Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

United in apathy and distraction

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, August 16, 2010 3:21pm - 0 Comments

Scott Payne asks David Frum for his thoughts on Canadian politics, a discussion of voter turnout philosophy ensues.

Declining voter turnouts are an outcome of changes in modern social life. They are the political cognates of declining church membership, declining participation in civic clubs, and so on. From Oslo to San Diego, we’re just no “joiners” the way people used to be. Maybe it would be better if we were. But don’t go looking to the specific defects of Canadian politicians to explain a phenomenon you see in almost every advanced country.

A quick look at relatively comparable democracies—excluding Australia and Belgium where voting is compulsory—shows there’s something to this. Though turnout in Denmark and Spain has remained relatively stable, there have been declines of one kind or another in England, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Sweden and Switzerland.

Canada fares poorly though when those turnouts are compared.

Denmark 86.6%
Sweden 82%
Italy 80.5%
Netherlands 80.4%
New Zealand 79.5%
Germany 77.7%
Norway 77.4%
Spain 75.3%
Greece 74.1%
Japan 67.5%
Ireland 67%
Finland 65%
Israel 64.7%
France 60.4%
Portugal 59.7%
Canada 59.5%
Switzerland 48.3%

For whatever it is worth, the vast majority of those above would seem to have some history with coalition government. Greece currently has a majority government, Portugal, like Canada, has a minority government.

Tags: Canada, David Frum, democracy, election, elections, voter turnout

More by Aaron Wherry

Emily

Perhaps people all over the world are saying it's time to do things differently, because the old system sucks.

Be_rad

It must be safe to say that "the old system" differs widely over the range of countries covered. Moreover, as implied by Frum, many specific idiosyncracies will be involved in the respective countries not common elsewhere. So, that's actually a lot of systems that must suck, leaving us with precious few options to work with; there's any number of variables at play complicating matters, leaving us with little chance of a one size fits all solution.

Orson Bean

While I agree with Frum that we're not joining the sorts of clubs and associations that we used to (including traditional political parties), there is a possible argument to make that "traditional" affiliations are being replaced by online social networks. Not to make too much of it, but political and issue-oriented facebook groups are an example.

Mark R

A FB groups takes about 20 seconds of commitment to click join. I hate them and how the media loves to use them to prove some story or another.

Orson Bean

I think they're kind of lame myself, but still they do amount to a form of political engagement. Better than nothing, you might say. And the fact is, younger people are much more comfortable with that form of social involvement than joining the Elks Club and donning a funny hat.

LiveBloggin Junkie

"Better than nothing, you might say."

You might say that, but I think you'd be wrong. In any FB group you can find the small vangaurd on the boards but many of them are already engaged off-line in some form or another. The problem is the other 90% who click on the 'like' button and never look at the group again only think they have contributed or achieved something. They smile with satisfaction and conclude they've done their part by joining and never get engaged again. Pre-facebook, you may not have reached the numbers of people who will click like, but you would have recruited real bodies capable of doing real work.

Orson Bean

Again, I'm just as skeptical of facebook and facebook groups as anyone. But look at the Obama campaign, fundraising and get-out-the-vote machine in 2008 — that was very much internet-based.

novagardener

I joined Facebook to protest the latest prorogation and did protest on the ground. I've been invited by many on Facebook members but am not interested.

This took 30 seconds

did anyone else see the humour in the fact that this was posted in an online comment? I wonder, Mark, do you often take the time to write a well formatted and thought out letter to the editor?

For the record, this comment is being made tongue in cheek

Patchouli

A very pointed tongue in cheek!
Mark R

I don't get it. My loss.

PolJunkie

That comment betrays your age group, my friend. Welcome to the 21st century.

Emily

The voters list is very out of date. The result of another short-sighted decision about enumeration.

Lots of voters don't show up….because they're dead.

Stewart_Smith

The dead are so short sighted, not to give a damn about their future.

Emily

True. Quite careless of them.
tedbetts

Unless there is a political leadership race underway. Then they are hyperactive.

McC_

weren't they Volpe's core constituency?

tedbetts

Not just. They swung behind Tom Long – architect of the Common Sense Revolution – in his leadership bid for the Ontario PCs and then, disappointed with the conservative deficit creation machine, split: some supporting Belinda Stronach's Conservative Party leadership bid and, later, Volpe's.

Which just shows you that Stewart Smith doesn't know what he is talking about. The dead give a great deal of a damn about their future.
novagardener

If I could outlive my husband – doubtful – I'd leave lots to my party of choice – not the cons – and to other good humanitarian causes.
Olaf

I'd submit that your use of the word 'other' was misplaced.
McC_

thanks, clearly you've been following this important demographic more closely than I have.

Phil King

Personally I think Canadians are increasingly turning away from politics because of how obviously little it has to do with the outcomes of governance.

Generally you get a couple choices in an election, each barely distinguishable from the other in any meaningful sense, and then the government that is created does a whole bunch of things it never campaigned upon and can't effectively be held to account for.

People have no say on individual issues and end up having to accept things they hate just to get at a few things they like from a party.

It's utter nonsense really, and it's going to have to change.

LiveBloggin Junkie

1. Personally I think Canadians are increasingly turning away from governance because of how obviously little it has to do with the activities of politics.

2. There is bizarre pattern in Canadian politics in which the government that effects them most and which they have the greatest degree of control over they vote for least.

3. People tend to equate having their say on an issue with having their way. Democracy is not a Harvey's and voting is not supposed to be like ordering a whopper.

A_logician

Iif you've been trying to order a whopper at Harvey's, you are indeed on the path to alienation.
JoeC

I believe that whoppers are only served at Burger King… ; )
elrick74

That's because nobody cares where that new traffic light needs to go or that new fire hydrant needs to be. People do care about their education health care and retirement which are truly important and are paid for with tax money.

E_B_

Kim Campbell was quoted as saying something to the effect that, "A campaign is not the time to be discussing policy", and was pilloried in the press for it. Robert Stanfield campaigned on the need for wage and price controls, and was savagely attacked by Trudeau and the media; Trudeau went on to implement them. Chretien famously promised to 'kill' the GST; Harper hasn't been much different: Income Trusts, Transparency, Accountability…

What exactly do we vote on then? Clearly, policies and promises just represent shell games; something to snatch away as soon as the election is over.

We vote on either who we think will do the least damage, who is more popular, or who is less 'corrupt'. I fear the electorate has a really short attention span, we don't pay attention to the important stuff, and the politicians take us for granted.

Phil King

One obvious example of the democratic defecit is our MP's utter lack of power. I can vote for my riding rep all I like, but what I get is whatever the leader deems to be right.

So in essence there really are only 4 or 5 people being voted for, not the 1232 that appear on ballots across the country.

Parliament is now essentially owned by unions aka "parties" that control the MPs with figurative whips to vote against the interests of the people who elected them.

Parties makes sense in terms of identifying ideology, but it turns every debate in the house into false dichotomies governed by clan loyalty.

That's no way to determine policy.

Emily

Neither is the back-room dealing the Americans are stuck with.
madeyoulook

All right, I'll bite. Tell us what is the way, Phil.

Be_rad

I agree with Phil's analysis and I think the logical solution is to focus on political parties and their role in how we govern ourselves.

All of the power in parties rests in the hands of the leader and the leader's office, where hired guns call the shots on policy. Constituency candidates are not chosen with a broad-enough base of support or in contests that give them independent policy legitimacy. With no meaningful say in who leads them or in policy, candidates/MPs are toothless.

At the other end of the dynamic, modes of communication and how we as electors choose our MPs mean that concentrating power in the leader's hands is the only way to electoral success.

Change the power relationship between MP and leader and the chances are you get a more democratic relationship chain from grassroots to leader. The flip side, though, is that a party organized that way will have a more difficult time getting elected because the media and the electorate do the horse race thing and focus primarily and overwhelmingly on the leader.
Phil King

Oh god don't ask me. Smarter people than I are stumped on that problem. LOL
RunningGag

I think that a good start would be to make the GG position elected. It would shift some of the power away from the PM.
legraf

Not a well-fleshed out (or even thought out) plan, but try this: elect the prime minister by vote of all MPs. Possibly the same for cabinet, and for committee memberships. One might even have annual elections within the House. Some sort of ban on "contracts" requiring a promise to vote for a "party leader" would probably be necessary. Parties might still unite around general ideological positions, but the power to exert immediate control over MPs within the House would dissipate.

It must be brilliant, I got the basic idea from "Yes Minister". :)

Craig Piche

What was the US total in the last election? From at least a geographical point of view, that would be interesting, Obama-mania aside.
madeyoulook

Fun with numbers. Take the Elections Canada data and remove referenda from the table: http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=pas&a…
Plug into a spreadsheet, and play with the numbers, discovering that Elections Canada has trouble calculating percentages (look especially at the 1917 event and marvel that 1.9 million out of 2.1 million is only three quarters), and re-calculating voter turnout assuming the raw data to be true.

Overall turnout over all forty elections: 70.6%
Turnout for Elxns 1-10: 74.2%
Turnout for Elxns 11-20: 74.0%
Turnout for Elxns 21-30: 75.7%
Turnout for Elxns 31-40: 67.0%

madeyoulook

And the respective turnout (%) for elections 31 through 40 (1971 through 2008) are: 75.8, 69.3, 75.3, 75.3, 69.6, 67.0, 61.2, 60.9, 64.7, and 58.8 (this last one is at mild variance with Aaron's figure above). Elections Canada math skills have improved for analysis of this batch of data. Also note the footnotes that acknowledge true turnout is known to be higher for some elections when data about ineligible electors (moved, deceased) help clean up the counts.

Olaf

After a careful analysis of the numbers you've provided MYL, I can't help but conclude you're a nerd.

I distrust anyone who doesn't round numbers to the nearest 10.

s_c_f

The table here is useful too: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/historical-tu…
You can see that turnout relative to population is about average historically.

Phil King

I don't disagree that voting for a representative is a good way to go in a democratic system, but when that representative is beholden to people outside the riding, then there's a problem IMO.

I'm not purporting to have a solution to this problem, but I don't believe things can continue as they are without some major changes.

Emily

I think that since we're using systems that are centuries old, they are obviously going to be inoperative at this point.

Michael

And yet we still risk money and lives ramming our way of doing things down others' throats.

I am in the same boat as Phil, I can't come up with a solution.

Emily, I don't know, in using a century old system have we not changed the system because, fundamentally, we haven't changed or because we cannot come up with anything better?

knick

I believe that the international decrease in voting turnout is attributed largely to the younger demographic, so perhaps it's a failure of the education system to prepare students for their responsibilities as citizens of a democratic society as thoroughly as they've educated them about their rights.

Orson Bean

. . . or maybe the youngins just find playing Grand Theft Auto much more entertaining than following politics.
elrick74

or maybe the young in Canada and other European democracies realize the boomers out number them 3 to 1 and so there input is pointless until they hurry up and DIE already.

guy_caballero

I for one am perfectly comfortable with low voter turnout. I would not want my government determined by those too lazy to make a trip to the poll. Those few that do bother to turn out probably care enough to make an informed decision. Social changes should be determined by those that care, not those that do not.

Gaunilon

It doesn't bother you that almost half of eligible voters don't care??

guy_caballero

Not really. Because they don't care, the half that does not vote is likely to be unaware or unable to understand the issues. Decisions should be made for them by those that do.
madeyoulook

It bothers me that almost half of eligible voters don't care. But it bothers me more to think that these non-caring citizens should be required to go vote anyways.

There is no need (and there are good reasons not) to force the ignorant, the indifferent and the mischievous to the ballot box.
Be_rad

Are you buying in to his presumption that they don't turn out because they don't care?

Phil King

I can't imagine that any demographic skew in this regard is a sign of things working well. If average people aren't engaged there must be a reason than doesn't rely on the "laziness" cliche.

One should think that the governance of the nation is something everyone should be concerned about, but it could simply be that a great many people have lost faith in the institution, and that is a very bad thing in my opinion.

guy_caballero

Maybe not "caring" is the wrong description. Most people I know that haven't voted have done so because they had to work, pick up the kids from school, go grocery shopping, what have you. Life is busy enough without having to go to the polling station to vote on something or for someone that they don't know anything about. The idea is to let those people that do know about all those things make the decisions. And that's the crux of our parliamentary system, isn't it? You vote for a representative that makes it a full time job to make decisions that you don't have time for. And if you can't take the time to do the research, and find out if that representative will make the right decisions and enact the best laws on your behalf, then you shouldn't be voting in the first place.

I still stand by my conviction that there is no cause for alarm if most of the population does not vote. Voting in a democratic society is a privilege, and with this privilege comes responsibility to know what the heck you're voting for. If you don't know (and I would bet on the 50% number being pretty close) then don't vote.

elrick74

So your advocating for dictatorship per sey those with money and there for free time dictate what the rest of us drones are supposed to do and think. Strangely I find that very disturbing.

Philanthropist

Low voter turnout is a good thing, it demonstrates a country that's doing well.
Bruce

I see it's "Blame the citizen" again this week. Belittling citizens for not voting in the face of campaigns designed to maximize voter disgust and suppress voting is rather disingenuous to put it politely.
Has the author looked at turnout versus encouraging folks to vote by way of voting day (making people take off work to vote is criminal), voting day registration, and proportional votes?
elrick74

I think his point on that was that why should lower-income taxes(which they can't afford) go to support the studies of middle class kids who's parents could afford to pay for them. True it seems as though he was trying to instigate class war
but that is a very valid point.

wellwell

It's not valid because it's wrong. Tax credits cushion the tax burden for low-income Canadians, and middle class Canadians cannot afford the sky-high tution found at American-style private universities.

But you're missing a broader point. Why is it that low-income students attend university less often? Is it because they're stupid or lazy, or do other socio-economic factors contribute? One thing's for sure, David Frum was totally uninterested in exploring causation. His goal was to encourage low-income Canadians to support a policy contrary to their own best interests and those of their children, presumably because, as a graduate of Harvard and Yale, he admires the exclusive and expensive university system of the past. He displayed absolute contempt for those at the bottom of the heap.