Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The MARKETING RESEARCH AND INTELLIGENCE ASSOCIATION Ottawa Chapter would like to
acknowledge the support of the following organizations.
Without their kind support we could not continue to offer quality programs such as ……
Name of presenter(s) or subtitle
Reversing the Democratic DeficitRichard Jenkins
Vice President, Corporate Director of Public Opinion Research
3©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Methodology
Nationally representative survey of 1018 Canadian adults, aged 18 and over.
Conducted by telephone between May 31 and June 6, 2004 (early campaign).
Poll results accurate to within 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
All numbers rounded.
4©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Turnout in Federal Elections: 1962 to 2005
79
74.875.7
76.7
71
75.7 75.3 75.3
69.6
67
64.1
60.961.2
69.3
50
60
70
80
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Source: Elections Canada
Idiosyncratic fluctuations before 1993 have given way to deep decline in voter turnout.
5©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Why do people vote? And why might voters have turned away after 1988?
Theories of voter turnout seem inadequate.
Electoral system
Rational actors
Postmodernism/cultural change
Education, more educated
Idiosyncratic factors
“Liberal” Effect
Challenge: At individual level voting is a choice that some people make when faced with competing demands on their time.
6©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Eroding “Commitment” to Voting
A psychological segmentation based on three dimensions
needs fitHow do people rate the alternatives? In other words, satisfaction.
Involvementin the
category
How important is this choice… how much does it matter?
ambivalence
How certain are people – are theremany, or few reasons to change?
7©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
What the segments mean
Read: 4.7% of all respondents are entrenched to voting
LIKELYCommitted, but not
as strongly
COMMITTEDStrongly
committed to voting, unlikely
not to vote
AT RISKUncommitted,
should be considered at
risk
NON VOTERSHighly
uncommitted
Entrenched Average Shallow Convertible
%
Strength of commitment to voting
4.7
28.1
40.9
26.3
n:1018
Note 7% were not classified (not included in base)
8©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Self-Reported Vote Intention vs. Commitment
Most Committed Least Committed
Likelihood of voting
Total Committed Likely At Risk Non-voters
Certain 62 71 80 72 22
Likely 20 26 14 20 28
Unlikely 9 2 3 4 29
Certain not to vote 7 2 2 3 18
Self-reports identify the completely disengaged
9©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Who is Committed?
Demographics
Age: 39% of those 18-24 are non-voters vs. 9% of seniors
Education
Why are so many at risk of not voting?
Disengagement from politics
A rejection of the parties/leadership
Problems with the electoral system
10©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Tuning out…is politics less interesting today?
Interest in the federal election average 5.7 on a 0-10 point scale.
One in four Canadians are engaged in the election.
Linear relationship between commitment and interest.
One in four “often” discussed federal election in the past week.
Half (49%) think that politics and government is too complicated and this is related to commitment.
11©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Interest in Federal Election
5.7
8.17.4
6.1
2.9
0
5
10
All Canadians Committed Likely At risk Non-voters
12©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
It’s the fault of political parties…
No surprise, parties and politicians generate negative evaluations.
Parties not seen as good at presenting clear choices, finding solutions, or expressing concerns of ordinary people.
Parties don’t keep their promises.
Sense that government doesn’t care is key for understanding non-voters and at risk.
13©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Rating Politicians in Canada
1611
21 2418
4 20
20
40
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Q: When you take into account everything that you expect from politicians and political parties, how do you rate the politicians of Canada as a whole, on a scale from one to seven where one is extremely negative and seven is extremely positive?
Extremely negative
Extremely positive
14©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Political Party Performance
14 13 16
44 50 48
31 28 29
6 4 4
0
25
50
..presenting clear choices ..finding solutions toimportant problems
..expressing concerns ofordinary people
Not a good job at all Not a very good job Quite a good job Very good job
How good a job do political parties in general do of….
Clear choices Finding solutions Expressing concerns
Committed 67 48 51
Likely 48 49 48
At risk 32 25 29
Non-voter 26 21 21
% quite or very good job
15©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Responsiveness of Parties and Elected Officials
65
46
24
34
44
0 25 50 75
Non-voters
At risk
Likely
Committed
AllCanadians
All parties are the same
30
50
70
78
52
0 25 50 75 100
Non-voters
At risk
Likely
Committed
AllCanadians
Political parties keep their promises
% most/some of the time% agree
16©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Responsiveness of Parties and Elected Officials
85
83
66
75
77
0 25 50 75 100
Non-voters
At risk
Likely
Committed
AllCanadians
Elected soon lose touch
77
70
46
46
62
0 25 50 75 100
Non-voters
At risk
Likely
Committed
AllCanadians
Government does not care
% agree% agree
17©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Is turnout a good measure of democratic health?
Satisfaction with democracy is not eroding like turnout
At risk voters are, however, much less satisfied.
Does low turnout even matter?
Non-voters have different views and economic interests.
Non-voters, if they voted, could impact on party that wins.
But, there is disjunction between elections and government.
18©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
4
11
28
46
12
3
10
22
15
2
14
26
49
8
50
0 20 40
Don't know /Refused
Not satisfied atall
Not verysatisfied
Fairly satisfied
Very satisfied
1997 2000 2004
Satisfaction with Democracy in Canada
Note: 1997 and 2000 from Canadian Election Studies (campaign surveys)
44
50
76
84
0 25 50 75 100
Non-voters
At risk
Likely
Committed
Trend since 1997 By Commitment
% very/fairly
19©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Vote Intention by Commitment
Most Committed Least Committed
Total Committed Likely At Risk Non-voter
Liberal 17.2 35.6 23.6 15.1 11.2Conservative 19.5 13.3 22.5 21.8 15.1NDP 13.5 8.9 15.9 14.8 11.6BQ 7.6 6.7 6.9 9.4 6.5Other 6.9 11.1 4.0 5.7 12.5Don’t know 22.0 11.1 18.8 20.8 27.6Refused 9.7 13.3 8.3 11.2 4.7Certain not to vote 3.7 0 0 1.3 10.8
20©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Commitment to Vote and Expressed Party Preference
93 4 4 7
39
33 3225 16
3645 45
51
33
15 19 20 20
43
0
25
50
75
100
Liberal Conservative NDP BQ Other
Non-voters
At risk
Likely
Committed
Among those who express party preference (including leaners), Liberals have slightly more committed base.
Minor parties clearly suffer from irrelevance
21©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Diluted or wasted votes…are elections irrelevant?
Only 30% of Canadians say that their vote hardly counts for anything.
Believed particularly by non-voters but not a key driver.
Voting does matter to some; 69% say that you forfeit your right to criticize if you don’t vote.
Even non-voters agree.
22©2005 TNS Canadian Facts
Commitment to do something different amongst politicians.
What will motivate change?
Better governance will reinvigorate democracy.
Electoral system reformCan changing the rules of the game for parties/media & voters infuse public discourse?
Can elections be made relevant to postmodern citizenry?
Reversing the trend… Solutions?
“At Risk”
Lacking interest and disengaged from their government and parties, but seeing some value in their vote
Committed
Small segment that represents the “political class”
Realistic
Non-voters
One in four are so cynical that it would create dissonance to vote.
Likely
About 1 in 4 fit into this group of skeptical participants
