15
on the 2003 data is problematic because it is a post hoc measure of competitiveness; a
district could prove more or less competitive than a party anticipated when it nominated
candidates, several months prior to the election.
As Figure 6 shows, women held an average of one-third of the “ornamental”
positions where they were unlikely to be elected [doesn’t this mean men held 2/3 of the
ornamental spots?].
[Insert Figure 6 about here]
Few women were placed in challenge spots where the fate of the party was closely
contested. Women held 23% of the guaranteed spots for both the PRD and the PAN,
while women in the PRI held only 11% of the guaranteed spots for their party.
According to the gender quota law, parties that hold primary elections are not
subject to the penalties described in Article 175-B of the law. This exemption proved
most relevant in the single-member districts. While the parties did comply fully with the
law, they complied only in districts where party leaders appointed candidates. Of all the
candidates competing in this election across the 11 parties, 78% were appointed and 22%
were chosen in primary elections.
8
If we consider only the three major parties, however, appointing candidates was
far from the norm. Across the three main parties, half of the candidates were chosen in
primaries (49.4%). The percentages differ significantly across the PRI, the PAN and the
PRD. For the single-member districts in this election, the PRI selected nearly all of its
candidates by primary. Of the 200 single-member districts contested by the PRI, party
leaders appointed candidates in only 6, meaning that the quota law required the
nomination of just 2 women.
9
In other words, with respect to the SMD segment of the
Convention