The experiments reveal some differences across provinces regarding candidate gender’s effect on evaluations, particularly to be a minister, since in Alberta the woman receives a more favorable evaluation, and in Quebec the man does. Overall, however, party has a larger effect than gender, via party issue ownership and a strong party in-group effect, and young adults in both provinces view women as capable for diverse posts and in stereotypically masculine policy areas. Broad acceptance of women as leaders is incongruent with the relatively low level of incorporation of women into high-profile ministerial and party leader posts in national politics, although at the time of the experiment Alberta did have a woman premier and parity cabinet, and Quebec had recently had a woman premier and women in powerful provincial cabinet posts. Women’s acceptance as leaders also fits with the large role social welfare policy plays in Canadian national and provincial politics.

This paper argues that in their criticism of Socrates’s prospective evasion, the Laws of the Crito make two arguments relevant to the discussion of the ethics of migration, labeled here the “Argument from Parentage” and the “Argument from Corruption.” When considered from the perspective of liberal democracies, those arguments help us realize that political communities should be considered as a subject of justice in migration alongside individuals, and that migration might entail some citizen-to-community obligations. This means that some correctives may be justified to offset the moral costs of some acts of migration. This paper concludes by exploring how the extension of local voting rights in absentia could be one such corrective.