Studies show that women are generally more risk averse than men. Possibly, this is why they are more supportive of government programs to ensure against certain risks in life. ...Everyone agrees that women should be allowed to vote, but Lott shows that women's suffrage has had a number of undesirable consequences.
Even after accounting for a range of other factors — such as industrialization, urbanization, education and income — the impact of granting of women's suffrage on per-capita state government expenditures and revenue was startling. Per capita state government spending after accounting for inflation had been flat or falling during the 10 years before women began voting. But state governments started expanding the first year after women voted and continued growing until within 11 years real per capita spending had more than doubled. The increase in government spending and revenue started immediately after women started voting.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Female voting consequences
John R. Lott Jr., author of the book Freedomnomics, writes in the Wash Times: