1  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     The  Rise  of  American  Gerontocracy  and  the  Fall  of  Our  Democracy  

 By  Nick  Troiano  June  30,  2013  

 Professor  Jeffry  Burnam  |  Georgetown  University  Capstone  for  MA  Program  in  American  Government    

 

2  

                 

FOR  DOUG  BAILEY  (1933–2013)  A  FRIEND,  MENTOR  AND  INSPIRATION  

 “Nothing  could  be  more  promising  for  America  than  to  have  the  young  become  the  new  political  bosses.”  

3  

         

Abstract    The   underrepresentation   of   young   Americans   in   the   aging   United   States   Congress  undermines   rates  of  youth  civic  participation,  marginalizes   the  views  and  values  of  an  entire   generation   and   exacerbates   unsustainable   public   policy,   from   the   growing  U.S.  debt  to  our  warming  planet.  Based  on  existing  academic  studies,  public  opinion  polling  and   original   interviews,   this   research   examines   the   institutional,   implicit   and   inherent  barriers   to   young   people   seeking   and   winning   election   to   public   office,   including  incumbency  advantage,  the  role  of  money  in  campaigns,  young  people’s  perception  of  politics,  the  nature  of  political  parties,  and  ageism  within  a  disproportionally  elderly  and  graying  electorate.  To  lower  these  barriers,  several  recommendations  are  made,  such  as  a   constitutional   amendment   to   lower   the   age   of   eligibility   for   federal   office,   targeted  campaign   finance   reforms,   a   revamping  of   civic   education  and   the  establishment  of   a  political  organization  to  mobilize  and  support  young  candidates.      

4  

       Table  of  Contents    

INTRODUCTION   5  

SECTION  I:  WHY  YOUTH  REPRESENTATION  MATTERS   8  1.1   DESCRIPTIVE  REPRESENTATION:  ENGAGEMENT,  EFFICACY  &  EVALUATION   9  1.2  SUBSTANTIVE  REPRESENTATION:  POLICY  OUTCOMES  AND  SATISFACTION   12  1.3  GERONTOCRACY  &  INTERGENERATIONAL  JUSTICE   17  

SECTION  II:  YOUNG  ELECTED  OFFICIALS  &  THE  MILLENNIAL  GENERATION   22  2.1  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES   22  2.2  COMPARATIVE  RESEARCH   24  2.3  MOTIVATIONS  &  CHARACTERISTICS   25  2.4  THE  YOUNG  /  MILLENNIAL  APPROACH   25  

SECTION  III:  BARRIERS  TO  OFFICE   28  3.1  AGE  ELIGIBILITY  REQUIREMENTS  (A  HISTORY)   28  3.2  PERCEPTIONS  OF  POLITICS  AND  POLITICAL  EFFICACY   30  3.3  POLITICAL  PARTY  MOBILIZATION   31  3.4  INCUMBENCY   33  3.5  NET  WORTH  &  CAMPAIGN  FINANCE   36  3.6  AGEISM   37  

SECTION  IV:  RECOMMENDATIONS   41  4.1  CONSTITUTIONAL  “AGE  AMENDMENT”   41  4.2  CAMPAIGN  FINANCE  REFORM   45  4.3  CIVIC  EDUCATION   46  4.4  POLITICAL  ORGANIZATION  (TEACH  FOR  AMERICA  +  EMILY’S  LIST)   48  

CONCLUSION   50  

WORKS  CITED   51            

5  

Introduction    

Many  observers  saw  the  2008  election  as  a  good  sign  for  the  growing  political  

influence  of  the  rising  millennial  generation.  More  than  22  million  young  people  (18–29),  

51  percent  of  all  eligible  young  voters,  cast  a  ballot  ––  the  highest  turnout  since  1972,  

when  the  voting  age  was  lowered  to  18  (Kirby).  “The  face  of  our  democracy  is  forever  

changed  and  young  people  have  shown  the  world  we  are  taking  our  country  into  our  

own  hands,"  proclaimed  Heather  Smith,  president  of  Rock  the  Vote  (Rock).  To  the  

contrary,  young  people  ceded  greater  influence  to  older  generations,  as  voters  actually  

elected  the  oldest  Congress  on  record;  the  average  age  of  a  member  of  the  House  of  

Representatives  rose  to  57.  The  2008  election  was  not  an  aberration.  Congress  has  been  

steadily  aging  for  the  past  30  years.  Today,  just  6  percent  of  all  representatives  and  

senators  are  under  40.  In  fact,  Congress  is  composed  of  fewer  young  people  than  the  

vast  majority  of  other  countries’  legislatures.  The  underrepresentation  of  young  people  

is  not  simply  a  cosmetic  problem,  but  a  deeply  substantive  one  with  serious  

consequences  for  democracy.    

6  

With  few  young  elected  officials,  the  unique  values  and  views  of  young  people  

are  marginalized,  especially  on  political  issues  that  exhibit  deep  generational  divides,  

such  as  marijuana  legalization,  gay  marriage  and  the  general  distribution  of  federal  

resources.  Further,  the  skewing  of  political  power  to  the  elderly  reduces  incentives  for  

government  to  take  action  on  long-­‐term  sustainability  challenges,  such  as  the  growing  

U.S.  national  debt  and  our  warming  planet.  Beyond  policy,  a  lack  of  young  elected  

officials  signals  to  young  people  that  self-­‐government  is  an  activity  reserved  for  older  

people.  Existing  research  indicates  that  this  disconnect  erodes  not  only  interest  and  

involvement  in  politics,  but  also  confidence  and  trust  in  governing  institutions.  In  sum,  a  

lack  of  descriptive  and  substantive  representation  of  young  people  is  corrosive  to  the  

democratic  process  and  to  public  policy  generally.    

    The  dearth  of  young  people  holding  elected  office  is  a  result  of  the  various  

institutional,  inherent  and  implicit  barriers  facing  potential  young  candidates,  especially  

at  the  federal  level.  First,  the  United  States  Constitution  prohibits  anyone  under  25  from  

serving  in  the  House  of  Representatives  and  anyone  under  30  from  serving  in  the  Senate.  

Second,  congressional  incumbents  exercise  many  built-­‐in  advantages  over  their  

opponents,  such  as  higher  name  identification.  Third,  young  people  are  least  able  to  

meet  the  fundraising  demands  necessary  to  win  increasingly  expensive  elections.  Fourth,  

young  people  looking  to  make  a  difference  are  turned  off  by  an  increasingly  polarized  

and  paralyzed  political  system.  Fifth,  political  parties  tend  to  support  older  candidates  

for  higher  offices.  Lastly,  the  disproportionately  old  and  aging  electorate  may  exercise  

age  bias  against  young  candidates.    

7  

Achieving  greater  youth  representation  in  Congress  requires  a  stark  departure  

from  the  status  quo  on  the  part  of  both  government  and  civil  society.  At  the  federal  

level,  Congress  should  send  a  constitutional  amendment  to  the  states  to  synchronize  

the  age  of  eligibility  to  hold  office  with  the  age  to  vote  and  should  pass  targeted  

campaign  finance  reforms  to  level  the  playing  field  between  incumbents  and  their  

challengers.  At  local  level,  school  boards  should  revamp  civic  education  curricula  and  

activities  to  foster  a  greater  sense  of  political  efficacy  and  empowerment  among  young  

people.  Finally,  within  civil  society,  concerned  citizens  should  band  together  to  establish  

an  organization  to  recruit,  train  and  support  a  new  generation  of  young  candidates.  

Of  all  the  political  inequalities  that  exist  in  America,  underrepresentation  of  the  

young  is  the  least  discussed  but  among  the  most  significant  and  the  most  insidious.  On  

one  hand,  young  people  will  be  affected  to  the  greatest  extent  by  the  political  decisions  

that  are  made  (or  are  not  made)  today,  especially  with  respect  to  sustainability  

challenges  that  are  only  compounding  with  time.  On  the  other  hand,  although  the  

problem  of  youth  underrepresentation  is  experienced  universally,  it  is  also,  from  an  

individual’s  rational  perspective,  fleeting  ––  meaning  by  the  time  young  people  realize  

this  intergenerational  injustice  and  can  begin  to  change  it,  they  will  soon  age  out  and  no  

longer  be  affected.  Nevertheless,  our  democratic  values  and  moral  obligation  to  the  

next  generation  demand  a  solution.  Bridging  the  generational  gap  in  government  and  

preventing  the  rise  of  American  gerontocracy  (“rule  by  elders”)  from  becoming  the  fall  

of  our  democracy  is  the  preeminent  political  challenge  of  our  time.    

8  

Section  I:  Why  Youth  Representation  Matters    

Our  governing  institutions  are  graying.  The  average  age  of  a  member  of  Congress  

has,  with  few  exceptions,  been  steadily  increasing  over  the  past  three  decades.  The  

average  representative  in  the  113th  Congress  is  57,  while  the  average  senator  is  62.  The  

oldest  member  of  the  Senate,  Dianne  Feinstein,  is  80.  The  oldest  member  of  the  House  

of  Representatives,  Ralph  Hall,  is  90  years  old;  nevertheless,  he  recently  announced  he  

plans  to  seek  reelection  in  2014.  Although  25-­‐  to  35-­‐year-­‐olds  comprise  14  percent  of  

the  U.S.  population,  they  make  up  just  2  percent  of  the  U.S.  House  of  Representatives  

with  only  10  members  under  the  age  of  35  in  the  113th  Congress.  Only  one  member  of  

the  United  State  Senate  is  under  the  age  of  40  (List).  “Our  government  is  looking  less  

and  less  like  a  truly  representative  democracy  and  more  and  more  like  a  plutocratic  

gerontocracy,”  writes  John  Seery,  a  professor  of  politics  at  Pomona  College  (Seery,  5).  

The  potential  causes  of  this  trend  will  be  discussed  in  a  later  section;  for  now,  the  

important  point  is  that  the  trend  exists.  

  The  aging  of  political  leadership  in  the  United  States  threatens  to  undermine  the  

representation  of  young  people  and  the  benefits  that  such  representation  can  provide.  

Political  representation  is  most  commonly  described  as  either  “descriptive”  or  

“substantive.”  Descriptive  representation  describes  a  representative  who  reflects  the  

characteristics  of  the  group  of  people  who  elected  him  or  her,  such  as  race,  sex  and  age.  

Substantive  representation  describes  a  representative  who  seeks  to  represent  the  

particular  interests  of  the  group  of  people  who  elected  him  or  her,  regardless  of  

whether  they  share  physical  characteristics.  Adequately  achieving  both  descriptive  and  

9  

substantive  representation  of  young  people  is  critically  important  in  our  democracy  in  

order  to  (i)  foster  an  empowered  and  participatory  society,  (ii)  achieve  policy  outcomes  

that  reflect  the  views  of  young  people  and  (iii)  promote  intergenerational  justice  by  

taking  a  longer-­‐term  view  of  public  policy.  

1.1 Descriptive  Representation:  Engagement,  Efficacy  &  Evaluation      

Descriptive  representation  has  inherent  value  in  our  democracy  because  a  

legislature  that  reflects  the  diversity  of  the  people  that  it  is  supposed  to  serve  confers  a  

unique  sense  of  legitimacy  as  to  its  form  and  function.  An  all-­‐white  and  all-­‐male  

legislature  would  on  its  face,  for  example,  cast  doubt  on  its  democratic  legitimacy  ––  

how  could  such  a  body  be  truly  representative  of  all  the  people,  if  its  leaders  all  look  the  

same  and  likely  share  a  similar  life  experience?  Various  studies  have  shown  that  

descriptive  representation  is  associated  with  higher  levels  of  engagement  and  efficacy  

and  better  evaluation  of  government.  These  are  key  ingredients  to  any  healthy  

democracy;  indeed,  their  absence  could  just  as  well  lead  to  political  apathy  as  it  could  to  

dangerous  political  instability  among  those  who  perceive  themselves  as  excluded  or  

unrepresented  (Fowler).    

Existing  research  shows  an  important  link  between  descriptive  representation  

and  civic  participation.  A  2007  study  by  Christina  Wolbrecht  and  David  E.  Campbell,  for  

example,  demonstrated  that  the  presence  of  female  politicians  in  a  given  society  

positively  correlates  with  women  discussing  politics  and  becoming  politically  active.  The  

study  used  three  data  sets  encompassing  28  countries,  including  the  United  States.  A  

key  insight  from  this  research  is  that  younger  women  were  disproportionately  affected  

10  

by  the  presence  of  female  politicians,  suggesting  that  young  people  are  more  

susceptible  to  external  cues  (Wolbrecht).  This  is  important  because  various  studies  have  

shown  that  political  socialization  implicates  lifelong  trends;  meaning  that  the  attitudes  

and  behaviors  adopted  at  a  young  age  will  continue  over  the  course  of  a  lifetime.  “Our  

civic  identity,  once  formed  in  adolescence,  is  hard  to  shake,”  notes  Peter  Levine,  

director  of  the  Center  for  Information  and  Research  on  Civic  Learning  and  Engagement  

and  a  professor  at  Tufts  University  (Levine).    

Further,  in  2009,  Pippa  Norris  and  Mona  Lena  Krook  sought  to  expand  the  body  

of  research  by  examining  the  role  of  both  gender  and  age  in  descriptive  representation,  

across  a  wider  set  of  countries  and  over  a  longer  period  of  time.  They  asked,  “Does  

descriptive  representation  mobilize  civic  engagement?”  Their  study  concluded  that  in  

countries  where  the  parliament  is  composed  of  younger  officials,  young  people  have  

more  positive  political  attitudes  and  behavior.  The  observed  age  gaps  in  political  

interest  and  associational  memberships  disappear  in  countries  where  there  is  greater  

youth  representation;  however,  “an  important  age-­‐disparity  in  voting  turnout  remains  

evident.”  The  researchers  caution  that  they  do  not  know  for  certain  which  way  the  

causality  flows,  as  it  is  possible  that  increased  engagement  among  young  people  is  the  

reason  for  greater  youth  representation  (Norris).    

  Through  this  lens,  the  relative  shortage  of  young  elected  officials  in  the  United  

States,  especially  at  the  federal  level,  may  help  explain  why  young  Americans  are  widely  

disconnected  from  the  political  system.  According  to  a  2013  survey  by  Harvard’s  

Institute  of  Politics,  only  26  percent  of  young  people  (ages  18–29)  considered  

11  

themselves  to  be  politically  active.  Asked  if  they  have  engaged  in  specific  political  

activities,  small  numbers  of  young  people  say  they  have  written  a  letter  or  email  

advocating  a  political  position  (14%),  attended  a  rally/demonstration  (13%),  donated  

money  to  a  political  campaign  (11%)  or  volunteered  for  a  political  candidate/issue  (7%).  

In  the  run-­‐up  to  the  2012  election,  39  percent  of  young  people  (18–29)  indicated  that  

they  were  unlikely  to  vote.  The  explanations  of  non-­‐voters  included  that  it  did  not  

matter  who  was  elected  because  Washington  is  broken  (43%),  that  none  of  the  

candidates  represent  “my  views”  (31%),  and  that  the  political  parties  are  more  or  less  

the  same  (25%)  (Harvard).  Ultimately,  only  about  half  of  all  young  people  voted  in  the  

last  presidential  election.    

A  lack  of  participation  is  accompanied  by  a  low  and  sinking  amount  of  trust  in  

government.  Just  18  percent  of  young  Americans  trust  Congress,  down  from  25  percent  

in  2010,  and  39  percent  of  young  people  trust  the  president,  down  from  44  percent  in  

2010.  A  majority  of  young  people  believe  “elected  officials  seem  to  be  motivated  by  

selfish  reasons”  and  “elected  officials  don’t  seem  to  have  the  same  priorities  I  have.”  

Fewer  than  one  in  five  young  Americans  chooses  political  engagement  over  

volunteering  in  the  community,  believing  it  is  a  better  way  to  solve  important  issues  

facing  the  nation.  Young  people  also  disapprove  of  both  Republicans  (71%)  and  

Democrats  (58%)  in  Congress  (Harvard).  The  story  of  young  people  and  politics  today  is  

everything  one  would  expect  from  a  lack  of  descriptive  representation:  low  engagement,  

low  efficacy  and  low  approval.  Of  course,  many  other  factors  contribute  to  the  civic  

12  

health  of  young  people;  some  are  unique  to  the  millennial  generation  and  others  are  

constant  for  all  young  people  over  time.  

1.2  Substantive  Representation:  Policy  Outcomes  and  Satisfaction       That  fact  that  few  young  people  hold  elected  office  also  has  important  

implications  for  the  substantive  representation  of  young  people  in  terms  of  policy  

outcomes.  This  link  between  descriptive  and  substantive  representation  has  been  the  

focus  of  intense  academic  research.  A  2008  study,  for  example,  found  that  a  surge  of  

African  American  representation  in  state  legislatures  during  the  1970s  and  early  1990s  

correlated  with  an  increase  in  state  funds  to  disadvantaged  school  districts  with  high  

minority  populations.  These  districts  even  included  those  not  directly  represented  by  an  

African  American  legislator,  implying  that  the  substantive  representation  afforded  to  the  

minority  populations  extended  beyond  parochial  interests.  The  author  concludes,  

“legislatures  that  incorporate  minority  members  of  the  society  are  more  likely  to  adopt  

policies  that  reflect  the  interests  of  the  traditionally  underrepresented  groups”  (Ueda).    

Similarly,  a  2002  study  found  that  an  increase  in  female  representation  in  400  

Norwegian  municipal  governments  correlated  with  a  greater  percentage  of  children  

covered  by  child  care.  The  researchers  observed  that  “[t]he  women  elected  to  local  

councils  brought  a  new  set  of  concerns  to  the  political  agenda,  and  their  direct  

responsibility  for  policies  of  interest  to  women,  in  this  case,  child  care,  resulted  in  

improved  policy  outcomes  in  those  councils  with  larger  percentages  of  female  

members.”  The  study  indicated  that  these  results  (descriptive  representation  leading  to  

improved  policy  outcomes)  can  be  generalized  when  three  conditions  are  met:  there  are  

13  

general  differences  in  the  mass  public,  the  group  has  representation  in  government  and  

the  governing  institution  has  control  over  the  policy  outcome  (Bratton).    

  Based  on  this  evidence,  one  would  also  expect  improved  policy  outcomes  for  

young  people  if  there  were  more  young  people  in  elected  office.  This  raises  the  

question:  are  there  general  differences  in  the  mass  public  opinion  between  young  and  

old?  Public  opinion  surveys  indicate  the  answer  is  resoundingly  yes.  One’s  position  in  

the  life  cycle  (specifically,  retired  vs.  non-­‐retired),  not  just  one’s  socioeconomic  position,  

has  been  found  to  influence  policy  preferences.  “[Y]oung  people  as  a  category  have  

interests  that  conflict  with  those  of  older  generations”  (Levine,  60).  That  is  partially  

because  redistributive  policies,  such  as  education  and  pension  programs,  affect  

members  of  society  much  more  based  on  their  age  than  on  their  economic  position.  

Based  on  a  rational  choice  model,  the  young  will  care  more  about  education  spending,  

while  the  old  will  care  more  about  public  pension  spending.  A  comparative  political  

economy  study  of  15  Organisation  for  Economic  Co-­‐operation  and  Development  (OECD)  

countries  indicated  that  the  United  States  ranks  second  in  overall  “magnitude  of  age  

stratification  in  social  policy  preferences.”  For  example,  there  was  a  17  percent  

difference  in  the  probability  of  supporting  more  spending  for  education  between  non-­‐

retired  and  retired  Americans  ––  the  largest  gap  on  any  issue,  in  any  country  (see  figure  

on  the  next  page).  These  differences  also  existed  for  health  care,  unemployment  and  

pension  spending  (Busemeyer).    

Some  observers  say  these  differences  in  opinion  do  not  actually  translate  into  

public  policy  that  is  advantageous  to  the  more  powerful  elderly  population.  A  2009  

14  

analysis  of  the  size  and  generosity  of  public  pensions  in  18  OECD  countries  from  1980  to  

2002,  for  example,  indicates  that  while  aging  societies  are  spending  more  in  aggregate  

on  public  pensions,  individual  benefits  are  either  staying  constant  or  shrinking.    

“[C]ontrary  to  alarmist  political  economy  predictions,  these  democracies  are  not  yet  

dominated  by  a  new  distributive  politics  of  elderly  power”  (Tepe).    

  However,  these  conclusions  are  not  consistent  in  the  United  States.  In  1972,  the  

total  annual  Social  Security,  Medicare  and  Medicaid  benefits  paid  per  retiree  was  

$11,000,  or  41  percent  of  GDP  per  capita.  By  2010,  that  figure  increased  to  $47,000  (in  

constant  dollars),  or  72  percent  of  GDP  per  capita.  There  is  no  doubt  that  transfers  to  

the  elderly,  in  aggregate  and  individually,  have  significantly  increased  in  the  United  

15  

States  (Kotlikoff).  Further,  increasing  spending  on  consumption  by  the  elderly  in  the  

present  has  crowded  out  investment  in  the  future  of  the  young.  In  1970,  according  to  

the  Office  of  Management  and  Budget,  transfers  and  investments  each  made  up  about  

30  percent  of  the  budget;  today,  transfers  have  risen  to  65  percent  and  investments  

have  sunk  to  14  percent.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Polling  by  the  Pew  Research  Center  demonstrates  there  is  strong  disagreement  

between  generations  about  these  kinds  of  spending.  When  it  comes  to  the  federal  

budget,  50  percent  of  young  Americans  (18–29)  say  government  should  focus  its  

resources  on  programs  that  benefit  younger  adults;  15  percent  of  Americans  older  than  

55  agree.  A  majority  of  young  people  (52%)  believe  keeping  Social  Security  and  

Medicare  exactly  the  way  they  are  would  put  too  much  of  a  financial  burden  on  younger  

generations,  an  opinion  shared  by  35  percent  of  seniors  (Pew,  2012).  Accordingly,  young  

people  go  much  further  in  their  support  of  potential  reforms  than  do  seniors,  such  as  

letting  workers  put  Social  Security  taxes  in  private  accounts  (86%  to  52%)  and  using  

16  

Medicare  benefits  toward  purchasing  private  insurance  (74%  to  48%)  (Pew,  2011).  

Generational  divides  on  public  policy  extend  beyond  redistributive  policies  to  social  

issues.  On  the  issue  of  marijuana,  65  percent  of  millennials  support  legalization,  

compared  with  just  54  percent  of  the  baby  boomers  and  32  percent  of  the  silent  

generation  (Pew,  April  2013).  On  the  issue  of  same-­‐sex  marriage,  70  percent  of  

millennials  support  the  right  of  gay  couples  to  marry,  compared  with  38  percent  of  the  

baby  boomers  and  31  percent  of  the  silent  generation  (Pew,  June  2013).    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 In  her  1996  book,  Young  v.  Old,  University  of  South  Florida  professor  Susan  

MacManus  concluded:    

[T]here  is  greater  consensus  among  Americans  of  all  ages  about  the  

importance  of  a  problem  than  there  is  about  how  to  address  it  or  when  it  

should  be  addressed  relative  to  other  problems.  Mostly,  the  generations  

differ  in  intensity,  rather  then  the  direction,  of  their  opinions.  I  project  that  

will  change,  however,  when  zero-­‐sum  economic  based  issues  move  to  the  

forefront  as  the  nation’s  age  profile  gets  grayer  (MacManus,  247).    

17  

1.3  Gerontocracy  &  Intergenerational  Justice    

Demographic  trends  in  the  United  States  and  elsewhere,  which  forecast  a  

steadily  aging  population,  have  led  some  to  sound  the  alarm  of  “gerontocracy”  —  or  

rule  by  the  elderly.  “[T]he  elderly  are  growing  both  richer  and  more  numerous,  and  

unless  something  is  done  to  curb  their  expanding  political  power,  programs  to  benefit  

them  may  yet  become  untouchable,”  Alexei  Bayer  wrote  in  a  1997  New  York  Times  

column  that  called  for  an  extra  vote  for  parents  of  young  children.  “In  an  aging  

population,  the  great  danger  is  that  the  electorate  will  become  more  and  more  focused  

on  the  short  term,”  Phillip  Longman  wrote  in  a  1987  book,  Born  to  Pay:  The  New  Politics  

of  Aging  in  America.  The  negative  implications  of  an  aging  populace  are  predicted  by  

rational  choice  theory:  those  who  are  near  the  end  of  their  life  will  support  policies  and  

politicians  who  will  maximize  individual  benefits  in  the  near  term,  even  if  that  means  

incurring  costs  that  will  be  realized  by  future  generations  in  the  long  term.  This  does  not  

mean  that  older  citizens  necessarily  act  with  malice  toward  the  young;  instead,  many  

can  simply  be  ignorant  of  the  intergenerational  implications  of  their  decisions  or  can  be  

led  to  believe  by  politicians  desiring  their  support  that  there  are  none.  

According  to  a  recent  Gallup  poll,  Americans  are  evenly  divided  about  whether  

the  next  generation  will  have  a  better  life  than  their  parents  (Gallup).  If  the  skeptics  

prove  to  be  correct,  this  circumstance  would  violate  the  moral  concept  of  

“intergenerational  justice”  that,  as  Belgian  economist  and  philosopher  Philippe  Van  

Parijs  describes,  “requires  each  generation,  each  birth  cohort,  to  make  sure  the  

situation  of  the  next  generation  —  somehow  measured,  on  a  per  capita  basis  —  is  no  

18  

worse  than  its  own”  (Van  Parijs).  This  idea  has  distinctly  American  roots,  too.  Thomas  

Jefferson  famously  wrote:  “The  earth  belongs  to  each  generation  during  its  course,  fully,  

and  in  its  own  right.”  He  opposed  the  notion  that  one  generation  could  bind  another  

with  decisions  it  has  made  or  even  laws  it  passed.  For  this  reason,  he  asserted  that  one  

generation  should  not  incur  more  debt  than  it  could  pay  off  in  its  lifetime.  Unfortunately,  

by  various  indicators,  today’s  young  people  and  future  generations  actually  stand  to  

inherit  a  country  worse  off  than  prior  generations.  Consider  just  two  issues.  

First,  our  country’s  debt  is  growing.  The  long-­‐term  fiscal  gap  of  the  United  States  

is  $222  trillion,  which  represents  the  present  value  of  current  public  debt  plus  the  

difference  in  future  planned  spending  and  revenue.  While  adult  generations  alive  today  

will  receive  more  resources  back  from  the  government  in  the  form  of  transfers,  such  as  

Social  Security  and  Medicare,  than  they  have  paid  to  the  government  in  the  form  of  all  

taxes  over  the  course  of  their  lifetime,  future  generations  will  face  net  taxes  21.5  

percentage  points  higher  if  they  are  left  with  the  bill  for  closing  the  fiscal  gap,  according  

to  the  International  Monetary  Fund  (Batini).  Closing  the  fiscal  gap  would  require  an  

immediate  and  permanent  revenue  hike  of  64  percent  or  a  spending  cut  of  40  percent  

or  a  mixture  of  the  two.  The  cost  of  delay  dramatically  grows  with  time  as,  among  other  

reasons,  interest  payments  compound.  Some  projections  show  interest  payments  alone  

will  consume  every  dollar  in  federal  revenue  by  2060.  Explains  economist  Laurence  

Kotlikoff:  “[I]f  we  wait  40  years,  until  all  the  baby  boomers  have  safely  taken  their  leave,  

the  requisite  permanent  tax  hikes  and  spending  cuts  are  93  percent  and  53  percent”  

19  

(Kotlikoff).  On  our  current  fiscal  course,  the  young  and  unborn  inevitably  face  a  future  of  

more  debt,  fewer  benefits,  higher  taxes  and  a  lower  standard  of  living.  

Second,  our  planet’s  temperature  is  increasing.  Just  as  the  human  body  has  a  

maximum  temperature  before  it  becomes  life  threatening,  so  does  Earth:  3.6  degrees  F  

above  average  temperatures  a  century  ago,  according  to  scientists.  This  translates  into  a  

concentration  of  carbon  dioxide  in  the  atmosphere  of  400  parts  per  million  (ppm).  The  

current  average  global  concentration  of  carbon  dioxide  is  391  ppm  and  is  growing  more  

than  2  ppm  each  year,  mostly  as  a  result  of  human  activity.  Consider  some  of  the  effects  

we  are  already  seeing:  rising  temperatures,  melting  ice  caps,  swelling  sea  levels  and  

increasing  extreme  weather.  Then  imagine  what  is  in  store  when  these  disruptive  

effects  grow  “in  frequency,  multiplicity,  severity  and  unpredictability”  (Antholis,  5).  The  

longer  we  wait  to  address  this  problem,  scientists  warn,  the  tougher  it  will  be  to  solve.  

For  example,  billions  of  tons  of  methane  sit  below  the  Arctic  permafrost.  If  released,  the  

methane  will  contribute  to  the  heat-­‐trapping  layer  of  greenhouses  gases  in  the  

atmosphere;  methane  is  20  times  as  powerful  as  carbon  dioxide.  As  Brookings  

Institution  scholars  William  Antholis  and  Strobe  Talbott  write:  “[T]hose  of  us  alive  today  

are  the  first  generation  to  know  that  we  live  in  an  Age  of  Global  Warming.  We  may  also  

be  the  last  generation  to  have  any  chance  of  doing  something  about  it”  (Antholis,  1).    

The  issues  of  our  growing  debt  and  our  warming  planet  share  three  key  

characteristics:  they  are  large  problems  that  are  compounding  with  time,  most  of  their  

consequences  will  be  shouldered  by  the  young  and  future  generations,  and  action  is  

incentivized  only  if  one  takes  a  long  view  of  the  problem,  as  the  costs  of  acting  would  

20  

outweigh  short-­‐term  benefits.  That  we  see  such  little  progress  in  addressing  either  of  

these  issues  may  not  simply  reflect  the  gridlock  between  Democrats  and  Republicans,  

but  the  triumph  of  the  present  over  the  future,  or  what  some  call  “the  dictatorship  of  

the  present.”  This  explanation  rests  on  two  assumptions:  (i)  older  voters  and  

officeholders  rationally  pursue  shorter-­‐term  policies  than  their  younger  counterparts  

and  (ii)  older  people  exercise  greater  political  influence  than  their  younger  counterparts.  

While  the  first  assumption  is  debatable  [“young  people  …  tend  to  discount  the  value  of  

delayed  rewards  more  steeply  than  older  people  do”  (Levine,  61)]  and  worthy  of  further  

research,  there  is  no  doubt  that  the  latter  holds  true.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even  though  there  are  roughly  the  same  number  of  Americans  ages  25–34  (35.5  

million)  as  there  over  65  (37.7  million),  the  latter  group  is  overrepresented  both  in  the  

electorate  and  in  Congress.  In  the  2010  election,  voters  ages  25–34  comprised  only  12  

percent  of  the  electorate  while  voters  over  65  comprised  24  percent.  The  disparity  

21  

reflects  that  turnout  among  voting  eligible  young  people  (31%)  was  roughly  half  of  that  

of  older  people  (61%).  Further,  while  those  under  35  make  up  only  2  percent  of  those  in  

the  House  of  Representatives,  those  over  65  comprise  24  percent  of  the  body  (List).  In  

the  future,  we  can  expect  older  Americans  to  exercise  even  greater  political  influence  

due  to  both  the  aging  and  increased  longevity  of  the  U.S.  population.  The  number  of  

senior  citizens  in  the  United  States  will  grow  to  19.3  percent  of  the  population  by  2030  

and  20.2  percent  by  2050  (U.S.  Census  Bureau,  2012).  Life  expectancy  for  females  at  

birth  will  grow  from  81  years  today  to  83  years  by  2050  (Shrestha).    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

22  

Section  II:  Young  Elected  Officials  &  the  Millennial  Generation  

2.1  In  the  United  States    

America  has  a  rich  history  of  young  people  playing  a  prominent  role  in  our  

governing  institutions  and  even  in  their  creation.  Of  the  56  people  who  signed  the  

Declaration  of  Independence,  12  were  under  age  35  ––  including  Elbridge  Gerry  and  

James  Wilson.  Thomas  Jefferson  was  33  years  old  at  the  time  when  he  authored  the  

document.  Of  the  55  delegates  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1787,  14  were  under  

age  35  ––  including  Alexander  Hamilton,  Gouverneur  Morris  and  Charles  Pinckney.  

Furthermore,  in  the  20th  century,  12  of  the  19  U.S.  presidents  were  under  age  35  when  

they  first  held  political  office.  This  includes  Theodore  Roosevelt,  member  of  the  New  

York  State  Assembly  at  age  24;  Lyndon  B.  Johnson,  member  of  the  U.S.  House  of  

Representatives  at  age  29;  and  William  J.  Clinton,  attorney  general  of  Arkansas  at  age  30  

(Eagleton,  2002c).  In  2003,  57  percent  of  U.S.  senators,  49  percent  of  U.S.  

representatives  and  50  percent  of  U.S.  governors  first  held  elected  office  before  age  35  

(Eagleton,  2002a).  In  the  2008  election,  three  of  the  four  candidates  at  the  top  of  the  

tickets  (Barack  Obama,  Joe  Biden  and  Sarah  Palin)  were  all  once  young  elected  officials.    

While  young  people  have  demonstrated  a  capacity  to  be  meaningfully  involved  

in  politics  and  even  go  on  to  lead  the  country,  relatively  few  young  people  hold  political  

office  at  the  federal  level.  As  previously  stated,  25-­‐  to  35-­‐year-­‐olds  make  up  just  2  

percent  of  the  U.S.  House  of  Representatives,  with  nine  members  in  the  113th  Congress  

(List).  The  youngest  member  of  the  United  States  Senate  is  39  years  old.  The  frequency  

of  young  elected  officials  improves  slightly  when  including  the  state  and  local  levels,  

23  

according  to  the  most  recent  comprehensive  study  of  young  elected  officials  in  the  

United  States  in  2002  by  the  Eagleton  Institute  of  Politics  at  Rutgers  University.  In  that  

study,  researchers  identified  a  total  of  814  elected  officials  under  35  on  the  local,  state  

and  federal  levels.  Out  of  a  total  population  of  17,023  elected  officials,  those  under  35  

accounted  for  just  4.8  percent.  The  vast  majority  of  these  younger  officeholders  were  

either  municipal  officers  (485)  or  state  legislators  (321);  only  two  were  statewide  

elected  officials,  and  six  were  members  of  Congress  (Eagleton,  2002b).    

A  plurality  of  the  young  elected  officials  in  the  Rutgers  study  (43%)  identified  as  

Democrats,  while  33  percent  identified  as  Republicans  and  23  percent  were  either  third-­‐

party,  nonpartisan,  independent  or  unknown.  Of  the  slightly  less  than  half  who  

responded  to  a  personal  survey,  72  percent  were  ages  30–35  and  28  percent  were  ages  

20–30.  A  vast  majority  (86%)  were  male.  Female  representation  among  young  elected  

officials  lagged  behind  representation  of  females  generally.  For  example,  on  the  state  

legislative  level,  women  made  up  12  percent  of  young  elected  officials  but  23  percent  of  

all  elected  officials.  Other  survey  results  of  young  elected  officials  were  compared  to  

young  people  generally,  as  reported  by  the  Center  for  Information  and  Research  on  Civic  

Learning  and  Engagement.  Researchers  found  some  stark  but  not  totally  surprising  

differences:  young  elected  officials  and  their  families  are  better  educated,  with  22  

percent  of  young  elected  officials’  mothers  having  attended  graduate  school  compared  

with  8  percent  for  young  people  generally.  Further,  51  percent  of  young  elected  officials  

have  family  incomes  between  $50,000  and  $100,000,  compared  with  31  percent  for  

young  people  generally  (Eagleton,  2002b).    

24  

2.2  Comparative  Research    

According  to  data  from  the  Chronicle  of  Parliamentary  Elections,  the  United  

States  is  among  countries  with  the  lowest  proportion  of  young  people  under  40  serving  

in  the  lower  house  of  its  legislature––  just  6  percent  as  of  2007  (and  unchanged  through  

the  present).  Many  other  countries  have  a  greater  proportion  of  young  elected  officials,  

including  Israel  (37%),  Finland  (29%),  Spain  (17%),  Canada  (14%),  United  Kingdom  (13%)  

and  the  Republic  of  Korea  (7%)  (Norris).  As  discussed  later,  this  can  be  attributed  to,  

among  other  things,  a  lower  age  of  eligibility  in  other  countries  (Norris).    

25  

2.3  Motivations  &  Characteristics      

Why  do  young  people  seek  elected  office?  In  part  to  answer  that  question,  John  

Celock,  an  alumnus  of  Columbia  University  and  young  journalist,  interviewed  more  than  

90  young  elected  officials  for  his  2010  book,  The  Next  Generation:  Young  Elected  

Officials  and  their  Impact  on  American  Politics.    

Celock  places  young  elected  officials  into  three  main  categories.  First,  there  are  

those  who  are  heavily  influenced  by  their  family’s  involvement  in  politics  and  desire  to  

carry  on  the  tradition.  At  the  age  of  25,  Rosalind  Jones,  for  example,  announced  her  

candidacy  in  2003  for  the  state  house  in  Louisiana  ––  a  seat  in  Monroe  that  used  to  be  

held  by  her  father.  “I  would  not  have  been  elected  without  him”  (Celock,  7).  Second,  

there  are  those  who  are  political  staffers  who  view  running  for  office  as  their  promotion.  

Jessica  Lapin  worked  for  New  York  City  Council  member  Gifford  Miller  before  running  

for  the  same  office  in  2005  at  age  30.  “I  loved  my  job  and  I  wanted  to  continue  to  work  

in  public  service.  I  thought:  why  don’t  I  run?”  (Celock,  10).  Third,  there  are  political  

idealists  and  political  activists  who  see  their  best  chance  of  making  an  impact  as  being  at  

the  decision-­‐making  table.  Jefferson  Smith,  the  founder  of  Oregon  Bus  Project,  a  young  

professional  civic  engagement  organization,  decided  to  toss  his  hat  in  the  ring  for  the  

Oregon  House  of  Representatives  at  35  in  2008.  “He  believed  he  could  have  a  bigger  

impact  from  the  inside”  (Celock,  20).  

2.4  The  Young  /  Millennial  Approach         The  approach  of  young  elected  officials  is  unique  in  a  variety  of  ways.  For  one,  

Celock  describes  a  greater  capacity  for  them  to  think  outside  of  the  box.  “Those  tied  to  

26  

existing  power  structures  when  they  get  into  office,  after  having  successful  careers  in  

law  or  business  or  another  profession,  will  be  tied  to  the  old  way  of  doing  things”  

(Celock,  30).  Anthony  Sytko,  a  25-­‐year-­‐old  City  Council  member  in  Garwood,  New  Jersey,  

saw  an  opportunity  to  use  his  chairmanship  of  the  building  and  grounds  committee  to  

lay  the  groundwork  for  solar  panel  installation  and  enroll  his  town  in  the  Sustainable  

Jersey  program  to  qualify  for  environmental  grants.  In  addition,  young  elected  officials  

are  generally  willing  to  take  more  risks  than  their  older  counterparts.  “[T]he  risks  while  

in  office  will  be  tackling  issues  that  are  not  normally  tackled  or  making  a  proposal  that  is  

different”  (  Celock,  196).  Except  for  those  who  are  trying  to  build  a  long-­‐term  career  in  

politics,  young  officeholders  may  be  more  willing  to  take  risks  because  they  are  at  a  

point  in  their  life  where  they  can  better  adapt  to  switching  jobs,  if  they  lose  reelection.    

  There  are  also  qualities  of  young  elected  officials  and  potential  young  elected  

officials  that  are  unique  to  the  millennial  generation.  Morley  Winograd,  author  of  

Millennial  Momentum:  How  a  New  Generation  Is  Remaking  America,  asserts  that  young  

elected  officials  of  the  rising  generation  have  an  approach  to  politics  that  is  distinct  from  

that  of  their  baby  boomer  predecessors.  “Their  generation’s  idealism  ––  in  sharp  

contrast  to  the  more  ideological  approach  adopted  by  Boomers  ––  is  characterized  by  a  

pragmatic  impulse  focused  on  finding  practical  solutions  to  problems”  (Winograd).  To  

the  extent  today’s  young  people  have  a  strong  ideology,  it  largely  does  not  fall  within  

the  traditional  small  versus  big  government  spectrum.  Eric  Liu,  co-­‐author  of  The  Gardens  

of  Democracy,  observes:  “In  short,  Millennials  bypass.  They  operate  sideways  and  

orthogonally  rather  than  obey  all  the  hierarchies  and  dichotomies  of  their  elders.  …  

27  

Millennials  are  comfortable  with  big  goals  and  even  big  spending.  But  they’re  also  happy  

to  circumvent  the  state  altogether  and  enlist  anyone  who  can  help  achieve  those  goals”  

(Liu).  As  discussed  earlier,  this  leads  to  unique  views  on  contemporary  political  issues.  In  

a  blog  post  from  a  North  Carolina  political  action  committee  about  “why  we  support  

young  candidates,”  grassroots  director  Evan  Degnan  writes:    

Young  elected  officials  are  able  to  bring  new  ideas  and  technology  to  

government,  making  it  more  transparent,  efficient  and  receptive.  When  critics  

bemoan  our  lack  of  life  experiences  remind  them  that  we  also  don’t  carry  the  

baggage  of  a  lifetime  of  political  battles.  …  We  aren’t  shackled  by  antiquated  

social  beliefs  nor  do  we  hold  the  same  prejudices  that  have  poisoned  our  nation  

before.  …  We  see  the  long  game  because  we  have  to.  If  we  don’t  invest  now  in  

education,  in  healthcare,  in  infrastructure  and  in  protecting  the  environment  

then  we  are  the  ones  who  suffer  the  consequences.  That’s  why  we’re  demanding  

a  seat  at  the  table.  For  too  long  those  in  power  have  forsaken  the  future  to  

preserve  the  past,  while  creating  barriers  to  entry  for  young  folks  (Degnan).    

 

In  Congress,  young  elected  officials  take  a  different  approach  to  governing.  “We  

are  less  strident  and  more  willing  to  hear  each  other  out,”  says  Congressman  Aaron  

Schock,  now  32.  He  adds,  “The  older  members  are  more  concerned  about  process  and  

less  with  results.”  He  suspects  more  young  members  in  Congress  would  increase  the  

speed  at  which  the  institution  operates  and  would  focus  the  legislature  on  the  country’s  

long-­‐term  “fiscal  and  environmental  health.”  As  Schock  recently  told  Buzzfeed:  “I  think  if  

you  gathered  the  40  members  under  40  and  locked  us  in  a  room,  we  could  solve  this  

Nation’s  problems  in  24  hours”  (Johnson).    

 

28  

Section  III:  Barriers  to  Office    

Only  about  one  in  a  hundred  Americans  will  run  for  office  at  any  time  during  

their  lifetime  (MacManus).  The  sacrifice  of  time,  physical  effort  and  personal  privacy  are  

large  barriers  for  potential  candidates  of  any  age  ––  therefore,  they  are  not  discussed  in  

detail  here.  The  focus  instead  is  on  the  range  of  institutional,  inherent  and  implicit  

barriers  disproportionately  or  uniquely  faced  by  young  people,  in  both  running  for  office  

and  in  being  elected  to  office.  Each  is  addressed  in  order  of  perceived  magnitude,  

although  further  research  is  necessary  to  test  these  assumptions.    

3.1  Age  Eligibility  Requirements  (A  History)    

The  most  immovable  barrier  to  young  adults  holding  political  office  on  the  

federal  level  is  enshrined  right  in  the  United  State  Constitution.  Article  I,  Section  II  

stipulates:  “No  Person  shall  be  a  Representative  who  shall  not  have  attained  to  the  Age  

of  twenty  five  Years,  and  been  seven  Years  a  Citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  who  shall  

not,  when  elected,  be  an  Inhabitant  of  that  State  in  which  he  shall  be  chosen.”  Similarly,  

the  Constitution  sets  eligibility  requirements  at  age  30  for  senators  and  35  for  president.  

These  requirements  outright  deny  the  highest  form  of  political  expression  and  

participation  ––  the  ability  to  hold  office  (and  therefore,  to  run  for  office)  ––  to  citizens  

based  on  an  immutable  quality,  though  temporary.    

The  staggered  age  limits  for  the  House  of  Representatives,  the  Senate  and  the  

presidency  were  invented  on  the  spot  during  the  Constitutional  Convention  in  

Philadelphia  in  1787.  The  Framers  did  not  copy  the  example  of  any  particular  state  or  

foreign  country.  At  the  time,  only  two  states  had  age  restrictions  for  the  legislature,  at  

29  

25,  and  only  two  others  had  restrictions  for  the  governorship,  one  at  30  and  the  other  at  

35;  however,  there  were  property  requirements  in  other  states  that,  in  practice,  served  

as  an  age  restriction.  At  the  time,  England  had  an  age  restriction  of  21  for  parliament.  In  

speculating  why  the  Framers  developed  the  system  they  did,  comedian  Jon  Stewart  

jokes  they  were  protecting  against  tyranny:  “The  average  life  span  in  colonial  times  was  

41.3,  so  with  35  as  the  minimum  [for  the  Presidency],  even  a  brutal  tyrant  would  have  

only  five,  seven  years  tops,  before  gout,  cholera,  and/or  syphilis  re-­‐democratized  the  

nation”  (Seery).    

A  better  explanation  of  age  restrictions  can  be  found  in  James  Madison’s  Notes  

on  the  Constitutional  Convention,  where  a  clash  of  democratic  theory  unfolded  

between  George  Mason  of  Virginia  and  James  Wilson  of  Pennsylvania.    

Mason  believed  popular  election  was  “a  strategic  check  on  government”  and  

was  the  chief  architect  of  age  restrictions,  while  Wilson  saw  elections  as  “the  very  

definition  of  democratic  government”  and  vehemently  opposed  any  age  restriction  on  

holding  office  above  the  age  of  suffrage.  At  the  convention,  Mason  reasoned  that  it  was  

“absurd”  for  a  citizen,  upon  the  age  of  turning  21,  to  not  only  “make  a  bargain  for  

himself”  but  also  “manage  the  affairs  of  a  great  nation.”  Indeed,  he  remarked  upon  his  

own  ability  at  the  age  of  21  by  saying  his  own  political  opinions  at  the  time  were  “too  

crude  and  erroneous  to  merit  an  influence  on  public  measures.”  Wilson  fired  back,  

according  to  Madison,  stating  that  the  proposal  would  serve  to  “damp  the  effort  of  

genius,  and  of  laudable  ambition.”  Wilson  contended  that  the  voters  should  be  the  

judges  of  who  is  fit  to  hold  office.  Although  age  requirements  were  initially  voted  down  

30  

10–1  by  the  convention,  Mason  was  nevertheless  successful  in  putting  a  minimum  age  

of  25  for  the  House  with  a  vote  of  7–3  at  a  later  date.  Age  restrictions  for  the  Senate  and  

presidency  passed  unanimously  and  without  debate  (Seery).    

During  the  ratification  period,  age  limits  were  not  a  focus  of  debate.  When  they  

were  discussed,  the  limits  were  described  as  a  sensible  way  to  ensure  that  only  the  most  

qualified  persons  could  hold  office.  James  McHenry  reflected  that  the  convention  

deemed  the  age  of  25  necessary  “to  mature  the  judgment  and  form  the  mind  by  habits  

of  reflection  and  experience”  (Seery,  31).  Noah  Webster,  an  ardent  support  of  the  new  

constitution  and  the  age  limits  it  contained,  wrote  that  the  eligibly  requirements  filtered  

out  representatives  “who  are  not  liable  to  the  bias  of  passions  that  govern  the  young”  

(Seery,  33).  The  staggered  age  limits  were  a  way  to  promote  more  experience  and  great  

judgment  for  higher  offices,  from  the  House  to  the  Senate  to  the  presidency.  

3.2  Perceptions  of  Politics  and  Political  Efficacy         One  of  the  main  reasons  so  few  young  people  get  elected  to  office  is  that  so  few  

young  people  desire  to  run  for  office  to  begin  with.  By  and  large,  today’s  young  people  

are  disconnected  from  politics  altogether  because  they  see  it  as  being  ineffective.  “If  

you  are  24  years  old,  all  you  know  is  petty  partisan  politics  while  big  issues  aren’t  getting  

addressed,  while  the  economy  is  still  struggling,”  commented  Trey  Grayson,  director  of  

the  Institute  of  Politics  at  Harvard  University  (Stolberg).  According  to  a  recent  Harvard  

survey,  more  young  people  agree  that  political  involvement  “rarely  has  tangible  results”  

than  disagree  (Harvard).  Yet  many  view  the  current  generation  of  young  people  as  the  

next  great  civic  generation.  Pointing  to  growing  trends  of  national  service  participants,  

31  

social  entrepreneurs  and  other  civic  leaders,  millennial  author  David  Burstein  writes,  

“Millennials  have  seized  hold  of  the  world  around  them,  decided  to  make  a  difference,  

and  are  doing  it  right  now”  (Burstein).  In  this  context,  young  people’s  political  

disengagement  may  be  better  understood  as  a  rational  desire  to  spend  their  time  and  

effort  where  they  make  can  impact;  in  today’s  political  climate,  that  means  outside  of  

government.    

Indeed,  trends  of  distrust  and  disengagement  are  increasing.  Cynicism  toward  

politics  has  turned  the  very  act  of  political  engagement  into  an  activity  that  is  looked  

down  upon.  Half  as  many  young  people  (35%)  believe  that  running  for  office  is  an  

“honorable  thing  to  do”  compared  with  community  service  (70%).  Indeed,  in  2012,  more  

than  one-­‐third  of  young  people  participated  in  community  service  while  only  about  a  

quarter  described  themselves  as  politically  active  (Harvard).  Young  people  are  retreating  

from  what  they  believe  to  be  a  fundamentally  broken  political  system.  If  it  is  exceedingly  

difficult  to  get  young  people  to  contact  their  elected  official  or  even  vote  in  an  election,  

then  the  idea  of  persuading  young  people  to  spend  a  year  or  more  dealing  with  public  

scrutiny  and  negative  attacks  that  come  with  running  for  office,  where  the  best-­‐case  

scenario  is  winning  election  to  a  paralyzed  and  dysfunctional  legislature,  seems  near  

impossible.    

3.3  Political  Party  Mobilization    

For  their  many  faults  in  today’s  politics,  political  parties  play  an  important  role  in  

lubricating  democracy  by  educating,  organizing  and  mobilizing  citizens  ––  even  though  

they  do  so  in  a  strategically  selective  way.  The  political  parties’  efforts  to  mobilize  

32  

citizens  have  considerable  impact.  When  parties  make  the  effort,  “the  people  they  

contact  are  far  more  likely  to  participate  in  electoral  politics  than  the  people  they  pass  

over”  (Rosenstone,  170).  One  of  the  main  groups  of  people  they  frequently  pass  over  is  

young  people.  “For  too  long,  candidates,  political  parties  and  the  media  have  treated  

young  people  as  irrelevant  to  the  political  process,”  Dan  Glickman,  a  former  member  of  

Congress  and  cabinet  secretary,  recently  wrote  (Harvard).  Indeed,  the  young  are  caught  

in  a  chicken/egg  problem:  because  relatively  few  participate,  institutions  such  as  

political  parties  under-­‐invest  in  their  mobilization.  But  because  of  this  underinvestment,  

relatively  few  young  people  participate  either  by  voting,  contacting  their  elected  

representatives  or,  as  is  relevant  to  this  study,  running  for  office.  

In  a  survey  of  380  young  elected  officials  by  Rutgers  University’s  Young  Elected  

Leaders  Project,  fewer  than  half  decided  to  run  on  their  own  (46%  male,  28%  female).  A  

plurality  had  given  it  thought  and  decided  to  run  once  someone  else  encouraged  them.  

Others  had  not  thought  about  it  until  someone  else  suggested  it.  Of  those  already  in  

office,  86  percent  would  like  to  achieve  higher  office  but  only  2  percent  named  the  U.S.  

Senate  and  13  percent  named  the  U.S.  House  as  their  next  step  —  even  though  24  

percent  and  18  percent,  respectively,  would  like  to  end  up  there  someday  (Eagleton,  

2002d).  It  is  clear  from  just  this  polling  that  holding  political  office  is  like  climbing  a  

ladder,  and  most  start  climbing  when  they  are  pushed  onto  it.  Political  parties  tend  to  

push  older  people.  

In  this  context,  a  key  obstacle  for  young  people  to  achieve  greater  

representation  in  Congress  is  that  political  parties,  to  the  extent  that  they  are  even  

33  

focused  in  recruiting  and  encouraging  young  candidates,  maintain  a  clear  hierarchy  in  

how  one  can  rise  to  higher  political  office.  “The  ability  to  run  with  less  control  from  

party  bosses  and  to  get  on  the  ballot  easier  helps  out  for  young  elected  officials  who  

want  to  run  for  high  office”  (Celock,  27).  John  Celock,  the  journalist  who  interviewed  90  

young  elected  officials,  points  to  Michael  Frerichs  from  Champaign  County,  Illinois,  as  an  

example.  At  24,  Frerichs  reported  that  he  had  to  keep  running  for  offices  he  was  not  

interested  in  just  to  get  his  party’s  support  to  run  for  state  senator  years  later.  The  

message  from  the  Republican  Party  to  27-­‐year-­‐old  Aaron  Schock  of  Illinois,  who  was  

considering  a  run  for  an  open  congressional  seat  in  his  district  was,  “don’t  do  it  —  you’ll  

lose  and  be  marked  as  a  loser.”  Even  for  promising  up-­‐and-­‐comers,  the  party  tends  to  

take  a  risk-­‐adverse  position  (Schock).  Schock  went  on  to  win  his  election.  But  when  

young  candidates  attempt  to  essentially  skip  their  spot  on  line,  they  can  pay  the  price.  

One  stark  example  is  Nomiki  Konst,  28,  who  sought  to  replace  retiring  representative  

Gabrielle  Giffords  in  the  2012  election.  According  to  Konst,  the  reaction  from  the  

Democratic  Party  chairman  in  one  Arizona  county  was:  “Sweetie,  start  at  school  board.”  

The  party  instead  backed  an  establishment  candidate  in  the  primary  and  actively  

undermined  Konst’s  campaign  by  hiring  away  key  staff  and  intimidating  supporters  

(Konst).    

3.4  Incumbency         Incumbency  advantage  is  the  most  powerful  force  in  electoral  politics.  In  sum:  

“Voters  know  them,  they  get  more  media  exposure,  they  can  boast  about  their  

accomplishments  in  Congress,  and  they  have  access  and  connections  to  campaign  cash  

34  

—  all  of  which  are  ingredients  to  a  successful  campaign”  (Colby).  And  to  the  extent  that  

most  incumbents  are  older  Americans,  this  presents  an  inherent  challenge  to  young  

people  breaking  into  the  system.  Not  only  is  it  difficult  to  unseat  an  incumbent,  but  

incumbents  are  also  deciding  to  stay  in  office  longer.  In  the  2012  election,  90  percent  of  

U.S.  House  members  seeking  reelection  won  their  races,  typical  of  recent  history.  

Reelection  rates  fell  below  90  percent  in  only  three  elections  over  the  past  40  years.  

Between  the  104th  Congress  (1995–1996)  and  111th  Congress  (2009–2010),  the  share  of  

House  members  who  served  more  than  eight  years  increased  from  37  percent  to  nearly  

half  (48%).  The  average  House  member  served  for  10.3  years,  up  from  7.4  year  three  

decades  ago  (Glassman).  Ultimately,  81  percent  of  the  members  of  the  House  of  

Representatives  who  served  in  the  112th  Congress  went  on  to  serve  in  the  113th  

Congress.    

   

35  

Even  though  Congress  has  becoming  an  increasingly  dysfunctional  and  paralyzed  

body,  it  has  become  more  desirable  to  stay  as  a  career  politician  than  as  a  citizen  

legislator.  This  is  partially  because  effectiveness  in  Congress  is  more  dependent  on  

having  been  there  longer.  “Changes  in  House  rules  made  seniority  increasingly  

important  and  provided  a  motivation  for  representatives  to  keep  their  seats”  (Palmer).  

In  addition,  over  time,  members  benefit  from  a  greater  support  structure  that  allows  

them  “to  generate  publicity,  serve  constituents,  and  receive  support  in  organizing  their  

offices  and  forming  agendas  that  help  them  be  effective  legislators”  (Glassman).  Further,  

from  a  purely  self-­‐interested  perspective,  post-­‐congressional  careers  that  trade  on  

members’  institutional  knowledge  and  influence  have  also  proven  to  be  a  lucrative  

incentive  to  stick  around  Washington  and  build  clout.  A  2013  USA  Today  analysis  of  the  

98  lawmakers  who  retired,  resigned  or  lost  reelection  since  January  2011  identified  16  

who  took  positions  with  groups  that  influence  policy,  (USA  Today).  

  Ever  since  scholars  noticed  an  uptick  in  incumbent  reelection  advantage  in  the  

mid-­‐1960s,  various  explanations  have  been  debated  at  length.  Some  say  that  

incumbents  have  been  able  to  access  greater  resources  to  perform  their  jobs  (Fiorina)  

and  to  run  their  campaigns  (Fouirnaies).  Others  say  that  incumbents  have  benefited  

from  party  realignment,  in  which  campaigns  have  become  more  candidate-­‐focused  

rather  than  party-­‐focused  (Mayhew).  Still  another  school  of  thought  suggests  the  

perceived  and/or  actual  presence  of  these  other  factors  “scare  off”  high-­‐quality  

challengers,  and  furthermore,  that  candidate  quality  increasingly  matters  (Cox).  While  it  

may  seem  intuitive  that  congressional  redistricting  has  played  a  significant  role  in  

36  

boosting  incumbent  advantage,  “the  literature  …  has  been  uniform  in  its  dismissal  of  

redistricting  as  a  cause  of  the  change”  (Friedman).  One  reason  is  that  redistricting  does  

not  seem  to  affect  the  size  of  incumbent  advantage.  “It  is  equally  powerful  at  the  state  

and  federal  levels.  It  is  equally  important  in  legislative  and  executive  elections”  

(Ansolabehere).  Whatever  the  precise  reason  or  mix  of  reasons,  the  effect  of  

incumbency  on  vote  share  is  estimated  to  range  from  3  to  8  percent  (Fouirnaies).    

3.5  Net  Worth  &  Campaign  Finance       Of  all  the  potential  factors  fueling  incumbency  advantage  and  of  all  the  factors  

that  are  key  in  winning  a  campaign,  the  way  elections  are  financed  in  the  United  States  

may  have  a  disproportionate  impact  on  young  people,  necessitating  some  special  

attention.  By  their  nature,  young  candidates  have  smaller  and  (given  the  likelihood  that  

they,  too,  are  young)  less  wealthy  personal  and  professional  networks  than  older  

candidates.  In  other  words,  young  candidates  have  a  relatively  weak  ability  to  raise  

money  or  even  self-­‐fund  simply  because  they  have  less  access  to  wealth  (Schock).  In  

2010,  the  average  net  worth  of  Americans  ages  29–37  was  $97,060,  while  the  net  worth  

of  Americans  ages  65–73  was  $843,218.  Even  more  striking  is  that,  since  1983,  young  

Americans’  net  worth  has  decreased  by  21  percent  while  older  Americans’  net  worth  

increased  by  79  percent  (Steuerle).  

To  be  sure,  raising  and  spending  more  money  does  not  necessarily  increase  a  

candidate’s  share  of  the  vote  in  all  cases.  The  long-­‐standing  conventional  wisdom  in  

political  science  is  that  “challenger  spending  [has]  sizable  impacts  on  House  of  

Representatives  election  outcomes  but  that  spending  by  incumbents  [is]  relatively  

37  

unproductive.”  Incumbent  spending  has  the  most  effect  when  the  officeholder  is  forced  

to  respond  to  a  serious  challenger  who  spends  in  excess  of  $182,000  (Magee).  This  is  

largely  a  result  of  the  fact  that  voters  usually  know  more  about  the  incumbent  than  the  

challenger,  and  campaigns  are  won  or  lost  depending  on  who  can  better  define  the  

challenger.    

One  study  showed  that  “incumbency  causes  approximately  a  25%  jump  in  a  

party’s  share  of  total  contributions”  (Fouirnaies).  This  advantage  is,  to  a  large  extent,  a  

result  of  contributions  from  people  or  entities  that  seek  access  to  those  who  have  

political  power.  Special-­‐interest  organizations  and  corporations,  rather  than  individual  

voters,  seem  to  be  most  motivated  to  give  to  incumbents.  This  can  translate  to  an  

advantage  of  0.21  to  4.48  percent  of  the  vote  share,  extrapolating  from  other  related  

data.  Furthermore,  one  study  found  that  “[a]n  incumbent  who  begins  the  campaign  

with  a  large  amount  of  cash  on  hand  does  significantly  better  in  the  election,  even  after  

controlling  for  how  much  each  candidate  ultimately  spends.”  This  could  be  because  

large  campaign  war  chests  scare  off  potential  high-­‐quality  challengers,  such  as  those  

with  experience  in  elected  office  (Magee).    

3.6  Ageism       It  has  long  been  understood  that  voters  who  are  influenced  by  specific  candidate  

characteristics  such  as  gender  and  sex  tend  to  support  candidates  who  are  most  like  

them.  Several  studies  have  found  that  this  “similarity  hypothesis”  extends  to  the  

dimension  of  age.  While  sexism  and  racism  are  routinely  discussed  and  admonished  in  

our  culture  and  media,  there  is  relatively  less  awareness  about  the  prevalence  of  

38  

ageism  ––  even  though  it  has  been  demonstrated  to  have  stronger  effects  than  other  

kinds  of  discrimination.    

A  1980  experiment,  for  example,  asked  1,158  undergraduates  at  the  University  

of  Kentucky  to  cast  ballots  in  a  simulated  mayoral  election.  This  was  intended  to  test  

how  voters  react  to  similarly  qualified  candidates  based  on  their  age,  sex  and  race.  

Given  options  of  a  young  (age  31),  middle-­‐aged  (age  53)  and  old  candidate  (age  72),  the  

students  most  favored  the  young  candidate  (57.5%)  and  least  favored  the  old  one  

(35.2%).  In  fact,  “a  candidate’s  age  had  a  greater  impact  on  voting  behavior  than  did  a  

candidate’s  sex  or  race.”  Although  the  study  cautioned  against  generalizing  the  results  

to  the  population  as  a  whole,  national  elections  and  real-­‐world  scenarios,  it  did  suggest  

that  its  findings  “were  consistent  with  the  view  that  voters  tend  to  prefer  those  who  are  

similar  to  themselves  and  tend  to  dislike  those  who  are  dissimilar  from  themselves”  and  

“unequivocally  imply  that  a  candidate’s  age  …  should  be  treated  in  the  future  as  a  

potentially  powerful  determinant  of  voter  preferences”  (Sigelman,  267).  Millennial  

Congressman  Aaron  Schock,  a  Republican,  notes  that  he  won  about  the  same  

percentage  of  the  youth  vote  in  his  district  as  President  Obama  did  in  the  2012  election,  

as  he  discerned  from  the  precinct  that  includes  Bradley  University  (Schock)  ––  indicating  

that  young  people  (assumed  to  be  progressive/Democratic  voters)  crossed  party  lines  to  

help  elect  someone  who  spoke  to  their  issues  directly  and  could  relate  to  them  

personally.    

Three  years  later,  another  study  sought  to  test  whether  the  same  findings  would  

apply  using  a  sample  that  included  voters  of  varying  ages.  The  study  confirmed  that  a  

39  

OUR AGING POPULATION

similarity  bias  was  present  for  all  voters  based  on  age.  In  a  matchup  of  young  and  old,  

support  for  the  72-­‐year-­‐old  candidate  won  majority  support  only  by  those  voters  over  

the  age  of  65  (70.6%).  Likewise,  in  the  same  matchup,  the  old  candidate  received  the  

least  support  from  those  aged  18–25  (35.3%).  Here,  too,  age  considerations  were  

stronger  than  sex  or  race.  Further,  the  age  bias  of  senior  citizen  voters  does  not  simply  

reflect  a  preference  for  candidate  of  their  own  age;  older  voters  also  strongly  rejected  

the  younger  candidate  when  that  candidate  was  head-­‐to-­‐head  against  a  middle-­‐aged  

candidate  (80%–10%).  “If  these  results  indeed  reflect  real  voting  tendencies,  we  should  

expect  to  see  real  problems  for  young  candidates  in  future  elections,”  the  study  

concluded,  noting  the  aging  of  the  electorate  (Piliavin,  360).  “[The  older  voters’]  

presumption  was  that  I  was  less  knowledgeable,”  said  Schock,  noting  that  he  was  able  

to  win  many  over  once  they  were  able  to  get  to  know  him  personally  (Schock).    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

40  

  Although  the  age  bias  cuts  both  ways,  the  result  strongly  disadvantages  young  

candidates  simply  because  older  voters  comprise  a  greater  portion  of  the  electorate.  In  

the  2010  election,  voters  under  35  comprised  30  percent  of  the  voting-­‐age  population  

and  17  percent  of  the  electorate.  Voters  over  65  comprised  18  percent  of  the  voting-­‐age  

population  and  24  percent  of  the  electorate.  Older  voters  were  disproportionately  

influential  because  young  voters  turned  out  at  27  percent  while  older  voters  turned  out  

at  over  twice  the  rate  (61%)  (U.S.  Census  Bureau,  2012).  And,  as  previously  noted,  the  

share  of  the  senior  vote  will  only  increase  in  the  future  as  our  population  ages.    

 

 

41  

Section  IV:  Recommendations         If  having  more  young  elected  officials  is  good  for  democracy  and  if  current  

barriers  to  young  people  running  and  being  elected  to  office  are  increasingly  high  and  

prohibitive,  then  it  is  society’s  duty  to  take  action  to  lower  those  barriers.  Government,  

on  both  the  local  and  federal  levels,  shares  this  obligation  with  civil  society.  As  with  any  

reform,  those  in  the  political  class  who  primarily  benefit  from  the  status  quo  are  likely  to  

protest  several  recommendations  below.  This  underscores  the  necessity  for  young  

people  themselves  to  lead  the  change  through  their  advocacy,  rather  than  wait  on  

someone  or  something  else  to  do  so  ––  and  to  do  it  soon,  as  political  power  will  only  

further  concentrate  over  time  in  the  hands  of  those  least  likely  to  champion  the  

necessary  reforms.    

4.1  Constitutional  “AGE  Amendment”    

Lowering  the  age  of  eligibility  to  hold  office  through  a  constitutional  amendment  

is  the  most  fundamental  yet  also  the  most  challenging  reform  to  level  the  playing  field  

for  young  candidates.  While  we  must  keep  in  mind  that  “the  Constitution’s  venerable  

history  behooves  us  to  resist  amendments  unless  the  arguments  in  their  support  are  

overwhelming,”  this  is  undoubtedly  one  such  case  ––  for  all  the  aforementioned  reasons  

why  youth  representation  is  good  for  democracy  and  more  (Cooper).  As  proposed  in  

detail  by  John  Seery,  an  All  Generations  Eligible  (AGE)  Amendment  to  the  U.S.  

Constitution  would  ensure  every  American  who  is  eligible  to  vote  would  also  be  eligible  

to  offer  himself  or  herself  to  the  electorate  as  a  candidate  for  federal  office.    

42  

First,  on  its  face,  an  AGE  Amendment  change  is  a  matter  of  democratic  principle.  

Hannah  Arendt  wrote:  “Eligibility  …  is  a  necessary  corollary  to  the  right  to  vote;  it  means  

that  everyone  is  given  the  opportunity  to  distinguish  himself  in  those  things  in  which  all  

are  equals  to  begin  with  …  they  constitute  in  a  modern  democracy  the  very  

quintessence  of  citizenship”  (Seery,  75).  Second,  in  practical  terms,  it  would  allow  the  

possibility  for  great  leaders  to  emerge.  Machiavelli  wrote:  “When  a  young  man  has  such  

an  exceptional  ability  that  he  makes  himself  known  through  some  illustrious  deed,  it  

would  be  a  most  damaging  thing  if  the  city  were  not  able  to  avail  itself  of  his  talent”  

(Seery,  65).  The  Steve  Jobs,  Michael  Jordon  or  Taylor  Swift  of  politics  may  be  waiting.  

Third,  the  amendment  would  advance  the  democratic  aim  of  electoral  competitiveness  

by  virtue  of  expanding  the  candidate  pool  (Seery,  110).    

Furthermore,  as  the  University  of  Iowa’s  William  Cooper  wrote  in  his  1988  

reexamination  of  the  assumptions  of  age  limits  for  holding  federal  office,  the  current  

rules  in  place,  premised  on  the  concept  of  ensuring  good  judgment,  are  both  invalid  and  

inconsistent.  On  one  hand,  “the  development  of  judgment  is  irrelevant  when  the  task  at  

hand  is  a  choice  among  individuals  at  a  given  point  in  time.”  In  any  given  election,  it  

seems  self-­‐evident  that  the  voters  are  to  decide  the  relative  qualifications  of  the  

candidates.  On  the  other  hand,  even  if  one  believes  it  is  the  role  of  the  Constitution  (not  

the  electorate)  to  set  some  minimum  threshold  of  maturity,  why  did  the  Framers  not  

include  a  similar  age  limit  for  members  of  the  Supreme  Court,  or  an  upper  limit  to  all  

officials  to  ensure  universal  fitness  to  hold  office?  Cooper  concludes  these  omissions  

render  age  restrictions  indefensible  (Cooper).    

43  

An  AGE  amendment  would  have  similar  historical  precedent.  On  July  1,  1971,  38  

states  ratified  what  became  the  26th  Amendment  to  the  Constitution,  which  prohibited  

the  federal  government  or  state  governments  from  setting  a  voting  age  higher  than  18.  

The  Vietnam  War  was  the  impetus  behind  the  amendment,  as  young  men  under  21  

were  being  sent  to  fight  for  the  country  but  were  not  eligible  to  vote  in  most  states.  

Greater  pressure  was  put  on  the  federal  government  when  some  states  began  to  

change  their  own  eligibility  requirements,  which  would  have  necessitated  keeping  a  

separate  set  of  registration  rolls  for  state  and  federal  ballots.  This  change  is  ample  

evidence  that  “the  Constitution  has  not  fully  withstood  the  test  of  time  with  respect  to  

its  original  assumptions  and  requirements  about  age”  (Seery,  9).    

Yet  the  26th  Amendment  was  insufficient  in  addressing  the  underlying  problem,  

as  younger  voters  still  have  to  choose  between  older  candidates.  “[S]uffrage  matters,  

but  only  within  and  refracted  through  the  terms  of  representation”  (Seery,  51).  The  

same  argument  made  during  the  Vietnam  War  could  be  made  today.  Over  the  past  10  

years,  6,648  U.S.  service  members  have  died  as  part  of  Operation  Iraqi  Freedom  and  

Operation  Enduring  Freedom.  More  than  half  of  those  who  gave  their  lives  were  under  

the  age  of  25  (Faces).  Yet  not  one  member  of  Congress  from  this  same  age  cohort  was  

directly  involved  in  the  debate  or  at  the  decision-­‐making  table  in  the  federal  

government.  The  popular  slogan  of  the  youth  suffrage  movement  30  years  ago,  “Old  

enough  to  fight,  old  enough  to  vote”  could  easily  be  translated  into  a  modern  

equivalent:  “Old  enough  to  fight,  old  enough  to  run.”    

44  

  Most  other  countries  have  a  lower  age  of  eligibility  than  the  United  States  or  

have  begun  to  lower  the  threshold.  Of  22  advanced  democracies,  half  have  no  higher  

age  restriction  on  running  for  the  lower  house  of  government  than  the  voting  age.  Only  

Italy  and  Japan  restrict  the  age  as  high  as  the  United  States,  at  25  years  old  (Seery).  

Among  other  countries,  Britain  lowered  its  age  of  eligibility  from  21  to  18  based  on  a  

2004  report  by  the  British  Parliament’s  Electoral  Commission.  The  report  acknowledged  

that  the  principal  concern  in  determining  both  the  voting  age  and  age  of  candidacy  is  

ensuring  that  those  who  are  participating  in  the  democratic  process  have  obtained  

“sufficient  maturity.”  While  the  conventional  wisdom  is  that  more  maturity  is  required  

to  hold  office  than  to  vote  in  an  election,  the  report  noted:  “the  election  process  itself  

already  provides  a  far  more  subtle  and  flexible  mechanism  by  which  the  electorate  can  

prevent  candidates  they  consider  undesirable  or  inappropriate  from  obtaining  the  

power  of  elected  office.”  According  to  public  opinion  polling  in  Britain,  58  percent  

agreed  with  the  statement  that  if  you’re  old  enough  to  vote,  you’re  old  enough  to  be  a  

candidate  (The  Electoral  Commission).  

  At  the  very  least,  a  similar  process  could  be  followed  in  the  United  States  in  the  

form  of  a  presidential  commission.  In  his  2013  State  of  the  Union  Address,  President  

Obama  announced  a  nonpartisan  commission  to  improve  the  experience  of  all  voters,  in  

response  to  complaints  about  long  lines  and  voter  access  in  the  2012  election.  The  

commission  was  established  by  executive  order  in  March  2013  and  will  be  co-­‐chaired  by  

top  campaign  attorneys  from  the  campaigns  of  Obama  and  his  opponent,  Mitt  Romney.  

A  similar  Presidential  Commission  on  the  Civic  Participation  of  Young  Americans  should  

45  

be  established  to  make  recommendations  of  how  to  lower  the  barriers  young  people  

face  in  voting,  running  for  office  and  other  forms  of  democratic  participation.  The  

commission  can  be  specifically  asked  to  evaluate  the  merits  of  an  AGE  Amendment.    

4.2  Campaign  Finance  Reform         As  discussed,  young  people  are  inherently  disadvantaged  by  the  high  costs  of  

running  for  office,  as  they  lack  access  to  wealth  on  a  personal  level  and  within  their  

network  of  peers.  Implementing  a  system  of  voluntary  public  financing  of  federal  

campaigns  could  serve  the  dual  purpose  of  empowering  young  candidates  and  lessening  

the  corrupting  influence  of  money  in  politics  by  leveling  the  playing  field  between  an  

incumbent  and  a  potential  challenger.    

  First,  Congress  should  implement  a  system  of  voluntary  public  financing  based  

on  universally  distributed  “democracy  vouchers”  —  essentially  a  tax  rebate  of  $50  for  

every  registered  voter  in  America.  In  proposing  such  a  system,  professor  and  activist  

Lawrence  Lessig  explained:  “That  voucher  could  then  be  given  to  any  candidate  for  

Congress  who  agreed  to  one  simple  condition:  the  only  money  that  candidate  would  

accept  to  finance  his  or  her  campaign  would  be  either  ‘democracy  vouchers’  or  

contributions  from  citizens  capped  at  $100.  No  PAC  money.  No  $2,500  checks.  Small  

contributions  only”  (Lessig).  The  voucher  system  has  many  advantages:  it  is  premised  on  

empowerment,  not  restriction;  it  can  pass  constitutional  muster  since  it  is  totally  

voluntary;  it  is  a  system  of  public  financing  run  by  the  people,  not  a  central  bureaucracy.  

“The  voucher  plan  transforms  campaign  finance  from  an  inegalitarian  embarrassment  

into  a  new  occasion  for  civic  responsibility”  (Ackerman).  Most  importantly,  this  system  

46  

can  help  young  candidates  raise  contributions  from  other  young  people  who  otherwise  

have  fewer  resources  to  donate  and  limit  the  amount  of  money  participating  incumbent  

candidates  can  raise  in  large  quantities  from  political  action  committees,  corporations  

and  wealthy  contributors.    

  Second,  Congress  should  pass  a  law  prohibiting  any  candidate  from  spending  

money  in  a  current  election  cycle  that  was  raised  during  a  previous  election  cycle.  

Candidates  roll  over  enormous  amounts  of  money  from  one  cycle  to  the  next,  giving  

incumbents  a  built-­‐in  advantage  over  new  (including  young)  candidates  and  the  ability  

to  scare  off  challengers.  At  the  end  of  the  2012  election  cycle,  the  average  member  of  

Congress  raised  $1.78  million,  spent  $1.69  million  and  had  $395,075  cash  on  hand  —  for  

a  total  of  $172  million  cash  on  hand  going  into  the  2014  election  cycle  (Open  Secrets).  A  

new  law  could  require  all  candidate  committees  to  either  refund  this  money,  donate  it  

to  a  qualified  charity  or,  if  the  previous  proposed  law  is  simultaneously  enacted,  roll  

over  the  funds  into  the  democracy  voucher  program.  In  2011,  Rep.  Rob  Woodall  (R-­‐Ga.)  

introduced  the  Competitive  Elections  Act  (HR  2788)  for  a  similar  purpose.      

4.3  Civic  Education         Young  people’s  retreat  from  politics  can  potentially  be  reversed  if  a  greater  

sense  of  civic  obligation  and  political  efficacy  were  cultivated  from  a  younger  age.  Civic  

skills  and  behaviors  are  not  passed  from  one  American  generation  to  another  in  our  

DNA  ––  they  are  taught,  experienced  and  learned.  Indeed,  the  central  purpose  of  public  

education,  as  viewed  by  the  Founders,  was  to  help  foster  an  informed,  educated  and  

engaged  society.  Various  studies  have  shown  that  effective  civic  learning  increases  the  

47  

democratic  accountability  of  elected  officials,  improves  public  discourse  and  promotes  

civic  equality  “by  giving  every  citizen,  regardless  of  background,  the  tools  to  be  a  full  

participant”  (Guardians).  “[I]t  takes  deliberate  efforts  to  prepare  young  people  to  

participate  effectively  and  wisely  in  public  life”  (Levine).  However,  formal  civic  education  

inside  the  classroom  and  opportunities  for  civic  learning  outside  the  classroom  have  

been  directly  reduced  and  indirectly  crowded  out  by  other  priorities,  such  as  in  math  

and  science.  In  2010,  only  67  percent  of  12th  graders  reported  studying  the  U.S.  

Constitution  while  in  school.  In  2013,  the  U.S.  Department  of  Education  opted  to  end  

the  national  exam  in  civics  and  U.S.  history,  as  part  of  the  National  Assessment  of  

Educational  Progress  ––  which  will  surely  lead  to  even  less  civics  instruction  in  schools  

across  the  country  (Miller).        

Restoring  a  prominent  role  for  civic  education  and  related  experiential  

opportunities,  such  as  elected  student  councils  and  student  advisory  committees,  can  

play  a  crucial  role  in  reviving  young  Americans’  civic  behaviors.  Instead  of  being  turned  

away  from  political  engagement,  young  people  who  have  been  exposed  to  this  

information  and  these  activities  may  be  more  likely  to  be  involved  as  voters,  advocates  

and  even  as  candidates  when  they  leave  school.  To  this  end,  local  school  boards  should  

(i)  embed  their  civic  mission  into  their  own  mission  statement,  (ii)  incorporate  civic  

learning  across  the  curriculum  as  an  interdisciplinary  subject,  (iii)  provide  opportunities  

for  students  to  practice  civic  skills  in  school  governance,  (iv)  include  metrics  of  civic  

learning  in  their  report  cards  and  (v)  devote  resources  for  ongoing  professional  

development  of  social  studies/civics  teachers  (Guardians).  

48  

4.4  Political  Organization  (Teach  For  America  +  EMILY’s  List)       Those  who  care  about  seeing  more  young  people  run  and  get  elected  to  office  

should  not  wait  around  for  a  constitutional  AGE  amendment  or  various  government  

reforms.  They  should  band  together  to  form  an  organization  that  recruits,  trains  and  

supports  young  candidates,  starting  as  soon  as  the  2014  election  cycle.  This  organization  

might  be  thought  of  as  a  cross  between  Teach  For  America  and  EMILY’s  List.    

First  and  foremost,  the  organization  would  reframe  running  for  office  as  true  

public  service  that  is  as  worthy  of  young  people’s  time  and  effort  as  other  kinds  of  

service  ––  such  as  teaching,  mentoring  and  volunteering.  Campaigns  for  Congress  could  

be  reimagined  as  one-­‐year  commitments  of  service,  where  candidates  are  engaged  in  

renewing  our  democracy  as  a  candidate  by  educating  the  public  about  the  challenges  

we  face,  developing  solutions  to  systemic  problems  and  engaging  new  citizens  as  

volunteers  and  voters.  In  this  context,  candidates  can  potentially  find  value  in  running  

for  office  even  if  they  are  not  elected.  Further,  the  organization  could  donate  and/or  

bundle  enough  funds  to  the  candidate’s  campaign  committee  to  provide  the  candidate  

with  a  living  stipend,  which  is  fully  legal  but  not  frequently  utilized  by  candidates  

present  day.  This  approach  would  drastically  lower,  especially  on  the  federal  level,  both  

the  financial  and  psychological  barrier  to  entry  for  young  candidates,  who  otherwise  do  

not  have  the  personal  resources  or  the  desire  to  be  a  candidate.    

The  organization  could  also  serve  as  an  electoral  mobilization  tool  by  identifying  

young  people  with  the  credibility  and  experience  to  run  for  office  (such  as  

entrepreneurs,  veterans,  civic  leaders,  service  program  alumni,  state/local  young  

49  

elected  officials),  training  them  as  candidates  for  federal  office,  serving  as  a  consultancy  

to  develop  their  campaign  and  staff  and  helping  to  raise  money  from  a  national  network  

of  young  and  young-­‐at-­‐heart  Americans  who  support  the  mission.  Although  it  

champions  a  clear  political  agenda,  EMILY’s  List  provides  the  ideal  model.  Since  its  

founding  in  1985,  the  organization  has  used  the  Early  Money  Is  Like  Yeast  philosophy  to  

help  elect  101  pro-­‐choice  Democratic  women  members  of  Congress,  19  senators,  10  

governors  and  hundreds  of  local  and  state  candidates.  States  the  group’s  website:  “We  

are  continually  making  investments  to  help  women  develop  political  skills  and  cultivate  

resources  so  that  we  can  bring  more  women  into  politics  and  elected  office.”    

In  the  near  term,  such  an  organization  can  have  the  greatest  impact  in  helping  to  

increase  youth  representation  in  Congress.  And  in  an  age  when  barriers  to  

communication  and  collaboration  have  largely  collapsed  as  a  result  of  social  technology,  

such  an  organization  can  rely  on  the  small  contributions  of  millions  of  young  people  

(rather  than  the  contributions  of  millions  from  a  small  group  of  wealthy  people)  in  order  

to  completely  change  politics  as  usual.  

       

50  

Conclusion       The  argument  of  this  paper  is  not  that  young  people  must  be  proportionately  

represented  in  government  ––  rather,  my  argument  is  that  it  would  good  for  the  next  

generation,  and  more  importantly,  good  for  our  democracy  today  if  the  representation  

of  young  people  were  dramatically  increased  over  time  and  especially  in  Congress.  What  

this  paper  seeks  is  the  opportunity  for  exceptional  young  leaders  to  provide  a  service  to  

their  country  as  elected  officials  in  order  to  represent  the  unique  perspective  and  

interests  of  their  generation,  signal  to  their  peers  that  political  involvement  is  expected  

and  important,  and  encourage  intergenerational  justice  in  public  policy.    

Ultimately,  electing  young  leaders  of  the  millennial  generation  to  office  on  the  

local,  state  and  federal  levels  may  be  key  to  confronting  America’s  sustainability  

challenges  during  this  time  of  hyper-­‐partisanship  and  political  gridlock.  These  leaders  

are  focused  on  the  future,  transcend  ideological  divides  and  are  capable  of  bringing  a  

renewed  sense  of  public  service  to  politics.  Now,  it  is  up  to  us  to  clear  the  way  by  

reforming  our  governing  institutions,  revamping  our  educational  programs  and  investing  

in  the  talent  that  already  exists  among  us.  The  status  quo  of  an  aging  governing  class,  

paralyzed  by  partisan  divisions  and  operating  without  incentives  for  short-­‐term  action  

on  long-­‐term  problems  should  be  an  unacceptable  option  ––  as  the  rise  of  an  American  

gerontocracy  would  surely  lead  to  the  fall  of  our  democracy.    

51  

Works  Cited    Ackerman,  Bruce.  “Crediting  the  Voters:  A  New  Beginning  for  Campaign  Finance.”  The    

American  Prospect.  December  19,  2011.  <http://prospect.org/article/crediting-­‐voters-­‐new-­‐beginning-­‐campaign-­‐finance>  

 Amer,  Mildred.  “Membership  of  the  111th  Congress:  A  Profile.”  Congressional  Research    

Service.  December  31,  2008.    Ansolabehere,  Stephen  and  James  M.  Snyder.  “The  Incumbency  Advantage  in  U.S.    

Elections:  An  Analysis  of  State  and  Federal  Offices,  1942–2000.”  Election  Law  Journal:  Rules,  Politics,  and  Policy,  Vol.  1,  No.  3  (2004):  315–38.  

 Antholis,  William  and  Strobe  Talbott.  Fast  Forward:  Ethics  and  Politics  in  the  Age  of  

Global  Warming.  Brookings  Institution  Press:  2010.    Batini,  Nicoletta  and  Giovanni  Callegari.  “Balancing  the  Burden.”  International  Monetary    

Fund.  Finance  and  Development,  Vol.  48,  No.  2  (June  2011).    

Bratton,  Kathleen  and  Leonard  P.  Ray.  “Descriptive  Representation,  Policy  Outcomes,    and  Municipal  Day-­‐Care  Coverage  in  Norway.”  American  Journal  of  Political  Science,  Vol.  46,  No.  2  (April  2002):  428–37.  

 Burstein,  David.  Fast  Future:  How  the  Millennial  Generation  Is  Shaping  Our  World.    

Beacon  Press:  2013.      Busemeyer,  Marius.  “Demands  for  Redistributive  Policies  in  an  Era  of  Demographic    

Aging.”  Max  Planck  Institute  for  the  Study  of  Societies.  March  2008.    Coda,  Marc.  Personal  interview.  May  19,  2013.      Colby,  Jennifer.  “The  Grayest  Congress.”  NBC  News.  <http://www.nbcnews.com/id/  

15348258/ns/politics/t/grayest-­‐congress/#.  Ub5PQPacNGF>    Cooper,  William.  “A  Reappraisal  of  Constitutional  Age  Requirements  for  Congress  and    

the  President.”  Congress  and  the  Presidency,  Vol.  15,  No.  1  (Spring  1988).      Degnan,  Evan.  “Why  We  Support  Young  Candidates.”  BlueNC.  February  28,  2012.    

<http://www.bluenc.com/why-­‐we-­‐support-­‐young-­‐candidates>    Eagleton  Institute  of  Politics.  “About  the  Young  Elected  Leaders  Project.”  Rutgers  

University.  2002a.  <http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/programs/yppp/yelpreports.php>  

 

52  

Eagleton  Institute  of  Politics.  “Young  Elected  Leaders  Are  Few  and  Familiar.”  Rutgers    University.  2002b.  <http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/programs/yppp/  Yelpreports.php>  

 Eagleton  Institute  of  Politics.  “Young  Elected  Leaders  in  History.”  Rutgers  University.  

2002c.  <http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/programs/yppp/yelpreports.php>    Eagleton  Institute  of  Politics.  “What  Makes  Young  People  Run?”  Rutgers  University.  

2002d.  <http://www.eagleton.rutgers.edu/programs/yppp/yelpreports.php>    The  Electoral  Commission.  “Age  of  Electoral  Majority:  Report  and  Recommendations.”    

April  2004.  <Image.guardian.co.uk/sys-­‐files/Politics/.../04/.../electoral_commission.pdf�>  

   “Faces  of  the  Fallen.”  Washington  Post.  June  23,  2013.    

<http://apps.washingtonpost.com/national/fallen/>    Fiorina,  Morris  P.  Congress:  Keystone  of  the  Washington  Establishment.  

Yale  University  Press:  1989.    Fowler,  Derek,  Jennifer  L.  Merolla  and  Abbylin  H.  Sellers.  “The  Effects  of  Descriptive    

Representation  on  Political  Attitudes  and  Behaviors.”      Frantzich,  Stephen  and  Steven  Schier.  Congress:  Games  and  Strategies.  

<http://books.google.com/books?id=BAfk162gUQgC&pg=PA107#v=onepage&q&f=false>  

 Gallup.  “Americans  Divided  on  Outlook  for  Next  Generation.”  January  8,  2013.    

<http://www.gallup.com/poll/159737/americans-­‐divided-­‐outlook-­‐next-­‐generation.aspx>  

 Glassman,  Matthew.  “Congressional  Careers:  Service  Tenure  and  Patterns  of  Member    

Service,  1789–2011.”  Congressional  Research  Service.      “Guardians  of  Democracy.”  Campaign  for  the  Civic  Mission  of  Schools.  2011.    Johnson,  Benny.  “Congressman  Knows  How  to  Solve  All  of  America’s  Problems  in  24    

Hours.”  Buzzfeed.  February  20,  2013.  http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/  congressman-­‐knows-­‐how-­‐to-­‐solve-­‐all-­‐of-­‐americas-­‐problems-­‐in-­‐2>    

 Kirby,  Emily  and  Kei  Kawashima-­‐Ginsberg.  “The  Youth  Vote  in  2008.”  CIRCLE.  August  17,    

2009.  <http://www.civicyouth.org/new-­‐census-­‐data-­‐confirm-­‐increase-­‐in-­‐youth-­‐voter-­‐turnout-­‐in-­‐2008-­‐election/>    

53  

Konst,  Nomiki.  Personal  interview.  May  19,  2013.      Kotlikoff,  Laurence  and  Scott  Burns.  The  Clash  of  Generations:  Saving  Ourselves,  Our    

Kids,  and  Our  Economy.  MIT  Press:  2012.    Lessig,  Lawrence.  “More  Money  Can  Beat  Big  Money.”  New  York  Times.  November  16,  

2011.  <http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/opinion/in-­‐campaign-­‐financing-­‐more-­‐money-­‐can-­‐beat-­‐big-­‐money.html>  

 Levine,  Peter.  The  Future  of  Democracy:  Developing  the  Next  Generation  of  American    

Citizens.  University  Press  of  England:  2007.      

“List  of  current  House  members  by  age.”  Wikipedia.  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/  Current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives>  

 “List  of  current  Senate  members  by  age.”  Wikipedia.  <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/  

List_of_current_United_States_Senators>    Liu,  Eric.  “The  Millennial  Generation  Can  Lead  Us  Out  of  Gridlock  Read.”  Time.  March  3,    

2013.  <http://ideas.time.com/2013/03/12/viewpoint-­‐the-­‐millennial-­‐generation-­‐can-­‐lead-­‐us-­‐out-­‐of-­‐gridlock/#ixzz2WJXm0HRY>  

 MacManus,  Susan.  Young  v.  Old:  Generational  Combat  in  the  21st  Century.  Westview    

Press:  1996.    Magee,  Christopher.  “The  Incumbent  Spending  Puzzle.”  Social  Science  Quarterly,  Vol.  93,  

No.  4  (2012):  932–49.      Mayhew,  David.  1974.  "Congressional  Elections:  The  Case  of  the  Vanishing  Marginals."    

Polity,  Vol.  6:  295–317.    McDonald,  Michael.  “Voter  Turnout  in  the  2010  Midterm  Election.”  The  Forum,  Volume  

8,  Issue  4  (2010).    Miller,  Cheryl  and  Gary  Schmitt.  “Does  Obama  Care  that  U.S.  Students  Aren’t  Prepared  

to  Be  U.S.  Citizens?”  Christian  Science  Monitor.  June  21,  2013.  <http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2013/0621/Does-­‐Obama-­‐care-­‐that-­‐US-­‐students-­‐aren-­‐t-­‐prepared-­‐to-­‐be-­‐US-­‐citizens>  

 Norris,  Pippa  and  Mona  Lena  Krook.  “One  of  Us:  Multilevel  Models  Examining  the  

Impact  of  Descriptive  Representation  on  Civic  Engagement.”  Paper  presented  as  APSA  meeting  in  Toronto,  2009.  

 Open  Secrets.  “Stats  at  a  Glance:  Financial  Activity  for  All  U.S.  Representatives,  2011–  

54  

2012.”  <http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/index.php?  cycle=2012&type=M&display=T>  

 Palmer,  Brian.  “Democracy  or  Gerontocracy:  Is  Congress  Getting  Older?”  Slate.  January  

2,  2013.    <http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/01/average_age_of_members_of_u_s_congress_are_our_senators_and_representatives.html>  

 Pew  Research  Center’s  Forum  on  Religion  &  Public  Life.  “Changing  Attitudes  on  Gay  

Marriage.”  June  2013.  <http://features.pewforum.org/same-­‐sex-­‐marriage-­‐attitudes/slide2.php>  

 Pew  Research  Center  for  the  People  &  the  Press.  “Majority  Now  Supports  Legalizing  

Marijuana.”  April  4,  2013.  <http://www.people-­‐press.org/2013/04/04/majority-­‐now-­‐supports-­‐legalizing-­‐marijuana/>    

 Pew  Research  Center’s  Social  &  Demographic  Trends  project.  “The  Big  Generation  Gap  

at  the  Polls  Is  Echoed  in  Attitudes  on  Budget  Tradeoffs.”  December  20,  2012.  <http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2012/12/20/the-­‐big-­‐generation-­‐gap-­‐at-­‐the-­‐polls-­‐is-­‐echoed-­‐in-­‐attitudes-­‐on-­‐budget-­‐tradeoffs/>    

 Pew  Research  Center  for  the  People  &  the  Press.  “The  Generation  Gap  and  the  2012  

Election.”  November  3,  2011.  <http://www.people-­‐press.org/2011/11/03/section-­‐6-­‐generations-­‐and-­‐entitlements/>  

 Piliavin,  Jane.  “Age,  Race,  and  Sex  Similarity  to  Candidates  and  Voting  Preference.”    

Journal  of  Applied  Social  Psychology,  Vol.  17,  No.  4  (1987):  351–68.    Rock  the  Vote.  “Youth  Vote  Rivals  Largest  in  American  History.”  November  5,  2008.    

<http://www.rockthevote.com/about/press-­‐room/press-­‐releases/youth-­‐vote-­‐rivals-­‐largest-­‐in.html>  

 Rosenstone,  Steven  and  John  Hansen.  Mobilization,  Participation  and  Democracy  in    

America.  Longman:  2003.    Schock,  Aaron.  Personal  interview.  June  13,  2013.    Seery,  John.  Too  Young  to  Run.  Pennsylvania  State  University  Press:  2011.      Sigelman,  Lee  and  Carol  K.  Sigelman.  “Sexism,  Racism  and  Ageism  in  Voting  Behavior:  An    

Experimental  Analysis.”  Social  Psychology  Quarterly,  Vol.  45,  No.  4  (December  1982):  263–69.      

55  

Stolberg,  Sheryln.  “For  ‘Millennials,’  a  Tide  of  Cynicism  and  a  Partisan  Gap.”  New  York       Times.  April  29,  2013.  <http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/us/politics/     for-­‐millennial-­‐voters-­‐a-­‐tide-­‐of-­‐cynicism-­‐toward-­‐politics.html?_r=0>      Stuerele,  Eugene.  “Lost  Generations?  Wealth  Building  among  Young  Americans.”  Urban       Institute.  March  13,  2013.  <http://www.urban.org/publications/     412766.html>    Tepe,  Markus  and  Pieter  Vanhuysse.  “Are  Aging  OECD  Welfare  States  on  the  Path  to  the    

Politics  of  Gerontocracy?”  Journal  of  Public  Policy,  Vol.  29  (2009).      Ueda,  Michiko.  “The  Impact  of  Minority  Representation  on  Policy  Outcomes:  Evidence    

from  the  U.S.  States.”  California  Institute  of  Technology.  March  2008.    USA  Today.  “Ex-­‐Lawmakers  Go  to  Lobbying-­‐Related  Jobs.”  March  26,  2013.    

<http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/03/25/former-­‐lawmakers-­‐lobbying-­‐jobs/2011325/>.    

U.S.    Census  Bureau.  “Age  and  Sex  Composition  in  the  United  States  in  2011.”    <http://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2011comp.html>.    

U.S.  Census  Bureau.  “Elections:  Voting-­‐Age  Population  and  Voter  Participation.”  2012.  <http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/elections/voting-­‐age_population_and_voter_participation.html>.  

 U.S.  Census  Bureau.  “The  Next  Four  Decades.”  May  2010.      Van  Parijs,  Philippe.  “The  Disfranchisement  of  the  Elderly,  and  Other  Attempts  to  Secure  

Intergenerational  Justice.”  Philosophy  and  Public  Affairs,  Vol.  27,  No.  4  (Autumn  1998):  292–333.  

 Wall  Street  Journal.  “The  Capitol’s  Age  Pyramid:  A  Graying  Congress.”  October  13,  2010.  

<http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-­‐CONGRESS_AGES_1009.html>  

 Winograd,  Morley  and  Michael  Hais.  “Millennials  Are  Looking  for  Something  Completely    

Different.”  Millennial  Makeover.  August  12,  2010.  <http://www.millennialmakeover.com/Articles/Millennials%20Are%20Looking%20for%20Something%20Completely%20Different.htm>  

 Wolbrecht,  Christina  and  David  E.  Campbell.  “Leading  by  Example:  Female    

Members  of  Parliament  as  Political  Role  Models.”  American  Journal  of  Political  Science,  Vol.  51,  No.  4  (October  2007):  921–39.