 |
[ Home Page | Message Boards | News | Archive | Ask Cecil | Books | Buy Stuff | FAQs, etc. ]
A
Straight Dope Classic from Cecil's storehouse of human knowledge17-Jan-1992
Dear Cecil:
Has anyone ever made a study of the comparative heights of winners
and losers in elections, and if so, what were the results? --
Wistfully, Eli "Shorty" Pindsey, Chicago
Cecil replies:
Well, being a dwarf sure didn't help that little Greek fella in
1988. (What was his name now?) And no question everybody in
politics thinks being tall is an
advantage. Five-foot-nine-and-a-half-inch Jimmy Carter's handlers
went to great lengths to prevent him from having to stand next to
6'1" Gerald Ford during the 1976 presidential debates.
But the data on this question is notoriously flaky. U of Chicago
statistics professor William Kruskal, who used to keep track of
this sort of thing in his spare time, says he never found anybody
whose height estimates could be relied upon, particularly when it
came to the heights of the losers in earlier elections.
That caveat aside, various sources do claim that the taller
candidate usually wins. For example, in Language on Vacation
(1965), word and number buff Dmitri Borgmann claimed that in the 19
U.S. presidential elections between 1888 and 1960, the taller
candidate won the popular vote all but once, when 6'2" Franklin
Roosevelt beat 6'2-1/2" Wendell Willkie in 1940. In 1888 5'11"
Grover
Cleveland beat 5'6" Benjamin Harrison at the polls but was cuffed
in the electoral college, and in 1896 and 1900 both candidates were
the same height.
In his 1982 book Too Small, Too Tall psychologist John Gillis
presents similar results: in the 21 presidential elections from
1904 to 1984, the taller candidate won 80 percent of the time.
What's more, he says, in the whole history of the Republic, only
two presidents--Harrison and James Madison (5'4")--were appreciably
shorter than the average height in their day.
We glean further insight on this issue from a delightful book
called The Height of Your Life (1980) by Ralph Keyes (5'7.62").
Keyes notes that a survey of the U.S. Senate in 1866 found the
average height of the members to be 5'10-1/2", well above average
for
men at the time. Keyes's own survey of 27 senators found the
average height had risen to 6'0.33", 3.33" taller than the average
American male. A similar survey of 31 governors found the average
height to be 6'0.46".
So, case closed, right? Not so fast. Consider an alternative theory
of presidential electoral success--the Longer Name Hypothesis,
which is also discussed in the Borgmann book. Of the 22 elections
between 1876 and 1960, the candidate with more letters in his last
name won the popular vote 20 times.
In two cases, Tilden-Hayes in 1876 and Cleveland-Harrison in 1888,
the winners of the popular vote lost in the electoral college. In
1916 Wilson and Hughes had the same number of letters in their
names, so the voters obviously chose on the basis of the issues.
The only time the longer-named candidate lost was in 1908, when
Taft whomped Bryan. However, Taft weighed more than 300 pounds, and
probably attracted votes by force of gravity alone.
The situation has been somewhat muddied in the seven presidential
elections since 1960, with only one victory for the long-named
candidate, five defeats, and one case in which both candidates had
names of equal length. This just shows you the difficulty of doing
good science in the face of an uncooperative fact situation. As far
as I'm concerned, the Longer Name Hypothesis remains at least as
persuasive as the Longer Body Hypothesis. Until scientific
measurements can be adduced for all dimensions of the presidential
person (something that can surely be expected any day in light of
the Thomas-Hill hearings), I think we must admit the question
remains open.
PICKING PRESIDENTS: A NEW PARADIGM
Dear Cecil:
I read with interest your article discussing the Longer Body
(Greater Height) and Longer Name hypotheses in predicting the
outcome of American presidential elections. To help you further
with the political education of your readers, I would like to share
a rule which correctly predicts every election since the modern
American politico-economic system began under FDR: a president with
an unusual first name always alternates with a president with a
common first name--Franklin, Harry, Dwight, John, Lyndon, Richard,
Gerald, Jimmy, Ronald, George.
Ignore the occasional nitpicker who does not think Gerald is all
that unusual a name, and you have a powerful analytical tool. While
either John (Kennedy) or Richard (Nixon) could have followed Dwight
(Eisenhower), and George (Bush) and Michael (Dukakis) both had a
chance after Ronald, Adlai Stevenson could no more unseat Dwight
than Hubert (Humphrey) could succeed Lyndon.
The acid test of any theory, of course, is in predicting the
future. To put it on the line: neither Paul (Tsongas) nor Bill
(Clinton) nor Tom (Harkin) nor Jerry (Brown) nor Dick (Gephardt)
nor, for that matter, Pat (Buchanan) has a prayer of replacing
George. [Editor's note: This was originally written in mid-1992.]
Mario (Cuomo) or Jesse (Jackson) could, but they may want
to wait until 1996, when the Republicans will be stuck with Dan
(Quayle), Jack (Kemp), or Dick (Cheney). Pierre duPont would be
their only hope, unless he pursues the chimera of populism by
insisting on being called Pete. --Juozas Algimantas Kazlas (a
common name, but only in Lithuania), New York
Cecil replies:
Not to give anybody ideas, Joe. But assuming Mario and Jesse aren't
available, there's always (blush) Cecil. I am also
obliged to note that Bill did defeat George. But your theory may
still hold up, because right now his name is mud.
--CECIL ADAMS
The Straight Dope / Questions or
comments for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com
Comments regarding this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com
Copyright © 1996-2007 Chicago Reader, Inc. All rights reserved.
No material contained in this site may be republished or reposted without express written
permission.
The Straight Dope is a registered trademark of Chicago
Reader, Inc.