Information & Operations Management Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 1

Information & Operations Management - Essay Example Thus, sustainability is concerned with the management of the total business impact of an organization on its stakeholders, the society which it operates and its surrounding environment. The main issue that this paper tends to look at is why the organization in question adopts either an economic, environmental or social sustainability. From the report, there are five drivers that lead to the initiative of sustainability for the organization. They include reduction on costs, protecting and enhancing the reputation of the organization, pressure from the stakeholders, government regulation and commitment of the top executives. The organization in question is Ford of Britain which is a subsidiary of ford motor company. It operates in three manufacturing sites in United Kingdom. It is one of UK’s best car sellers for thirty four years and commercial vehicle brand for forty five years. The sustainability initiative in place for this organization is the environmental sustainability. This would ensure that the organization is able to ensure that the environmental surrounding of the individuals living near their manufacturing industries or their consumers is taken into consideration. This reduces the instance of environmental pollution reducing the ailments that might result from environmental pollution. This pillar involves the organization providing safe and efficient transport services in terms of the environmental contribution. This is considering that the organization is a car manufacturer thus they have to incorporate the use of environmental appropriate fuels that prevent the vehicles form emitting fumes that could endanger the respiratory system of their customers. The organization would go a long way in reducing the carbon footprint. The sustainability requirements that their customers pose to them by their customers should

Bombardier Transportation & the Adtranz Acquisition Essay Example for Free

Bombardier Transportation the Adtranz Acquisition Essay Bombardier had evolved from its humble beginnings as a snowmobile manufacturer based in Joseph-Arman an Bombardier’s garage to a global business in which it’s once core recreational products were over shadowed, on a revenue basis at least, by its offerings in transportation, aerospace, and capital. In every segment in which the company operated it was either number 1 or 2 globally. This was not the case for the Transportation group (BT) in Europe, where in 2001 it sat in fourth place behind Alstom, Siemens and Adtranz (AT). However, the AT acquisition presented the opportunity to vault BT to the forefront of the industry. At a price tag of US$715 million (23% of AT’s 2000 revenue) AT was a bargain and an opportunity worth considering for several reasons: Revenue Growth : Unlike all other Bombardier businesses, BT’s revenue was counter-cyclical so growth in the sector would provide better balance to its overall revenue (Figure C1 in Appendix C).With the addition of AT, BT’s annual rail-related revenue could grow to US$7.6 billion in 2001 (up from US$2.2 billion in 2000) with a backlog of US$14.5 billion. 1 While BT was a low margin business it was a cash generator that helped to finance other Bombardier businesses. Geographic Expansion : AT had a presence in a broader range of European markets and the region was viewed as the center of technological development. Asia and South America utilized European engineering and practices so AT provided BT better access to future markets. Completion of Product Portfolio : BT lacked propulsion system and train controls competence. This had been mitigated by outsourcing to competitors and suppliers; however it was a competitive weakness as was exemplified by AT’s exclusion from a key deal in the UK in 2000. AT excelled in these areas, and provided immediate cost synergies and long term strategic strength. Naturally the acquisition was not without its downside. There were many aspects of the deal that warranted consideration: Acquisition Size: While BT had a successfully track record of acquisitions it had never integrated a company of AT’s size. Based on 2000 figures, AT had nearly 40% more employees, just under 50%more in sales, and operated in 60 locales. The differing company structures were also of concern. Financial Performance: AT posted net losses going back 4 years in spite of restructurings. Even at a bargain purchase price, an unsuccessful integration could threaten BT’s income and cash flow. Due Diligence: AT was understandably reticent to let a competitor gain full access to its â€Å"books† should the deal not complete, so BT’s diligence process was not comprehensive. Furthermore BT’s European management had not participated in the deal; only amplifying the potential risks. Customer Loss: The acquisition could trigger the loss of customers or new contracts. Additionally, AT had earned a reputation for poor production and servicing that competitors could exploit. A comprehensive plan would be required to realize the projected synergies, tackle the above noted concerns, and should the deal clear anticipate and address regulator stipulations.

Contrastive analysis

Contrastive analysis Contrastive analysis(CA) is a method to distinguish between what are needed and not needed to learn by the target language(TL) learner by evaluating languages (M.Gass Selinker, 2008). In addition, CA is a technique to identify whether two languages have something in common, which assess both similarities and differences in languages, conforming to the belief in language universals. (Johnson, 1999). Both statements indicate that CA holds a principle which is important in order to identify what are required by the TL learner to learn in TL and what are not. If there is no familiar characteristic in the languages, it indicates that the learner might have difficulty in learning the TL. While much could be said about comparing languages, a more important aspect is about the influence from TL in first language (L1). â€Å"Contrastive analysis stresses the influence of the mother tongue in learning a second language in phonological, morphological, lexical and syntactic levels. It holds that second language would be affected by first language† (Jie, 2008, p. 36). On the same score, Wardhaugh asserts that first language of TA learners can clarify all â€Å"errors† that are constantly made them. These arguments prove that the errors make by the TL learner are explainable in the L1. Indeed, this idea is conformed to the rule of CA, which believes in language universal. However, this analysis has disadvantages. In Susan M. Gass and Larry Selinker words, they believe that this analysis is questioned because of the concept of difficulty as the basic theory of the CA is concerning the difficultness. If an error is made by a person, this shows that the person has a problem in some area, not because of the native language. Thus, we cannot presume that fluency of a target language learner is depending on the nature of L1. There are more aspects that related to this matter. â€Å"There are other factors that may influence the process of acquisition such as innate principle of language, attitude, motivation, aptitude, age, other languages known†¦Ã¢â‚¬  (M.Gass Selinker, 2008). Next, CA cannot detect some difficulties experienced by the TL learners. For example, â€Å"Je vois les/elle/la/le† . â€Å"I see them/her/her/him† (this phrase is impossible in French) (Choi, 2009). Error analysis (EA) is â€Å"a type of linguistic analysis that focuses on the errors learners make† (M.Gass Selinker, 2008). This analysis is almost the same with the weak version of CA which is comparing the errors which made by TL learners. However, EA is not evaluating the errors with TL native language (NL), but it compares with the TL. â€Å" Error analysis provides a broader range of possible explanations than contrastive analysis for researchers/teachers to use account for errors, as the latter only attributed errors to the native language† (M.Gass Selinker, 2008). I do agree with Gass and Selinker because as Corder (1967) says that by producing errors, it shows that the learners are progressing and participating. This statement is supported by the interlanguage theory, as according to Christina Gitsaki; â€Å"†¦interlanguage is seen as a kind of interim grammar gradually progressing towards the target language grammar† There are two categories of sources of errors which are interlingual and intralingual. Interlingual errors are kind of errors produced because of influence of the NL. Intralingual error happens when learners try to make a new rule for the target language. Example of interlingual error is, the word â€Å"rumah-rumah† in Malay Language can be said in English as â€Å"houses†. However, the learners would say as â€Å"house-house†. The TL learners mixed the lexical from the NL with the TL. Example of intralingual error is the word â€Å"telah† in Malay Language represents â€Å"was/were/had† in English. That is no doubt that a Malay learner would construct a sentence like this, â€Å"She were playing badminton† (wrong) â€Å"Dia telah bermain badminton† â€Å"She was playing badminton† (correct) The first sentence happens because there is no past tense marker in Malay language. So it becomes a problem for Malay learners since the TL and NL share different tenses. EA gives an important role because it makes the errors not as unwanted but as guidance to assess how the learners progress in TL. It also detects lots of errors, more than CA does. EA also recognizes the learners acknowledgement of language system. Besides, it also can categorized errors made by learners according to a system. However, EA is totally depends on errors made by learners. It is also cannot explain about what are classified as errors and non errors. In addition, EA as a mode of inquiry was limited in its scope and concentrated on what learners did wrong rather than on what made them successful (Larsen-Freeman, 1991). This shows that EA cannot cover lots of aspects since it is bounded by its range and errors are temptation for error analyzer. Statements a) There may be covert errors, A classic example from Corder (1981) is the German speaker who says â€Å"You must not take off your hat† when the intent is â€Å"You dont have to take off your hat†. In what sense is this error? In what sense it is not? According to Joachim Wagner (2007), James (1998) uses the term covert error to describe a genuine language error which results in a sentence which is syntactically well-formed under some interpretation different from the intended one. This means that there is no wrong about a dubious sentence but the understanding by both speaker and receiver are important. The statement â€Å"You must not take off your hat† is not wrong in the sense of German speaker but in English, the choice of the word or modal verb is wrong. The modal verb â€Å"must not† is not appropriate in this context. That modal verb means to prohibit or disallow the action of taking off the hat. The German speaker, literally, wants to say that the person does not have to take off his hat. However, instead of trying to convey a positive transfer sentence, the German speaker makes a negative transfer sentence. According to Jie (2008): â€Å"In the course of language learning, L1 learning habits will be transferred into L2 learning habits. Therefore, in the case of L1 transfer into L2, if structures in the MT have their corresponding structures in the TL and L1 habits can be successfully used in the L2, learners would transfer similar properties successfully and that would result in positive transfer. Contrastingly, in the case of negative transfer or interference, certain elements of the MT have no corresponding counterparts in the TL, L1 habits would cause errors in the L2, and learners would transfer inappropriate properties of L1† In other words, the German speaker forms a sentence in English, which has the same properties with the German language but unfortunately, the sentence is wrong in the sense of CA. Error in this statement can be referred to the L1 speaker. In Robert Lados words (1957:p.2): â€Å"The ‘fundamental assumption is transfer; ‘individuals tend to transfer the forms and meanings, and the distribution of forms and meanings of their native language and culture to the foreign language and culture†. I agree with Robert Lado since the German speaker tends to use direct translation if both languages properties are same to make a complete sentence. In this context, both German Language and English have the same grammatical order. For example, in German Language and English, the word order is subject + verb + other elements sentences. 1. er schlagt mir. (Subject) (Verb) (Other element) 2. He beats me. (Subject) (Verb) (Other element) Because of the structure similarity between German language and English, there is no syntax problem. Though, in the context of lexicon, the German speaker seems to confuse because in German language, there is no auxiliary verb â€Å"do†. German language only has â€Å"must† and the German speaker uses â€Å"must† as the word is quite similar to â€Å"do†, in his or her judgment. This error also happens to a Malay leaner. In Malay language, â€Å"tidak† is represented by â€Å"is not† and â€Å"do not†. For example, in Malay, the sentence, 1.â€Å"Dia tidak sempurna† (Subject) (Negation) (Predicate) Is written in English as 2.â€Å"He is not perfect† (Subject) (Negation) (Predicate) However, because of there are two negations that represent the word â€Å"tidak†, there is no doubt the sentence below, will be produced by Malay learners. 3. â€Å"He does not perfect† (Subject) (Negation) (Predicate) The first statement is logical but the second statement shows that errors and transferred inappropriate properties those made by TL learners because of the differences between the L1 and the TL. Clearly, the German speaker is struggling in choosing the right vocabulary although the error does not give an obvious picture of the difficulty. This is because, in his or her point of view, the usage of â€Å"must not† is correct even though the sentence has covert error. However, this justification cannot measure the degree of difficulty that the German speaker has. We cannot say that the German speaker is weak in English and not progressing. This error shows that the German speaker is in the process of improving his or her target language. From EA point of view, the German speaker made an intralingual error. The German speaker made an error in his or her sentence because of native language influence. He or she over generalizes the function of modal verb to make this sentence. Overgeneralization means â€Å"The introduction of a nonstandard or previously non-existent spelling or verb form when a speaker or writer makes an analogy to a regular spelling or a regular verb† (Wheeler, 2009) â€Å"You do not have to take off your hat†(correct sentence) â€Å"You must not take off your hat†(Over generalize the modal verb function) The German speaker believes that the statement is grammatically correct. The German speaker tries to simplify his or her task by employing this rule. He or she makes his or her own analogy by taking words that do not carry contrast for him or her. However, due to cross linguistic action, the modal verb being used is wrong, in terms of its function. In addition, this speaker seems that he or she does not master the function of the modal verb although the sentence is correct, literally. Besides, the German speaker does not know the correct modal verb in English to carry his or her intentional meaning. As a result, an ambiguous sentence has come out although the German speaker intention is to give suggestion. This also happens to Spanish learners. They would say 1. â€Å"He went to the market and buy a chicken† instead of 2. â€Å"He went to the market and bought a chicken†. They choose wrong tense and alter the word meaning. b. It might be more appropriate to talk about TL-behaviour. The fact that a learner has produced a correct form/sentence in a language does not necessarily mean that it is right. Target language like behavior from the grammatical point of view is happen when target language learners construct a sentence or a phrase because they have learnt the target language grammatical rules. However, the construction of sentence might or might not correct. As example, Malay learners would create a sentence like this â€Å"I eated the fruit† instead of â€Å"I ate the fruit†. From CA point of view, this error occurs because past tense is a new category for Malay learners. Although, the learners seem alert with the past tense rule which is -ed and subject verb agreement but they forget about past irregular form. They think that they have mastered the rules but they forgot about irregular verb rule. However, CA does not explain about the difficulty from the target language point of view. CA cannot give the correct degree of difficulty. Moreover, from the speakers perspective, they might think that the sentence is no wrong even with the covert error. So, we cannot say that the speakers are having difficulty to understand the rule since they can produce a correct form of sentence but with covert error. On the other hand, from error analysis point of view, a sentence like â€Å"You must not take off your hat† evens the intention of the speaker is â€Å"You do not have to take off your hat† is correct. The structure of the sentence is correct and there is no mistake produces. However, the meaning of the sentence is distorted. This is because, error analysis is totally depends on errors but not the usage of the sentence. Though, to the speaker perspective, this is a correct sentence since there is no grammatical mistake. On the other hand, the solidness of the first sentence makes the EA is useless to explain this sentence. So, even the sentence is wrong according to CAH, but it is consider as correct to EA. C.It is not always possible to provide a single explanation for interlanguage data. Interlanguage is the way the learner develops the target language knowledge. This term was produced by Selinker (1972) â€Å" Interlanguage refers to the structured system which learner constructs at any given stage in the development†. There are strategies apply by the learners to progress in target language such as transfer. Transfer is â€Å"Influence resulting from the similarities and differences between the target language and any other language that has been previously (and perhaps imperfectly) acquired (Ellis, 1997). Interlanguage is systematic and dynamic. Interlanguage is systematic because the rules are efficiently selected by the learners and the way the TL learners acquired TL is the same with native speaker acquires NL. Interlanguage is dynamic because the learners interlanguage is continuously shifting. The learners tend to make new rules in one context and so on. In addition, this process form the approach to study the way the target language acquires by the learner. Though, this strategy does not apply to the target language learner alone, they also depict the way the children learn their native language. For example, an English child might come out with non-English like sentence. English Like Non-English Like She came yesterday. She comed yesterday This happens because the children generalize the rules. It is possible to say that the children already acquired the rule of tenses but they failed to apply them in certain circumstances. This also happens to the target language learners. For example, problem in pluralizing word. English Like Non-English Like Singular-mouse Plural-mice Singular-mouse Plural-mouses The word â€Å"mice† is always forgotten as plural form of a mouse. Instead of saying â€Å"mice†, the target language learners who apply interlanguage generalization strategy would say â€Å"mouses†. This might occur because of L1 interference. For instance, in Malay Language, the word â€Å"mouse† is â€Å"tikus†. However, there is no such word as â€Å"mice† in Malay language. So, Malay learners would go for â€Å"mouses† instead of â€Å"mice†. From CA perspective, these examples show that the learners have difficulties in pluralizing because of differences between the L1 and the TL. However, the first example proves that the NL speaker can make the same mistake as the TL learners. CA can be used to analyze the second example but it is not valid for the first example. In addition, from EA point of view, the learners would find that they make errors. On the other hand, EA still does not give the correct view of learners linguistic behavior. The first example explains that errors made by NL speaker. This is because the child overused the rule of past tense. EA can help the child to progress in leaning the NL by classifying the errors. However, there is no clear path to understand about the child linguistic behavior because the child already knew the rule of regular verb tense but not irregular verb tense. The second example happens because of cross linguistic error. The learners have knowledge in plural rule but due to difference between languages and NL interference, the rule is generalized and error occurs. Conclusion As conclusion, both CAH and EA have their own strength and weaknesses. The analysis of the sentence is important in order to detect error or to notify the progress of the second language learners. However, CAH and EA cannot work alone. For the sake of the language learners, these analyses should be worked hand in hand in order to improve the quality of the target language learners.

A womans work is never done :: essays research papers

A woman's work is never done More and more women work outside and inside the home. The double demands shouldered by these women pose a threat to their physical health. Whether you are an overworked housewife or an exhausted working mother the chances are that you are always one step behind your schedule. No matter how hard women worked, they never ended up with clean homes. Housewives in these miserable circumstances often became hysterical cleaners. They wore their lives away in an endless round of scouring, scrubbing, and polishing. The increased strain in working women comes from the reality that they carry most of the child-rearing and household responsibilities. According to social trends (1996), women always or usually do the washing in 79 percent of cases and decide the menu 59 percent of the time. Picking up the children at school or doing grocery shopping are just a few of the many typical household-tasks a woman takes on every day. Why are most of these responsibilities borne by women? The historical role of women is part of the answer. Despite the fact that we know instinctively that caregiving is valuable and important work, it has gone largely unrecognized and unacknowledged because we take it for granted. In the past, many parents felt that school education for girls was a waste of time, "A woman's place is in the home" was the traditional view. In those days, housewives had a tough life and were completely dependent on the men for money. There was a lot of drudgery in their lives and the men didn't help with the household chores, it was "women's work". The housewife worked from dawn to dusk and there was a lot of truth in the old saying; "a woman's work is never done". However, women have made optimistical progress towards equality and their role in the society has been changed dramatically since the last century. Many women stepped out of their home and start to work at factories and offices. The number of working women with children has more than doubled in the past 50 years. While working conditions for women may have improved, there is a lack of appreciation for the notion that work for most women doesn't end at the door of a factory or office. Despite an increase of women's participation in the labour force, women's share of housework has hardly changed in 50 years.

Cultural Democracy

Cultural democracy – Summary This is the summary of the conference or debate between the two speakers Mr. Jerry Sambuaga and Mr. Lee Nathanael Santoso, discussing the topic of Cultural Democracy. The first topic that is discussed was on the ideal form of democracy. Mr. Jerry said that the ideal form of democracy is the one that prioritize freedom, to have liberalism implemented, which will eventually lead to individualism. In his opinion liberalism should be implemented in all aspects, such as in politics and economy.The examples of liberalism in politics are presidential election or parties, whereas the example of liberalism in economy is human rights. The freedom of speech, freedom to express opinions, since 1998, is the key to liberalism (direct democracy). On the other hand, when discussing the topic on the ideal form of democracy, Mr. Nathanael raises up the question â€Å"Whether democracy is universal or locally? † as his comeback. People now have human rights, t he right to choose what they think democracy is. He said that in Singapore the government plays a larger role compared than the role of freedom of speech (representative democracy).Mr. jerry said that democracy is invented in the west, and the democracy in Indonesia is still very fragile, there are aspects that have not yet been touched such as civil society, law enforcement, etc. There is a statement that Mr. Jerry gave that Mr. Nathanael also agrees on, and that is â€Å"Democracy is not a destination but a goal†. Mr. Nathanael added that democracy indeed is a mean or a goal, and the goal is not democracy but to make sure that every people have basic necessities (security, etc). Mr.Nathanael asked a rhetorical question, † which political system that can guarantee their country to be flexible enough to attain political grid lock? † From his point of view, Singapore is the closest one that has been able to achieve this. The second topic that the moderator discusse d was, â€Å"Should a country this big (Indonesia) use a federal system or a unitary system? † Mr. Nathanael said that our country should adopt a mix of the two systems. From Mr. jerry's point of view, Indonesia should use a federal system, because Indonesia is very diverse, if we force something it can cause damages. Mr. Nathanael debated Mr.Jerry's statement by saying that Singapore also has diversity, but they know how to harmonized the different point of views, opinions, etc. He said, â€Å"Minorities and other ethnicity receive the right to take part, to give a voice. † Mr. Jerry debated Mr. Nathanael’s statement by saying that Singapore has an oppressive or an authoritarian system, instead of having a freedom of speech. â€Å"Singapore has a good system but can it last with that system? Indonesia may not yet be successful now, but with the existence of liberty, and opportunity given for people to be able to govern, may lead Indonesia to become a developed country. Mr. Nathanael debated Mr. Jerry’s statement saying, â€Å"The authoritarian system in Singapore is different compared to China, in Singapore the law is clear, you can have a say on criticizing the government, but you must have facts to support it. Mr. Jerry’s opinion is that our country is best suited with having a little number parties, because a large number of parties slows down decision making, and does nut suit the presidential system. While Mr. Nathanael said that democracy is not about political parties, part of government,  it is about achieving national interests.He said that, â€Å"only the parties with money that can win (in indo), but in Singapore if you have a good vision you will be heard†. â€Å"Should democracy control freedom? † Mr. Jerry said that one’s freedom of expression could violate another's freedom of expression. Freedom should be controlled but not limited. Democracy may not be the best system, but it is stil l better to educate the people to participate. He added, â€Å"Freedom of rights of Singapore must be developed. † Mr. Nathanael commented, â€Å"Singapore are convinced that this is the system for them, the issue is Singapore’s system should be more relevant. Singapore’s human rights can’t be compared with Indonesia’s priority of economic prosperity. Cultural Democracy Critical Analysis Cultural Democracy is the term for a philosophy or policy emphasizing pluralism, participation, and equity within and between cultures. Which consists of a set of related commitments such as, protecting and promoting cultural diversity, and the right to culture for everyone in our society and around the world;? encouraging active participation in community cultural life;? enabling people to participate in policy decisions that affect the quality of our cultural lives; and ? ssuring fair and equitable access to cultural resources and support. There are three basic types of democracy: Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented, and Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by representatives as opposed to a ‘presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters.In my opinion, I think the ideal form of democracy should be the one where liberalism is highly considered, but where there is also a balance in government involvement. Because, as the people, we know what our country needs most, but with the diversity that our country possess, and with the different opinions that people have, there should be a representative democracy that can represent the people and chooses the best decisions for the people and the country. Should democracy control freedom?I think that freedom is both a positive and a negative think, if not controlled properly. People have different opinions, and if all of them have the freedom of speech, then there will be a moment where their freedom of expression will clash with others’ freedom of expression. That is why that freedom should also be controlled to a point of degree where people would still have the freedom of speech. The main reason why Indonesia has not been able to reach its full potential is because we have weak institutions, hence weak democracy.Indonesia should learn the complexity that is democracy, the many aspects that is consists of such as  legal certainty, transparency, freedom, etc. The one thing that Indonesia should be able to do to improve as a country is by knowing how to prioritize. Of course, in democracy alone there are many aspects that it consists of, and to manage this by knowing which to prioritize first, to the extent where all the aspects will be covered one by one. Indonesia should be consistent in following or running a liberal system.Of course, there are processes that need to be done; we need to fight for the freedom of the economy. The best solution is to have a modification based on the aspiration of the people. We should be able to learn, and adopt all the good elements that each country possesses, mix them up and implement them as our democratic system. By: Pamela Lemmuela (04320120057) FISIP/HI/2012 RESEARCH : ? Democracy? From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A woman casts her vote in the second round of the French presidential election of 2007 Part of the Politics series|Democracy| History  Ã‚ · Outline| Basic forms| * Direct * Representative| Variants| * Anticipatory * Consensus * Deliberative * Demarchy * Economic * Electronic * Grassroots * Illiberal * Inclusive * Liberal * Non-partisan * Ochlocracy * Participatory * Radical * Religious * Representative direct * Sociocracy * Soviet * Totalitarian * Other| Politics portal| * v t e| Part of the Polit ics series| Basic forms ofgovernment| Power structure| * Confederal * Federal * Hegemony * Imperial * Unitary| Power source| Democracy * Direct * Representative * Other * Monarchy * Absolute * Constitutional * Oligarchy * Aristocracy * Meritocracy * Military junta * Plutocracy * Stratocracy * Technocracy * Timocracy * Other * Anarchy * Authoritarianism * Autocracy * Anocracy * Despotism * Dictatorship * Kritarchy * Republic * Theocracy * Totalitarianism| List of forms of government| Politics portal| * v t e|Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. The term originates from the Greek (demokratia) â€Å"rule of th e people†,[1] which was coined from demos) â€Å"people† and (kratos) â€Å"power† in the 5th century BCE to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to â€Å"rule of an elite†. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents. A democratic government contrasts to forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy or aristocracy.Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution. [2] Several variants of democracy exist, but there ar e two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of citizens executes its will. One form of emocracy is direct democracy, in which citizens have direct and active participation in the decision making of the government. In most modern democracies, the whole body of citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called representative democracy. The concept of representative democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European Middle Ages, the Age of Enlightenment, and the American and French Revolutions. [3] Contents   [hide]   * 1 Definition * 2 History * 2. Ancient origins * 2. 2 Middle Ages * 2. 3 Modern era * 3 Countries * 4 Types * 4. 1 Basic forms * 4. 2 Variants * 4. 3 Non-governmental * 5 Theory * 5. 1 Aristotle * 5. 2 Rationale * 5. 3 Ideal forms * 5. 4 Practice * 5. 5 Criticism * 6 Development * 7 See also * 8 References * 9 External links| [edit] Defini tion While there is no universally accepted definition of â€Å"democracy,†[4] equality and freedom have both been identified as important characteristics of democracy since ancient times. 5] These principles are reflected in all citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are generally protected by a constitution. [6][7] One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: 1) upward control, i. e. overeignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, 2) political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality. [8] The term â€Å"democracy† is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and lements of civil society outside the government. [citation needed] In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty (while maintaining judicial independence). [citation needed] In other cases, â€Å"democracy† is used to mean direct democracy. Though the term â€Å"democracy† is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private organizations. Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. by whom? ] Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the â₠¬Å"tyranny of the majority† in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an â€Å"ideal† representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively[9] and procedurally. [10] Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential rights that allow citizens to be adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests. 11][12] It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of individuals to participate freely and fully in the life of their society. [13] With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the people, democracy can also be characterized as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. [14] While democracy is often equated with the republic an form of government, the term â€Å"republic† classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies. 15][16] [edit] History Main article: History of democracy [edit] Ancient origins See also: Athenian democracy Cleisthenes, â€Å"father of Athenian democracy†, modern bust. The term â€Å"democracy† first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens. [17][18] Led by Cleisthenes, Athenians established what is generally held as the first democracy in 508-507 BCE. Cleisthenes is referred to as â€Å"the father of Athenian democracy. [19] Athenian democracy took the form of a direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing features: the random selection of ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices,[20] and a legislative assembly consisting of all Athenian citizens. [21] All citizens were eligible to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city st ate. However, Athenian citizenship excluded women, slaves, foreigners ( metoikoi), and males under 20 years old. [citation needed] Of the estimated 200,000 to 400,000 inhabitants of Athens, there were between 30,000 and 60,000 citizens. citation needed] The exclusion of large parts of the population from the citizen body is closely related to the ancient understanding of citizenship. In most of antiquity the benefit of citizenship was tied to the obligation to fight war campaigns. [citation needed] Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also directest in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were involved constantly in the public business. 22] Even though the rights of the individual were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the ancient Greeks had no word for â€Å"rights†[23]), the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government but by living in a city that was not subject to another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person. [24] Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to certain aspects of democracy, only a minority of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for representatives.The votes of the powerful were given more weight through a system of gerrymandering, so most high officials, including members of the Senate, came from a few wealthy and noble families. [25] However, many notable exceptions did occur. [citation needed] [edit] Middle Ages During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small amount of the population, the election of Gopala in Bengal region of Indian Subcontinent (within a aste system), the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (10% of population), the Althing in Iceland, the Logting in the Faero e Islands, certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland, the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia, Scandinavian Things, The States in Tirol and Switzerland and the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan. However, participation was often restricted to a minority, and so may be better classified as oligarchy.Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords. The Kouroukan Fouga divided the Mali Empire into ruling clans (lineages) that were represented at a great assembly called the Gbara. However, the charter made Mali more similar to a constitutional monarchy than a democratic republic. A little closer to modern democracy were the Cossack republics of Ukraine in the 16th–17th centuries: Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhian Sich. The highest post – the Hetman – was elected by the representatives from the country's districts.Magna Carta, 1215, England The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta, which explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects, whether free or fettered – and implicitly supported what became English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with right to appeal. The first elected parliament was De Montfort's Parliament in England in 1265.However only a small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few percent of the population, (less than 3% as late as 1780[26]), and the power to call parliament was at the pleasure of the monarch (usually when he or she needed funds). The power of Parliament increased in stages over the succeeding centuries. After the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the English Bill of Rights of 1689 was enacted, which codified certain rights and increased the influence of Parliament. 26] The franchise was slowly increased and Parliament gradually gaine d more power until the monarch became largely a figurehead. [27] As the franchise was increased, it also was made more uniform, as many so-called rotten boroughs, with a handful of voters electing a Member of Parliament, were eliminated in the Reform Act of 1832. In North America, the English Puritans who migrated from 1620 established colonies in New England whose governance was democratic and which contributed to the democratic development of the United States. 28] [edit] Modern era [edit] 18th and 19th centuries The first nation in modern history to adopt a democratic constitution was the short-lived Corsican Republic in 1755. This Corsican Constitution was the first based on Enlightenment principles and even allowed for female suffrage, something that was granted in other democracies only by the 20th century. In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by all males in 1792. [29]The establishment of universal male suffrage in France in 1848 was an important milestone in the history of democracy. Universal male suffrage was definitely established in France in March 1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848. [30] In 1848, several revolutions broke out in Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government. [31] Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers, the United States founders also shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principle of natural freedom and equality. 32] The United States Constitution, adopted in 1788, provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties for some. In the colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, often only adult white male property owners could vote; enslaved Africans, most free black people and most women were not extended the franchise. On the American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with widespread social, economic and political equality. 33] However, slavery was a social and economic institution, particularly in eleven states in the American South, such that a variety of organizations were established advocating the movement of black people from the United States to locations where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality. In the 1860 United States Census the slave population in the United States had grown to four million,[34] and in Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s) the newly freed slaves became citizens with (in the case of men) a nominal right to vote.Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955–1968) gained passage by the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. [35][36] [edit] 20th and 21st centuries The number of nations 1800–2003 scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV scale, another widely used measure of democracy. 20th cent ury transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive â€Å"waves of democracy,† variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, religious and economic circumstances.World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states from Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic. In the 1920s democracy flourished, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment, and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. 37] World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[38]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the la ter theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany fell into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. India emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so. 39] By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally democracies, although most of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies. ) A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain, Portugal (1974), and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and Chile in the early 1990s).This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid-to-late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of Soviet oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalization of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union. Some researchers consider that contemporary Russia is not a true democracy and instead resembles a form of dictatorship. 40] The Economist's Democracy Index as published in December 2011, with greener colours representing more democratic countries and clearly authoritarian countries in dark red. The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of liberalization include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972). [41] According to World Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58. 2 percent of the world's population. At the same time liberal democracies i. e. countries Freedom House regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 percent of the global population. [42] In 2010 the United Nations declared September 15 the International Day of Democracy. 43] [edit] Countries The following countries are categorized by the Democracy Index 2011 as Full democracy:[44] 1. Norway? 2. Iceland? 3. Denmark? 4. Sweden? 5. New Zealand   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  | 6. Australia? 7. Switzerland? 8. Canada? 9. Finland? 10. Netherlands   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã ‚  | 11. Luxembourg   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  ? 12. Ireland? 13. Austria? 14. Germany? 15. Malta| 16. Czech Republic   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  ? 17. Uruguay? 18. United Kingdom? 19. United States? 20. Costa Rica| 21. Japan? 22. South Korea? 23. Belgium? 24. Mauritius? 25.Spain| The Index assigns 53 countries to the next category, Flawed democracy: Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malaysia, Mali, India, Mexico, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Namibia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Zambia[44] [edit]Types See also: List of types of democracy Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others. [45][46] However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy. 47][48][49] World's states colored by form of government as of 20111 Presidential republics2|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Semi-presidential republics2|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Parliamentary republics2|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Single-party republics|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Parliamentary constitutional monarchies|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Absolute monarchies|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Military dictatorships|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Parliamentary constitutional monarchies in which the monarch personally exercises power|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Republics with an executive president dependent on a parliament|   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Countries which do not fit any of the above systems| | This map was complied according to the Wikipedia list of countries by system of government. See there for sources. 2Several states constitutionally deemed to be multiparty republics are broadly described by outsiders as authoritarian states. This map presents only the de jure form of government, and not the de facto degree of democracy. The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system. [edit] Basic forms [edit] DirectMain article: Direct democracy Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to: Landsgemeinde of the canton of Appenzell Innerr hoden, example for direct democracy in Switzerland 1. Change constitutional laws, 2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws, 3.Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise. Of the three measures mentioned, most operate in developed democracies today. This is part of a gradual shift towards direct democracies. Elements of direct democracy exist on a local level in many countries, though these systems often coexist with representative assemblies. Usually, this includes equal (and more or less direct) participation in the proposal, development and passage of legislation into law. [14] [edit]Representative Main article: Representative democracy Representative democracy involves the selection of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic. [50] The most c ommon mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate through proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two.Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so. [edit] Parliamentary Main article: Parliamentary system Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by representatives as opposed to a ‘presidential rule' wherein the President is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters.Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegat ion to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people. [51][52][53][54][55] Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the Prime Minister from office by a majority support for his or her dismissal. 56] In some countries, the Prime Minister can also call an election whenever he or she so chooses, and typically the Prime Minister will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favor with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary democracies extra elections are virtually never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. [edit] Presidential Main article: Presidential system Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections.The president serves as both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. Elections typically have a fixed date and aren’t easily changed. The president has direct control over the cabinet, the members of which are specifically appointed by the president himself. [56] The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature, but he or she cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily.This provides some measure of separation of powers. In consequence however, the president and the legislature may end up in the control of separate parties, allowing one to block the other and thereby interfere with the orderly operation of the state. This may be the reason why presidential democracy is not very common outside the Americas. [56] A semi-presidential system is a system of demo cracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. The particular powers held by the prime minister and president vary by country. 56] [edit] Constitutional Main article: Constitutional democracy A constitutional democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution that emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).In a constitutional democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can â€Å"vote with their feet† or â€Å"vote with their dollars†, resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many â€Å"powers† associated with formal government elsewhere. [edit] Hybrid Some modern democracies that are predominately representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political action that are directly democratic.These democracies, which combine elements of representative democracy and direct democracy, are termed hybrid democracies[57] or semi-direct democracies. Examples include Switzerland and some U. S. states, where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives. Although managed by a representative legislative body, Switzerland allows for initiatives and referendums at both the local and federal levels. In the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been put to referendum.The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government. [citation needed] In the United States, no mechanisms of direct democrac y exists at the federal level, but over half of the states and many localities provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called â€Å"ballot measures†, â€Å"ballot questions† or â€Å"propositions†), and the vast majority of states allow for referendums.Examples include the extensive use of referendums in the US state of California, which is a state that has more than 20 million voters. [58] In New England Town meetings are often used, especially in rural areas, to manage local government. This creates a hybrid form of government, with a local direct democracy and a state government which is representative. For example, most Vermont towns hold annual town meetings in March in which town officers are elected, budgets for the town and schools are voted on, and citizens have an opportunity to speak and by heard on political matters. 59] [edit] Variants [edit] Republic Main article: Republicanism In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a go vernment chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. [60] The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister. 61] The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very struc ture.What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[62] was that the government be â€Å"bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend. † As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U. S. constitution, a woman asked him â€Å"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy? â€Å". He replied â€Å"A republic—if you can keep it. â€Å"[63] Queen Elizabeth II, a constitutional monarch. [edit] Constitutional monarchy Main article: constitutional monarchyInitially after the American and French revolutions, the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked majority rule, should have an elite upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (as Britain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan) turned powerful mon archs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles.Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). Many nations had elite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful (as in the United States). [edit] Socialist Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples.Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy. Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called â€Å"liberal democracy†, which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented through a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets).This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism) Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians. —Che Guevara,  Speech, Uruguay, 1961[64] [edit] Anarchist Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not. The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy.Pierre-Joseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognized that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous. [65] However, anar cho-communist Murray Bookchin criticized individualist anarchists for opposing democracy,[66] and says â€Å"majority rule† is consistent with anarchism. [67] Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favour of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy. 68] Henry David Thoreau, who did not self-identify as an anarchist but argued for â€Å"a better government†[69] and is cited as an inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should not be in the position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no consent. [edit] Demarchy Main article: Demarchy Sometimes called â€Å"democracy without elections†, demarchy uses sortition to choose decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impart ial than an elected official.The technique was in widespread use in Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection. [edit] Consensus Main article: Consensus democracy Consensus democracy requires varying degrees of consensus rather than just a mere democratic majority. It typically attempts to protect minority rights from domination by majority rule. [edit] Supranational Qualified majority voting is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of Ministers. This system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favour of the smaller states.This might be seen as a form of representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected. Some might consider the â€Å"individuals† being democratically represented to be states rather than people, as with many others. European Parliament members are democraticall y directly elected on the basis of universal suffrage, may be seen as an example of a supranational democratic institution. [edit] Non-governmental Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mechanisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of communities and organizations.Many non-governmental organizations decide policy and leadership by voting. Most trade unions and cooperatives are governed by democratic elections. Corporations are controlled by shareholders on the principle of one share, one vote. [edit] Theory A marble statue of Aristotle. [edit] Aristotle Aristotle contrasted rule by the many (democracy/polity), with rule by the few (oligarchy/aristocracy), and with rule by a single person (tyranny or today autocracy/monarchy). He also thought that there was a good and a bad variant of each system (he considered democracy to be the degenerate counterpart to polity). 70][71] For Aristotle the underlying principle of democracy is freedom, since only in a democracy the citizens can have a share in freedom. In essence, he argues that this is what every democracy should make its aim. There are two main aspects of freedom: being ruled and ruling in turn, since everyone is equal according to number, not merit, and to be able to live as one pleases. But one factor of liberty is to govern and be governed in turn; for the popular principle of justice is to have equality according to number, not worth, †¦.And one is for a man to live as he likes; for they say that this is the function of liberty, inasmuch as to live not as one likes is the life of a man that is a slave. —Aristotle,  Politics 1317b (Book 6, Part II) [edit] Rationale Among modern political theorists, there are three contending conceptions of the fundamental rationale for democracy: aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy, and radical democracy. [72] [edit] Aggregative The theory of aggregative democracy claims that the aim of the de mocratic processes is to solicit citizens’ preferences and aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt.Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on voting, where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. Under minimalism, democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception, citizens cannot and should not â€Å"rule† because, for example, on most issues, most of the time, they have no clear views or their views are not well-founded.Joseph Schumpeter articulated this view most famously in his book Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. [73] Contemporary proponents of minimalism include William H. Riker, Adam Przeworski, Richard Posner. According to the theory of direct democracy, on the other hand, citizens should vot e directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites.Most importantly, citizens do not really rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies. Governments will tend to produce laws and policies that are close to the views of the median voter– with half to his left and the other half to his right. This is not actually a desirable outcome as it represents the action of self-interested and somewhat unaccountable political elites competing for votes. Anthony Downs suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individual and governments.Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book An Economic Theory of Democracy. [74] Robert A. Dahl argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term polyarchy to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy.First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open elections which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation. [75] Some[who? ] see a problem with the wealthy having more influence and therefore argue for reforms like campaign finance reform. Some[who? ] may see it as a problem that only voters decide policy, as opposed to a majority rule of the entire population.This can be used a s an argument for making political participation mandatory, like compulsory voting or for making it more patient (non-compulsory) by simply refusing power to the government until the full majority feels inclined to speak their minds. [edit] Deliberative Deliberative democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by deliberation. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregration of preferences that occurs in voting.Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups. [76][77][78] If the decision-makers cannot reach consensus after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule. [edit] Radical Radical democracy is based o n the idea that there are hierarchical and oppressive power relations that exist in society.Democracy's role is to make visible and challenge those relations by allowing for difference, dissent and antagonisms in decision making processes. [edit] Ideal forms [edit] Inclusive Main article: Inclusive Democracy Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy in all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of face-to-face assemblies which are confederated, economic democracy in a stateless, moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i. . self-management in places of work and education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in â€Å"Towards An Inclusive Democracy† and was further developed in the journal Democracy & Nature and its successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. The basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy is the demotic assembly, i. e. he assembly of demos, the citizen body in a given geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding villages, or even neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy today can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is based on a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies in the various demoi. Thus, their role is purely administrative and practical, not one of policy-making like that of representatives in representative democracy.The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker . Authority can be delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties, for example to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and confederal councils. Such delegation is made, in prin ciple, by lot, on a rotation basis, and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates to regional and confederal bodies should have specific mandates. [edit]

Predictions about Global Capitalism and the Rise of the BRIC Powers as Challengers to the United States The WritePass Journal

Predictions about Global Capitalism and the Rise of the BRIC Powers as Challengers to the United States ABSTRACT Predictions about Global Capitalism and the Rise of the BRIC Powers as Challengers to the United States ABSTRACTRealism, Security and Global CapitalismConclusions about the Future Multipolar World OrderREFERENCESRelated ABSTRACT In this proposal, what I really want to do is predict what role the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, China, and India) will play in the international system over the next century based mostly on secondary sources.   It is based on realist premises that in the decades ahead the international system will continue to be in a state of ‘anarchy’.   Economically, China and India alone are likely to surpass the U.S. economically by 2050, although they are also likely to become rivals in Asia rather than allies.   I think that the world system will continue to evolve into an increasingly multipolar direction, with the Great Powers seeking a balance in the Asia-Pacific region.   This region is rapidly becoming the new centre of global capitalism, and the future strategic (and of course the economic) balance of power will be decided there. My main research question is really an attempt to predict the role the BRIC countries will play in the international capitalist system over the next century, relying mainly on secondary sources. I have provided a list of these in the references and will refer to them in this proposal at least insofar as attempting to explain the main ideas I derived from them for making my predictions.   Obviously this thesis will have to combine theories of realism and global capitalism, and address economics and security.   Economically, I do think that the BRIC countries of Brazil, China, India and Russia are likely to surpass the U.S. by 2050, but I am also of the opinion that the post-1945 international system in which the U.S. was the hegemonic capitalist power has been in decline for quite some time.   China alone is already on track to surpass the U.S. and the European Union in overall GNP and GDP by 2050, if not GDP per capita, and India will probably not be far behind (Ikenberry 2008) .   Of all the Asian states, only India is has the potential to attain great power status in the 21st Century that will rival the Chinese (Ganguly and Pordesi. 2007 and Dickson 2007). Realism, Security and Global Capitalism I am not going to assert that global capitalism will suffer a major breakdown and collapse or that any of the great powers will break with the system and set up independent economic blocs.   For the last thirty years, though, capitalism has meant the free trade and laissez faire system of the Washington Consensus, which of course is hardly a new ideology (Friedman 2005).   These 19th Century ideas may have been discredited by the recent depression, making the more authoritarian capitalist models of Russia and China more appealing that than neoliberalism. Neither Russia nor China are really likely to become democracies, but will continue to have authoritarian governments with capitalist economic systems (Dickson 2005).   I am also sceptical of the theory that the capitalist system necessarily becomes more liberal or democratic with higher levels of economic development, since history shows that capitalism can function well enough under authoritarian regimes, as in Russia and Chi na (Olson 1993).   All the BRIC nations will remain strongly tied to the global capitalist system, but they will also have to address their own internal problems of extreme poverty and mal-distribution of wealth (World Bank 2011).   Global capitalism will therefore continue to expand in this century, along with the new developments in computers, robots, biotechnology, genetic engineering and communications technology that have fuelled its rise all along (Ohmae 2005). I do not expect that there will be any serious alternative to global capitalism in the foreseeable future, although that system can operate in many forms, whether liberal, fascist, laissez faire or social democratic.   As recent events have shown yet again, the more unregulated and free market types of capitalism are far too prone to instability, speculative booms and crashes (Hetzel 2008).   This is one reason why 21st Century capitalism may turn out to resemble the Keynesian and social democratic type that was dominant in 1945-70 rather than the 19th Century laissez faire version (Skidelsky 2010 and Clarke 2009).   Unregulated, laissez faire capitalism on a global scale also has too many features of injustice, exploitation and inequality to ever become a truly popular system (Klein 2009, Scheper-Hughes 2005, Shiva 2004, and Shiva and Hulla-Bhar 2004). Conclusions about the Future Multipolar World Order I predict that the international order will increasingly become multipolar, and that the democratic capitalist countries (the U.S., India and Brazil) may form a bloc against the authoritarian capitalist states of Russia and China. I also believe that in practice, BRIC really means China, India and Brazil since Russia is also a declining power whose main function is to supply oil and other raw materials (Ikenberry 2008).  Ã‚   I will not predict that the multipolar system will inevitably lead to another world war, especially given that three of the BRIC countries are already declared nuclear powers.   I doubt that any confrontations between the major players in Asia will result in another world war, or even in a revival of the Cold War, and for the sake of the world it would be much better for all concerned to avert a major conflict between nuclear-armed states.   There are also obstacles to the rise of China and India to possible superpower status, just as the relative or absol ute decline of the United States is not inevitable (Varshney 2007). To the extent that nation-states still have the power to decide these matters, and the current recession indicates that states still retain considerable autonomy in economic policy rather than simply existing as the playthings of capitalists and ‘the markets’, they will not choose the type of capitalism that seems most vulnerable to severe recessions and depressions that have a negative impact on all countries in the world system (Li 2010).     In time, a global capitalist class is bound to develop and along with it new international institutions that will replace the current ‘anarchy’ of the world system and all the classical Great Power rivalries.   There are already signs that this is occurring, but it seems highly unlikely that the process will be completed in the foreseeable future (Appelrouth and Edles 2011). REFERENCES Appelrouth, S. and L.D. Edles 2011. Sociological Theory in the Contemporary Era: Text and Readings, 2nd Edition. SAGE Publications. Friedman, T. L. 2005. â€Å"It’s a Flat World, After All†. New York Times Magazine, April 3, 2005, pp. 33-37. Clarke, P. 2009. Keynes: The Rise, Fall and Return of the 20th Century’s Most Influential Economist. Bloomsbury Press. Dickson, B. J. 2007. â€Å"The Party is far from Over†. Current History (September 2007), pp. 243-45. Ganguly, S. and M. S. Pordesi. 2007. â€Å"India Rising: What is New Dehli to Do? World Policy Journal (Spring 2007), pp. 9-18. Hetzel, R. L. 2008. The Monetary Policy of the Federal Reserve: A History. Cambridge University Press. Ikenberry, J. G. 2008. â€Å"The Rise of China and the Future of the West: Can the Liberal System Survive?† Foreign Affairs, Vol. 87, No. 1 (January/February 2008), pp. 1-9. Klein, N. 2009. No Logo. Vintage Canada. Li, Minqi 2010. â€Å"The End of the ‘End of History’: The Structural Crisis of Capitalism and the Fate of Humanity†. Science Society, Vol. 74, No. 3 (July 2010), pp. 290-305. Olson, M. 1993. â€Å"Dictatorship, Democracy and Development†. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3 (September 1993), pp. 567-76. Ohmae, K. 2005. The Next Global Stage: Challenges and Opportunities in our Borderless World. Pearson-Prentice Hall. Scheper-Hughes, N. 2005. The Last Commodity: Post-Human Ethics and the Global Traffic in ‘Fresh’ Organs† in A. Ong and S.J. Collier, eds. Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems. London: Blackwell Publishers, 2005: 145-67. Shiva, V. 2004. â€Å"Biotechnological Development and the Conservation of Biodiversity† in A. Abbas and J.N. Erni (eds). Internationalizing Cultural Studies: An Anthology. Blackwell Publishing, 2004: 30-42. Shiva, V. and R. Hulla-Bhar 2004. â€Å"Piracy by Patent: The Loss of the Neem Tree† in Abbas and Erni, 2004: 146-59. Skidelsky, R. 2010. Keynes: The Return of the Master. Perseus Books Group. Trompenaars, F. and C. Hamden-Turner 2010. Riding the Waves of Innovation: Harnessing the Power of Global Culture to Drive Creativity and Growth.   McGraw-Hill. Varshney, Ashutush 2007.. â€Å"India’s Democratic Challenge†. Foreign Affairs, March/April 2007: 1-9. Virilio, P. 2005. The Information Bomb. London: Verso, 2005. World Bank 2001. Inequality in Focus: An Overview of Global Income Inequality.

Women in Congress - List of US Congresswomen

Women in Congress - List of US Congresswomen More than 200 women have served in the United States House of Representatives. From 1789 to 1916, the House was all - male. Following is an index of the women whove been Representatives - sometimes called Congresswomen or Congressmen - beginning with the first in 1917. They are listed by the year they first took office. Jeannette Rankin Republican - MontanaServed: 1917 - 1919, 1941 - 1943 About Jeannette RankinCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Alice Mary Robertson Republican - OklahomaServed: 1921 - 1923 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Winnifred S. Huck Republican - IllinoisServed: 1922 - 1923 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Mae Ella Nolan Republican - CaliforniaServed: 1923 - 1925 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Florence P. Kahn Republican - CaliforniaServed: 1925 - 1937 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Mary T. Norton Democrat - New JerseyServed: 1925 - 1951 Mary Norton QuoteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Edith Nourse Rogers Republican - MassachusettsServed: 1925 - 1960 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Katherine Gudger Langley Republican - KentuckyServed: 1927 - 1931 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ruth Hanna McCormick Republican - IllinoisServed: 1929 - 1931 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Pearl Oldfield Democrat - ArkansasServed: 1929 - 1931 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ruth Bryan Owen Democrat - FloridaServed: 1929 - 1933 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ruth Sears Pratt Republican - New YorkServed: 1929 - 1933 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Effiegene Locke Wingo Democrat - ArkansasServed: 1930 - 1933 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Willa McCord Blake Eslick Democrat - TennesseeServed: 1932 - 1933 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marian Williams Clarke Republican - New YorkServed: 1933 - 1935 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Kathryn OLoughlin McCarthy Democrat - KansasServed: 1933 - 1935 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Isabella S. Greenway Democrat - ArizonaServed: 1933 - 1937 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Virginia Ellis Jenckes Democrat - IndianaServed: 1933 - 1939 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Caroline ODay Democrat - New YorkServed: 1935 - 1943 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Nan Wood Honeyman Democrat - OregonServed: 1937 - 1939 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Elizabeth H. Gasque Democrat - South CarolinaServed: 1938 - 1939 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Clara G. McMillan Democrat - South CarolinaServed: 1939 - 1941 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jessie Sumner Republican - IllinoisServed: 1939 - 1947 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Florence Reville Gibbs Democrat - GeorgiaServed: 1940 - 1941 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Margaret Chase Smith Republican - MaineServed: 1940 - 1949 Margaret Chase Smith QuotesCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Frances Payne Bolton Republican - OhioServed: 1940 - 1969 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Katharine Edgar Byron Democrat - MarylandServed: 1941 - 1943 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Veronica Grace Boland Democrat - PennsylvaniaServed: 1942 - 1943 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Winifred Claire Stanley Republican - New YorkServed: 1943 - 1945 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Clare Boothe Luce Republican - ConnecticutServed: 1943 - 1947 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Willa Lybrand Fulmer Democrat - South CarolinaServed: 1944 - 1945 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Emily Taft Douglas Democrat - IllinoisServed: 1945 - 1947 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Chase Going Woodhouse Democrat - ConnecticutServed: 1945 - 1947, 1949 - 1951 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Helen Gahagan Douglas Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1945 - 1951 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Helen Douglas Mankin Democrat - GeorgiaServed: 1946 - 1947 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Eliza Jane Pratt Democrat - North CarolinaServed: 1946 - 1947 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Georgia Lee Lusk Democrat - New MexicoServed: 1947 - 1949 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Katharine St. George Republican - New YorkServed: 1947 - 1965 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Reva Beck Bosone Democrat - UtahServed: 1949 - 1953 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Cecil Murray Harden Republican - IndianaServed: 1949 - 1959 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Edna Flannery Kelly Democrat - New YorkServed: 1949 - 1969 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Vera Daerr Buchanan Democrat - PennsylvaniaServed: 1951 - 1955 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ruth Thompson Republican - MichiganServed: 1951 - 1957 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marguerite Stitt Church Republican - IllinoisServed: 1951 - 1963 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Maude Elizabeth Kee Democrat - West VirginiaServed: 1951 - 1965 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Gracie Bowers Pfost Democrat - IdahoServed: 1953 - 1963 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Leonor K. Sullivan Democrat - MissouriServed: 1953 - 1977 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Mary E. (Betty) Farrington Republican - HawaiiServed: 1954 - 1957 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Coya Knutson Democrat - MinnesotaServed: 1955 - 1959 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Iris Faircloth Blitch Democrat - GeorgiaServed: 1955 - 1963 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Edith Starrett Green Democrat - OregonServed: 1955 - 1974 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Martha Wright Griffiths Democrat - MichiganServed: 1955 - 1974 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Kathryn E. Granahan Democrat - PennsylvaniaServed: 1956 - 1963 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Florence P. Dwyer Republican - New JerseyServed: 1957 - 1973 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Edna O. Simpson Republican - IllinoisServed: 1959 - 1961 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jessica McCullough Weis Republican - New YorkServed: 1959 - 1963 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Catherine Dean May Republican - WashingtonServed: 1959 - 1971 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Julia Butler Hansen Democrat - WashingtonServed: 1960 - 1974 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Catherine D. Norrell Democrat - ArkansasServed: 1961 - 1963 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Louise G. Reece Republican - TennesseeServed: 1961 - 1963 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Corinne Boyd Riley Democrat - South CarolinaServed: 1962 - 1963 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Charlotte T. Reid Republican - IllinoisServed: 1963 - 1971 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Irene Bailey Baker Republican - TennesseeServed: 1964 - 1965 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Patsy T. Mink Democrat - HawaiiServed: 1965 - 1977, 1990 - 2002 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Lera Millard Thomas Democrat - TexasServed: 1966 - 1967 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Margaret M. Heckler Republican - MassachusettsServed: 1967 - 1983 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Shirley Anita Chisholm Democrat - New YorkServed: 1969 - 1983 About Shirley ChisholmShirley Chisholm QuotesCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Louise Day Hicks Democrat - MassachusettsServed: 1971 - 1973 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ella Tambussi Grasso Democrat - ConnecticutServed: 1971 - 1975 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Bella Savitzky Abzug Democrat - New YorkServed: 1971 - 1977 About Bella AbzugBella Abzug QuotesCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Elizabeth Bullock Andrews Democrat - AlabamaServed: 1972 - 1973 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Yvonne Brathwaite Burke Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1973 - 1979 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Barbara Jordan Democrat - TexasServed: 1973 - 1979 About Barbara JordanBarbara Jordan QuotesCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Elizabeth Holtzman Democrat - New YorkServed: 1973 - 1981 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marjorie Sewell Holt Republican - MarylandServed: 1973 - 1987 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Corinne Claiborne (Lindy) Boggs Democrat - LouisianaServed: 1973 - 1991 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Cardiss Collins Democrat - IllinoisServed: 1973 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Patricia S. Schroeder Democrat - ColoradoServed: 1973 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Martha Elizabeth Keys Democrat - KansasServed: 1975 - 1979 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Helen Stevenson Meyner Democrat - New JerseyServed: 1975 - 1979 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Shirley N. Pettis Republican - CaliforniaServed: 1975 - 1979 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Gladys Noon Spellman Democrat - MarylandServed: 1975 - 1981 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Millicent Fenwick Republican - New JerseyServed: 1975 - 1983 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Virginia Dodd Smith Republican - NebraskaServed: 1975 - 1991 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marilyn Lloyd Democrat - TennesseeServed: 1975 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Barbara Ann Mikulski Democrat - MarylandServed: 1977 - 1987 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Mary Rose Oakar Democrat - OhioServed: 1977 - 1993 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Geraldine Anne Ferraro Democrat - New YorkServed: 1979 - 1985 About Geraldine FerraroCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Beverly Butcher Byron Democrat - MarylandServed: 1979 - 1993 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Olympia Jean Snowe Republican - MaineServed: 1979 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Bobbi Fiedler Republican - CaliforniaServed: 1981 - 1987 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Lynn Martin Republican - IllinoisServed: 1981 - 1991 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Claudine Schneider Republican - Rhode IslandServed: 1981 - 1991 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Margaret (Marge) Roukema Republican - New JerseyServed: 1981 - 2003 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jean Spencer Ashbrook Republican - OhioServed: 1982 - 1983 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Katie Beatrice Hall Democrat - IndianaServed: 1982 - 1985 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Barbara B. Kennelly Democrat - ConnecticutServed: 1982 - 1999 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Sala Galante Burton Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1983 - 1987 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Barbara Boxer Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1983 - 1993 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Barbara F. Vucanovich Republican - NevadaServed: 1983 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Nancy L. Johnson Republican - ConnecticutServed: 1983 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marcia C. (Marcy) Kaptur Democrat - OhioServed: 1983 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Catherine S. Long Democrat - LouisianaServed: 1985 - 1987 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Helen Delich Bentley Republican - MarylandServed: 1985 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jan L. Meyers Republican - KansasServed: 1985 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Patricia F. Saiki Republican - HawaiiServed: 1987 - 1991 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Elizabeth J. Patterson Democrat - South CarolinaServed: 1987 - 1993 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Constance A. Morella Republican - MarylandServed: 1987 - 2003 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Nancy Pelosi Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1987 - Present About Nancy PelosiNancy Pelosi QuotesOfficial WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Louise M. Slaughter Democrat - New YorkServed: 1987 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jill L. Long Democrat - IndianaServed: 1989 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jolene Unsoeld Democrat - WashingtonServed: 1989 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Nita M. Lowey Democrat - New YorkServed: 1989 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ileana Ros - Lehtinen Republican - FloridaServed: 1989 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Susan Molinari Republican - New YorkServed: 1990 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Joan Kelly Horn Democrat - MissouriServed: 1991 - 1993 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Barbara-Rose Collins Democrat - MichiganServed: 1991 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Rosa DeLauro Democrat - ConnecticutServed: 1991 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Eleanor Holmes Norton Democrat - The District Of ColumbiaServed: 1991 - Present Eleanor Holmes Norton QuoteOfficial WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Maxine Waters Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1991 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Eva M. Clayton Democrat - North CarolinaServed: 1992 - 2003 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Corrine Brown Democrat - FloridaServed: 1993 - 2017 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Leslie L. Byrne Democrat - VirginiaServed: 1993 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Maria E. Cantwell Democrat - WashingtonServed: 1993 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Karan English Democrat - ArizonaServed: 1993 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky Democrat - PennsylvaniaServed: 1993 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Lynn Schenk Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1993 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Karen Shepherd Democrat - UtahServed: 1993 - 1995 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Blanche Lambert Lincoln Democrat - ArkansasServed: 1993 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Elizabeth Furse Democrat - OregonServed: 1993 - 1999 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jane F. Harman Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1993 - 1999, 2001 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Patsy Ann Danner Democrat - MissouriServed: 1993 - 2001 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Tillie Kidd Fowler Republican - FloridaServed: 1993 - 2001 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Carrie P. Meek Democrat - FloridaServed: 1993 - 2003 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Karen L. Thurman Democrat - FloridaServed: 1993 - 2003 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Cynthia McKinney Democrat - GeorgiaServed: 1993 - 2003, 2005 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jennifer Dunn Republican - WashingtonServed: 1993 - 2005 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Anna Georges Eshoo Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1993 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Eddie Bernice Johnson Democrat - TexasServed: 1993 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Carolyn B. Maloney Democrat - New YorkServed: 1993 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Deborah Pryce Republican - OhioServed: 1993 - 2009 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Lucille Roybal-Allard Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1993 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Nydia M. Velzquez Democrat - New YorkServed: 1993 - Present Official WebsiteWomen in Congress Biography Lynn C. Woolsey Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1993 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Enid Greene Waldholtz Republican - UtahServed: 1995 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Andrea Seastrand Republican - CaliforniaServed: 1995 - 1997 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Linda Smith Republican - WashingtonServed: 1995 - 1999 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Helen P. Chenoweth Republican - IdahoServed: 1995 - 2001 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Lynn Nancy Rivers Democrat - MichiganServed: 1995 - 2003 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Karen McCarthy Democrat - MissouriServed: 1995 - 2005 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Sue W. Kelly Republican - New YorkServed: 1995 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Barbara L. Cubin Republican - WyomingServed: 1995 - 2009 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Sheila Jackson Lee Democrat - TexasServed: 1995 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Zoe Lofgren Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1995 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Sue Myrick Republican - North CarolinaServed: 1995 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Juanita Millender-McDonald Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1996 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jo Ann Emerson Republican - MissouriServed: 1996 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Deborah A. Stabenow Democrat - MichiganServed: 1997 - 2001 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Julia May Carson Democrat - IndianaServed: 1997 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Anne Meagher Northup Republican - KentuckyServed: 1997 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Donna M. Christian-Christensen Democrat - Virgin IslandsServed: 1997 - 2015 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Diana L. DeGette Democrat - ColoradoServed: 1997 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Kay Granger Republican - TexasServed: 1997 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Darlene K. Hooley Democrat - OregonServed: 1997 - 2009 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Stephanie Tubbs Jones Democrat - OhioServed: 1997 - 2008 (died August 20, 2008) Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick Democrat - MichiganServed: 1997 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Carolyn McCarthy Democrat - New YorkServed: 1997 -Â  2015 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Loretta Sanchez Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1997 - 2017 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ellen OKane Tauscher Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1997 - 2009 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Mary Bono Mack Republican - CaliforniaServed: 1998 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Lois Capps Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1998 - 2017 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Barbara Lee Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1998 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Heather A. Wilson Republican - New MexicoServed: 1998 - 2009 Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Tammy Baldwin Democrat - WisconsinServed: 1999 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Shelley Berkley Democrat - NevadaServed: 1999 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Judy Borg Biggert Republican - IllinoisServed: 1999 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Grace Napolitano Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 1999 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Janice Schakowsky Democrat - IllinoisServed: 1999 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jo Ann Davis Republican - VirginiaServed: 2001 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Melissa A. Hart Republican - PennsylvaniaServed: 2001 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Shelley Moore Capito Republican - West VirginiaServed: 2001 -Â  2015 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Susan A. Davis Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2001 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Betty McCollum Democrat - MinnesotaServed: 2001 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Hilda L. Solis Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2001 - 2009 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Diane Edith Watson Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2001 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Denise Majette Democrat - GeorgiaServed: 2003 - 2005 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Katherine Harris Republican - FloridaServed: 2003 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marsha Blackburn Republican - TennesseeServed: 2003 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Madeleine Z. Bordallo Democrat - GuamServed: 2003 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Virginia (Ginny) Brown-Waite Republican - FloridaServed: 2003 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Candice Miller Republican - MichiganServed: 2003 - 2017 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marilyn N. Musgrave Republican - ColoradoServed: 2003 - 2009 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Linda T. Snchez Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2003 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Stephanie Herseth Sandlin Democrat - South DakotaServed: 2004 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Melissa Bean Democrat - IllinoisServed: 2005 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Thelma Drake Republican - VirginiaServed: 2005 - 2009 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Virginia Foxx Republican - North CarolinaServed: 2005 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Cathy McMorris Rodgers Republican - WashingtonServed: 2005 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Gwen Moore Democrat - WisconsinServed: 2005 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Doris Matsui Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2005 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Allyson Schwartz Democrat - PennsylvaniaServed: 2005 -Â  2015 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jean Schmidt Republican - OhioServed: 2005 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Debbie Wasserman Schultz Democrat - FloridaServed: 2005 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Shelley Sekula Gibbs Republican - TexasServed: 2006 - 2007 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Michele Bachmann Republican - MinnesotaServed: 2007 -Â  2015 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Nancy Boyda Democrat - KansasServed: 2007 - 2009 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Kathy Castor Democrat - FloridaServed: 2007 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Yvette D. Clarke Democrat - New YorkServed: 2007 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Mary Fallin Republican - OklahomaServed: 2007 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Gabrielle Giffords Democrat - ArizonaServed: 2007 - 2012 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Kirsten Gillibrand Democrat - New YorkServed: 2007 - 2009Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Mazie Hirono Democrat - HawaiiServed: 2007 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Laura Richardson Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2007 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Carol Shea-Porter Democrat - New HampshireServed: 2007 - 2011, 2013 - 2015 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Betty Sutton Democrat - OhioServed: 2007 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Nicola S. (Niki) Tsongas Democrat - MassachusettsServed: 2007 - present Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Donna Edwards Democrat - MarylandServed: 2008 - 2017 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Marcia Fudge Democrat - OhioServed: 2008 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jackie Speier Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2008 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Kathleen A. (Kathy) Dahlkemper Democrat - PennsylvaniaServed: 2009 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Deborah L. Halvorson Democrat - IllinoisServed: 2009 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Lynn Jenkins Republican - CaliforniaServed: 2009 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Mary Jo Kilroy Democrat - OhioServed: 2009 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ann Kirkpatrick Democrat - ArizonaServed: 2009 - 2011, 2013 - 2017 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Suzanne Kosmas Democrat - FloridaServed: 2009 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Cynthia Lummis Republican - WyomingServed: 2009 - 2017 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Betsy Markey Democrat - ColoradoServed: 2009 - 2011 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Chellie Pingree Democrat - MaineServed: 2009 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Dina Titus Democrat - NevadaServed: 2009 - 2011, 2013 - Present Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Judy Chu Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2009 - Present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Sandra (Sandy) Adams Republican - FloridaServed: 2011 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Karen Bass Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2011 - present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Diane Black Republican - TennesseeServed: 2011 - present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Ann Marie Buerkle Republican - New YorkServed: 2011 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Renee Ellmers Republican - North CarolinaServed: 2011 - 2017 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Colleen Hanabusa Democrat - HawaiiServed: 2011 -Â  2015 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Vicky Hartzler Republican - MissouriServed: 2011 - present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Nan Hayworth Republican - New YorkServed: 2011 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Jaime Herrera Beutler Republican - WashingtonServed: 2011 - present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Kristi Noem Republican - South DakotaServed: 2011 - present Official WebsiteCongressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Martha Roby Republican - AlabamaServed: 2011 - present Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Terri Sewell Democrat - AlabamaServed: 2011 - present Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Frederica Wilson Democrat - FloridaServed: 2011 - present Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Kathy Hochul Democrat - New YorkServed: 2011 - 2013 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Janice Hahn Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2011 - 2016 Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Suzanne Bonamici Democrat - CaliforniaServed: 2012 - present Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Suzan DelBene Democrat - WashingtonServed: 2012 - present Congressional Biographical DirectoryWomen in Congress Biography Joyce Beatty Democrat, OhioServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Susan Brooks Republican, IndianaServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Julia Brownley Democrat, CaliforniaServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Cheri Bustos Democrat, IllinoisServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Tammy Duckworth Democrat, IllinoisServed: 2013 - 2017 (became Senator in 2017) Women in Congress Biography Elizabeth Esty Democrat, ConnecticutServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Lois Frankel Democrat, FloridaServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Tulsi Gabbard Democrat, HawaiiServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Ann McLane Kuster Democrat, New HampshireServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Michelle Lujan Grisham Democrat, New MexicoServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Grace Meng Democrat, New YorkServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Gloria Negrete McLeod Democrat, CaliforniaServed: 2013 - 2015 Women in Congress Biography Kyrsten Sinema Democrat, ArizonaServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Ann Wagner Republican, MissouriServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Jackie Walorski Republican, IndianaServed: 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Robin Kelly Democrat, IllinoisServed: April 11, 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Katherine Clark Democrat, MassachusettsServed: December 10, 2013 - present Women in Congress Biography Alma Adams North CarolinaServed: November 12, 2014 - present Aumua Amata Republican, American Samoa at largeServed: 2015 - present Bonnie Watson Coleman New Jersey, DemocraticServed: 2015 - present Barbara Comstock Republican, VirginiaServed: 2015 - present Deborah Dingell Democratic, MichiganServed: 2015 - present Gwen Graham Democratic, FloridaServed: 2015 - 2017 Brenda Lawrence Democratic, MIchiganServed: 2015 - present Mia Love Republican, UtahServed: 2015 - present Martha McSally Republican, ArizonaServed: 2015 - present Stacey Plaskett Democratic, U.S. Virgin Islands at largeServed: 2015 - present Kathleen Rice Democratic, New YorkServed: 2015 - present Elise Stefanik Republican, New YorkServed: 2015 - present Norma Torres Democratic, CaliforniaServed: 2015 - present Mimi Walters Republican, CaliforniaServed: 2015 - present Nanette Barragn Democratic, CaliforniaServed 2017 - present Lisa Blunt-Rochester Democratic, DelawareServed 2017 - present Liz Cheney Republican, WyomingServed 2017 - present Val Demings Democratic, FloridaServed 2017 - present Jenniffer Gonzlez Republican, Puerto RicoServed 2017 - present Pramila Jayapal Democratic, WashingtonServed 2017 - present Stephanie Murphy Democratic, FloridaServed 2017 - present Jacky Rosen Democratic, NevadaServed 2017 - present Claudia Tenney Republican, New YorkServed 2017 - present For more information about women in the US government, check out our articles on women who have served in the Senate or as governors.