In the former, voters choose between lists of party candidates within a single national constituency. Under such a system, where parties have to put forward lists of nominees, women's representation has increased. Central party organizations have greater influence over nominations and so, if they are committed to including more women, can do so. In the British system, on the other hand, voters in a constituency choose a single candidate to represent them in parliament. Here, even if the central party organizations wanted to include more female candidates, they might find it difficult to impose those wishes on local electorates. Lovenduski (1996), who notes that the success rate of women candidates in Britain decreased between 1945 and 1992, argues that such a pattern is not the result of electoral choice primarily, but of prior nomination practices. In the UK, Clare Short has consistently argued that increasing women's representation is essential to build a House of Commons that more truly represents the population. She claims that as more women come into the Commons, the culture will change and the institution will be transformed.
A host of other social and economic factors must also be considered. If one thinks about how elites in every system are drawn from highly educated, professional groups, and how their eligibility for public office often derives from their field of work and the contacts they have established, then particularly in a culture such as that of the UK women are going to be disadvantaged. Yes, more and more women are highly educated, but entering the work force has not resulted in a lessening of their domestic responsibilities. To many, the prospect of active involvement in politics must seem little more than a potential additional burden.
There are great differences in how involved women are in politics, if they are involved in a political sense at all.