The article Entering the Arena explores the relationships of women entering the political arena of electoral office. Richard Fox and Jennifer Lawless explore why women choose to run for elective office and why there are more men in these elective offices than women. The authors argue that there are not enough surveys taken to fully understand why women choose to enter the electoral arena. Political scientists seem to focus on three phenomena that have come from surveys from past years. The incumbency advantage, candidate recruitment and the professions of the candidate play a role in why women do not run for electoral offices. " Yet none of these explanations for women's under-representation considers the decision-making process by which women or men become candidates for public office" (Entering 2). If the proper research is implemented in the next few years, I believe we will find the answers to these questions.
             The authors argue the experimental research on the initial decision to seek elective office is scarce and the experimental research on how people choose to run for office is difficult to implement. Their hypotheses are to study gender differences in political ambition through a survey of eligible women and men for electoral offices. Richard Fox and Jennifer Lawless used the Citizen Political Ambition Study, a national survey of possible men and women in the "eligible pool for elective office", to explain why this under-representation of women exists (EtA 6). For the most part the prospective candidates backgrounds were made up of, law, business leaders, educators, and political activists. The political activists group was added for a diversity of occupations. The final results concurred that women's under-representation is prevalent in today's society. The gender-balanced eligibility pool ended up to be controlled by men. "Regardless of the fact that women are just as...