Federal Elections

Was Prime Minister Harper too Passive in the Leaders Debate?

Greg Farries — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 08:18:23 -0600

On Airplanes, Footballs and Tanks

Jonathan Rose — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 08:51:56 -0600

Yesterday the Liberal party campaign plane made an unscheduled stop in Montreal. We are told that there was a problem in the Liberal's aging Boeing 737. Thankfully the malfunction was minor and no one was hurt.This should have been the end of it but for the media it was a great stand-in for the entire campaign. The Globe and Mail story said alluded to the 1974 election campaign when Progressive Conservative leader Robert Stanfield was photographed fumbling a football. Never mind that Stanfield successfully caught the ball several times before, the photo that ran on the front pages was that of a leader who literally fumbled the ball. In the 1988 American election, Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis was perceived as being soft on defense. His response was to create a photo-op of him riding in tank. The photo that ran of him taking a tank for a spin just reinforced his weakness.

All these episodes demonstrate the power of symbols to shape modern election campaigns. This should not surprise us. Elections with their onslaught competing economic forecasts and promises that often rely on shaky economics can strain even the most devoted election junkie. The media with their 24 hours news cycle need simple frames to encapsulate the complexities and subtleties of an election dynamic. The most common,of course, is the horse race metaphor where media rely on polls to tell us who is ahead. Sometimes this portrayal can actually look like a horse race complete with win-place-show graphics.

Does this mean, as some argue, that the media are not fulfilling their responsibility to inform? After all, how can voters make decisions if the media are more interested in covering fumbled footballs or malfunctioning airplanes? Because so much of politics is about our affective orientation to leaders and parties, it makes sense for the media to focus on these things. Some scholars argue that these short hand cues are essential for voters to make rational choices in an environment where information is overwhelming. These brief moments - while seemingly unrelated to the issues of a campaign -- are important condensations of the narrative we create about parties and leaders. What remains to be seen is how compelling they are in the long run.

Liberal Election Strategy - Our Fraud Is Not as Bad

Greg Farries — Mon, 05 May 2008 12:29:20 -0600

Important Links For Federal Elections

Greg Farries — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 11:17:39 -0600

A long list of important links have been posted to the Federal Elections section of the Voter Almanac. Links to official political party websites (both major and minor), partisan blogrolls, government websites, and other important election resources have been added.

If you have any suggestions on other links that should be included, please forward them to me.

1911 Federal Election in Canada

Greg Farries — Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:29:05 -0600

Since 1896, Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals had been in power. Laurier had been successful at bridging French and English interests to promote a common purpose, while including the West with policies such as railway building. However, the debate over the Canadian Navy and reciprocity with the United States would once again divide French and English Canada. Laurier was faced with deserters in his own party, and struggled to maintain a base of support in Quebec, a traditionally Liberal province. The 1911 election would be the first single-issue free trade election fought in Canada, and Canadian voters rejected reciprocity. This decision would stand until the next free-trade election in 1988. Nationalist forces in Quebec emerged onto the federal political scene, which would be the beginning of a long tradition of third-party politics in Quebec.

1911 Historical Background

The creation of a Canadian navy and ongoing debate about reciprocity with the USA

Political Party Profiles

Canada’s traditional two parties would start to form outside alliances to gain more voter support.

Party Leader Profiles

Wilfrid Laurier’s French background and Robert Borden’s English background would be important factors in this election.

1911 Election Campaign Issues

The naval question would take centre stage in Quebec, while reciprocity dominated debates throughout the rest of Canada.

The Political Campaign

Borden formed an alliance with Quebec politicians, Laurier focused on the economic benefits of his policies.

1911 Election Results

Voters felt betrayed by Laurier, and put an end to his Liberal dynasty by electing Borden with a majority government.

Historical Significance of 1911 Election

Canadian voters reject free trade and Nationalist forces emerge in Quebec.

Links/Further Reading

Learn more about the 1911 election and the politicians involved.

1911 Historical Background

The creation of a Canadian navy and ongoing debate about reciprocity with the USA

Wilfrid Laurier’s Liberals had been in power since 1896, winning elections in 1900, 1904, and 1908. Laurier had become an expert on bridging French and English interests in Canada to win majority governments. The Liberals gained support in the West with policies such as railway building projects.

However, the years immediately leading up to 1911 saw Laurier losing some of his support. The Liberals seemed to be running out of innovative ideas. Several factors would set the stage for the 1911 election:

Creation of the Royal Canadian Navy

In 1909, the House of Commons approved the Canadian Naval Bill. However, when Laurier started to create the navy in 1910, he was met with opposition. He had always expected the bill to be opposed by the Nationalists in Quebec, but he was surprised at the opposition he faced from the Conservatives (mostly French-speaking Conservatives).

Quebec Nationalists were opposed to the creation of a Canadian navy because:

They saw it as a pledge for Canadian participation in Britain’s wars
They saw it as an abandonment of Canadian autonomy

The Nationalists were led by Henri Bourassa, a Quebec politician. Bourassa had been a Laurier supporter, but could not support him when the naval issue arose. He abandoned Laurier to work with Robert Borden and the Conservatives.

Laurier now faced opposition to the naval bill from the Conservatives and Bourassa’s Nationalists. Faced with an election, he needed an issue that would distract attention away from the naval question. He found that in the free trade agreement.

Reciprocity with the United States

Free trade, or reciprocity, with the United States had been discussed before, but had always met with opposition from Canada. However, Laurier felt that the Canadian economy was strong enough to restart reciprocity negotiations. Laurier also believed that free trade would increase his support among westerners. He and President Taft of the USA began negotiations in 1910, and by January of 1911 they had worked out an arrangement on the following terms:

Raw materials would be allowed to flow freely across the border
Some manufactured items would be admitted at lower tariffs

This deal initially seemed favourable to Canada. Even Borden was worried that all Canadians would support it. However, opposition to reciprocity soon began to emerge. The Conservatives were strongly opposed to free trade because they felt that Laurier was selling out Canada to the United States.

Revolt of The Eighteen

Some Liberals were also opposed to reciprocity. The most prominent among these Liberals was Clifford Sifton, a western MP and a member of Laurier’s cabinet. He left the Liberal party to work with Borden’s Conservatives against free trade. This inspired the “revolt of the eighteen,” when 18 prominent Liberals issued a manifesto calling the reciprocity agreement “the worst blow ever to threaten Canadian nationality.” They were supported by business, manufacturing, and transportation industries.

Borden accepted the aid of the Liberals who had left their party. This caused controversy within the Conservative Party. However, when Borden threatened to resign over the conflict, the party rallied behind him to present a united front in the coming election.

Borden and the Conservatives were convinced that these events meant they could have success in the election. Laurier was heading into the election facing opposition from business interests, the Conservatives, Quebec Nationalists, and even members of his own party.

Political Party Profiles

Canada’s traditional two parties would start to form outside alliances to gain more voter support.

The 1911 election was a traditional two-party election in Canada. However, forces started to emerge which suggested that third-party interests were starting to become more prominent in Canadian politics. Bourassa’s Nationalists were devoted solely to Quebec’s interests, and they were able to exert influence through their alliance with the Conservatives.

The Liberal Party

The Liberals had been in power for 15 years with a majority government. By 1911, Laurier was in ill health and seemed to be reluctant to embrace change. The Liberals had run out of ideas, which prompted them to adopt the controversial naval bill and reciprocity agreements. The Liberals would be plagued with internal divisions. Their 1911 election was not characteristic of the strong Liberal party of the preceding 15 years. Their influence in Canadian politics was starting to decline.

The Conservative Party

In 1911, the Conservatives would form coalitions with several other political interests in Canada to oppose the Liberal policies of free trade and the naval bill. The most important of these would be the Quebec Nationalists led by Henri Bourassa. This Conservative-Nationalist Alliance was able to campaign throughout the election as a united party that was supported by Quebec nationalists, Liberal insurgents who had deserted Laurier, and business interests.

Party Leader Profiles

Wilfrid Laurier’s French background and Robert Borden’s English background would be important factors in this election.

Wilfrid Laurier – Liberal Party

Wilfrid Laurier was born on November 20, 1841 in St. Lin, Canada East. Before entering politics, he worked as a lawyer and newspaper editor. He supported liberal ideals such as progress and democracy. Laurier believed that Quebec and English Canada had to be closely associated in order to achieve liberal ideals. The following are Laurier’s political highlights:

Member of the Legislative Assembly of Quebec 1871-1874
Elected to the House of Commons 1874
Leader of the Liberal Party 1887-1919
Leader of the Official Opposition 1887-1896
Prime Minister 1896-1911

Laurier died on February 17, 1919.

Robert Laird Borden – Conservative Party

Robert Borden was born on June 26, 1854 in Grand Pré, Nova Scotia. Before entering politics, he worked as a teacher and a lawyer. The following are highlights of his political career:

First elected as a Member of Parliament in 1896
Leader of the Conservative Party 1901-1920
Leader of the official opposition 1901-1911
Leader of the Union Government 1917-1920
Prime Minister 1911-1920

Throughout World War I, Borden fought for an independent voice for Canada in international affairs. He attended the Paris Peace conference as the Canadian delegate in 1919. After retiring from politics, Borden worked in the insurance and banking industries, and as an author. He died in June of 1937.

1911 Election Campaign Issues

The naval question would take centre stage in Quebec, while reciprocity dominated debates throughout the rest of Canada.

Two primary issues emerged in the 1911 election. The naval question was the primary issue in Quebec, and issues of imperialism went along with it. In the rest of Canada, the question of reciprocity with the United States emerged as the main issue of the election.

Reciprocity with the United States

After Laurier and President Taft had negotiated the free trade agreement, they took the unusual step of agreeing to concurrent legislation rather than a formal treaty to implement it. This allowed the Conservatives to delay passage of the agreement through the House of Commons, and reciprocity became an election issue.

The reciprocity agreement seemed favourable for all Canadians. Liberals argued that the Canadian economy could only improve by lowering tariffs and expanding markets. However, those who opposed it raised the following concerns:

Free trade would simply make Canada a supplier of raw materials for American manufacturing
It would slow the movement to set up American branch plants in Canada
Some Canadian agriculturalists would face stiff competition from Americans
Free trade with the USA would run counter to the country’s basic economic policies as started by John A. Macdonald – western expansion to promote east-west trade
Since the agreement was to be put in place by legislation and not a treaty, it could be terminated at anytime – this was a precarious situation on which to base Canada’s economy

Although the Conservatives tried to raise other issues in the election, in English Canada, the reciprocity issue overshadowed everything else.

The Naval Question

This would be the defining issue of the election in Quebec, with reciprocity playing a minor role. At the heart of the naval issue was the question about imperialism. Quebec Nationalists were afraid that the Canadian navy was going to allow Britain too much influence over Canadian affairs. They did not want to see Canada entered into wars which they should not be involved in.

The Quebec nationalist Henri Bourassa led the anti-imperialist fight against the Liberals. He thought that if Laurier was re-elected, he would abandon the interests of French Canada. Bourassa also did not support reciprocity, because he thought Laurier was using it to distract attention away from the more important question of the naval bill. He would lead the Union government in Quebec.

The Election Campaign

Borden formed an alliance with Quebec politicians, Laurier focused on the economic benefits of his policies.

Laurier did not seem worried that his government was threatened by the Conservatives. He was confident that his 15 year political record would lead him to success again.

Liberal Strategy

The Liberals focused on the economic benefits that reciprocity would bring to Canadians. Laurier had experienced strong support for free trade in the West, and Liberal politicians in those areas had a simple message that reciprocity meant “higher prices for our products and a lower price for our necessities.” They dismissed the Conservative accusations that supporters of free trade were being disloyal to Canada and to Britain. For the Liberals, free trade was simply an issue of economic growth for Canada.

In Quebec, where the naval question was the most important issue, Laurier faced a tough campaign. Laurier had always been able to balance French and English interests, but he was accused of deserting his French countrymen by giving into Britain’s demands. He was characterized as an imperialist. To counter this, Laurier pointed out the strange alliance between Bourassa and Borden. He said that a vote for Bourassa was a vote for Borden, and Borden himself was an imperialist despite his relationship with Bourassa. Laurier characterized their alliance as a “black contract,” made despite ideological differences just to achieve political ends.

Conservative Strategy: The Bourassa-Borden Alliance

The Conservative-Nationalist alliance was never formally set out, but Bourassa would run 28 Nationalist candidates as Conservatives. The reason for this was to provide a stronger opposition to Laurier. The anti-Liberal forces, especially in Quebec , needed to work together to defeat the government. Although the Conservatives had previously branded Bourassa a rebel for his anti-imperialist policies, they needed his support to defeat the Liberals.

The Conservative-Nationalist Alliance allowed Borden to focus his efforts in Ontario, where he portrayed Laurier as disloyal to the British Empire through his reciprocity agreement with the United States. Bourassa was left to focus on Quebec, where he attacked Laurier as disloyal to his fellow French Canadians by selling out their military interests to British control.

The Conservatives did not support reciprocity. Although the Liberals emphasized the commercial benefits that free trade would bring, the Conservatives chose to appeal to the sentimental aspects of reciprocity with the USA:

They characterized free trade as a policy of continentalism and annexation to the USA
The accused the Liberals of being disloyal to Canada and to Britain
They rallied the voters who were hostile to the USA by running under a slogan of “no truck or trade with the Yankees”
They pointed out that Canadians were sufficiently prosperous, and that they were willing to sacrifice further gains in order to show their resentment towards years of USA hostility and condescension

The sentimental Conservative campaign was aided by Champ Clark (the American Speaker of the House of Representatives). He said, “I hope to see the day when the American flag will float over every square foot of the British North American possessions…” The actual commercial benefits of reciprocity were overshadowed by these kinds of statements, as feelings of national pride and USA hostility became the centre of the campaign.

In Quebec, Bourassa used his anti-imperalist messages to portray Laurier’s policies as “moral evils.” He accused Laurier of abandoning Canadian autonomy in favour of British military interests.

1911 Election Results

Voters felt betrayed by Laurier, and put an end to his Liberal dynasty by electing Borden with a majority government.

Laurier faced problems both inside and outside Quebec. The result was an end to the lengthy string of Liberal majority governments. Borden’s Conservatives won a majority government.

Population of Canada (1911): 7,204,527

Number of electors on list: 1,820,742

Total ballots cast: 1,314,953

Voter turnout: 70.2%

	Seats won	% of popular vote	# of candidates	# of valid votes cast
Liberal	87	47.7	220	623,554
Conservative	134	50.9	218	666,074
Other	0	1.4	23	17,900
Total	221	100	461	1,307,528

Provincial Breakdown

	Conservative		Liberal		Other
	# of seats	% of vote	# of seats	% of vote	# of seats	% of vote
NS	9	48.8	9	50.8	0	0.3
NB	5	49.2	8	50.8	0	0
PEI	2	51.1	2	48.9	0	0
PQ	27	48.1	38	50.2	0	1.7
ON	73	56.2	13	43.1	0	0.7
MB	8	51.9	2	44.8	0	3.3
SK	1	39.0	9	59.4	0	1.6
AB	1	42.5	6	53.3	0	4.1
BC	7	58.8	0	37.5	0	3.6
YK	1	60.8	0	39.2	0	0
Canada	134	50.9	87	47.7	0	1.4

Historical Significance of 1911 Election

Canadian voters reject free trade and Nationalist forces emerge in Quebec.

The 1911 election marked the end of 15 years of Liberal domination in Canada – the second of the long-lasting regimes in Canadian politics. Wilfrid Laurier had been very skillful at creating stability in the French-English relationship in Canada , but his clever negotiations did not work in 1911. As Laurier tried to make too many concessions, both sides ended up feeling betrayed.

There were several aspects of the 1911 election that made it one of Canada ’s most significant:

The Emergence of the Nationalists

The demands of French Canadians in Quebec had been met satisfactorily by Macdonald and Laurier for many years. However, the naval bill of 1910 was such a controversial issue in Quebec that many felt the two major political parties could not address the best interests of Quebecois. The formation of the Nationalists, led by Henri Bourassa, marked the first time that a third party had become a player on the federal political scene. This marked the beginning of a long tradition of nationalist parties to emerge out of Quebec.

However, Bourassa’s attempt to create a strong Nationalist party ultimately failed. By creating an alliance with Borden, he was really supporting the more imperialistic of the two national parties. Although the Nationalists’ primary goal of knocking Laurier out of power was achieved, Borden would still have had a victory even if the Nationalists would have deserted him. However, Bourassa’s alliance with Borden ultimately undermined the goals of the Nationalists, and Bourassa’s party failed to become a significant political force.

The Free-Trade Election

Free trade elections in Canada have always been controversial and intense. Although the 1891 election saw free trade as an important part of the election platforms, it never emerged as the dominant issue. The 1911 election was the first time that reciprocity had become the defining issue of the election. The election strategies that were employed be each party would become characteristic of how free-trade elections are fought. In 1911, as in the 1988 election, sentimental and emotional aspects of free trade took precedence over the actual economic and commercial aspects of the arrangement. Opponents of free trade portrayed supporters as disloyal and treasonous Canadians. Just as Robert Borden accused Wilfrid Laurier of negotiating “annexation” to the USA in 1911, John Turner accused Brian Mulroney of “selling out” Canada to the USA in 1988 (Ironically, the position of the Liberals and Conservatives were reversed in these two elections). Free trade elections have always been emotionally-charged, bitterly fought elections in Canada. In 1911, Canadian voters made the historic decision to reject free trade with the United States.

Links/Further Reading

Learn more about the 1911 election and the politicians involved.

J.M. Beck, Pendulum of Power (Scarborough: Prentice Hall of Canada, Ltd., 1968).

John Duffy, Fights of Our Lives: Elections, Leadership, and the Making of Canada (Toronto : Harper Collins Publishers, 2002).

Paul Douglas Stevens, The 1911 General Election: A Study in Canadian Politics (Toronto: Copp Clard Publishing Co.), 1970.

For More Information:

Library and Archives Canada Website,

First Among Equals: The Prime Minister in Canadian Life and Politics

Government of Canada

Elections Canada: Voter Turnout Statistics

Federal Election Info

Jay Makarenko — Tue, 22 May 2007 12:23:06 -0600

Find detailed information on federal political parties in Canada and links to related features and political cartoons.

2006 Election Results & Current Party Standings

Political Parties	2008	Voter %	Current
Conservative Party	143	37.6	143
Liberal Party	76	26.2	76
Bloc Québécois	50	10.0	50
New Democratic Party	37	18.2	37
Green Party	0	6.8	0
Independant	2	0.7	2
Other	0	0.5	0
Vacant	-	-	0

Leader Profiles

Related Features and Cartoons

[block:block=7]

Important Links

Official Political Party Websites

Minor Political Party Websites

Unofficial Partisan Blogrolls

Government Websites

Other Election Resources

Voter Turnout in Canada

Rhonda Parkinson — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 00:00:00 -0700

Since the 1980s, voter turnout in federal elections has fallen sharply. In the 1988 general election, 75 percent of eligible voters participated. In the 2006 general election, only 64.7 percent voted. This article discusses the issue of decreasing voter turnout; in particular, it examines historical trends in the level of voter participation, potential reasons for dropping voter rates, as well as possible initiatives to increase citizen participation.

Historical Trends in Voter Turnout

Lower rates of voter participation

Possible Causes of Lower Voter Turnout

From voter apathy to bad weather

Initiatives to Increase Voting

Reaching out to voters through the Internet

Links to More Information

List of links for more information on this topic

Historical Trends in Voter Turnouts

Lower rates of voter participation

Past Voter Participation

Canada has traditionally enjoy very high levels of voter participation in federal elections. Before World War II, voter turnout in Canada among eligible voters averaged around 70 percent. Between World War II and 1988, this rate of participation was even higher, averaging around 75 percent during federal elections. Moreover, during this period, voter turnout only twice fell below 70 percent; once in 1953 (67.5 percent) and again in 1980 (69.3 percent).

Recent Voter Participation

Since 1988, the percentage of Canadians voting in federal elections has declined significantly. Over 75 percent of Canadians voted in the 1988 federal election. By contrast, only 60.5 percent of eligible Canadians voted in the 2004 federal election. This trend, however, was moderately reversed in 2006 when 64.7 percent of eligible voters participated. Nevertheless, the turnout rate remains well below historical averages.

Year	1988	1993	1997	2000	2004	2006
Voter Turnout Rates	75.3%	69.6%	67.0%	61.2%	60.5%	64.7%

In addition to falling overall voter participation, another significant trend is the extremely low rate of participation amongst youth voters. Approximately twenty-five percent of eligible voters aged 18 – 24 voted in the 2000 federal election. Moreover, studies have indicated that many youth who don’t vote remain uninvolved in the political system, and do not voting when they get older.

Compared to Other Nations

Worldwide, many industrialized countries are experiencing a decline in voter participation. In France, the voter turnout rate for parliamentary elections has fallen from nearly 80 percent of registered voters in 1945 to 60 percent in 2002. Voter participation in U.K. parliamentary elections fell from over 70 percent in 1945 to 59.4 percent in 2001. In the United States, voter turnout for the presidential elections fell from 79.9 percent in 1972 to 67.4 percent in 2000. (Source: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance).

The youth vote is also falling worldwide. The U.K. Electoral Commission concluded that the low turnout rate in the 2001 election was primarily due to youth not voting. In the United States only 36 percent of youth between the ages of 18 – 24 voted in the 2000 presidential election.

Possible Causes of Lower Voter Turnout

From voter apathy to bad weather

Timing of the Election

Whenever possible, governments try to hold elections in the spring or fall instead of summer or winter. Summer elections are problematic because many people are away on vacation and don’t take the time to vote in advance polls. In winter, extreme weather conditions can prevent voters from travelling to the polling station.

Timing may have played a role in low voter turnout in the 1953 and 1980 Canadian federal elections. The date of the 1953 election was August 10th, while the 1980 election was held in mid-February. Voter turnout for these elections was 67.5 percent and 69.3 percent respectively.

Long Period of One-Party Dominance

Voter turnout may be low when the same political party has been in power for a long period and the opposition clearly has no chance of winning the election. This was the case in 1953. The Liberals had been in power for nearly twenty years, led first by Mackenzie King and then by Louis St. Laurent, King’s former Minister of External Affairs. At the time the Progressive Conservatives did not have a leader or platform to challenge the Liberals.

A similar situation occurred in 1974. The Liberals had been in power since 1963, led first by Lester Pearson and then by Pierre Trudeau, who served as Justice Minister in Pearson’s cabinet. Voter turnout fell from 76.7 percent in the 1972 election, to 71.0 percent in 1974.

In both cases, the government was re-elected with a majority, supporting the commonly held belief that low voter turnout favors the party in power. By contrast, low turnout rates worked against the government in the 1980 election: the Liberals defeated the PC minority government of Joe Clark. However, the circumstances surrounding this election were unusual. The Conservatives had only been in power six months when they were defeated on a non-confidence vote, after introducing a budget that contained several controversial tax increases, including an 18-cent per gallon gasoline tax. The subsequent election made it clear that the non-confidence vote reflected the voters’ wishes.

Research on Non-participation

Recent research on voter turnout has provided further insight into the possible causes of lower voter participation. In 2003, Elections Canada published Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal Elections: A New Survey of Non-voters. The Report surveyed non-voters in the 2000 federal general election in an attempt to find out their reasons for not participating. The following Table provides some of the reasons given by those surveyed (broken down into different age groups).

Importance of Reason for Not Voting (% very or fairly important)	68+	58– 67	48– 57	38– 47	30– 37	25– 29	21-24	18-20	Total
Just not interested	31.4	34.0	46.4	50.6	51.8	59.3	57.0	59.1	52.9
Didn’t like parties/candidates	41.7	40.8	56.0	50.9	46.9	43.2	50.7	45.3	47.6
Vote wouldn’t matter	30.6	37.5	47.1	37.9	41.1	36.7	34.3	30.4	37.1
Didn’t care about issues	42.9	28.0	35.7	37.3	36.6	32.8	37.7	36.5	36.0
Busy at work	16.7	14.3	16.5	24.8	36.9	33.9	38.6	40.9	32.2
Out of town	19.4	34.7	16.7	19.3	18.3	21.5	25.1	24.8	21.8
Didn’t know where or when	28.6	12.2	12.9	9.4	19.2	24.4	28.5	28.4	21.1
Not on the list	25.7	16.3	15.5	16.8	16.0	20.3	18.4	24.2	18.7
Too many elections	26.2	24.5	20.0	18.5	21.4	16.5	13.0	9.5	17.3
Illness	41.7	20.4	11.9	11.8	8.5	10.7	9.2	10.8	11.7

(Source: "Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal Elections". Elections Canada. 05 March 2007. <http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=index&dir=tur/tud&lang=e&textonly=false>)

The above Table indicates a number of findings:

On average, most non-participants were heavily affected by general disinterest and apathy with the electoral process, such as not liking the choices of parties/candidates, having a sense that their vote would have no impact on the outcome, and not caring about the issues.
Older persons were also affected by issues of illness and problems with voting, such as registering and/or knowing where and when to vote.
Middle aged and younger persons were also somewhat affected by logistical issues, such as being too busy with work to make it to the polling station on election night.

Initiatives to Increase Voter Turnout

Possible avenues to encourage voter participation

Encouraging Youth Participation

Voter turnout is lowest amongst the youth vote. Approximately twenty-five percent of eligible voters aged 18 – 24 voted in the 2000 federal election. Moreover, studies have indicated that many youth who don’t vote remain uninvolved in the political system, and do not voting when they get older. One way of increasing voter turnout, therefore, is to encourage electoral participation amongst Canadian youths.

This can involve a number of different sorts of initiatives One possibility is to encourage candidates and political parties to address Canadian youths more directly during election, by addressing youths directly at high schools or university campuses, and by discussing issues that important to youth voters. Another possibility is to encourage youth participation through the use of modern forms of media and communication, which are used to a larger extent by younger Canadians. Many organizations, such as Rush the Vote and Elections Canada, have used the internet as a means of increasing political awareness amongst Canadian youth and providing information on how to participate.

Reform the Electoral System

Some experts place much of the low voter turnout blame on Canada’s electoral system. Canada has a single member plurality system, commonly called First Past the Post (FPTP). In a FPTP system, a single individual represents a specific district. Instead of obtaining a majority of votes, the winner only needs to receive more votes than any other candidate.

FPTP systems tend to produce stable majority governments. However, they also tend to over-reward larger parties with strong regional base of support, while smaller third parties with a national base of support are underrepresented. For example, in the 2004 federal election, the Bloq Quebecois (BQ) - a separatist party that runs candidates only in Quebec - won approximately eighteen percent of House of Commons seats, despite receiving only 12.4 percent of the popular vote. On the other hand, winning 15.7 percent of the popular vote translated into only six percent of House of Commons seats for the NDP, while the Green Party did not win any seats, despite being the first choice of 4.3 percent of voters

Electoral reform proponents believe switching to an electoral system that uses some form of proportional representation (PR) will produce a fairer result and help voters feel that their vote matters. Today, most of the world’s democracies use PR. In Canada, several provincial governments are currently considering switching either to full PR or Mixed Member Proportional, which combines the best features of both PR and the single member plurality system.

To learn more about electoral reform options, see “Citizen’s Assembly on Electoral Reform: Should BC Change its Electoral System?”

According to the World Policy Institute, voter turnout is higher in countries with proportional representation. The following table compares voter turnout rates in democracies with different electoral systems:

Table of Voter Turnout Comparisons, 1995

Country	Voter Turnout Percentage	System
Belgium	93	PR
Italy	89	MMP
Norway	83	PR
Germany	78	PR
Greece	77	PR
United Kingdom	76	FPTP
Spain	70	PR
France	65	Majority*
United States (1994)	38**	FPTP (for Congress)

(Source: World Policy Institute)

*The winner must receive a majority of votes.
**Based on the percentage of adults aged 18 or over, not the percentage of registered voters

However, voter turnout rates have also fallen in some countries with PR. For example, voter turnout rates in Switzerland fell from 71.7 percent in 1947 to 43.2 percent in 1999. In Austria, turnout for the parliamentary elections fell from 94.3 percent in 1945 to 80.4 percent in 1999, while Israel’s voter turnout rates for parliamentary elections dropped from over 80 percent in the 1960s to 67.8 percent in 2003 (Source: International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance). Still, overall, the drop has been less extreme in countries with PR.

Introduce Electronic Voting

Electronic voting removes the logistical problems experienced by voters who can’t make it to the polling station on Election Day, and either don’t know about or are unable to vote in advance polls. Voting by Internet allows voters to cast their ballot without ever leaving home. Proponents of “E-voting” believe its potential extends far beyond elections. Through online votes, surveys, and polls, citizens could regularly provide feedback on a variety of government initiatives, both at the municipal level and higher levels of government.

After exploring the issue since the late 1990s, Elections Canada has concluded there are both potential benefits and drawbacks to e-voting:

It has definite potential to increase the voter turnout rate. In a 2000 poll, 62 percent of non-voters said they would have been more likely to vote if the Internet voting option had been available.
In particular, it could increase the youth voter turnout rate. In the 2002 Elections Canada survey, a significant portion of young adults age 18 – 24 cited logistical problems as the reason they didn’t vote.
There are security concerns – it would be difficult to verify that the correct person is voting, prevent someone from voting more than once, or manipulate data by some other method.
Resolving these security concerns would be expensive, and probably require using biometric data to verify a person’s identity.
Even with added precautions, public concerns about Internet security and the possibility that the government or other organizations could find out how they voted would have to be overcome.
Despite the major increase in Internet use in the last decade, a segment of the voting population still does not know how to use computers, or does not have easy access to a computer.

Links to Further Information

List of links for more information on this topic

Canada

US and the World

Worldwide Voter Turnout. Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance
“Risky E-vote System to Expand,” Wired.com
Youth Vote Coalition ( United States)
“Smackdown Your Vote!” The World Wrestling site encouraging American youth to vote.

Liberal Parachuting in Star Candidates for Election

Greg Farries — Sun, 16 May 2004 00:00:00 -0600