Representation is diversifying due to increases in the inclusion of multiple marginalized groups. Despite the costs of inclusion and candidate selectors’ biases, recent work highlights inclusion as a vote-seeking strategy. Why, of all strategies to gain support, would traditionally dominant elites become inclusive of candidates from backgrounds other than their own? I posit that the salience of marginalization within electoral contexts makes strategically inclusive parties opt for inclusion when they have electoral incentives to do so, such as when navigating uncertain electoral scenarios, struggling electorally, and when voters explicitly favor it. 2x2 between- and within-subjects elite experiments with party gatekeepers in Uruguay demonstrate that when marginalization is salient, parties select more candidates from underrepresented groups—including women, minorities, and youth—when: (1) facing declining performance; (2) they have room to include; and, (3) in response to demands for inclusion. Public opinion and electoral incentives interact to make representation more inclusive.

How diverse are political institutions? Despite the theoretical and political relevance of this question, there is no standard measure of diversity in political institutions, limiting systematic research on diversity of representation. To address this gap, I introduce the Diversity of Representation Index (DORI), a multidimensional metric that quantifies diversity within political institutions by considering the variety and balance of represented groups and the proportionality of their representation relative to their population size—i.e., their descriptive representation. Using examples from national parliaments in Canada and Germany, and data on the presence of women and African Americans in all 50 U.S. state legislatures and their populations from 2009 to 2021, I illustrate DORI's application and properties. I demonstrate the significance of assessing diversity and explore its implications for policy outcomes. DORI offers a valuable tool for representation studies, enabling empirical analysis of the multidimensional nature of political representation.

Historically, women, marginalized racial-ethnic groups, and youth have had lower political ambition and candidacy rates largely due to socioeconomic and political marginalization. Yet, recently, increased awareness of their marginalization has paralleled a surge in candidates from these groups. This suggests that, beyond supply and demand factors, contextual factors are key determinants of candidate supply, especially for marginalized groups. I argue that the salience of identity-based marginalization within electoral contexts boosts political ambition and candidacy decisions among these groups, especially when the public supports inclusive representation. Through survey experiments with women, non-white, and younger voting-age U.S. citizens, and a quasi-experimental analysis of candidate emergence in the 2020 state legislative elections, I find that salience of marginalization drives interest in and candidacy among historically marginalized groups. These findings highlight the role of the electoral context in shaping candidate pools, offering new insights into how it can mitigate inequalities in access to office.

Political scientists have maintained a longstanding interest in enhancing minority representation in American politics. However, minority candidate emergence as the precursor to representation has been largely overlooked. We argue that district magnitude and political empowerment are key institutional drivers influencing historically marginalized group members' decisions to run for office in the United States. Drawing on an original dataset on African American's presence in office and candidate pools, district demographics, and electoral institutions, combined with candidate emergence data for most 2018 and 2020 state legislative elections, we show that African American candidates are more likely to emerge in multi-member state legislative districts and when politically empowered across various posts. These findings have important implications for understanding how institutions shape candidate emergence incentives and, ultimately, descriptive representation, and contribute to the renewed upsurge in electoral reform discussion in the United States.