Spotlight:

You are here: Home > Spotlight > Election 2004 Wrapup

Election Highlights General

The following examines some general issues relating to the 2004 federal election.

Liberal Minority Government

In 2003, the seat total of the House of Commons was increased to 308 seats. As a consequence, for a party to form a majority government it must win 155 seats in the election. If a party does not gain this number of seats, then the party with the most seats may form a minority government.

In the 2004 federal election the Liberals won the most seats, but failed to gain the necessary 155 seats for a majority government, falling 20 seats short. As such, it is forced into a minority government position. Further, it is unlikely that the Liberals will attempt to form a formal coalition with another political party. The only party that it may have done so, the New Democratic Party, only gained 19 seats and does not have a sufficient number to combine into a majority coalition government.

The Liberal will thus have to work in ad hoc relations with all of the political parties. It will likely create a cabinet of only Liberal members and will attempt to pass legislation by gaining support from one or more parties on an issue-by-issue basis. Such a minority government will involve close negotiations between the parties, and may exhibit legislative trade offs where the Liberals will gain support for their initiatives by promising support for the initiatives of another party.

Future Election

Minority governments are historically short-lived. The average length of a minority government in Canada is 18 months. While there have been longer terms, these tend to involve minority governments in which two parties have achieved a relatively strong coalition with one another, which is not the case here. This suggests that Canadians may be back at the polls in a very short time.

This is compounded by the fact that the both the Liberals and the Conservatives would prefer to form a majority government. As such, either party may look to cause another election sooner as opposed to later. The timing of another election may be dictated by when the Liberals or the Conservatives feel they are in a position to win a majority and when they are again in the financial position to run another campaign.

Low Voter Turnout

In 2000, Elections Canada reported that 61.2 percent of eligible voters actually voted in the election. This was the lowest level in Canadian democratic history since 1898 when only 45 percent of eligible Canadians voted in a referendum on liquor prohibition.

The 2004 election did not show an increase over 2000. Preliminary analyses suggest that between 60 and 62 percent of eligible Canadians voted in the 2004 election. This would suggest that only about 13.5 million of the 22 million eligible voters participated in the election. These reports are, however, preliminary. As of June 30, Elections Canada had not yet released to exact figures for voter turnout in the 2004 election.

Some have suggested that the numbers show a long-term trend to reduced democratic participation in Canada. Such a conclusion may be backed up by statistics that show low levels of democratic participation by young voters in Canada. However, other factors suggest the low voter turn out is more temporary. In the 2000 election, the outcome was evident prior to the election. This may have reduced the motivation to participate. The 2004 election was held on a date when Canadians are often vacationing, which would in turn cause a lower than normal turnout.

At the current rate of 61 percent, Canada sits in the lower half of developed democracies in terms of voter turnout. The United States, Switzerland and Mexico tend to be in the high 40s and low 50s; Japan, France and Luxemburg in the mid-60s, and Italy, Iceland and New Zealand in the high 80s and low 90s.

Negative Political Advertising

One of the noticeable trends in the 2004 election was the tendency towards negative political advertisements and messages.

The Liberals launched several national and regional negative ads attacking the Conservative and leader Harper. The most notable of these was “Harper and the Conservatives”, which linked Harper to the war in Iraq, US-style healthcare, the Bloc Quebecois, and the weakening of gun laws and resulting increasing in violence, and “Conservative Economics”, which attacked the Conservative budget and linked leader Harper to the fiscal mismanagement and deficits of the Mulroney federal Conservatives and the Harris provincial Conservatives.

The Conservatives also released several negative ad campaigns. In the “Carousel”, the Liberal government is portrayed as being wasteful of taxpayers’ money. The Sponsorship scandal, HRDC scandal and gun registry are referred to as images are shown of persons throwing money in the garbage. The Conservatives also released a similar ad called the “Cookie Jar”, in which a blue cuff-linked arm (referring to the Conservative Party) is shown stopping a red cuff-linked arm (referring to the Liberals) from stealing cookies from the family cookie jar. The Conservatives also released a statement in which they accused the Liberals and leader Martin not caring about child pornography.

The negative tone of the campaign was also reflected in many speeches of the leaders, as well as the leaders debate. Often public statements were more orientated towards what was “bad” or “weak” about other parties and leaders. Often absent was a clear outlining of what was “good” or “strong” about their own parties and leadership. Moreover, absent was any informative discourse between the different parties and leaders.

CBC Analysis of All Political Advertising During the Election

Next >>
Election Highlights by Party

© 2001-2006 Maple Leaf Web.
All Rights Reserved

This page was last modified: August 10, 2007