When Joe Biden endorsed Kamala Harris as a candidate in the US presidential election, many feared that the average voter would not support a woman of color. These fears are based on the historical underrepresentation of women and people of color in politics. However, recent research, including my own, suggests that these fears may be more a reflection of the past than the present. While vigilance remains necessary, we may see a positive shift in voter attitudes, which could pave the way for more diverse representation in political office.
Demography or polarization? : the evidence
My analysis synthesizes 43 studies from around the world, but primarily in the United States, combining more than 300,000 candidate experiments. Contrary to initial expectations, the conclusions are generally optimistic. Data shows that politicians of color are evaluated the same as white politicians. In other words, it is not true that, on average, voters penalize candidates of color compared to white candidates. Race may no longer be the obstacle to political success that it once was.
It is increasingly clear that we have often outdated ideas about voters. Prejudices about the effects of sex are also not maintained. In an analysis of the results of 67 studies conducted around the world, Susanne Schwarz and Alexander Coppock found that being a female candidate confers an advantage of around 2 percentage points in terms of voting intention. At least in experiments designed to understand the electoral effects of candidate selection, voters’ biases against women decrease.
Another recent study by Anna Weissman demonstrates that in the United States, partisan identity now plays a more important role than personal demographics in voters’ attitudes toward candidates. Their analysis of data from 2008 to 2020 explains how Democrats, white and black, men and women, increasingly evaluate representatives of historically marginalized groups more positively, while Republican approval is already decoupled from the identity of the candidate .
Implications for Harris
Kamala Harris also has the potential to benefit from caucus voting, a phenomenon in which voters are more likely to support candidates who share their racial or ethnic background. Both men and women are more likely to vote for women, although this statement is somewhat stronger among them than among men. Likewise, Black, Latino and Asian voters are more likely to vote for candidates from their own group. But white voters no longer show the same preference for white politicians. As a result, Harris could have an advantage among minority voters, which could prove decisive in a tight race.
Interestingly, this trend toward group voting is not as pronounced in Europe. The only comparable cross-group favoritism is seen among Muslims in the Netherlands and, to a lesser extent, Germany. In France, this trend is almost non-existent. In Europe, voters with an immigrant background are even more likely to vote for politicians without an immigrant background: this is out-group favoritism. This gap highlights the unique dynamics of race and ethnicity in the political context of the United States.
Despite these promising trends, women of color still face significant obstacles, but mostly within their own parties. Regina Bateson of the University of Ottawa has identified processes of “strategic discrimination” in which party officials develop discriminatory behavior not because they themselves are prejudiced, but because they believe others have them. Their experiences reveal that even highly qualified women of color are often viewed as less electable than their white counterparts within their party. The paradox is that even if voters are willing to accept diverse candidates, party leaders remain a significant obstacle.
And what is happening in Europe?
In other work, I have myself confirmed similar findings regarding Muslim politicians in Europe. Party officials often worry that voters will stereotype Muslim candidates as conservative on issues such as homosexuality. However, my research shows that voters’ expectations are more complex and nuanced. In reality, it is more the party leaders than the voters themselves who presuppose negative attitudes towards this profile of candidates. This further highlights the role of party officials in explaining the persistence of underrepresentation.
In summary…
Now that we know the challenge lies in internal party dynamics rather than voter bias, strategies to combat discrimination in politics should be refocused. Overcoming the biases of party leaders requires much more than disseminating academic evidence. The results that Kamala Harris could obtain in the next presidential elections in the United States could finally reinforce this message. If he were to win the presidency, he would not only break a symbolic glass ceiling, but also serve as a powerful signal to voters and party officials. This would help break down remaining barriers and create a political landscape in which diversity is not only accepted, but expected.
In conclusion, while concerns about voter bias against women and people of color may have been valid in the past, current research provides cause for cautious optimism. Voter preferences have shifted, with increasing support for women and a reduction in racial bias in evaluating candidates. However, decision-makers within parties and within the wider political establishment must also evolve to reflect these changing attitudes. Kamala Harris’ candidacy has the potential to be a catalyst for this change, demonstrating that diverse candidates can succeed and paving the way for a more inclusive political future.
