What Will it Take for a Woman to Become President of the United States?

No woman has ever served as President of the United States. Only two women have ever been nominated as candidates for that office by one of the two main parties. So what is causing this persistent barrier, and how might it be overcome? These questions are taken up in a new article in The Political Quarterly, which examines the structural, cultural and political factors that have kept women from reaching the highest office in American politics. Is the United States an outlier in global terms when it comes to women's representation at the top of political life? And what would need to change — in parties, in media, in public attitudes — for that to shift? Joining host Alan Renwick to explore these questions are the article's authors: Rosie Campbell, Professor of Politics at King's College London, and Joni Lovenduski, Professor Emerita at Birkbeck College and Visiting Professor at the Policy Institute at King's College London. Mentioned in this episode: What Will it Take for a Woman to Become President of the United States? by Rosie Campbell and Joni Lovenduski, published in The Political Quarterly.

Constitutional reform is a recurring theme in UK politics. Debates regularly surface about changing the electoral system, reforming the House of Lords, or redefining the role of the courts. These conversations often focus on the traditional institutions of the state: government, parliament and the judiciary. But is that focus too narrow? When considering how power operates in a modern democracy, should constitutional thinking extend beyond these formal branches of government? Might institutions such as the media, financial sector or other centres of influence also deserve attention when we discuss constitutional design? This week, Daniel Hind joins host Alan Renwick to explore a fresh argument that the constitutional reform agenda needs to be broadened. The discussion is based on a new article in The Political Quarterly that calls for a more expansive understanding of how democratic power should be structured and overseen. Mentioned in this episode: Popular Sovereignty and the Constitutional Reform Agenda

Much contemporary debate centres on the respective roles of judges and politicians. Should constitutions empower courts to decide questions about human rights, or should such matters be settled by elected representatives? And should the core rules of democracy be shielded from manipulation by those in power? These questions ultimately turn on how we understand the nature of constitutions themselves. Are constitutions primarily legal instruments that set the framework within which politics operates? Or are they fundamentally political in character, relying not only on laws but also on conventions and democratic practices upheld by politicians? While this may sound abstract, the stakes are immediate and real. Ongoing debates about the future of the European Convention on Human Rights, the resilience of democratic institutions, and the risks posed by populist governments all hinge on these deeper constitutional questions. Fresh light on these issues comes from a new book, Defending the Political Constitution. Our guest is Richard Bellamy, Professor of Political Science at University College London, who joins me to explore what it means to defend a political rather than legal vision of constitutionalism. Mentioned in this episode: Defending the Political Constitution by Richard Bellamy.

The European Convention on Human Rights is often seen as one of the defining achievements of post-war Europe. Designed to protect fundamental freedoms and uphold democratic values, it has shaped the legal landscape of the continent for more than seventy years. But it is also increasingly contested, sitting at the centre of debates about sovereignty, migration, democracy, and the limits of judicial power. In this episode, we unpack what the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights actually are, how they work in practice, and why they continue to provoke such strong reactions. Where did the system come from? How has it evolved over time? What kinds of cases reach the Court, and how are decisions made? Our guest is Marko Bošnjak, former President of the European Court of Human Rights and now a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union. Drawing on his experience at the highest levels of European law, his conversation with Prof Alan Renwick gives us a clear history and guide to the institutions that help define the rights of hundreds of millions of people.

Social media is woven into everyday life, yet growing concerns about its effects on mental health, public debate and personal wellbeing have led many to question whether it is worth staying online at all. With governments exploring age restrictions for younger users, and public discussion becoming increasingly polarised, is quitting social media the ethical choice?In this episode, Rob Simpson, Associate Professor of Philosophy at University College London, joins Emily McTernan to discusses the moral dimensions of stepping away from social media platforms, drawing on his recent work on the ethics of quitting.Mentioned in this episode:The Ethics of Quitting Social Media. In The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics (2022) Oxford University Press 

Modern democracies rest on elections. They are the main way voters are supposed to shape what governments do. In theory, elections ensure that public policy reflects what people want. But does that actually happen in practice? Political science has long been divided on this question.One side of the debate argues that elections can work as intended. Voters understand the difference between left and right. They have a sense of where political parties sit on that spectrum. They broadly know where they themselves stand. And they choose which party to support on that basis.Another influential strand of research is far more sceptical. It suggests that most voters do not have clear or well formed policy preferences at all. And when they do, those preferences often come after choosing a party, not before. Voters identify with a party first, then adopt that party’s positions as their own.This debate has been running for decades. But a new book offers a third perspective that could help move things forward. It argues that the debate has set the bar too high for what counts as a meaningful voter preference. Once we measure preferences in a more realistic way, a clearer picture starts to emerge.One of the authors of that book is our very own Ben Lauderdale, friend of the podcast and Professor of Political Science here in the UCL Department of Political Science. We are delighted that Ben joins us this week to walk us through the research and what it tells us about how voters really think.Mentioned in this episode:Idiosyncratic Issue Opinion and Political Choice, by Nick Vivyan, Benjamin E Lauderdale, Chris Hanretty.

In this guest episode from Philosophically Speaking, Emily McTernan and Jeff Howard explore a provocative question. Can white men be discriminated against, and if so, should the law protect them in the same way it protects other groups?To help unpack this, they are joined by Professor Cécile Laborde, who discusses her recent work on structural inequality and the moral foundations of discrimination law. Drawing on her article 'Structural Inequality and the Protectorate of Discrimination', published in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, Cécile challenges common assumptions about who discrimination law is for and why.Mentioned in this episode:Philosophically Speaking podcast'Structural Inequality and the Protectorate of Discrimination' by Cécile Laborde

News headlines are increasingly dominated by concerns about the harms young people face online. In late 2025, Australia introduced a ban preventing under-16s from accessing a range of major social media platforms. Here in the UK, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has publicly backed a similar approach, and at the time of recording there is widespread speculation that the UK government may be preparing to follow suit - perhaps even by the time you’re listening to this episode.But how do young people themselves experience the online spaces they inhabit? Do they see digital content as harmful, empowering, or something more complex? And crucially, what do they think should be done to make the online world safer and more constructive?In this episode, we explore these questions with Dr Emma Connolly, Research Fellow in the UCL Department of Political Science and a member of UCL’s Digital Speech Lab, where she leads research on digital civic education.Mentioned in this episode:How does social media content go viral across platforms? Modelling the spread of Kamala is brat across X, TikTok, and Instagram, Journal of Information Technology & Politics

For decades, political scientists believed that a person’s occupation was the strongest predictor of how they would vote. Manual, working-class jobs were associated with left-wing voting, while white-collar professions leaned right.In recent years, however, this class-based model has been challenged. Education level and age now often predict voting behaviour more accurately than occupation, alongside the growing importance of cultural and identity-based issues such as immigration, gender, and morality.But does this mean economic status no longer matters in politics? According to new research, the answer is no. Economic status remains a powerful predictor of voting behaviour - but the foundations of that status have changed. Rather than occupation, housing has emerged as a central factor shaping political preferences.In this episode, Prof Alan Renwick explores this shift with Josh Goddard, a PhD student in the UCL Department of Political Science, whose research sheds new light on how housing has become a key driver of political divides.Mentioned in this episode:Josh Goddard (2026) Housing and electoral behaviour: The changing face of class voting in advanced democracies. Electoral Studies, Volume 99

In today’s episode, we are joined by the author of a new book published by Princeton University Press. The book offers a bold reimagining of global justice, drawing on anticolonial thought to confront the unfinished work of decolonization. Rather than defending decolonization as a nationalist project, it advances a powerful vision of global social equality.Our guest is Dr. Shuk Ying Chan, Assistant Professor of Political Theory at UCL Political Science. Regular listeners will recall her previous appearances on the podcast, including episodes on resisting colonialism and the trouble with exporting Hollywood films.In Postcolonial Global Justice, Shuk Ying Chan proposes a new account of global justice centered on the value of social equality. Drawing on the ideas of Aimé Césaire, Frantz Fanon, Kwame Nkrumah, and Jawaharlal Nehru, Chan argues that a core commitment of anticolonial thought is the rejection of hierarchy and the embrace of equality. These insights from decolonization, she suggests, give us critical tools for challenging contemporary global hierarchies and for rejecting forms of postcolonial nationalism that are more focused on policing citizens than promoting their freedom and equality.