Author: Joseph

This diary attempts to somewhat futilely mash together recent Pennsylvanian federal election data with the d’Hondt method of proportional representation, just for kicks.

Lately Pennsylvanians have been a swingin’ crowd. The House delegation went from a Democratic disadvantage of 7-12 in the 109th to a majority of 11-8 in the 110th, which then hit 12-7 in the 111th before snapping back to 7-12 in the 112th. In the Senate, the same four congresses brought two Republican Senators, a Republican and a Democrat, two Democrats (sort of), and now a Democrat and a Republican again. It’s emotionally exhausting. And now I’m stuck with Tom Marino and Pat Toomey.

After reading about the recent Finnish parliamentary elections, I wondered how their Nordic variety of open party list, highest averages seat allocation would work if applied to a bothersome dummymandered state like Pennsylvania. Thus inspired, I applied the d’Hondt method, which they use in Finland, to the 2008 and 2010 election results. The d’Hondt method metes out seats according to party vote totals across a large jurisdiction — a state, in the US.  There would be no general election districts and no first past the post (FPTP) competitions.

Without districts, Pennsylvania’s parties would nominate a list of 19 candidates. In an open party list system like Finland, the party’s full list is shown on every ballot, and the electorate votes for a specific candidate on the list. That vote counts toward the party as a whole but also the candidate’s ranking on the party list. For this exercise, both parties have conveniently decided to select their list of 19 candidates through regional primaries in jurisdictions that just happen to match up with with the 19 current House districts. Thanks, imaginary parties. An alternative might be statewide primaries with the first-19-past-the post making the list. Of course, the primary campaigns would have been different under such circumstances, but let’s not worry about that just yet.

The 2008 election

In 2008 Democrats won a new seat, with Kathy Dahlkemper taking PA-03. Does the Obama wave wash another seat up on the shore with proportional representation? For now let’s imagine that voters were given a ballot with all of the Democratic and GOP candidates and chose the exact same candidate that they did on actual election day 2008.

Here’s the Democratic party list:

List rank	Primary district	Total votes	Candidate
1	PA-02	276,870	FATTAH, Chaka
2	PA-01	242,799	BRADY, Bob
3	PA-14	242,326	DOYLE, Mike
4	PA-07	209,955	SESTAK, Joe
5	PA-08	197,869	MURPHY, Patrick
6	PA-13	196,868	SCHWARTZ, Allyson
7	PA-17	192,699	HOLDEN, Tim
8	PA-04	186,536	ALTMIRE, Jason
9	PA-06	164,952	ROGGIO, Bob
10	PA-10	160,837	CARNEY, Chris
11	PA-12	155,268	MURTHA, Jack
12	PA-03	146,846	DAHLKEMPER, Kathy
13	PA-11	146,379	KANJORSKI, Paul
14	PA-15	128,333	BENNETT, Sam
15	PA-16	120,193	SLATER, Bruce
16	PA-18	119,661	O’DONNELL, Steve
17	PA-05	112,509	MCCRAKEN, Mark
18	PA-19	109,533	AVILLO, Philip
19	PA-09	98,735	BARR, Tony

Notably, FPTP losing candidate Bob Roggio (who challenged Jim Gerlach) received more votes than FPTP winning candidates Chris Carney, Jack Murtha, Kathy Dahlkemper and Paul Kanjorski. There were quite a few wasted Democrat votes in eastern Pennsylvania. In western Pennsylvania, Murtha won convincingly with 57.9% in his FPTP race but received an underwhelming number of actual votes in his underpopulated district.

Now the Republican party list:

List rank	Primary district	Vote total	Candidate
1	PA-19	218,862	PLATTS, Todd
2	PA-18	213,349	MURPHY, Tim
3	PA-15	181,433	DENT, Charlie
4	PA-06	179,423	GERLACH, Jim
5	PA-09	174,951	SHUSTER, Bill
6	PA-16	170,329	PITTS, Joe
7	PA-05	155,513	THOMPSON, Glenn
8	PA-04	147,411	HART, Melissa
9	PA-08	145,103	MANION, Tom
10	PA-07	142,362	WILLIAMS, Craig
11	PA-03	139,757	ENGLISH, Phil
12	PA-11	137,151	BARLETTA, Lou
13	PA-10	124,681	HACKETT, Chris
14	PA-12	113,120	RUSSELL, William
15	PA-17	109,909	GILHOOLEY, Toni
16	PA-13	108,271	KATS, Marina
17	PA-02	34,466	LANG, Adam
18	PA-01	24,714	MUHAMMAD, Mike
19	PA-14	0	None

In 2008 Republicans didn’t oppose Mike Doyle, which is a bit inconvenient for this exercise, so there are only 18 candidates on their list. The seven Republicans who won their FPTP races in 2008 hold the top seven party list spots. But Melissa Hart, who lost her FPTP contest with 44.1%, is not too far behind Glenn Thompson, who won his with 56.7%. Coincidentally, FPTP opponents Jason Altmire and Melissa Hart both hold the eighth slot on their party lists.

In total, Democratic candidates won 3,209,168 votes, and Republicans received 2,520,805 votes. Third party candidates did not receive enough votes to matter. The seats would be distributed thus:

House seat	Allocation value	Party	Party seat	Candidate elected
1	3,209,168	Dem	1	FATTAH, Chaka
2	2,520,805	GOP	1	PLATTS, Todd
3	1,604,584	Dem	2	BRADY, Bob
4	1,260,403	GOP	2	MURPHY, Tim
5	1,069,723	Dem	3	DOYLE, Mike
6	840,268	GOP	3	DENT, Charlie
7	802,292	Dem	4	SESTAK, Joe
8	641,834	Dem	5	MURPHY, Patrick
9	630,201	GOP	4	GERLACH, Jim
10	534,861	Dem	6	SCHWARTZ, Allyson
11	504,161	GOP	5	SHUSTER, Bill
12	458,452	Dem	7	HOLDEN, Tim
13	420,134	GOP	6	PITTS, Joe
14	401,146	Dem	8	ALTMIRE, Jason
15	360,115	GOP	7	THOMPSON, Glenn
16	356,574	Dem	9	ROGGIO, Bob
17	320,917	Dem	10	CARNEY, Chris
18	315,101	GOP	8	HART, Melissa
19	291,742	Dem	11	MURTHA, Jack
20	280,089	GOP	9	None (MANION, Tom)
21	267,431	Dem	12	None (DAHLKEMPER, Kathy)
22	252,081	GOP	10	None (WILLIAMS, Craig)

Democrats win 11-8 rather than 12-7 under FPTP. The Obama wave fails to bring in new seats, and d’Hondt limits Republican losses. Democrats Kathy Dahlkemper and Paul Kanjorski miss out on the seats they won in FPTP, and Democrat Bob Roggio and Republican Melissa Hart take their spots.

As a result, there are no representatives from PA-03 and PA-11, the northwest and the northeast, while there are two each from PA-04 and PA-06, in the Pittsburgh and  Philadelphia suburbs. The FPTP data favor districts with high turnout and close races over modest winning candidates in low turnout and low population districts.

But

Of course, there are several huge and massive and very large flaws with this exercise.

For one, Republicans certainly would have fielded a full party list of 19 candidates, since every vote helps the party. But the Republican list would have needed an additional 104,882 votes for Tom Manion to pass Jack Murtha. The missing Republican in Doyle’s Pittsburgh district was succeeded by a candidate in 2010 who failed to clear 50,000. Even with the increased 2008 presidential turnout, it seems unlikely that a Republican would have won 100,000 votes in central Pittsburgh. (PA-14 representatives went unchallenged in 2000 and 2004, so there’s no good reference.)

It is also unlikely that parties would use geographic primary districts in the first place, at least not in the same configuration as current congressional districts.

But the more glaring issue is that candidates would campaign differently under a proportional system, and many voters would have selected different candidates on their party list or a more palatable candidate from the other list.

Campaigns would probably be centered on media markets. The candidates in PA-01, PA-02, PA-06, PA-07, PA-08 and PA-13 would campaign in “greater Philadelphia” and compete for many of the same votes, while candidates in PA-10 and PA-11 would campaign in “northeast Pennsylvania.” A cursory scan suggests that the only big media market base splits are for the PA-03 and PA-12 candidates. The discrete media market of the Lehigh Valley would be virtually guaranteed a representative.

Without head to head competitions, voters would be free to find their best ideological fit in what might otherwise be a “lesser of two evils” situation. I’m not sure how this would pan out for the Blue Dogs or “moderate” Republicans. Independent voters in PA-11 who supported Lou Barletta over unpopular incumbent Paul Kanjorski would have had other Democratic options like Chris Carney.  

Also, candidates with demographic advantages or clear ideological differentiation could perform better within party lists by grabbing same-party votes from other parts of the state. Schwartz, Dahlkemper and Hart might benefit from the dearth of women on the ballot. Doyle would likely earn progressive votes from Altmire’s district, while Altmire could win more conservative Democrats from Doyle’s district. Similarly, Republicans turned off by Pitts could have switched their votes to a more palatable option like Platts or Gerlach.

There would also be the question of ordering the party list. In the Democratic party, the urban politicians would probably be ranked first, regardless of whether the metric is seniority, primary vote totals or power broker decision-making. On the Republican side I’m less clear who would benefit. But high ballot position would be an advantage.

So, yes, there are huge problems with applying data collected from one type of election to a completely different system. If this method were actually implemented in the 2008 election, I imagine the primaries would have produced a Democratic party list with an eastern urban/suburban bias and a Republican list with at least a couple strong urban candidates — the wealthy businessmen and lawyers who live in cities but aren’t stupid enough to run in Democratic strongholds under FPTP.

An 11-8 party split sounds reasonable in 2008, but the big city/suburban to small city/rural split could approach something like 14-5.

The 2010 election

In 2010 four Democratic incumbents lost and Republicans flipped a Democratic-held open seat. Proportional representation buffered the 2008 Obama wave — what about the 2010 tea tsunami?

Here is the Democratic party list:

List rank	Primary district	Vote total	Candidate
1	PA-02	182,800	FATTAH, Chaka
2	PA-01	149,944	BRADY, Bob
3	PA-14	122,073	DOYLE, Mike
4	PA-07	118,710	SCHWARTZ, Allyson
5	PA-17	118,486	HOLDEN, Tim
6	PA-08	113,547	MURPHY, Patrick
7	PA-04	110,631	ALTMIRE, Jason
8	PA-07	106,536	LENTZ, Bryan
9	PA-06	100,493	TRIVEDI, Manan
10	PA-12	94,056	CRITZ, Mark
11	PA-10	89,846	CARNEY, Chris
12	PA-11	84,618	KANJORSKI, Paul
13	PA-15	79,766	CALLAHAN, John
14	PA-18	78,558	CONNOLLY, John
15	PA-03	77,562	DAHLKEMPER, Kathy
16	PA-16	70,994	HERR, Lois
17	PA-19	53,549	SANDERS, Ryan
18	PA-05	52,375	PIPE, Michael
19	PA-09	52,322	CONNERS, Tom

The Democratic list doesn’t change too much from 2008 to 2010. But FPTP winner Mark Critz brought in fewer votes than the three Philly area candidates who lost their FPTP races, and Kathy Dahlkemper drops down close to “some dude” territory. It’s clear that the Democratic list is powered by the east, where blue votes are squandered in relatively close FPTP losses and massive FPTP wins.

Now for the Republican list:

Seat rank	Primary district	Votes	Candidate
1	PA-19	165,219	PLATTS, Todd
2	PA-18	161,888	MURPHY, Tim
3	PA-09	141,904	SHUSTER, Bill
4	PA-07	137,825	MEEHAN, Patrick
5	PA-16	134,113	PITTS, Joe
6	PA-06	133,770	GERLACH, Jim
7	PA-08	130,759	FITZPATRICK, Mike
8	PA-05	127,427	THOMPSON, Glenn
9	PA-10	110,599	MARINO, Tom
10	PA-15	109,534	DENT, Charlie
11	PA-11	102,179	BARLETTA, Lou
12	PA-04	99,867	ROTHFUS, Ketih
13	PA-17	95,000	ARGALL, Dave
14	PA-13	91,987	ADCOCK, Dee
15	PA-12	91,170	BURNS, Tim
16	PA-03	85,384	KELLY, Mike
17	PA-14	49,997	HALUSZCZAK, Melissa
18	PA-02	21,907	HELLBERG, Rick
19	PA-01	0	None

In 2010 Republicans again fielded only 18 candidates, with Bob Brady getting a free ride. Charlie Dent drops from 3rd on the party list in 2008 to 10th in 2010. I guess he benefited from Obama surge ticket splitters in the Lehigh Valley? Or just less tea fuel in 2010. Patrick Meehan does very well, besting Philly suburb veterans Jim Gerlach and Mike Fitzpatrick.  Mike Kelly, who won a seat in FPTP, occupies the 16th spot on the list, below four FPTP losers. Somehow he got fewer votes than Allyson Schwartz’s opponent. PA-03 really got wiped out in this election.

In total, Democrats won 1,860,644 votes and Republicans won 1,990,529. The third party vote was again not big enough to matter. The seats are allocated thus:

House seat	Allocation value	Party	Party seat	Candidate elected
1	1,990,529	GOP	1	PLATTS, Todd
2	1,860,644	Dem	1	FATTAH, Chaka
3	995,265	GOP	2	MURPHY, Tim
4	930,322	Dem	2	BRADY, Bob
5	663,509	GOP	3	SHUSTER, Bill
6	620,214	Dem	3	DOYLE, Mike
7	497,632	GOP	4	MEEHAN, Patrick
8	465,161	Dem	4	SCHWARTZ, Allyson
9	398,105	GOP	5	PITTS, Joe
10	372,128	Dem	5	HOLDEN, Tim
11	331,754	GOP	6	GERLACH, Jim
12	310,107	Dem	6	MURPHY, Patrick
13	284,361	GOP	7	FITZPATRICK, Mike
14	265,806	Dem	7	ALTMIRE, Jason
15	248,361	GOP	8	THOMPSON, Glenn
16	232,581	Dem	8	LENTZ, Bryan
17	221,169	GOP	9	MARINO, Tom
18	206,738	Dem	9	TRIVEDI, Manan
19	199,052	GOP	10	DENT, Charlie
20	186,064	Dem	10	None (CRITZ, Mark)
21	180,957	GOP	11	None (BARLETTA, Lou)
22	169,149	Dem	11	None (CARNEY, Chris)

Republicans win the first seat and alternate with Democrats afterwards, for a close split of 9-10 in favor of the GOP. Proportional representation helps keep down Democratic losses; although four FPTP incumbent Democrats still lose, the party overall does two seats better than under FPTP.  Carney, Kanjorski and Dahlkemper still don’t make the cut, but the fourth candidate out is Critz rather than Patrick Murphy. In fact, Patrick Murphy wins the 12th seat just ahead of the Republican who beat him under FPTP. Lentz and Trivedi, also FPTP losers, win seats as well.

The unlucky Republicans are Lou Barletta and Mike Kelly, while Charlie Dent, who got the 6th seat in 2008, just squeaks by with the 19th seat.

Manan Trivedi wins the 18th seat despite having fewer votes than Charlie Dent or Lou Barletta, the two Republicans immediately below him; the padding provided by competitive lower candidates like Critz, Carney, Kanjorski, Callahan et al was enough to compensate for his  modest vote count. Although Brady lacked an opponent in this election, the Republicans were very far from winning their 11th seat at the expense of the Democrat’s 9th seat.

Following the election of this group of candidates, there are no representatives from PA-03, PA-11, and PA-12 while there are two representatives each from PA-06, PA-07 and PA-08. The west and the northeast seats migrate to the Philly suburbs, basically. It’s worth noting that the threshold for Seat 19 is only 199,053. Several strong Libertarian (or other third party) candidates could plausibly round up enough votes (~10,000 per primary district) to seat one of their own in congress.

—

Given the flawed data, this system appears to effectively moderate swings and realign geographic representation in Pennsylvania, which is probably what would happen in similar states like Illinois, Ohio and Michigan. Bye bye, Joe Walsh? But then Massachusetts, for example, would have Republican representation, and Democrats could probably win additional seats in South Carolina and Louisiana. Third parties would also have a decent shot at a seat in big states like California and Texas. One unattractive feature for mappers: decennial reapportionment would be as simple as cutting one slot off the list in Pennsylvania. But otherwise it seems like it could be fun.

Right after the 2010 elections (and immediately before) there was some very public handwringing in the media about the number of women in congress decreasing. According to the CS Monitor, the election was “tough on all Democrats, but particularly on female lawmakers.” I think some of this is misguided. Granted, as markhanna wrote in November, 2010 was definitely not another “year of the woman.” But even though the number of women shrank (ever so slightly) in the red wave, as MassGOP suggested it might, the proportion of women within each party grew, and in the long run this isn’t much of a setback. You could even read it as progress.

The percentage of women in the House Republican conference, the House Democratic caucus, the Senate Republican conference and the Senate Democratic caucus all went up, even as the overall number of women went down in the House and stayed the same in the Senate. This somewhat counterintuitive situation is the result of a shift in representation from the more heavily female Democratic caucus to the less heavily female Republican conference. But within their parties, both sides have a higher proportion of women than in the last congress. As long as Democrats have more women, the constant shifts in balance between the parties will always affect the number of women in congress, so I don’t think it’s anything to get worked up about. The GOP deserves some credit for electing more of their own women even though they brought the overall numbers down.

Regardless of what happens in 2012, the number of women will probably go up in the next election. Democrats are more heavily female than ever, and if they have a good year the number of women legislators will probably shoot upwards. Republicans probably won’t take many more seats next cycle, but if they maintain a similar majority, the natural turnover in their party should lead to more women; in the House their freshman class was more heavily female than the Republican conference as a whole and in the Senate the proportion of non-incumbent female nominees was a record high.

The 112th House

Right now, 89 of the 535 voting members of the 112th Congress are women, about 16.6%. There are 17 women in the Senate and 72 women in the House, excluding three non-voting delegates. (Delegates aren’t included in any of the numbers in this diary. Sorry, Guam.) The total numbers are not far off from the 111th Congress, which had 90 women at its close. That figure was actually higher in the opening days of the 111th, before Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Hilda Solis (CA-32), and Ellen Tauscher (CA-10) vacated their seats to join the Obama administration. Kirsten Gillibrand (NY-20) was appointed to Clinton’s Senate seat, and Judy Chu won CA-32 in a special election. But then Gillibrand and Tauscher were succeeded by Scott Murphy and John Garamendi, respectively.

Although the total number of women didn’t change much, there was quite a bit of turnover in the House. Fourteen women left (2 Republicans and 12 Democrats) and thirteen women joined (9 Republicans and 4 Democrats). The freshman class totals 96 this year, and the thirteen new congresswomen account for about 13.5%. That’s much lower than the overall ratio of just under 16.6% in the House, and about one third of the freshmen women came from the tiny Democratic freshman class. But breaking it down further, the results are less discouraging.

On the Democratic side, Diane Watson (CA-33) retired; Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (MI-13) was defeated in her primary; and Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Betsy Markey (CO-04), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Melissa Bean (IL-08), Debbie Halvorson (IL-11), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01), Dina Titus (NV-03), Mary Jo Kilroy (OH-15), Kathy Dahlkemper (PA-03) and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin (SD-AL) all lost to Republican challengers. The four new Democratic congresswomen are Karen Bass (CA-33), who took Watson’s seat; Terri Sewell (AL-07), who succeeded gubernatorial candidate Artur Davis; Frederica Wilson (FL-17), who replaced senatorial candidate Kendrick Meek; and Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01), who defeated an incumbent Republican. Of the women who lost to Republicans, only Kosmas and Herseth Sandlin were succeeded by women. At the time of the election, there were 255 voting members of the Democratic caucus, of whom 56 were women – about 22.0% of the caucus. After the election, the Democratic caucus shrank to 193 voting members, of whom 48 are women – about 24.9% of the caucus.

On the Republican side, Ginny Browne-Waite (R-FL) retired and Mary Fallin (R-OK) ran a successful campaign for governor. Their safe red seats were both won by Republican men. Diane Black (TN-06) and Jaime Herrera Beutler (WA-03) succeeded retiring male Democrats, while Martha Roby (AL-02), Vicki Hartzler (MO-04), Renee Ellmers (NC-02), Nan Hayworth (NY-19) and Ann Marie Buerkle (NY-25) defeated Democratic male incumbents. Sandy Adams (FL-24) and Kristi Noem (SD-AL) defeated Democratic women – Kosmas and Herseth Sandlin. At the time of the election, there were 180 voting members of the Republican conference, of which 17 were women – about 9.4% of the conference. After the election, the Republican conference expanded to 242 members, of whom 24 are women – about 9.9% of the conference.

There were noticeable differences between the freshman classes in each party. There were only nine Democratic freshmen this year, and four of them were women – that’s a whopping 44.4% of the Democratic freshmen. There were actually only two straight white men, out of nine. Just as the founding fathers intended! On the other side of the aisle, the tidal wave of 87 freshman Republicans includes only nine mama grizzlies, which works out to 10.3%. But even though it’s a low number, it’s still better than the overall rate for House Republicans, which is why overall representation of women in the Republican conference increased.

Looking at the whole class of 2010 candidates, there were 47 women among the 431 Republican nominees and 91 women among the 417 Democratic nominees. So 10.9% of Republican nominees were women and 21.8% of Democratic nominees. The Republican figure is better than the Republican rate in the House and among freshmen, while the Democratic figure is a little bit lower than the 24.9% of Democrats in the House (and way worse than the outlier freshmen). Overall, 139 of the major parties’ 848 candidates for voting seats in the congress were women, and there were ten races featuring women from both major parties (CA-36, CA-37, FL-20, FL-24, KS-02, MN-04, MN-06, NY-28, SD-AL and WV-02).

Of course, nominating a woman to run against a safe incumbent isn’t necessarily a sign of progress, and a few dozen of these candidates never had much of a chance.  Of the 24 Republican women who lost their races, only five cleared 40% – Beth Ann Rankin v. Mike Ross (AR-04), Ruth McClung v. Raul Grijalva (AZ-07), Marianette Miller-Meeks v. Dave Loebsack (IA-02), Jackie Walorski v. Joe Donnelly (IN-02), and Anna Little v. Frank Pallone (NJ-06). On the other side of the aisle, seven non-incumbent Democratic women lost but got at least 40%, including two who challenged incumbents. Four of these women were running to succeed retiring Democrats – Joyce Elliott (AR-02), Stephene Moore (KS-03), Annie Kuster (NH-02) and Julie Lassa (WI-07) – while Lori Edwards (FL-12) put up respectable numbers trying to take an open Republican seat. Meanwhile, Paula Brooks (OH-12) made a decent run at Pat Tiberi and Suzan Delbene lost a close race to Dave Reichert (WA-08).

Including the 89 women who won their races, there were 101 races featuring women who received over 40%. Apart from this 40%+ crowd, there were a few other women who mounted serious challenges, notably Tarryl Clark (MN-06). And there were some other memorable challengers like Krystal Ball (VA-01) and Star Parker (CA-37). There’s a decent chance that Walorski, Kuster and Delbene all show up in the 113th.

Fun facts: there are some seriously woman-less parts of the country. For example, Georgia has 13 seats but only nominated one woman (who lost); Indiana similarly has nine seats but only nominated one woman (who lost). New Jersey had two women in its field of twenty-six major party candidates, and they both lost. Pennsylvania was about the same, even though Allyson Schwartz is hanging in there. And no women were nominated to contest any of Kentucky’s six seats. Meanwhile, Republicans contested all 53 Californian seats, but nominated only three (!) women, and the only one who won is a congressional widow. On the other hand, Democrats put up 51 nominees in California, and 23 were women. Yeah, that’s 45%. Pretty impressive given the sample size. And yet, California Democrats can’t compete with 100% female Republicans in Wyoming, 100% female Democrats in New Hampshire and 100% female everything in South Dakota.

The 112th Senate

On the Senate side of things there was no net change in 2010, with Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) losing to John Boozman and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) replacing Judd Gregg. The overall proportion remains stuck at 17%, where it’s been since Jeanne Shaheen and Kay Hagan were elected in 2009. Martha Coakley would have given us 18%, but she didn’t, because that’s how she rolls. Sixteen new senators were seated following the 2010 election, which means that women – er, Ayotte – accounted for only 6.3% of the freshman class, much worse than the overall ratio of 17%. But although the freshman class was male-heavy, both sides of the aisle have a higher proportion of women in their caucuses. There are now five Republican women, about 10.6% of the Republican caucus, compared with 9.8% at the time of the 2010 elections. Even though the 13-member Republican class was only 7.7% female, five of the new male senators replaced outgoing male senators, so the overal proportion went up. By contrast, there are twelve Democratic women, about 22.6% of the Democratic caucus, whereas the 111th Democratic caucus was 22.0% female at the time of the election. Even though 100% of the Democratic freshmen (Coons, Manchin, Blumenthal) are men and the Democratic caucus lost Lincoln, they lost so many men that the remaining women make up a greater proportion.

But compared to recent elections, both parties did a pretty decent job nominating women in competitive races. In addition to Ayotte, Republicans put up Carly Fiorina (R-CA), Linda McMahon (R-CT), Christine O’Donnell (R-DE) and Sharron Angle (R-NV) in contests that were considered competitive at some point in the cycle. Angle and O’Donnell were a bit of a fluke, and Delaware was hardly a race after O’Donnell was nominated, but the powers that be also backed plausibly viable candidates Sue Lowden (R-NV) and Jane Norton (R-CO) before they tanked in the primaries. On the Democratic side, Robin Carnahan (D-MO) and Roxanne Conlin (D-IA) were both good candidates under the circumstances, even if Conlin never had a chance. North Carolina Democrats nominated Elaine Marshall over the beltway’s objections and Jennifer Brunner (D-OH) was considered a viable candidate by some. And then there were the five incumbents who were reelected: Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY) and Patty Murray (D-WA).

Although Ayotte and Gillibrand were the only newly-elected women in the 112th senate, it’s noteworthy that there were so many non-incumbent women in the pipeline this year. By the numbers, there were 73 major party candidates for the Senate this year, and there were 15 women. According to an analysis by CAWP (PDF), that’s the highest number ever. (The previous record was 12 in 2006.) And at 20.5%, it’s also better than overall representation in the Senate. Among Democrats, nine of 36 were women (25%) and among Republicans it was six of 37 (16.2%). Both of these numbers are better than the current caucus figures.

Leaving out the 23 incumbents who were nominated to contest their seats (including six women), there were nine women among the 50 non-incumbent nominees, which is 18% – just about the rate in the Senate as a whole. Interestingly, the Democratic pool of non-incumbent nominees was slightly more male than the Republican class of nominees. 18.5% of the non-incumbent Republican nominees were women (5 of 27), as opposed to 17.4% of Democratic non-incumbent nominees (4 of 23). For Republicans to be about even with Democrats is remarkable.

But of course, not all nominees are created equal. Lisa Johnston (D-KS) didn’t crack 30% of the vote and Roxanne Conlin only got to 33.2%. Elaine Marshall, Robin Carnahan, Christine O’Donnell, Sharron Angle, Linda McMahon and Carly Fiorina all failed to reach 45%, although Angle and Fiorina kept their losses within single digits. No one did better than 45% except Kelly Ayotte. Embarassingly, Blanche Lincoln had the third-lowest vote share, after Johnston and Conlin.

Although the overall number of women in congress will probably go up or stay about the same in 2012, there’s a chance the number of women in the Senate will decrease. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is retiring, and so far only one woman – Elizabeth Ames Jones – is running to replace her. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Olympia Snowe (R-ME) and Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) are all considered somewhat vulnerable, to varying degrees, and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) could always end up as a surprise retirement. But there are already women exploring Senate runs – Sarah Steelman, Ann Wagner and Jo Ann Emerson have all been bandied about in the past couple days as McCaskill challengers, for example. And is there a Sen. Shelley Berkley (D-NV) on the horizon? If Obama appoints Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to replace Hillary Clinton, might Deval Patrick scan through comment threads on SSP and give us Sen. Sonia Chang-Diaz?