¹ Cf., for example, these prepositional inventories and reviews: Lipset, Seymour Martin, Political Man (Garden City, N.Y. 1960)Google Scholar; Milbrath, Lester W., Political Participation: How and Why do People Get Involved in Politics (Chicago 1965), 134Google Scholar ff.; Berelson, Bernard and Steiner, Gary A., Human Behaviour: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York 1962), 421–4, 560, 573Google Scholar; Cain, Leonard D. Jr., “Life Course and Social Structure,” Handbook of Modern Sociology, ed. Faris, R.E.L. (Boston 1964), 294–6Google Scholar; Riley, Matilda W. and Foner, Ann, Aging and Society, vol. I, An Inventory of Research Findings (New York 1968)Google Scholar, ch. 19; Atchley, Robert C., The Social Forces in Later Life (Belmont, California 1972), 239Google Scholar ff.; and Bengtson, Vern L., The Social Psychology of Aging (Indianapolis, Indiana 1973)Google Scholar, ch. 4. These studies, for example, report similar findings from different countries: Erik Allardt and Kettil Bruun, “Characteristics of the Finnish Non-Voter,” Transactions of the Westermarck Society, III, 55–76; Benny, Mark A., Grey, A.P., and Pear, R.H., How People Vote: A Study of Electoral Behavior in Greenwich (London 1956)Google Scholar; and Campbell, Angus, “Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (Fall 1960), 397–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

² Milbrath, Political Participation, 135

³ Glenn, Norval D. and Grimes, Michael, “Aging, Voting and Political Interest,” American Sociological Review, 33, no. 4 (August 1968), 563–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Cf. also Glenn, Norval D., “Aging, Disengagement, and Opinionation,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, no. 1 (Spring 1969), 17–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Glenn, Norval D. and Hefner, Ted, “Further Evidence on Aging and Party Identification,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, no. 1 (Spring 1972), 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴ Glenn and Grimes, “Aging, Voting and Political Interest,” 563

⁵ Verba, Sidney and Nie, Norman H., Participation in America (New York 1972)Google Scholar, ch. 9

⁶ Presthus, Robert, Elite Accommodation in Canadian Politics (Toronto 1973), 52Google Scholar ff.

⁷ On the matter of age and type of party affiliation or party direction of vote see the following, for example: Jewett, Pauline, “Voting in the 1960 Federal By-Election at Peterborough and Niagara Falls: Who Voted New Party and Why?” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 28, no. 1 (February 1962), 35–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Anderson, Grace M., “Voting Behaviour and the Ethnic-Religious Variable: A Study of a Federal Election in Hamilton, Ontario,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 32, no. 1 (February 1966), 27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Courtney, John C. and Smith, David E., “Voting in a Provincial General Election and a Federal By-Election: A Constituency Study of Saskatoon City,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 32, no. 3 (August 1966), 338–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alford, Robert R., “The Social Bases of Political Cleavage in 1962,” Papers of the 1962 Election, ed. Meisel, John (Toronto 1965), 203–34Google Scholar; Wilson, John, “Politics and Social Class in Canada: The Case of Waterloo South,” this JOURNAL, 1 (September 1968), 288–309Google Scholar; Laponce, J.A., People vs. Politics: A Study of Opinions, Attitudes, and Perceptions in Vancouver-Burrard, 1963–65 (Toronto 1969)Google Scholar; and Meisel, John, Working Papers on Canadian Politics (Montreal 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Laponce, J.A. has provided a very interesting typology and description of non-voters and other types of political actors in his “Non-Voting and Non-Voters: A Typology,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science 33, no. 1 (February 1967), 75–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar There is not a focus on voting levels by age group in this piece, however.

John C. Terry and Richard J. Schultz provide a review of the Canadian literature on age and other correlates of party choice (without discussing age and activity levels) in their “Canadian Electoral Behaviour: A Propositional Inventory,” The Canadian Political Process, ed. Kruhlak, Orest M., Schultz, Richard, and Pobihushchy, Sidney I. (Toronto 1973)Google Scholar, revised edition, 258–60.

⁸ Regenstreif, Peter, The Diefenbaker Interlude: Parties and Voting in Canada (Toronto 1965), 88Google Scholar ff.; Laskin, Richard and Baird, Richard, “Factors in Voter Turnout and Party Preference in a Saskatchewan Town,” this JOURNAL, 3, no. 3 (September 1970, 450–62)Google Scholar; Loon, R. Van “Political Participation in Canada: The 1965 Election,” this JOURNAL, 3, no. 3 (September 1970), 376–99Google Scholar

⁹ Regenstreif, The Diefenbaker Interlude, 88

¹⁰ Laskin and Baird, “Factors in Voter Turnout and Party Preference in a Saskatchewan Town”

¹¹ Van Loon, “Political Participation in Canada,” 389

¹² Selected findings from the study are reported in Meisel, John, Working Papers on Canadian Politics (Montreal 1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ We used both voting variables (voting in 1968 and voting in 1965), with the latter coded as described, and the other two dependent variables partly because we were concerned about the effect of the apparent over-report of the vote in 1968 and wanted to have alternative measures of political activity. The grand means for reported vote in 1968 ranged from 87 per cent to 79 per cent for our working sub-samples (see Table I) as compared to estimates of about 75 per cent for actual turnout in recent Federal election years. The means on the reported vote for 1965 were only slightly lower (these are also reported in Table I). It is difficult to know what effect an over-report would have on age relationships. One hypothesis would be that this may tend to blur (level) the actual effects of social background variables such as age. Another hypothesis would be just the opposite: persons in those social categories in which voting is more normative are under greater “pressure” to over-estimate their voting activity. Survey data alone do not allow one to address this issue definitively, of course.

¹⁴ The following types of groups were given by different respondents as serving this function for them: political parties, non-partisan political groups, labour and occupational groups, and other voluntary organizations (e.g., fraternal groups, service clubs, religious groups, and veterans groups).

¹⁵ E.g., Milbrath, Political Participation, 110 ff.

¹⁶ For further information on MCA see Andrews, F.M., Morgan, J.N., Sonquist, J.A., and Klem, L., Multiple Classification Analysis (Ann Arbor, Michigan 1973).Google Scholar

¹⁷ See, e.g., the Report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in Canada (Ottawa 1970), 337 ff.

¹⁸ Simeon and Elkin have recently provided comparisons of French-English differences on selected political attitude (the 1968 election interest item reported on here and other variables included in theMeisel 1968 survey) and political involvement variables (included in the 1965 survey) in their analysis of regional political cultures. See Simeon, Richard and Elkin, David J., “Regional Political Cultures in Canada,” this JOURNAL, 7, no. 3 (September 1974), 397–137. Their findings without controls were: “French-Canadians, both inside and outside Quebec, were considerably more likely to report voting in all federal elections than the non-French-speaking populations in Ontario, B.C., or Manitoba… Maritimers apparently have more political knowledge… There was little variation in the attendance at election meetings, but the highest proportion was in New Brunswick. Differences in reported interest in the 1965 election were small, though the New Brunswick respondents and the Quebec French were considerably more likely to report little interest” (412–13); “[And]… the proportion saying they had no interest [in 1968] ranged from 11 to 13 per cent among all the English-speaking groups west of Quebec. It rose to 24 per cent in the Maritimes as a whole, 31 per cent among French-speakers outside Quebec, and 40 per cent among the Quebec French” (414).Google Scholar