The French have interesting laws promoting gender equality in politics. They are way ahead of us.

[JDPriestly]

I don't usually post in this forum, but I read this in the French newspaper Le Monde and thought it most appropriate in this forum.

The French government awards financial support to political parties in proportion (I assume) to the number of legislators they elect to their parliament.

In 2000, the French parliament passed a law that reduces the amount of support a party receives if its slate of candidates for the parliament is less than 1/2 female, 1/2 male -- parity or equality.

I'm going to try to translate the first part of the article, paragraph by paragraph, but there is a lot of technical language that is unfamiliar to me, so if anyone can translate it better than I can, please correct me. I am not sensitive about these things. It will help me learn. Thanks.

(French) Depuis la première loi sur la parité, promulguée en 2000, les partis qui ne présentent pas le même nombre de candidats aux élections législatives sont soumis à des pénalités financières. Il ne s'agit pas d'une amende à payer, mais d'une retenue sur les financements publics versé par l'Etat aux partis.

(English) Since the first law on parity was enacted in 2000, parties that do not nominate (present) the same number of candidates (male and female) in legislative elections face financial penalties. It isn't a question of paying a fine or penalty, but of the State withholding from the public financing awarded to the parties.

(French) Comment sont calculées les pénalités ?

Le montant est calculé directement en fonction de l'écart entre le nombre de candidats et le nombre de candidates. En 2007, le montant des pénalités est augmenté : le multiplicateur passe de la moitié au trois quarts. Mais il ne sera appliqué que lors du prochain renouvellement de l'Assemblée.

(English) How are the penalties calculated?

The amount is calculated directly as a function of the difference between the number of male candidates and the number of female candidates. In 2007, the amount of the penalties rose: the multiplier exceeds 1/2 to 3/4. But it will not be applied until the Assembly reconvenes.

(French) Par exemple, en 2007, l'UMP (Sarkozy's party) a présenté 435 hommes et 153 femmes et a recueilli 10 287 207 voix. La première fraction de l'aide publique, avant la pénalité, est d'environ 1,59 euros par voix. L'UMP devrait donc recevoir 16 356 659,10 euros. Du fait de cet écart de 47 % entre les candidats et les candidates, l'UMP voit sa première fraction du financement public diminuée de 23 %, soit près de 4 millions d'euros, passant à 12 449 433,46 euros. Avec l'application du nouveau taux, le parti aurait perdu 35 % de son financement, soit 5,7 millions.

(English) For example, in 2007, the UMP ran 435 men and 153 women and received 10,287,207 votes. The first share of the public funding, before the penalty, is around 1.59 euros per vote. Th UMP should have received 16,356,659.10 Euros. Because of the difference of 47% between the numbers of the UMP's male and female candidates, the first share of UMP's public financing was reduced by 23% or close to 4 million Euros, or 12,449,433.46 Euros. Applying the new rates, that party would lose 35% of its financing or 5.7 million.

. . . .

http://www.lemonde.fr/politique/article/2012/05/22/les-manquements-a-la-parite-coutent-cher-aux-partis_1705246_823448.html

After the recent election, Hollande proudly presented his large cabinet. Women make up nearly 1/2 of the members of his cabinet.

France is leading the Western world in this as far as I know.

I see their progress in gender equality as a challenge to the US.

What can we do to give women a bigger voice and women's issues a higher priority?

[Gormy Cuss]

1. That's an interesting approach -- affirmative action in politics.

I don't know how that would translate (no pun intended) here.

[JDPriestly]

2. Well, we don't subsidize elections much, so it would probably be meaningful.

I note that at the local level in our Democratic Party, slates for various things generally tend to include 1/2 women. That's a start. But I've never heard of any provision in our law to promote gender equality in politics.

The lack of women in our Congress means that the issues about not only women and children but education, health care (especially nursing care), seniors, social welfare, and many other issues that keep a society and our families safe have little priority. As we see with the Ryan budget, that can be devastating for the majority of Americans.