Why are fewer Canadians voting?

[Russic]

Originally Posted by TanguayFan

The government has as much to blame for it as Canadian citizens. There is always whining about low voter turnout, but do they ever do anything about it?

Even the advertising campaign that was basically "remember to vote" was poorly managed. You can't just put up a commercial and expect it to work...there is so much more planning that needs to go into it. They need to understand what is going on in people's heads when they decide not to vote. Only then can they come up with a campaign to persuade people that voting matters.
As small a detail as having an election day radio commercial that was similar to the rest with a reminder that said "Today is election day, remember to vote!" would have made the whole campaign much more effective (for any marketing students on the board its called Aperture. for those that aren't marketing students its the concept that we want to catch people right when they are most likely to respond [which is why global has radio commercials that say 'remember, new episode of heroes tonight']). If you were driving around and heard it you might have stopped and thought to yourself "oh yeah, i'll make a stop after I drop off the kids, it'll only take 5 seconds"

I don't see how the government can complain about voter apathy when they are not actually taking steps to deal with it. Either they themselves are apathetic to this problem or they've put the wrong people in charge of dealing with it.

I disagree. As citizens it's our responsibility to educate ourselves and take an active role in process. Participating in a democracy is not the same as buying sneakers. It shouldn't have to be marketed or sold to people. I'm sorry, but if you legitimately forgot to vote yesterday then not only did you fail at being a citizen, but you must have been situated under some kind of rock. There were big announcements in all newspapers and I heard several radio dj's mention it throughout the day.

Originally Posted by First Lady

And the one that gave me goose bumps was a young man (maybe late 20's) who just became a Canadian citizen. He asked for permission for his g/f to take a picture of him putting his ballot in the box. I gave the approval. Others in the line took a step back to give them room and a moment to capture the experience. When they were done, several in the line shook his hand to congratulate and thank him. It was very moving.

That is an awesome story.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Ronald Pagan

Your partisan lens of analysis is arrogant and annoying.

As much as you'd like to believe, I don't have a party, I've voted for 4 different parties in my life. I've actually gone out, read platforms and voted for the party that best satisfies my personal wishes. You on the other hand come across as a died-in-the-wool conservative supporter. Which, in my opinion, discredits almost every political post you make on this board.

The first past the post system routinely ignores over half of the voters in a riding. As a voter, does that give you incentive to go out and vote? I'm not saying it's the sole reason for a decline in participation but it's definetely in the mix.

I am sorry, but you sound like the one that is arrogant and annoying. He made a good point about Edmonton Strathcona not to mention some other riding and you come back with this post?

Typical left wing thinking. YOu sound like the posters on CBC. When Harper first called the election all the posters were so excited and couldn't wait to get evil Harper out of power. But once it was clear that the Liberals would have their worst turnout ever they all started to balme Harper for calling an election. Complaining what a waste of tax dollars it was and that someone needed to be held accountable. Really, it boggles my mind.

[redforever]

The big excuse always is "but nobody represents what I want or how I feel".

Well, get used to it, that is life. Rarely in life do you get absolutely everything you want. Politics is no different.

Most of the time, there is not one party that will represent 100% of your interests. So then narrow it down to what are your priorities. Is it the economy? Is it the environment? Is it funding of a national day care program or the arts?

Pick 2 or 3 things that are absolute priorities for you and go from there. It does not have to be as hard as people try to make it sound.

If you go in with the idea that you have to find some party that meets all of your requirements, then you are a loser right from the get go. Sorry, just ain't gonna happen.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Some completely random points...



a) Spoiled ballots - sounds weird to say, but for me that is ok. Allowing people to spoil ballots (I think it is technically illegal, but...) to me is fine. People should be allowed to spoil ballots and that number should be reported. Its a way to voice displeasure with the system, no one represents me, etc etc...whatever the reason...but still show that you are engaged. I.e. a way to say the system or all the parties suck.

b) Coalitions, minorities, etc - a bit of a devil's advocate here, but for lack of better words, "so what"? If that is how the people of Canada feel/think, than that is how Parliament should be. Besides, I kind of like minorities and coalitions - it makes for some good policy/discussion, etc. I'd almost rather have them most times than a majority government (regardless of political stripe).

Well,

a) Spoiled ballots are really quite stupid and pointless. When people vote, they are supposed to vote for who they think is the best choice, not who fits their mold in every single way. I mean, I'm a Conservative, and even I don't see eye to eye with everything they do. But, I felt they were the best choice. Throwing up one's hands and saying "the parties all suck, so I'm going to ruin my ballot" is really immature and stupid. Throw a vote at a fringe party, or bite the bullet. Counting spoiled ballots really means nothing, its not going to elect a candidate, or force a change in candidates. Voting may be a right, but having that right is a privilege that too many people take for granted.

b) Minority governments are unstable. That's the main knock. People hate elections more than the voting day itself, and they are very expensive propositions. They can make for good policy, but they can also make for some very bad policy. The governing party sometimes has to relent from doing the right thing because the opposition won't allow it, often for political reasons, or they need their two bits to aid their electoral hopes... two bits that often aren't productive. As for PR, imagine this scenario (likely if mandatory vote) :

CPC: 108
Lib: 72
NDP: 45
Bloc: 35
Green: 20
Marijuana: 7
MLPC: 6
CHP: 6
Libertarian: 6
Independent: 4
Total: 308

In this situation, unless the Liberals team up with the CPC, any coalition would have to involve either the Bloc, or a group of fringe parties that would never get a seat without PR. These parties wouldn't give their support for free either. What you get is policy dictated by the fringe, and not by a moderate party.

A Mixed Member Plurality might help this, but ironically, would likely come to similar results as FPTP (and still be minorities). The only real benefactor would be the Greens.

[Cowboy89]

My opinion is that if you don't bother voting, you endorse the status quo. Another poster mentioned that in Western industrialized nations voter turnout has been declining as standards of living and quality of life have increased. If the two go hand in hand then not voting is actually a legitimate form of support for the incumbent party.

I don't buy the comment that Alberta is really composed of a majority percentage of the population who deep down are opposed to Conservative rule (Both provincially and Federally) but are held down by a defeatist attitude towards the electoral process. That idea is typical "Us against the world" propaganda that Liberals and NDP party supporters throw out there to motivate what little support they do have here. Those who don't vote either are not informed enough to vote and thus don't care and are happy to give way and let other people decide for them(Which is a very good outcome in my mind, Uninformed voter is much more dangerous for society than a non-voter) or actually endorse and have come to terms with the status quo (They're going to win anyway, why bother).

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Well,

a) Spoiled ballots are really quite stupid and pointless. When people vote, they are supposed to vote for who they think is the best choice, not who fits their mold in every single way. I mean, I'm a Conservative, and even I don't see eye to eye with everything they do. But, I felt they were the best choice. Throwing up one's hands and saying "the parties all suck, so I'm going to ruin my ballot" is really immature and stupid. Throw a vote at a fringe party, or bite the bullet. Counting spoiled ballots really means nothing, its not going to elect a candidate, or force a change in candidates. Voting may be a right, but having that right is a privilege that too many people take for granted.

b) Minority governments are unstable. That's the main knock. People hate elections more than the voting day itself, and they are very expensive propositions. They can make for good policy, but they can also make for some very bad policy. The governing party sometimes has to relent from doing the right thing because the opposition won't allow it, often for political reasons, or they need their two bits to aid their electoral hopes... two bits that often aren't productive. As for PR, imagine this scenario (likely if mandatory vote) :

CPC: 108
Lib: 72
NDP: 45
Bloc: 35
Green: 20
Marijuana: 7
MLPC: 6
CHP: 6
Libertarian: 6
Independent: 4
Total: 308

In this situation, unless the Liberals team up with the CPC, any coalition would have to involve either the Bloc, or a group of fringe parties that would never get a seat without PR. These parties wouldn't give their support for free either. What you get is policy dictated by the fringe, and not by a moderate party.

A Mixed Member Plurality might help this, but ironically, would likely come to similar results as FPTP. The only real benefactor would be the Greens.

a) I agree that people should vote, etc etc. However, the fact of the matter is is that there are people who, for example and for whatever reason, find that any of the parties do not work for them on "major issues"/issues important to them. In fact you allude to this in your point with the idea of throwing a vote at a fringe party. Minus the 2 or 3 people that actually vote for the Marxist Party of Canada, the rest are likely protesting. What is the difference btwn that and simply spoiling your ballot? To me, standing in line, taking time out of your day to vote, etc and then spoiling your ballot gives greater indication that none of the parties represent you, or you think the election process is a sham, politicians are all whiners etc. Whatever the reasoning behind, it actually, to me gets your point across by stating that "something (major) isn't right". Publicizing this - e.g. 15% spoiled their ballot - starts to publicly show and give voice to public dissatisfaction.

Simply, it shows to me that people aren't actually lazy and instead protesting the system. I'm fine with that.

b) Sure, a minority can have problems. So too does a majority. I think they both have their merits, and I have absolutely no problem with minority gov'ts such as recently been the case. I think that they are good for the country. Sure they could result in a lot of in-fighting, but they could also result in parties or people collaborating (gasp! different parties working together for the benefit of canada) to make this a better country. Fringe parties can be a problem, sure, but so too are strong majorities in which a party (be it conservative or liberal or whoever; I don't care) gets significantly less than 50% of of the public vote.

I think Parliament should reflect the country. And this election, and the past gov't demonstrated that this country has a multitude of diverse and varied views.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Well,

a) Spoiled ballots are really quite stupid and pointless. When people vote, they are supposed to vote for who they think is the best choice, not who fits their mold in every single way. I mean, I'm a Conservative, and even I don't see eye to eye with everything they do. But, I felt they were the best choice. Throwing up one's hands and saying "the parties all suck, so I'm going to ruin my ballot" is really immature and stupid. Throw a vote at a fringe party, or bite the bullet. Counting spoiled ballots really means nothing, its not going to elect a candidate, or force a change in candidates. Voting may be a right, but having that right is a privilege that too many people take for granted.

b) Minority governments are unstable. That's the main knock. People hate elections more than the voting day itself, and they are very expensive propositions. They can make for good policy, but they can also make for some very bad policy. The governing party sometimes has to relent from doing the right thing because the opposition won't allow it, often for political reasons, or they need their two bits to aid their electoral hopes... two bits that often aren't productive. As for PR, imagine this scenario (likely if mandatory vote) :

CPC: 108
Lib: 72
NDP: 45
Bloc: 35
Green: 20
Marijuana: 7
MLPC: 6
CHP: 6
Libertarian: 6
Independent: 4
Total: 308

In this situation, unless the Liberals team up with the CPC, any coalition would have to involve either the Bloc, or a group of fringe parties that would never get a seat without PR. These parties wouldn't give their support for free either. What you get is policy dictated by the fringe, and not by a moderate party.

A Mixed Member Plurality might help this, but ironically, would likely come to similar results as FPTP (and still be minorities). The only real benefactor would be the Greens.

I like the spoiled Ballet as your protest vote or they should formally add a none of the above option to the ballet and if none of the above. It would be interesting to see how many people came out and voted for no one if that was an option. There should be a formal way to measure informed disatisfaction with the current syatem other then the voter turnout.

I think a better solution to the first past the post system is the Preferential Ballet. A candidate would need 50% plus one of the votes in a riding to win and you would mark you Ballet 1 to 5 and if someone doesn't get a majority the bottom place person is bumped off the ballet and the number 2 choices on those ballets would be counted. It is more work for the counters but this would eliminate the vote splitting that takes place in a Multiparty system and make non-competive ridings less prevalant. It would likely encourage more minority governments but much less so than any kind of PR system.

The big problem with a PR Minority is when you have a fringe party with the Balance of power. To get the fringe party on board it always means funding their pet project. It leads to much more ear mark like behaviour to hold the governement together.

[theikon]

My personal opinion why people don't vote:

We have such poor candidates to vote for, that people are too frustrated to even go to the polls.

I still firmly believe if we want intelligent people in politics, we have to start paying politicians a lot more money. Good business men and other intelligent individuals need more than ~200k a year to entice them to move into a thankless position.

Do you really think Murray Edwards, Jim Basille, Clay Riddell etc would be interested in becoming the Prime Minister of Canada - when they would have to sacrifice their empires?

I understand that there is a 'public servant' and 'doing what's right' component to the argument. But there has to be a balance between those things and compensation.

[Metro Gnome]

I didn't vote.

And not due to apathy.

"recoiling in disgust is not apathy".

[LChoy]

Just throwing it out there
The Conservative governement is really tightly controlled so that people aren't voting for an individual anymore but the party line. Unless the MP candidate is unusally powerful, who ever you vote in would normally just vote the party line. That may turn off potential voters

[Thunderball]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think None of the Above or a Spoiled Ballot are effective means of electoral dialogue, as neither accomplish anything.

Pragmatically, N/A doesn't elect anyone. So what happens if the CPC candidate gets 30%, the Liberal gets 29% and the N/A box gets 35%? Does the CPC candidate win despite lacking a plurality? Did that riding just vote to have no representation? Or, does that riding have to have a by-election?

As well, if people in large numbers are so sure that the existing parties are full of morons, then why aren't they running as independents, forming new parties, or buttressing existing small parties, rather than staying home or scrawling "morons" on their ballot?

I'm opposed to preferential ballots... they have an unfortunate tendency of leading to someone few really wanted. See: Ed Stelmach. They're too complicated for the average voter, and lead to unwanted results.

Ex: 1st Ballot Choice: CPC 45, Lib 28, NDP 27
NDP Voter Second Choice: 23 to Lib, 4 to CPC
Final Tally: Lib 51, CPC 49

(low numbers for simplicity)

The majority wanted the CPC as their first choice and only 28 wanted the Liberals. Because most NDP voters would rather Liberal than Conservative, those second votes trumped the CPC. Essentially, the Liberals got two votes, once for their own, and then from the NDP run-off.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Pragmatically, N/A doesn't elect anyone. So what happens if the CPC candidate gets 30%, the Liberal gets 29% and the N/A box gets 35%? Does the CPC candidate win despite lacking a plurality? Did that riding just vote to have no representation? Or, does that riding have to have a by-election?

As well, if people in large numbers are so sure that the existing parties are full of morons, then why aren't they running as independents, forming new parties, or buttressing existing small parties, rather than staying home or scrawling "morons" on their ballot?

a) Well I can't speak for GGG but for me the CPC candidate gets elected (assuming you kept the current "first past the post" in your example).

I think a n/a or spoiled ballot, counted and vocalized publicly, is a way of giving voice to a potential public belief that the system may be flawed however which way. How do we really know, for example, that if the 40% or whatever of this election didn't vote because they were a) lazy or b) think the system somehow is the bigger problem? If 35% in your example are going to make time to go and vote n/a or spoiled ballot, I would think that suggests something major is not right - i.e. the system needs to be fixed. Especially if that level occurs across the country.

b) You are assuming that "all the parties are morons" is the reason why most people aren't voting. I think instead it is a variety of "system issues". It could be the aforementioned, it could be that they are lazy, it could be that first past the post doesn't work (for them), it could be that they support their party but hate the candidate running (e.g. rob anders), it could be...

And second, running for elected office costs a lot - time, money, risk/putting yourself out there, etc. Most people don't have a lot of that to spare; I know you aren't saying "everyone" but I think expecting people who don't vote to instead run for office is highly unlikely. They are turned off of the system for some reason.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by lchoy

Just throwing it out there
All Federal governement is really tightly controlled so that people aren't voting for an individual anymore but the party line. Unless the MP candidate is unusally powerful, who ever you vote in would normally just vote the party line. That may turn off potential voters

Fixed that for ya.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by lchoy

Just throwing it out there
The Conservative governement is really tightly controlled so that people aren't voting for an individual anymore but the party line. Unless the MP candidate is unusally powerful, who ever you vote in would normally just vote the party line. That may turn off potential voters

That has nothing to do with the Conservative government.
That is how Canadian politics has always worked.
It's been going on since long before you or I could vote, and it'll probably continue in the future regardless of what party is in power.

Damn Ironhorse beat me to the point. I should have read to the bottom before replying.

[rubecube]

Interestingly enough for me, the candidate I voted for won my riding by less than 80 votes, so I definitely felt like my vote counted.

[redforever]

Originally Posted by lchoy

Just throwing it out there
The Conservative governement is really tightly controlled so that people aren't voting for an individual anymore but the party line. Unless the MP candidate is unusally powerful, who ever you vote in would normally just vote the party line. That may turn off potential voters

Why would anyone run under the banner of a certain party and then oppose most of what that party stands for?

I agree, there can be certain issues where you have to make the decision not to toe the party line, but I think that should be the exception and not the rule.

And I think that if there is a constituency that for whatever reason has an electorate that strongly believes in something or opposes something, then it is up to that electorate to choose the person that will truly represent them and their views.

Now there can and should be parliamentary reform regarding some matters as well. For instance, how do you think the people in a constituency feel when the person they voted in, representing a certain party, crosses the floor and sits with another party? Personally, I do not think that should be allowed to happen.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by RedHot25

a) Well I can't speak for GGG but for me the CPC candidate gets elected (assuming you kept the current "first past the post" in your example).

Granted, its an extreme example, but it would be a great cause for alarm. Any one of the consequences I suggested could in fact be implented in a N/A win situation. The most likely is probably a byelection with no N/A box. Technically, the CPC candidate did not have the most votes.

I think a n/a or spoiled ballot, counted and vocalized publicly, is a way of giving voice to a potential public belief that the system may be flawed however which way. How do we really know, for example, that if the 40% or whatever of this election didn't vote because they were a) lazy or b) think the system somehow is the bigger problem? If 35% in your example are going to make time to go and vote n/a or spoiled ballot, I would think that suggests something major is not right - i.e. the system needs to be fixed. Especially if that level occurs across the country.

You're right, if that many people were motivated, it would be a huge call for action. However, I contend that the majority of the 42% that did not vote did not vote because they simply didn't want to. These people couldn't be bothered to go vote N/A or refuse/spoil their ballot. It is unclear whether a change in electoral system would attract them.

b) You are assuming that "all the parties are morons" is the reason why most people aren't voting. I think instead it is a variety of "system issues". It could be the aforementioned, it could be that they are lazy, it could be that first past the post doesn't work (for them), it could be that they support their party but hate the candidate running (e.g. rob anders), it could be...

Tons of reasons. The reason most people spoil their ballot though (from what I learned) is because they don't like the parties/candidates. That's who I was referring to.

The people who are lazy, don't like FPTP or hate their candidate tend to stay home. The big one around here is that they feel they don't need to join the landslide... they figure enough people will vote their way, so they can stay home.

And second, running for elected office costs a lot - time, money, risk/putting yourself out there, etc. Most people don't have a lot of that to spare; I know you aren't saying "everyone" but I think expecting people who don't vote to instead run for office is highly unlikely. They are turned off of the system for some reason.

Yep. I do find a lot of people find it easy to say that all the candidates are morons (which many are), but offer no suggestions to improve the system. We're all involved in the political process... if we don't like it, why not get involved in the process, join a party, join an interest group... vote.

There's pretty good reasons why "better" candidates don't come into play. Another poster suggested guys like Jim Basillie, Murray Edwards, Clay Riddell, etc. I'll add another couple, Gwyn Morgan and Clive Beddoe. I think these guys would be way too polarizing, because they shoot from the hip. They are more than qualified to helm the country, especially seeing how well they can run a business, but people would hate them and they are practically unelectable. This has nothing to do with taking a cut in pay. They'd get eaten alive (unfairly probably), and why would they bother? People tend to enjoy cheap and easy answers (despite lack of meaning, feasibility or practicality), men like those would not offer that, and people would be drawn like sheep to the conventional snake oil salesmen politician like Layton, who do offer those. Unfortunately, our politicians are a reflection of our society.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

To be perfectly honest, I don't think None of the Above or a Spoiled Ballot are effective means of electoral dialogue, as neither accomplish anything.

Curious, would you rather those people simply didn't vote?

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Curious, would you rather those people simply didn't vote?

They aren't voting as it is. They're protesting to an Elections Canada temporary employee. I'd rather they get involved in a meaningful and productive way. That 42% average could elect practically anyone in any riding and radically change the political environment.

Ripping up their ballot, or saying "all these people suck" by voting none of the above add zero to the political process. 42% of registered voters didn't vote. That alone shows there is an electoral issue.

South Park's election episode summed it up pretty good. Yes, the vote is between a "turd sandwich" and a "giant ######", but one must be a better choice, and that is what elections are for. There are 5 parties that get national attention, and another half dozen here and there that cover the political spectrum... did 42% of people really find nowhere to park their vote, or did they simply not care or not feel like voting. If that is the case, is adding a box to say "this sucks" going to help?

The goal is 100% willing, motivated and informed voters... adding a none of the above box does nothing to help. We already know the system needs help.

[RedHot25]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

The goal is 100% willing, motivated and informed voters... adding a none of the above box does nothing to help. We already know the system needs help.

So if we know the system already needs help, why has nothing been done yet then? It's not like this is some new phenomenon; the voting rate has been steadily declining I believe.

I do think, after all this, that the voting rate gets sold as the be all to end all of democracy. It is critically important, obviously, but the activities you allude to and others - join an interest/pressure group, contact your politician, lobby, etc whatever - are paid little attention to in the media, society and us as individuals as means of democracy.