Chapter 1 POSI

Generational Cohorts (Slide 2)

  • Concept: Generational cohorts are not scientifically defined; they are broad generalizations about groups born in similar time frames.
  • Limitations: Not precise or universally agreed upon; stereotypes may oversimplify and carry biases (e.g., upper-class bias).
  • Utility: Despite limitations, trends within cohorts can be useful for analysis; people change over time, so cohort characteristics are not fixed.

Generational Composition (Slide 3)

  • Generational birth ranges shown:
    • Gen Z: Born Between 19951995-20152015
    • Millennials: Born Between 19801980-19941994
    • Gen X: Born Between 19651965-19791979
    • Baby Boomers: Born Between 19441944-19641964
    • Greatest Generation: Earlier birth years (not fully shown in transcript)
  • Estimated share of the population by generation (approximate from chart):
    • Gen Z: 2424%
    • Millennials: 2020%
    • Gen X: 99%
    • Baby Boomers: 2626%
    • Greatest Generation: 2222%
  • A lighthearted caption during discussion: “When everyone’s making fun of the Millennials but you’re Generation Z and turning adult next year…” (illustrative meme referenced in slide)

Millennials (Slide 4)

  • Millennials: Born in the 1980s–1990s; roughly 4545–3030 years old at time of slide
  • Characteristics:
    • More diverse ethnically, racially, and religiously than Gen X
    • More tolerant of diversity
    • Perceived as less Cynical than previous generations

Gen Z and Ethnic Composition (Slide 5)

  • One notable statistic: One-in-four members of Gen Z are Hispanic (i.e., ~2525%
    of Gen Z identified as Hispanic)
  • Gen Z birth years: 19951995-20152015; Gen Z is the cohort discussed in the racial/ethnic breakdown
  • The slide contrasts generation-wide trends and includes a Pew Research Center data source; specific racial composition by generation is shown in a Pew graphic (exact category percentages per group vary by year shown in the chart)

Texas Demographics and Growth (Slides 6–7)

  • Texas population growth (2010–2020): Almost half of the growth attributed to expansion of the Hispanic population
  • Population declines in South Texas counties are associated with a decline in Hispanic population
  • Hispanics show large regional variation in growth across Texas counties (range of changes across counties highlighted in the map)
  • Hispanic population change across Texas counties ranged from substantial declines to substantial increases (illustrated by a map with negative and positive changes)

Race/Ethnicity: Population by Race (Slide 8)

  • The slide shows a comparison of population by race/ethnicity for 2010 and 2020 with a note on how race and ethnicity are categorized:
    • NH Asian (Non-Hispanic Asian): present as a category
    • NH Other (Non-Hispanic Other, including American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander, multiracial, etc.)
    • Hispanic (of any race)
    • NH White (Non-Hispanic White)
    • NH Black (Non-Hispanic Black)
  • Key trend: White share among the non-Hispanic population declined over the decade, while Asian and Other categories show growth; Hispanics are not shown as a separate “NH” category because Hispanics can be of any race
  • Example (from 2010 vs 2020 values that appear on the slide):
    • NH White: from 45.345.3% (2010) to around 39.739.7% (2020)
    • NH Black: around 11.511.5% (2010) to around 11.811.8% (2020)
    • NH Asian: from 3.83.8% (2010) to 5.45.4% (2020)
    • NH Other: from 1.81.8% (2010) to around 3.83.8% (2020)
  • Note: Hispanic origin is not limited to a single race and is included across racial categories

Gen Z – You? (Slide 9)

  • Gen Z traits highlighted:
    • More likely to attend college
    • Increased participation in elections
    • About half remain unaffiliated with a party as of the data shown
    • Highly connected via technology and social media
    • Opinions on many issues align more closely with Millennials on topics like diversity, climate, and gender issues

College Enrollment Trends (Slide 10)

  • Gen Zers are more likely to be enrolled in college and to have a college-educated parent than Millennials or Gen Xers at a comparable age
  • Specific data points (as presented):
    • Among 18–21-year-olds no longer in high school, % enrolled in college for Gen Zers in 2018: 5757%
    • Gen Zers in 2019: % living with a parent who has at least a bachelor’s degree: 5252%
    • Millennials in 2003: % living with a parent who has at least a bachelor’s degree: 3333%
    • Gen Xers in 1987: 2424%
    • Early Boomers in 1969: 1515%
  • The data come from Pew Research Center analyses of CPS Oct supplements and IPUMS

Changes in Opinions (Slide 11)

  • Gen Z is more likely than other generations to favor activist government at the national level
  • Regarding climate change: a higher share of Gen Z and Millennials attribute warming to human activity compared with older generations
  • The slide provides a set of cross-generational comparisons showing differences in views about government action and climate change; overall trend is that younger generations lean toward more proactive government and stronger attribution of climate change to human activity

Voter Turnout and Youth Participation (Slides 12–19)

  • Turnout across U.S. elections has shown historical variation; presidential elections typically higher turnout than midterms, with several spikes and declines across decades
  • Across generations, youth engagement has been a key focus: CIRCLE and Pew data show youth turnout (ages ~18–29) varies by year and election type (midterms vs. presidential)
  • 2018 midterm and 2020 presidential elections saw notable changes in turnout patterns:
    • Youth turnout and share of eligible voters participating increased in several cases, with 2018 being notably engaged for some younger cohorts
    • By 2020, turnout among many groups reached high levels compared with previous cycles
  • Latino turnout in 2018 reached record highs for a midterm year and overall racial/ethnic diversity among voters has grown since 1990
  • Data visuals show long-run trends in turnout by race/ethnicity and age, with increases for several groups from 2016 to 2020
  • In midterm elections, youth turnout (18–29) has shown variability over time, with CIRCLE documenting the trajectory from 1994 through 2022
  • The 2018 gender gap in turnout varied by age group and by gender; in some cohorts women reported higher turnout than men, with gaps shifting across ages

Voter Turnout in 2020 vs 2024 (Slides 21–23)

  • United States turnout in 2024 declined from the 2020 peak: approximately 6464% turnout in 2024 vs a record-high turnout above 6666% in 2020
  • Texas turnout (relative to national):
    • In 2024, 10.6 million people cast ballots, representing 57.157.1% of the 18.6 million registered voters
    • This was about 9.69.6 percentage points lower than Texas turnout in 2020
  • State-level: 2024 turnout in several states varied; some counties and regions experienced lower turnout and others were relatively higher depending on local dynamics
  • The data for 2024 are preliminary in many cases; official totals may be updated as counties report

Texas Turnout Details (Slides 24–26)

  • 2024 Texas turnout specifics:
    • 10.6 million votes cast; 57.1% turnout of registered voters
    • 2020 turnout was higher by about 9.6 percentage points
  • 2024 Election Day votes and registered voters who didn’t vote were shown across years (1992–2024) to illustrate long-run patterns
  • Fast-changing counties highlighted (examples):
    • Hays County turnout in 2024: 125,000 votes, 67.4% of 186,000 registered voters; turnout dropped by ~4.2 percentage points from 2020
    • Other notable counties: Tarrant, Fort Bend, Collin, Denton, Williamson, Lubbock, Montgomery, Harris, Dallas, and others show varying trends
  • The maps showcase how different county types (solid red, big blue, border counties) exhibit distinct turnout patterns in 2024

Trust in Elections (Slide 27)

  • Overall trend: More voters perceived that the 2024 elections were run and administered well compared with 2020
  • Breakdown by voter type (All voters, Republican voters, Democratic voters) shows differences in perceptions of election administration quality across election years
  • The data come from Pew Research Center surveys conducted around November in each election year

Women in Politics (Slides 28–29)

  • 2018 was a record year for women candidates in U.S. federal elections:
    • Approximately 275 women ran for the U.S. House and Senate
    • A substantial share of those candidates won, setting new records for female representation at multiple levels
  • Over time, the number of women serving in the House and Senate rose, with a notable increase around the late 2010s and into 2020
  • The data come from FiveThirtyEight and the Center for American Women and Politics

Gender Gap in Turnout (Slide 30)

  • 2018 midterm turnout differences by age group and gender show variations in turnout gaps
  • Across age groups shown (18–24, 25–34, 35–44, 45–54, 55–64, 65+):
    • In some cohorts, women reported higher turnout than men; in others, gaps were smaller or reversed depending on age
  • The data are drawn from Pew Research Center analyses of CPS November Supplements (2014 and 2018)

Female Governors and Representation (Slide 31)

  • 2022 was a banner year for female governors.
  • States with elected or reelected Democratic female governors and Republican female governors are listed (examples include WA, ID, MT, ND, MN, HI, MI, ME, VT, NH, NY, MA, RI, OR, UT, WY, SD, IA, WV, VA, MD, CO, NM, KS, KY, FL, TX, etc.).
  • This slide highlights growing female executive leadership in the states across parties

Female Candidates and 2024 (Slide 32)

  • Fewer female candidates for House seats in 2024 compared with the last cycle:
    • 117 fewer women running for the House in 2024 than in 2022
    • Republican and Democratic female candidate counts for the House declined by 36%36\% and 7%7\% respectively from 2022 to 2024
  • A chart shows the historical trend of female House candidates from 2000 onward

Political Science: What Do We Study? (Slides 33–34)

  • Political Science definition and aims:
    • Study of government and politics; Aristotle called it the “master science”
    • Politics studies how conflicts are settled and how resources are allocated (Harold Laswell’s question: “Who Gets What, When and How?”)
    • Examines power, influence, and effects on everyone
  • What do we study? Patterns in political events to form generalizations and theories; midterm elections as a trend example
  • Paradox: individuals are highly unpredictable, but large groups can show predictable patterns

Gain/Loss of Seats in Midterms (Slide 35)

  • Midterm elections show characteristic patterns in seats gained or lost by the President’s party (1902–2022 data visualized)
  • General takeaway: the President’s party tends to lose seats in the U.S. House and Senate during midterms, with exceptions across cycles

Political Culture (Slides 36–39)

  • Political culture: a shared system of beliefs, values, and habits related to government and politics
    • Relationships between government and people
    • Rights and responsibilities of the people
    • Obligations of government and limits on governmental authority
    • Not everyone shares the same political culture; dominant culture affects all
  • Political Culture in the US (early foundations):
    • Liberal democracy linked to John Locke: individual rights, property, popular control, self-government, natural rights, consent of the governed
  • Daniel Elazar’s typology:
    • Moralistic: government as a positive force for all people
    • Traditionalistic: government as a means to preserve hierarchy and elites' interests
    • Individualistic: government as a mechanism to meet the needs of individuals and markets
    • The slide playfully asks about Texas in this framework
  • Visual map and discussion of “The American Nations” (11 distinct nations concept) across the United States, including: Left Coast, The Midands, New France, Yankee Domain, Deep South, Greater Appalachia, etc.
  • The map illustrates regional variations in political culture and identity across the country

Politics, Power & Participation (Slide 40)

  • Democracy and pluralism: more groups gain rights and protections; greater access to political decision-making process
  • Tools of direct democracy in some states: citizen initiatives, referendums, and recall provisions

Initiatives and Referendums (Slide 41)

  • Citizens can bypass legislators via:
    • Initiated statutes and amendments
    • Statutes (laws) and amendments that are proposed by citizens
  • Some states allow both statutes and amendments to be proposed and/or repealed by citizens
  • Source: Ballot Initiative Strategy Center

Direct Democracy and Political Participation (Slide 42)

  • Democracy defined as government in which the people rule directly and/or through elected representatives (direct vs. indirect)
  • Requires active and knowledgeable citizens to participate effectively

Political Responsibilities (Slide 43)

  • Core responsibilities often highlighted in civics courses:
    • Know how government works and understand the issues
    • Hold officials accountable
    • Engage in informed political discourse and participate in the political process