With this in mind, theunderrepresentation of women in relation to the justice argument begins bystating that it is “biased for men from popular groups to dominaterepresentation, specifically in modern democracies” (Lovenduski, 2005). For example, Liberal Democrats”in 2001 the took on a 40 percent target of female applicants, and at the sametime declined all-women shortlisted” (Quota project , 2013). “Before the 2005 elections, the Liberal Democrats placed womenin 40 percent of the “winnable seats” (Quota project , 2013). They applied a “zipping system on their applicant listsfor the European election in 1999 which were conducted using List-PR but did not use the zipping system inthe European Parliament election of 2002” (Quota project , 2013). For this reason, arguments from justice cannot support “thepresent state of affairs” (Lovenduski, 2005) and the consequential ‘exclusion’ of viewpoints and experiencescould possibly pose a problem.
Furthermore, it is important to realize thatJustice arguments, is arguably one of the most influential concepts on the behalf of women’srepresentation, that is concerned with the value of justice. Not to mention,when women demand political representationand emphasize the disadvantage “for males to control descriptiverepresentation” (Georgina Waylen, 2013), a demandparticularly in states that stress the importance “to be democratic and ormodern” (Georgina Waylen, 2013). Although, “the justice argument doesnot make any claims involving substantive representation” (Georgina Waylen, 2013). On the other hand, the justiceargument is arguably one the most powerful and persuasive ideas regardingwomen’s representation, emphasizing the concept of justice. A point oftenoverlooked is that the justice argument is supported by claims from citizenship,where women lawfully have equivalent citizenship to men in a democratic system.