Personal characteristics and professional background both play major roles in determining which candidates are successful in being elected to political office. Selectors often have minimal information about aspirant candidates and many applications to assess. Consequently, they rely on background characteristics as a proxy for ability and character, resulting in individuals being judged by their group attributes (Norris and Lovenduski, 1995). Party elites therefore disproportionately select candidates who share the characteristics of those with a history of past political success, leading to both direct and indirect discrimination (Prewitt, 1970). For example, selectors may be influenced by their perception of voters’ biases and the possibility that the electorate will reject certain candidates because of the characteristics they possess, resulting in imputed discrimination during selection (Norris and Lovenduski, 1995).
Political parties also strategically place candidates into constituencies based on their likelihood of winning the seat. Efforts to increase diversity among elected officials therefore require that candidates be placed in seats with a reasonable chance of success. Yet parties have struggled to improve diversity across both gender and social class. Past research suggests that women face different barriers and circumstances in candidate placement compared to women from other social classes and to men from the same class. The political class is considered the most privileged, and unlike previous studies that classify brokerage or instrumental occupations as indicators of a ‘career politician’, this study includes only those occupations involving work directly with or for politicians—roles that confer distinct advantages during selection due to their insider status.
With this in mind, this paper analyses candidate and constituency data from the 2015, 2017, and 2019 UK General Elections, examining how class and gender intersect in the placement of candidates into winnable and marginal seats. The analysis reveals that candidates with political backgrounds were disproportionately placed in more winnable seats than those with professional backgrounds. Party elites also placed more women than men with political backgrounds into marginal seats. These findings enhance our understanding of candidate selection processes and provide insight into the myriad of personal, professional, and party-level factors that shape electoral outcomes.
