to Speaker Pelosi again 😘👍

I support Vox in many of their videos, but a lot of these comments are right! Women do not have to be exactly 50% in government, why are we caring about skin color and race, rather than the merits, wether or not they classify as gay or not, it doesn't relate to politics.

*sigh* People just want an unbiased source of comprehensive information. When the news starts trying to tell you what to think and feel, you have to question everything they tell you.

Brilliant video. All the complainers, if you actually watched the video, you see a chart in 0:54 right? See that spike in the last few decades? That success is thanks to people and media bringing attention to this issue. If we didn't talk about things like this, that line would still be miserably down in the single digits. Because you can't ever solve an existing problem if you don't acknowledge it. And you also see that the chart maxes out at 21%? That means that this issue still HASN'T been solved. There's no point in pretending that women have equal representation now, because they still don't. Centuries of being overlooked as second class, minority, exception doesn't get fixed in one decade. This issue isn't solved until that chart shows around 50% and everyone's being fairly represented. So yes, we STILL need to continue talking about this topic. Thank you Vox.

The screaming about identity politics from the party who freaks out about people who "aren't like me" in the comments is great.

What happened to the idea of individualism in this country? Can't a person just be judged on their merits and accomplishments? Why does it have to be identity based, the dems of course

Oh boy here goes vox again with their "equality" and muliticulturalism. XD

*In Korea,* many women Senate has spent more government budget and demanding more privilege in Congress. That's disgusting.

I think it's time to give diversity a chance to be something big.

1:53 "Women make better law maker" sexism in a video denoucing sexism, classic.

Comments in General: People who didn’t watch the video and/or strawmanning what vox is actually saying. Truly shocking.

you bring up race [all kinds] and being lgbt... what about disabled and chronically ill women [or men for that matter].... name one disabled politician right now. disabled people can also face barriers like inaccessibility, ableism, and having benefits denied if they are in a public office

Women are QUEENS 👑

1:50 "There's even evidence that women make better lawmakers. One study found that female lawmakers bring in 9% more federal spending for their constituents than their male counterparts." So you're saying that female lawmakers spend more of our tax dollars than men? How big will the deficit have to get before that's a bad thing? Certainly, women have areas in which they're more effective than men, but I don't see your example as one of them.

So vox is the new buzzfeed?

A bunch of comments here are like "I care about policies not gender, etc." This video shows a connection between declared policies and gender in the first two and a half minutes, so watch the whole thing before commenting. I see two valuable discussions that aren't at the top of the comments: why men aren't talking about these policies and why women aren't running, and how to change that.

Some of this was just saying women are better than men

Imagine voting for someone based solely on their sex...

The fact that women are not represented in the House and the Senate to the degree that men are does not mean that their ideas are not represented. Men in Congress can support what women or feminists want. The idea of Congress is that those people can represent the supporters of their beliefs regardless of sex or whatever else. Also, who's to say that men and women can't want the same thing? Often, they do. When they don't, they disagree with the other due to the person's beliefs, not due to the person's gender.

Don't get me wrong, I think having more women in politics is definitely a good thing, but I thought I'd just mention an interesting fact. There appears to be no correlation between female participation and the quality of a democracy. There is actually a negative correlation believe it or not. Countries considered to be 'Highly democratic' actually tend to have less female politicians than those who are considered less democratic or non-democratic. If you're interested in reading the study that this is based on its called "The relationship between democracy and women participation in politics" by "Zungura Mervis, Nyemba Eve, Mutasa Florence, Muronza Caroline". interesting read

It appears you are misunderstood on what it means to be represented. In an election people vote for a candidate based on whether or not they like the candidate's policies and ideas. So the woman who voted for members of Congress are being represented, even if that is by a man. The ideas should be most important, and not the identity of someone

No matter what people are saying in the comments section ... I liked this video.. it’s imp to focus on gender issues cos men and women start at diff start lines.. women are often told not to go for highly ambitious goals or risky jobs.. and when you start at such a point , when no one encourages you.. you start with self doubt.. and even if you start.. along the journey women keep facing this situations all throughout. Hence the numbers are low for women in politics or major positions. Not because they are incapable.. it’s because they weren’t treated the same as their male counterparts along the journey.

It appears to me that the comments under this video, or perhaps a large section of young men, Get upset everytime the thought of "women empowerment" crosses their mind. If the conversation doesn't revolve around them, they'll make it about them, like an older child who throws a tantrum when their younger sibling gets their first iPad. It doesn't matter that the older child got his own set of technology, he tries to justify his anger by stating that "he's too young to understand how to use an iPad" or "he is biologically incapable of using it" even though the young child doesn't seem to have any issues regarding it's usage. The only problem he has, is the big brother trying to take away his iPad, because big bro ain't receiving enough attention as before.

Society collapses in flames. Anyone else see the fires?

sexists are rampant in the comment section with their misconstrued idea of what this video was saying

Most of the commentators below are missing the point. Electing more women/people of color has significant effects on policy.

Ffs why am I subscribed to this channel anyway

Vox makes the best videos.

How does earmarking and sponsoring more legislation make you a better lawmaker? It can, if what your sponsoring is good for the country, and the spending you bring home benefits the people directly without negative externalities. Simply backing more bills and earmarking does not prove you to be a better lawmaker.

Just because there are 51% women in the US, doesn’t mean we need 51% women in congress. This is idiotic. Promoting someone to a position of status because of race or sex is not “reverse inequality”, it is inequality. People should be admitted to offices, schools, etc based on merit.

So the reason why this matters is that if Congress is making laws that impact all Americans, then it should be representative of the demographics of all Americans. The makeup that it's had for the longest time, upper-class, 60+ year old white male lawyers, is going to ensure that the only interests being represented are those of upper-class, 60+ year old white male lawyers. Who do you think is going to be more likely to advocate for reproductive rights? Somebody who has personally had to deal with the challenges of reproductive rights. Who do you think is going to best deal with policy on sexual assault? Gender discrimination? People who have themselves dealt with such issues, which is of course women. This is not just limited to the color of your skin or what's between your legs. Want less horribly written internet legislation? Elect more engineers in Congress. Elect more young people who personally understand the challenges faced by that generation. Otherwise, again, the government will only care about the interests of upper-class, 60+ year old white male lawyers.

You can still be represented even if your representative isn't the same as you. Here in the UK, my MP doesn't have a beard, and doesn't have the same faith as me, but he still represents me. And it might be that women sponsor more bills/get more federal funding because the ones who are driven enough to gain that power are driven to do so because they want to see the government do more for them, not less. Men in the same position might not have that same level of drive, or be in politics for the same reasons. So it might not be that "women make better lawmakers" but that the ones we currently see in power are more likely to bring in more funding etc. If women in politics had the same culture that men in politics have, I imagine there would be little difference between who draws more funding and sponsors more bills.

When women win elections society loses. Women like to ban things based on thier feelings and generally make life a living hell. Look around at places that have a lot of women in power the men of the fifties knew something the manginas of today forgot.

4.2% of the U.S. population are mechanical engineers who do crossfit. There is only one mechanical engineer in Congress, and he doesn't even do crossfit. This underrepresentation is so outrageous!

Intrinsic characteristics should mean nothing when determining whether someone is qualified and capable of working for the government. A person's skin color, sexual orientation, gender, ethnic background, etc have no correlation with a person's competence; competence and quality of character must be the most important factors when considering a candidate.

An extremely small portion of the video is related to the the title.

1:50 - okay, can I please have that graphic further split up between Dem and Rep? And simply "talking about" doesn't tell me if positively or negatively. Are they for higher minimum wage and better coverage, or completely against it and rallying to abolish it?

Why was the first bar graph going the wrong way?? (right to left)

Equity doesnt mean equality.

We should strive for equality of opportunity, never equality of outcome.

How did the producers at Vox let slip the silly idea that pork barreling or # of bills sponsored is a proxy for how good a congressperson is? You knew that I, the uncouth and anonymous riff raff of the comment section, would call it out and rightly say how ridiculous that is. Come on guys, standards, basic basic standards.

Have we ever considered that no one represents the poor in the state and federal government, and even a poor is elected then after that he/she is no longer be poor.

This is so pathetic, elections are not about who is better represented in their state, elections are about who will represent their state and who will do a good job, it's not about diversity representation, it's about the people whom we elect to represent the people

Interestingly, I realized *AFTER* voting that every contested race I voted on on yesterday's ballot, I voted for a woman.

A small mistake at 1:20. Less than 1% is 1%.

Society starts to crumble.

Personal characteristics =/= policy positions. Underrepresentation =/= oppression. I don't know why we throw around such extreme language so commonly. It's like we've forgotten it's meaning and trivialized it to mean anything not going in the direction of "social justice" as these talking heads like to define it, at least.

Great video as usual!

This video is not necessary. This idea that we need to have a diverse government for everyone to be equally represented is stupid. Don’t vote for people just by their looks.

There were some third party candidates I liked here in Michigan, but as I strongly oppose trump and anyone who largely supports him,I had to vote Democrat on everything I could just to keep the opposition from gaining. Here in Michigan, the republicans failed as a state government. We as a state we’re pissed so we kicked them out. The rule of the midterms for those of us opposing republicans was just to vote blue on everything we could because having our votes split between Democrat and third party would ensure a win for republicans. Couldn’t let that happen.

2:03 passing and sponsoring bills does not mean that they are doing a good job

Correlation is not causation, representation should be about policy rather than identity, and contrary to the last statement this video wasn't necessary to begin with.

This is like google not hiring white males because people said that they weren’t diverse enough. We should be looking at traits. Not skin color and gender.

You should just name this video Copying Buzzfeed

Why don't we let these things develop organically? There's no legal restriction. If we just gave it some time, maybe we wouldn't get people breaking eachother's necks over issues like this.

More federal spending, sponsoring more bills does not mean better law makers. Of course, Vox wants to push equal representation for all, but there has to be some limitations, we can't force well-performing politicians out just because of their gender. I think we should wish everyone or at least most people are comfortable with those representing them, so support whoever you agree with or you think is the best for the country, no matter gender or race.

The part about women having different priorities than men is obviously mostly down to the fact Democrats have way more women candidates so they’re gonna be more focused on left leaning issues. Would have been better to compare democratic men to democratic women imo, especially the minimum wage part.