The Age Factor in American National Elections

Home , Ageism, Gerontocracy, Retirement age

THE AGE FACTOR IN AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTIONS

A thesis presented to

the faculty of

the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

In partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree

Master of Arts

Shabbir A. Khan

June 2007

This thesis entitled

THE AGE FACTOR IN AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTIONS

SHABBIR A. KHAN

has been approved

for the Department of Political Science

and the College of Arts and Sciences by

Barry L. Tadlock

Assistant Professor of Political Science

Benjamin M. Ogles

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Abstract KHAN, SHABBIR AHMAD, M.A., June 2007, Political Science

THE AGE FACTOR IN AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTIONS ( 100 PP.)

Director of Thesis: Barry L. Tadlock

The age factor has been crucial in both presidential and congressional elections.

Political leadership in America has been usually between 50 and 60 years of age. Age has

been closely linked with the issue of political participation. I propose to examine the role

of age in both presidential and congressional elections. From my studies I have observed that: (1) the average age of congressmen has increased; (2) the average age at the time of first election has also increased from the past and House candidates in their 40s and

Senate candidates between the mid-40s and mid-50s have greater chances of success at the time of their first elections; (3) the number of older congressmen (65 and over) has also increased as compared to the number of younger congressmen (25 to 34) which has declined substantively. The indicators arrayed from the election data clearly show a significant relationship between the voters’ age and the candidates’ age.

Approved:

Barry L. Tadlock

Assistant Professor of Political Science

Dedication

To my dear wife, Asma, lovely daughter Aleezae, and great son Hamzah.

Acknowledgements

I am profoundly grateful to the USEFP (United States Educational Foundation in

Pakistan) Fulbright Program and IIE (Institute of International Education) NY for

providing me this unique opportunity, along with financial support, for graduate studies

at Ohio University, Athens, OH, U.S.A.

I want to express my sincere thanks to Professor David Dabelko for his dedication and commitment to his students including myself. I took his “Research Methods” course and he appreciated my final project paper, ‘The Age Factor in US Elections’. This was the turning point when I decided to continue my efforts on this issue.

My gratitude also extends to Professor Sung Ho Kim, my academic advisor for

this program and a marvelous teacher. I cannot forget his love and kindness and valuable

contribution to my academic life.

I am also grateful to my friends Dr. Aurangzeb Khan, post-doctoral fellow in the

Department of Physics, and Fakhar ul Inam, a Ph.D. student of physics, at Ohio

University for their services and contribution. They helped me a lot in understanding

some computer skills and making all statistical tables and graphs. They spent a lot of time

guiding and helping me despite their overwhelming preoccupations.

I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks and gratitude to my mother-in-law,

Najma Shaheen and my father-in-law, Zafar Aziz Ch., an eminent civil servant Rtd. for

their unconditional love and help. I am forever indebted to my father-in-law for his

indispensable contribution. He has been very helpful in editing/proof reading and making

this document worthwhile.

This study would not have been possible without the guidance and support of my

thesis advisor, Professor Barry L. Tadlock. He is a pleasant person, a remarkable teacher,

and a great human being. I am highly grateful to him for his time, his guidance, and

particularly his patience. He was always cooperative, rather generous, and gave me his

precious time and advice when I needed it.

I am highly indebted and grateful to my father, Nazir Ahmad Khan, and my

mother Miraj Bibi for their kindness, and prayers. They have been a constant source of inspiration, encouragement, and hope in my life.

In the end, my deepest appreciation is offered to Asma Zafar, my wife, Aleezae,

my daughter, and Hamzah, my son, for their unwavering love and support enabling me to

pursue my research in perfect peace and harmony.

Table of Contents Page

ABSTRACT...... iii

DEDICATION...... iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v

LIST OF TABLES ...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER 1...... 1

Introduction...... 1 Age in Ancient America ...... 3 The Meaning of Age and Aging ...... 4 Age and Achievement...... 6 Age and Political Participation ...... 8 Hypotheses and Outline:...... 9

CHAPTER 2...... 14

Literature Review ...... 14

CHAPTER 3...... 28

The Presidential Elections...... 28 The Age of the President and Voting Participation/Turnout ...... 34

CHAPTER 4...... 36

The Congressional Elections ...... 36

viii

Age and the Congress ...... 38 Age and the House...... 44 Age and the Senate...... 49 Age and Participation...... 52

CHAPTER 5...... 61

Summary and Suggestions ...... 61 Suggestions for Future Research ...... 67

BIBLIOGRAPHY:...... 69

CONSULTED BOOKS AND ARTICLES ...... 74

APPENDICES:...... 81

List of Tables Table Page Table 2-1: The Ages of U.S. Senators and Representatives from 1799 to 1925 ...... 16 Table 2-2: The Mean Ages of the Winners and Losers in the 1958 House Election...... 18 Table 2-3: Age and Entry of 1,923 House Members 1910-1960...... 24 Table 3-1: The Mean Age of the Presidents Since 1788 ...... 29 Table 3-2: The Mean Age of Presidents since 1980...... 30 Table 3-3: The Age Groups of the Presidents Since the 1788 Elections...... 31 Table 4-1: The Age of Members of Congress 1980-2006...... 38 Table 4-2: The Age of Members of Congress When First Elected 1980-2006 ...... 40 Table 4-3: The Age of Members of House 1980-2006...... 44 Table 4-4: The Age of Members of the House When First elected 1980-2006...... 46 Table 4-5: The Age Groups (%) of the House When First Elected 1980-2006...... 49 Table 4-6: Registered Voters in Different Age Groups (%)...... 53 Table 4-7: Voter Turnout (%) by Selected Age Groups Since 1980 ...... 54 Table 4-8: Voter Turnout (%) Within Selected Age Groups Since 1980...... 56

List of Figures Figures Page Figure 3-1: The Age Group (%) of Presidents since 1788...... 30 Figure 3-2: The age group distribution of the Presidents since 1788. Distribution is fitted with a Gaussian (fitting error is of the order of 10-4) with mean value of 56 age...... 32 Figure 4-1: The Age of Members of Congress 1980-2006...... 39 Figure 4-2: The Age of Members of Congress When First Elected 1980-2006...... 41 Figure 4-3: The Age Groups (%) of Congress 1980-2006 ...... 42 Figure 4-4: The Age Groups (%) of Members of Congress When First Elected since 1980...... 43 Figure 4-5: The Age of Members of the House 1980-2006...... 45 Figure 4-6: The Age of Members of the House When First Elected 1980-2006...... 47 Figure 4-7: The Age Groups (%) of the House 1980-2006 ...... 48 Figure 4-8: The Ages of Senators 1980-2006...... 50 Figure 4-9: The Ages of Senators When First Elected 1980-2006...... 50 Figure 4-10: The Age Groups (%) of Senators 1980-2006...... 51 Figure 4-11: The Age Groups (%) of Senators When First Elected 1980-2006...... 52 Figure 4-12: Voter Turnout (%) by Selected Age Groups Since 1980...... 55 Figure 4-13: Voter Turnout (%) within Selected Age Groups Since 1980...... 57 Figure 4-14: The Correlation between the Voter’s Age and the Member’s Age (Young Group)...... 58 Figure 4-15: The Correlation between the Voter’s Age and the Member’s Age (Old Group)...... 59

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Political scientists, particularly researchers and theorists in American politics, have paid little attention to the relationship between age and elections. However, the age of the candidate has been very important in establishing the chances of his success or failure in elections. Previous studies of this issue show that the age factor has always been crucial in both presidential and congressional elections. These studies show that age is so important for politicians or leaders because voters judge them on the basis of their performance over a specific period of time. These studies also find that political leadership in the United States is usually between 50 and 60 years of age. Additionally, these studies also indicate that the candidates in their forties have greater chances of success in their first elections (Lehman, 1953, p. 162).

There are several reasons to choose this topic for research. Obviously, this area has been neglected by political scientists. There is also a need to explore why age does matter with the candidates as well as the voters. According to recent research, due to significant control in both mortality and fertility using modern scientific knowledge and techniques, particularly in the medical field, America is growing older and older. The population of 65 years of age and over is increasing, from just 2.9% in 1870 to 9.9% in

1970 (Cowgill, 1974; and Neugarten, 1974).

In 1990, 12.4% of the population was 65 years and above and by 2040 it will be over 20 % (Cowgill, 1974; Neugarten, 1974; Sorgman and Sorenson, 1984; and Hahn,

1992). In this perspective, with America aging, it is important to know how this trend will

affect American politics, particularly electoral politics. If there is a strong relationship

between the candidates’s age and the voter’s age, the increase in population of 65 years

and above will definitely affect their representation in Congress. I also intend to present

suggestions for further research in this neglected area.

Before outlining my specific hypotheses, it is important to describe the concept

of age or aging, including the definitions, descriptions, and classifications. It is not my

purpose to make a conclusive explanation of biological, sociological, anthropological,

and psychological dimensions of age or aging but I will focus on some changing concepts

of age in terms of life expectancy or new trends in aging America. I will also discuss the

importance of age in politics, particularly the relevance of age in acquiring certain leadership positions and membership in key political institutions (Hain 1976; Oleszek,

1969, Abrams and Brody, 1998; Walker 1960; Simonton, 1988). Was age a powerful factor in ancient politics? Was age considered an important factor in achieving crucial political positions in ancient institutions in which elders ruled by virtue of their age?

Evidently the ancient as well as the present political institutions gained both fame and respect on the score of eldership as the Roman Senate (from senex, meaning aged) and

Spartan Gerusia (from gera meaning old) (Fischer, 1977).

In ancient times, age was a crucial factor in both social and political life of the

people. The institutions of family and tribe were organized as gerontocracies in which the eldest male had absolute power. The life expectancy was much shorter than today, so the actual age of those elders was much younger than that of modern day leaders. Most ancient societies had the same attitude towards eldership. From ancient China to ancient

Rome and Medieval Europe, age meant power and authority. In ancient China, the impact

of the Confucian philosophy of hierarchy where the very young, called ‘tao,’ were expected to obey the elders and old age was a virtue in itself. A similar attitude existed in

ancient India where the elderly people enjoyed their authority in their ripe years. The idea

of eldership was also incorporated into the affairs of both church and state as evidenced

by the popes (Greek word for father) and presbyters (Greek word for elders). In this

manner, towns and cities were controlled by the alderman (Middle English eald, old) and the countryside was governed by feudal seigneurs (from the Old French word for seniority). The idea of a family government in Medieval Europe was the same as in ancient Rome where “every house was ruled by its eldest member, on the sole authority of his age” (Fischer, 1977, pp.13-18).

Age in Ancient America

Old age was also highly respected in early America because of its rareness and

some other social and religious reasons. Respect for age was deeply embedded in the

Judeo-Christian ethic of early America. This was also institutionalized in a way that the

old English principle of “eldershippe” was widely observed in the governance of Church

and State in both New England and the southern colonies. And the elected officials rarely

resigned or retired; only death ended their stay in office. People understood that the “grey

heads” were wiser than the “green ones”. The population of early America was actually

younger than it is today. In 1790, the median age of America was just 16. The population

of 65 and over was just 2% of the total population. The median age from 1625 to 1810

was much the same (Fisher, 1977, pp.26-43).

The founding fathers laid down a lower age limit for both executive and

legislative candidates. After a long discussion, it was decided that the president must be

at least 35, a senator 30, and a representative 25 years of age at the time of their elections

(Pritchett, 1959, pp188-308). Similarly, the minimum age for the voters was set at 21

years initially and then at 18 (Kleppner, 1982, p.9). The age limits were not just

hypothetical. They had a significant purpose and motivation. In 1799, the average age of

the representatives was only 43.50. During the period from 1825 to 1899, the average age

of the representatives fluctuated between 43 and 47. Similarly the average age of the

senators during this period from 1799 to 1875 was 45.25 to 51.50. The average age of

both senators and representatives increased in the early 20th Century by about 10 to 12

years for representatives and senators respectively (Lehman, 1953, p. 269).

The Meaning of Age and Aging

A person’s age is generally measured in years since birth, and this is also how

age is represented in this study. Political scientists use age as a variable in their research

employing a measure of chronological age. On the other hand, the term ‘aging’ is used to

indicate that the elderly (65 and over) segment of population is increasing faster than the other segments in the society (Cowgill, 1974; Neugarten, 1996; Barrow, 1992; Binstock and

George, 1990; Barash, 1983; Jankowski, 2000; Bengtson and Schaie, 1999; Sorgman and

Sorensen, 1984; Manard, 1976). There are also other methods or separate ways to

measure a person’s age such as biological, sociological, and psychological and each one

of these measurements has its own importance and significance. Biological aging refers

to changes in the cellular and physiological make up of an organism that occur with the

passage of time such as gradual decline in muscle and bone density, etc. Sociological

aging is marked by changes in some one’s social roles starting with birth and performing

different roles as a child, an adult, an aged person, and finally death. Psychological aging

is associated with the changes in an individual’s personality, mental functioning, and sense of self during the adult years (Morgan and Kunkel, 2001, p. 5). From a conceptual perspective, it is easy to differentiate among these various types of aging. It is extremely difficult to make the same distinction from an operational perspective (Jankowski, pp. 7-

10). That is the reason why almost all political scientists, and researchers, including this study, use the chronological age as a surrogate measurement for biological, sociological, and psychological aging.

There is another important issue to divide the population into different age groups. There is no specific criterion or yardstick to distribute the chronological age groups of the population and generally it seems arbitrary referring to different age groups such as the young, middle-aged, the young old, elderly or old, and the old old or the oldest old. But there is some consensus among sociologists, gerontologists, and political

theorists (Binstock, 1974, and 1984; Woodward, 1977; Neugarten, 1974; Cutler, 1977;

Uhlenberg, 1988; Hahn, 1992) regarding the different age groups in the society in order to initiate substantive and valuable research and future policies dealing with these age

groups. I have grouped the congressmen with a ten-year gap starting from 25 to 85 and

over in order to analyze election data sine 1980. But I have referred mostly to three major

categories: the most young (18 to 24 for the voters, 25 to 34 for the members), the middle

age (45 to 64), and the elderly (65 and over) in order to explain the election data and

establish a relationship between the voter’s age and the candidate’s age. For the voter’s

age, I have collected data from the United States Census Bureau distributed from 18 to

24, 25 to 44, 45 to 64, and 65 and over.

Age and Achievement

In 1953, Ohio University professor of psychology Harvey C. Lehman wrote a

remarkable book, Age and Achievement, in order to explore the relationship between chronological age and outstanding performance or achievement. Lehman collected data from a variety of disciplines and fields, exploring the fact that some ages are crucial when men are likely to do their most outstanding work. According to him, creativity as a function of anything is a psychological, sociological, and biological phenomenon. He presents the names of several hundred noted individuals in the fields of science, medicine, philosophy, music, art, literature and politics, establishing the relationship between their ages and success or achievement.

He also discussed the optimum ages for attaining outstanding leadership positions

in the past history of the United States. These leadership positions include political or governmental, diplomatic, military, naval, judicial, professional, religious, and educational. According to him, age is so important for politicians or leaders because voters judge them on the basis of their performance over a specific period of time

(Lehman, 1953, p.162).

For a period of more than 150 years, the major political parties have nominated

men as presidential candidates mostly from 55 to 59. This holds both for successful and

unsuccessful presidential candidates. Before John F. Kennedy’s election Americans never

elected a president of less than 46 years of age. Theodore Roosevelt and Ulysses Grant

were elected when they were 46. However, the age range for successful nominees (46 to

67) is less than that of the unsuccessful nominees, in the age-range of 36 to 85 (Lehman,

1953, pp.163-164).

There are also some other notable political theorists and researchers who endorse the argument presented by Lehman that age has a significant role in achieving political

success in US elections. David B. Walker, The Age Factor in the1958 Congressional

Elections (1960), endorses Lehman’s argument that western men’s ability to exert

greatest political influence is at the age of 50 plus.

Dean Keith Simonton (1988) in Age and Outstanding Achievement: What Do We

Know after a Century of Research?, accepts the fact that despite any significant change in

mean life span, which is around 65, over the centuries, since the inception of the country,

the mean age of the members of the House of Representatives and Senate in the United

States has gotten higher and higher.

Joseph A. Schlesinger wrote two books, Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States (1966) and Political Parties and the Winning of Office (1991), on the

issue of age and its impact on both the winners and the defeated candidates in US

elections. According to his findings, there is a significant link between the ages of the

politicians and their positions of prominence in American politics.

Paul L. Hain (1974) in his article, “Age, Ambitions, and Political Careers: The

Middle-age Crisis”, has also examined that age of the candidate has a linear relationship with political ambition and advancement. Paul Brace (1984) in his article, “Progressive

Ambition in the House: A Probabilistic Approach” seems to agree with Schlesinger.

Walter Oleszek (1969) wrote a research note, “Age and Political Careers,” to

examine the relationship between age and first election to the House of Representatives.

He also explored this relationship between age and the House member’s first election.

T. Richard Witmer (1964) in his article “The Aging of the House” made a

quantitative research analysis comparing serving members of the House for first and

second terms of office to members in their tenth term or beyond. He found that the age of

first and second termers had declined drastically over the 70 years of his study period

(from 53rd to 88th congress). Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde

(1987) in their article, “Progressive ambitions among United States Senators: 1972-1988” have discussed the effect of age of senators seeking Presidential nomination from a

different perspective. Herbert L. Abrams (1997) in his article, “Can the Nation Afford a

Senior Citizen as President? the Age Factor in the 1996 Election and beyond” discussed

the old age as a liability of the candidates for Presidency.

Age and Political Participation

Age has also been closely linked with the issue of political participation. Who votes and who does not vote has been an important research topic among political theorists in Political Science, especially the experts in American politics. The several cross-sectional studies of the relationship of age and voter turnout have made the similar findings: the youngest voters are less likely to vote, middle-aged persons are most likely to vote (Hout, and Knoke, 1975. p. 52) and elderly people (65 and over) are more likely to vote than the youngest voters. The highest percentage of voting has been found among persons in their mid-50s (e.g., Campbell, 1960; Arneson and Eells, 1952; Campbell and

Kahn 1952; Korchin, 1946; Glenn and Grimes, 1968; Grittenden, 1963; Wattenberg,

2007; Patterson and Caldeira, 1983; Teixeira, 1987; Chen, 1992; Ragsdale, and Rusk.

1995; and Patterson, 2002).

Does the participation in election by age group affect their representation in the

Congress? Do the voters vote in cohort-groups? Does the decline in voting participation

decrease representation in the Congress and vice versa? Will the increase in the population of elderly people (65 and above) change the future of politics of the United

States? Will the elderly people gain much power and influence in future American

politics? Will the decline in participation of the young people decrease their political

influence and their representation in the Congress in the future? These are important

questions which need to be addressed in this study. According to Hypothesis 3 under this study, there is a strong relationship between the ages of the voters and the ages of the candidates in the US elections and change in the property of the one affect the property of the other.

Hypotheses and Outline:

I will focus on the following specific hypotheses.

Hypothesis 1: Age is related to success in both congressional and presidential elections,

with older candidates being more successful than younger candidates. This is not only

true across all elections, but most importantly for elections for first entry into Congress. I

expect the average age overall and at the time of first election has increased over time.

Hypothesis 2: Age is related to membership in the U.S. Congress, with older individuals

more likely to be members than younger individuals. I expect that over time the number

of older congressmen (65 and over) has increased and the number of younger

congressmen (25 to 34) has declined substantively.

Hypothesis 3: Voter’s age is related to candidates’s age, with voters more likely

to choose candidates in their age cohorts. Specifically, in voters’s age groups where

turnout is decreasing (as in the youngest group of 18 to 24), the similar young age group

of the members of the Congress( 25 to 34) is also declining. In addition, in voters’age

groups where their turnout is increasing (as the older group 65 and over), the similar age

group of the Congressmen is also increasing. However, there is not a perfect correlation

between the winners’ mean ages in elections and voters’ mean age. But the indicators

culled from the data clearly show a significant relationship between them. This trend is

also reflected in the Presidential elections.

In Chapter 2, I will outline some of the major work on the age factor and

American national elections. The researchers in American politics have focused more on

other political, socio-economic, and demographic determinants in U.S. elections such as

campaigns and money, campaigns and media, social, political, economic, ethnic, gender,

and racial issues. More attention has been paid to voting behavior, particularly on voter turnout, and issues like who votes and who doesn’t vote (Connelly and Field, 1944;

Lazasfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet, 1944; Miller, 1952; Berelson, Lazasfeld, and McPhee

1954; Glaser, 1959; Campbell, et al. 1960; Verba and Nie, 1972; Mibrath 1965; Conway,

1985; Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980; Miller and Shanks, 1996; Strate, et al. 1989;

Aldrich 1993). All of these and some other scholars have dealt with the voter’s age and participation in models of elections and a few researchers have also discussed the relevance of age of the candidates in U.S. elections. My purpose in this chapter will be to

explore the previous work of note on age factor in both presidential and congressional elections.

In Chapter 3, I will explain at some length how age has been an important factor

in election to the highest office in the United States, the Presidency. I will begin by

considering the initial major work that deals comprehensively with this phenomenon

offered by Harvey C. Lehman in his Age and Achievement in 1953. He found that top

political leadership in the United States was usually between 50 and 60 years of age. For

150 years (from the first Presidential election to the middle of the 20th century), the major

political parties nominated candidates for the Presidency mostly from 55 to 59 (Lehman,

1953).

The American people have also elected some younger presidents since 1960 (John

F. Kennedy 43, Bill Clinton 46, Jimmy Carter 54 and George W. Bush 54). Richard M.

Nixon and Lyndon B. Johnson were also in their mid-fifties, i.e., 55 and 56 respectively.

The elections of the presidents in recent history also indicate shift towards comparatively

young presidents (Asher, 1988; Sandoz and Crabb, 1981; Polsby and Wildavsky, 1996;

Wayne, 1997; Simonton, 1987; Cummings, 1966; Davies, 1999; and Wikipedia

Encyclopedia). After establishing the historical perspective on age and electoral success

in American presidential elections, I will focus on seven presidential elections since

1980. Was age a powerful factor in these elections?

In Chapter 4, I will examine the role of age in both electoral success and failure

in U.S. Congressional elections, particularly since 1980. Lehman gives information

regarding the ages of the House representatives and Senators in the US at six different

times, from 1799 to 1925. The difference of median age of representatives in 1799 and

1925 was ten years, i.e., from 43.50 to 53.46. Similarly, in the same period the median

age of Senators increased about 12 years, i.e., from 45.25 to 57.50 years. According to

Walker (1960), the mean age of 51.7 of all winners has been stable and consistent if the

average age of past House elections (80th to 85th) is computed. The interesting magic figure of mean age 51.7 has also been consistent for the last dozen years of House

electoral history.

Joseph A. Schlesinger wrote two books, Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States (1966) and Political Parties and the Winning of Office (1991), on the issue of age and its impact on both the winners and the losers in US elections. He has also found that most of the politicians start their political careers at an early age in the US in order to get highest positions in Senate and House. In his first book, Ambition and

Politics: Political Careers in the United States (1966), Schlesinger made a systematic analysis of personal and social considerations, particularly the politician’s age and its impact in US elections.

According to his findings, there is a significant link between the ages of the politicians and their positions of prominence in American politics. During the first six

decades of the 20th Century and at the time of the 85th Congress election in 1956, the ages of first time elected House members were between 35 and 40 and senators were between

50 and 55, and most of the presidents were in their early 50s.

In other words, the congressmen do their best to win election in the 15- year span

between 35 and 50 and the office of senator is most likely achieved between the ages of

45 and 60, and half of the presidents have been in their 50s. Schlesinger also noticed a

slight change in age and tenure patterns starting in 1960. He discussed that the trend was

toward younger politicians for the offices of representative and senator. By the 1970s, the

optimal age for the House members was late 30s, and senators late 40s (e.g., Lehman,

1953; Walker, 1960; Hain, 1974; Schlesinger, 1966-91; Squire, 1988; Cooper and West,

1981; Brace, 1984; Oleszek, 1969; Witmer, 1964; Matthews, 1954, and1984;

Abramowitz and Segal 1992; Jones, 1982; Ragsdale and Rusk, 1995; Abramson,

Aldrich, and Rohde, 1987; Kahn and Kenney, 1997; and Highton, 2000). I will focus on

the issue of whether or not the same pattern has prevailed since 1980 in congressional

elections.

In Chapter 5, I will summarize my argument in light of the results arrayed from

the American national elections data from 1980 to 2006. Most importantly, this research

will help in understanding the future electoral politics of the United States and the role of

different age groups in the society. It is not my purpose to focus on socio-economic and

political factors other than the demographic factor (chronological age) in order to

understand why the mean age of congressmen since 1980 and at the time of first election

has been increasing. The number of older congressmen (65 and over) has also been

increasing. On the other hand, the number of younger congressmen (25 to 34) has been

declining substantively. In the end, I conclude that there is a strong relationship between

the voter’s age and the elected leader’s age. Increase in the voter’s age group in American

national elections affects the representation of the similar age group in both executive and legislative branches of the government. However, there is not a perfect correlation between the winners’ mean ages in elections and voters’ mean age. But there is some kind of relationship between these two variables and this study needs the attention of the political scientist and experts in American politics, to further investigate this issue.

CHAPTER 2

Literature Review

In this Chapter, I will outline some of the major work on the age factor and

American national elections. It is rather surprising that not much research has been done

in this area despite the interesting trends the age factor has shown in American elections.

The researchers in American politics have focused more on other political, socio-

economic, and demographic determinants in U.S. elections such as campaigns and

money, campaigns and media, social, political, economic, ethnic, gender, and racial issues. More attention has been paid to voting behavior, particularly on voter turnout, and issues like who votes and who does not vote (Connelly and Field, 1944; Lazasfeld,

Berelson, and Gaudet, 1944; Miller, 1952; Berelson, Lazasfeld, and McPhee 1954;

Glaser, 1959; Campbell, et al. 1960; Verba and Nie, 1972; Mibrath 1965; Conway, 1985;

Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980; Miller and Shanks, 1996; Strate, et al. 1989; Aldrich

1993).

All of these and some other scholars have dealt with the voter’s age and

participation in models of the elections but there have been few researchers who have

also discussed the relevance of age of the candidates in U.S. elections. My purpose in this

chapter will be to explore the previous work of note on the age factor in both presidential

and congressional elections.

Perhaps the earliest investigation into the matter of the relationship between age

and achievement may be found in George Miller Beard’s (1874) Legal Responsibility in

Old Age. Yet research in this area did not attain notable proportions until 1953. I begin by

considering the initial major work that deals comprehensively with this phenomenon

offered by Harvey C. Lehman. He spent around three decades investigating the

relationship between age and outstanding achievement in life. In his book, Age and

Achievement (1953), Lehman explores the fact that some ages are crucial when men are

likely to do their most outstanding work. His central argument regarding age achievement

inspired and provoked some other scholars and researchers, especially the psychologists,

sociologists, and political scientists, to further explore this issue (e.g., Wayne Dennis,

1954, 1956, 1958, and 1966; S. Cole, 1979; Walker, 1960; Witmer, 1964; Oleszek ,1969;

Zuckerman and Merton, 1972; Hain,1974; Romanuik and Romanuik, 1981; Cooper and

West, 1981; Mumford, 1984; Brace, 1984; Horner, Rushton, and Vernon, 1986; Kogan,

1986; Abramson, Aldrich, and Rohde,1987; Simonton, 1988; Squire, 1988; Schlesinger,

1966 and 1991; Kiewiet and Zeng, 1993; and Abrams ,1997).

Lehman presented the names of several hundred noted individuals in the field of

science, medicine, philosophy, music, art, literature and politics and established the

relationship between their ages and success or achievement. According to him, age is so

important for politicians or leaders because voters judge them on the basis of their

performance over a specific period of time.

He finds that top political leadership in the United States is usually between 50

and 60 years of age. He also says that older candidates are more likely to be elected than the youthful leaders. According to him, for a period of more than 150 years, the major political parties have mostly nominated presidential candidates from a 55 to 59 age range.

This holds for both successful and unsuccessful candidates (Lehman, 1953, pp.162-164).

Table 2-1: The Ages of U.S. Senators and Representatives from 1799 to 1925

Legislators Year No. of Median Mean Age S.D. of Mode Individuals Age distribution Representatives 1799 108 43.50 43.29 1.84 40-44 Representatives 1825 217 41.81 43.08 1.67 35-39 Representatives 1849 241 42.81 43.93 1.46 40-44 Representatives 1875 301 47.48 47.75 1.83 45-49 Representatives 1899 373 47.97 48.67 1.85 45-49 Representatives 1925 436 53.46 53.25 1.88 55-59 Senators 1799 39 45.25 45.19 1.53 45-49 Senators 1825 63 46.50 47.10 1.63 45-49 Senators 1849 70 49.50 50.79 1.92 45-49 Senators 1875 82 51.50 52.50 1.74 50-54 Senators 1899 75 58.17 56.83 2.12 60-64 Senators 1925 108 57.50 56.95 2.02 60-64 Source: (Lehman, 1953, p269).

In Table 2.1, Lehman gives information regarding the ages of House representatives and senators in the US at six different times from 1799 to 1925. The difference of median age of representatives is that those in 1925 were ten years older than that in 1799, i.e., from 53.4 to 643.50. Similarly, in the same period, the median age of senators increased by about 12 years, i.e., from 45.25 to 57.50 years. Table 2-1 shows a substantial increase in the ages of the legislators during this span of over one hundred years of US electoral history (Lehman, 1953, pp. 269-270).

David B. Walker, in The Age Factor in the 1958 Congressional Elections (1960), endorses Lehman’s argument of western men’s ability to exert greatest political influence after the age of 50. He appreciates the socio-psychological aspects of age, both positive

(wisdom and experience) and negative (rigidity and lack of fresh vocabulary), and its

relation to electoral success. He also considers age an important factor in shaping or

molding the physical image of a politician before the electorate. Therefore, age serves as

a factor for political selection as well. The major established parties nominate older

candidates and insurgent groups seek youthful ones. In terms of psychological,

occupational, experiential, institutional, physiological, and political organizational view

points, age is or may be a conditional factor in the political selection process (Walker,

1960, pp. 3-5).

Walker examined the role of the age factor in the1958 House elections, which he

chose for a variety of reasons including wider sampling (787 House Candidates) for

testing various ideas concerning age and political opportunity. He also defined this

relationship by creating the following Table 2.2 of the mean ages of the candidates in the

1958 elections. He considered not only all winners but all losers from both the

Democratic and Republican parties and including the Liberal party plus a few

independent candidates.

He also discovered a trend in terms of stable and consistent mean age for a longer

period of time. According to Walker, the mean age of all winners is 51.7 and has been

stable and consistent if the average age of past House elections (80th to 85th) is computed.

The interesting or magic figure of mean age 51.7 has also been consistent for the last

dozen years of House electoral history. The data regarding the average ages of both

winning and losing candidates also show that both major political parties have been

trying to project an image of youth and vigor before the voters during these House

elections (Walker, 1960, p. 6-7).

Table 2-2: The Mean Ages of the Winners and Losers in the 1958 House Election Category Description Number of Mean age Candidates (1) All Winners 436 51.7 (2) All Contested Winners 340 51.3 (3) All Losers ( ages known) 319 ( of 351) 46.46 (4) All major-party losers 308 ( 0f 340) 46.37 (5) Liberal Party Losers (N.Y.) 10 48.0 (6) Independent Losers 1 51.0 Source: (Walker, 1960).

As Table 2-2 shows, Walker also offered various analyses and observations on the

role of age in the 1958 House elections. The most important outcome of the study is that

despite the fact that senior candidates tend to be elected vis-à-vis young candidates the

House in 1958 was relatively younger than it was a generation and a third ago (Walker,

1960, pp. 6-8).

Dean Keith Simonton, (1988), Age and Outstanding Achievement: What Do We

Know after a Century of Research?, accepts the fact that despite any significant change in mean life span, which is around 65 shown by historical data over the centuries, the age at election of members of the House of Representatives and Senate in the United States has

increased since the inception of the country. For the presidency, the modal age for

winners and losers is about the same, somewhere in the mid-50s, but the losers display

more variation and might be much younger and older than the winners (Simonton, 1988, pp. 255-256).

D. Roderick Kiewiet and Langche Zeng (1993), An Analysis of Congressional

Career Decisions, 1947-1986, have discovered an intriguing finding that a candidate’s

age has little or no effect upon the probability of running for reelection. They concluded

that the young members of the House have more ambition to seek higher office in

comparison with the elderly members because increasing age reduces the utility of remaining in office. They tried to link the age factor to making decisions for retirement of

the members. Thus age is of paramount importance whether or not politicians remain in

office (Kiewiet and Zeng, 1993, p. 933).

In his book, Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States (1966),

Schlesinger said:

“The age cycle also restricts a man’s political chances. A man’s reasonable

expectations in one period of his life are unreasonable at another time. A man

can fail to advance in politics as much because he is the wrong age at the

wrong time as because he is in the wrong office.” (Schlesinger, 1966, p. 174)

He also noted that most politicians start their political careers at their early age in

order to get into the highest positions in the Senate and House. In the book, Schlesinger

further made a systematic analysis of personal and social considerations, particularly a

politician’s age and its impact in US elections (Schlesinger, 1966, p. 174).

According to his findings, there is a significant link between the ages of the politicians and their positions of prominence in American politics. During the first six

decades of the 20th Century and at the time of the 85th congress election in 1956, the ages of first term House members were between 35 and 40, for governors between 45 and 50,

for senators between 50 and 55, and most of the presidents were in their early 50s. In

other words, congressmen do their best to win election in the 15- year span between 35

and 50; the period between 45 and 50 is the most likely for governors, and election to the

Senate is most likely achieved between the ages of 45 and 60. Half of the presidents have

been in their 50s (Schlesinger, 1966, pp.172-175).

According to Schlesinger, most of politicians start their political careers when

they are young because they have a broad range of political ambition, career commitment

to public office holding, and better chances of advancement in their career vis-à-vis those

who started after 30 or 40. Among the candidates for major political offices, 39 percent

started their public office careers between the ages of 30 and 39. During the first six

decades of the 20th Century, 76 percent of politicians had started their public office

careers before the age of 40, and only a fourth of them had started their careers after the

age of 40. From the major party candidates for governor and senator between 1900 and

1958, 37 percent had begun their office careers before the age of 30 (Schlesinger, 1991, p

71-72).

In his book, Political Parties and the Winning of Office (1991), Schlesinger

examined in detail the age factor in US elections at both regional and state levels. In New

England and the Border States, House members were usually elected in their 40s, governors in their late 40s, and senators in their early 50s. The age pattern was similar in

the Midwest and Middle Atlantic States. On the other hand, the Southern states had their

distinctive age pattern. The representatives were younger than in the other regions;

senators were elected at an earlier age than the governors. An early start was the major

characteristic of the southern states. The same age pattern emerged in the far west

(Schlesinger, 1991, p 79).

Schlesinger has also observed changes in age pattern in different time periods. In

the beginning of the 19th Century, most representatives were first elected in their late 30s,

the senators in their late 40s, and the largest group of governors in their early 50s. By

1851, the age distribution for the three offices was very much the same and for all three

offices the model-age groups were in their 40s. By 1901, the focus of age distribution

was much sharper; representatives were wining their first elections in their early 40s,

senators and governors in their late 40s (Schlesinger, 1991, p 85).

Schlesinger also noticed a slight change in age and tenure patterns starting in

1960. He saw a trend toward younger politicians for the offices of representative, senator, and governor. By the 1970s, the optimal age for House members was the late 30s, and for senators the late 40s. This trend toward younger people in Congress was due to a number of reasons including increasing retirements; a small number of people entering Congress without prior public office experience; and a large number of individuals with state legislative experience. Similar to the 19th Century, in the 1970s, senators were winning

their first elections at an age similar to or younger than the governors. This trend toward

youthful legislators was due to a massive increase in retirements from Congress. For the

House of Representatives, the number of voluntary retirements increased from 12 in 1966

to 30 in 1978. From 1966 to 1974, 27% of House members retired, half of them before

the age of 65, while those who retired because of electoral defeat increased from 15.2% to 39.6% during the period from 1940 to 1970 (Schlesinger, 1991, pp. 86-87).

Paul L. Hain (1974) in his article, “Age, Ambitions, and Political Careers: The

Middle-age Crisis”, noted that the age of the candidate has a linear relationship with

political ambition and advancement. This age analysis was taken from the members of the 1957 state legislatures of California, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennessee. Hain

concluded that age does matter in political advancement and chances of advancement

decline with age. The data from four states and eight chambers in 1957 show that the

mean age of those who later sought to advance was 43.7 as compared to those who were

defeated (51.5 years). Hain tested his hypothesis that the older a person is the less likely

are his chances to advance. He agrees with Schlesinger that the chances of first success in

US elections decrease greatly over 50 (Paul l. Hain, 1974, p. 269).

Peverill Squire (1988) in his article, “Career Opportunity and Membership

Stability in Legislatures”, examined the relationship between stability in legislatures and

members’ prospects for advancement. He gathered data from three different types of state

legislatures-- career, dead end, and springboard. According to his analysis, in career

legislatures (eight legislatures), the mean age of the members at the time of entry is the

late 30s, except for Pennsylvania which had a mean age of 42.2. In the dead end category

states (12 legislatures), the mean age was late 30s or early 40s except in North Dakota

and Vermont which had late 40s. Similarly, in springboard state legislatures (five

legislatures), the mean age of the members at the time of entry was also early 40s. These

findings fit with Hain’s (1974) and Schlesinger’s (1991) that the older a person is the

less likely are his chances to advance, and the chances of first being elected decrease

greatly over 50 years of age in US elections (Squire, 1988, pp. 75-76).

Joseph Cooper and William West (1981) in their article, “Voluntary Retirement,

Incumbency and the Modern House”, indicated that the average age of House members

reaching retirement age declined in the 1970s. In 1957, the average age of House

members was 52.9 years. Despite slight fluctuation during the 1960s, age remained 52.9

years in 1969 and then steadily declined to 48.8 years in 1979. The average number of

members 65 or older declined from 59.4 to 55.5 during each congress from the 85th to

95th (1957 to 1979). These figures indicate that the House was growing younger because

the average age of the members was declining (Cooper and West, 1981, p. 284).

Paul Brace (1984) in his article, “Progressive Ambition in the House: A

Probabilistic Approach”, seemingly agrees with many scholars (e.g., Schlesinger, 1966;

Hain, 1974; Prewitt, 1970b; and Fishel, 1971, 1973) in terms of how age shapes career

commitment, recruitment, and ambition. He also points out that relatively young and old

politicians are less likely to pursue higher political offices than politicians falling between

these categories. According to his quantitative empirical analysis, the age of the politician

has a substantial effect in seeking higher political office. Particularly for the House

members, the age at which a member is estimated to have the greatest possibility of

seeking higher office is approximately 43 (Brace, 1984, pp.567-568).

Walter Oleszek (1969) wrote a research note, “Age and Political Careers,” to

examine the relationship between age and first election to the House of Representatives.

He also explored this relationship between age and the House member’s first election

within both Republican and Democratic parties in different regions of the United States.

He chose six congresses, at ten-year interval beginning in 1910, and examined 1,923

House members’ first elections. According to this study, the age of the candidate is

important in two ways. First, candidates in their 50s may have an advantage over those in

their 40s projecting a desirable political image of wisdom and experience. Second, for

advancement in the House via seniority rule for important committee assignments or

24 chairmanship of committees, those members who are elected early in life can rise to influence in the House power structure provided they consistently win elections (Oleszek,

1969, p.100)

Table 2-3: Age and Entry of 1,923 House Members 1910-1960

Age %age in Age Group, Group 1st election 25-29 1.40 30-34 7.90 35-39 18.77 40-44 21.37 45-49 18.82 50-54 14.56 55-59 9.62 60-64 5.25 65+ 1.98 Source: (Oleszek, 1969, p.101).

As shown in Table 2.3, Oleszek concludes that the age span between 40 and 44 is greater than the other eight age groups during the period from 1910 to 1960 for first-time

House elections. The percentage (1.40) of very young between 25 and 29, or the percentage (1.98) of very old, 65 and above, are the smallest of the categories. This study also indicates that politicians in their late 30s (18.77) or in their early 40s (21.37) were most likely to be elected during the study period. In addition, the pattern for election by age for both political parties was almost the same. The 40 to 44 age span was the most likely time to win House election for the first time (Oleszek, 1969, pp.101-102).

T. Richard Witmer (1964) in his article “The Aging of the House” made a

quantitative research analysis of the fact that serving members of the House for first and

second terms in office compared to members in their tenth term or beyond had declined

drastically over the 70 years of his study period ( from 53rd to 88th congress). There were

multiple reasons of this decline along with the change in the entering age of the first-term

winners for the House election. He observed that the entering age of first-term members

had decreased by about three and a half years from 1893 since the beginning of the study

period. He also observed that the years in which the entering age, based on this study period of seventy years, was lowest in the later periods, although, the average entering

age in the 58th Congress was nearly as low as that for the 83rd and 88th congresses

(Witmer, 1964, p.529).

Paul R. Abramson, John H. Aldrich, and David W. Rohde (1987), in their article,

“Progressive Ambitions Among United States Senators: 1972-1988”, discussed the effect

of the age of senators seeking nomination in the presidential race from a different

perspective. They have examined several other liabilities including age that reduce a

Senator’s chances of gaining the presidential nomination. According to their research

analysis being either too old or being too young is a liability. Senators in their mid-40s

are considered young, which can be a liability. John F. Kennedy, the youngest person

ever elected to be president, was only 43 when he got the nomination. During the study

period of 1972-1988, of 19 senators (15 Democrats and four Republican), only one of

them, Fred Harris (Democrat), ran for the presidency. Similarly, being too old is also a

liability. Ronald Reagan was 69 and 73 when nominated for his first and second terms

respectively. During the study period, there were 19 Democrats and four Republican

senators 70 years old or older but none ran for the presidency (Abramson, Aldrich, and

Rohde (1987), pp. 9-10).

Herbert L. Abrams (1997) in his article, “Can the Nation Afford a Senior Citizen

as President? The Age Factor in the 1996 Election and beyond”, discussed the old age

liability for being a candidate for the presidency. In his opinion, age became an important

issue when Senator Dole became the oldest candidate in US electoral history ever

nominated for a first term. Despite the life span increasing steadily, i.e., 47 years in 1900, rising to 76 in 1997, and the chances (20%) of the doubling the proportion of population of 65 years or older by 2030, the author suggests that Congress pass a resolution for an upper age limit for the presidential nominees. He suggests, 65 years, similar to the retirement age for the chief executives of the great corporations in the United States. The age issue became so pervasive in the 1996 elections that there were 884 news stories and

224 other articles on the issue during his primary election campaign. In Abram’s opinion,

the older age of a candidate becomes a greater liability than the younger age (Abrams,

1997, pp.1-3).

There are some other prominent researchers and scholars who have contributed a

lot in exploring the concept of age or aging; the significance of age in ancient and modern

times, modern societies and the aging phenomenon; the future of politics in aging

America; and issues regarding the political participation in American elections. These

authors have dealt exclusively with the meaning and philosophy of age and aging (e.g.,

Barash, David P. 1983; Cowgill, Donald O. 1974; Neugarten, Bernice L.1996; Sorgman,

Margo I., and Marilou Sorensen. 1984; Streib, Gordon F. 1981; Woodruff, Diana S., and

James E. Birren, eds. 1983; and Binstock, Robert H., and Linda K. George, eds. 1990).

There are some other scholars who have explored the changing aspects of age in modern societies, particularly the US society. They have also dealt with the issue of aging in America and its implications on US future politics (e.g., Hahn, 1992; Binstock, 1974 and 1985; Neugarten, 1974; Woodward, 1977; Cutler, and Bengtson. 1974; Cutler, 1977;

Kart, Cary, and Manard, 1976; and Fischer, David Hackett.1977).

Similarly, some researchers in American politics have highlighted the issue of political participation in both presidential and congressional elections; the importance of demographic factors in winning elections; and concepts regarding the candidate’s evaluation in American national elections (e.g., Jankowski, 2000; Abramson, and John H.

Aldrich. 1982; Abrams, Herbert L., and Richard Brody. 1998; Cassel , and Luskin. 1988;

Curtis, and Lambert. 1976; Chen, 1992; Davies, 1999; Frank, 2002; Griffin, and

Newman. 2005; Highton, 2000; Jacobson, 2001; Jackson, 1996; Kahn, and Kenney.

1997; Kornbluh, and Lawrence. 2000; Sandy, and Stone. 1997; Patterson, 2002;

Ragsdale, Lyn and Rusk. 1995; Wattenberg, 2007; and Wayne, 1997).

CHAPTER 3

The Presidential Elections

Harvey C. Lehman, in his book, Age and Achievement (1953) explored the fact

that some ages are crucial when men are likely to do their most outstanding work. He

presents the names of several hundred noted individuals in the field of science, medicine,

philosophy, music, art, literature and politics and established the relationship between

their ages and success or achievement. According to him, age is so important for

politicians or leaders because they are judged by the voters on the basis of their

performance and work over a specific period of time. He also found that top political

leadership in the United States is usually between 50 and 60 years of age. He also said

that older candidates are more likely to be elected than the youthful ones. He recognized

that there are some other factors as well including the lack of recognition, which prevent

the youthful leaders from being elected to the highest political office in the United States.

Lehman has also made a comparison of the ages of 38 successful presidential

candidates and 108 unsuccessful presidential candidates. He made no distinction between

the first and second election of a candidate. He gathered data not only from the

presidential general elections but from the presidential primary elections also. As far as the presidential general elections are concerned, he presents data for only 27 individuals excluding those who became president only by reason of the death of their predecessors

(Lehman, 1953, p.162).

According to him, for a period of more than 150 years, the major political parties

have mostly nominated presidential candidates whose ages ranged from 55 to 59 and the

successful candidates were also within this age range. This holds for both successful and

unsuccessful presidential candidates. However, the age range for successful nominees is

46 to 67 compared to that of unsuccessful nominees, which is 36 to 85. Lehman also has

emphasized that extremely young (William Jennings Bryan was nominated when only

36) and extremely old (Peter Cooper was nominated at the age of 85) nominees have not

been chosen by the electorate in general elections. He concludes that when the parties’

chances in the election are good, the very young and the very old men are not likely to be

nominated (Lehman, 1953, pp.163-164).

Table 3-1: The Mean Age of the Presidents Since 1788 Elections Mean Median Max. Min. S.D. 55 56.43 56 73 43 6.41

Table 3.1 also endorses Lehman’s argument regarding the mean age of the presidents. The mean age of presidents from 55 to 59 has been consistent in presidential electoral history. The mean age of the presidents has gone up since 1980 when the

American voters elected President Ronald Reagan twice, once at 69 and again 73.

Americans also elected President Bill Clinton at the age of 46 for his first term, the youngest president since John F. Kennedy (Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia).

Table 3-2: The Mean Age of Presidents since 1980 Elections Mean Median Max. Min. S,D. 7 59.14 58 73 46 9.97

Table 3.2 shows an increase in mean age of presidents up to 59.14. As I mentioned earlier, if the extreme values are excluded from bottom to top, the mean age of

56 is the most consistent age for elected presidents.

The Age Group% of the Presidents 1788-2006 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 51%

11% 1.8%

36%

Figure 3-1: The Age Group (%) of Presidents since 1788

Lehman is absolutely right in exploring the fact that the majority of middle-aged candidates have been elected through the American electoral history, but this argument

31 does not support the fact that the very young and extremely old were not likely to be nominated by the parties when they had better chances to win. In my opinion, Lehman ignored the fact that to be elected is not like “one-way traffic as there are voters also” who decide the fate of the candidates on considerations other than age. Almost all studies on voter turn out in American national elections have concluded that the young voters

(18-24) are less likely to vote, middle-aged persons are more likely to vote, and elderly people (65 and over) are most likely to vote. The highest percentage of voting has been found among persons in their mid-50s (e.g., Campbell, 1960, Arneson and Eells, 1952,

Campbell and Kahn 1952, Korchin, 1946, Glenn and Grimes, 1968, Grittenden, 1963;

Wattenberg, 2007; Teixeira, 1987; Chen, 1992; and Patterson, 2002). As I mentioned earlier, there is a strong relationship between the ages of the voters and the ages of candidates. This fact can be illustrated by the data taken from the empirical studies on

American presidential elections with regards to different factors that contributed to elections including demographic voting patterns.

Table 3-3: The Age Groups of the Presidents Since the 1788 Elections Age Group Numbers % 35-44 1 1.81 45-54 20 36.36 55-64 28 50.9 65-74 6 10.9

I have collected data from the first presidential election in 1788 to the last in

2004. I also calculated the ages of the winners of the presidential races at the time of their

election year excluding those presidents who assumed the office because of the

resignation or death of their predecessors. Some of the presidents ran for a second term

including Franklin D. Roosevelt who ran four times, so I counted their ages when they contested elections regardless of their terms. This data clearly indicates that most presidents were elected by the American electorate during their mid-50s and mid-60s. If you exclude the two extremes (John F. Kennedy was elected at 43 and Ronald Reagan was elected at 73 for his second term), the majority of the presidents belonged to the middle-aged category.

0.6

56 age 0.5

0.4

0.3 Distribution 0.2

0.1

0.0 42-48 49-55 56-62 62-68 69-73 Age Groups

Figure 3-2: The age group distribution of the Presidents since 1788. Distribution is fitted with a Gaussian (fitting error is of the order of 10-4) with mean value of 56 age.

Figure 3.2 reveals that most presidents were elected at the age (average) of 56.

The average age (55 to 59) of the presidents has been consistent and constant throughout the presidential electoral history. As I stated earlier, there has been a strong relationship between the ages of the voters and the ages of the political leaders; the data regarding voter turnout by age groups clearly support this argument. All cross-sectional studies on voting turnout conclude that the voter turnout percentage of the middle-age group has been higher than that of the young people (e.g., Campbell, 1960, Arneson and Eells,

1952, Campbell and Kahn 1952, Korchin, 1946, Glenn and Grimes, 1968, Grittenden,

1963; Wattenberg, 2007; Teixeira, 1987; Chen, 1992; and Patterson, 2002). The average and median ages of the presidents elected since 1980 are 59.14 and 58 respectively.

John F. Kennedy at 43 was the youngest president ever elected by the American voters (Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia). Previous studies on voter turnout, especially demographic voting behavior, have not only concluded that the highest voter turnout percentage occurred in the 1960 presidential elections but the highest percentage of young voters was then as well. Some important exit poll surveys also endorsed the fact that the majority of young voters voted for President Kennedy (Anne, 1974. p.187). The

1960 presidential election also strengthens my argument regarding the relationship between the voter’s age and the candidate’s age. Some researchers on American politics have argued that young voters also supported President Ronald Reagan in 1980 presidential elections. This is true but if you look at the total percentage of young voters, the majority of them favored President Jimmy Carter who was, himself, younger than the

Republican candidate Ronald Reagan (CQ weekly online).

Age was also a crucial factor in 1996 presidential race between the incumbent

president Bill Clinton and the Republican challenger Senator Bob Dole, the oldest man

ever to run for the US presidency (Walker, 1996. 663). An indication of how important

Senator Dole’s age was, is shown by a study done at University of Maryland.There were almost 800 news stories and 224 other articles in which his age was noted during the primary elections for nomination. Senator Dole was four years older than President

Reagan in his first presidential campaign (Abrams and Brody, 1998, p. 477).

The Age of the President and Voting Participation/Turnout

Hypothesis 3 stresses the relationship between the voter’s age and the candidate’s

age in congressional elections. For presidential elections, I am not applying the same

principle I applied to two major age groups in congress, the youngest and the extremely

old, in order to define the correlation between their ages. But here I would say that almost

all cross-sectional studies, polling surveys and existing elections or voting turnout lead

me to conclude that the middle age people are more likely to vote than the young voters

(Bennett, 1997, p. 47) The American national election data since 1980 also illustrates the

fact that not only the voting percentage of middle age (45-64) is greater than the other age groups but it has also been increasing since 1980. This clearly shows an increased level of voting participation of the age group from 32.41 in 1980 to 39.92 in the 2002 elections.

In this study I present the argument that the voting participation level of middle-

aged people (% of total US vote) has been much higher than the other age groups.

American voters have been electing mostly middle-aged presidents since the inception of this nation. Similarly, the highest voter turnout percentage has often been observed

35 among voters in their 50s (Glenn and Grimes, 1960. p.563). And the lowest voter turnout has often been found among the young voters (18-24).

In my opinion, voters of different age groups generally vote their cohort groups.

Though voting is a secret act and nobody knows who is voting for whom, but on the basis of three major reasons, i.e., first, almost all cross-sectional election data, polling surveys, pre-polls, and existing polls support this fact that the middle age people go to polls in large numbers compared to the other age groups (Seagull, 1971, pp.91-92); second, the highest percentage of representation of the middle age people in the Congress, and third, the most American presidents were also from the middle age category, it can be concluded that there might be a strong relationship between the voter’s age and the candidate’s age in elections.

CHAPTER 4

The Congressional Elections

In this chapter, I will examine the role of age in American congressional elections

from 1980 to 2006. My focus will be on these findings: (1) the average age of the

congressmen has increased; (2) the average age at the time of first election has also

increased from the past and House candidates in their 40s (40 to 50) and Senate

candidates between the mid-40s and mid-50s (45-55) have greater chances of success at

the time of their first elections; (3) the number of older congressmen (65 and over) has

also increased contrary to the number of younger congressmen (25 to 34) which has

declined substantively.

I will also emphasize the correlation between voter age and candidate’s age. In age groups where the voter turnout is decreasing (such as the youngest group, 18 to 34), the similar age group of the members of the Congress (25 to 34) is also declining. In addition, in age groups where the voter turnout is increasing (as the older group 65 and over) the similar age group of congressmen is also increasing. However, there is not a perfect or linear correlation between the mean ages of the winners in elections and the mean ages of the voters. But the indicators arrayed from the data substantively and clearly show a significant relationship between them.

Lehman also gives information regarding the ages of the House representatives

and senators in the US at six different times from 1799 to 1925. The difference of median

age of representatives in 1799 and 1925 increased ten years, i.e., from 43.50 to 53.46.

Similarly, in the same period, the median age of senators increased by about 12 years,

i.e., from 45.25 to 57.50. According to Walker, the mean age of 51.7 of all winners has

been stable and consistent if the average age of past House elections (80th to 85th) is computed. The figure of mean age 51.7 has also been consistent for the last dozen years of House electoral history (Lehman, 1953, pp. 269-270).

Joseph A. Schlesinger has noted that most politicians start their political careers

at an early age in the US in order to get the highest positions in the Congress. In his first

book, Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States (1966), Schlesinger

made a systematic analysis of personal and social considerations, particularly the

politician’s age and its impact in US elections. According to his findings, there is a

significant link between the ages of the politicians and their positions of prominence in

American politics. During the first six decades of the 20th Century and at the time of the

85th Congress election in 1956, the ages of firstly elected House members were between

35 and 40 and senators were between 50 and 55, and most of the presidents were in their

early 50s (Schlesinger, 1991, pp. 86-87)..

In other words, congressmen do their best to win election in the 15- year span between 35 and 50 and the office of senator is most likely achieved between the ages of

45 and 60, and half of the presidents have been in their fifties. Schlesinger also noticed a

slight change in age and tenure patterns starting in 1960. He found that the trend was

toward younger politicians in the Congress. By the 1970s, the optimal age for the House

members was the late 30s, and senators late 40s (e.g., Lehman, 1953; Walker, 1960;

Abrams, 1997; Hain, 1974; Schlesinger, 1966-91; Squire, 1988; Cooper and West, 1981;

Brace, 1984; Oleszek, 1969; Witmer, 1964; Matthews, 1954; Abramowitz and Segal 1992;

Jones, 1982; Ragsdale and Rusk, 1995; Abramson, Aldrich, and Rohde, 1987; Kahn and

Kenney, 1997 Highton, 2000). In this study, I will focus on the issue whether or not the same pattern prevailed since 1980 in congressional elections.

Age and the Congress

Table 4.1 presents the data taken from the congressional elections since 1980 to

the recent elections of 2006, which clearly indicate a significant increase of almost seven

years in the average age of the members of Congress. The trend is almost consistently

and constantly upward except for a slight decline in the elections of 1992 and 1994, and

then again went up till 2006.

Table 4-1: The Age of Members of Congress 1980-2006 Year Mean Age Median Age Mode S.D. 1980 49.05 49 53 10.50 1982 49.66 50 40 10.60 1984 50.51 50 42 10.52 1986 51.59 50 44 10.50 1988 52.38 51 46 10.08 1990 53.30 52 47 10.03 1992 52.49 51 50 10.13 1994 52.31 52 52 10.34 1996 52.82 52 49 10.03 1998 53.88 53 51 9.902 2000 54.68 54 53 10.15 2002 55.17 55 55 9.89 2004 56.04 56 57 9.91 2006 56.96 57 59 10.06

The mean age went up from 49.05 in 1980 to 56.96 in 2006 elections. The slight

decline in 1992 and 1994 elections is due to the inclusion of the comparatively young

members of the Democratic Party, and most importantly the large increase in young

voters who supported Democratic candidates (Stephen, 1997.p 23). This finding strengthens my argument that there is a strong relationship between the ages of the voters and the chances of winning an election, especially when the voter turnout increase of the young voters could affect the representation of the young leadership in Congress and vice versa. Previous studies indicate a steady decline in young voter turnout (Lopez, and

Kirby, 2003. pp.1-2)

The Ages of the Congress 1980-2006 58

52 Mean Age (%)

48 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Election Years

Figure 4-1: The Age of Members of Congress 1980-2006

As mentioned in this hypothesis, the average of congressmen has increased,

Figure 4.1 also shows a clear, consistent and constant increase from the1980 to the 1990

elections, and then the 1994 to the 2006 elections. There might be some other reasons of

mean age increase during the study period from 1980 to 2006 such as the high

incumbency rate in Congress. I have also collected data on the new members/first entry

40 in each election since 1980 in order to know exactly whether or not the mean age increase is due to the high incumbency rate.

Table 4-2: The Age of Members of Congress When First Elected 1980-2006 Year Mean Age Median Age Mode S.D. 1980 42.48 42 36 9.53 1982 43.89 42 46 9.03 1984 44.15 43 42 8.40 1986 46.37 46 43 7.91 1988 45.19 44.5 47 6.81 1990 45.43 45 49 7.89 1992 45.51 45 41 8.04 1994 43.98 43 36 8.27 1996 46.67 48 50 8.06 1998 47.90 48 48 7.75 2000 46.46 45.5 53 9.24 2002 48.76 50 50 8.43 2004 48.98 49.5 49 8.58 2006 49.95 51 55 7.95

Hypothesis 1 has two parts. As it mentioned in the second part, the average age at the time of first election has also increased. As can be seen easily from Table 4.2 the mean age of the newly elected members of the congress has also increased from 42.48 in

1980 to 49.95 in the 2006 elections, an almost eight year increase in the 25 years study period. That is a substantive increase in such a short span. And the median age rose from

42 in 1980 to 51 in the 2006 elections. This also shows that the overall increase in the average is not due just to the high incumbency rate in Congress but that the voters also

elected comparatively more aged leaders than in the previous elections. This trend is also

consistent and constant except for the 1994 and 2000 elections. These are two critical elections when the voter turnout percentage of young voters was comparatively high.

45 Mean Age(Years) 44

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Congress First Elected Since 1980

Figure 4-2: The Age of Members of Congress When First Elected 1980-2006

As clearly shown in Figure 4.2, a trend toward increased average age since the

1980 elections is consistent, which indicates that the voters elected more elderly people.

So, the increase in mean ages of the members of Congress is not due just to the high

incumbency rate but almost each new election brought more elderly members into the

Congress.

The Age Group of The Congress 1980-2006

30 Age Groups

25 25-34 35-44 20 45-54 55-64 15 65-74 Percentage (%) 75-84 10 85-94

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Election Year

Figure 4-3: The Age Groups (%) of Congress 1980-2006

The data regarding the different age groups in both the House and the Senate elections since 1980, as shown in Figure 4.3, also verifies Hypothesis 2 that the number of older congressmen (65 and over) has also increased but the number of younger congressmen (25 to 34) has declined substantively.

The Age Groups Congress 1st Elected 1980-2006

40 25-34 35 35-44

30 45-54 55-64 25 65-74 75-84 20 85-94

Age Groups Percentage (%) 5

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Elections Since 1980 Figure 4-4: The Age Groups (%) of Members of Congress When First Elected since 1980

In this research, I have focused on two age groups, the youngest (25 to 34), because the lower age limit for House members is 25 and for Senate members is 30, and the extreme oldest or those over 65 years. As I mentioned in Hypothesis 2, in the oldest group (65 and over) the mean age is increasing on both accounts. An average age increase in Congress (7.1 in 1980 to 17.01 in 2006 in only one age group from 65 to 74, and from 75 to 84 the increase is 0.93 to 4.3) and as a freshman (1.59 in 1980 to 3.17 in

2006) in the Congress since 1980. Where the other group is concerned, the youngest group (25 to 34), the mean age on both accounts, as a whole (7.29 in 1980 to 1.31 in

2006) and as the freshman entry in the Congress is declining (20.63 in 1980 to 3.17 in

2006) as indicated by the above-mentioned figures 4.3 and 4.4.

Age and the House

I have also analyzed the election data since 1980 in order to know whether or not the trend of increase in mean age occurred in both chambers, i.e., the Senate and the

House separately.

Table 4-3: The Age of Members of House 1980-2006

Year Mean Median Mode S.D. 1980 48.29 48 53 10.44 1982 48.77 48 43 10.57 1984 49.61 48 42 10.46 1986 50.83 49 43 10.45 1988 51.68 50 57 10.15 1990 52.43 51 47 10.01 1992 51.32 50 50 9.97 1994 50.92 50 47 9.96 1996 51.65 51 49 9.65 1998 52.77 52 47 9.44 2000 53.58 54 53 9.77 2002 53.98 55 55 9.41 2004 55.05 56 57 9.65 2006 55.86 56 59 9.75

According to Table 4.3, the mean age of House members has risen from 48.29 in

1980 to 55.86 in the recent 2006 congressional elections, the highest average at any time in at least a century (CQ Weekly, 2005.p.240). Along with the mean age within the 25- year election span, the median age increased from 48 to 56, i.e., eight years greater than the previous limit in 1980. A similar trend is also visible for the House elections where

45 not once did the mean age drop below 48.29 during the first year of this study period, except it declined in the elections of 1992, 1994, and 1996). There are the same elections when the young voters got out in large numbers and voted for the comparatively young leadership.

60 The Ages of the House Members 1980-2006

Mean Age (Years) Age Mean 46

40 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 The House Elections Since 1980

Figure 4-5: The Age of Members of the House 1980-2006

The high incumbency rate of the House members is obviously a major reason for the rise in the average of the House over the years. But this increase in mean age from

1980 to 2006 is not just due to the high incumbency rate only. I have also gathered data of the newly elected House members since 1980 which show that the American voters

46 chose House members in their 40s. And the mean age of the newly elected members rose from 41.61 in 1980 to 48.90 in the elections of 2006. Similarly, the median age increased from 41 in 1980 to 49 in 2006, an eight-year increase in just the 25 years of the study period. It is also significant that the mean age of the freshman House members never decreased from the starting figure of 41.61 in 1980. There were a few minor fluctuations during the mid-90s elections. This fact can also be seen in Figure 4.5.

Table 4-4: The Age of Members of the House When First elected 1980-2006 Year Mean Median Mode S.D. 1980 41.61 41 30 9.67 1982 43.73 42 41 9.04 1984 44.15 43 42 8.76 1986 45.69 43 43 7.78 1988 43.93 43 41 6.78 1990 45.28 44 49 8.16 1992 44.97 44 41 7.88 1994 43.38 43 36 8.19 1996 46.24 47.5 51 8.5 1998 47.73 48 50 7.28 2000 44.88 43 38 9.21 2002 48.09 49 43 8.13 2004 48.75 50 61 9.08 2006 48.9 50 55 7.83

The mean age of the House members is consistently and constantly increasing and never dropped below 41.61, the starting figure in 1980. The median age also rose from 41 to 50 during this study period, as shown by Table 4.4. It is also clear from Figure 4-6 below that despite a little bit of fluctuation the trend towards increase is obvious. The

47 difference of mean age from 1980 to the 2006 elections of the House is almost similar to the overall mean age during this period. It is true, as well, that generally the freshman

House members are elected in larger numbers than the senators. According to the US

Constitution, the term for House members is two years, which means that the electorate will have a chance to have elected the whole House (435 members) at the end of each alternative year. On the other hand, the American electorate will choose one-third (almost

33 out of the total 100 members) of the Senators in general elections.

45 Mean Age(Years) 44

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Congress First Elected Since 1980

Figure 4-6: The Age of Members of the House When First Elected 1980-2006

The Age Groups (%) The House 1980-2006

30 25-34 35-44 25 45-54 55-64 20 65-74 75-84 15 85-94

5 Age GroupsPercentage (%)

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Elections Since 1980

Figure 4-7: The Age Groups (%) of the House 1980-2006

Figure 4.6 and Tables 4.4 and 4.6 show the same trend of substantive decrease in

the youngest age group (25 to 34) in the House. There is only one exception. In the 65 and over age group, there is no change (decrease or increase) despite the increase in voter turnout in the same age group during the study period from 1980 to the 2006 elections.

Table 4-5: The Age Groups (%) of the House When First Elected 1980-2006 Year 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85-94 1980 25 46.15 15.38 11.54 1.92 0 0 1982 15.38 42.31 26.92 15.38 0 0 0 1984 9.62 40.38 21.15 13.46 0 0 0 1986 7.69 44.23 23.08 19.23 0 0 0 1988 3.85 50 25 9.62 0 0 0 1990 9.62 38.46 34.62 11.54 0 0 0 1992 5.77 34.62 48.08 9.62 1.92 0 0 1994 9.62 44.23 38.46 5.77 1.92 0 0 1996 9.62 28.85 44.23 17.31 0 0 0 1998 1.92 25 50 9.62 1.92 0 0 2000 5.77 40.38 19.23 15.38 1.92 0 0 2002 5.77 32.69 40.38 21.15 0 0 0 2004 7.69 19.23 32.69 23.08 1.92 0 0 2006 3.85 26.92 40.38 26.92 1.92 0 0

Age and the Senate

The same pattern is observed in Senate elections since 1980. The following

figures 4.8 and 4.9 clearly indicate that the average age has increased from 52.44 in 1980

to 61.77, the highest mean age in the last 80 years of Senate history (CQ, 2005. p. 240).

Not only has the average age increased but the average age of the newly elected senators in each election since 1980 has also increased from 46 to 54 along with the median age from 49 to 54. The high incumbency rate in the Senate since 1914 is also a major reason of increased mean age (Gowrisankaran, Mitchell, and Moro, 2004. p.1).

62 The Ages of the Senators 1980-2006

56 Mean Age Mean (Years) 54

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 The Senate Since 1980

Figure 4-8: The Ages of Senators 1980-2006

The Ages of the Senate First Elected 1980-2006 56

48 Mean Age (%) Mean

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Election Year

Figure 4-9: The Ages of Senators When First Elected 1980-2006

Figures 4.10 and 4.11 also show that despite some fluctuations in the mean age increase for first-time elected senators, the trend is clearly upwards. The above- mentioned data of US national elections 1980-2006 supports Hypothesis 1 that the mean

age of the congressmen has increased. The average age at the time of entry/first-time

election has also increased and the House candidates in their 40s and Senate candidates in their mid-40s to mid-5os have greater chances of success in their first elections.

The Age Groups (%) The Senate 1980-2006

35 25-34 30 35-44 45-54 25 55-64 65-74 20 75-84 85-94 15

5 Age Groups Percentage (%) Percentage Groups Age

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Elections Since 1980

Figure 4-10: The Age Groups (%) of Senators 1980-2006

The Age Groups (%) The Senate First Elected 1980-2006

75 70 65 60 55 25-34 50 35-44 45 45-54 40 55-64 35 65-74 75-84 30 85-94 25 20 15 10

Age Groups Percentage (%) Percentage Groups Age 5 0 -5 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Elections Since 1980

Figure 4-11: The Age Groups (%) of Senators When First Elected 1980-2006

Figures 4.10 and 4.11 clearly show that the average age of the youngest group

(30-34) in the Senate has decreased from 2% in 1980 to zero in 2006. Similarly, the mean age in the same group of senators at the time of their first election has also decreased from 9 % in 1980 to zero in 2006. On the other hand, the mean age of senators 65 and over has increased from 9 in 1980 to 29% in 2006 in general and from zero to 9% at the time of their first election.

Age and Participation

The most important part of this research (Hypothesis 3) is the relationship between the voter’s age and the candidate’s age. I have concluded that there is a correlation, which is not a perfect one. A strong relationship does exist between these two

variables. Any significant change in the property of one variable (voter turnout) affects

the performance (representation in Congress) of the other. I focused on two particular age groups, one the youngest group of voters and candidates, the other the eldest members of

Congress. According to my analysis, the number of older congressmen (65 and over) has increased since 1980. On the other hand, the number of younger congressmen (25 to 34) has decreased substantively.

Table 4-6: Registered Voters in Different Age Groups (%) Year Registered 18-24 25-44 45-64 65 and over 1980 105,089,865 13.17 38.25 31.42 17.10 1982 106,074,603 11.52 38.77 31.48 18.14 1984 116,084,729 12.36 40.74 29.23 17.65 1986 111,811,270 9.92 40.94 29.98 19.05 1988 118,613,268 10.39 41.35 29.19 19.03 1990 113,277,396 8.74 41.52 29.54 20.17 1992 126,636,488 10.10 41.61 29.22 18.99 1994 118,916,875 8.95 40.41 30.71 19.98 1996 127,616,009 9.42 40.44 30.94 19.24 1998 123,099,588 8.13 38.90 33.17 19.76 2000 129,467,151 9.36 37.64 33.74 19.25 2002 128,146,389 8.16 35.54 36.24 20.04 2004 142,142,346 10.07 34.72 36.32 18.79 2006 N.A.* N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. * Not available Source: US Census Bureau

Table 4.6 indicates a slight increase in the total registered voters population (%) of 65 and over starting from 17.10 in 1980 to over 20 in some cases and despite some

fluctuations during this study period, it never dropped from the starting figure. On the

other hand, there is decrease in the total registered population (%) of the youngest age group (18-24) starting from 13.17 in 1980 to just over eight in some cases and improving up to the starting point of 13.17.

Table 4-7: Voter Turnout (%) by Selected Age Groups Since 1980

Year Voted 18-24 25-44 45-64 65 and over 1980 93,151,405 12.05 38.61 32.41 16.83 1982 80,259,255 8.90 37.83 34.23 19.10 1984 101,807,837 11.21 40.74 30.37 17.72 1986 79,989,400 7.23 38.77 32.89 21.09 1988 102,228,252 9.05 41.12 30.46 19.38 1990 81,953,100 6.18 39.99 31.91 21.98 1992 113,824,292 9.16 41.65 30.22 18.99 1994 85,620,150 5.91 38.19 33.72 22.29 1996 104,958,842 7.60 39.09 32.96 20.35 1998 83,057,532 5.10 34.77 37.06 23.11 2000 110,827,123 7.78 36.74 35.48 19.98 2002 89,008,083 5.29 31.50 39.92 23.22 2004 125,749,602 9.26 34.09 37.61 19.03 2006 N.A.* N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. * Not available Source: US Census Bureau

Table 4.7 and Figure 4.12 provide data indicating an increase in voting participation by the older voters’ age group of 65 and above and a substantive decrease in the younger voters’ age group of 18 to 24. The level of participation in elections of the

older age group (65 and over) rose from 16.83% in 1980 to 19.03% in the 2004 elections.

Contrary to this finding, the level of participation in the elections by the young group

dropped from 12.05% to the lowest point of 5.10% in 1999, and then 9.26% in the 2004 elections and never again rose to the starting point of 12.05% during the study period.

18-24 Voter Turnout by Age Groups 1980-2004 25-44 45-64 25 65& over

Vote % Vote 10

0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 Elections 1980-2004

Figure 4-12: Voter Turnout (%) by Selected Age Groups Since 1980

The following Table 4.8 and Figure 4.13 show the increase or decrease in the

voting turnout by separate age groups in the US elections since 1980. If you compare the

voting turnout of two age groups (18-24 to 65 and over) election by election since 1980, the older age group of 65 and above is far ahead of the youngest group (18-24). The

lowest ever voting turnout by the older group (65 and over) during this study period of

59.5 is higher than the youngest group’s highest ever voting turnout of 42.8 in the

election of 1992. The highest voter turnout by the old group is 70.1 in the 1992 election,

which is 27 points greater than the voting turnout of 42.8 by the young group in the same election. Similarly, 1980 to 2004, in each of these elections the voting turnout % for the

eldest voters has been far higher than the voting turnout % by the young group (Gimpel,

Morris, and Armstrong. 2004. p. 74)

Table 4-8: Voter Turnout (%) Within Selected Age Groups Since 1980 Year 18-24 25-44 45-64 65 & over 1980 39.9 58.7 69.3 65.1 1982 24.8 45.4 62.2 59.9 1984 40.8 58.4 69.8 67.7 1986 21.9 41.4 58.7 60.9 1988 36.2 54 67.9 68.8 1990 20.4 40.7 55.8 60.3 1992 42.8 58.3 70 70.1 1994 20.1 39.4 56.7 61.3 1996 32.4 49.2 64.4 67 1998 16.6 34.8 53.6 59.5 2000 32.3 49.8 64.1 67.6 2002 17.2 34.1 53.1 61 2004 41.9 52.2 66.6 68.9 2006 N.A.* N.A. N.A. N.A. * Not available Source: US Census Bureau

65 18 - 24 60 25 - 44 55 45 - 64 65 - above 50

35 Percentage (%) 30

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Election Year

Figure 4-13: Voter Turnout (%) Within Selected Age Groups Since 1980

The following figures 4.14 and 4.15 support Hypothesis 3 that in such age groups of congressmen where the numbers are increasing, particularly the older group (65 and over), a similar age group of the voters who participated in the elections has also increased. And similarly, in such age groups of congressmen where their numbers are declining, as in the case of the younger group (25-34), the corresponding younger voter group (18-24) in Congressional elections is also decreasing. To find the correlation between the two sets of data, I have used Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, which is given as

∑ i i −− yyxx )))((( i rxy = − )1( SSn yx

where x , y are averages of data x and y respectively, while , SS yx are the corresponding standard deviations. The correlation between voter age group 18-24 and elected member

58 age group 25-34 is 0.67. Similarly, the correlation between voters aged 65 and above, and elected members of the same age group is calculated as 0.93.

Members Age group (25-34) Voters Age group (18-24) 6 Correlation Coefficient = 0.94

2 Age Group Percentage (%)

0 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Election Year

Figure 4-14: The Correlation between the Voter’s Age and the Member’s Age (Young Group)

28 Member Age Group (65 and above) Voters Age Group (65 and above) 26

24 Correlation Coefficient = 0.68

Age Group Percentage (%) 10

6 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 Election Year

Figure 4-15: The Correlation between the Voter’s Age and the Member’s Age (Old Group)

It is not my purpose in this research to analyze the correlation between all individual age groups but only the youngest and the oldest. However, it is interesting to note that the same relationship of age that exists among the two major groups might also exist between other age groups, particularly the middle age groups (45 to 64) of both voters and candidates. The election data since 1980 also indicates that there has been a significant increase in the voting turnout of the 45 to 64 age group from 32% to near

40%, and so the representation of this age group also went up. This relationship can also be traced from the time of the first election of this age group in both House and Senate elections. In general, it can be said that representation in Congress is increasing where the same age voting participation is increasing and vice versa, which shows a strong relationship between the two variables of the voter’s age on the one hand and the candidate’s age on the other.

As I mentioned in Chapter One, America is growing older and older. The

population of 65 years of age and over is increasing. In this light, with America aging, it

is important to know how this trend will affect American politics, particularly electoral

politics. Now we know that there is a strong relationship between the voter’s age and the

candidate’s age and this will affect the future of American politics by adding more elderly people to Congress.

CHAPTER 5

Summary and Suggestions

There are several reasons to choose this topic for research. Political scientists,

particularly researchers and theorists in American politics, have paid little attention to

exploring the relationship between age and elections. According to recent research, due to

significant improvements in both mortality and fertility by using modern scientific

knowledge and techniques, particularly in the medical field, America is growing older and older. From the perspective of an aging America, it is important to know how this

trend will affect American politics, particularly electoral politics. The increasing

population trend of 65 years and above will definitely affect their representation in

Congress.

The previous studies on this issue also indicate that the age factor has always been

crucial in both presidential and congressional elections. These studies explore the fact

that some ages are crucial, when men are likely to do their most outstanding work. These

studies also show that age is so important for politicians or leaders because voters judge them on the basis of their performance over a specific period of time. Additionally, these studies also find that political leadership in the United States is usually between 50s and

60s years of age.

In the beginning, I discussed the meanings of age and aging. A person’s age is

generally measured in years since birth and this is how age is represented in this study also. Political scientists use age as a variable in their research employing a measure of chronological age. On the other hand, the term “aging” is used to indicate that the elderly

(65 and over) segment of population is increasing faster than the other segments in this society (Cowgill, 1974). There is also another important issue to divide the population into different age groups. There is no specific criterion or yardstick to distribute the chronological age groups of the population and generally it seems arbitrary to refer to different age groups such as the young, middle-age, the young old, elderly or old, and the old old or the oldest old. I have referred mostly to three major categories, youngest (18 to 24 for the voters, 25 to 34 for the congressmen), the middle age (45 to 64), and the elderly (65 and over) in order to explain the election data and establish a relationship between the voter’s age and the candidate’s age.

Age was a crucial factor in both social and political life of the people in ancient

times. The institutions of family and tribe were organized as gerontocracies where the

eldest male had absolute power. Most ancient societies had the same attitude towards

eldership. From ancient China to ancient Rome, from ancient India to Medieval Europe,

age meant power and authority. Old age was also highly respected in early America

because of its rareness and for some other social and religious reasons. Respect for age

was deeply embedded in the Judeo-Christian ethic of early America (Fisher, 1977, pp.13-

43).

In this research, I have outlined some of the major work on the age factor and

American national elections. Most importantly, Harvey C. Lehman’s book (1953), Age

and Achievement explored the relationship between chronological age and outstanding

performance or achievement. He also discussed the optimum ages for attaining the

outstanding leadership positions in the past history (Lehman, 1953, p.162).

I have also discussed in detail some other notable political theorists and

researchers who endorse the argument presented by Lehman, that age has a significant

role in achieving political success in US elections (e.g., Walker, 1960; Simonton;

Schlesinger, 1966; Hain, 1974; Brace, 1984; Oleszek, 1969;Witmer ,1964; Abramson,

Aldrich, and Rohde,1987; and Abrams, 1997).

Most importantly, I have collected the US election data since 1788 for

presidential elections and since 1980 for congressional elections in order to know the

significance of age as presented by Lehman and other scholars. The US election data

revealed the following research findings: (1) the average of congressmen has increased;

(2) the average age at the time of entry/first election has also increased and House

candidates during their 40s and Senate candidates between their mid-40s and mid-50s have greater chances of success at the time of their first elections; (3) the number of older

congressmen (65 and over) has also increased, contrary to the number of younger

congressmen (25 to 34) which has declined substantively. I have also found a correlation

between voter’s age and candidate’s age, specifically that in such age groups of the voters

where their voter turnout is decreasing (as the youngest group of 18 to 24), the similar

young age group of the members of the Congress (25 to 34) is also declining. In addition,

in those age groups of voters where their voter turnout is increasing (as the older group

65 and over) the similar age group of the congressmen is also increasing. However, there

is not a perfect or linear correlation between the mean ages of the winners in elections

and the mean ages of the voters. But the indicators arrayed from the data substantively

and clearly show a significant relationship between them.

I have found the relationship between the voter’s age and the candidate’s age in

both the presidential and the congressional elections. The average age (55 to 59) of the

presidents has been consistent throughout the presidential electoral history. As a result of

my analysis and as contended earlier, there has been a strong relationship between the

ages of the voters and the ages of the political leaders. The data regarding the voter

turnout by age groups clearly support this argument. The average and median age of

presidents elected since 1980 are 59.14 and 58 respectively. In this study I present the

argument that the voting participation level of the middle age population (% total US

vote) has been much higher than the other age groups. The American voters have been

electing mostly middle-aged presidents since the inception of this nation. In my opinion,

voters of different age groups generally vote their cohort groups. On the basis of three

major reasons, first, almost all cross-sectional election data, polling surveys, pre-polls,

and exit polls support this fact that the middle-aged people go to the polls in large

numbers compared to the other age groups (Ragsdale, and Rusk. 1995. p.313); second, the highest representation of the middle age people in the Congress; and third, most

American presidents were also from the middle-aged category, it can be concluded that there might be a strong relationship between the voter’s age and the candidate’s age in

elections.

As far as the congressional elections are concerned, I have analyzed US election

data from various perspectives. I have calculated the average age of the Congress as a

whole, and then the average of the House and the Senate separately. In addition, I have

calculated the average age of different age groups in the Congress, and then separately

both in the House and the Senate. The mean age of the Congress went up from 49.05 in

1980 to 56.96 in the 2006 elections. The slight decline in 1992 and 1994 elections was

due to the inclusion of the comparatively young members of the Democratic Party, and

most importantly to the large increase in the young voters who supported Democratic

candidates. This finding strengthens my argument that there is a strong relationship

between the ages of the voters and the chances of winning an election, especially when

the voter turnout increase of young voters could affect the representation of the young

leadership in the Congress and vice versa.

The average age of the newly elected members of the Congress has also increased

from 42.48 in 1980 to 49.95 in the 2006 elections, an almost eight years increase in a 25-

year study period, a substantive increase in such a short span. And the median age rose from 42 in 1980 to 51 in the 2006 elections. This data also shows that the overall increase

in the average is not due just to the high incumbency rate in the Congress but also that the

voters elected comparatively more aged leaders than in the previous elections. This trend is also consistent and constant except in the 1994 and 2000 elections. These were two critical elections when the voter turnout percentage of young voters was comparatively high. The data regarding the different age groups in both the House and the Senate

elections since 1980 also verify Hypothesis 2 that the number of older congressmen (65

and over) has also increased but the number of younger Congressmen (25 to 34) has

declined substantively.

The average of the House members has risen from 48.39 in 1980 to 55.86 in the

recent 2006 congressional elections. Along with the mean age, the median age increased

from 48 to 56, an increase of eight years, which is a big leap from the year 1980. It is also significant that the mean age of the freshman House members never decreased from the starting point of 41.61 in 1980, except for a few minor fluctuations during the mid-90s elections. The same trend of substantive decrease in the youngest age group (25 to 34)

can also be observed in the House elections. There is only one exception in the age group

(65 and over) when there was no change (decrease or increase) despite the increase in

voter turnout in the same age group during this study period from 1980 to the 2006

elections.

The same pattern is observed in the Senate elections since 1980. The average age

has increased from 52.44 in 1980 to 61.77, the highest mean age in the last 80 years of

Senate history. Not only has the average age increased but the mean/average age of the newly elected Senators in each election since 1980 has also increased from 46 to 54, along with the median age from 49 to 54. The percentage of the young group (30-34) in the Senate has decreased from two in 1980 to zero in 2006. Similarly, the percentage of the same group of senators at the time of their first election has also decreased from 9.09 in 1980 to zero in 2006. On the other hand, the percentage of senators 65 and over has increased from nine in 1980 to 29 in 2006 in general and from zero to 9.09 at the time of their first election.

It is not my purpose in this research to analyze the correlation between all

individual age groups, but rather to show this correlation in the youngest and the oldest.

But it is interesting to note that the same relationship of age which does exist between the

two major groups might also exist between other age groups, particularly the middle age

groups (45 to 64) of both voters and the candidates. The election data since 1980 also

indicates that there has been a significant increase in the voting turnout of the 45 to 64 age group from 32% to nearly 40% and so the representation of this age group also went up. This relationship can also be traced at the time of first election of this age group in both House and Senate elections. In general, it can be said that the representation in

Congress is increasing while the same voting participation is also increasing and vice versa. This is a clear indication that there is a strong relationship between these two variables, i.e., the voter’s age and the candidate’s age. As a result, this will affect the future of American politics, especially the electoral politics, by adding more elderly people to Congress.

Suggestions for Future Research

Age has been a crucial factor in both ancient and modern political life of people.

There is a need to explore the significance of age with reference to attaining certain

outstanding achievements, particularly the success and achievement in elections. As I mentioned earlier, the political theorists and researchers in American politics have been more focused on other political, socio-economic, and demographic determinants in U.S. elections and they paid less attention to the age factor. In modern democratic societies, nearly all crucial decisions, such as health, education, social security, jobs, funding for social sector etc., are made by the elected leadership. On the other hand, the people at large make one important decision in choosing the leadership at all levels. Harold Dwight

Lasswell has rightly said about politics “who gets what when and how?” (Lasswell, 1951,

p.475).

If you look at the previous policies regarding the socio-economic benefits for the

elderly people in the United States, you can find how the elderly people have been so

influential in the Congress and in other institutions in order to initiate, legislate, and

implement those policies. In other words, representation in the leading institutions of the

nation does affect the policy-making process. The young people in the United States

often show dissatisfaction and resentment that their interests are not being taken care of

by the government. On the other hand, they do not take as much interest in the political process as the elderly people do in most cases. In this perspective, I think there is need to investigate this issue in more detail and there is a lot of scope to explore other different aspects of the age factor and its relationship to the electoral process.

1. I have focused on a limited time span (1980 to 2006) for this research. Similar

research can also be done on other study periods since the 1788 elections.

2. Similarly, research can be initiated in order to determine the relationship of age

with other political offices at the Federal and State levels, such as the vice presidency and

governors of the states.

3. This research can also be done on the state level in order to know where this

relationship of age is strongest in terms of presidential and congressional elections.

4. The same model can also be applied on the state legislatures, both the upper and

lower houses.

5. Local governments are also very effective decision-making bodies in the United

States along with the Federal and State governments. It would be an interesting study to

know how important a role age plays in the elections of local councils, particularly, local

leadership such as mayors and local judicial officials.

In a nutshell, age is only one factor or variable among other social, economic, and political factors associated with the success in US elections. Responsibility belongs to the researchers in the social sciences, particularly the experts in American politics, to explore why middle age is most important for both electoral success and political participation.

Bibliography:

Aberbach, J. D., and R. D. Putnam, et al. 1981.Bureaucrats and politicians in western democracies. Harvard University Press. Abrams, H.L., Stanford, U., & Center for International Security and Arms, C. 1997. Can the Nation Afford a Senior Citizen as President? The Age Factor in the 1996 Election and Beyond: Center for International Security and Arms Control, Stanford University Abrams, H.L., & Brody, R. 1998. Bob Dole's Age and Health in the 1996 Election: Did the Media Let Us Down? Political Science Quarterly, 113(3), 471. Abramson, P.R., & Aldrich, J.H. 1982. The Decline of Electoral Participation in America. The American Political Science Review, 76(3), 502-521. Abramson, P.R., Aldrich, J.H., & Rohde, D.W. 1987. Progressive Ambition among United States Senators: 1972-1988. The Journal of Politics, 49(1), 3-35. Asher, H.B. 1980. Presidential Elections and American Politics: Voters, Candidates, and Campaigns Since 1952: Dorsey Press Atchley, R.C. 1997. Social Forces and Aging: An Introduction to Social Gerontology: Wadsworth Barash, D.P. 1983. Aging, an Exploration: University of Washington Press Seattle Barrow, G.M. 1992. Aging, the Individual, and Society: West Pub. Co. Bengtson, V., Rosenthal, C., Burton, L., Binstock, R.H., & George, L. 1990. Handbook of aging and the social sciences: Academic Press, San Diego, CA. Bengtson, V.L., & Schaie, K.W. 1999. Handbook of Theories of Aging: Springer Publishing Bennett, S.E. 1997. Why Young Americans Hate Politics, and What We Should Do about It. PS: Political Science and Politics, 30(1), 47-53. Brace, P. 1984. Progressive Ambition in the House: A Probabilistic Approach. The Journal of Politics, 46(2), 556-571. Campbell, A. 1960. Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(3), 397-418. Chen, K. 1992. Political Alienation and Voting Turnout in the United States, 1960-1988: Mellon Research University Press

Cooper, J., & West, W. 1981. Voluntary Retirement, Incumbency, and the Modern House. Political Science Quarterly, 96(2), 279-300. Cowgill, D.O. 1974. The Aging of Populations and Societies. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415(1), 1. Crittenden, J. 1963. Aging and Political Participation. The Western Political Quarterly, 16(2), 323-331. Cummings, M.C. 1966. Congressmen and the Electorate; Elections for the US House and the President, 1920-1964: Free Press Cutler, N.E., & Bengtson, V.L. 1974. Age and Political Alienation: Maturation, Generation and Period Effects. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415(1), 160-175. Davies, D.P., & Davies, P.J. 1999. Us Elections Today: Manchester University Press Fischer, D.H. 1978. Growing Old in America: Oxford University Press Foner, A. 1974. Age Stratification and Age Conflict in Political Life. American Sociological Review, 39(2), 187-196. Gimpel, J.G., Morris, I.L., & Armstrong, D.R. 2004. Turnout and the local age distribution: examining political participation across space and time. Political Geography, 23, 71-95. Glenn, N.D., & Grimes, M. 1968. Aging, Voting, and Political Interest. American Sociological Review, 33(4), 563-575. Crittenden, John. 1963. Aging and Political Participation. The Western Political Quarterly 16(2), 323-331. Giroux, Gregory L. 2005. A Touch of Gray on Capital Hill. CQ Weekly Online, 240-242. Gowrisankaran, G., Mitchell, M.F., & Moro, A. 2004. Why Do Incumbent Senators Win? Evidence from a Dynamic Selection Model: National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, Mass., USA Hahn, W.A. 1992. Aging America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 522, 116-129. Hain, P.L. 1974. Age, Ambitions, and Political Careers: The Middle-Age Crisis. The Western Political Quarterly, 27(2), 265-274.

Highton, B. 2000. Senate Elections in the United States, 1920–94. British Journal of Political Science, 30(03), 483-506. Hout, M., & Knoke, D. 1975. Change in Voting Turnout, 1952-1972. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(1), 52-68. Jankowski, T.B. 2000. A Comprehensive Model of Aging and Voting Participation: Wayne State University. Jones, C.O. 1982. The United States Congress: People, Place, and Policy: Dorsey Press Kahn, K.F., & Kenney, P.J. 1997. A Model of Candidate Evaluations in Senate Elections: The Impact of Campaign Intensity. The Journal of Politics, 59(4), 1173-1205. Kiewiet, D.R., & Zeng, L. 1993. An Analysis of Congressional Career Decisions, 1947- 1986. The American Political Science Review, 87(4), 928-941. Kleppner, P. 1982. Who Voted? The Dynamics of Electoral Turnout, 1870-1980: Praeger Publishers Knack, S. 1997. The Reappearing American Voter: Why Did Turnout Rise in'92? Electoral Studies, 16(1), 17-32. Lasswell, H.D. 1951. Political Writings: Free Press Glencoe, Ill Lehman, H.C. 1953. Age and Achievement: Published for the American Philosophical Society by Princeton University Press Lopez, Mark Hugo, Emily Kirby, 2003. Voter Turnout among Young Women and Men. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning & Engagement,. 1-2. Matthews, D.R. 1954. United States Senators and the Class Structure. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18(1), 5-22. Matthews, D.R. 1984. Legislative Recruitment and Legislative Careers. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 9(4), 547-585. Milbrath Lester, W., & Goel, M.L. 1965. Political Participation: How and why do people get involved in politics: University Press of America. Morgan, L.A., & Kunkel, S. 1998. Aging: The Social Context: Pine Forge Press Neugarten, B.L. 1974. Age Groups in American Society and the Rise of the Young-Old. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415(1), 187. Neugarten, B.L. 1996. The Meanings of Age: Selected Papers of Bernice L. Neugarten:

University of Chicago Press Patterson, S.C., & Caldeira, G.A. 1983. Getting Out the Vote: Participation in Gubernatorial Elections. The American Political Science Review, 77(3), 675-689. Patterson, T.E. 2002. The vanishing voter. Public involvement in an age of uncertainty. New York. Polsby, N.W., & Wildavsky, A.B. 1996. Presidential Elections: Strategies and Structures of American Politics: Chatham House Publishers. Pritchett, C. Herman. 1968. The American Constitution. NY: McGraw-Hill Inc. Ragsdale, L., & Rusk, J.G. 1995. Candidates, Issues, and Participation in Senate Elections. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20(3), 305-327. Sandoz, E., & Crabb, C.V.M. 1981. A Tide of Discontent: The 1980 Elections and Their Meaning: Congressional Quarterly Press Schlesinger, J.A. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States: Rand McNally Schlesinger, J.A. 1991. Political Parties and the Winning of Office: University of Michigan Press Seagull, L.M. 1971. The Youth Vote and Change in American Politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 397(1), 88. Simonton, D.K. 1987. Why Presidents Succeed: A Political Psychology of Leadership: Yale University Press Simonton, D.K. 1988. Age and outstanding achievement: What do we know after a century of research. Psychological Bulletin, 104(2), 251-267. Sorgman, M.I., & Sorensen, M. 1984. Ageism: A Course of Study. Theory into Practice, 23(2), 117-123. Squire, P. 1988. Career Opportunities and Membership Stability in Legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 13(1), 65-82. Teixeira, R.A. 1987. Why Americans Don't Vote: Turnout Decline in the United States, 1960-1984: Greenwood Uhlenberg, P. 1988. Does population aging produce increasing gerontocracy? Sociological Forum, 3(3), 454-463. Walker, D.B. 1960. The Age Factor in the 1958 Congressional Elections. Midwest

Journal of Political Science, 4(1), 1-26. Walker, M. 1996. The US Presidential Election, 1996. International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), 72(4), 657-674. Wattenberg, M.P. 2007. Is voting for young people? Pearson Longman Witmer, T.R. 1964. The Aging of the House. Political Science Quarterly, 79(4), 526-541. Wolfinger, R.E., & Rosenstone, S.J. 1980. Who Votes? Yale Univ Pr Woodward, C.V. 1977. The Aging of America. The American Historical Review, 82(3), 583-594. Home Page Web Addresses C-SPAN.ORG. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia www.Congress.org www.gpoaccess.gov www.congress.com CQ Weekly Online

Consulted Books and Articles

Abramowitz, A.I. 1984. National Issues, Strategic Politicians, and Voting Behavior in the 1980 and 1982 Congressional Elections. American Journal of Political Science, 28(4), 710-721. Austin, E.W., Clubb, J.M., Flanigan, W.H., Granda, P., & Zingale, N.H. 1991. Electoral Participation in the United States, 1968-86. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 16(1), 145-164. Bailey, C.J. 1989. The US Congress: Basil Blackwell Barber, J.D. 1965. The Lawmakers: Recruitment and Adaptation to Legislative Life: Yale University Press Barrow, G.M. 1989. Aging, the Individual, and Society: West Pub. Co. Bauer, M., & Hibbing, J.R. 1989. Which Incumbents Lose in House Elections: A Response to Jacobson's" The Marginals Never Vanished". American Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 262-271. Beck, P.A. 1984. Young vs. Old in 1984: Generations and Life Stages in Presidential Nomination Politics. PS, 17(3), 515-524. Bell, C.G. 1960. Book Reviews: Old Age and Political Behavior: A Case Study. By FRANK A. PINNER, PAUL JACOBS, and PHILIP SELZNICK.(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1959. Pp. 352. $6.00.). Political Research Quarterly, 13(3), 830. Bernard, J. 1974. Age, Sex and Feminism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415(1), 120. Bernstein, R.A. 1986. Why Are There so Few Women in the House? The Western Political Quarterly, 39(1), 155-164. Binstock, R.H. 1974. Aging and the Future of American Politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415(1), 199. Binstock, R.H., & Shanas, E. 1985. Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Binstock, R.H. 1985. The Oldest Old: A Fresh Perspective or Compassionate Ageism Revisited? The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly. Health and Society, 63(2),

420-451. Braungart, R.G., & Braungart, M.M. 1986. Life-Course and Generational Politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 205-231. Bullock, C.S. 1972. House Careerists: Changing Patterns of Longevity and Attrition. The American Political Science Review, 66(4), 1295-1300. Cassel, C.A., & Luskin, R.C. 1988. Simple Explanations of Turnout Decline. The American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1321-1330. Chen, K. 1992. Political Alienation and Voting Turnout in the United States, 1960-1988: Mellon Research University Press Copeland, G.W. 1983. Activating voters in congressional elections. Political Behavior, 5(4), 391-401. Crittenden, J. 1963. Aging and Political Participation. The Western Political Quarterly, 16(2), 323-331. Cover, Albert D.1983. Seniority in the House: Patterns and Projections. American Politics Quarterly 11 (4), 429-440. Curtis, J.E., & Lambert, R.D. 1976. Voting, Election Interest, and Age: National Findings for English and French Canadians. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique, 9(2), 293-307. Davidson, R.H., & Oleszek, W.J. 1985. Congress and its members: CQ Press Washington, DC Doppelt, J.C., & Shearer, E. 1999. Nonvoters: America's No-Shows: Sage Publications Eisele, F.R. 1972. Age and political change: a cohort analysis of voting among careerists in the U. S. Senate, 1947-1970: New York University. Elgie, R. 1995. Political Leadership in Liberal Democracies: Macmillan Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire Fengler, A.P. 1980. Legislative Productivity of Elderly Legislators. Polity, 13(2), 327- 333. Fishel, J. 1973. Party & Opposition: Congressional Challengers in American Politics: McKay Flanigan, W.H., & Zingale, N.H. 1994. Political Behavior of the American Electorate: Allyn and Bacon

Foner, A. 1974. Age Stratification and Age Conflict in Political Life. American Sociological Review, 39(2), 187-196. Fowler, L.L., & McClure, R.D. 1989. Political Ambition: Who Decides to Run for Congress: Yale University Press Fowler, L.L. 1993. Candidates, Congress, and the American Democracy: University of Michigan Press Fowler, L.L. 1996. Who Runs for Congress? PS: Political Science and Politics, 29(3), 430-434. Frank, M.M., College of Arts and, S., & College of Arts and Sciences. Psychology, D. 2002. Comparing Models of Voter Turnout Using American National Election Studies Data: Syracuse University Frantzich, S.E. 1978. De-Recruitment: The Other Side of the Congressional Equation. The Western Political Quarterly, 31(1), 105-126. Fred, G. 1969. Personality and Politics: Problems of Inference, Evidence and Conceptualization: Markham Press. Gertzog, I.N. 1995. Congressional Women: their recruitment, integration, and behavior: Praeger Publishers Glenn, N.D., & Hefner, T. 1972. Further Evidence on Aging and Party Identification. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(1), 31-47. Glenn, N.D. 1974. Aging and Conservatism. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415(1), 176. Greenstein, F.I., & Lerner, M. 1971. A source book for the study of personality and politics: Markham Pub. Co Griffin, J.D., & Newman, B. 2005. Are Voters Better Represented? Journal of Politics, 67(4), 1206-1227. Harlow, M., & Ray L. 2002. Growing up and growing old in Ancient Rome: a life course approach. New York: Rutledge. Hayflick, L. 1994. How and why we age. Exp Gerontol, 33(7-8), 639-653. Hess, B.B., & Markson, E.W. 1991. Growing Old in America: Transaction Publishers Hinckley, B. 1980. The American Voter in Congressional Elections. The American Political Science Review, 74(3), 641-650.

Hout, M., & Knoke, D. 1975. Change in Voting Turnout, 1952-1972. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 39(1), 52-68. Hudson, Robert B, ed. 1981. The Aging in politics: process and policy. Springfield, Ill.: C. C. Thomas. Hyman, S. 1972. Youth in Politics: Expectations and Realities: Basic Books Jackman, R.W. 1987. Political Institutions and Voter Turnout in the Industrial Democracies. The American Political Science Review, 81(2), 405-424. Jackson, J.J. 1974. NCBA, Black Aged and Politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415(1), 138. Jackson, R.A. 1996. The Mobilization of Congressional Electorates. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 21(3), 425-445. Jacobson, G.C. 2001. The politics of congressional elections: Little, Brown and Company Jacobson, G.C. 1987. The Marginals Never Vanished: Incumbency and Competition in Elections to the US House of Representatives, 1952-82. American Journal of Political Science, 31(1), 126-141. Jennings, M.K., & Markus, G.B. 1988. Political Involvement in the Later Years: A Longitudinal Survey. American Journal of Political Science, 32(2), 302-316. Joachim, E. L., ed. 1967. Political leadership in industrialized societies; studies in comparative analysis. New York: Wiley. Kart, C.S., & Manard, B.B. 1976. Aging in America; Readings in Gerontology. Kazee, T. 1994. Who runs for congress? ambition, context, and candidate emergence: Congressional Quarterly Kernell, S. 1977. Toward Understanding 19th Century Congressional Careers: Ambition, Competition, and Rotation. American Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 669- 693. Kiewiet, D.R., & Zeng, L. 1993. An Analysis of Congressional Career Decisions, 1947- 1986. The American Political Science Review, 87(4), 928-941. King, A.,ed. 2002.. Leaders'personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections: Oxford University Press Knight, K. 1983. Book Reviews: After Forty: the Time for Achievement? Edited by CARY L. COOPER and DEREK P. TORRINGTON John Wiley & Sons, 1981,

211 pp.,{pound} 9 {middle dot} 75, ISBN 0-471-28043-7. Management Learning, 14(1), 86. Kornbluh, M.L. 2000. Why America Stopped Voting: The Decline of Participatory Democracy and the Emergence of Modern American Politics: New York Univ Pr Lammers, W.W., & Nyomarkay, J.L. 1980. The Disappearing Senior Leaders: Cabinet Member Age Structures in Five Western Nations, 1868-1978. Research on Aging, 2(3), 329. Lau, R.R., & Redlawsk, D.P. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns: Cambridge University Press Laz, C. 1998. Act Your Age. Sociological Forum, 13(1), 85-113. Lehman, Harvey C., and Joseph B. Heidler. 1949. Chronological Age vs. Quality of Literary Output. The American Journal of Psychology 62 (1): 75-89. Lehman, Harvey C. 1955. Ages at Time of First Election of Presidents of Professional Organizations. The Scientific Monthly 80(5), 293-298. Lijphart, A. 1997. Unequal Participation: Democracy's Unresolved Dilemma. The American Political Science Review 91(1), 1-14. Luce, R. 1924. Legislative Assemblies: Their Framework, Make-up, Character, Characteristics, Habits, and Manners: Houghton Mifflin company Lyons, W., & Alexander, R. 2000. A Tale of Two Electorates: Generational Replacement and the Decline of Voting in Presidential Elections. Journal of Politics, 62(4), 1014-1034. Maccoby, E.E., Matthews, R.E., & Morton, A.S. 1954. Youth and Political Change. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 18(1), 23-39. MacManus, S.A., & Turner, P.A. 1996. Young V. Old: Generational Combat in the 21st Century: Westview Press Maisel, L.S., & Stone, W.J. 1997. Determinants of Candidate Emergence in US House Elections: An Exploratory Study. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 22(1), 79-96. McIntyre, A. 1988. Aging and Political Leadership: State Univ of New York Pr Moncrief, G.F. 1999. Recruitment and Retention in US Legislatures. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24(2), 173-208. Moncrief, G.F., Squire, P., & Jewell, M.E. 2000. Who Runs for the Legislature? Prentice

Hall Mughan, A., & Patterson, S.C. 1991. Political Leadership in Democratic Societies: Nelson-Hall Neugarten, B.L. 1968. Middle Age and Aging: A Reader in Social Psychology: University of Chicago Press Niemi, R.G., & Barkan, J.D. 1987. Age and Turnout in New Electorates and Peasant Societies. The American Political Science Review, 81(2), 583-588. Norris, D.P. 2002. Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism: Cambridge University Press Patrick, J.J., & Glenn, A.D. 1972. The Young Voter: A Guide to Instruction About Voter Behavior and Elections. Pedersen, J.T. 1976. Age and Change in Public Opinion: The Case of California, 1960- 1970. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(2), 143-153. Polsby, N.W. 1968. The Institutionalization of the US House of Representatives. The American Political Science Review, 62(1), 144-168. Powell Jr, G.B. 1986. American Voter Turnout in Comparative Perspective. The American Political Science Review, 80(1), 17-43. Pratt, H.J. 1974. Old Age Associations in National Politics. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 415(1), 106. Pratt, H.J. 1976. The Gray Lobby: University of Chicago Press Prewitt, K., & Nowlin, W. 1969. Political Ambitions and the Behavior of Incumbent Politicians. The Western Political Quarterly, 22(2), 298-308. Putnam, R.D. 1976. The Comparative Study of Political Elites: Prentice-Hall Quandt, W.B. 1970. The Comparative Study of Political Elites: Sage Riggle, E.D.B., & Johnson, M.M.S. (1996). Age difference in political decision making: Strategies for evaluating political candidates. Political Behavior, 18(1), 99-118. Ruchelman, Leonard I. 1970. Political careers; recruitment through the legislature. Rutherford: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. Rusk, J.G. (2001). A Statistical History of the American Electorate: CQ Press Schubert, J.N., Wiegele, T.C., & Hines, S.M. (1987). Age and Political Behavior in Collective Decision-making. International Political Science Review/ Revue

internationale de science politique, 8(2), 131. Schubert, J.N. (1988). Age and Active-Passive Leadership Style. The American Political Science Review, 82(3), 763-772. Schulz, J.H. (2001). The Economics of Aging: Auburn House/Greenwood Seagull, Louis 1971. The Youth Vote and Change in American Politics. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 397, Seven Polarizing Issues in America Today): 88-96. Shin, K.S., & Jackson Iii, J.S. 1979. Membership Turnover in US State Legislatures: 1931-1976. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4(1), 95-104. Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C.K. 1982. Sexism, Racism, and Ageism in Voting Behavior: An Experimental Analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(4), 263-269. Sniderman, P.M. 1975. Personality and Democratic Politics: University of California Press. Somit, A. 1994. The Victorious Incumbent: A Threat to Democracy? Aldershot, UK, Brookfield, USA: Dartmouth. Streib, G.F. 1981. Aging Comes of Age. Contemporary Sociology, 10(2), 186-190. Theen, R.H.W., & Wilson, F.L. 1996. Comparative politics: an introduction to seven countries: Prentice Hall Timpone, R.J. 1998. Structure, Behavior, and Voter Turnout in the United States. The American Political Science Review, 92(1), 145-158. Tobin, R.J. 1975. The Influence of Nominating Systems on the Political Experiences of State Legislators. The Western Political Quarterly, 28(3), 553-566. Vedder, Clyde B. 1903. Problems of the middle-aged. Springfield, Ill: C. C. Thomas. Wattenberg, M.P. Is voting for young people? Pearson Longman Wayne, S.J. 1996. The Road to the White House, 1996: The Politics of Presidential Elections: St. Martin's Press. Willis, Derek. 2003. 108th Congress Becomes First With a Boomers Majority. Congressional Quarterly Weekly. 190-193 Woodruff-Pak, D.S., Birren, J.E., & Center, E. 1983. Aging: Scientific Perspectives and

Social Issues: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co.

Appendices:

75 The Ages of the Presidents Since 1788

Age% 55

40 1750 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 Years

Figure: The Ages of the Presidents Since 1788

Figure: The Age Group Congress 1980

The Age Groups (%) The House 1st Elected 1980-2006 55

40 25-34 35 35-44 45-54 30 55-64 65-74

25 75-84 20 85-94

Age Groups Percentage (%) Percentage Groups Age 5

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Elections Since 1980

Figure: The Age Groups % of the House 1st elected 1980-2006

The Age Groups (%) The House 1st Elected 1980-2006 55

40 25-34 35 35-44 45-54 30 55-64 65-74

25 75-84 20 85-94

Age Groups Percentage (%) Percentage Age Groups 5

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Elections Since 1980

Figure: The Age Groups % of the House 1st elected 1980-2006

Table: The Ages of the Senate 1980-2006 Year Mean Median Mode S.D. 1980 52.44 52 48 10.14 1982 53.56 52.5 50 9.90 1984 54.43 53 52 9.92 1986 54.87 53.5 54 10.16 1988 55.41 54 56 9.23 1990 57.06 56 58 9.31 1992 57.57 56 59 9.24 1994 58.51 57.5 52 9.86 1996 57.90 56.5 54 10.12 1998 58.70 57.5 56 10.44 2000 59.48 58 58 10.43 2002 60.34 60 55 10.32 2004 60.35 60.5 57 9.90 2006 61.77 62 63 10.02

Table : The Age Groups % of the Senate 1980-2006 Year 30-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85-94 1980 2 22 34 30 9 3 0 1982 1 18 36 33 9 3 0 1984 0 18 37 32 9 4 0 1986 0 16 41 25 15 2 1 1988 0 7 45 28 18 1 1 1990 0 4 43 29 21 2 1 1992 0 6 35 36 19 3 1 1994 0 6 34 35 21 3 1 1996 0 8 36 37 12 6 1 1998 0 6 28 39 18 8 0 2000 0 6 28 35 22 8 0 2002 0 8 20 35 28 7 2 2004 0 6 23 38 27 5 1 2006 0 2 25 36 29 7 1

Table: The Age Group % of the Senate 1st Elected 1980-2006 Year 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75-84 85-94 1980 9.09 27.27 54.55 9.09 0 0 0 1982 0 18.18 18.18 9.09 0 0 0 1984 0 36.36 18.18 9.09 0 0 0 1986 0 18.18 72.73 0 9.09 0 0 1988 0 0 72.73 9.09 0 0 0 1990 0 0 36.36 0 0 0 0 1992 0 18.18 45.45 36.36 0 0 0 1994 0 27.27 54.55 18.18 0 0 0 1996 0 27.27 63.64 9.09 0 0 0 1998 0 27.27 27.27 9.09 9.09 0 0 2000 0 18.18 54.55 18.18 9.09 0 0 2002 0 18.18 36.36 27.27 9.09 0 0 2004 0 27.27 36.36 27.27 0 0 0 2006 0 0 63.64 27.27 9.09 0 0

Table: The Ages of the Senate 1st Elected 1980-2006 Year Mean Median Mode S.D. 1980 46.72 49 47 7.72 1982 47.2 49 - 9.47 1984 44.14 42 42 6.25 1986 48.92 47 50 8.17 1988 50.6 50 53 4.55 1990 47.5 47.5 - 2.38 1992 50.15 50 59 8.18 1994 48.81 47 52 7.58 1996 48.6 50 50 5.34 1998 48.5 46 38 10.62 2000 52.45 53 53 7.09 2002 51.8 51.5 - 9.49 2004 50.1 49 43 6.38 2006 54.9 54 54 6.83

Table A-1. Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2004

(Numbers in thousands)

Total percent White White non-Hispanic Black Asian1 Hispanic (of any race) Total Population Total voting-age Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Citizen Citizen Year population Total population population population population population population population population Total population population Total population population Male Female Voted 20042 215,694 58.3 63.8 60.3 65.4 65.8 67.2 56.3 60.0 29.8 44.1 28.0 47.2 56.3 60.1 20043 215,694 58.3 63.8 60.3 65.3 65.7 67.1 56.2 59.9 30.7 44.6 28.0 47.2 56.3 60.1 2002 210,421 42.3 46.1 44.1 47.5 48.0 49.1 39.7 42.3 19.4 31.2 18.9 30.4 41.4 43.0 2000 202,609 54.7 59.5 56.4 60.5 60.4 61.8 53.5 56.8 25.4 43.4 27.5 45.1 53.1 56.2 1998 198,228 41.9 45.3 43.3 46.3 46.5 47.4 39.6 41.8 19.3 32.4 20.0 32.8 41.4 42.4 1996 193,651 54.2 58.4 56.0 59.6 59.6 60.7 50.6 53.0 25.7 45.0 26.8 44.0 52.8 55.5 1994 190,267 45.0 48.4 47.3 50.0 50.1 51.0 37.1 38.9 21.8 39.4 20.2 34.0 44.7 45.3 1992 185,684 61.3 67.7 63.6 69.2 66.9 70.2 54.1 59.2 27.3 53.9 28.9 51.6 60.2 62.3 1990 182,118 45.0 49.3 46.7 50.5 49.0 51.4 39.2 42.4 20.3 40.0 21.0 36.0 44.6 45.4 1988 178,098 57.4 62.2 59.1 63.4 61.8 64.2 51.5 55.0 NA NA 28.8 48.0 56.4 58.3 1986 173,890 46.0 49.4 47.0 50.1 48.9 50.7 43.2 45.5 NA NA 24.2 38.0 45.8 46.1 1984 169,963 59.9 64.9 61.4 65.7 63.3 66.4 55.8 60.6 NA NA 32.7 50.0 59.0 60.8 1982 165,483 48.5 51.9 49.9 52.8 51.5 53.4 43.0 45.5 NA NA 25.3 38.5 48.7 48.4 1980 157,085 59.3 64.0 60.9 65.4 62.8 66.2 50.5 53.9 NA NA 29.9 46.1 59.1 59.4 1978 151,646 45.9 48.9 47.3 50.1 48.6 50.6 37.2 39.5 NA NA 23.5 35.7 46.6 45.3 1976 146,548 59.2 NA 60.9 NA NA NA 48.7 NA NA NA 31.8 NA 59.6 58.8 1974 141,299 44.7 NA 46.3 NA NA NA 33.8 NA NA NA 22.9 NA 46.2 43.4 1972 136,203 63.0 NA 64.5 NA NA NA 52.1 NA NA NA 37.5 NA 64.1 62.0 1970 120,701 54.6 NA 56.0 NA NA NA 43.5 NA NA NA NA NA 56.8 52.7 1968 116,535 67.8 NA 69.1 NA NA NA 57.6 NA NA NA NA NA 69.8 66.0 1966 112,800 55.4 NA 57.0 NA NA NA 41.7 NA NA NA NA NA 58.2 53.0 1964 110,604 69.3 NA 70.7 NA NA NA 58.5 NA NA NA NA NA 71.9 67.0 Registered 20042 215,694 65.9 72.1 67.9 73.6 73.5 75.1 64.4 68.7 34.9 51.8 34.3 57.9 64.0 67.6 20043 215,694 65.9 72.1 67.9 73.5 73.5 75.1 64.3 68.6 36.1 52.5 34.3 57.9 64.0 67.6 2002 210,421 60.9 66.5 63.1 67.9 67.9 69.4 58.5 62.4 30.7 49.2 32.6 52.5 58.9 62.8 2000 202,609 63.9 69.5 65.7 70.4 70.0 71.6 63.6 67.5 30.7 52.4 34.9 57.4 62.2 65.6 1998 198,228 62.1 67.1 63.9 68.2 67.9 69.3 60.2 63.6 29.1 48.9 33.7 55.2 60.6 63.5 1996 193,651 65.9 71.0 67.7 72.0 71.6 73.0 63.5 66.4 32.6 57.2 35.7 58.6 64.4 67.3 1994 190,267 62.5 67.1 64.6 68.4 68.1 69.4 58.5 61.3 28.7 51.9 31.3 52.9 61.2 63.7 1992 185,684 68.2 75.2 70.1 76.3 73.5 77.1 63.9 70.0 31.2 61.6 35.0 62.5 66.9 69.3 1990 182,118 62.2 68.2 63.8 69.1 66.7 69.9 58.8 63.5 28.4 56.0 32.3 55.2 61.2 63.1 1988 178,098 66.6 72.1 67.9 72.8 70.8 73.6 64.5 68.8 NA NA 35.5 59.1 65.2 67.8 1986 173,890 64.3 69.0 65.3 69.5 67.7 70.2 64.0 67.3 NA NA 35.9 56.4 63.4 65.0 1984 169,963 68.3 73.9 69.6 74.5 71.6 75.1 66.3 72.0 NA NA 40.1 61.4 67.3 69.3 1982 165,483 64.1 68.5 65.6 69.4 67.5 70.1 59.1 62.6 NA NA 35.3 53.7 63.7 64.4 1980 157,085 66.9 72.3 68.4 73.4 70.3 74.1 60.0 64.1 NA NA 36.4 56.0 66.6 67.1 1978 151,646 62.6 66.7 63.8 67.5 65.4 68.2 57.1 60.6 NA NA 32.9 50.1 62.6 62.5 1976 146,548 66.7 NA 68.3 NA NA NA 58.5 NA NA NA 37.8 NA 67.1 66.4 1974 141,299 62.2 NA 64.6 NA NA NA 54.2 NA NA NA 34.9 NA 62.8 61.7 1972 136,203 72.3 NA 73.4 NA NA NA 65.5 NA NA NA 44.4 NA 73.1 71.6 1970 120,701 68.1 NA 70.8 NA NA NA 64.5 NA NA NA NA NA 69.6 66.8 1968 116,535 74.3 NA 75.4 NA NA NA 66.2 NA NA NA NA NA 76.0 72.8 1966 112,800 70.3 NA 71.7 NA NA NA 60.2 NA NA NA NA NA 72.2 68.6 1964 110,604 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Table A-1. Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2004

(Numbers in thousands)

Total percent White White non-Hispanic Black Asian1 Hispanic (of any race) Total Population Total voting-age Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Citizen Citizen Year population Total population population population population population population population population Total population population Total population population Male Female 18 to 24 years Voted 20042 27,808 41.9 46.7 42.6 47.5 48.5 49.8 44.0 47.0 23.4 34.2 20.4 33.0 38.8 44.9 20043 27,808 41.9 46.7 42.6 47.4 48.4 49.7 44.0 47.0 24.5 34.5 20.4 33.0 38.8 44.9 2002 27,377 17.2 19.3 17.4 19.4 19.9 20.4 19.3 20.6 10.0 15.9 8.1 13.3 15.7 18.6 2000 26,712 32.3 NA 33.0 NA 37.2 NA 33.9 NA 15.9 NA 15.4 NA 30.0 34.6 1998 25,537 16.6 NA 17.2 NA 19.2 NA 15.6 NA 9.7 NA 9.0 NA 15.7 17.6 1996 24,650 32.4 NA 33.3 NA 36.9 NA 32.4 NA 19.2 NA 15.1 NA 29.8 35.0 1994 25,182 20.1 NA 21.1 NA 23.1 NA 17.4 NA 10.6 NA 10.1 NA 18.6 21.5 1992 24,371 42.8 NA 45.4 NA NA NA 36.6 NA NA NA 17.6 NA 40.5 45.1 1990 24,831 20.4 NA 20.8 NA NA NA 20.2 NA NA NA 8.7 NA 19.8 21.0 1988 25,569 36.2 NA 37.0 NA NA NA 35.0 NA NA NA 16.8 NA 34.1 38.2 1986 26,425 21.9 NA 21.6 NA NA NA 25.1 NA NA NA 11.6 NA 21.2 22.5 1984 27,976 40.8 NA 41.6 NA NA NA 40.6 NA NA NA 21.9 NA 38.7 42.8 1982 28,823 24.8 NA 25.0 NA NA NA 25.5 NA NA NA 14.2 NA 25.1 25.7 1980 28,138 39.9 NA 41.8 NA NA NA 30.1 NA NA NA 15.9 NA 38.5 41.2 1978 27,678 23.5 NA 24.2 NA NA NA 20.1 NA NA NA 11.5 NA 23.2 23.9 1976 26,953 42.2 NA 44.7 NA NA NA 27.9 NA NA NA 21.8 NA 40.9 43.4 1974 25,719 23.8 NA 25.2 NA NA NA 16.1 NA NA NA 13.3 NA 24.6 23.1 1972 24,612 49.6 NA 51.9 NA NA NA 34.7 NA NA NA 30.9 NA 48.8 50.4 1970 13,027 30.4 NA 31.5 NA NA NA 22.4 NA NA NA NA NA 30.6 30.0 1968 11,602 50.4 NA 52.8 NA NA NA 38.9 NA NA NA NA NA 50.3 50.6 1966 10,751 31.1 NA 32.6 NA NA NA 21.9 NA NA NA NA NA 32.3 30.3 1964 9,919 50.9 NA 52.1 NA NA NA 44.2 NA NA NA NA NA 51.5 50.5 Registered 20042 27,808 51.5 54.1 52.5 58.5 59.1 60.7 53.1 56.7 29.2 42.6 27.6 44.6 48.2 54.9 20043 27,808 51.5 54.1 52.6 58.5 59.1 60.6 53.2 56.8 31.1 43.8 27.6 44.6 48.2 54.9 2002 27,377 38.2 43.0 39.2 43.8 44.2 45.4 39.6 41.2 21.7 34.5 20.8 34.3 34.9 41.6 2000 26,712 45.4 NA 46.3 NA 51.7 NA 48.0 NA 22.2 NA 23.2 NA 42.3 48.5 1998 25,537 39.2 NA 36.4 NA 45.0 NA 63.5 NA 17.7 NA 22.2 NA 36.4 42.0 1996 24,650 48.8 NA 49.8 NA 54.3 NA 49.4 NA 29.5 NA 27.6 NA 46.5 51.0 1994 25,182 42.3 NA 43.9 NA 48.1 NA 42.0 NA 18.3 NA 20.0 NA 40.9 43.7 1992 24,371 52.5 NA 54.6 NA NA NA 49.2 NA NA NA 24.9 NA 50.5 54.4 1990 24,831 39.9 NA 40.5 NA NA NA 40.2 NA NA NA 19.3 NA 39.5 40.2 1988 25,569 48.2 NA 48.7 NA NA NA 49.8 NA NA NA 25.3 NA 45.5 50.8 1986 26,425 42.0 NA 42.0 NA NA NA 46.1 NA NA NA 22.0 NA 41.0 43.0 1984 27,976 51.3 NA 52.0 NA NA NA 53.7 NA NA NA 29.8 NA 49.6 53.0 1982 28,823 42.4 NA 43.2 NA NA NA 41.8 NA NA NA 24.3 NA 42.4 42.5 1980 28,138 49.2 NA 51.0 NA NA NA 41.3 NA NA NA 22.5 NA 48.0 50.4 1978 27,678 40.5 NA 37.2 NA NA NA 37.2 NA NA NA 20.5 NA 39.5 41.5 1976 26,953 51.3 NA 53.7 NA NA NA 38.8 NA NA NA 29.0 NA 50.8 51.9 1974 25,719 41.3 NA 42.8 NA NA NA 33.6 NA NA NA 23.1 NA 41.8 40.8 1972 24,612 58.9 NA 60.6 NA NA NA 47.7 NA NA NA 38.9 NA 58.3 59.4 1970 13,027 40.9 NA 40.6 NA NA NA 33.0 NA NA NA NA NA 41.2 40.6 1968 11,602 56.0 NA 57.9 NA NA NA 46.4 NA NA NA NA NA 56.1 55.9 1966 10,751 44.1 NA 43.6 NA NA NA 34.5 NA NA NA NA NA 44.4 43.8 1964 9,919 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Table A-1. Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2004

(Numbers in thousands)

Total percent White White non-Hispanic Black Asian1 Hispanic (of any race) Total Population Total voting-age Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Citizen Citizen Year population Total population population population population population population population population Total population population Total population population Male Female 25 to 44 years Voted 20042 82,133 52.2 60.1 54.0 61.5 61.6 63.5 54.0 59.3 23.9 40.2 23.0 45.2 49.0 44.9 20043 82,133 52.2 60.1 54.0 61.5 61.5 63.4 54.0 59.1 25.4 41.4 23.0 45.2 49.0 44.9 2002 82,228 34.1 38.9 35.3 39.5 39.7 41.0 36.1 39.4 14.0 25.9 15.3 27.6 32.7 35.4 2000 81,780 49.8 NA 51.2 NA 56.3 NA 52.1 NA 22.2 NA 23.2 NA 47.3 52.3 1998 82,993 34.8 NA 35.8 NA 39.1 NA 36.4 NA 12.9 NA 16.1 NA 33.5 36.1 1996 83,393 49.2 NA 50.8 NA 55.1 NA 47.8 NA 22.8 NA 22.9 NA 46.8 51.5 1994 83,006 39.4 NA 41.5 NA 44.6 NA 33.3 NA 17.4 NA 17.5 NA 38.6 40.2 1992 81,319 58.3 NA 60.6 NA NA NA 52.1 NA NA NA 26.4 NA 55.8 60.6 1990 80,541 40.7 NA 42.1 NA NA NA 37.8 NA NA NA 19.7 NA 39.1 42.2 1988 77,863 54.0 NA 55.9 NA NA NA 48.0 NA NA NA 27.1 NA 51.8 56.1 1986 74,927 41.4 NA 42.2 NA NA NA 41.2 NA NA NA 21.7 NA 40.3 42.4 1984 71,023 58.4 NA 60.0 NA NA NA 40.6 NA NA NA 31.1 NA 56.3 60.5 1982 66,881 45.4 NA 46.5 NA NA NA 43.5 NA NA NA 22.2 NA 44.5 46.2 1980 61,285 58.7 NA 60.3 NA NA NA 51.9 NA NA NA 30.4 NA 57.1 60.1 1978 57,536 43.1 NA 44.4 NA NA NA 36.7 NA NA NA 22.4 NA 42.5 43.6 1976 54,302 58.7 NA 60.6 NA NA NA 49.6 NA NA NA 33.2 NA 57.9 59.5 1974 51,663 42.2 NA 47.6 NA NA NA 36.4 NA NA NA 24.2 NA 42.0 42.4 1972 49,173 62.7 NA 64.0 NA NA NA 61.4 NA NA NA 39.5 NA 62.5 62.9 1970 47,056 51.9 NA 53.0 NA NA NA 44.1 NA NA NA NA NA 52.3 51.5 1968 46,103 66.6 NA 67.7 NA NA NA 60.3 NA NA NA NA NA 67.2 66.1 1966 45,061 53.1 NA 54.4 NA NA NA 43.9 NA NA NA NA NA 54.1 52.1 1964 45,296 69.0 NA 70.1 NA NA NA 61.5 NA NA NA NA NA 70.0 68.0 Registered 20042 82,133 60.1 69.3 62.0 70.6 70.2 72.4 62.2 68.2 28.9 48.7 28.8 56.7 57.6 62.5 20043 82,133 60.1 69.3 62.1 70.6 70.1 72.3 62.2 68.2 30.7 50.1 28.8 56.7 57.6 62.5 2002 82,228 55.4 63.1 57.4 64.3 63.8 65.9 55.8 60.9 25.6 47.3 28.9 52.0 52.8 57.9 2000 81,780 59.6 NA 61.2 NA 66.8 NA 62.0 NA 26.7 NA 31.1 NA 57.3 61.8 1998 82,993 57.7 NA 59.4 NA 64.3 NA 59.5 NA 23.2 NA 29.8 NA 55.5 59.9 1996 83,393 61.9 NA 63.6 NA 68.5 NA 61.4 NA 28.5 NA 31.8 NA 59.6 64.1 1994 83,006 57.9 NA 59.9 NA 64.0 NA 55.4 NA 24.4 NA 28.4 NA 55.9 59.7 1992 81,319 64.8 NA 66.8 NA NA NA 62.0 NA NA NA 32.0 NA 62.6 67.0 1990 80,541 58.4 NA 59.9 NA NA NA 57.2 NA NA NA 30.4 NA 56.4 60.3 1988 77,863 63.0 NA 64.4 NA NA NA 62.1 NA NA NA 33.2 NA 60.6 65.4 1986 74,927 61.1 NA 61.9 NA NA NA 64.0 NA NA NA 34.5 NA 59.4 62.8 1984 71,023 66.6 NA 68.0 NA NA NA 53.7 NA NA NA 38.4 NA 64.5 68.6 1982 66,881 61.5 NA 62.9 NA NA NA 59.4 NA NA NA 30.8 NA 60.3 62.6 1980 61,285 65.6 NA 67.0 NA NA NA 59.5 NA NA NA 36.0 NA 64.3 66.8 1978 57,536 60.2 NA 61.5 NA NA NA 56.9 NA NA NA 32.7 NA 59.5 60.9 1976 54,302 65.5 NA 67.0 NA NA NA 59.5 NA NA NA 38.4 NA 64.8 66.1 1974 51,663 59.9 NA 65.0 NA NA NA 58.3 NA NA NA 37.2 NA 42.4 60.8 1972 49,173 71.3 NA 72.1 NA NA NA 68.7 NA NA NA 46.0 NA 71.2 71.4 1970 47,056 65.0 NA 65.9 NA NA NA 60.9 NA NA NA NA NA 65.3 64.8 1968 46,103 72.4 NA 73.3 NA NA NA 68.7 NA NA NA NA NA 73.0 71.9 1966 45,061 67.6 NA 68.7 NA NA NA 61.9 NA NA NA NA NA 68.1 67.3 1964 45,296 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Table A-1. Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2004

(Numbers in thousands)

Total percent White White non-Hispanic Black Asian1 Hispanic (of any race) Total Population Total voting-age Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Citizen Citizen Year population Total population population population population population population population population Total population population Total population population Male Female 45 to 64 years Voted 20042 71,014 66.6 70.4 68.6 72.0 72.0 73.2 62.6 65.3 38.3 51.1 38.5 56.2 65.3 67.9 20043 71,014 66.6 70.4 68.6 71.9 72.0 73.1 62.5 65.3 38.8 51.4 38.5 56.2 65.3 67.9 2002 66,924 53.1 56.1 65.1 57.3 57.5 58.5 50.0 52.4 29.7 41.6 28.7 40.9 52.6 53.5 2000 61,352 64.1 NA 65.6 NA 68.4 NA 62.9 NA 32.0 NA 38.3 NA 62.7 65.3 1998 57,436 53.6 NA 54.7 NA 57.0 NA 52.7 NA 29.8 NA 30.7 NA 53.5 53.6 1996 53,721 64.4 NA 61.7 NA 68.6 NA 66.1 NA 32.1 NA 38.3 NA 63.7 65.1 1994 50,934 56.7 NA 58.4 NA 60.6 NA 51.6 NA 31.5 NA 29.9 NA 56.8 56.6 1992 49,147 70.0 NA 71.8 NA NA NA 64.9 NA NA NA 40.4 NA 69.8 70.2 1990 46,871 55.8 NA 57.4 NA NA NA 49.4 NA NA NA 28.7 NA 55.9 55.7 1988 45,862 67.9 NA 69.2 NA NA NA 64.8 NA NA NA 39.2 NA 68.1 67.7 1986 44,825 58.7 NA 59.7 NA NA NA 56.6 NA NA NA 38.3 NA 58.9 58.5 1984 44,307 69.8 NA 69.8 NA NA NA 66.2 NA NA NA 44.2 NA 69.8 69.8 1982 44,180 62.2 NA 63.8 NA NA NA 54.3 NA NA NA 39.9 NA 62.9 61.6 1980 43,569 69.3 NA 70.7 NA NA NA 61.2 NA NA NA 42.7 NA 69.8 68.9 1978 43,431 58.5 NA 59.9 NA NA NA 48.4 NA NA NA 38.5 NA 59.8 57.4 1976 43,293 68.7 NA 69.9 NA NA NA 62.3 NA NA NA 40.3 NA 69.7 67.9 1974 42,961 56.9 NA 58.3 NA NA NA 45.9 NA NA NA 34.2 NA 59.1 55.0 1972 42,344 70.8 NA 71.9 NA NA NA 61.9 NA NA NA 43.5 NA 72.2 69.6 1970 41,477 64.2 NA 65.4 NA NA NA 53.3 NA NA NA NA NA 66.3 62.3 1968 40,362 74.9 NA 76.1 NA NA NA 64.5 NA NA NA NA NA 76.6 73.3 1966 39,171 64.5 NA 66.2 NA NA NA 48.4 NA NA NA NA NA 66.9 62.2 1964 38,121 75.9 NA 77.2 NA NA NA 64.1 NA NA NA NA NA 78.5 73.5 Registered 20042 71,014 72.7 76.9 74.6 78.3 78.1 79.3 69.6 72.6 43.4 57.9 44.4 64.8 71.6 73.8 20043 71,014 72.7 76.9 74.6 78.2 78.0 79.3 69.5 72.6 43.9 58.1 44.4 64.8 71.6 73.8 2002 66,924 69.4 73.4 71.3 74.6 74.2 75.5 66.9 70.1 41.1 57.5 43.6 62.1 68.4 70.3 2000 61,352 71.2 NA 72.7 NA 75.5 NA 70.9 NA 38.1 NA 45.1 NA 69.8 72.6 1998 57,436 71.1 NA 72.6 NA 75.3 NA 69.5 NA 40.4 NA 44.3 NA 70.4 71.8 1996 53,721 73.5 NA 71.1 NA 77.8 NA 75.1 NA 40.0 NA 45.2 NA 72.6 74.4 1994 50,934 71.7 NA 73.3 NA 75.8 NA 69.8 NA 37.9 NA 42.4 NA 70.9 72.5 1992 49,147 75.3 NA 76.9 NA NA NA 72.4 NA NA NA 45.9 NA 74.9 75.7 1990 46,871 71.4 NA 72.9 NA NA NA 68.9 NA NA NA 41.3 NA 71.2 71.6 1988 45,862 75.5 NA 76.7 NA NA NA 74.6 NA NA NA 45.6 NA 75.7 75.3 1986 44,825 74.8 NA 75.8 NA NA NA 74.5 NA NA NA 49.3 NA 74.5 75.1 1984 44,307 76.6 NA 76.6 NA NA NA 73.7 NA NA NA 51.8 NA 76.6 76.6 1982 44,180 75.6 NA 77.1 NA NA NA 69.8 NA NA NA 50.5 NA 75.8 75.5 1980 43,569 75.8 NA 77.0 NA NA NA 69.4 NA NA NA 50.6 NA 76.3 75.3 1978 43,431 74.3 NA 75.2 NA NA NA 69.3 NA NA NA 46.6 NA 75.0 73.7 1976 43,293 75.5 NA 76.4 NA NA NA 70.6 NA NA NA 46.4 NA 76.1 74.9 1974 42,961 73.6 NA 74.6 NA NA NA 67.2 NA NA NA 46.3 NA 74.7 72.7 1972 42,344 79.7 NA 80.5 NA NA NA 74.2 NA NA NA 50.3 NA 80.4 79.1 1970 41,477 77.5 NA 78.3 NA NA NA 71.2 NA NA NA NA NA 78.9 76.3 1968 40,362 81.1 NA 82.1 NA NA NA 72.1 NA NA NA NA NA 82.4 79.8 1966 39,171 78.9 NA 80.2 NA NA NA 67.8 NA NA NA NA NA 80.9 77.1 1964 38,121 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Table A-1. Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2004

(Numbers in thousands)

Total percent White White non-Hispanic Black Asian1 Hispanic (of any race) Total Population Total voting-age Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Total Citizen Citizen Citizen Year population Total population population population population population population population population Total population population Total population population Male Female 65 years and over Voted 20042 34,738 68.9 71.0 70.5 72.2 72.2 73.1 64.1 65.9 38.2 47.7 45.9 57.0 71.9 66.7 20043 34,738 68.9 71.0 70.5 72.2 72.2 73.1 64.1 64.9 38.4 47.9 45.9 57.0 71.9 66.7 2002 33,892 61.0 62.7 62.7 64.0 64.0 64.8 54.8 56.5 29.0 38.8 41.5 49.2 65.4 57.7 2000 32,764 67.6 NA 68.8 NA 70.0 NA 64.7 NA 37.9 NA 50.0 NA 71.4 64.8 1998 32,263 59.5 NA 60.5 NA 61.7 NA 56.2 NA 35.4 NA 41.9 NA 64.6 55.8 1996 31,888 67.0 NA 68.1 NA 69.2 NA 63.7 NA 34.3 NA 47.6 NA 70.9 64.1 1994 31,144 61.3 NA 62.8 NA 63.9 NA 51.6 NA 33.8 NA 37.6 NA 66.5 57.6 1992 30,846 70.1 NA 71.5 NA NA NA 64.1 NA NA NA 39.7 NA 74.5 67.0 1990 29,874 60.3 NA 61.7 NA NA NA 51.3 NA NA NA 40.5 NA 66.0 56.3 1988 28,804 68.8 NA 69.8 NA NA NA 63.5 NA NA NA 45.6 NA 73.3 65.6 1986 27,712 60.9 NA 61.9 NA NA NA 53.3 NA NA NA 36.5 NA 66.8 56.7 1984 26,658 67.7 NA 68.7 NA NA NA 61.5 NA NA NA 40.5 NA 71.9 64.8 1982 25,598 59.9 NA 61.1 NA NA NA 50.8 NA NA NA 29.5 NA 65.3 56.2 1980 24,094 65.1 NA 66.0 NA NA NA 59.4 NA NA NA 36.8 NA 70.4 61.3 1978 23,001 55.9 NA 57.2 NA NA NA 45.6 NA NA NA 24.9 NA 62.6 51.3 1976 22,001 62.2 NA 63.2 NA NA NA 54.3 NA NA NA 29.9 NA 68.3 58.0 1974 20,955 51.4 NA 52.8 NA NA NA 38.5 NA NA NA 28.1 NA 58.7 46.2 1972 20,074 63.5 NA 64.8 NA NA NA 50.6 NA NA NA 26.7 NA 70.7 58.4 1970 19,141 57.0 NA 58.6 NA NA NA 39.3 NA NA NA NA NA 65.4 50.8 1968 18,468 65.8 NA 67.4 NA NA NA 49.9 NA NA NA NA NA 73.1 73.3 1966 17,817 56.1 NA 57.9 NA NA NA 35.3 NA NA NA NA NA 64.2 49.8 1964 17,269 66.3 NA 68.1 NA NA NA 45.3 NA NA NA NA NA 73.7 60.4 Registered 20042 34,738 76.9 79.2 78.4 80.4 80.0 81.0 73.7 75.8 43.5 54.4 55.0 68.3 78.5 75.6 20043 34,738 76.9 79.2 78.4 80.4 80.0 81.0 73.6 74.6 44.0 54.8 55.0 68.3 78.5 75.6 2002 33,892 75.8 78.0 77.3 79.0 78.7 79.7 73.5 75.7 37.2 49.8 54.8 64.9 77.3 74.7 2000 32,764 76.1 NA 77.3 NA 78.6 NA 74.3 NA 42.8 NA 56.7 NA 78.8 74.2 1998 32,263 75.4 NA 76.4 NA 77.6 NA 73.6 NA 44.1 NA 56.5 NA 78.5 73.2 1996 31,888 77.0 NA 78.1 NA 79.3 NA 75.2 NA 39.2 NA 54.2 NA 79.7 75.0 1994 31,144 76.3 NA 77.5 NA 78.7 NA 72.4 NA 40.7 NA 50.2 NA 79.2 74.3 1992 30,846 78.0 NA 79.1 NA NA NA 74.2 NA NA NA 47.9 NA 81.1 75.7 1990 29,874 76.5 NA 77.7 NA NA NA 71.2 NA NA NA 53.2 NA 79.7 74.2 1988 28,804 78.4 NA 75.9 NA NA NA 79.2 NA NA NA 51.0 NA 81.6 76.1 1986 27,712 76.9 NA 77.9 NA NA NA 71.4 NA NA NA 47.0 NA 80.6 74.3 1984 26,658 76.9 NA 77.7 NA NA NA 73.0 NA NA NA 46.7 NA 80.2 74.7 1982 25,598 75.2 NA 76.3 NA NA NA 68.4 NA NA NA 40.6 NA 78.9 72.6 1980 24,094 74.6 NA 75.4 NA NA NA 70.1 NA NA NA 44.1 NA 78.8 71.6 1978 23,001 72.8 NA 73.7 NA NA NA 67.6 NA NA NA 33.5 NA 77.6 69.5 1976 22,001 71.4 NA 72.5 NA NA NA 64.5 NA NA NA 36.5 NA 76.6 67.8 1974 20,955 70.2 NA 71.2 NA NA NA 62.9 NA NA NA 37.8 NA 75.8 66.2 1972 20,074 75.6 NA 76.5 NA NA NA 67.9 NA NA NA 34.7 NA 81.9 71.1 1970 19,141 73.7 NA 75.0 NA NA NA 61.5 NA NA NA NA NA 79.8 69.2 1968 18,468 75.6 NA 77.1 NA NA NA 62.7 NA NA NA NA NA 81.7 71.1 1966 17,817 73.5 NA 75.5 NA NA NA 56.2 NA NA NA NA NA 79.9 69.2 1964 17,269 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA

Footnotes: Table A-1. Reported Voting and Registration by Race, Hispanic Origin, Sex and Age Groups: November 1964 to 2004

(Numbers in thousands)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2004 and earlier reports Internet Release date: May 26, 2005