Who Votes? Congressional Elections and 

the American Electorate: 1978–2014

Population Characteristics

By Thom File

Issued July 2015

P20-577

INTRODUCTION

Voting is among our most fundamental domestic 

responsibilities and important civic opportunities. 

Without free and open elections, American democracy 

would not exist. Maintaining and improving our system 

of elections requires not only documenting election 

results, but also understanding the composition of 

America’s electorate, both historically and presently. 

Since 1964, the U.S. Census Bureau has fielded the 

Voting and Registration Supplement to the Current 

Population Survey (CPS) every 2 years. Generally speaking, national American elections fall into two categories: elections where voters decide on the office of the 

President and congressional seats, and elections where 

congressional seats are the highest offices decided. To 

avoid confusion with presidential elections, the following report refers to nonpresidential year elections as 

“congressional elections.” Election results and voting patterns tend to vary between these two types of 

elections (specifically, voting and registration rates are 

lower in years with congressional elections only), and 

the majority of this report will focus on congressional 

election years only (2014, 2010, 2006, etc.).

In addition to the requirement that individuals be at 

least 18 years old, voters in national elections must also 

be U.S. citizens. Although the Census Bureau has collected voting and registration data since 1964, the CPS 

has gathered citizenship data only since 1978. Accounting for citizenship status provides a more accurate 

reflection of the population eligible to vote; therefore, 

the estimates presented and discussed throughout this 

report are calculated using the voting-age citizen

Comparing CPS Voting Estimates to 

Official Reports

The data in this report are based on responses

to the November CPS Voting and Registration

Supplements, which survey the civilian noninstitutionalized population in the United States. Voting 

estimates from the CPS and other sample surveys 

have historically differed from those based on administrative data, such as the official results reported 

by each state and disseminated collectively by the 

Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives and the 

Federal Election Commission (FEC). In general, voting rates from the sample surveys such as the CPS 

are higher than official results (Bauman and Julian, 

2010; De Bell, et al., 2015). Potential explanations 

for these differences include misreporting, problems 

with memory or knowledge of others’ behavior, and 

methodological issues related to question wording, 

method of survey administration, and nonresponse. 

Despite these issues, the Census Bureau’s November 

supplement to the CPS remains the most comprehensive data source available for examining the social 

and demographic composition of the electorate in 

federal elections, particularly when examining broad 

historical trends for subpopulations.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

population and go back as far

as 1978.1, 2 Readers interested in 

earlier years can utilize historical 

CPS voting estimates calculated 

regardless of citizenship status. 

These products are available at

<www.census.gov/hhes/www

/socdemo/voting/publications

/p20/index.html>.

This report’s first section, “Historical 

Turnout in Congressional Elections, 

1978–2014,” presents reported 

turnout rates, both overall and by 

race, Hispanic origin, and age, for 

each congressional election year 

from 1978 to the most recent election held in 2014.3

The second section, “Composition 

of the Electorate in Recent

Elections, 2004–2014,” presents 

breakdowns of the voting populations in the last three congressional 

and presidential election cycles, 

with a focus on race, Hispanic 

origin, and age. Data are presented 

for both presidential and congressional election years, primarily to 

determine whether there have been 

electoral composition changes 

depending on the type of election.

1 From 1978 to 1992, citizenship status 

was asked about in the CPS Voting and 

Registration Supplement. Beginning in 1994, 

the basic CPS included a question about citizenship status, meaning that the supplement 

no longer needed to ask about this topic. 2 Removing noncitizens from the votingeligible population increases voting rates, as 

the population base for calculating the rates 

becomes smaller, while the number of people 

who report voting does not change. 3 Federal surveys now give respondents 

the option of reporting more than one race. 

Therefore, two basic ways of defining a race 

group are possible. A group such as Asian 

may be defined as those who reported Asian 

and no other race (the race-alone or singlerace concept) or as those who reported 

Asian regardless of whether they also 

reported another race (the race-alone or incombination concept). This report shows 

data using the first approach (race alone). 

Use of the single-race population does not 

imply that it is the preferred method of 

presenting or analyzing data. For further 

information, see the 2010 Census Overview 

of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010 

(C2010BR-02) at <http://census.gov 

/library/publications/2011/dec 

/c2010br-02.html>.

The third section, “A Closer Look 

at Race, Hispanic Origin, and 

Age,” looks at how voter turnout intersects with demographic 

characteristics in an effort to better 

understand the dynamics of recent 

congressional electorates. By 

comparing a subpopulation’s share 

of the voting population to their 

share of the eligible population, an 

assessment can be made concerning how a given subpopulation has 

participated in the 2006, 2010, and 

2014 congressional elections.

The report’s final section, 

“Traditional and Alternative

Methods of Voting,” presents results 

related to voters and their reported 

method of casting ballots, specifically whether they voted early in 

person or through the mail. These 

questions were first asked in the 

1996 CPS, and results are presented 

for the period of 1996–2014. In 

this section, data are once again 

included for both presidential 

and congressional election years, 

primarily to better understand how 

voting methods vary between different types of elections.

UNDERSTANDING VOTING 

Voting rates: Voting rates represent 

the number of voters relative to a 

given population or subpopulation. 

For example, in this report overall 

voting rates are calculated by dividing the total number of reported 

voters by the total number of eligible voters (i.e., citizens who are

at least 18 years old) (Figure 1). 

Voting population: This is the 

estimated number of people who 

reported voting. In this report, this 

population will occasionally be 

referred to as “the electorate.”

Voting-age citizens: In the United 

States, only native-born or naturalized citizens can vote legally 

in elections. While the Census 

Bureau has collected voting and 

Figure 1.

Voters Among the Total, Citizen, and Registered 

Voting-Age Populations: 2014 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2014.

Noncitizens

Nonrespondents

Reported 

nonvoters

Voting 

population

(Population 18 and older, in thousands)

Registered 

population

142.2 million

(64.9% voted)

Citizen 

population

219.9 million

(41.9% voted)

Total 

population

239.9 million

(38.5% voted)

19,933

34,658

93,032

92,251

34,658

93,032

47,593

92,251

2,322

92,251
U.S. Census Bureau 3

registration data since 1964, the 

CPS has gathered citizenship data 

for congressional voting only 

since 1978. Although the number 

of voters in any given year is not 

affected by accounting for citizenship, removing noncitizens from 

the population base results in 

higher turnout rates than when 

the voting-age population is used. 

For example, in 2014, 92.3 million Americans reported voting. 

When the voting-age population 

is used (239.9 million people), the 

voting rate is 38.5 percent, but 

when voting-age citizens serve as 

the population base (219.9 million 

people), the voting rate increases to 

41.9 percent. 

Voting-age population: Since 1972, 

every state has required that voters 

be at least 18 years of age in order 

to vote, therefore the voting-age 

population has historically been a 

common population base used for 

calculating voting statistics. Some 

Census Bureau products, such as 

the voting detailed and historical table packages, present voting 

estimates using this population as 

the base in order to allow historical comparisons all the way back 

to 1964. The voting-age population 

does not account for citizenship 

status.

Registered population: With the 

exception of North Dakota, every 

state requires eligible voters to 

formally register before casting a 

ballot. In terms of methods and 

deadlines, registration procedures 

vary greatly from state to state, but 

by definition, anyone who is registered is both a citizen and at least 

18 years old.

Nonrespondents: Each year

when the Voting and Registration 

Supplement is administered, a 

certain number of respondents do 

not complete the questionnaire.4

Historically, this population has not 

been separately accounted for in 

all CPS voting products, but beginning in 2010, these individuals 

have been reported as a separate 

category. 

HISTORICAL TURNOUT 

IN CONGRESSIONAL 

ELECTIONS, 1978–2014

Since 1978, voting rates have been 

consistently higher in presidential 

election years than in congressional 

election years. In 2014, the overall 

voting rate was the lowest for a 

congressional election since the 

CPS first asked about voting and 

citizenship status in 1978. At 41.9 

percent, the 2014 turnout rate was 

3.6 percentage points lower than 

in 2010 and 5.9 percentage points 

lower than in 2006 (Table 1). 

The number of voting-eligible 

citizens has increased in every 

congressional election since 1978, 

while the number of citizens who 

reported voting has increased 

(1982, 1990, 1994, 2002, and 

2006) or decreased (1998 and 

4 The “No response to voting” category 

includes those who were not asked if they 

voted because the administration of the survey was stopped for some reason, as well as 

those who responded “Don't Know” or refused 

to answer the question.

2014) depending on the year.5 When 

increases in the voting population 

outpace increases in the votingeligible population, the end result 

is an increase in the voting rate, 

but when increases in the voting 

population do not keep pace with 

increases in the voting-eligible 

population, or when the voting 

population decreases, there is a 

decrease in the voting rate. Voting 

rates for presidential elections have 

shifted from year to year, but have 

ultimately decreased across the 

duration of the time series (64.0 

percent in 1980 and 61.8 percent 

in 2012), while voting rates for congressional elections have decreased 

as well (48.9 percent in 1978, 41.9 

percent in 2014) (Figure 2). 

In the two most recent congressional elections, the size of the voting 

population was not statistically 

different in 2010 (in comparison 

to 2006), and decreased in 2014 

(in comparison to 2010) despite 

increases in the eligible population 

in both those years. This resulted in 

voting rate decreases in both 2010 

(45.5 percent, compared with

47.8 percent in 2006) and 2014 

(41.9 percent). 

5 The apparent change in the voting population was not statistically significant in 1986 

and 2010. 

Table 1.

Reported Rates of Voting in Congressional Elections: 

1978 to 2014

(Numbers in thousands)

Congressional 

election year Population 18 

and older

Citizens

Population 18 

and older

Voted

Number Rate

1978. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151,646 142,308 69,587 48.9

1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165,483 154,858 80,310 51.9

1986. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173,890 161,944 79,954 49.4

1990. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182,118 166,151 81,991 49.3

1994. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190,267 177,260 85,702 48.3

1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198,228 183,451 83,098 45.3

2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210,421 190,250 87,762 46.1

2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,603 201,073 96,119 47.8

2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229,690 210,800 95,987 45.5

2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239,874 219,941 92,251 41.9

Note: Voting rates are calculated by dividing the number of reported voters by the number of 

eligible voters. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November, select years.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2.

Voting Rates in Congressional and Presidential Elections: 1978 to 2014

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 1978–2014.

Presidential election year

Percent

Congressional election year

48.9

64.0

41.9

61.8

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014

Figure 3.

Voting Rates in Congressional Elections by Race and Ethnicity: 1978 to 2014

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 1978–2014.

White, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

39.5

35.7

50.6

27.0

45.8

40.6

15

23

31

39

47

55

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014

Black, non-Hispanic 

Percent
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Historically, voting rate levels 

have been associated with certain 

demographic characteristics, such 

as race, Hispanic origin, and age 

(Brooks and Manza, 1997; File and 

Crissey, 2010; File, 2013). Since 

1978, voting rates for non-Hispanic 

Blacks and Hispanics have trailed 

those for non-Hispanic Whites 

in every congressional election, 

although the size of those differences has fluctuated depending on 

the year (Figure 3).6

Over the course of the congressional election time-series, voting 

rates declined for non-Hispanic 

Whites (50.6 percent in 1978, 

45.8 percent in 2014) and Hispanics (35.7 in 1978, 27.0 percent in 

2014), but the apparent change 

for non-Hispanic Blacks over this 

6 In 2012, a Census Bureau report documented Black voting rates eclipsing White 

voting rates for the first time in the presidential election (File, 2013). Others have argued 

that this first happened in 2008. See 

<www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix 

/wp/2013/04/29/black-turnout-was-higher 

-than-white-turnout-in-2012-and-2008/> and 

<www.nytimes.com/2013/05/09/us/politics 

/rate-of-black-voters-surpassed-that-for 

-whites-in-2012.html?_r=0>.

period was not statistically significant (39.5 percent in 1978, 40.6 

percent in 2014). 

In recent elections, voting rates 

have also tended to increase with 

age (File, 2008; File, 2014). Since 

1978, voting rates for 18- to 

34-year-olds have trailed those for 

older Americans in every congressional election, although the size 

of those differences has fluctuated 

depending on the year (Figure 4). 

Since 1986, Americans 65 and 

older have voted at higher rates 

than all other age groups. In 2014, 

for example, the voting rate for the 

65 and older group was 59.4 percent, about 10 percentage points 

above the next-highest age group. 

The population 65 and older is also 

the only age group where voting 

rates did not drop between 1978 

and 2014.7

In 2014, voting rates increased 

steadily with age, from a low 

of 23.1 percent among 18- to 

7 Voting rates for the 65 and older population were not statistically different in 1978 

and 2014. 

34-year-olds, to a high of 59.4 

percent for those 65 and older 

(Table 2). 

In 2014, 43.0 percent of women 

reported voting, compared with 

40.8 percent of men. Reported 

voting rates were also higher for 

non-Hispanic Whites (45.8 percent) 

than for non-Hispanic Blacks (40.6 

percent), non-Hispanic Asians 

(26.9 percent), and Hispanics (27.0 

percent).8

Being married with a spouse living in the same household corresponded to higher voting rates 

(50.9 percent), particularly in comparison with those who reported 

having never been married (25.9 

percent). Native-born citizens were 

more likely to report voting than 

naturalized citizens (42.7 percent 

and 34.1 percent, respectively).

Reported voting rates were also 

high among those with advanced 

8 In 2014, voting rates for non-Hispanic 

Asians and Hispanics were not statistically 

different. The voting rates for men and nonHispanic Blacks were also not significantly 

different.

Figure 4.

Historical Voting Rates in Congressional Elections by Age: 1978 to 2014

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 1978–2014.

Age 65+

Age 45–64

 Age 18–34

 Age 35–44

53.7

33.6

61.9

59.4

37.8

23.1

59.4

49.6

15

26

37

48

59

70

1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014

Percent
6 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 2.

Characteristics of U.S. Citizens by Voting Status: 2014—Con.

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

Citizens

18 and 

older Percent

Reported 

voters Percent

Reported 

nonvoters1 Percent

Nonrespondents2 Percent

 Total, 18 years and older . . .

Age

219,941 100 .0 92,251 41 .9 93,032 42 .3 34,658 15 .8

18 to 34 years .................. 64,600 29.4 14,945 23.1 37,454 58.0 12,201 18.9

35 to 44 years .................. 34,334 15.6 12,986 37.8 15,883 46.3 5,465 15.9

45 to 64 years .................. 76,882 35.0 38,111 49.6 27,514 35.8 11,257 14.6

65 years and older ...............

Sex

44,125 20.1 26,210 59.4 12,180 27.6 5,735 13.0

Male .......................... 105,299 47.9 43,009 40.8 45,472 43.2 16,819 16.0

Female ........................

Race and Hispanic Origin

114,642 52.1 49,243 43.0 47,560 41.5 17,839 15.6

Non-Hispanic, White alone ........ 153,750 69.9 70,351 45.8 60,869 39.6 22,530 14.7

Non-Hispanic, Black alone ........ 26,559 12.1 10,789 40.6 10,687 40.2 5,083 19.1

Non-Hispanic, Asian alone ........ 9,296 4.2 2,503 26.9 4,701 50.6 2,092 22.5

Non-Hispanic, other race .......... 5,245 2.4 1,833 34.9 2,718 51.8 694 13.2

Hispanic (any race) ..............

Nativity Status

25,092 11.4 6,775 27.0 14,057 56.0 4,259 17.0

Native ........................ 200,605 91.2 85,667 42.7 83,569 41.7 31,369 15.6

Naturalized ....................

Marital Status

19,336 8.8 6,584 34.1 9,463 48.9 3,289 17.0

Married, spouse present .......... 113,278 51.5 57,690 50.9 39,814 35.1 15,774 13.9

Married, spouse absent ........... 2,666 1.2 897 33.7 1,265 47.5 503 18.9

Widowed ...................... 13,712 6.2 6,538 47.7 5,315 38.8 1,860 13.6

Divorced ...................... 24,277 11.0 9,808 40.4 10,899 44.9 3,570 14.7

Separated ..................... 4,524 2.1 1,381 30.5 2,461 54.4 682 15.1

Never married ..................

Employment Status

61,484 28.0 15,937 25.9 33,278 54.1 12,269 20.0

In civilian labor force ............. 141,062 64.1 58,085 41.2 61,145 43.3 21,833 15.5

 Government workers ........... 19,559 8.9 11,053 56.5 5,715 29.2 2,791 14.3

 Private industry ............... 105,263 47.9 40,695 38.7 47,854 45.5 16,713 15.9

 Self-employed ................ 8,659 3.9 4,068 47.0 3,234 37.4 1,356 15.7

 Unemployed .................. 7,582 3.4 2,268 29.9 4,341 57.3 972 12.8

Not in labor force ................

Duration of Residence3

78,879 35.9 34,167 43.3 31,887 40.4 12,825 16.3

Less than 1 year ................ 25,242 11.5 6,354 25.2 17,763 70.4 1,125 4.5

1 to 2 years .................... 25,805 11.7 9,184 35.6 15,696 60.8 925 3.6

3 to 4 years .................... 23,289 10.6 10,201 43.8 12,374 53.1 714 3.1

5 years or longer ................ 114,472 52.0 65,468 57.2 45,318 39.6 3,687 3.2

Not reported ...................

Region

31,133 14.2 1,045 3.4 1,880 6.0 28,208 90.6

Northeast ...................... 39,712 18.1 15,776 39.7 17,146 43.2 6,790 17.1

Midwest ....................... 48,731 22.2 21,571 44.3 20,415 41.9 6,745 13.8

South ......................... 82,297 37.4 34,255 41.6 35,336 42.9 12,706 15.4

West .........................

Educational Attainment

49,201 22.4 20,649 42.0 20,134 40.9 8,418 17.1

Less than 9th grade .............. 5,495 2.5 1,305 23.7 3,269 59.5 921 16.8

9th to 12th grade, no diploma ...... 15,683 7.1 3,396 21.7 9,573 61.0 2,713 17.3

High school graduate ............. 65,610 29.8 22,262 33.9 32,360 49.3 10,988 16.7

Some college or associate degree .. 66,058 30.0 27,514 41.7 28,304 42.8 10,240 15.5

Bachelor’s degree ............... 43,515 19.8 23,151 53.2 13,841 31.8 6,524 15.0

Advanced degree ...............

See notes at end of table.

23,580 10.7 14,624 62.0 5,684 24.1 3,271 13.9
U.S. Census Bureau 7

degrees (62.0 percent), those who 

had lived in their current home for 

5 years or longer (57.2 percent), 

and those living in households 

making over $150,000 in family 

income (56.6 percent).9

 The top tier 

of the voting rate distribution also 

included government workers (56.5 

percent) and military veterans (54.2 

percent).10

COMPOSITION OF THE 

ELECTORATE IN RECENT 

ELECTIONS, 2004–2014

Previous Census Bureau research 

has documented how the voting 

population has grown more diverse 

in recent presidential elections, and 

it is worth exploring whether the 

9 Voting rates were not significantly different between the following income groups: 

$10,000–$14,999 and $15,000–$19,999; 

$30,000–$39,999 and $40,000–$49,999; 

and $100,000–$149,999 and $150,000 and 

above. 10 The voting estimates for living in 

current home for 5 years or longer, living in households with family income over 

$150,000, and government workers are all 

not significantly different from one another. 

same applies to congressional elections (File, 2013). Any examination 

of voting behavior must consider 

the type of election. For example, 

reports of voter turnout may differ 

by race and Hispanic origin, but 

those differences may vary by type 

of election. Therefore, in addition 

to presenting the characteristics 

of the 2014 voting population, the 

following section also explores how 

the voting population’s composition 

has changed in recent congressional and presidential elections.11

Between 2004 and 2014, there 

were six national elections: three 

presidential and three congressional. Across presidential elections 

during this period, the nonHispanic White share of the voting population dropped from 79.2 

percent in 2004 to 73.7 percent 

in 2012. Across congressional 

11 When race outcomes are discussed in 

the remainder of this report, the estimates are 

for the White, non-Hispanic; Black, nonHispanic; and Hispanic populations (of any 

race).

elections, the non-Hispanic White 

share fell from 80.4 percent in 

2006 to 76.3 percent in 2014 

(Figure 5). Overall, across the last 

three election cycles, the share of 

the voting population that is nonHispanic White has decreased in 

both types of elections, although 

the percentage point shift has 

been slightly more pronounced in 

presidential elections (5.5 percent) 

than in congressional elections (4.1 

percent). 

Age is another factor that impacts 

voter turnout (File, 2014). Between 

2004 and 2014, no matter the 

type of election in question, voters between the ages of 45 and 

64 years consistently made up a 

higher percentage of voters than 

other age groups (Figure 6). This is 

largely attributable to the fact that 

the overall population of this age 

group is larger than the other age 

groups. 

Table 2.

Characteristics of U.S. Citizens by Voting Status: 2014—Con.

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

Citizens

18 and 

older Percent

Reported 

voters Percent

Reported 

nonvoters1 Percent

Nonrespondents2 Percent

Veteran Status4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,082 100 .0 92,428 42 .0 93,063 42 .3 34,591 15 .7

Veteran ....................... 21,293 9.7 11,540 54.2 7,023 33.0 2,730 12.8

Nonveteran .................... 198,789 90.3 80,888 40.7 86,040 43.3 31,861 16.0

Annual Family Income5

 Total for family members . . . 159,906 100 .0 70,201 43 .9 65,079 40 .7 24,626 15 .4

Under $10,000 .................. 4,983 3.1 1,222 24.5 3,246 65.1 516 10.3

$10,000 to $14,999 .............. 4,465 2.8 1,342 30.1 2,642 59.2 481 10.8

$15,000 to $19,999 .............. 3,740 2.3 1,152 30.8 2,204 58.9 384 10.3

$20,000 to $29,999 .............. 11,673 7.3 4,108 35.2 6,603 56.6 963 8.2

$30,000 to $39,999 .............. 13,222 8.3 5,375 40.7 6,587 49.8 1,259 9.5

$40,000 to $49,999 .............. 10,372 6.5 4,400 42.4 5,018 48.4 955 9.2

$50,000 to $74,999 .............. 25,787 16.1 12,368 48.0 11,077 43.0 2,342 9.1

$75,000 to $99,999 .............. 17,623 11.0 9,322 52.9 6,747 38.3 1,553 8.8

$100,000 to $149,999 ............ 18,809 11.8 10,429 55.4 6,685 35.5 1,695 9.0

$150,000 and over ............... 16,935 10.6 9,578 56.6 5,536 32.7 1,821 10.8

Income not reported ............. 32,296 20.2 10,905 33.8 8,734 27.0 12,657 39.2

1

 The “Reported nonvoters” column includes only respondents who answered “no” to the question “Did you vote in the election held on Tuesday, November 4, 

2014?” 2

 Respondents who answered “don’t know” and those who did not respond or were not asked the voting question are included in the “Nonrespondents” column.

3

 Some states have durational residency requirements in order to register and to vote.

4

 The veterans estimates were derived using the veteran weight, which uses different procedures for construction than the person weight used to produce 

estimates in other tables for 2014. 5

 Limited to people in families.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2014.
8 U.S. Census Bureau

2014

2012*

2010

2008*

2006

2004*

Figure 5.

Race and Hispanic Origin Distribution of the Voting Population: 2004 to 2014

*Presidential election year.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2004–2014.

79.2

3.6

 7.3

6.9

7.4

5.8

6.0

4.2

4.2

4.9

4.7

3.8

80.4

76.3

White, non-Hispanic

77.5

73.7

76.3

8.4

11.7

12.9

11.4

11.0

12.1

10.2

Black, non-Hispanic Other, non-Hispanic Hispanic

Figure 6.

Age Distribution of the Voting Population: 2004 to 2014 

*Presidential election year.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2004–2014.

23.8 24.4

22.8

19.0

22.5 23.9

22.3

28.4

19.5

17.8

42.4 43.0

39.1

41.3

38.7 37.6

17.3 17.4 17.4

15.715.8

14.1

16.2

2004* 2006 2008* 2010 2012* 2014

18 to 34 years 35 to 44 years 45 to 64 years 65 and older

19.5
U.S. Census Bureau 9

Figure 6 is most informative when 

we look at how the percentages 

of voters within age groups have 

changed over time and between 

elections. For example, young 

people aged 18 through 34 consistently made up larger percentages 

of the electorate in presidential 

election years than in congressional 

election years. 

For 35- through 44-year-olds, 

there has been a steady decline 

in share of the electorate for both 

congressional and presidential 

elections.12 Older voters ran in the 

opposite direction, as voters 65 

and older increased their share of 

the electorate over the course of 

the time series for both types of 

elections. Older voters also made 

up a larger percentage of congressional electorates than presidential 

electorates.13 In 2014, for example, 

voters 65 and older composed 28.4 

12 The share of the electorate for those 

aged 35 through 44 were not significantly 

different for 2006 and 2008 and for 2010 and 

2012. 13 Between 2004 and 2008 electoral 

shares were not statistically different for the 

65 years and older population. 

percent of all voters, compared 

with 22.3 percent in the most 

recent presidential election.

Overall, across the last three 

election cycles, the voting population has grown more racially and 

ethnically diverse, while the share 

of the voting population that is 65 

and older has also increased, both 

for congressional and presidential 

elections. At least part of these 

observed increases are attributable 

to population trends, as the 

American population at large has 

grown older and more diverse in 

recent years (Colby and Ortman, 

2014). However, the question of 

whether these changes in the electorate are being driven by simple 

population change, or by increased 

or decreased engagement from 

certain groups, remains an open 

question, one that this report turns 

to in the following section. 

A CLOSER LOOK AT RACE, 

HISPANIC ORIGIN, AND AGE

The following section looks specifically at how voter turnout 

intersects with voter eligibility 

in an effort to better understand 

the dynamics of recent congressional electorates. By comparing 

a subpopulation’s share of the 

voting population to their share of 

the voting-eligible population, an 

assessment can be made concerning how a given subpopulation is 

voting relative to their eligibility. 

For example, if a subpopulation 

based on age or race accounts for 

both 50 percent of the voting population and 50 percent of the eligible 

population (i.e., citizens 18 and 

older), then it can be said that this 

subpopulation is voting evenly with 

their eligibility. However, in many 

instances, a subpopulation will 

report voting in either higher or 

lower percentages than their share 

of the eligible population would 

indicate.

Figure 7 displays these results by 

race and Hispanic origin. In 2006, 

non-Hispanic Whites made up 

74.5 percent of the voting-eligible 

population and 80.4 percent of 

the population that actually voted. 

Figure 7.

Differences Between Shares of the Eligible Population and Voting Population

by Race and Hispanic Origin: 2006 to 2014

Note: –0.4 is not significantly different from zero.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2004–2014.

–1.6

–2.8

24.4

–0.4

–4.1

–0.4

-0.4

4.9

–3.2

6.4 5.9

2006 2010 2014

White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic
10 U.S. Census Bureau

This means that in the congressional election of 2006, non-Hispanic 

Whites’ share of the vote exceeded 

their share of the eligible population by 5.9 percentage points.14

In the following congressional

elections of 2010 and 2014,

non-Hispanic Whites continued to 

make up a larger share of voters 

than of the eligible population, by 

4.9 percentage points in 2010 and 

by 6.4 percentage points in 2014.15

Meanwhile, in 2006, minority 

groups made up a smaller share of 

the electorate than they did of the 

eligible population: non-Hispanic 

14 For any demographic group, their share 

laase 

e 

’s 

-

ic 

of the voting population reflects turnout re

tive to other groups. For example, an incre

in women’s share of the voting population 

would occur if their turnout increased and 

men’s turnout either decreased or was not 

significantly different. Alternatively, an 

increase of women’s share would occur if th

voting rate of men decreased while women

turnout either decreased or was not signifi

cantly different. 15 The differences observed between 

turnout and eligibility rates for non-Hispan

Whites in 2006 and 2014 were not statistically different.

Blacks by –1.6 percentage points 

and Hispanics by –2.8 percentage 

points. In 2010 and 2014, however, 

non-Hispanic Blacks’ share of the 

vote grew to a level consistent with 

their eligibility.16 During the same 

period, the difference between

Hispanics’ share of the vote and 

share of the eligible population had 

fallen to –4.1 percentage points.

Figure 8 displays these results by 

age. In 2006, young people aged 

18 to 34 made up 28.9 percent of 

the voting eligible population and 

17.3 percent of the population that 

actually voted. This means that in 

the congressional election of 2006, 

the 18- to 34-year-old share of the 

vote was lower than their share of 

the eligible population by –11.6 

percentage points. In the following 

congressional elections of 2010 

and 2014, young people continued 

to vote at rates lower than their 

16 Voting at a level consistent with eligibility means that a subpopulation’s share of the 

eligible population and voting population 

were not statistically different. 

eligibility, first by –12.1 percentage points in 2010, then by –13.2 

percentage points in 2014.17

Over the course of the last three 

congressional elections, people 

aged 35 to 44 also made up a 

smaller share of voters than they 

did of the eligible population, 

although to a lesser degree than 

18- to 34-year-olds (–0.9 percentage points in both 2006 and 2010; 

–1.5 percentage points in 2014).18

People aged 45 to 64 accounted 

for a larger proportion of voters 

than of eligible population in each 

election, while individuals 65 and 

older have made up a larger share 

of voters than their share of eligible 

population in every congressional 

election since 2006.19 Moreover, 

17 The differences observed between 

turnout and eligibility for 18- to 34-year-olds 

in 2006 and 2010 were not statistically 

different. 18 The –0.9 estimates in 2006 and 2010 

were not statistically different. 19 The differences observed between 

turnout and eligibility rates across elections 

for those aged 45 to 64 were not significantly 

different.

Figure 8.

Differences Between Shares of the Eligible Population and Voting Population 

by Age: 2006 to 2014

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2004–2014.

–11.6 –12.1

–13.2

24.4

22.8

5.3

6.0

8.3

–0.9 –0.9 –1.5

7.2 7.0 6.4

17.3 17.4

2006 2010 2014

18–34 years 35–44 years 45–64 years 65 years and older
U.S. Census Bureau 11

the magnitude of their voting differentials for individuals 65 and 

older has increased to 8.3 percentage points in 2014 (up from 5.3 

percentage points in 2006 and 6.0 

percentage points in 2010). 

Figure 9 displays 2014 results 

for each race and Hispanic origin group by age in an effort to 

illustrate where the differences in 

voting and eligibility rates are most 

pronounced. Among Hispanics 

in the most recent congressional 

election, young people between 

the ages of 18 to 34 made up 43.5 

percent of the Hispanic eligible 

population and 25.4 percent of the 

Hispanic population that actually 

voted. This means that among 

Hispanics, 18- to 34-year-olds 

made up a smaller share of voters 

than of the eligible population in 

2014 by –18.1 percentage points, 

the largest observed gap in either 

direction.

Hispanics between the ages of 45 

to 64 showed one of the largest 

differences between turnout and 

eligibility (10.9 percentage points), 

while Hispanics 65 and older were 

more prevalent among voters than 

among the eligible population by 

7.6 percentage points.20 Young nonHispanic Whites and non-Hispanic 

Blacks, aged 18 to 34, voted at 

levels below their eligibility (–11.7 

percentage points for non-Hispanic 

Whites and –12.2 percentage points 

for non-Hispanic Blacks). NonHispanic Whites and non-Hispanic 

Blacks aged 45 to 64 made up a 

larger share of the electorate than 

of the eligible population (5.2 

percentage points for non-Hispanic 

Whites and 6.9 percentage points 

for non-Hispanic Blacks), as did 

non-Hispanic Whites and nonHispanic Blacks aged 65 and 

older (8.0 percentage points for 

20 The difference observed between 

turnout and eligibility rates for 45- to 

64-year-old Hispanics was not statistically 

different from the difference observed 

between turnout and eligibility rates for 

both 65 and older Hispanics and 65 and 

older non-Hispanic Whites.

non-Hispanic Whites and 5.8 percentage points for non-Hispanic 

Blacks).21

Overall, these results point to an 

electorate that is growing older 

and more diverse, although nonHispanic Whites continue to be a 

larger portion of the voting population than of the eligible population. 

Young people across all races and 

origins had shares of the voting population that were lower 

than their eligibility, although this 

disparity was largest for young 

Hispanics, while older Americans, 

regardless of race and Hispanic 

origin, had shares of the voting 

21 The difference observed between 

turnout and eligibility rates for young nonHispanic Whites (–11.7) was not statistically 

different from young non-Hispanic Blacks 

(–12.2). The difference observed between 

turnout and eligibility rates for 45- to 64-yearold non-Hispanic Blacks (6.9) was not statistically different from 45- to 64-year-old nonHispanic Whites (5.2), 65 and older nonHispanic Blacks (5.8), and 65 and older 

non-Hispanic Whites (8.0). The difference 

observed between turnout and eligibility 

rates for 45- to 64-year-old non-Hispanic 

Whites (5.2) was not statistically different 

from 65 and older non-Hispanic Blacks (5.8).

Figure 9.

Differences Between Shares of the Eligible Population and Voting Population 

by Race, Hispanic Origin, and Age: 2014

Note: –0.5 and –0.4 are not significantly different from zero.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 2004–2014.

–11.7 –12.2

–18.1

24.4

22.8

5.3 5.8

8.0 7.6

–1.6 –0.5 –0.4

5.2

6.9

10.9

6.4

17.3 17.4

18–34 35–44 45–64 65+

White, non-Hispanic Black, non-Hispanic Hispanic
12 U.S. Census Bureau

population that were higher than 

their share of the eligible population in 2014. This increased electoral engagement among older

Americans is not simply the product 

n 

of the American population aging

as a whole, as the low levels of 

voting among young people and

the high levels of voting among 

older Americans have increased in

recent congressional elections, eve

after accounting for changes in age

distributions.

TRADITIONAL AND 

ALTERNATIVE METHODS

OF VOTING

Many states have policies in place 

to allow eligible voters to cast 

ballots before Election Day, either 

during an early voting period, by 

voting with an absentee ballot, or 

both. According to the National 

Conference of State Legislatures 

(NCSL), there are currently 14 states 

s

-

it 

e 

where early voting is not offered 

and an excuse is required to vote 

with an absentee ballot.22

The NCSL has provided the following summary of early voting acros

states:

Early Voting. In 33 states and the

District of Columbia, any qualified

voter may cast a ballot in person 

during a designated period prior to

Election Day. No excuse or justifica

tion is required.

Absentee Voting. All states will 

mail an absentee ballot to certain 

voters who request one. The voter 

may return the ballot by mail or in

person. In 20 states, an excuse is 

required, while the other 27 states

and the District of Columbia perm

any qualified voter to vote absente

without offering an excuse. Some 

states offer a permanent absentee

ballot list: once a voter asks to be 

22 For more information on the NCSL 

and their summary of early voting for states, 

see <www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and 

-campaigns/absentee-and-early-voting.aspx>.

added to the list, s/he will automatically receive an absentee ballot for 

all future elections.

Mail Voting. A ballot is automatically mailed to every eligible voter 

(no request or application is necessary), and the state does not use 

traditional precinct poll sites that 

offer in person voting on Election 

Day. Three states use mail voting.23

The CPS first asked about early and 

absentee voting in 1996 and has 

done so in every voting supplement since.24 In 2014, 10.3 percent 

of voters reported voting in person 

before Election Day, while 20.9 

percent reported voting by mail, 

meaning that in the most recent 

congressional election, nearly a 

third of all voters reported some 

form of alternative voting (31.2 

percent) (Table 3).25

The level of alternative voting in 

2014 represents about a threefold 

increase since 1996, when only 

23 In Colorado, Oregon, and Washington, 

all ballots are cast through the mail. In 2014, 

a reported 30.6 percent of mail voting in the 

CPS came from those three states. 24 Between 1996 and 2002, the CPS asked 

a single question about timing and method of 

voting. From 2004 onward, the CPS has asked 

two questions, one about voting in person or 

by mail, and another about voting early or on 

Election Day. 25 The estimates presented in this section 

are only for individuals with valid responses 

to the method and timing questions. 

10.5 percent of voters reported 

voting by alternative methods. Over 

this period, alternative voting has 

increased in a seesaw pattern, with 

alternative voting rates tending to 

increase in presidential election 

years, decrease slightly in the following congressional election, and 

then increase again in the following 

presidential election.26

In 2008, for example, the rate of 

alternative voting increased to 

30.7 percent and then dropped to 

26.5 percent in 2010. In the next 

presidential election, 2012, the rate 

of alternative voters once again 

increased (32.8 percent) before 

dropping off slightly again in the 

most recent congressional election 

of 2014 (31.2 percent).27

In most years of this analysis, nonHispanic Whites and Hispanics have 

reported relatively comparable rates 

of alternative voting.28 In 1996, the 

rates for non-Hispanic Whites were 

slightly higher than for Hispanics, 

whereas in the two most recent 

26 The years 1998 and 2002 were exceptions, as alternative voting rates were not 

significantly different in comparison to the 

prior presidential election year in those two 

instances. 27 The 2008 rate of alternative voting is 

not statistically different from 2014. 28 Between 1998 and 2010, the rates of 

alternative voting for non-Hispanic Whites 

and Hispanics were not statistically different. 

Table 3.

Overall Method of Voting: 1996 to 2014

(Numbers in thousands)

Election year On election 

day1

Alternative voting

Total

Before election 

day1 By mail 

1996* ............... 89.5 10.5 2.7 7.8

1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.2 10.8 2.4 8.4

2000* ............... 86.0 14.0 3.8 10.2

2002. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85.9 14.1 3.4 10.7

2004* ............... 79.3 20.7 7.8 12.9

2006. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80.4 19.6 5.8 13.7

2008* ............... 69.3 30.7 14.3 16.4

2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.5 26.5 8.4 18.1

2012* ............... 67.2 32.8 14.3 18.5

2014. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.9 31.2 10.3 20.9

*Presidential election year.

1

 Voted in person.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 1996–2014.
U.S. Census Bureau 13

congressional elections, the rates 

for Hispanics have been higher than 

d 

for non-Hispanic Whites. Alternative voting rates for non-Hispanic 

Blacks, meanwhile, have tended

to lag behind those for both

Hispanics and non-Hispanic

Whites (Figure 10). 

However, exceptions were observe

in the presidential elections of both 

2008 and 2012, when reporting of 

alternative voting increased among 

non-Hispanic Blacks to a level not 

significantly different from both 

non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics 

in 2008 and to a level not significantly different from non-Hispanic 

Whites but still trailing Hispanics

in 2012. 

SUMMARY

In 2014, the overall voting rate 

was the lowest for a congressional 

election since the CPS first asked 

about voting and citizenship status 

in 1978. However, certain demographic patterns were observed, 

as voting rates were highest for 

Americans 65 years and older, nonHispanic Whites, individuals with 

high levels of education, and those 

with relatively high incomes. 

Overall, across the last three election cycles, the voting population has grown more racially and 

ethnically diverse. Still, despite this 

recent diversification, non-Hispanic 

Whites continued to make up a 

larger share of voters than of

the eligible population, while 

Hispanics continued to make up 

a smaller share of voters than of 

the eligible population. Meanwhile, 

non-Hispanic Blacks reported voting 

at a level not statistically different 

from their eligibility in 2010 and 

2014.

In recent elections, voting rates 

have been low among young people 

and high among older Americans. 

These results are not the product 

of the American population aging 

as a whole, as both the low level of 

engagement among young people 

and the high level of engagement 

among older Americans have 

increased in recent congressional 

elections, even after accounting for 

changes in age distributions. 

Finally, since 1996, Americans have 

reported about a threefold increase 

in alternative voting methods. In 

most elections, alternative voting 

has been significantly higher among 

non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics 

than for non-Hispanic Blacks, with 

exceptions observed in both 2008 

and 2012, when alternative voting 

for non-Hispanic Blacks increased. 

ACCURACY OF THE 

ESTIMATES 

The population represented

(i.e., the population universe) in the

Voting and Registration Supplement 

to the November 2014 CPS is the 

civilian noninstitutionalized population living in the United States. The 

excluded institutionalized population is composed primarily of individuals in correctional institutions 

and nursing homes. 

Figure 10.

Alternative Method of Voting Reported by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1996 to 2014

*Presidential election year.

Note: Alternative method includes those who voted early and/or by absentee ballot.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, November 1996–2014.

White, non-Hispanic

Black, non-Hispanic

Hispanic

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1996* 1998 2000* 2002 2004* 2006 2008* 2010 2012* 2014

Percent

11.2

36.8

30.9

25.8

10.3

5.4
14 U.S. Census Bureau

The November CPS supplement, 

which asks questions on voting 

and registration participation, 

provides the basis for estimates in 

this report. The first question in the 

2014 supplement asked if respondents voted in the election held 

on Tuesday, November 4, 2014. If 

respondents did not respond to the 

question or answered “No” or “Do 

Not Know,” they were then asked if 

they were registered to vote in the 

election. 

As in all surveys, the CPS estimates 

are subject to sampling and nonsampling error. Data users should 

observe the size of standard errors 

when interpreting the data presented in this report and accompanying table packages. The larger 

the margin of error, the less reliable the estimate. All comparisons 

presented in this report have taken 

sampling error into account and are 

significant at the 90 percent confidence level. 

Nonsampling error in surveys is 

attributable to a variety of sources, 

such as survey design, the respondent’s interpretation of a question, the respondent’s willingness 

and ability to provide correct and 

accurate answers, and post-survey 

practices like question coding and 

response classification. To minimize 

these errors, the Census Bureau 

employs quality control procedures 

in sample selection, the wording 

of questions, interviewing, coding, 

data processing, and data analysis.

The CPS weighting procedure uses 

ratio estimation to adjust sample 

estimates to independent estimates 

of the national population by age, 

race, sex, and Hispanic origin. This 

weighting partially corrects for bias 

due to undercoverage of certain 

populations, but biases may still be 

present when people are missed by 

the survey who differ from those 

interviewed in ways other than age, 

race, sex, and Hispanic origin. We 

do not precisely know the effect of 

this weighting procedure on other 

variables in the survey. All of these 

considerations affect comparisons 

across different surveys or data 

sources.

Further information on the source 

of the data and accuracy of the 

estimates, including standard errors 

and confidence intervals, can be 

found at <www.census.gov/apsd

/techdoc/cps/> or by contacting 

the Demographic Statistical

Methods Division via e-mail at 

<dsmd.source.and.accuracy

@census.gov>.

The CPS estimates used in this 

report are an important analytic 

tool in election studies because 

they identify the demographic and 

socioeconomic characteristics of 

people by voter status. However, as 

discussed earlier, these estimates 

may differ from those based on 

administrative data or exit polls.

Each state’s board of elections

tabulates the vote counts for

each national election, while

the Clerk of the U.S. House of 

Representatives reports these state 

results in an aggregate form for the 

entire country. These tallies, which 

are typically viewed as the official 

results for a specific election, show 

the number of votes counted for 

specific offices. In the elections 

discussed in this report, the official 

count of comparison is either the 

total number of votes cast for the 

office of the President (in presidential election years) or the total 

number of votes cast for a House of 

Representatives or Senate seat (in 

congressional election years).

Discrepancies occur in each election between the CPS estimates and 

these official counts.29 In previous 

29 Information about state regulations for 

registration and voting can be found at the 

NCSL Web site at <www.ncsl.org> or from the 

individual state election offices, which are 

typically (but not always) the state’s Secretary 

of State office.

years, the disparity has varied, with 

official tallies typically showing 

lower turnout than the estimates 

used in these types of reports.30 Differences between the official counts 

and the CPS may be a combination 

of an understatement of the official 

numbers and an overstatement in 

the CPS estimates, as described 

below.

Understatement of Official Vote

Tallies: Ballots are sometimes invalidated and thrown out during the 

counting process and therefore do 

not appear in the official counts as 

reported by the Clerk of the

U.S. House of Representatives. 

Official vote counts also frequently 

do not include mismarked, unreadable, and blank ballots. Additionally, because the total number 

of official votes cast is typically 

determined by counting votes for 

a specific office (such as President 

or U.S. Representative), voters who 

did not vote for this office, but who 

did vote for a different office in the 

same election, are not included in 

the official reported tally. In all of 

these instances, it is conceivable 

that individuals would be counted 

as voters in the CPS and not 

counted in the official tallies. 

Overstatement of Voting the CPS: 

Some of the error in estimating 

turnout in the CPS is the result of 

population controls and survey 

coverage. Respondent misreporting is also a source of error in the 

CPS estimates. Previous analyses 

based on reinterviews showed 

that respondents and proxy 

respondents are consistent in their 

reported answers and thus misunderstanding the questions does 

not fully account for the difference 

30 The official count of votes cast can 

be found on the Web page of the Clerk of 

the U.S. House of Representatives at 

<http://history.house.gov/Institution 

/Election-Statistics/Election-Statistics/> or 

on the Web page of the Federal Election 

Commission at <www.fec.gov/pubrec 

/electionresults.shtml>.
U.S. Census Bureau 15

between the official counts and the 

CPS. However, other studies that 

matched survey responses with 

voting records indicate that part 

of the discrepancy between survey 

estimates and official counts is the 

result of respondent misreporting, 

particularly vote overreporting for 

the purpose of appearing to behave 

in a socially desirable way 

(Holbrook and Krosnick, 2009). 

As discussed earlier, the issue of 

vote overreporting is not unique 

to the CPS. Other surveys consistently overstate voter turnout 

as well, including other highly 

respected national-level surveys 

like the American National Election 

Studies (ANES) and the General 

Social Survey (GSS). The potential 

reasons why respondents might 

incorrectly report voting in an 

election are myriad and include 

intentional misreporting, legitimate 

confusion over whether a vote was 

cast or not, and methodological 

survey issues related to question 

wording, method of survey administration, and specific question 

nonresponse.

Voting Not Captured in the CPS: 

The CPS covers only the civilian 

noninstitutionalized population 

residing in the United States, and 

therefore does not capture voting 

for citizens residing in the United 

States who were in the military or 

living in institutions. The CPS also 

does not capture voting for citizens 

residing outside the United States, 

both civilian and military, who cast 

absentee ballots.31

31 Demographic information for Armed 

Forces members (enumerated in off-base 

housing or on-base with their families) are 

included on the CPS data files. However, no 

labor force information is collected of Armed 

Forces members in any month. In March, 

supplemental data on income are included 

for Armed Forces members. This is the only 

month that nondemographic information is 

included for Armed Forces members.

MORE INFORMATION

Detailed table packages are available that provide demographic 

characteristics of the population 

by voting and registration status. 

The Census Bureau also provides 

a series of historical tables and 

graphics, in addition to an interactive “Voting Hot Report.” Electronic 

versions of these products and 

this report are available at 

<www.census.gov/hhes/www 

/socdemo/voting>.

CONTACT

U.S. Census Bureau Customer 

Services Center 

1-800-923-8282 (toll free) 

https://ask.census.gov/

SUGGESTED CITATION

File, Thom, “Who Votes? 

Congressional Elections and the 

American Electorate: 1978–2014,” 

Population Characteristics, 

P20-577, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, 2015.

USER COMMENTS

The Census Bureau welcomes the 

comments and advice of users of 

our data and reports. Please send 

comments and suggestions to:

Chief, Social, Economic, and 

 Housing Statistics Division 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Washington, DC, 20233-8500

REFERENCES

Bauman, Kurt and Tiffany Julian, 

“A Summary of Data Collection 

Procedures and Reports of Voter 

Turnout from the Current 

Population Survey,” U.S. Census 

Bureau, Social, Economic, and 

Housing Statistics Working Paper, 

2010. 

Brooks, Clem and Jeff Manza, 

“Social Cleavages and Political 

Alignments: U.S. Presidential 

Elections, 1960 to 1992,” American 

Sociological Review, Vol. 62, No. 6, 

pp. 937–946, 1997.

Colby, Sandra L. and Jennifer M. 

Ortman, “The Baby Boom Cohort 

in the United States: 2012 to 

2060,” Population Estimates and 

Projections, P25-1141, U.S. Census 

Bureau, Washington, DC, 2014.

DeBell, Matthew, Katie Gera, Jon A. 

Krosnick, David Yeager, and Michael 

McDonald, “Facing the Turnout Gap 

in Surveys: Why So Wrong for So 

Long?” Working Paper, a version of 

which was presented at the Annual 

Meeting of the American Political 

Science Association, Washington, 

DC, 2015.

File, Thom, “Voting and Registration 

in the Election of November 2006,” 

Population Characteristics, 

P20-557, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, 2006.

File, Thom, “The Diversifying 

Electorate—Voting Rates by Race 

and Hispanic Origin in 2012 

(and Other Recent Elections),” 

Population Characteristics, 

P20-568, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, 2013. 

File, Thom, “Young-Adult Voting: 

An Analysis of Presidential 

Elections, 1964–2012,” Population 

Characteristics, P20-573, 

U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, 

DC, 2014. 

File, Thom, and Sarah Crissey, 

“Voting and Registration in the 

Election of November 2008,” 

Population Characteristics, 

P20-562, U.S. Census Bureau, 

Washington, DC, 2010. 

Holbrook, Allyson L. and Jon A. 

Krosnick, “Social Desirability Bias in 

Voter Turnout Reports: Tests Using 

the Item Count Technique,” Public 

Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 74, Issue 1, 

Oxford University Press, 2009.