Will a Record Number of Women in Congress Make a Difference?

Will a Record Number of Women Make a Difference in the 113th Congress? With the Inauguration in the rear view mirror, it’s officially time for the 113th Congress and President Obama to get back to work. Women were big winners in the November elections and the current Congress set a new record for female members when officially sworn in earlier this month. That’s the good news. The bad news is that new records means that female representation in Congress jumped from a high of 17% to a new high of 18%. But it sounds more depressing than it really is, as these infographics from Mother Jones indicate. Some fast facts:

• 1 in 3 newly elected members is a woman
• 184 women ran for Congress in 2012 and nearly half were elected
• The state of New Hampshire will be sending an entirely female delegation to Washington with a female Governor at home
• Four states are sending their first female Senators; Hawaii, Massachusetts, North Dakota and Wisconsin

And let’s not forget that there are now 20 women serving in the Senate, up from 17 in the 112th Congress. Making Our Voices Heard One of the biggest impacts women had on Washington was through the ballot box. There are very few things more powerful than casting a vote and women came out in force to make their voices heard. In the presidential race, women made the difference for Barack Obama. In fact, for the first time in history (or at least, since we started keeping track in 1952), the candidate who won a decisive victory among men lost the election. 52% of men chose Mitt Romney over Obama, according to exit poll data. The problem for Romney was that 53% of voters in 2012 were women. And 55% of those women voted to reelect the president. Digging a bit deeper, tradition held true as married women still preferred the Republican candidate, while unmarried women skewed Democratic. Women also made a significant impact in key Senate races where issues directly affecting women became the deciding factor. In Missouri, Senator Claire McCaskill (D) was facing Congressman Todd Akin (R) in a race she was projected to lose. McCaskill had won her seat during the Democratic wave in 2006, when her party had taken decisive control of the House and Senate. But her support for President Obama’s policies had made her relatively unpopular in her home state. It was a controversial statement from Akin about a woman’s body shutting down to prevent pregnancy in the case of a “legitimate rape” that shifted the momentum and led to McCaskill’s decisive victory. Similar comments about abortion also led to the defeat of favored Republican Richard Mourdock for a Senate seat in Indiana, another red state. More Women, More Progress? In my last blog post, I suggested that perhaps having more women in Congress would lead to more progress. We’ve seen it countless times in business. Adding women to the board of directors consistently correlates with positive financial results. Will the increase of female representation in Washington mean that more will get done? Michael Medved at the Daily Beast doesn’t think so. Medved points to examples like Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who was unsuccessful at “working across the aisle” during her tenure as Speaker of the House. However, it’s important to note that Pelosi never lost a vote as Speaker despite a diverse Democratic caucus. Pelosi attributed her success to building consensus. By contrast, Republican speaker John Boehner has cancelled votes due to lack of agreement within his own party. And recently, the fiscal cliff deal passed despite the fact that the majority of Republicans voted against the deal. Was Pelosi’s success due entirely to the fact that she was a woman? Probably not, but studies have shown that it probably helped. The article is largely a lament on partisan politics and devolves into political name-calling. And while I could continue to pick apart Medved’s argument, a reader comment criticizing Medved’s thesis included this perfectly succinct summary: “Women in government aren’t much different than men. A politician is a politician, regardless of gender. There’s no need to bring more women into government. We already have enough.” Whether or not the increase of women in Congress creates less gridlock remains to be seen. But I, for one, welcome the increase in representation and diversity in Washington. It’s hard to draw definitive conclusions about the impact of women in Congress, because so much of the machinations of politics happens behind closed doors. But it will be interesting to see the contrast between the House, where men still dominate and chair all but one committee, to the Senate, where women lead five of 16 standing committees, including the incredibly important Appropriations committee, which Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) took over following the death of Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI). And the ongoing tug of war between the House and Senate may also prove instructive. What do you think? Will more women in Congress move things forward?