August 17, 2010

On low voter turnout

By Alison Loat

On his blog yesterday, Aaron Wherry reports on an amusing interview between Scott Payne and David Frum, which included an exchange on declining voter turnout in Canada. In his remarks, Frum attributes this to changes in society of a Robert Putnam-esque sort (i.e., we're not joining stuff anymore and corresponding social ties fray).

Wherry then illustrates that Canada's pathetic voter turnout places us pretty low down the list when compared to other established democracies, and points out that a lot of the countries listed have some history of coalition government.

While I'm not sure if the type of government affects voter turnout, the literature highlights two factors that suggest Canada will likely continue to have lower voter turnout than other countries. 

The first is our electoral system. In countries with voting system like ours (single member plurality), voter turnout tends to be about 3 percent lower, according to Professor John Courtney's research (and 5 to 6 points lower according to Andre Blais') . Countries with proportional systems often lead to coalition governments, so there is very likely a corelation with turnout and type of government, as Wherry suggests.

The second is our geography. Turnout tends to be lower in large, dispersley-populated countries, according to these academics.*  Canada is among the least densely populated countries in the world.

The reasons for declining voter turnout are obviously much more complicated than that, and include factors like socio-economic status, education, political contestability and administrative procedures (there are many more articles for those who want to delve deeper).  However, the above suggests that if our voting system and geographic make-up remain largely unchanged, we can expect to continue to hang out near the basement on any international voter turnout list.

* See page 104.

LABELS: , , , ,

Comments (5) Permanent link to this post
RSS share this

Comments

Comments

topsy.com

August 17, 2010 19:36 PM

Pingback from topsy.com

Twitter Trackbacks for
        
        Samara | On low voter turnout
        [samaracanada.com]
        on Topsy.com

tono-bungay

August 18, 2010 06:21 AM

The correlation between voting method and turnout is misleading.  There is a high correlation between PR methods, which in some research includes a wide variety of methods, and mandatory voting laws as well as with other forms of social conformity.  More telling is to look at countries that change electoral systems and compare long term trends in voter turnout before and after the change, preferably correcting for other changes in voting laws.

John Casey

September 13, 2010 04:57 AM

Your reasons are pure BS. Do you want to know why voting has declined rapidly in Canada in the past decade or so? We are sick and tired of putting up with vile and corrupt politicians. They make promises and then break them once elected. We vote Liberal and then they screw us over, we vote for Conservatives and then they screw us over, rinse and repeat.

Do you want to fix the problem? Simple. Devise a system were each political party must put in WRITING what they promise to do and by when, if elected. Then once elected, if they miss a deadline or flip/flop, the runner up takes their place. A simple way to do this would be to double the value of all other parties votes.

Once politicians see there is a consequence for breaking promises, they will start to make promises they actually intend to keep, not just promises to get votes. Once voters are confident that politicians will actually do what they say, voters will return.

Of course someone is going to say it can't be done for this political reason or that. BS. Anything can be done, it is just a matter of wanting it to be done and doing the right thing.

Alison Loat

September 13, 2010 06:04 AM

Hi John,

Thank you for your comment.  I suppose this would work if there were no unforeseen events (e.g., financial crisis, 9/11) to which politicians must react, which unfortunately isn't often the case.

I remember hearing Clinton and Bush talk when they were in Toronto, and I thought this comment from Clinton was interesting (notes here: alo-experiments.blogspot.com/...5_01_archive.html)

Cliton described life in the Oval Office as "a constant struggle between doing what you promised and dealing with incoming events."  To much of the prior and you look like an idiot ignorant of current realities, too much of the latter and you're a good steward, but you haven't stayed true to the country's founders' desire for "a more perfect union."  

Russell Robertson

November 23, 2010 08:23 AM

Lets lower the voting age to 16.

we must look past the preconceived notions of maturity and foster an interest in politics at an age when life for most teens could be considered  more stationary and stable. The decline in voter turnout at the 18-24 age is fairly high but yet did we ever think to stop at what priority politics would play when you are moving cities for school, work or travel etc...? maybe at 16 we could introduce politics at a time in their life that they could actually learn and have the time to understand the political process as well as participating in it.

Kids may learn about politics in high  school, but why would any 16 year old be interested in something they can't participate in?

at 18 you are thrown in at the deep end, expected to know something about politics already. This lack of knowledge and lack of interest is warranted.

lets introduce it at the high school level and just like they would want to know what hockey team won the game,  they may even change the channel  to see who won the election. the effects of this may have long lasting effects on voter turnout as the life cycle effect takes hold.

Add comment




biuquote
Loading