Formerly
with Elections Canada, Louis Lavoie is now a consultant on electoral systems.
Possibly
the most disturbing aspect of the June 2, 1997 general election was what seems
be the start of a downward trend in electoral participation in federal
elections from an average of over 75% for many years to 70% in 1993 and just
67% in 1997. This happens at a time when significant changes to increase
participation were implemented. Persistent non-voting is on the rise. Is
alienation, not just discontent becoming a characteristic of the Canadian
electorate? This apparent trend is a serious challenge for parliamentarians.
The future of our democratic institutions may depend on their ability to
reverse it.
The “simple act” of voting, once
a privilege conferred on those affluent enough to own land or pay taxes, has
become a right of citizenship enjoyed by practically all Canadians eighteen and
over.
Voting in Canada follows the
“first-past-the post system”. In each constituency, the candidate with the most
votes is declared elected. After the results of all constituencies are
in, the Governor General invites the leader of the party holding the most seats
in the House to form a government, and the leader becomes the Prime Minister.
Canadian parliamentary
institutions began to take shape in the second half of the 18th century but the
evolution of the vote was by no means smooth or steady. At first,
colonial authorities in England determined who was entitled to vote and
subsequently the elected local assemblies gained control of the voting function
between 1784 and 1801. The principal barriers related to wealth (more
precisely the lack of it), sex, religion and ethnicity.
During the 36 general elections,
since 1867, an average of approximately 73% of registered electors voted.
Turnout has ranged from a low of 62.9% at the June 1896 election, to a
high of 79% at three successive general elections between 1958 and 1963.
Voting is the principal element
in maintaining public support for a form of government since it is through
voting that electors participate in Canada’s governance. It is the most
efficient and effective way for the vast majority of citizens to register their
political views and indicate changes in their preferences. Through the
vote, citizens choose who should represent them in Parliament or legislative
assemblies and which party will likely form the government. Voter
participation is therefore a basic measure of citizens’ confidence in the
political system.
As the basis of democratic
government, the right to vote must not be impeded by law or by administrative
measures used to register voters or conduct the vote, nor should it be
undermined by the absence of appropriate remedial measures.
Establishment Of A Royal
Commission
A Royal Commission charged with Reforming Electoral
Democracy in Canada was appointed in November 1989. It had a comprehensive
mandate to inquire and report on the appropriate principles and process
that should govern the election of Members of the House of Commons and the
financing of political parties, candidates and campaigns, including:
- the practices, procedures and legislation in Canada.
- the means by which political parties should be funded,
the provision of funds to political parties from any source, the limits on
such funding and the uses to which such funds ought, or ought not be put.
- the qualifications of electors and the compiling of
voters, including the advisability of the establishment of a permanent voters’
list.
The Commission held 45 days of public hearings in 27 cities
across the country. It heard testimony from more than 500 groups and
individuals and received more than 900 briefs from associations, individuals,
political practitioners and election administrators.
Further to its analysis of what Canadians said about the
electoral system the Commission suggested six major objectives that should
govern Canada’s system of electoral democracy:
- To secure the democratic rights of voters
- To enhance access to elected office
- To promote the equality and efficacy of the vote
- To strengthen political parties as primary political
organization
- To promote fairness in the electoral process
- To enhance public confidence in the integrity of the
electoral process.
The Report of the Royal Commission was tabled on February
13, 1992.
One of the principal recommendation of the Commission, was
that federal election rules be changed to let a much broader range of Canadians
exercise the right to voteincluding judges,
prisoners, returning officers, persons with mental disabilities as well as Canadians
living or travelling abroad and persons with physical disabilities.
Another recommendation was the establishment of the Special
Ballot for people who would find it easier to use this way of casting a ballot
These people would include:
- Canadians living abroad
- Canadians away from their constituency
- Canadians unable to vote in person at the ordinary or
advance polls
The Commission’s recommendations were reviewed by a Special
Committee of the House of Commons and the majority of these including those
mentioned above were implemented for the general elections of 1993 and 1997.
The recommendations envisaged a voter-friendly election
system for the estimated 20 million Canadians who are eligible to vote and a
more straightforward administrative system for the people who are involved in
the conduct of federal elections.
Voter Turnout and
Institutional Factors
Comparative research found that the factors which are the
most important in explaining differences in turnout relate to: the electoral
system, the party system, the structure of government, and the basic electoral
law. The following are examples of actions which could affect turnout:
- an electoral system which promotes some proportionality
in translating party votes into seats.
- an incentive to voting with the existence of a strong
competitive party system
- turnout is likely to suffer if governments tend to be
formed through coalitions.
- the “day“ of the election can also enhance voter turnout.
Our elections are held on Monday while most elections in other countries
are held on a day of rest (Saturday or Sunday) resulting in higher turnout and
most likely lower costs. In Canada there are many who are quite adamant
that voting should not take place on Sunday for religious or other reasons.
- another measure which could increase voter turnout is a
compulsory voting law as found in Greece, Australia, Belgium and many other
countries. In most cases the law is not vigorously enforced. Excuses for not
voting are easily accepted and sanctions are not severe. In principle I doubt
that this would be acceptable to the Canadian electorate.
Not all qualified voters vote at every federal election.
This pool of non-voters has been about 25 percent for a number of years in
the ‘80’s but with the most recent elections of ‘93 and ‘97 this percentage is
more like 30%. Studies of voting behaviour reveal only a small core of perennial
non-voters which is estimated at about 5 percent of the electorate; most of
those who fail to vote fall in a group between 20 to 25%. People do not vote for
a variety of reasons. For some it may be a lack of interest in the
election or in politics in general; others may find it difficult to vote that
particular day for all sorts of reasons.
In this last instance, the changes implemented at the ‘93
and ‘97 elections would have made it possible for these electors to vote, but it
seems that some electors were not aware of those possibilities and lost their
chance to cast a ballot.
Concerning the 1997 election, the turnout was particularly
disappointing because participation is traditionally higher in elections held in
the Spring than at any other time of the year, and because most regions of
Canada had good weather on voting day. Political scientists say the displeasure
that Canadians felt about an early call may be one reason they stayed away from
the polls
As indicated in Table 1, participation in federal events
since Confederation in 1867 (36 general elections in 130 years) as measured by
the percentage of registered voters who actually cast a ballot, has averaged
around 73%, including the ‘93 and ‘97 elections when turnout was lower than
usual.
Overall voter turnout peaked at nearby 80% in the elections
of 1958 through 1963 then declined thereafter except for five elections out of
11, when small increases in % took place.
Although voter turnout may vary from one federal election
to the next, no constant clear trends are apparent. Every election takes
place in circumstances that may facilitate or inhibit participation. These
circumstances may be quite different and may be political, inclement weather or
other reasons beyond anyone’s control.
A grouping of percentages in the same table shows that:
- the overall average percentage for the 36 elections is
73.6%
- the percentage for the first twelve elections 1867-1911
was 74.9%
- the percentage for the next twelve elections 1917-1958
was 72%
- the percentage for the most recent twelve elections
1962-1997 was 74%
We must also consider that internationally we are
considered as having an effective electoral system. When comparing our
percentage turnout with that of other countries, mainly European, we must keep
in mind factors which in most instances provide for a higher turnout:
(proportional representation, voting on a day of rest, and compulsory voting) do
not exist in Canada, the United States or England.
Table 1
Federal General Elections in
Canada
Voter Turnout 1867 -
1997 (36 elections in 130 years)
- an election every 3.6 years -
% Turnout
|
Election no. |
Date of Event |
% |
Election no. |
Date of Event |
% |
Election no. |
Date of Event |
% |
1 |
9/1867 |
73.1 |
13 |
12/1917 |
75.0 |
25 |
6/1962 |
79.0 |
2 |
10/1872 |
70.3 |
14 |
12/1921 |
67.7 |
26 |
4/1963 |
79.2 |
3 |
1/1874 |
69.6 |
15 |
10/1925 |
66.4 |
27 |
11/1965 |
74.8 |
4 |
9/1878 |
69.1 |
16 |
9/1926 |
67.7 |
28 |
6/1968 |
75.7 |
5 |
6/1882 |
70.3 |
17 |
7/1930 |
73.6 |
29 |
10/1972 |
76.7 |
6 |
2/1887 |
70.1 |
18 |
10/1935 |
74.2 |
30 |
7/1974 |
71.0 |
7 |
3/1891 |
64.4 |
19 |
3/1940 |
69.9 |
31 |
5/1979 |
75.7 |
8 |
6/1896 |
62.9 |
20 |
6/1945 |
75.3 |
32 |
2/1980 |
69.3 |
9 |
11/1900 |
77.4 |
21 |
6/1949 |
73.8 |
33 |
9/1984 |
75.3 |
10 |
11/1904 |
71.6 |
22 |
8/1953 |
67.5 |
34 |
11/1988 |
75.3 |
11 |
10/1908 |
70.3 |
23 |
6/1957 |
74.1 |
35 |
10/1993 |
69.6 |
12 |
9/1911 |
70.2 |
24 |
3/1958 |
79.4 |
36 |
6/1997 |
67.0 |
Source: A History of the Vote in
Canada - 1997. Note: There were also three referendums: in Sept 1898 on
prohibition, in 1942 on Conscription and the latest one in 1992 on the
Constitution. The participation was 44, 71, and 71 percent respectively.
Comparison With
Other Democracies
Contrary to general belief, the voter participation rate in
Canada is not good when making international comparison. Canadians
apparent satisfaction with the current rate relates no doubt to the favourable
comparison with the lower rate of the United States, which is in the area of 55%
at presidential election. It should be noted that the American percentage is
based on “voting-age population” i.e. those 18 and above regardless of whether
they are qualified electors or not. This has the effect of lowering their
percentage since a great number of those 18 or over cannot vote according to law
since they are not registered.
Canada’s turnout rate has been consistently below the
international average over the years. Moreover, Canada’s rate is now slipping
further behind the international average.
Table 2 indicates the kind of electoral system used in each
country.
The chart compares electoral participation in 29 OECD
countries at 392 elections from 1945 to 1997. Canada’s average percentage
(including the elections of ‘93 and ‘97) is 74% while the overall average of the
29 countries is 78%. On a ranking basis Canada is 20th of 29. The numbers
following the types of electoral systems relate to the countries with that
system in the goup of 29.
- Alternate Vote
(AV) (1). A preferential, plurality-majority system used
in single-member districts in which voters use numbers to mark their
preference on the ballot paper. A candidate who receives over 50% of
first-preferences is declared elected. If no candidate achieves an
absolute majority of first-preferences, votes are re-allocated until one
candidate has an absolute majority .
- List
Proportional Representation (List PR)(16). In its
most simple form List PR involves each party presenting a list of candidates
to the electorate, voters vote for a party, and parties receive seats in
proportion to their share of votes. Winning candidates are taken from
the lists.
- Mixed Member
Proportional (MMP) (5). Systems
in which a proportion of Parliament (usually half) is elected from plurality
districts, while the remaining members are chosen from PR lists. Under
MMP the PR seats help compensate for any disproportion produced by the
district seats results.
- Single
Transferable Vote (STV) (1). A
preferential Proportional Representation system used in multi-member
districts. To gain election, candidates must surpass a specified quota
of first-preference votes. Voters’ preferences are re-allocated to other
continuing candidates if a candidate is excluded or if an elected candidate
has a surplus.
- Parallel System
(2). A proportional Representation system used in
conjunction with a plurality system, but unlike MMP, the PR seats do not
compensate for any disproportion arising from elections to the plurality
system.
- First Past the
Post (FPTP)(3). The simplest form of plurality electoral system,
using single-member districts, a candidate who gains more votes than any
other candidate, but not necessarily a majority of votes is elected.
- Two Round System
(TRS) (1). A majority system in which a second election is
held if no candidate achieves an absolute majority of votes in the first run.
Table 2
Voter turnout in %
29 members of OECD 1945-1997
OECD Country
|
1997 Population (000)
|
Descriptions of Electoral Systems
|
Day of Vote
|
Voting Compulsary
|
Number of Events
|
Average % Turnout
|
|
|
|
Work |
Rest |
Yes |
No |
|
|
Australia |
18,054 |
AV |
|
4 |
4 |
|
21 |
94 |
Austria |
8,064 |
list PR |
|
4 |
4 |
|
15 |
92 |
Belgium |
10,146 |
list PR |
|
4 |
4 |
|
17 |
92 |
CANADA |
29,606 |
FPTP |
4 |
|
|
4 |
17 |
74 |
Czech. Republic |
10,332 |
list PR |
|
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
85 |
Denmark |
5,220 |
list PR |
4 |
|
|
4 |
21 |
85 |
Finland |
5,110 |
list PR |
|
4 |
|
4 |
15 |
76 |
France |
58,060 |
TRS |
|
4 |
|
4 |
15 |
76 |
Germany |
81,869 |
MMP |
|
4 |
|
4 |
13 |
85 |
Greece |
10,147 |
list PR |
|
4 |
4 |
|
16 |
80 |
Hungary |
10,229 |
MMP |
|
4 |
|
4 |
2 |
66 |
Iceland |
268 |
list PR |
|
4 |
|
4 |
16 |
89 |
Ireland |
3,586 |
STV |
4 |
|
|
4 |
15 |
73 |
Italy |
57,204 |
MMP |
|
4 |
4 |
|
13 |
90 |
Japan |
125,313 |
Parallel |
|
4 |
|
4 |
21 |
70 |
Luxembourg |
410 |
list PR |
|
4 |
4 |
|
11 |
89 |
Mexico |
93,860 |
MMP |
|
4 |
4 |
|
22 |
64 |
Netherlands |
15,460 |
list PR |
4 |
|
4 |
|
15 |
88 |
New Zealand |
3,601 |
MMP |
|
4 |
|
4 |
18 |
89 |
Norway |
4,354 |
list PR |
|
4 |
|
4 |
13 |
80 |
Poland |
38,612 |
list PR |
|
4 |
|
4 |
3 |
52 |
Portugal |
9,821 |
list PR |
|
4 |
|
4 |
9 |
78 |
South Korea |
44,606 |
Parallel |
|
4 |
|
4 |
9 |
74 |
Spain |
39,199 |
list PR |
4 |
|
|
4 |
7 |
74 |
Sweden |
8,830 |
list PR |
|
4 |
|
4 |
16 |
86 |
Switzerland |
7,039 |
list PR |
|
4 |
4 |
|
13 |
57 |
Turkey |
61,058 |
list PR |
|
4 |
4 |
|
9 |
80 |
United Kingdom |
58,533 |
FPTP |
4 |
|
|
4 |
14 |
76 |
United States |
263,119 |
FPTP |
4 |
|
|
4 |
13 |
53 |
|
|
|
7 |
22 |
10 |
19 |
392 |
78 |
Source: Global Report on Political Participation by
Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, May 1998. See below for
an explanation of the description of electoral systems.
Conclusion
There were approximately 20,000,000 Canadians qualified to
vote out of a total population of 30,000,000 at the ‘97 election. Only 67%
of these people voted which means that 6,000,000 Canadian citizens did not.
To have good democratic representation in government we need to maximize
the number of voters expressing their choice.
It is now easier than ever to vote in a federal
election. It is therefore difficult to understand a turnout of 67%. Surely
Canadians want and need a truly Representative Parliament and the best way of
getting this is by insuring that qualified voters exercise their right.