No woman has ever served as President of the United States. Only two women have ever been nominated as candidates for that office by one of the two main parties. So what is causing this persistent barrier, and how might it be overcome?

These questions are taken up in a new article in The Political Quarterly, which examines the structural, cultural and political factors that have kept women from reaching the highest office in American politics. Is the United States an outlier in global terms when it comes to women's representation at the top of political life? And what would need to change — in parties, in media, in public attitudes — for that to shift?

Joining host Alan Renwick to explore these questions are the article's authors: Rosie Campbell, Professor of Politics at King's College London, and Joni Lovenduski, Professor Emerita at Birkbeck College and Visiting Professor at the Policy Institute at King's College London.

Mentioned in this episode:

• What Will it Take for a Woman to Become President of the United States? by Rosie Campbell and Joni Lovenduski, published in The Political Quarterly.

Constitutional reform is a recurring theme in UK politics. Debates regularly surface about changing the electoral system, reforming the House of Lords, or redefining the role of the courts. These conversations often focus on the traditional institutions of the state: government, parliament and the judiciary.

But is that focus too narrow? When considering how power operates in a modern democracy, should constitutional thinking extend beyond these formal branches of government? Might institutions such as the media, financial sector or other centres of influence also deserve attention when we discuss constitutional design?

This week, Daniel Hind joins host Alan Renwick to explore a fresh argument that the constitutional reform agenda needs to be broadened. The discussion is based on a new article in The Political Quarterly that calls for a more expansive understanding of how democratic power should be structured and overseen.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Popular Sovereignty and the Constitutional Reform Agenda

The European Convention on Human Rights is often seen as one of the defining achievements of post-war Europe. Designed to protect fundamental freedoms and uphold democratic values, it has shaped the legal landscape of the continent for more than seventy years. But it is also increasingly contested, sitting at the centre of debates about sovereignty, migration, democracy, and the limits of judicial power.

In this episode, we unpack what the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights actually are, how they work in practice, and why they continue to provoke such strong reactions. Where did the system come from? How has it evolved over time? What kinds of cases reach the Court, and how are decisions made?

Our guest is Marko Bošnjak, former President of the European Court of Human Rights and now a judge at the Court of Justice of the European Union. Drawing on his experience at the highest levels of European law, his conversation with Prof Alan Renwick gives us a clear history and guide to the institutions that help define the rights of hundreds of millions of people.

Social media is woven into everyday life, yet growing concerns about its effects on mental health, public debate and personal wellbeing have led many to question whether it is worth staying online at all. With governments exploring age restrictions for younger users, and public discussion becoming increasingly polarised, is quitting social media the ethical choice?

In this episode, Rob Simpson, Associate Professor of Philosophy at University College London, joins Emily McTernan to discusses the moral dimensions of stepping away from social media platforms, drawing on his recent work on the ethics of quitting.

Mentioned in this episode:

• The Ethics of Quitting Social Media. In The Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics (2022) Oxford University Press

Modern democracies rest on elections. They are the main way voters are supposed to shape what governments do. In theory, elections ensure that public policy reflects what people want. But does that actually happen in practice? Political science has long been divided on this question.

One side of the debate argues that elections can work as intended. Voters understand the difference between left and right. They have a sense of where political parties sit on that spectrum. They broadly know where they themselves stand. And they choose which party to support on that basis.

Another influential strand of research is far more sceptical. It suggests that most voters do not have clear or well formed policy preferences at all. And when they do, those preferences often come after choosing a party, not before. Voters identify with a party first, then adopt that party’s positions as their own.

This debate has been running for decades. But a new book offers a third perspective that could help move things forward. It argues that the debate has set the bar too high for what counts as a meaningful voter preference. Once we measure preferences in a more realistic way, a clearer picture starts to emerge.

One of the authors of that book is our very own Ben Lauderdale, friend of the podcast and Professor of Political Science here in the UCL Department of Political Science. We are delighted that Ben joins us this week to walk us through the research and what it tells us about how voters really think.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Idiosyncratic Issue Opinion and Political Choice, by Nick Vivyan, Benjamin E Lauderdale, Chris Hanretty.

In this guest episode from Philosophically Speaking, Emily McTernan and Jeff Howard explore a provocative question. Can white men be discriminated against, and if so, should the law protect them in the same way it protects other groups?

To help unpack this, they are joined by Professor Cécile Laborde, who discusses her recent work on structural inequality and the moral foundations of discrimination law. Drawing on her article 'Structural Inequality and the Protectorate of Discrimination', published in Politics, Philosophy, and Economics, Cécile challenges common assumptions about who discrimination law is for and why.

Mentioned in this episode:

• Philosophically Speaking podcast
• 'Structural Inequality and the Protectorate of Discrimination' by Cécile Laborde

News headlines are increasingly dominated by concerns about the harms young people face online. In late 2025, Australia introduced a ban preventing under-16s from accessing a range of major social media platforms. Here in the UK, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has publicly backed a similar approach, and at the time of recording there is widespread speculation that the UK government may be preparing to follow suit - perhaps even by the time you’re listening to this episode.

But how do young people themselves experience the online spaces they inhabit? Do they see digital content as harmful, empowering, or something more complex? And crucially, what do they think should be done to make the online world safer and more constructive?

In this episode, we explore these questions with Dr Emma Connolly, Research Fellow in the UCL Department of Political Science and a member of UCL’s Digital Speech Lab, where she leads research on digital civic education.

Mentioned in this episode:

• How does social media content go viral across platforms? Modelling the spread of Kamala is brat across X, TikTok, and Instagram, Journal of Information Technology & Politics