Power could be maintained in the USA with fiscally conservative, and slowly enacted socially liberal policies (which is what happens anyway, after a lot of distraction and infighting.)
That this roughly reflects the gender distribution in the population, and a fairly even distribution between the genders, would actually make common sense. (It does).
What has altered the political landscape, and continues to, is the number of single women and single mothers in the voting pool has increased substantially since 1960. At present, it’s arguable, that all other things being equal, single women and mothers decide elections.
That is one of the reasons that candidates now must be somewhat attractive. Because for single women, and single mothers, the attractiveness of a candidate is a meaningful reason for their vote. If a candidate is both attractive, and well spoken, and supports redistribution and equalitarianism – redistribution outside of the nuclear family, the vote is all but ensured.
For most poeple who understand these demographic issues, it’s saddening, because american politics, and the politics of all democracies, are just form of entertainment that is a vast waste of time and energy that is determined by a small number of axis of influence: the homogeneity (good) vs diversity (bad) in a population. The structure of the family unit from individual, to family, to extended family, clan and tribe. The size of the population (big is bad, small is good.) In other words, you will get a ‘Denmark’ if you have a small homogenous country of nuclear families, because in the nuclear family both genders have equal reproductive interests.
I suspect that this is one of the most profound things you can learn – certainly on Quora.