In other words, vote for me because of my awesomeness!
Abstract
Why is voter turnout declining in Canada? The answer to this question is crucial for the future of democracy in Canada. This report deals with voting trends in federal politics among people less then 25 years of age. It involves a literature review of sources, a survey of students less then 25 years of age at Loyalist College, Belleville, Ontario, and draws conclusions from these two resources on whether Loyalist College conforms to national surveys and possible methods to improve youth voter turnout at the next federal election.
Introduction
Voter turnout over the last decade has steadily decreased (see appendix I). The causes of this are varied, as are the solutions. Though every country’s causes of declining voter turnouts are different, their solutions are similar (IDEA, Pammett & LeDuc). They involve increased education, within the school setting, of the democratic process, system, and parties. Another possible answer is changing the way Canadian politicians are elected (Law). A third solution is politicians responding vigorously to issues that are important to youth, such as soaring post-secondary tuition (IDEA, Pammett & LeDuc).
This report will provide a quick review of some available literature, with two studies commissioned by the government of Canada to explain recent voter turnout and to offer recommendations (Law, Pammett & LeDuc). This report also contains results from a non-random survey of 15 Loyalist College students and 2 faculty members. They answered whether they voted and why they did or did not vote. The respondents also offered what they thought would help youth to vote.
Literature Review
Recent decline in voter turnout in federal elections, especially among persons under 25 years of age, is a cause of concern. The consensus among commentators is that this trend will not change in the near future (IDEA, Pammett & LeDuc). Democracy is in danger of becoming irrelevant to younger voters.
Young voters are the future leaders of Canada. If representative democracy should be saved, it is up to current politicians to create democracy that is truly representative. Therefore, the causes of declining voter turnout, along with possible solutions to reverse these trends, need to be examined. Pammett & LeDuc’s exhaustive study challenges this author’s hypothesis that apathy towards the political system was the primary reason for decreased voter turnout. Although some reasons are similar to apathy, they are distinct from the hypothesis because of this author’s assumption that historic political corruption had a stronger influence on voter turnout then what research suggests. This assumption was the foremost cause in this author’s mind.
The basis of Pammett & LeDuc’s study is to help explain why there is a decreasing voter turnout from previous generations. The report is based on telephone surveys in Canada. It provides empirical data, along with popular solutions to poor youth voter turnout. This paper will provide information as to whether Loyalist students do not vote for the reasons listed in this study and what may help them to vote in the next election.
There were a total of 5647 respondents, with approximately 960 voters and approximately 960 non-voters selected for longer questionnaires. The main findings of the study were that age was the strongest predicator of not voting (pg. 53). For the purposes of Pammett & LeDuc’s study, “youth” was considered to be between the ages 18-25. The study also asked respondents why they thought this was so, and most respondents agreed with these five reasons:
1. Government does not represent youth or their views.
2. Age differential between youth and politicians and political process.
3. Political parties do not reach out to youth or are out of touch with youth.
4. Youth see themselves as unaffected by politics.
5. Youth are not listened to and youth feel there is no voice representing them. Over one-third of all respondents of varying genders, ages, geographic locations, and financial status cited these reasons, with a higher likelihood among youth citing them (pg. 54).
The study concluded that the voter turnout decline would likely continue. The report also cites that the most prevalent opinion on reversing this trend is through education, both at home and at school. This report is really the foundation of this paper.
The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) is an international organization based in Stockholm, Sweden. Its purpose is to supply information and advance democracy worldwide. The reports focus mostly on established European democracies, so there will be some discrepancies between the Pammett & LeDuc report and their findings, but they generally agree with Pammett & LeDuc solutions to increase youth voter turnout. These “forums” are from discussions on June 18-19, 1999, between 100 young democracy activists, aged 18-30, from 70 countries (Forum 1). Representatives came from diverse countries like Canada, Burma, India, Bosnia and Poland. The forum agreed that established democracies (like Canada) alienate youth. Low voter turnout is not from apathy, but from an overly complicated political system along with disillusionment and indifference towards politics in general (Forum 6). They committee decided upon five general ways to increase youth participation:
1. Make it easier to register.
2. Support education on democracy.
3. Encourage preparatory exercises like mock elections.
4. Governmental assistance in practical ways to vote.
5. Lower the voting age (Forum 8).
Representatives in 41 European and South American countries, along with South Korea and South Africa, stated that age was not the primary influence on political activism, rather education and prosperity were (Forum 9). Therefore, there was a strong emphasize among participants for education. There was also a feeling that education also increased wealth. In other words, if education is increased, then both principle reasons for lack of political participation will be reduced, thereby increasing voter turnout (Forum 9). IDEA, along with the Pammett & LeDuc report, stresses the need for increased education involving democracy to halt voter turnout decline. This commonality among considerably different political atmospheres is interesting. It serves as a possible link regarding all democratic participation, no matter the age of the voter.
The Law Commission of Canada, along with Fair Vote Canada, commissioned a report on possible electoral reforms and what the reforms would entail. The report looked at different electoral systems inside and outside of Canada. The study is a critical analysis of the current electoral system (first-past-the-post) and possible alternatives. Two questions are asked: Why do we use different voting systems in different circumstances? Why do other countries elect their representatives differently (Law, Ch. 3)? The study also compares and contrasts three different voting systems to the one in current use: the alternative vote, mixed-member proportional vote, and alternative vote plus (Ch. 3). The three systems are defined and show the three systems of reform (with one, Mixed-Member, being implemented in New Zealand) that may work within the Canadian context.
The current electoral system, along with the three new, hypothetical systems are evaluated based upon four categories:
1. Fairness
2. Representiveness
3. Equality
4. Accountability (Ch. 4)
The study does not ask for a perfect combination of these four values, but for a system that works reasonably well. Fairness is defined as not having any systematic bias built within the system. The current system (first-past-the-post) is perceived to be unfair to minorities and to women (Ch. 4). It is because Canadian politics is regionally based, instead of issue-based. Therefore, parties are more likely to nominate white males to ensure victory (Ch. 4). Some feel that parliament should also be representive of population, not territory alone. Equality can be used in two senses, that every vote counts and counts equally and that there should be equal representation. The former has near-universal agreement, while the latter is still debated. Some voters may feel their votes are “wasted” if they vote for a candidate that will not win. Proportional systems would address some of these problems better then the current system. First-past-the-post voting is seen as holding the greatest amount of accountability because they are directly linked to their regional constituents. Some observers suggest that Canadian politics has changed significantly, so that constituent concerns are overstated in this regard. This report is important because it offers a critique of different possible electoral methods that could be implemented in Canada. It also led this researcher to consider a question that may be relevant in the Loyalist survey: what does democracy mean? These four criteria may be an excellent basis in discussing electoral values.
The short response as to what was wrong with youth voter turnout advocates that the voting age should be lowered to 16, along with civic education training in secondary schools (Milner). Milner does not believe that electoral reform would bring any significant change in youth voter turnout, but that “comparative research” reveals that voting is a matter of habit. He feels that Canadian 18-20 year olds are often times in mobile transition, whether leaving for school or otherwise. Therefore, 18-20 year olds do not form the “habit of voting.” (Milner) This article was unique for the statement that voting was a matter of habit, for that reason the voting age should be lowered. It provided a new dimension for further questions as to why people vote, and do not vote and possible perceptions on democracy.
There is some hope for youth voters (Anderssen). He mentions that national parties that have recently lost many seats (mostly the Progressive Conservatives) may be looking for younger politicians to take the reigns of their national leadership (Anderssen). The author claims that it is not the actual age of Canadian leadership, but the apparent age of their ideas. Less then 5% of party membership consists of people below 35, so youth would not greatly affect party leadership anyhow (Anderssen). This includes lowering youth voter turnout. "Young citizens aren't looking for a generational change. They're looking for a change in how political parties operate. It's window dressing to worry about the leader's gray hair."(Anderssen) This article provides possible future trends amid the political system in an attempt to win more youth voters. If the system is attempting to reach young voters, it may be a sign that politicians are realizing the problem and are making an effort for a solution.
Although the so-called “Generation X” and American politics are different, there is considerable commonality between the “Xers” and those under 25 (Halstead). Xers will change how politics will be done. The old left/right paradigm is slowly fading away, while support among the two-party system is fading with Xers (Halstead). Xers are fiscally conservative and socially liberal (Halstead). Hr believes that Xers are more materialistic and individualistic then their predecessors. He believes their economic policies stem from the economic insecurity and mounting debt caused by their forebears. Xers are calling for more governmental reform, especially when dealing with taxes and government spending (Halstead). Xers wish for a balanced budget, but not to cut back on social services. Xers hold to “60’s social values with 80’s economic values.” (Halstead) Xer political thought and language is changing the landscape that less than 25-year-old youth have inherited too (Halstead). They were less inclined to vote along partisan lines, but along issue-specific lines. Xers in coming years take the lead is such diverse reforms as public education, tax law, environmental law, and closing the gap between rich and poor (Halstead). He cites the example of the election of Jesse Ventura as the first real flexing of Xer political muscle (Halstead). On a national level, if Republicans and Democrats wish to remain relevant with this generation, both Republicans and Democrats will need to adapt to Xer’s politics. The issues that are important to Xers: balanced budgets, reforms in public education and social services, along with environmentalism as well as new government accountability, make Xers and those under 25 close allies.
Although this author’s hypothesis has little empirical support as to the causes of voter decline, it need not be dismissed in its entirety. Negative public attitudes towards politicians and the government in general were listed as the first and third reasons, respectively, as to why there is declining voter turnout (Pammett & LeDuc, pg. 9). Whether there is a direct correlation between democratic governmental scandals and voter turnout decline goes beyond the scope of this report. Therefore, this author’s hypothesis is found to be inconclusive because government and politician abuses of powers may have created these negative attitudes towards them.
Data Analysis
The survey was administered on Thursday, November 27, 2003, around 12 PM, near the main Loyalist College cafeteria. It was a non-random questionnaire, involving five questions.
Findings
Of the seventeen respondents, fourteen of them were between the ages of 18-25, and three were above the age of 25. Eight of the respondents did vote in the last federal elections and nine did not vote in that election. Every person who did vote cited that voting was personally important. The nine respondents who did not vote were more varied in the reasons why they did not vote. Six stated they lacked an interest in politics in general. One acknowledged a negative attitude towards government and/or politicians. Two cited two different reasons, one because of a stay in hospital and the other felt uneducated about candidates (see appendix II). Six of fifteen Loyalist students did vote in the last federal elections.
The most variation of responses came from question five, which was open-ended. It asked respondents opinions as to what would be effective ways to persuade youth to vote in the next federal election. The most common response was for either politicians to address issues important to youth or for the political system itself to be more concerned about issues that are related to youth. A closely related item to “youth issues” is the feeling that politicians do not directly address youth enough. Two respondents suggested improvements in voting methods, which may have potential. The first is the ability to vote online. The second is having a voting booth at the college.
Two respondents suggested education in schools, along with easily accessible information about candidates. One answer was specific, in that they felt that voting should be taught as a responsibility. Another suggested younger candidates. One respondent answered, “Our gov’t over the past 10 years should be enough” as an answer (appendix III). Two respondents did not know how to answer this question.
Conclusion
Although this author’s assumption and hypothesis was incorrect on a national level, it was half-right at the Loyalist. The majority of respondents who did not vote in the last election stated they did not have an interest in politics. In other words, they were apathetic. For whatever reasons, people did not vote because they were apathetic.
What was most insightful about the responses was the general feeling that there is a wall of separation between politics and youth. The various ways suggested to bridge this gap involve efforts of the system, whether through education, electoral reform, or politicians themselves. It is interesting to note that a Loyalist student saw online voting as a solution, the same as Pammett & LeDuc’s study (pg. 58-62).
Loyalist students also stressed education as a promising avenue to increase youth voting. Three of the seventeen responses were directly related to education. As mentioned previously, education about the political process, parties, and public policies were held to be one of the predicators on whether a person would vote or not (IDEA, forum 8-9, and Pammett & LeDuc, pg. 53-57).
Therefore, Loyalist students did not offer anything new, but the amount of Loyalist student respondents who did vote was higher then the national average (Pammett & LeDuc, pg. 23). 40% of Loyalist student respondents voted, far exceeding the 27.5% of persons aged 21-25 who voted (ibid).
Limitations
There are significant limitations to this study.
1. Depth of the study. This study has just scratched the surface of this complex subject. There are many more causes that cannot be covered in this study.
2. Explanations. There are many more in-depth solutions then they ones offered in this particular study that could be applied nationally.
3. Small survey size. Since there were only 17 non-random respondents in the survey, there cannot be a generalization of voting patterns or exhaustive solution suggestions from the broader college population.
4. Imprecise survey answers. The basis of what democracy means to youth may be different then previous generations. Also, a further discussion based upon the four criteria would have produced much greater depth of qualitative data (Law, chap. 3).
5. This author’s assumption. This author’s assumption may still have influenced the interpretation of the survey data to a small degree.
Implications
The main implication from this study is the current and future state of democracy in Canada. It can be inferred that democracy among youth is in real danger, with less than 30% of people less than 30 years voting (Pammett & LeDuc, pg. 23). If this continues, it will mean a crisis of democracy in Canada. It also appears that youth will not take the initiative in this matter. It is unclear whether youth are unwilling or unable to take this initiative.
Since this is the case, every effort will need to be taken by the government to educate youth and to actively include them in political dialogue. Politicians are caught in a paradox in this issue, because they cannot get into office to make the necessary changes for greater youth involvement. Since youth do not vote in the first place, the changes will not be made, and candidates know they will have no chance of getting into office because of low youth voter turnout. Therefore, candidate’s platforms are not based upon issues important to youth.
The rising busyness of youth affects their political interest (Carey). It is hard for youth to find the time to be political. Politics is a complicated field, which takes time to form intelligent opinions. Unfortunately, youth do not have this time. Therefore, time management is a factor. Online voting was seen as one alternative to increase voter participation from Loyalist students. This could help alleviate the problem of time with students (Pammett & LeDuc, pg. 58-63). The second option is to hold polling stations on college grounds. This will allow students easy, effective access to their polling station.
Both these options though, are inadequate by themselves. The main problem is that youth today are disengaged and uneducated about politics. Primary and Secondary level schools need to address these issues. Education is key. Educate children on the history of democracy, its importance, and why it is important. If children are our most precious resource, why are they not treated as such?
Work Cited
Anderssen, E. “Age vs. Youth a Hot Topic in Backrooms of Ottawa: But Will Fresh Faces Translate into Votes? That's What Tory Twins Would Like to Know.” Globe & Mail (Toronto, Canada), Sept 2, 2002 p1 (English).
Carey, E. “All Work and No Play Makes Canadians Tense.” The Toronto Star Wednesday, November 10, 1999, A10.
Halstead, T. “Politics for Generation X: Today's Young Adults may be the Most Politically Disengaged in American History. The Author Explains Why, and Puts Forth a New Political Agenda that Just Might Galvanize His Generation.” The Atlantic Monthly August 1999 v284 i2 pcover, 33-4,36-42 (English).
The Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA).
Law Commission of Canada Votes, Victories and Values: Probing the Issue of Electoral
Milner, H. “Sweet 16 and Ready to Vote?” Globe and Mail (Toronto, Canada) August 23, 2003 pA19.
Parmmet, J.H. & LeDuc, L. “Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal Elections: A New Survey of Non-Voters” March 2003. Elections Canada
Statistics Canada, “Percentage of Registered Voters Who Voted in Federal Elections, 1980-2000”.