Replication Data for: How Gap Measures Determine Results: The Case of Proportional Systems and the Gender Mobilization Gap.

How scholars conceptualize and measure gender gap in mobilization can have profound consequences for substantive conclusions. Scholars typically refer to a difference between women's and men's turnout (difference-in-proportions measure) or a fraction of women voters among all voters (proportion measure). Using the case of proportional representation (PR) reform in Norway, I demonstrate that, in a context of low men's turnout, the proportion measure indicates that PR narrows the gap, whilst the difference-in-proportion measure indicates that it widens the gap. This is because mobilizing fewer women than men widens the difference between women's and men's turnout, but may constitute a greater proportional increase in women's mobilization compared to men's when only few men (and even fewer women) vote. These findings bring together seemingly opposing arguments in the PR-gap debate and have wide implications for the study of `gaps' within and beyond gender scholarship.

学者们如何对动员中的性别差距进行概念界定与量化测度，会对研究的实质性结论产生深远影响。学者们通常采用两类测度指标：一是男女投票率的差值（差值比例测度法，difference-in-proportions measure），二是全体选民中女性选民的占比（占比测度法，proportion measure）。本文以挪威的比例代表制（Proportional Representation，PR）改革为案例，研究发现：在男性投票率偏低的情境中，占比测度法会显示PR缩小了性别差距，而差值比例测度法则显示PR拉大了该差距。究其根源，当动员的女性人数少于男性时，男女投票率的差值会被拉大；但在男性投票人数本就稀少、女性投票人数更为稀缺的情境下，相较于男性，女性动员的增幅比例往往更高。本研究结论整合了比例代表制性别差距争论中看似对立的学术观点，并对性别研究领域内外的各类“差距”相关研究具有广泛的启示意义。