Reviews

The People's Perspective on the Size of the People's House

Description
The People's Perspective on the Size of the People's House
Categories
Published
of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
   The People’s Perspective on the Size of thePeople’s House Brian Frederick, Bridgewater State College  T he quality of representation the citi-zenry receives from its political lead-ers is central to evaluating the characterof any democratic institution. Moreover,the number of elected members thatcomprise an institution can be vital indetermining whether citizens have accessto and can influence the decisions of their representatives ~ Dahl and Tufte1973 ! . The United States House of Rep-resentatives has been frozen at 435 mem-bers for almost a century. This durabilityof this alignment is astonishing; in itsfirst century of existence, the U.S. Houseexperienced a virtually uninterruptedstring of decennial increases in its mem-bership. Despite the magnitude of theeffects of this stasis on representation,political scientists have not extensivelyexamined this subject ~ Squire and Hamm2005 ! . 1 While the House has remainedconstant in size for nearly 100 years, thenation’s population has grown by morethan 200% over this duration. Membersof the House on average represent morethan 600,000 citizens; a figure that in-creases with population growth as longas the size of the body remains constant.This development has sparked a debateamong some observers about whether itis time to increase the size of the Houseof Representatives.On one side of the debate are the pro-ponents of an enlargement in the mem-bership of the House as a means toimprove the quality of representationcitizens receive ~ Glassman 1990; Jacoby2005; Kromkowski and Kromkowski1991, 1992; Lijphart 2000; Lucas andMcDonald 2000; Yates 1992 ! . Primarily,these advocates claim that failure to ad- just the size of the House consistent withU.S. population growth has created con-gressional districts that are too heavilypopulated for House members to ade-quately represent their constituents in theareas of policy and service responsive-ness. They also contend that boosting themembership of the House would provideadditional opportunities to elect womenand minorities to the body. Furthermore,they suggest that taking this step wouldprevent states growing at a rate less thanthe national average from losing seats insubsequent rounds of reapportionment.Shifting migration patterns have costmany states in the Northeast and Mid-west representation in the House over thecourse of the last half century. While oneessay lists a total of 25 reasons to in-crease the size of the U.S. House ~ Kromkowski and Kromkowski 1991 ! ,the preceding justifications are empha-sized as particularly important by advo-cates of this cause.On any question of institutional designthere is an imperative to balance theneed to provide representation againstoperational efficiency ~ Buchanan andTullock 1962; Polsby 1968; Shepsle1988; Willoughby 1934 ! . Any legislativebody must be responsive to multiple in-terests in society, but it must also operatein an efficient manner so it can carry outits policy making responsibilities. Oppo-nents argue that while enlarging theHouse might have benefits for represen-tation, doing so would disrupt legislativeoperations in the chamber. This moreunwieldy legislative environment wouldundermine communication and delibera-tion among members and make buildingcoalitions in the House a more oneroustask  ~ Evans and Oleszek 2000; Overby1992 ! . Detractors also cite other con-cerns, including increased costs and lack of existing infrastructure needed to ac-commodate an addition of members andstaff.There has been recent legislative ac-tion to adjust the size of the House in the110 th Congress. On April 19, 2007,members of the House approved a two-seat increase in the size of the institutionto provide a voting member for the resi-dents of the District of Columbia. Thisproposal marked the first time sinceAlaska and Hawaii entered the Unionthat Congress has seriously debated anupward adjustment in the size of thenation’s lower legislative body. However,on September 18, 2007, the bill died atthe hands of a Senate filibuster ~ Sheridan2007 ! .Despite the potential consequences forrepresentation when a national legisla-tive body remains constant in size dur-ing a period of extended populationexpansion, there has been little consider-ation of public opinion on this issue. DoU.S. citizens approve of the current sizeof the House, even if it means a dimin-ished capacity for representation? Publicattitudes toward numerous aspects of American political institutions are lim-ited in scope, although some issues,such as term limits for members of Congress, have been polled extensively.Institutional size is a domain that hasreceived scant attention from survey re-searchers. Moreover, there has been acomplete absence of survey data probingattitudes about the size of the U.S.House and the average number of constituents per congressional district.This article fills this void by presentingthe responses to questions on thesetopics from a national survey adminis-tered by Knowledge Networks of 1,020Americans. Questions Utilized forThis Study In undertaking an effort to empiricallyinvestigate attitudes toward the size of the U.S. House and the growth in themean congressional district populationsize, there are no benchmark surveyquestions from which to take guidance.The Knowledge Networks’ survey ques-tions deal with the tradeoff between rep-resentation and legislative efficiency, lossof representation for certain states due tomigration, and descriptive representationfor minorities and women in the House.From September 13 to September 19,2006, Knowledge Networks administeredthe survey to 1,425 of its members. Theresults presented in this study are basedon responses from the 1,020 panel mem-bers who completed the survey, repre-senting a 71.6% response rate. 2 Prior to a delineation of the rationalefor the choice of questions, a brief expla-nation of the survey methodology em-ployed by Knowledge Networks is apt. Knowledge Networks creates a panel em-ploying probability-sampling techniques. Brian Frederick  is an assistant professor of political science at Bridgewater State College in Massachusetts. His research fo-cuses on the U.S. Congress, women and politics, and judicial elections. He can be reached at: brian.frederick@bridgew.edu. PS Online  www.apsanet.org doi: 10.1017/S1049096508080517 329  Recruited by random-digit dialing overthe telephone, the Knowledge Networks panel is the only online consumer panelthat represents those individuals who doand those that do not have Internet ac-cess. Knowledge Networks supplies In-ternet technology to the roughly 30% of panel members who do not have Internetaccess at home. Previous studies haveshown that panel data from Knowledge Networks is in some cases more reliablethan findings from other, more tradi-tional, research companies ~ Krosnick andChang 2001 ! . Survey results gathered by Knowledge Networks have been used ina number of political science studies inrecent years. 3 Thus one can have confi-dence that the results reported here arean accurate estimate of public opinion onthis topic. 4 An overarching theme throughout thisdebate revolves around the tradeoff be-tween a small legislative chamber and alarger constituency size and large legisla-tive chamber and a smaller constituencysize. A small chamber may facilitate amore efficient legislative process, while alarger chamber is more representative incharacter ~ Willoughby 1934 ! . This trade-off forms the basis for the first surveyquestion. Because of the rudimentaryknowledge many U.S. citizens displaytoward U.S. institutions ~ Delli Carpiniand Keeter 1996 ! , the question is pref-aced with a brief explanation of thechanges in the size of the U.S. Houseand the average population of congres-sional districts. In doing so, each side of the tradeoff debate is included. The textof the question follows: When the U.S. House of Representa-tives was first constituted it consisted of 65 members with each congressionaldistrict having approximately 30,000people. As you may know, the House of Representatives has grown to 435 mem-bers with each member representingapproximately 640,000 people. Somehave argued that the number of repre-sentatives should be increased so thateach member would represent fewerpeople, would be closer to the peopleand provide better representation. Othershave argued that a House of Represen-tatives with greater than 435 memberswould be more costly and make thelegislative process less efficient. In youropinion, should the size of the Housebe: ~ 1 ! increased, ~ 2 ! kept at its currentsize, ~ 3 ! decreased. Providing a detailed question that of-fers each of the major arguments onboth sides of the debate allows for anuanced understanding of public atti-tudes. Those citizens inclined towardwanting a greater emphasis on additionalrepresentation through institutional re-forms should support an increase, whilethose concerned with gridlock and thecost of government should voice prefer-ence for maintenance of the status quoor even reduction. Though most of thedebate centers on an increase beyond435 members, some Americans may findreduction an appealing option. Indeed, afew commentators have urged consider-ation of cutting back the size of theU.S. House ~ Proxmire 1989; Silverman1991 ! .The remaining survey items investigatetwo of the other representational issuesthat have arisen from a cap on the size of the U.S. House. One of the most conspic-uous consequences of the 435-seat limitpertains to geographic representation.Several states have lost seats in theHouse over the past century. Preventingthis practice from continuing has beenone of the most prominent argumentsadvanced by promoters of House enlarge-ment ~ Kromkowski and Kromkowski1991; Yates 1992 ! . There has been a visi-ble decline in the number of House seatsfor the states in the Midwestern andNortheastern regions, despite the fact thepopulation of these states has continuedto rise, albeit at a slower rate than thenational average. For instance, after the1910 reapportionment New York sent 43elected members to the U.S. House; fol-lowing the 2000 census that numberdropped to 29 seats. At one point in thelate Nineteenth and early Twentieth cen-turies, Congress routinely passed appor-tionment bills to prevent any state fromlosing seats in the House ~ Kromkowskiand Kromkowski 1991 ! . Would Ameri-cans favor a return to an apportionmentprocess that no longer allows states tosuffer a reduction in the number of seatsallocated to the U.S. House?The question gauging support for thisproposition reads: “After the U.S. censusis taken every ten years some states loseseats in the U.S. House of Representa-tives because their population growth isslower than the national rate. Would yousupport increasing the size of the Houseto prevent states from losing any seats?”This question serves as a straightforwardway to assess to what extent Americansare concerned that many states are losingrepresentation in the House due to the435-seat limit. One plausible expectationis that residents from the Northeast andMidwest may be more inclined to sup-port an increase due to the loss of seatsmany states in these regions have experi-enced over the past few decades thanwould citizens in other parts of the coun-try where population growth has beenmore robust.One of the major claims advanced byadvocates of an upward adjustment insize of the House is that it would increaserepresentation for women and minorities ~ Glassman 1990; Kromkowski andKromkowski 1991; Rule 1991; Yates1992 ! . The logic behind this argument isthat most members are elected to theHouse not by defeating a sitting incum-bent, but rather when a seat becomesopen either by retirement, resignation, ordeath. Women have traditionally madenoticeable gains in the first election fol-lowing reapportionment when there aremore open-seat contests ~ Burrell 1994 ! .After each census the number of newseats apportioned would rise, creatingadditional opportunities for women andminorities to run. It is easier to createmajority-minority districts likely to electAfrican Americans and Latinos in less-populated congressional districts. 5 TheAnti-federalists made descriptive repre-sentation one of the key components intheir argument that the srcinal size of theHouse was too small. They felt that thesrcinal size of the House failed to ensurethat a wide cross-section of individuals insociety would get adequate representationin the national legislative body closest tothe people ~ Zagarri 1987 ! .While the concept of descriptive rep-resentation is frowned upon by manynormative political theorists, Mansbridge ~ 1999 ! observes that it may allow forunarticulated interests to be heard inthe deliberative process and may givechances for members of groups systemat-ically excluded from full participation inpolitics to demonstrate their ability toparticipate effectively in the governingprocess. Furthermore, when racial con-gruity is present, citizens are more likelyto express approval of their representa-tives, all else equal ~ Box-Steffensmeier,Kimball, Meinke, and Tate 2003; Gay2002; Tate 2003 ! . The same relationshipexists for women represented by a fe-male member of Congress ~ Lawless2004b ! . Thus, enlarging the size of theHouse may increase the level of politicalefficacy underrepresented citizens feeltoward the political system. The thirdsurvey question discerned whether thereis support for increasing the size of theHouse on the basis of descriptive repre-sentation: “Some argue that increasingthe numerical size of the U.S. House of Representatives would create more op-portunities for members of underrepre-sented groups such as women and racialminorities to get elected. Would you bevery supportive, somewhat supportive,somewhat opposed or very opposed toincreasing the size of the House for thispurpose?” 6 Even if opposition existsamong the broader public to an increase 330 PS  April 2008  on these grounds, if those segments of society that have faced historical sys-temic barriers to full participation in theelectoral process communicate supportfor an increase, doing so could be ameaningful way to build political effi-cacy among these groups. Results  As a Legislative Tradeoff  The first set of results gauges publicsupport for an increase in the size of theU.S. House in the context of the legisla-tive tradeoff between efficiency andrepresentation. Table 1 reveals thatAmericans are solidly behind keeping theHouse at its present size. Overall, 61.9%of those surveyed selected that option,while only 18.9% favored an increase,and just 19.3% supported a reduction inthe membership of the body. There issome degree of variation across the sub-groups listed in Table 1. Conservatives,Republicans, and older citizens are lesslikely to favor an increase. 7 Conversely,liberals, African Americans, Hispanics,women, and younger people expressedthe highest levels of support for an in-crease. It has to be noted, however, thatfor each of these groups the support foran increase is less than 30% and the dis-parities between them is quite modest. Amajority of people in all categories fa-vors maintaining the present size of theHouse. There is minimal regional varia-tion contained in the results. Despite theextremely dim appraisal of the job Con-gress was doing at the time of this sur-vey, 8 Americans of all political stripes donot want to reduce the number of politi-cians they send to Washington. Theseresults buttress the conclusions of priorscholarship by illustrating strong supportfor the House as an institution, despitehostility toward the actions of the mem-bers who run and occupy it ~ Hibbing andTheiss-Morse 1995 ! . On the other hand,citizens are not willing to go along withan increase even if it would lead to animprovement of representation. To Prevent State Seat Loss The loss of seats by states in theNortheast and Midwest has been one of the centerpieces of the case advanced byadvocates of increasing the size of theU.S. House. According to the data con-tained in Table 2, Americans do not per-ceive this development as a compellingrationale to alter the size of the institu-tion. Altogether, 66.4% are against theidea on these grounds. This view is con-sistent among a broad cross-section of groups. Only African Americans givemajority support for an increase to pre-serve representation for the states. A siz-able racial gap is present in publicopinion on the question, with Whites22.5 points less supportive than AfricanAmericans. Considering that the questiondoes not touch on the subject of race,this divide among African Americans andWhites is quite startling. The results sug-gest that racial differences on issues of representation reach beyond topics di-rectly pertaining to race.While both liberals and conservativesare against the idea, there is a 15-pointdifference in the level of opposition, withconservatives more uniformly against it.Most women are also opposed, but thereis a substantial gender gap with femalerespondents approximately 17 pointsmore supportive than men. As with thefirst question, younger people are moresympathetic to the cause of maintainingrepresentation for states that would loseseats to reapportionment in the House.The results depicted in Table 2 also indi-cate negligible regional variation. South-erners are slightly more opposed thanindividuals living in other regions of thecountry, however, residents of the Midwest and Northeast stand solidly inopposition. Table 1Support for an Increase in the Size of the U.S. House toImprove Representation Respondents IncreaseKeep atPresent Size DecreaseAll 18.9 61.9 19.3 Party ID Republicans 11.3 70.2 18.5Democrats 23.7 58.0 18.3Independents/Other 22.7 54.3 23.0 Ideology Liberal 27.0 55.8 17.3Moderate 20.7 58.4 20.9Conservative 11.7 71.0 17.3 Gender Men 16.5 59.6 23.9Women 21.2 63.9 15.0 Race White 15.5 64.6 19.9Black 28.0 57.9 14.0Hispanic 23.4 56.5 20.2 Education Less Than High School 18.1 63.2 18.8High School 16.6 57.2 26.2Some College 22.1 59.0 18.8Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 18.6 69.5 11.9 Household Income Less than $50,000 20.6 59.1 20.2$50,000–75,000 15.0 64.7 20.3$75,000–100,000 14.3 74.0 11.7Greater than $100,000 19.9 60.8 19.3 Age 18–24 24.1 62.7 13.225–34 21.8 62.2 15.935–44 19.1 60.3 20.645–54 17.7 61.5 20.855–64 21.6 59.2 19.165 and Older 10.4 65.7 23.9 Region Northeast 19.7 55.9 24.4Midwest 17.5 66.2 16.3South 18.1 63.6 18.3West 20.7 59.7 19.6 Note:  Cell entries represent the percentage of respondents who fall within eachcategory. PS Online  www.apsanet.org 331  To Enhance Descriptive Representation Thus far the evidence presented in thisstudy indicates that there is minimal pub-lic enthusiasm for increasing the size of the House to improve the quality of rep-resentation its members provide or toend the practice of subtracting from theapportionment of seats from states withlagging population growth. This finalanalysis explores whether Americans arereceptive to enlarging the numericalcomposition of the House to enhance theprospects for women and minorities togain additional opportunities to serve inthe body. As shown inTable 3, there is almost asplit decision on thisquestion: 15.5% of re-spondents are very sup-portive of the idea;33.1% are somewhatsupportive. Collapsingthe response categoriesproduces a figure of 48.6% in support.Though a slight majorityremains opposed to anincrease, the cause of descriptive representa-tion generates the largestreservoir of support fromthe U.S. public on behalf of taking this policy ac-tion. Giving members of underrepresented groupsmore opportunities toserve in the House findsa receptive audienceamong some Americansnot persuaded about theneed for an increase forother reasons. Approxi-mately 17% of all re-spondents backed anincrease for the purposeof enhancing descriptiverepresentation, but didnot voice support whenanswering either of thefirst two questions. 9 Compared to the pre-vious two questions uti-lized for this study, thereare greater systematicdifferences in publicopinion among varioussegments of the popula-tion. These results con-firm the ideologicalrealignment in the elec-torate over the past gen-eration ~ Abramowitz andSaunders 1998 ! . Conser-vatives and Republicansare the least supportiveof a House size increase to improve de-scriptive representation, while most liber-als and Democrats take a diametricallyopposed position. Approximately two-thirds of Republicans and conservativesare against an increase on this basis;60% of Democrats and liberals expresssome form of support. The partisan andideological polarization on this issue sug-gests that a legislative proposal for anincrease for purposes of descriptive rep-resentation would not garner a bipartisanconsensus. These data lend credence tothe notion that racial issues are still animportant cleavage dividing party fol-lowers in the electorate ~ Carmines andStimson 1989 ! , contrary to the conclu-sions of some scholars who contend thatthese issues have faded in importance ~ Abramowitz 1994 ! .A further inspection of these datashows that a gender gap exists on thisquestion, just as it does on other policyissues ~ Sapiro 2002 ! . More women ~ 55.8% ! are behind the idea than men ~ 40.8% ! . This gap is substantial, but itpales in comparison to the racial gap onthis question. House enlargement to en-hance descriptive representation is sup-ported by over three quarters of AfricanAmericans and slightly greater than 55%of Hispanics. In contrast, only about42% of Whites offer some degree of sup-port. This cavernous divide, particularlybetween Blacks and Whites, is highlyillustrative of the different conceptionsconcerning matters of race and represen-tation still present in U.S. society. Afri-can Americans still feel that there arestrides that need to be made in openingup the political process, while mostWhite Americans do not see the sameneed to alter institutional arrangements tohelp the electoral prospects of womenand minorities. This question is anotherarea where racial division is present inpublic opinion, just as it is on a varietyof other issues ~ Kinder and Sanders1996 ! . Conclusion The absence of available survey datagauging public attitudes toward increas-ing the size of the U.S. House necessi-tated gathering a systematic estimate of where Americans stand on this crucialissue. Simply because national lawmak-ers have taken it off the decision agendadoes not mean it is unworthy of attentionfor survey researchers. The permanenceof the 435-seat threshold and public andattitudes toward it are deserving of em-pirical investigation. The evidence sup-plied in this study has gone a long waytoward expanding knowledge of publicopinion on this subject. Serious politicalobservers who have weighed in on thisdebate have not had the benefit of publicopinion data to shape their arguments.The results presented in this article showthat many of the individual reasons foran increase articulated by advocates of House enlargement do not reflect the willof the people, even if those supportersseek to improve the representative qual-ity of the institution. A larger House maybe more representative, but it representsa policy option that much of the publicholds in disfavor. However, even thoughin each instance a majority of respon-dents opposed an increase, taken togetherabout 55% of the individuals surveyed Table 2Support for Increasing the Size of theHouse to Prevent States from LosingSeats Respondents Support OpposeAll 33.6 66.4 Party ID Republicans 26.2 73.8Democrats 39.2 60.2Independents/Other 33.4 66.6 Ideology Liberal 41.2 58.8Moderate 36.2 63.8Conservative 25.2 74.2 Gender Men 24.8 75.2Women 41.7 58.3 Race White 30.2 69.8Black 52.7 47.3Hispanic 33.7 66.3 Education Less Than High School 39.9 60.1High School 34.8 65.2Some College 36.9 63.1Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 25.4 74.6 Household Income Less than $50,000 35.6 64.4$50,000–75,000 32.2 67.8$75,000–100,000 31.1 68.9Greater than $100,000 25.2 74.8 Region Northeast 34.4 65.6Midwest 36.0 64.0South 30.2 69.8West 36.1 63.9 Age 18–24 43.4 56.625–34 36.5 63.535–44 37.9 62.145–54 28.0 72.055–64 27.8 72.265 and Older 31.2 68.8 Note:  Cell entries represent the percentage of respon-dents who fall within each category. 332 PS  April 2008  backed an increase based on one of the justifications provided. Nevertheless, if members of Congress were to enact asizable increase in the size of the U.S.House, unless the case for this actionwas framed in a way that emphasized amultiplicity of reasons, it might provokea backlash and further undermine thelevel of trust in the nationalgovernment. 10 When the question providing each sideof the legislative tradeoff argument wasposed, the vast majority of citizens se-lected the status quo. Less than 20%want an increase in the size of the Housemembership even if it would helpcounter the growth in the average size of congressional districts and improve thequality of representation. In the minds of respondents, the financial costs and pos-sible damage to the legislative operationsof the U.S. House of Representativesoutweighed the possible benefits thatwould accrue for representation. TheU.S. public sees no pressing need for anexpansion of the House beyond the 435-seat limit. Americans are highly con-cerned with legislative stalemate inWashington ~ Hibbing and Theiss-Morse1995 ! , and this idea seems likely to in-tensify the problem in most people’seyes. It must also be noted in this discus-sion that there is also no clamor amongAmerican citizens for a decrease in thesize of the House. Most of the U.S. pub-lic is not reflexively anti-politician nordo they seek to make radical changes tothe institutions of the U.S. political sys-tem based on their dissatisfaction withthe behavior and motivations of membersof Congress.There is no widespread support for anincrease to remedy the recurring phe-nomenon of House seats being trans-ferred from the Midwest and Northeastto the South and West. Most Americanssee this outcome as a legitimate result of shifting migration patterns in the countryand harbor no desire to reverse it. Evenresidents in the slowest growing regionsof the country or in states that have hadtheir House delegations slashed due toreapportionment are not motivated tosupport House enlargement. It is a plau-sible argument that the issue is not par-ticularly salient to most Americans, andthat were political leaders in these statesto mount a concerted campaign tochange the existing policy, opinionwould shift in favor of an increase. Thatmay be a reasonable assumption regard-ing the citizens in states where popula-tion growth trails the national average,but not necessarily in the rest of thecountry. The more likely outcome is thatmost citizens in all states will continuevoicing opposition on these grounds, if they contemplate the issue at all. Geo-graphic representation in the context of increasing legislative size is poised togalvanize neither wide nor deep supportin the U.S. population.Without question, the reason for in-creasing the size of the House that gath-ered the highest level of support in thisstudy was the prospect that it would po-tentially enhance descriptive representa-tion for women and minorities. Though aslim majority was against an increase onthese grounds, the results revealed thatthis argument has resonance for manymembers of society. Women and minor-ity groups displayed the highest level of support for expansion for this reason.These results are an indication that thesegroups feel underrepresented in thenation’s political institutions and sensethat an increase in the size of the U.S.House of Representatives would increasethe possibility that they would be repre-sented by someone of their own socialgroup. Beyond a more ample level of support for this rationale, what distin-guished the responses to this questionwas the polarization it generated. Repub-licans and conservatives overwhelminglyreject this proposition, while Democratsand liberals openly embrace it. A similardivide is felt along racial and genderlines. Hence, the justification for increas-ing the size of the House that has the Table 3Support for an Increase in the Size of the House to Increasethe Chances of Women and Minorities Getting Elected RespondentsVerySupportiveSomewhatSupportiveSomewhatOpposedVeryOpposedAll 15.5 33.1 29.6 21.8 Party ID Republicans 8.2 25.7 35.2 30.9Democrats 22.2 37.5 27.1 13.1Independents/Other 14.0 37.5 24.4 24.0 Ideology Liberal 24.7 37.1 24.1 14.0Moderate 14.5 42.7 24.3 18.5Conservative 10.4 20.5 38.4 30.7 Gender Men 12.8 28.0 33.6 25.6Women 18.0 37.8 26.0 18.1 Race White 11.0 31.3 32.2 25.5Black 33.9 42.9 15.7 7.5Hispanic 23.6 31.6 27.8 17.0 Education Less than High School 16.1 37.1 27.2 19.6High School 13.3 33.9 30.4 22.4Some College 19.0 28.9 32.0 20.1Bachelor’s Degree or Higher 14.1 34.2 27.7 24.0 Household Income Less than $50,000 16.6 34.9 30.7 17.8$50,000–75,000 14.1 33.0 26.2 26.7$75,000–100,000 11.2 33.1 28.9 26.7Greater than $100,000 15.6 20.5 30.3 33.6 Region Northeast 14.8 27.5 31.2 26.5Midwest 12.0 34.1 31.6 22.3South 17.2 34.3 29.9 18.6West 16.7 34.8 26.0 22.5 Age 18–24 31.1 33.0 21.0 15.025–34 15.1 38.3 35.4 11.235–44 14.3 38.6 26.5 20.545–54 13.4 41.3 24.3 21.055–64 17.1 20.9 30.4 31.565 and Older 8.5 21.7 33.3 36.6 Note:  Cell entries represent the percentage of respondents who fall within eachcategory. PS Online  www.apsanet.org 333
Search
Similar documents
View more...
Tags
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks