Andrew Leigh and his co-author Amy King have released a paper examining the impact of candidates’ looks on their electoral chances, which you can read here [link to pdf].
Basically, they found better looking people have an advantage. I’m not surprised by this, as there’s a large body of research literature in management studies and the sociology of work which finds that good looks are a distinct advantage in selection and promotion in the workplace and often trump merit.
But I do have a quibble with the methodology.
According to the raters, the ten most attractive major party candidates in the 2004 election were: Nicole Campbell (ALP, Bennelong), Adam Giles (Liberal, Fraser), Victoria Brooks (ALP, Riverina), Andrew Laming (Liberal, Bowman), Julie Bishop (Liberal, Curtin), Kate Ellis (ALP, Adelaide), Sarah McMahon (Liberal, Reid), Michael Keenan (Liberal, Stirling), Pat Farmer (Liberal, Macarthur), and Sussan Ley (Liberal, Farrer).
Hello? Julie Bishop better looking than Kate Ellis?
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/min_bishop_cropped.jpg"
<img src="http://larvatusprodeo.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/ellis.jpg"
Elsewhere: More comment from Andrew Norton.
I reckon most of Australia’s pollies have heads like smashed crabs and that doesn’t seem to get in the way of a good career. Power and the proximity to it is the real attractor.
Well Julie was born in 1956 and Kate in 1977 so I think the comparison is a little unfair.
How about Ron Boswell v Kate Ellis?;-)
Laurie Ferguson vs. Chris Pyne?
And what Phil said. We rarely seem to elect politicans that are similar to the good looking though generic charismatic types in the US.
I think Julie Bishop fits the “elegant woman of a certain age” descriptor while Kate is more your youthful beauty – but what, after all, would I know?
Isn’t it a bit odd to run unsuccessful candidates – like Adam Giles – as beauty stakes winners when they didn’t actually get up? In fact Adam Giles was beaten by a middle aged guy with goggle eyes and a comb over…………..
Stephen Smith fits the good looking though generic pol look. I’m surprised he didn’t rank.
So there are no good looking blokes on the Left?
That’s right, Bob. None whatsoever.
There is something about that Parliament House photo of Kate Ellis that makes me feel funny… in a good way. I’m considering a move to Adelaide; I hear it’s OK.
Maybe someone called ‘Ferguson’ – but surely not Laurie or Martin.
This could help explain why Billy McMahon lost in 1972. Unfortunately the argument breaks down when we consider that Kevin Rudd beat Darryl Rosin in Griffith in 2004.
It also suggests that Michelle O’Byrne and Sid Sidebottom lost Bass and Braddon because their looks were against them, rather than because of the forest policy which, if implemented, would have provided sufficient stimulus to save the Tasmanian economy from sliding into the recession it is currently in. I couldn’t resist making that point.
Im sure its no accident Kate is always situated visibly behind the leader of the opp; nodding away spunkily.
Better view now that the Beazer’s bulk isn’t in the way!
In other pollie beauty news:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20891226-2702,00.html
Thanks Paul. I had always wondered why Billy McMahon lost in 1972. Until now it made no sense whatsoever.
On Kim’s point.
thoughts…..
The question we might ask is, “do confident people do relatively better in anything”?
Secondly, we might ask if the current idea of beauty serves as a basis upon which confidence is built.
Thirdly, we could ask if such confidence, when built on something as chimerical as the current idea of beauty, compromises those other (rational) aspects of the human persona which might be invaluable in doing well in politics and advancing the course of human development.