554829

research-article2014
APRXXX10.1177/1532673X14554829American Politics ResearchPomante and Schraufnagel

Article
American Politics Research
2015, Vol. 43(3) 479­–503
Candidate Age and © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
Youth Voter Turnout sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1532673X14554829
apr.sagepub.com

Michael J. Pomante II1 and Scot Schraufnagel1

Abstract
The research addresses youth voter turnout in the United States and,
specifically, tests the relationship between candidate age and a commitment
to vote by young people in a controlled experiment. We learn that potential
young voters are more willing to commit to vote when they view pictures
of younger candidates running. This is the case after controlling for the age
and partisanship of respondents. In a real-world test of our experimental
results, we examine state-level variation in youth voter turnout in midterm
governor and Senate races (1994-2010). In the state-level analysis, we find a
larger candidate age gap in governor and Senate races associates with higher
levels of youth mobilization. In all, the research affirms the value of candidate
characteristics as a predictor of voting behavior.

Keywords
youth mobilization, voter turnout, candidate age, social identity theory

. . . non-voting among the young seems more important than non-voting among
the very old for the practical reason that it seems more remediable.
—Converse (1971, p. 445)

This research addresses the extent to which the age of candidates influences
youth voter mobilization. The broadest normative focus is a concern for
widespread participation in democracies to foster republican accountability

1Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, USA

Corresponding Author:
Scot Schraufnagel, Department of Political Science, Northern Illinois University, 402 Zulauf
Hall, DeKalb, IL 60115-2828, USA.
Email: sschrauf@niu.edu
480 American Politics Research 43(3)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012

18-24 Eligible Voters 65+ Eligible Voters All Eligible Voters

Figure 1. Voter turnout in U.S. national elections: 1978-2012.

(see Cohen, 1973; Pennock, 1979). The more specialized motivation is a

more complete understanding of overall low levels of youth voter turnout in
the United States. This specific question has been a concern of scholars for
some time, evidenced by Converse’s (1971) work, which draws data from
elections held in the 1950s. Intriguingly, Converse’s work on youth voter
turnout predates passage of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment in 1971, which
lowered the eligible voting age from 21 to 18 years, and led to an even greater
disparity in turnout between the young and other age cohorts (Burden, 2000).
Figure 1 demonstrates lower youth voter participation rates in U.S.
national elections, since 1978.1 From the figure, we learn the phenomenon of
lower youth voter turnout has persisted into the 21st century. Empirically the
gap in voter turnout between the youngest and oldest age groups has aver-
aged around 33% since the late 1970s (33.9% from 1978 to 2000 and 33.6%
from 2002 to 2010). The largest disparity in voter turnout between the young-
est and oldest age cohorts occurred just prior to the dawn of the 21st century
in the 1998 midterm elections (44.1%). However, there is a second trend of
interest in Figure 1 that is not obvious at first. Note less variation in the line
representing voter turnout of the age group most likely to vote (65 and older).
This compares to a line with comparatively more movement for 18- to
24-year-olds. The standard deviation of the 18 turnout values representing the
group ages 65 and older is 4.8%, whereas the standard deviation of youth
voter turnout is 10.8%. This extra volatility in aggregate youth voting sug-
gests there may be factors in play that influence youth voter turnout that do
not affect other age groups (standard deviation of all age groups equals 7.7%).
Pomante and Schraufnagel 481

This research begins to unravel whether the age of candidates may be part of
an explanation for the greater variability in youth voter turnout.
Electoral participation is ranked high by those who seek to define and
describe quality democracy (Dahl, 1971; Powell, 1982) and many recognize
that political elites have less concern for the policy preferences of non-voters
(Almond & Verba, 1963; Berelson, 1952). Although some suggest non-voters
and voters do not differ appreciably, Arend Lijphart (1997) in his presidential
address to the American Political Science Association challenged this conten-
tion, suggesting that if mobilized the class consciousness of non-voters would
increase and their opinions would change. William Riker (1965) for his part
argues, “the essential democratic institution is the ballot box” (p. 25), and
therein lies democratic accountability. Others suggest, specifically, “because
electoral engagement is an essential element of a strong democratic system,
youth disengagement harms the nation as a whole” (Ulbig & Waggener,
2011, p. 544; see also Arendt, 1958; Barber, 1984; Lijphart, 1997; Pateman,
1970). If young adults turn out to vote at a higher rate, arguably, initiatives
and policies that address their particular policy concerns would become more
salient.
Against the normative backdrop of quality representation born of higher
youth voter turnout, this research uses elements of social identity theory
(SIT), which has been tapped to explain the electoral behavior of Latin
Americans (Jackson, 2011), African Americans (Bobo & Gilliam, 1990),
women (Dolan, 1998; Matson & Fine, 2006), and individuals of a generic
identity (Bassi, Morton, & Williams, 2011). Specifically, SIT suggests people
will vote for and support candidates who are like themselves or are members
of the same group (Conover, 1984; Greene, 1999; Huddy, 2001; Oakes, 2002;
Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flamet, 1971). Groups can be defined as individuals
with like demographic characteristics, individuals with similar views, or sim-
ply people who belong to the same organization. Here, we use the logic of
SIT to theorize that potential young voters will be more likely to identify with
younger candidates and this increased connectivity will cause greater elec-
toral mobilization. Traditionally, identities examined through the lens of SIT
are static, yet age is fluid. However, we feel age can work as an “identity” and
a rallying agent similar to race and gender empathy. We suspect this might
especially be the case when there is considerable disparity in the age of
candidates.
At the heart of this research is a controlled experiment that isolates the
influence of candidate age on a commitment to vote by young adults.
Specifically, college students in general education classes at a midsized, pub-
lic, Midwestern university were asked to report their likelihood of voting
after viewing pictures of older and younger looking candidates
482 American Politics Research 43(3)

in hypothetical elections. To deal with possible imbalance across randomly

constituted groups in the statistical tests which follow, we control for the age
and partisanship of the students. We also use two sets of pictures to help
address the possibility that a particular set of candidate photographs is driv-
ing the results.2 In the end, we learn traditional college students are more
likely to commit to vote when younger looking candidates are running.
There has been long-standing academic uneasiness about external validity
when using college students in social science experiments. In this instance,
the concern is whether college students between the ages of 18 and 24 accu-
rately represent the population of others the same age who have not attended
college. In our case, we think the bias may function in a manner that would
cause us to underreport evidence of SIT. One might imagine students in col-
lege being more politically sophisticated, on average, than those not enrolled
in college and consequently less likely to use a simple heuristic such as can-
didate age to determine whether they would turn out to vote. If this were the
case, our results might prompt Type II error or the tendency to accept a null
hypothesis when the reality is that a relationship exists. Importantly, recent
research argues that external and internal validity are not necessarily compro-
mised by student participants (Druckman & Kam, 2011).3 Druckman and
Kam (2011), using simulations, suggest student participants do not pose an
appreciably greater “treatment effect” than do other less homogeneous par-
ticipants (p. 50).
To provide a real-world test of our experimental findings, we examine
state-level variation in youth voter turnout in midterm gubernatorial and
Senate elections in the American states. The focus is on midterm elections to
prevent the age of the more highly visible U.S. presidential candidates from
tainting the analysis. As gubernatorial and Senate candidates are often both
over 50 years of age and there is a real dearth of races with a young candidate
running, we focus on the candidate age gap while controlling for the youngest
candidate running. But first, we scrutinize carefully four Senate races, which
had a candidate less than 35 years of age. In these races, we uncover empiri-
cal evidence in support of SIT. In the systematic test of the candidate age gap,
we learn 18- to 24-year-olds voted at a statistically higher rate in elections
when the age difference between candidates was larger, although the effect is
only present in reasonably competitive races.

Explaining Youth Voter Turnout

In much of the voting turnout literature, it is widely recognized that as one
gets older, participation rates go up, but gradually fall off very late in life
(Brown, Jackson, & Wright, 1999; Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes,
Pomante and Schraufnagel 483

1960; Converse, 1971; R. E. Wolfinger & Hoffman, 2001; N. H. Wolfinger &

Wolfinger, 2008; for generational effects on voter turnout, see Lyons &
Alexander, 2000). Voter registration requirements are believed to be one of
the culprits (Converse, 1971) because of the burden they place on first-time
voters, wary of the rational calculus or costs associated with voting (Blais,
2000). Converse (1971) uncovers a particular burden placed on young voters
by voter registration laws that require individuals to register to vote “at some
other time than Election Day itself” (p. 466; see also Kaufmann, Petrocik, &
Shaw, 2008, p. 118). In the experiment conducted for this research, voter
registration requirements are held constant by conducting the test in a single
geographic location, and also by the fact students are asked to respond to
questions about a hypothetical election. In the real-world test of the age gap,
a control variable for same day voter registration is incorporated in the model.
In addition, it is well-established that education (Milligan, Moretti, &
Oreopoulos, 2004) influences individual and aggregate youth voter turnout
levels (Jackman, 1987; Powell, 1986). A primary concern has been age varia-
tion in political knowledge (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1991; Galston, 2004;
Jennings, 1996).4 In this vein, Cogan (1997) and Eagles and Davidson (2001)
suggest the declining value of high school civics classes may be the causal
mechanism. Others note the reduced time young people spend reading news-
papers (Wattenberg, 2012). In the experiment, we hold education constant via
random assignment of college students, in general education classes to two
different treatment groups and a control group. In the gubernatorial and
Senate race analysis, we use the turnout of eligible voters 25 and older, in
each state and each election year, as a means of controlling for the long list of
systematic and random factors that influence state-level and year-specific
voter turnout values.
Another species of research on youth voter turnout focuses on electoral
conditions where individuals live (Cho, Gimpel, & Dyck, 2006; Fauvelle-
Aymar & Francois, 2006; Gimpel, Dyck, & Shaw, 2004; Kenny, 1992;
Pacheco, 2008; Pacheco & Plutzer, 2008). For example, Pacheco (2008)
finds the amount of electoral competition in a geographic region has a posi-
tive effect on voter turnout. Others note that electoral competition increases
voter turnout in both high-profile (Kau & Rubin, 1976) and second-order
elections (Barzel & Silberberg, 1973; Patterson & Caldeira, 1983). In the
experiment, we control for a competitive electoral environment by conduct-
ing the test in a single geographic location.
Next, scholars have come to appreciate the manner by which economic
conditions influence voter turnout (Rosenstone, 1982; Stevens, 2006).
Specifically, unemployment (Grant & Toma, 2008; Southwell, 1988) is
believed to affect voting rates. In an experiment, Lassen (2005) finds both
484 American Politics Research 43(3)

public and private employment inversely relate to voter turnout. By exten-

sion, unemployment should associate positively with more voting.5 In the
experiment, unemployment will be held constant by random assignment to
test groups. In the analysis of gubernatorial and Senate races, we control for
the October unemployment rate in each state preceding each election.6 We
suspect that unemployment may have a special influence on the mobilization
of young Americans who may be looking for their first job after finishing
either high school or college.
With all the work just cited on voter turnout, generally, and youth voter
turnout, specifically, one might wonder why yet another exposé on the sub-
ject matter. The unique contribution this research seeks to make is a test of
youth voter mobilization as it relates to candidate age, a variable that has
received comparatively less scholarly attention.

An Experimental Test of Youth’s Commitment to

Vote and Candidate Age
Researchers have found candidate appearance plays a role in citizen evalua-
tions (Banducci, Karp, Thrasher, & Rallings, 2008). To test whether a young
looking candidate will lead young people to commit to vote at a higher rate,
we build on the work of Sigelman and Sigelman (1982) who expose under-
graduate students to written descriptions of fictional political candidates of
different ages, gender, and race. The Sigelmans uphold a “similarity hypoth-
esis” (Sigelman & Sigelman, 1982, p. 267), and suggest there is “ageism” in
America’s youth, or that young voters are prejudiced against older candi-
dates. Our research differs considerably from the Sigelmans’ work because
our concern is a commitment to vote rather than vote choice. Consistent with
Banducci et al. (2008), but distinct from the Sigelmans, we use photographs
to answer our research question.7
In the analysis that follows, we test respondents’ commitment to vote in a
race with two old candidates running, a race with one old and one young
candidate running, and a race with two young candidates. A total of 784 stu-
dents participated in the experiment, but we eliminate incomplete surveys
and responses by students 25 years of age or older. We had no respondents
less than 18 years of age. We exclude the older group for the sake of being
consistent with the age designation (18-24) most commonly used by the
Census Bureau and other investigators of youth voter mobilization. This
yields a useable sample of 691, representing 88% of participants.
Approximately one third of the students saw each of the three pairs of photo-
graphs.8 The experiment took place in general education or freshman-level
Pomante and Schraufnagel 485

Table 1. Summary Data Youth Commitment to Vote Experiment.

Minimum Maximum
Dependent variable value value Mean SD
Commitment to vote 1 10 6.03 2.55
Treatment variables
Frequency
Old vs. young 0 1 230/691
Young vs. young 0 1 218/691
Control variables
1st set of pictures 0 1 201/691
Mean SD
Participant age 18.00 24.83 20.27 1.58
Frequency
Strong Republican 0 1 16/691
Republican 0 1 104/691
Indep Leaning Republican 0 1 72/691
Independent 0 1 132/691
Indep Leaning Democrat 0 1 148/691
Democrat 0 1 174/691
Strong Democrat 0 1 45/691
N 691

Note. Indep. = Independent

courses over three semesters. Students were told they were involved in
research on candidate image.
All photos were of White males to control for possible racial and gender
effects on a commitment to vote.9 The experiment used two sets of six photo-
graphs to control for the possibility that a particular set of photographs was
driving the results and we control for the 1st Set of Pictures in the model that
follows and expect a commitment to vote to be lower with the first set of
pictures because a post hoc analysis determined that the second set of photo-
graphs depicted older candidates who “looked older.” As a screen for our true
test, students were asked which candidate they would be more likely to vote
for,10 and then, their likelihood of voting in each race on a scale ranging from
“1” to “10,” with 10 representing the strongest commitment to vote. The
appendix exhibits the form students were asked to fill out.
Table 1 provides summary data on the dependent variable and explanatory
variables used in the experiment. Concerning the dependent consideration,
Commitment to Vote, the sample returned a mean value of 6.03 with a one
486 American Politics Research 43(3)

Table 2. Bivariate Relationships Between a Commitment to Vote and Different

Groups.

Expected sign Pearson’s r, p value Sample size

Treatment groups
Old vs. young + .02, p < .35 230
Young vs. young + .07, p < .03 218
Control group
Old vs. old − −.09, p < .02 243

Note. p values are based on a one-tailed test.

standard deviation of 2.55 points. Concerning our treatment—photos of can-

didates of varying age—we use the hypothetical race with two older looking
candidates running as our reference group. Hence, we have a variable for Old
vs. Young and a second variable for Young vs. Young. Our expectation is that
there will be a stronger commitment to vote when there is at least one young
candidate running and the strongest commitment to vote when there are two
young candidates running.
We begin with a simple bivariate test of the association between a commit-
ment to vote and the two treatment groups and the control group. Table 2
displays these results. There is a statistically insignificant positive relation-
ship between a commitment to vote and the set of photographs that depicted
one old and one young candidate running. There is a statistically significant
and positive bivariate relationship between a commitment to vote and the set
of pictures that exhibited two young candidates facing off. Third, there is a
significant negative relationship when considering a hypothetical race with
two older looking candidates running.
We now turn to a regression analysis that will control for the set of pictures
used, but also Participant Age and a list of party identifications. The logic of
random assignment in an experiment suggests this may be unnecessary; how-
ever, a regression with theoretically important control variables included
ought to sharpen the estimates. Participant age we hold will be positively
associated with a commitment to vote (Mean age = 20.27; 1 SD = 1.58). We
measured party identification using the traditional seven ordered catego-
ries—but not the multi-stage question sequence—from the American
National Election Study (see the appendix). Our expectation is that self-iden-
tified Independents will be less likely to commit to vote (Keith et al., 1992)
and use them as our omitted category. Hence, we expect the tests of Strong
Republican, Republican, Independent Leaning Republican, Independent
Leaning Democrat, Democrat, and Strong Democrat will all return positive
Pomante and Schraufnagel 487

Table 3. Youth Commitment to Vote and Young Candidates: An Experiment

(Model 1: Ordinary Least Squares Regression).

Expected sign Coefficient (SE)

Treatment variables
Old vs. young + 0.45 (0.22)*
Young vs. young + 0.61 (0.23)**
(Old vs. old omitted group)
Control variables
1st set of pictures − −1.14 (0.21)***
Participant age + 0.03 (0.06)
Strong Republican + 0.89 (0.64)
Republican + 1.77 (0.32)***
Independent Leaning Republican + 1.56 (0.36)***
Independent Leaning Democrat + 1.31 (0.29)***
Democrat + 0.09 (0.29)
Strong Democrat + 0.99 (0.42)**
(Independents omitted group)
Constant 4.66 (1.27)***
F statistic 8.87***
Adjusted R2 .10
Sample size 691

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (one-tailed tests).

coefficients. We suspect Strong Party Identifiers will be especially more

likely to commit to vote (Abramson & Aldrich, 1982; Campbell et al., 1960).
In addition, some prior work has found that Republicans have higher turnout
rates (Conway, 1985; Mangum, 2003). We estimate the following ordinary
least squares (OLS) model and report the results in Table 3:

Model 1 :
Commitment to Voting = β0 + β1Old vs. Young + β2 Young vs. Young +
β31st Set of Pictures + β4 Participant Age + β5Strong Republican +
β6 Republican + β7 Independent Leaning Republican + β8Independent
Leaning Democrat + β9 Democrat + β10Strong Democrat + Error.

First, and foremost, we learn from model output that when there is a young
candidate running there is a stronger commitment to vote on the part of stu-
dent participants, all else being equal. Moreover, based on the size of the
488 American Politics Research 43(3)

coefficients and the level of statistical significance, the greatest commitment

to vote occurs when there are two young looking candidates running. This is
consistent with our hypotheses and the logic of SIT.
Considering the control variables, we learn the first set of pictures used is
linked to a weaker commitment to vote as anticipated and that participant age,
on average, is positively associated with a commitment to vote, but the test
does not return a statistically significant coefficient. Minimal variation on the
age variable undoubtedly contributes to the lack of a statistical relationship.
Last, several of our partisan hypotheses are confirmed. We find that strong
Democratic Party identifiers are more likely to commit to vote, on average,
but the same is not true for strong Republican Party identifiers. The small
number of strong Republican Party identifiers in our sample (16 out of 691)
may be compromising the estimate derived from this test. Other Republicans
are more committed to vote as anticipated and it is the case, across the board,
that Independents are the least likely to commit to vote, on average.
We also estimate the model as an ordered logit to substantiate our findings
and to gain some insights into the substantive significance of our tests. With
the ordered logit regression, we again use the 1 to 10 scale representing a
commitment to vote. These results are not reported in any table, but are avail-
able in the online appendix. Importantly, the tests of statistical significance
are consistent with the OLS model output. Moreover, we learn the odds of
moving from one value of the dependent variable (a commitment to vote) to
the next value in a positive direction are 1.37 times greater when there is one
young candidate running. This grows to 1.56 times greater when there are
two young candidates running, ceteris paribus. The odds of moving up one
value on the scale are 3.87 times greater if the student is a Republican and
2.40 times more likely when the respondent is a Strong Democrat.

Looking for Evidence of SIT in Cross-State

Variation in Youth Voter Turnout
The experimental results affirm the potential value of SIT as it relates to can-
didate age. Next, we turn to an analysis of some real-world election scenarios
to see if there is any evidence of SIT in some recent high-profile American
elections. Specifically, we look for variation in youth voter turnout when
there are young candidates running for either a U.S. Senate seat or in gover-
nor races during the five most recent midterm election cycles (1994, 1998,
2002, 2006, and 2010). We focus our attention on variation in voter turnout
of the voting eligible population from the 18- to 24-year age group, as mea-
sured by the Current Population Survey and reported by the U.S. Census
Bureau. We construct an original data set that includes all gubernatorial and
Pomante and Schraufnagel 489

Senate races in the five election cycles. In some state-election years, there are
races for both governor and Senate occurring, concurrently. When this hap-
pens, we consider the age of four candidates representing the two highest
vote getters in the two races. In the end, we examine 230 elections, 50 stand-
alone Senate races, 63 standalone gubernatorial elections, and 117 elections
where there is both a governor and Senate race on the same ballot.11
Most specifically, we collect data on two unique considerations of candidate
age. We measure the age of the Youngest Candidate and the Candidate Age
Gap.12 We always use the age of the two candidates who finished first and sec-
ond, nearly always one Republican and one Democratic Party candidate. In
standalone gubernatorial and Senate elections, the measurement is straightfor-
ward. For the elections, where there were concurrent gubernatorial and Senate
races, we use the age of the youngest of the four candidates to capture “Youngest
Candidate.” For the age gap consideration, we use the difference between the
oldest and youngest candidate among the four candidates running.
We note upfront that of the 698 individuals we study, there are only four
candidates under the age of 35, all of them Senate candidates. The average
age of the youngest candidate is 48.0 years. This creates a considerable obsta-
cle for any test of SIT using data from these races. Yet, systematic analysis of
a relationship between candidate age and youth voter turnout in more local
elections, where younger candidates might be present, is compromised by
long ballots and the lack of youth voter turnout estimates at appropriate geo-
graphic aggregations. We forge forward with a test of SIT using the age of
candidates at the top of midterm election ballots. Table 4 exhibits youth voter
turnout figures in the four cases with Senate candidates under 35 years of age
and compares this with youth voter turnout in the previous midterm election
and to the voter turnout of people 25 and older in these same elections.13 We
expect there to be a smaller voter turnout gap between the two age groups
(18-24 and 25+) when there is a young candidate running. Put differently,
evidence of SIT, based on age, will be present if voter turnout of young peo-
ple more closely mirrors the turnout of others when a candidate under the age
of 35 is running.
By examining column 5 in Table 4, we note that in three of the four cases,
voter turnout for the young age group is higher than it had been in the previ-
ous midterm election, when there was not a candidate under the age of 35 in
the running—nearly 15 percentage points higher in South Carolina. In the
one instance, where voter turnout was not higher, the under 35 candidate in
Illinois was running in an open seat race against a relatively young Mark Kirk
(R-IL), 51 years of age at the time of the election. The candidate age gap
would have been less obvious in this race than it was in the other three races,
which had a younger candidate facing off against incumbent senators who
490 American Politics Research 43(3)

Table 4. Youth Voter Turnout Compared With Other Ages and Previous
Election: Young Candidate Running.
Youngest 18- to 24-year- 25+ year old
Year State agea old TO TO TO gap

2002 Michigan 33.8 Young candidate 21.5 54.7 33.2

running
Previous midterm 18.1 56.1 38.0
election
2010 Arizona 32.4 Young candidate 27.1 52.0 24.9
running
Previous midterm 17.5 50.5 33.0
election
2010 Illinois 34.6 Young candidate 20.6 49.5 28.9
running
Previous midterm 20.8 51.3 30.5
election
2010 South Carolina 33.2 Young candidate 33.5 53.2 19.7
running
Previous midterm 18.6 49.0 30.4
election
aAll four candidates under the age of 35 were running for Senate seats; only the Illinois race was an open

seat. In the other three races, the young candidate was facing an incumbent senator. The young candidates
were Andrew Raczkowski (R-MI), Rodney Glassman (D-AZ), Alexi Giannoulias (D-IL), and Alvin Greene
(D-SC). TO = turnout of eligible voters expressed as a percentage.

were 59, 68, and 74 years of age. Yet, in all four instances (see column 7), the
difference between the two age groups drew closer when a candidate under
35 was running. In Illinois, where young people did not turn out at a higher
rate, compared with the previous election, the difference with the other age
group in 2010 was still smaller than it had been in 2006.
Given so few instances of young candidates running, we turn to an analy-
sis of the candidate age gap. Arguably, the presence of a “younger” candidate
becomes more obvious when he or she is juxtaposed in a race with a consid-
erably older candidate. In the experiment when respondents saw pictures of
one young and one old candidate running, they were more likely to commit
to vote than when they saw pictures of two old candidates; albeit the commit-
ment to vote was not as strong as it was when viewing two young candidates.
We know in the 2008 American presidential race, which saw the largest age
gap between presidential candidates since the Twenty-Sixth Amendment was
passed (Barack Obama was 25 years younger than John McCain), eligible
18- to 24-year-olds turned out at the highest rate (48.5%) they had since the
seminal presidential election post–Twenty-Sixth Amendment.14 In contrast,
the smallest age gap between presidential candidates, in the past four decades,
Pomante and Schraufnagel 491

occurred in 2000 when George W. Bush faced Albert Gore (a 2-year gap). In
this instance, the turnout of eligible 18- to 24-year-olds was the second low-
est it has been (35.6%) during recent presidential election years.15
Given observed anecdotes and the results of our experiment, our suspicion
is that the candidate age gap can be a motivating factor bringing young peo-
ple to the polls in gubernatorial and Senate races. Specifically, we hypothe-
size that as the difference in candidate age grows, eligible voters between 18
and 24 years of age, in the aggregate, will be more likely to turn out to vote.
Importantly, we know the candidate age gap has no relationship with voter
turnout of the eligible population 25 and older. In the five elections cycles we
examine, the bivariate correlation between Voter Turnout 25+ and the candi-
date age gap is insignificant and actually negative (r = −.06, p < .38). If we
are able to uncover a significant positive association between the age gap and
youth voter turnout, this will be occurring independent of any influence the
age gap has on voter turnout of older voters.
In the analysis of the effect of candidate age gap on youth voter turnout,
we will include in the model voter turnout of those 25 and older. There is no
causal argument here; instead the inclusion of voter turnout of non-youths is
intended as a surrogate for the myriad of systematic and random factors that
can influence voter turnout across all ages. Not the least of these is state-level
electoral competition (Durden & Gaynor, 1987; Tucker, 1986). Note 16 pro-
vides a list of bivariate correlations between factors others note influence
voter turnout and turnout of the 25 and older population during the time
period of this study.16
We do include two additional considerations that we believe will have a
disproportionate influence on youth voter turnout, specifically. We include
the October Unemployment Rate and whether a state at the time the election
was held allowed Same Day Voter Registration.17 Unemployment is nega-
tively correlated with voter turnout of eligible voters 25 and older (r = −.18,
p < .006); however, we hypothesize it will produce a positive association with
youth voter turnout.18 Our hunch is that, in the aggregate, young people will
be frustrated by the lack of job prospects and will consequently be more
inclined to show themselves at the polls when state unemployment is higher.
Next, scholars note residential mobility decreases voter turnout rates
(Highton, 2000), and higher levels of residential mobility among young
Americans cause us to control for same day voter registration, which was
allowed in eight states for at least some of the time period analyzed.
Table 5 reports the results of the candidate age gap test. The sample size
drops from 230 to 171 because we eliminate races where the winning candi-
date had over a 25% margin of victory. The 171 cases include 51 standalone
gubernatorial races, 31 standalone Senate races, and 89 races when there was
492 American Politics Research 43(3)

Table 5. Youth Voter Turnout and Candidate Age Gap: Post Hoc Election Margin
is 25% or CloserModels 2: Random Effects Generalized Least Squares and Model 3:
Fixed Effects).

Random effects Fixed effects

Expected Model 2 Model 3

sign coefficient (SE) coefficient (SE)
Variable name
Candidate age gap + 0.10 (0.04)* 0.10 (0.05)*
Youngest candidate − 0.10 (0.06) 0.09 (0.07)
Control variables
Voter turnout 25+ + 0.74 (0.06)*** 0.82 (0.10)***
October unemployment rate + 0.42 (0.16)** 0.46 (0.16)**
Same day voter registration + 2.50 (0.99)** 0.34 (2.43)
Constant −26.15 (4.44)*** −29.74 (6.48)***
χ2/F statistic 203.01*** 16.22***
R2 (overall/within) .61 .40
N 171

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (one-tailed tests).

both a gubernatorial and Senate race on the same ballot. It is important to

point out that when we estimate the models using all 230 cases, we cannot
reject the null hypothesis that the candidate age gap has no influence on youth
voter turnout. However, it is difficult to imagine the age of candidates influ-
encing voter turnout rates when there is little electoral competition or expec-
tation that one’s vote will make a difference.19
Because our data are arrayed over time and across the same 50 states, there
is the possibility that values on the dependent variable may be correlated with
one another in a manner that unexplained variance (or error) is not random.
For this reason, we adopt a random effects generalized least squares (GLS)
model specification. We also estimate a fixed effects model to test whether
our age variables have an influence on youth voter turnout within each of the
50 states.20
We test the following two models:

Model 2 ( Random Effects ) :

Youth Voter Turnout it = β0 + β1Candidate Age Gapit + β2 Young
Candidateit + β3October Unemployment
Rateit + β4Same Day Voter Registration it +
µi + vit ,
Pomante and Schraufnagel 493

Model 3 ( Fixed Effects ) :

Youth Voter Turnout it = ηi + β1Candidate Age Gapit + β2 Young
Candidateit + β3October Unemployment Rateit
+ β4Same Day Voter Registration it + µit ,

where i indexes the American states and t indicates each of the five midterm
elections analyzed (1994, 1998, 2002, 2006, and 2010).
When we truncate the analysis and look at just those races that, in the end,
were reasonably competitive, we can report the candidate age gap is statisti-
cally linked to higher youth voter turnout.21 The substantive significance,
although not dramatic, is potentially important. Considering the age gap and
the random effects model (Model 2), our results suggest an increase in 1 year
in the candidate age gap associates with about a 0.10% increase in youth
voter turnout, on average. Put differently, an increase in the candidate age gap
of 30 years (e.g., one candidate is 35 and the other is 65 years of age) ought
to increase youth voter turnout by about 3%, ceteris paribus. The average age
gap for cases in this analysis is 13.9 years, with a minimum age difference of
0.2 years and a maximum of 41.8 years. The youngest candidate variable
does not produce a statistically significant association with youth voter turn-
out after controlling for the age gap and other factors.
Considering voter turnout of the 25 and older population and the two con-
trol variables, the former is linked in a statistically important manner to youth
voting. We know that overall voter turnout is determined by a whole host of,
often times random, state-year circumstances and we hope that these are
being captured by the Voter Turnout 25+ consideration. The two control vari-
ables both perform as hypothesized. The October unemployment rate serves
to mobilize younger voters both over time and between states (Model 2) and
within states (Model 3). Considering Model 2, we learn that a 1% increase in
the October unemployment rate associates with a little less than a half per-
centage point increase (0.42) in youth voter turnout. Alternatively, a one stan-
dard deviation increase in the October unemployment rate (2.09%) across the
five election cycles produces an increase in youth voter turnout of about 1%,
on average. Our analysis suggests that states that allow same day voter regis-
tration can expect about a 2.5% increase in youth voter participation, on aver-
age. In the fixed effects model, however, the coefficient obtained from the
test of same day voter registration is indistinguishable from zero. Limited
variation within states is likely responsible for the null finding. The only
within-state variation occurs as the result of three states that adopt the policy
during the time period of this study (New Hampshire after 1996, Montana
after 2005, and Iowa after 2007).
494 American Politics Research 43(3)

Conclusion
The research tests the value of SIT, experimentally, and through a follow-up
analysis of some real-world election scenarios. In the first instance, the ran-
dom assignment of students and a considerable sample size afford the oppor-
tunity to test an age stimulus while controlling for a whole host of
considerations that might influence the likelihood that a young person would
commit to vote. To tighten our estimates, we control directly for participant
age and partisanship. Our results suggest a stronger commit to vote when
young adults view younger looking candidates running, affirming the value
of SIT as it relates to candidate age. One possible shortcoming is that our
sample includes only young adults who are enrolled in college. The question
is whether the results are applicable to young people who do not attend col-
lege. Further studies can answer this question. However, if we assume that
more educated young adults, enrolled in college, use more information to
make political decisions, and are less likely to use heuristic shortcuts, it is
possible that we are actually underreporting the extent to which candidate age
predicts a young adult’s commitment to vote.
When we put our experimental results to task by examining real-world
election scenarios, we can easily find anecdotes from presidential and Senate
races where the age gap or age of the youngest candidate appears to predict
youth mobilization. Most directly, an analysis of four Senate races with a
candidate under the age of 35 finds young Americans voting at higher rates or
at a rate more similar to other Americans. In a systematic multivariate test of
the age gap, we learn that age difference is associated with greater youth
voter turnout, although only when there is some reasonable level of electoral
competition. We can also note that the October unemployment rate and same
day voter registration laws, on average, influence youth voter turnout in the
American states in a statistically and substantively important manner.
Our results from the real-world test would benefit from a larger sample of
young candidates. Perhaps an analysis of young mayoral or U.S. House can-
didates would be a suitable testing ground for further inquiry into SIT as it
relates to candidate age. Data limitations and long ballots, however, will pres-
ent obstacles that will need to be navigated. Last, we would like to point out
that our real-world tests are based on an analysis of less salient midterm elec-
tions. These less noticed elections may be creating a bias that would cause
one to undervalue SIT as it relates to candidate age. It may be that the candi-
date age considerations will have an even greater effect in more prominent
presidential election cycles. The reasoning is that the more motivated voting
population, in midterm elections, may be less influenced by a voting cue such
as candidate age. When the young voting population grows in presidential
Pomante and Schraufnagel 495

elections, we might see the less committed pool of voters more susceptible to
the use of a shortcut, such as age, to determine their presence at the polls.

Appendix-Experimental Instrument
This research recognizes that there is insufficient information provided to
determine a vote choice. However, our interest is purely in the effect that
candidate image has on voting behavior. Hence, we are going to ask you to
respond to two questions using only a set of pictures to base your answers on.
First, we need to know a little about you. Please answer the following ques-
tions about your background:
Date of Birth: ______ ______ _______
Month Day Year
Circle the Appropriate Category:
Party Affiliation: Strong Republican Republican Independent Leaning
Republican Independent Independent Leaning Democrat Democrat Strong
Democrat
Gender: Male Female
Which candidate you would you be more likely to vote for. Circle either
Candidate A or Candidate B:
Candidate A    Candidate B
Now, based on the photos how likely would you be to turn out to vote? Please
circle a number on the scale from 1 to 10.
1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10
Definitely        Definitely
would not       would vote
vote

Note. Institutional Review Board exemption was granted because the research
was conducted anonymously without any threat to participants. Code of
Federal Regulations (45 CFR 46) 46.101b, paragraph 2 (February 1, 2012).

Authors’ Note
This research was first presented at the 2012 Midwest Political Science Association
Conference.

Acknowledgments
We would also like to extend our appreciation to Benjamin Donovan for research
assistance. We would like to thank Dr. Artemus Ward, Rebecca Hannagan, and
496 American Politics Research 43(3)

Jennifer Soss for allowing us to use their classrooms to conduct the experiment. We
would also like to thank Dr. Mathew Streb and Dr. Jeffery Mondak for their feedback
on issues related to research design, Dr. Brad Bishop for advice on modeling deci-
sions, and we wish to extend a significant debt of gratitude to the anonymous review-
ers and the editor of American Politics Research who provided valuable feedback on
previous drafts of the article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Notes
1. Throughout this research, we measure voter turnout as a percentage of the eli-
gible voting population. Data were gathered from the Census Bureau website
(http://dataferrett.census.gov/, last accessed August 19, 2014).
2. Colleagues who were scrutinizing our work noted that the first set of photos we
were using depicted older candidates who were not sufficiently obviously “old”
and that there was a problem with inconsistent photo backgrounds; hence, in the
models that follow, we control for the set of pictures used and anticipate that the
first set of photographs will associate with a weaker commitment to vote.
3. The students who participated in the experiment were enrolled in a public uni-
versity with total admission of about 21,000. The university’s student body is
60% White, 17% African American, and 13% Hispanic. Students enrolled in the
university had an average American College Testing score that is very typical,
less than 1 point higher than the national average.
4. Related to education, a significant amount of attention is paid to political social-
ization and the influence family has on the likelihood that young people will turn
out to vote (Andolina, Jenkins, Zukin, & Keeter, 2003; Jennings & Niemi, 1968,
1974; Jennings, Stoker, & Bowers, 2001; Sandell & Plutzer, 2005; Tedin, 1974).
Researchers find that a young adult’s political participation is largely influenced
by his or her parent’s level of political involvement and the parent’s political
knowledge or education level.
5. Rosenstone (1982) argues unemployment can create deprivation that depresses
voter turnout, but sociologists studying political mobilization in industrial soci-
eties recognize that unemployment can prompt mobilization (Korpi & Palme,
2000; Nedelmann, 1987).
6. Still others who study youth voter turnout concentrate on direct mobilization
efforts (Bennion, 2005; Burgess, Haney, Snyder, Sullivan, & Transue, 2000;
Cain & McCue, 1985; Dale & Strauss, 2009; Shea & Green, 2007; Ulbig &
Pomante and Schraufnagel 497

Waggener, 2011). These works suggest young adults need to be actively pur-
sued by the political parties with registration drives on university campuses and
at events that youth normally attend (Shea & Green, 2007). Dale and Strauss
(2009) find that text messages, as reminders, will increase youth turnout by
approximately 3% and earlier Burgess et al. (2000) found that personalized post-
cards also increased youth turnout. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of youth
mobilization research, for our purposes, is the finding that young adults who
are registered to vote by other young adults turned out to vote at higher rates
than youth who were registered by older individuals (Ulbig & Waggener, 2011).
Although this earlier work does not provide a direct test of social identity theory,
it does point to the value of age cohorts as a mobilizing agent.
7. Unfortunately, the use of photographs creates problems. Previous research sug-
gests that more attractive candidates are judged more favorable and be more
likely to win (see Budesheim & DePaola, 1994; Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren,
& Hall, 2005). Particularly, researchers show that attractiveness is a function of
age, our key explanatory variable. Mathes, Brennan, Haugen, and Rice (1985)
find a negative relationship between age and attractiveness for all groups, except
females judging the attractiveness of males. We address this concern by purpose-
fully selecting photos of men who are all smiling without any distinctive level
of attractiveness. Copies of the photos used are available in the online appendix.
This research acknowledges that age is linked with attractiveness and the ability
to parse out the effects of either one in the experiment is difficult. However, we
hold that any concern over attractiveness is muted by our primary focus, which
is not the respondent’s preferred candidate, but simply a commitment to vote.
8. Once our usable database was defined, 243 students saw photos of an old versus
an old candidate, 230 students saw photos of an old versus a young candidate,
and 218 students saw photos of a young versus a young candidate.
9. We use photos of actual state legislators from a different state, but in the same
geographic region that the experiment took place in.
10. We can report in the sample of cases that had both a young and an old candidate,
62% of respondents were more likely to pick the young candidate (142/228).
Two students in this group did not report which candidate they preferred. When
we break down a preference for the younger candidate by party affiliation, we
learn that self-identified Democrats picked the young candidate 71% of the time
(88/124), Republicans 48% of the time (28/58), and Independents 58% of the
time (26/45). One student in this group did not report her partisan identification.
In this subsample of cases, there is no correlation between a preference for the
younger candidate and a commitment to vote (r = −.02, p < .78).
11. The sample size is 230 (not 250, 5 election cycles × 5 states) because 7 states
have only three observations and 6 states have only four observations.
12. Each gubernatorial and Senate candidate’s age is determined by calculating the
number of days between his or her birth date and Election Day and dividing this
number by 365.25 to obtain yearly values. Exact dates of birth were available
for every election winner but the birthdates of some challengers could not be
498 American Politics Research 43(3)

acquired for all 696 candidates involved. In 68 instances, candidate ages were
approximated. When we could learn the month and year but not the date, we used
the 15th of the month to calculate his or her age. For some candidates, only birth
years could be ascertained and in these instances we use June 30 of that year to
gauge his or her age. Last, in four instances, after repeated Internet searches and
telephone calls no birth year was available. In each of these cases, we were able
to ascertain the year the candidate graduated from high school. We assume the
candidate was 18 years old at the time and use a corresponding birth year and
June 30 to calculate his or her age.
13. The online appendix provides some additional evidence of difference in mean
youth voter turnout in and Senate races based on age considerations.
14. The use of social media by candidate Obama to mobilize young people suggests
a different causal mechanism than the one we are specifying. Our hypothesis
has been that social identity with a younger candidate is sufficient to motivate
young people to turn out—without the use of other tactics. Whether high youth
voter turnout in the 2008 election is the result of specific mobilization efforts or
young voters identifying with Obama’s youth or the age gap between Obama and
McCain is beyond the scope of this study. However, we feel it is reasonable to
assume that Obama’s youth, and the age gap with McCain, can explain at least a
portion of the higher level of youth mobilization in 2008.
15. We do not provide a systematic empirical test of youth voter turnout in presiden-
tial elections because of the small sample of races that are available.
16. Bivariate correlations between Voter Turnout 25+ and other considerations are
as follows: open seat races (r = .11, p < .12), the post hoc election margin (r =
−.21, p < .01), legislative professionalism or Squire score (r = −.01, p < 1.00;
Squire, 2007), citizens living below the poverty line (r = −.29, p < .001), state
high school graduation rate (r = .32, p < .001), and a state-election year with both
a gubernatorial and a Senate race (r = .11, p < .09).
17. Unemployment data were retrieved from the Bureau of Labor Statistics website
(http://www.bls.gov/schedule/archives/laus_nr.htm#1994, last accessed May 22,
2014). Data on same day voter registration were retrieved from the National
Conference of State Legislatures (http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-
campaigns/same-day-registration.aspx, last accessed August 13, 2014).
18. Unfortunately, data on youth unemployment, by state, are not readily available
for all years and states. We use general unemployment as a surrogate. When
youth unemployment data are available, we learn that they correlate with general
unemployment in a statistically significant manner (r = .81, p < .001).
19. When there is both a governor and a Senate race on the same ballot, we use the
race the youngest candidate was running in to define the electoral competition
consideration. When incorporating electoral competition in the model as an inde-
pendent variable and using all 230 cases, we still cannot reject the null hypoth-
esis of no relationship between the candidate age gap and youth voter turnout.
20. There are considerable gaps in the data; not every state had a gubernatorial
or Senate election every year and the electoral competition limitation creates
Pomante and Schraufnagel 499

additional breaks in the data. The temptation is to use a simple ordinary least
squares (OLS) regression, but we opt for generalized least squares (GLS), which
explicitly makes use of information contained in the possible equal variabil-
ity of the dependent variable across states and time. Arguably, GLS gives us
the best opportunity to produce coefficients that are the “best linear unbiased
estimator(s)” (Gujarati, 1995, p. 362). We use a Hausman specification test to
determine if there is systematic difference between coefficients obtained when
estimating the model using either a random effects or fixed effects specification.
The Hausman test produces a chi-square value of 2.02 (p < .85), which indi-
cates that we cannot reject the null hypothesis that the two coefficient vectors
are equal. Nonetheless, we report the results of a fixed effects model in Table
5 to ensure that model specification is not driving the reported results. We also
estimate the model using OLS and obtain comparable output; these results are
reported in the online appendix. Last, we must acknowledge the possibility of
heteroskedasticity in error terms that might result from the Census Bureau using
different sample sizes in each election year and across the 50 states. We have
included the Census Bureau’s elaboration of issues regarding sampling and non-
sampling error in the online appendix.
21. The online appendix provides the results when using a different cut-point, those
races where the post hoc election margin is less than 29 percentage points.

References
Abramson, P. R., & Aldrich, J. H. (1982). The decline of electoral participation in
America. American Political Science Review, 76, 502-521.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The civic culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Andolina, M. W., Jenkins, K., Zukin, C., & Keeter, S. (2003). Habits from home,
lessons from school: Influences on youth civic engagement. Political Science &
Politics, 36, 275-280.
Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Banducci, S. A., Karp, J. A., Thrasher, M., & Rallings, C. (2008). Ballot photographs
as cues in low-information elections. Political Psychology, 29, 903-916.
Barber, B. R. (1984). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Barzel, Y., & Silberberg, E. (1973). Is the act of voting rational? Public Choice, 16,
1-58.
Bassi, A., Morton, R. B., & Williams, K. C. (2011). The effects of identities, incen-
tives, and information on voting. The Journal of Politics, 73, 558-571.
Bennion, E. A. (2005). Caught in the ground wars: Mobilizing voters during a com-
petitive congressional campaign. Annals of the American Academy of Political
and Social Science, 601, 123-141.
Berelson, B. R. (1952). Democratic theory and public opinion. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 16, 313-330.
500 American Politics Research 43(3)

Blais, A. (2000). To vote or not to vote?: The merits and limits of rational choice
theory. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Bobo, L., & Gilliam, F. D. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and black
empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84, 337-393.
Brown, R. D., Jackson, R. A., & Wright, G. C. (1999). Registration, turnout, and state
party systems. Political Research Quarterly, 52, 463-479.
Budesheim, T. L., & DePaola, S. J. (1994). Beauty or the beast? The effects of appear-
ance, personality, and issue information on evaluations of political candidates.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 339-348.
Burden, B. C. (2000). Voter turnout and the national election studies. Political
Analysis, 8, 389-398.
Burgess, D., Haney, B., Snyder, M., Sullivan, J. L., & Transue, J. E. (2000). Rocking
the vote: Using personalized messages to motivate voting among young adults.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 29-52.
Cain, B. E., & McCue, K. (1985). The efficacy of registration drives. The Journal of
Politics, 47, 1221-1229.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American
voter unabridged edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cho, W. K., Gimpel, J. G., & Dyck, J. J. (2006). Residential concentration, political
socialization, and voter turnout. The Journal of Politics, 68, 156-167.
Cogan, J. J. (1997). Crisis in citizenship education in the United States. International
Journal of Social Education, 11(2), 21-36.
Cohen, C. (1973). Democracy. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Conover, P. J. (1984). The influence of group identifications on political perception
and evaluation. The Journal of Politics, 46, 760-785.
Converse, P. E. (1971). Non-voting among young adults in the United States. In W.
J. Crotty, D. M. Freeman, & D. S. Gatlin (Eds.), Political parties and political
behavior (pp. 443-466). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Conway, M. M. (1985). Political participation in the United States. Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
Dale, A., & Strauss, A. (2009). Don’t forget to vote: Text message reminders as a
mobilization tool. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 787-804.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1991). Stability and change in the U.S. public’s
knowledge of politics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 583-612.
Dolan, K. (1998). Voting for women in the “year of the women.” American Journal
of Political Science, 42, 272-293.
Druckman, J. N., & Kam, C. D. (2011). Students as experimental participants. In J. N.
Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinsky, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge hand-
book of experimental political science (pp. 41-56). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Durden, G. C., & Gaynor, P. (1987). The rational behavior theory of voting participa-
tion: Evidence from the 1970 and 1982 elections. Public Choice, 53, 231-242.
Pomante and Schraufnagel 501

Eagles, M., & Davidson, R. (2001). Civic education, political socialization and politi-
cal mobilization. Journal of Geography, 100, 233-242.
Fauvelle-Aymar, C., & Francois, A. (2006). The impact of closeness on turnout: An
empirical relation based on a study of a two-round ballot. Public Choice, 127,
461-483.
Galston, W. A. (2004). Civic education and political participation. Political Science
& Politics, 37, 263-266.
Gimpel, J. G., Dyck, J. J., & Shaw, D. R. (2004). Registrants, voters, and turnout vari-
ability across neighborhoods. Political Behavior, 26, 343-375.
Grant, D., & Toma, M. (2008). Elemental tests of the traditional rational voting
model. Public Choice, 137, 173-195.
Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach.
Political Psychology, 20, 393-403.
Gujarati, D. N. (1995). Basic econometrics (3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Highton, B. (2000). Residential mobility, community mobility, and electoral partici-
pation. Political Behavior, 22, 109-120.
Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social
identity theory. Political Psychology, 22, 127-156.
Jackman, R. W. (1987). Political institutions and voter turnout in the industrial
democracies. American Political Science Review, 81, 405-423.
Jackson, M. S. (2011). Priming the sleeping giant: The dynamic of Latino political
identity and voter choice. Political Psychology, 32, 691-716.
Jennings, M. K. (1996). Political knowledge over time and across generations. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 60, 228-252.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1968). The transmission of political values from
parent to child. American Political Science Review, 62, 169-184.
Jennings, M. K., & Niemi, R. G. (1974). The political character of adolescence: The
influence of family and schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2001, January). Politics across generations:
Family transmission reexamined (Working paper). Institute of Governmental
Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
Kau, J., & Rubin, P. H. (1976). The electoral college and the rational vote. Public
Choice, 27, 101-107.
Kaufmann, K. M., Petrocik, J. R., & Shaw, D. R. (2008). Unconventional wisdom:
Facts and myths about American voters. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E., Westlye, M. C., & Wolfinger, R.
E. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
Kenny, C. B. (1992). Political participation and effects from the social environment.
American Journal of Political Science, 36, 259-267.
Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (2000, August 24-27). Distributive conflict, political mobiliza-
tion and the welfare state: Comparative patterns of emergence and retrenchment
in the westernized countries (Typescript). Presented at the Meeting of RC 19 in
Tilburg, the Netherlands.
502 American Politics Research 43(3)

Lassen, D. D. (2005). The effect of information on voter turnout: Evidence from a

natural experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 103-118.
Lijphart, A. (1997). Unequal participation: Democracy’s unresolved dilemma.
American Political Science Review, 91, 1-14.
Lyons, W., & Alexander, R. (2000). A tale of two electorates: Generational replace-
ment and the decline of voting in presidential elections. The Journal of Politics,
62, 1014-1034.
Mangum, M. (2003). Psychological involvement and black voter turnout. Political
Research Quarterly, 56, 41-48.
Mathes, E. W., Brennan, S. M., Haugen, P. M., & Rice, H. B. (1985). Ratings of
physical attractiveness as a function of age. The Journal of Social Psychology,
125, 157-168.
Matson, M., & Fine, T. S. (2006). Gender, ethnicity, and ballot information: Ballot
cues in low-information elections. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 6, 49-72.
Milligan, K., Moretti, E., & Oreopoulos, P. (2004). Does education improve citi-
zenship? Evidence from the United States and the United Kingdom. Journal of
Public Economics, 88, 1667-1695.
Nedelmann, B. (1987). Individuals and parties—Changes in processes of political
mobilization. European Sociological Review, 3, 181-202.
Oakes, P. (2002). Psychological groups and political psychology: A response to
Huddy’s critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 23,
809-824.
Pacheco, J. S. (2008). Political socialization in context: The effect of political compe-
tition on youth voter turnout. Political Behavior, 30, 415-436.
Pacheco, J. S., & Plutzer, E. (2008). Political participation and cumulative disadvan-
tage: The impact of economic and social hardship on young citizens. Journal of
Social Issues, 64, 571-593.
Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Patterson, S. C., & Caldeira, G. A. (1983). Getting out the vote: Participation in
gubernatorial elections. American Political Science Review, 77, 675-689.
Pennock, J. R. (1979). Democratic political theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Powell, G. B., Jr. (1982). Contemporary democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Powell, G. B., Jr. (1986). American voter turnout in comparative perspective.
American Political Science Review, 80, 17-43.
Riker, W. H. (1965). Democracy in the United States (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Rosenstone, S. J. (1982). Economic adversity and voter turnout. American Journal of
Political Science, 26, 25-46.
Sandell, J., & Plutzer, E. (2005). Families, divorce and voter turnout in the US.
Political Behavior, 27, 133-162.
Shea, D. M., & Green, J. C. (2007). Fountain of youth: Strategies and tactics for
mobilizing America’s young voters. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Pomante and Schraufnagel 503

Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1982). Sexism, racism, and ageism in voting behav-
ior: An experimental analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 263-269.
Southwell, P. L. (1988). The mobilization hypothesis and voter turnout in congressio-
nal elections: 1974-1982. The Western Political Quarterly, 41, 273-287.
Squire, P. (2007). Measuring state legislative professionalism: The Squire index
revisited. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7, 211-227.
Stevens, D. (2006). Mobilization, demobilization and the economy in American elec-
tions. British Journal of Political Science, 37, 165-186.
Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R. P., & Flamet, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178.
Tedin, K. L. (1974). The influence of parents on the political attitudes of adolescents.
American Political Science Review, 68, 1579-1592.
Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of com-
petence from faces predict election outcomes. Science, 308, 1623-1626.
Tucker, H. J. (1986). Contextual models of participation in U.S. state legislative elec-
tions. The Western Political Quarterly, 39, 67-78.
Ulbig, S. G., & Waggener, T. (2011). Getting registered and getting to the polls: The
impact of voter registration strategy and information provision on turnout of col-
lege students. Political Science & Politics, 44, 544-551.
Wattenberg, M. P. (2012). Is voting for young people? (3rd ed.). New York, NY:
Pearson Longman.
Wolfinger, N. H., & Wolfinger, R. E. (2008). Family structure and voter turnout.
Social Forces, 86, 1513-1528.
Wolfinger, R. E., & Hoffman, J. (2001). Registering and voting with motor voter.
Political Science & Politics, 34, 85-92.

Author Biographies
Michael J. Pomante II is a doctoral candidate in the political science department at
Northern Illinois University. He is co-author, with Scot Schraufnagel, of the Historical
Dictionary of the Barack Obama Administration.
Scot Schraufnagel is an associate professor of political science at Northern Illinois
University. He is author of Third Party Blues: The Truth and Consequences of Two-
Party Dominance.