Youth Participation in Elections · Youth Participation in Politics Elisabeth Gidengil, André Blais, Neil Nevitte and Richard Nadeau Political interest is key to encouraging young

ELECTORAL ELECTORAL

VOL. 5 • NO. 2 • JULY 2003

www.elections.ca

Why are they voting less?How can they be engaged?Why are they voting less?How can they be engaged?

Youth Participationin ElectionsYouth Participationin Elections

Contents VOL. 5 • NO. 2 • JULY 2003

1 Chief Electoral Officer’s Message

3 Youth Participation in Elections

3 Confronting the Problem of Declining Voter TurnoutAmong Youth Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDucA new survey explores the reasons for the drop in youth turnout

9 Turned Off or Tuned Out? Youth Participation in PoliticsElisabeth Gidengil, André Blais, Neil Nevitte and Richard NadeauPolitical interest is key to encouraging young people to vote

15 Examining Declining Electoral Turnout AmongCanada’s YouthBrenda O’Neill Youth are more likely than older Canadians to believe voting is notimportant, but they are not more cynical about democracy

20 Electoral Participation and the Knowledge Deficit Paul Howe Political knowledge helps explain why younger age groups are voting less

26 Increasing Youth Voter Registration: Best Practices inTargeting Young ElectorsKeith ArcherA survey of approaches to encourage youth registration in Australia,New Zealand and the United Kingdom

31 Marketing Voter Participation to the MuchMusic Generation Phillip Haid Some ideas from a social marketing perspective for re-establishing therelevance of politics for youth

36 How Old Is Old Enough to Vote? Youth Participationin SocietyRaymond Hudon and Bernard FournierSurveys of Quebec students suggest preparing them for voting is moreimportant than lowering the voting age

42 Lowering the Voting Age: European Debates and Experiences Kees Aarts and Charlotte van HeesEmerging debates on extending the franchise to 16-year-olds

47 Rush the VoteWayne BrownArtists promote youth voting

July 2003 1

EditorF. Leslie Seidle

Publications ManagerFrancine Dalphond

Managing EditorWayne Brown

For more information, contactElections Canada:Telephone: 1 800 463-6868

www.elections.ca

© ELECTIONS CANADA 2003ISSN 1488-3538EC 91827

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDPRINTED IN CANADA

Democracy is based on the right of citizens to participate

in making the decisions that affect them and in

determining the rules by which they agree to live

together. These fundamental rights find full meaning only

when citizens engage, as actively as possible, in public life.

The act of voting is an essential manifestation of that

engagement.

This special issue of Electoral Insight is devoted to exploring

a major challenge to contemporary Canadian democracy: the

decline in voter turnout during the past decade and, in particular,

among the youngest group of eligible Canadians. The trend is not entirely new; nor is it

confined to Canada. It could, however, worsen if steps are not taken to reverse it.

From an average of 75 percent during the period from the Second World War to 1988, voter turnout in Canadian federalelections declined in 1993 and again in 1997. At the most recent general election in 2000, voter participation droppedfurther to slightly more than 64 percent of registered electors. Most troubling is the finding of a major research study byprofessors Jon Pammett (Carleton University) and Lawrence LeDuc (University of Toronto) that only about one quarter(25.4 percent) of eligible 18–24-year-olds voted in the 2000 election.

I am grateful to all the authors of the articles published in this issue for agreeing to share their research and analysis onthe subject of declining youth electoral participation. Taken together, their contributions indicate that young Canadianshave not been exercising their democratic right to vote to the same degree as older citizens because of lower levels ofpolitical knowledge, feelings of apathy, a declining sense that voting is a civic duty, and limited contact with politicalparties and candidates.

As I said in my address to the Symposium on Electoral Participation in Canada at Carleton University on March 21, 2003,Elections Canada is committed to addressing the issue of declining turnout among young Canadian voters. Certain measureswill be implemented by the time of the next federal election, while others will be launched following consultations and,in some cases, pilot projects.

Youth Participation in Elections

Jean-Pierre KingsleyChief Electoral Officer of Canada

Chief Electoral Officer’s Message

Eleanor Milne, Chris Fairbrother andMarcel JoanisseThe Vote (1979–1980)Indiana limestone, 121.9 x 182.8 cm, House of Commons, Ottawa

The base stone of The Vote, a sculptureon the east wall of the House of Commonschamber, shows four heads with flowinghair whose mouths shape, in song, thefirst syllables of Canada’s nationalanthem, “O-Ca-na-da”.

Cover photo: Getty Images

Elections Canada is the non-partisanagency responsible for the conduct offederal elections and referendums

Electoral Insight is published by ElectionsCanada three times a year. It is intendedfor those interested in electoral and relatedmatters, including parliamentarians, officialsof international and domestic electoral man-agement bodies, election officers and academics.The opinions expressed are those of the authors;they do not necessarily reflect those of theChief Electoral Officer of Canada.

Submissions of articles and photos that mightbe of interest to Electoral Insight readers arewelcome, although publication cannot beguaranteed. If used, submissions will be editedfor length and clarity as necessary.

Please address all contributions and letters toWayne Brown, Managing Editor,Electoral Insight, Elections Canada,257 Slater St., Ottawa, Canada K1A 0M6 ([email protected]).

Contents VOL. 5 • NO. 2 • JULY 2003

1 Chief Electoral Officer’s Message

3 Youth Participation in Elections

3 Confronting the Problem of Declining Voter TurnoutAmong Youth Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDucA new survey explores the reasons for the drop in youth turnout

9 Turned Off or Tuned Out? Youth Participation in PoliticsElisabeth Gidengil, André Blais, Neil Nevitte and Richard NadeauPolitical interest is key to encouraging young people to vote

15 Examining Declining Electoral Turnout AmongCanada’s YouthBrenda O’Neill Youth are more likely than older Canadians to believe voting is notimportant, but they are not more cynical about democracy

20 Electoral Participation and the Knowledge Deficit Paul Howe Political knowledge helps explain why younger age groups are voting less

26 Increasing Youth Voter Registration: Best Practices inTargeting Young ElectorsKeith ArcherA survey of approaches to encourage youth registration in Australia,New Zealand and the United Kingdom

31 Marketing Voter Participation to the MuchMusic Generation Phillip Haid Some ideas from a social marketing perspective for re-establishing therelevance of politics for youth

36 How Old Is Old Enough to Vote? Youth Participationin SocietyRaymond Hudon and Bernard FournierSurveys of Quebec students suggest preparing them for voting is moreimportant than lowering the voting age

42 Lowering the Voting Age: European Debates and Experiences Kees Aarts and Charlotte van HeesEmerging debates on extending the franchise to 16-year-olds

47 Rush the VoteWayne BrownArtists promote youth voting

July 2003 1

EditorF. Leslie Seidle

Publications ManagerFrancine Dalphond

Managing EditorWayne Brown

For more information, contactElections Canada:Telephone: 1 800 463-6868

www.elections.ca

© ELECTIONS CANADA 2003ISSN 1488-3538EC 91827

ALL RIGHTS RESERVEDPRINTED IN CANADA

Democracy is based on the right of citizens to participate

in making the decisions that affect them and in

determining the rules by which they agree to live

together. These fundamental rights find full meaning only

when citizens engage, as actively as possible, in public life.

The act of voting is an essential manifestation of that

engagement.

This special issue of Electoral Insight is devoted to exploring

a major challenge to contemporary Canadian democracy: the

decline in voter turnout during the past decade and, in particular,

among the youngest group of eligible Canadians. The trend is not entirely new; nor is it

confined to Canada. It could, however, worsen if steps are not taken to reverse it.

From an average of 75 percent during the period from the Second World War to 1988, voter turnout in Canadian federalelections declined in 1993 and again in 1997. At the most recent general election in 2000, voter participation droppedfurther to slightly more than 64 percent of registered electors. Most troubling is the finding of a major research study byprofessors Jon Pammett (Carleton University) and Lawrence LeDuc (University of Toronto) that only about one quarter(25.4 percent) of eligible 18–24-year-olds voted in the 2000 election.

I am grateful to all the authors of the articles published in this issue for agreeing to share their research and analysis onthe subject of declining youth electoral participation. Taken together, their contributions indicate that young Canadianshave not been exercising their democratic right to vote to the same degree as older citizens because of lower levels ofpolitical knowledge, feelings of apathy, a declining sense that voting is a civic duty, and limited contact with politicalparties and candidates.

As I said in my address to the Symposium on Electoral Participation in Canada at Carleton University on March 21, 2003,Elections Canada is committed to addressing the issue of declining turnout among young Canadian voters. Certain measureswill be implemented by the time of the next federal election, while others will be launched following consultations and,in some cases, pilot projects.


Jean-Pierre KingsleyChief Electoral Officer of Canada

Chief Electoral Officer’s Message

Eleanor Milne, Chris Fairbrother andMarcel JoanisseThe Vote (1979–1980)Indiana limestone, 121.9 x 182.8 cm, House of Commons, Ottawa

The base stone of The Vote, a sculptureon the east wall of the House of Commonschamber, shows four heads with flowinghair whose mouths shape, in song, thefirst syllables of Canada’s nationalanthem, “O-Ca-na-da”.

Cover photo: Getty Images

Elections Canada is the non-partisanagency responsible for the conduct offederal elections and referendums

Electoral Insight is published by ElectionsCanada three times a year. It is intendedfor those interested in electoral and relatedmatters, including parliamentarians, officialsof international and domestic electoral man-agement bodies, election officers and academics.The opinions expressed are those of the authors;they do not necessarily reflect those of theChief Electoral Officer of Canada.

Submissions of articles and photos that mightbe of interest to Electoral Insight readers arewelcome, although publication cannot beguaranteed. If used, submissions will be editedfor length and clarity as necessary.

Please address all contributions and letters toWayne Brown, Managing Editor,Electoral Insight, Elections Canada,257 Slater St., Ottawa, Canada K1A 0M6 ([email protected]).

July 2003 3

The decline of voter turnout in Canada to a historic low inthe November 2000 federal election has generated concernamong academics, the media and attentive members of thegeneral public. While voter turnout has long been a subjectof study by scholars interested in more general issues ofpolitical participation, the reasons for the recent precipitousdecline are not yet well understood. It is evident, however,that the decline is not connected solely with the most recentfederal election, as turnout has declined in each of the lastthree general elections. Nor does it seem that the turnoutdecline is necessarily connected to political issues and eventsspecific to Canada. Voter turnout has also been decliningin many other industrialized countries. In the most recentFrench parliamentary election, for example, it dropped tolevels as low as those observed in Canada, while in theUnited Kingdom it has fallen even lower.

Implications of declining turnout

The issue of voter turnout is taking on greater importancein public discussion in Canada and elsewhere, both becauseof the magnitude of the recent declines and the way in whichthey are being interpreted. Observers increasingly linkdeclining participation in elections to some of the morefundamental problems of modern democracy. In this view,declining public participation in a nation’s most fundamentaldemocratic exercise may be part of a larger “democraticdeficit” and may have serious implications for the healthof its democratic political system. Further, if the social and

political forces that are driving turnout down are of alonger-term nature, the problem of low voter participationcould continue to plague the political system for years tocome. If, for example, there is a consistent pattern ofdeclining turnout across the generations, we might predictthat electoral participation would continue to decline wellinto the future, simply as a result of normal demographicprocesses of population replacement. Such an interpretationhas already been suggested by Blais and his colleagues intheir analysis of the low turnout in the 2000 election.1

Survey of voters and non-voters

To investigate moresystematically the causesand possible consequencesof the prolonged declinein voter turnout inCanada, we designed andcarried out a new surveyin co-operation withElections Canada inApril 2002.2 The sampledesign called for a shortscreening interviewwith a large numberof Canadians (5,637)and a longer interviewcontinued with


Confronting the Problemof Declining VoterTurnout Among Youth

Jon H. PammettProfessor of Political Science, Carleton University

Lawrence LeDucProfessor of Political Science, University of Toronto

The survey results are available in theElectoral Law & Policy section of theElections Canada Web site(www.elections.ca).

2 Electoral Insight

Elections Canada will expand its efforts to promote young Canadians’ understanding of the electoral process throughinformation campaigns and joint initiatives with organizations interested in civic education. For example, ElectionsCanada is partnering with Cable in the Classroom to develop a new voter education program for students. In a contestto be held this autumn in each province and territory, young people between 16 and 18 years of age will be challenged tocreate 30-second public service announcements (PSAs) on video to tell their peers why the democratic process and votingare important.

We will also ensure that access to the electoral process is as convenient as possible for young voters – and, indeed, forall voters. During the next general election, Elections Canada will conduct special registration drives to target studentresidences and neighbourhoods, and place more polls in locations to which young people have easy access. We are alsoplanning to send a card to Canadian citizens following their 18th birthdays, with a message from the Chief ElectoralOfficer congratulating them on attaining the right to vote and reminding them to register.

Recognizing the need for a shared effort to address the drop in youth voting, Elections Canada will host a National Forumon Youth Voting, in Calgary on October 30–31. It will bring together youth, Aboriginal, business, labour, political partyand non-governmental organization representatives, as well as academics, researchers and the media. Participants willexchange information about activities to address the decline in youth voting, and offer suggestions for further actions.

I invite parliamentarians and political parties, as well as business and civic leaders, youth representatives and the media tojoin a national dialogue in search of ways to encourage more young Canadians to vote. Without concerted efforts, thereare strong reasons to believe the drift to lower turnout will continue. We must not let that happen.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

July 2003 3

The decline of voter turnout in Canada to a historic low inthe November 2000 federal election has generated concernamong academics, the media and attentive members of thegeneral public. While voter turnout has long been a subjectof study by scholars interested in more general issues ofpolitical participation, the reasons for the recent precipitousdecline are not yet well understood. It is evident, however,that the decline is not connected solely with the most recentfederal election, as turnout has declined in each of the lastthree general elections. Nor does it seem that the turnoutdecline is necessarily connected to political issues and eventsspecific to Canada. Voter turnout has also been decliningin many other industrialized countries. In the most recentFrench parliamentary election, for example, it dropped tolevels as low as those observed in Canada, while in theUnited Kingdom it has fallen even lower.

Implications of declining turnout

The issue of voter turnout is taking on greater importancein public discussion in Canada and elsewhere, both becauseof the magnitude of the recent declines and the way in whichthey are being interpreted. Observers increasingly linkdeclining participation in elections to some of the morefundamental problems of modern democracy. In this view,declining public participation in a nation’s most fundamentaldemocratic exercise may be part of a larger “democraticdeficit” and may have serious implications for the healthof its democratic political system. Further, if the social and

political forces that are driving turnout down are of alonger-term nature, the problem of low voter participationcould continue to plague the political system for years tocome. If, for example, there is a consistent pattern ofdeclining turnout across the generations, we might predictthat electoral participation would continue to decline wellinto the future, simply as a result of normal demographicprocesses of population replacement. Such an interpretationhas already been suggested by Blais and his colleagues intheir analysis of the low turnout in the 2000 election.1

Survey of voters and non-voters

To investigate moresystematically the causesand possible consequencesof the prolonged declinein voter turnout inCanada, we designed andcarried out a new surveyin co-operation withElections Canada inApril 2002.2 The sampledesign called for a shortscreening interviewwith a large numberof Canadians (5,637)and a longer interviewcontinued with


Confronting the Problemof Declining VoterTurnout Among Youth

Jon H. PammettProfessor of Political Science, Carleton University

Lawrence LeDucProfessor of Political Science, University of Toronto

The survey results are available in theElectoral Law & Policy section of theElections Canada Web site(www.elections.ca).

2 Electoral Insight

Elections Canada will expand its efforts to promote young Canadians’ understanding of the electoral process throughinformation campaigns and joint initiatives with organizations interested in civic education. For example, ElectionsCanada is partnering with Cable in the Classroom to develop a new voter education program for students. In a contestto be held this autumn in each province and territory, young people between 16 and 18 years of age will be challenged tocreate 30-second public service announcements (PSAs) on video to tell their peers why the democratic process and votingare important.

We will also ensure that access to the electoral process is as convenient as possible for young voters – and, indeed, forall voters. During the next general election, Elections Canada will conduct special registration drives to target studentresidences and neighbourhoods, and place more polls in locations to which young people have easy access. We are alsoplanning to send a card to Canadian citizens following their 18th birthdays, with a message from the Chief ElectoralOfficer congratulating them on attaining the right to vote and reminding them to register.

Recognizing the need for a shared effort to address the drop in youth voting, Elections Canada will host a National Forumon Youth Voting, in Calgary on October 30–31. It will bring together youth, Aboriginal, business, labour, political partyand non-governmental organization representatives, as well as academics, researchers and the media. Participants willexchange information about activities to address the decline in youth voting, and offer suggestions for further actions.

I invite parliamentarians and political parties, as well as business and civic leaders, youth representatives and the media tojoin a national dialogue in search of ways to encourage more young Canadians to vote. Without concerted efforts, thereare strong reasons to believe the drift to lower turnout will continue. We must not let that happen.

Jean-Pierre Kingsley

July 2003 54 Electoral Insight

Canadian democracy – for the extentof a democratic mandate that govern-ments might claim, for the kinds ofcandidates who are elected and evenfor the types of issues that are discussed.

Reasons for not voting

Many of the questions in our surveywere open-ended, allowing respondentsto answer in their own words and to givemore than one response to a question.In this way, we were able to exploremore fully some of the attitudes andfeelings that lie behind the decline invoter turnout in Canada. The abilityto compare the answers of both olderand younger respondents, and of votersand non-voters,provides insightsinto the problem ofnot voting amongthe young. Weasked those whoreported not havingvoted in the 2000federal election togive their reasonsfor not voting, andwe grouped thesein three main cate-gories as shown inTable 2 – lack ofinterest, negativityand personal/administrative.6

Table 2 shows anumber of interest-ing variations inthe reasons for notvoting given bydifferent age groups.In particular, theyoungest age group,aged 18–24 in 2000,was less likely toexpress reasonshaving to do withnegative feelings

towards politicalcandidates, partiesand leaders than wereolder age groups. Theywere, however, morelikely to cite personalor administrativereasons for not voting,particularly that theywere “too busy”. Theywere also somewhatmore likely to experienceregistration problems.The percentagesreporting lack ofinterest were alsohigher in the twoyoungest age groups.

Phot

o: W

ayn

e Bro

wn

Table 2Main Reasons for Not Voting in 2000(open-ended; multiple responses; % of respondents)

Age in 2000

55+ 45–54 35–44 25–34 18–24 Total

Lack of interest 32 30 34 41 39 37

Not interested; didn’t care; apathy 23 18 20 27 28 25

Vote meaningless; won’t count; election forgone conclusion 8 10 10 11 7 9

Forgot; unaware 2 0 1 2 4 2

Too complicated; confusing 0 2 3 1 0 1

Negativity 30 50 46 32 27 34

No appealing candidates/parties/issues 12 23 21 14 14 16

Lack of faith/confidence in candidates/parties/leaders 15 21 17 14 6 13

Lack of information about candidates/parties/issues 1 3 5 3 6 4

Regional discontent 2 3 3 1 1 1

Personal/Administrative 46 33 28 35 43 37

Too busy with work/school/family 4 3 12 14 23 14

Away from riding/province/country 22 9 8 11 8 10

Registration problems 3 7 3 5 7 6

Illness, health issues 12 8 2 2 * 3

Didn’t know where or when; polling station problems; transportation 5 3 3 2 4 3

Moving-related problems 0 3 1 1 1 1

Other 5 3 5 3 5 4

Religious reasons 4 2 2 1 1 2

Other; unclassifiable; unclear; none 1 1 3 2 4 2

N = 101 109 171 331 347 1,059

*less than 1 percent

According to the authors’ research, only about one quarter ofeligible 18–24-year-olds are believed to have voted at the mostrecent Canadian general election in 2000.

960 reported voters in the 2000 federalelection and 960 reported non-votersin that election. In this way, interviewswere obtained with a much largersample of non-voters than is possiblein election-related surveys of theCanadian public. The survey wasdesigned to explore a variety of expla-nations for not voting, both in generalterms and with reference to the sharpincrease in not voting that has occurredin each of the last three federal elec-tions. This article highlights three of themore important findings of the survey –the generational patterns of not voting,the reasons behind it, and perceptionsof both younger and older voters ofpossible solutions to the problem.

Table 1 illustrates the clear pattern ofdecline in turnout across generationsthat has been at work in the Canadianelectorate over the past decade ormore.3 The levels of non-participationfor the three cohorts of newly eligiblevoters entering the electorate in eachof the past three federal elections arestriking.4 Only slightly more than onein five of those who were eligible tovote for the first time in 2000 chose toparticipate. The figures are only slightlybetter among those cohorts of voterseligible to vote for the first time in 1997or 1993. Even those who entered theelectorate during the later Trudeauperiod (1974–1980) voted in 2000 ata lower rate than those in the olderage groups. For those who entered the

electorate during the Mulroney years(aged 30 to 37 in 2000) the overallpercentage casting a ballot in 2000was only 54 percent.

It is, of course, not unusual to findlower rates of voting participationamong the young. Such patternsare well documented in the literatureon non-voting behaviour in Canadaand in other countries. But lowerparticipation rates among the younghave generally been interpreted asa pattern associated with specificbehavioural characteristics of the lifecycle. As people age, they becomemore politically aware and engaged.It is, therefore, to be expected thatvoting rates should increase overtime with these normal lifecycle changes.

They should also increase with risinglevels of education. Our evidencesuggests, however, that such changesare occurring more slowly than theyhave in the past, and that manyyounger voters, when they do beginto enter the electorate, enter it at amuch higher average age.5 If suchpatterns persist over time, normalprocesses of population replacementwill combine to keep driving turnoutdown, with each generation of newlyeligible voters participating at lowerrates and taking longer to enter theelectorate. Since there is, as yet, noevidence that this process of steadilylower participation among youngergenerations is abating, there couldwell be even lower turnout in futureelections than in 2000. Such a trendhas potentially serious implications for

Table 1Voting and Not Voting in 2000, by Age Cohorts

Age in 2000 (first eligibility)

68+ 58–67 48–57 38–47 30–37 25–29 21–24 18–20(–1953) (1957–1963) (1968–1972) (1974–1980) (1984–1988) (1993) (1997) (2000)

Yes 83 80 76 66 54 38 28 22 61

No 17 20 24 34 46 62 73 78 39

N = 2,467 (weighted)

Total%

Votedin 2000

%

Participants at the Symposium on Electoral Participation in Canada (March 21, 2003, inOttawa) discussed ways to promote turnout among young voters.

Phot

o: E

lect

ions

Canada


Canadian democracy – for the extentof a democratic mandate that govern-ments might claim, for the kinds ofcandidates who are elected and evenfor the types of issues that are discussed.

Reasons for not voting

Many of the questions in our surveywere open-ended, allowing respondentsto answer in their own words and to givemore than one response to a question.In this way, we were able to exploremore fully some of the attitudes andfeelings that lie behind the decline invoter turnout in Canada. The abilityto compare the answers of both olderand younger respondents, and of votersand non-voters,provides insightsinto the problem ofnot voting amongthe young. Weasked those whoreported not havingvoted in the 2000federal election togive their reasonsfor not voting, andwe grouped thesein three main cate-gories as shown inTable 2 – lack ofinterest, negativityand personal/administrative.6

Table 2 shows anumber of interest-ing variations inthe reasons for notvoting given bydifferent age groups.In particular, theyoungest age group,aged 18–24 in 2000,was less likely toexpress reasonshaving to do withnegative feelings

towards politicalcandidates, partiesand leaders than wereolder age groups. Theywere, however, morelikely to cite personalor administrativereasons for not voting,particularly that theywere “too busy”. Theywere also somewhatmore likely to experienceregistration problems.The percentagesreporting lack ofinterest were alsohigher in the twoyoungest age groups.

Phot

o: W

ayn

e Bro

wn

Table 2Main Reasons for Not Voting in 2000(open-ended; multiple responses; % of respondents)

Age in 2000

55+ 45–54 35–44 25–34 18–24 Total

Lack of interest 32 30 34 41 39 37

Not interested; didn’t care; apathy 23 18 20 27 28 25

Vote meaningless; won’t count; election forgone conclusion 8 10 10 11 7 9

Forgot; unaware 2 0 1 2 4 2

Too complicated; confusing 0 2 3 1 0 1

Negativity 30 50 46 32 27 34

No appealing candidates/parties/issues 12 23 21 14 14 16

Lack of faith/confidence in candidates/parties/leaders 15 21 17 14 6 13

Lack of information about candidates/parties/issues 1 3 5 3 6 4

Regional discontent 2 3 3 1 1 1

Personal/Administrative 46 33 28 35 43 37

Too busy with work/school/family 4 3 12 14 23 14

Away from riding/province/country 22 9 8 11 8 10

Registration problems 3 7 3 5 7 6

Illness, health issues 12 8 2 2 * 3

Didn’t know where or when; polling station problems; transportation 5 3 3 2 4 3

Moving-related problems 0 3 1 1 1 1

Other 5 3 5 3 5 4

Religious reasons 4 2 2 1 1 2

Other; unclassifiable; unclear; none 1 1 3 2 4 2

N = 101 109 171 331 347 1,059


According to the authors’ research, only about one quarter ofeligible 18–24-year-olds are believed to have voted at the mostrecent Canadian general election in 2000.

960 reported voters in the 2000 federalelection and 960 reported non-votersin that election. In this way, interviewswere obtained with a much largersample of non-voters than is possiblein election-related surveys of theCanadian public. The survey wasdesigned to explore a variety of expla-nations for not voting, both in generalterms and with reference to the sharpincrease in not voting that has occurredin each of the last three federal elec-tions. This article highlights three of themore important findings of the survey –the generational patterns of not voting,the reasons behind it, and perceptionsof both younger and older voters ofpossible solutions to the problem.

Table 1 illustrates the clear pattern ofdecline in turnout across generationsthat has been at work in the Canadianelectorate over the past decade ormore.3 The levels of non-participationfor the three cohorts of newly eligiblevoters entering the electorate in eachof the past three federal elections arestriking.4 Only slightly more than onein five of those who were eligible tovote for the first time in 2000 chose toparticipate. The figures are only slightlybetter among those cohorts of voterseligible to vote for the first time in 1997or 1993. Even those who entered theelectorate during the later Trudeauperiod (1974–1980) voted in 2000 ata lower rate than those in the olderage groups. For those who entered the

electorate during the Mulroney years(aged 30 to 37 in 2000) the overallpercentage casting a ballot in 2000was only 54 percent.

It is, of course, not unusual to findlower rates of voting participationamong the young. Such patternsare well documented in the literatureon non-voting behaviour in Canadaand in other countries. But lowerparticipation rates among the younghave generally been interpreted asa pattern associated with specificbehavioural characteristics of the lifecycle. As people age, they becomemore politically aware and engaged.It is, therefore, to be expected thatvoting rates should increase overtime with these normal lifecycle changes.

They should also increase with risinglevels of education. Our evidencesuggests, however, that such changesare occurring more slowly than theyhave in the past, and that manyyounger voters, when they do beginto enter the electorate, enter it at amuch higher average age.5 If suchpatterns persist over time, normalprocesses of population replacementwill combine to keep driving turnoutdown, with each generation of newlyeligible voters participating at lowerrates and taking longer to enter theelectorate. Since there is, as yet, noevidence that this process of steadilylower participation among youngergenerations is abating, there couldwell be even lower turnout in futureelections than in 2000. Such a trendhas potentially serious implications for

Table 1Voting and Not Voting in 2000, by Age Cohorts

Age in 2000 (first eligibility)

68+ 58–67 48–57 38–47 30–37 25–29 21–24 18–20(–1953) (1957–1963) (1968–1972) (1974–1980) (1984–1988) (1993) (1997) (2000)

Yes 83 80 76 66 54 38 28 22 61

No 17 20 24 34 46 62 73 78 39

N = 2,467 (weighted)

Total%

Votedin 2000

%

Participants at the Symposium on Electoral Participation in Canada (March 21, 2003, inOttawa) discussed ways to promote turnout among young voters.

Phot

o: E

lect

ions

Canada


activity. Young people were also seenby some respondents as lacking trust incandidates, parties or the government,or simply disliking what is happening(or not happening) in politics.

Raising young people’sinterest in politics

We followed up the question about thereasons for lower voting levels amongyouth by asking respondents to suggestwhat they felt should be done to getyoung people to be more interested inpolitics. The answers to this question,again grouped by age, are shown inTable 4. A majority of those respond-ing mentioned “improved education orinformation” as a potential solution.Answers in this category, however,were reasonably diverse, dealing notonly with the need for more educationin the schools but also in the homeand in the media. Some also indicatedthat increased information or educationneeded to be made more relevant tothe interests and personal situations ofyoung people, to better engage them.

The notion of increased relevance toyoung people came up again in the nextcategory of answers, which referred tosystemic changes that might be made toencourage more involvement of youth.Table 4 indicates that 27 percent ofrespondents under 25 years of age feltthat those setting the political agendashould make more effort to accommo-date issues of relevance to young people,such as those relating to the jobs, edu-cation and future of youth. This numberis almost twice as high as in the 25 andolder group.

Other changes suggested in this cate-gory were related to improvementsthat might encourage more youth toenter politics – as leaders, politiciansand candidates, for example. Few

respondents mentioned the electoralsystem as a target of possible change.Indeed, in response to a separate seriesof closed-end questions on this topic,more than three quarters of therespondents in both the older andyounger age groups expressed generalsatisfaction with the operation of thecurrent electoral system.7 But, inresponse to a different question, nearlytwo thirds of the respondents were atleast “somewhat supportive” of reformsthat might introduce greater propor-tionality into the electoral system.8

The majority of respondents, however,were clearly opposed to compulsoryvoting. While those in the oldest agegroup were about evenly divided on thisquestion, respondents in the youngestage cohorts were the most opposed tothe idea of making voting mandatory.

The matter of the “relevance” of politicsto youth comes up again in the thirdcategory shown in Table 4 – changesin the actions or conduct of thoserunning the political system. Theserespondents felt that young peoplemight become more interested inpolitics if government made an effortto contact and relate to youth, givingthem more say in government activities.Other people who referred to changesin the conduct of politics were morelikely to cite the need for more honesty,responsibility and accountability in theactions of politicians. In response toa separate series of questions, manyrespondents also agreed that techno-logical developments, such as thepossibility of Internet voting, mighthelp bring more young people intothe active electorate.9

Table 4What Should Be Done to Get Young People Interested in Politics?(open-ended; multiple responses; % of respondents)

Under 25 25 andyears old older

Improved education; information 47 53

More education in the schools 23 24

More dialogue/exposure/education (general) 9 13

More emphasis on personal relevance, benefits, jobs 8 10

More advertisements, media exposure 8 4

More education in the home 0 2

Political system change; involvement 43 39

More relevant issues to youth 27 15

Recruitment, involvement of youth 7 11

Younger candidates, politicians, leaders 5 7

Better politicians, leaders, parties 2 4

Electoral reform; democratic reform 2 2

Changes in conduct of politics 25 30

Government relate better to, understand youth 11 14

More honesty, responsibility, accountability in politics 6 11

Make politics less complicated, more interesting, fun 8 5

Other 2 2

Nothing, do not know 3 3

N = 332 1,184

The oldest age group was most affectedby health issues and by absence fromthe electoral district at election time,although it should be remembered thatthere were far fewer non-voters overallin the older age groups. The middle-aged groups, those between the mid-30sand the mid-50s, were more likely tocite reasons involving negative feelingstoward politicians or political partiesthan were those in either the oldest orthe youngest groups.

As part of the survey, we asked ourrespondents to speculate on the reasonsbehind the higher rates of not votingamong youth. Their reasons (Table 3)fell into two broad categories – thoserelated to a lack of integration of youngpeople into the political system, andthose suggesting that the problem lieswith feelings of apathy or politicaldistrust. It is apparent that the bulk ofCanadians believe that young peopleare not voting because they feeldistanced from the operations of thepolitical system, or because they lack

information about it. The first category,distancing from politics, containedresponses of the following nature:• Youth do not believe that govern-

ment represents them or cares abouttheir views, their needs and theirissues.

• The age difference distances youthfrom the political process and thepoliticians.

• Political parties do not reach outto them or are out of touch withyouth.

• Youth feel that politics does not affectthem, perhaps because they have notyet developed the responsibilities thatare the subject of political discourse.

• No one listens to young people; theyhave no voice.

There is a strong feeling, then, thatyoung people lack connection to thecurrent political system. This explana-tion is joined by the suggestion thatyoung people simply do not haveenough political information. Thislack of knowledge relates to all aspectsof politics – the candidates, partiesand issues. It extends to a lack ofknowledge of how politics mightaffect their lives. Attitudes of this sortare cited as explanations by 34 percentof young people themselves. Overall,then, almost three quarters of therespondents in the study, and 80 percentof the under-25 age group, gave answersthat we have classified in the “notintegrated” category.

Explanations for not voting amongyouth also involved reasons that weclassified as “disengagement”. Suchreasons were cited by 59 percent ofrespondents over 25, and 52 percent ofyoung people themselves. The bulk ofthese answers simply categorized youth

as uninterested orapathetic when itcomes to voting inelections. Thisimage of uncaringyouth is sometimesaccompanied by amore purposefuldescription of youthas being actively

negative toward politics or elections.Older respondents were somewhatmore likely to say that young peoplewere less likely to vote because theywere cynical or disillusioned aboutpolitics, sick of the “false promises,dishonesty, hypocrisy, corruption andnegativity” that are sometimes seen ascharacterizing political life, and notwilling to participate in a “meaningless”

It is apparent that the bulk of Canadiansbelieve that young people are not votingbecause they feel distanced from theoperations of the political system, orbecause they lack information about it.

Table 3Perceived Reasons Why Young People Are Less Likely to Vote(open-ended; multiple responses; % of respondents)


Not integrated 79 71

Distanced from politics by age;not feeling represented, connected 40 37

Lack of information, understanding, knowledge 34 27

Lack of encouragement 2 4

Too busy, too mobile 3 3

Disengagement 51 59

Uninterested, apathetic 31 30

Negativism, cynicism, disillusionment 9 14

Distrustful of system, politicians 7 9

Irresponsibility, rebelliousness, laziness 4 6

Other 2 4

Do not know 0 *

N = 386 1,420



activity. Young people were also seenby some respondents as lacking trust incandidates, parties or the government,or simply disliking what is happening(or not happening) in politics.

Raising young people’sinterest in politics

We followed up the question about thereasons for lower voting levels amongyouth by asking respondents to suggestwhat they felt should be done to getyoung people to be more interested inpolitics. The answers to this question,again grouped by age, are shown inTable 4. A majority of those respond-ing mentioned “improved education orinformation” as a potential solution.Answers in this category, however,were reasonably diverse, dealing notonly with the need for more educationin the schools but also in the homeand in the media. Some also indicatedthat increased information or educationneeded to be made more relevant tothe interests and personal situations ofyoung people, to better engage them.

The notion of increased relevance toyoung people came up again in the nextcategory of answers, which referred tosystemic changes that might be made toencourage more involvement of youth.Table 4 indicates that 27 percent ofrespondents under 25 years of age feltthat those setting the political agendashould make more effort to accommo-date issues of relevance to young people,such as those relating to the jobs, edu-cation and future of youth. This numberis almost twice as high as in the 25 andolder group.

Other changes suggested in this cate-gory were related to improvementsthat might encourage more youth toenter politics – as leaders, politiciansand candidates, for example. Few

respondents mentioned the electoralsystem as a target of possible change.Indeed, in response to a separate seriesof closed-end questions on this topic,more than three quarters of therespondents in both the older andyounger age groups expressed generalsatisfaction with the operation of thecurrent electoral system.7 But, inresponse to a different question, nearlytwo thirds of the respondents were atleast “somewhat supportive” of reformsthat might introduce greater propor-tionality into the electoral system.8

The majority of respondents, however,were clearly opposed to compulsoryvoting. While those in the oldest agegroup were about evenly divided on thisquestion, respondents in the youngestage cohorts were the most opposed tothe idea of making voting mandatory.

The matter of the “relevance” of politicsto youth comes up again in the thirdcategory shown in Table 4 – changesin the actions or conduct of thoserunning the political system. Theserespondents felt that young peoplemight become more interested inpolitics if government made an effortto contact and relate to youth, givingthem more say in government activities.Other people who referred to changesin the conduct of politics were morelikely to cite the need for more honesty,responsibility and accountability in theactions of politicians. In response toa separate series of questions, manyrespondents also agreed that techno-logical developments, such as thepossibility of Internet voting, mighthelp bring more young people intothe active electorate.9

Table 4What Should Be Done to Get Young People Interested in Politics?(open-ended; multiple responses; % of respondents)


Improved education; information 47 53

More education in the schools 23 24

More dialogue/exposure/education (general) 9 13

More emphasis on personal relevance, benefits, jobs 8 10

More advertisements, media exposure 8 4

More education in the home 0 2

Political system change; involvement 43 39

More relevant issues to youth 27 15

Recruitment, involvement of youth 7 11

Younger candidates, politicians, leaders 5 7

Better politicians, leaders, parties 2 4

Electoral reform; democratic reform 2 2

Changes in conduct of politics 25 30

Government relate better to, understand youth 11 14

More honesty, responsibility, accountability in politics 6 11

Make politics less complicated, more interesting, fun 8 5

Other 2 2

Nothing, do not know 3 3

N = 332 1,184

The oldest age group was most affectedby health issues and by absence fromthe electoral district at election time,although it should be remembered thatthere were far fewer non-voters overallin the older age groups. The middle-aged groups, those between the mid-30sand the mid-50s, were more likely tocite reasons involving negative feelingstoward politicians or political partiesthan were those in either the oldest orthe youngest groups.

As part of the survey, we asked ourrespondents to speculate on the reasonsbehind the higher rates of not votingamong youth. Their reasons (Table 3)fell into two broad categories – thoserelated to a lack of integration of youngpeople into the political system, andthose suggesting that the problem lieswith feelings of apathy or politicaldistrust. It is apparent that the bulk ofCanadians believe that young peopleare not voting because they feeldistanced from the operations of thepolitical system, or because they lack

information about it. The first category,distancing from politics, containedresponses of the following nature:• Youth do not believe that govern-

ment represents them or cares abouttheir views, their needs and theirissues.

• The age difference distances youthfrom the political process and thepoliticians.

• Political parties do not reach outto them or are out of touch withyouth.

• Youth feel that politics does not affectthem, perhaps because they have notyet developed the responsibilities thatare the subject of political discourse.

• No one listens to young people; theyhave no voice.

There is a strong feeling, then, thatyoung people lack connection to thecurrent political system. This explana-tion is joined by the suggestion thatyoung people simply do not haveenough political information. Thislack of knowledge relates to all aspectsof politics – the candidates, partiesand issues. It extends to a lack ofknowledge of how politics mightaffect their lives. Attitudes of this sortare cited as explanations by 34 percentof young people themselves. Overall,then, almost three quarters of therespondents in the study, and 80 percentof the under-25 age group, gave answersthat we have classified in the “notintegrated” category.

Explanations for not voting amongyouth also involved reasons that weclassified as “disengagement”. Suchreasons were cited by 59 percent ofrespondents over 25, and 52 percent ofyoung people themselves. The bulk ofthese answers simply categorized youth

as uninterested orapathetic when itcomes to voting inelections. Thisimage of uncaringyouth is sometimesaccompanied by amore purposefuldescription of youthas being actively

negative toward politics or elections.Older respondents were somewhatmore likely to say that young peoplewere less likely to vote because theywere cynical or disillusioned aboutpolitics, sick of the “false promises,dishonesty, hypocrisy, corruption andnegativity” that are sometimes seen ascharacterizing political life, and notwilling to participate in a “meaningless”

It is apparent that the bulk of Canadiansbelieve that young people are not votingbecause they feel distanced from theoperations of the political system, orbecause they lack information about it.

Table 3Perceived Reasons Why Young People Are Less Likely to Vote(open-ended; multiple responses; % of respondents)


Not integrated 79 71

Distanced from politics by age;not feeling represented, connected 40 37

Lack of information, understanding, knowledge 34 27

Lack of encouragement 2 4

Too busy, too mobile 3 3

Disengagement 51 59

Uninterested, apathetic 31 30

Negativism, cynicism, disillusionment 9 14

Distrustful of system, politicians 7 9

Irresponsibility, rebelliousness, laziness 4 6

Other 2 4

Do not know 0 *

N = 386 1,420



Turned Off or Tuned Out? Youth Participation in Politics

Elisabeth Gidengil Neil Nevitte Professor, Department of Political Science, Professor, Department of Political Science,McGill University University of Toronto

André Blais Richard NadeauProfessor, Department of Political Science, Professor, Department of Political Science,Université de Montréal Université de Montréal

Young Canadians are turning their backs on electoral politicsin unprecedented numbers. The optimistic assumption isthat they are turning to other forms of political engagementinstead. This assumption is encouraged by the fact thattoday’s young Canadians are much more likely than theirparents’ or grandparents’ generation to have had a universityeducation. The assumption gains credence from mediaimages of young people protesting againstglobalization or the war against Iraq.What we are seeing, the argument goes, isa new generation of highly educatedyoung Canadians who are frustrated withtraditional electoral politics and who areturning to more autonomous forms ofpolitical action. However, as this articledemonstrates, there is evidence this repre-sents an unduly sanguine reading of thesituation.

The deepening divide

There is nothing new about lower turnoutrates among young people. Detailed studyof voter turnout in federal elections since1968 suggests that the propensity to votetypically increases by 7 or 8 points betweenages 20 and 30 and by about 15 pointsbetween ages 20 and 50.1 Young peopleare less likely to vote precisely because

they are young. Most young people are not going to beparticularly concerned about taxes, mortgage rates andaccess to services, and the political debate that swirlsaround these issues may seem remote and abstract.

What is new is the widening generational divide. There issomething about this generation of young Canadians that


Figure 1Trends in Turnout by Age Group

1988 1993 1997 2000

Note: The turnout among the oldest age group in 1988 is used as the benchmark. Only people born in 1970

or earlier were eligible to vote in 1988, and so the tracking for the youngest generation begins in 1993.

Source: 1988, 1993, 1997 and 2000 Canadian Election Studies

Born since 1970Born in 1960sBorn 1945–1959Born before 1945

0%

–5%

–10%

–15%

–20%

–25%

–30%

–35%

1. André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, RichardNadeau and Neil Nevitte, Anatomy of aLiberal Victory: Making Sense of the 2000Canadian Election (Peterborough, Ontario:Broadview Press, 2002), pp. 45–63.

2. The full report of the survey, “Explainingthe Turnout Decline in Canadian FederalElections: A New Survey of Non-voters,” isavailable at www.elections.ca underElectoral Law & Policy. Field work for thesurvey was conducted by Decima Research.Technical details may be obtained bycontacting Decima Research or ElectionsCanada.

3. To calculate this table, we employed acorrective weight to rebalance the totalproportions of voters and non-voters in thesample. The weighting was arrived at byweighting each of the non-voters inthe sample at 1 and voters at .34, therebysimulating a sample of 2,467 with a votingrate of 61.3 percent.

4. The cohorts displayed in Table 1 are struc-tured according to the particular election atwhich a respondent first became eligible tovote. To have been eligible to vote in the1988 federal election, for example, arespondent would have to have been atleast 30 years old in 2000.

5. An analysis of data from the CanadianNational Election Studies, collected overthe past 30 years, which was also conductedby the authors for Elections Canada, showsclearly that each generation of newlyeligible voters participates at lower ratesand begins to enter the active electorateat a higher average age. Jon H. Pammett,Lawrence LeDuc, Erin Thiessen andAntoine Bilodeau, “Canadian VotingTurnout in Comparative Perspective,”unpublished report prepared for ElectionsCanada, 2001, pp. 71–74, 78–79.

6. In tables 2, 3 and 4, which use multipleresponses, category totals should be regardedas approximate, since respondents wereallowed to give more than one responsein the same category.

7. The question asked was: “In general, howsatisfied are you with the present Canadianelectoral system?” Twenty-eight percent ofall respondents indicated that they were“very satisfied”, while fifty percent respondedthat they were “somewhat satisfied”.

8. The question asked was: “How supportivewould you be of introducing a proportionalrepresentation system for federal electionsin Canada?” Twenty-two percent ofrespondents indicated that they would be“very supportive” and another forty-fourpercent, “somewhat supportive”.Differences between the age groups on thisitem were negligible.

9. A majority of the survey respondents saidthat it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely”that they personally would take advantageof an Internet voting option. The propor-tion responding positively to this item washigher among younger, better-educated,higher-income and urban respondents, andamong those who did not vote in 2000.

The survey findings point us towardan understanding of the scope of theproblem, but only in a limited waytoward its possible solution. It is evidentthat the decline in voter turnout inrecent elections is mainly attributableto the young, and that it is part of ademographic trend that shows everysign of continuing well into the future.It has serious implications for thekinds of issues that are likely to beaddressed in the political arena, thetypes of candidates who seek election,the positions of the parties, and evenpossibly for the health of democracy

itself. It is a problem that deserves ourattention, but one that will not beeasily solved. The direction of a solu-tion is clear – making voting easierand more meaningful for first-timevoters; making politics more relevantto the young; providing them with thetools they need to understand its rele-vance to their own lives, engagingthem more directly in the politicalprocess. But without fundamentalchanges in the way in which politicsis conducted in Canada, these aregoals that could well remain out ofreach for some time.

NOTES


Turned Off or Tuned Out? Youth Participation in Politics

Elisabeth Gidengil Neil Nevitte Professor, Department of Political Science, Professor, Department of Political Science,McGill University University of Toronto

André Blais Richard NadeauProfessor, Department of Political Science, Professor, Department of Political Science,Université de Montréal Université de Montréal

Young Canadians are turning their backs on electoral politicsin unprecedented numbers. The optimistic assumption isthat they are turning to other forms of political engagementinstead. This assumption is encouraged by the fact thattoday’s young Canadians are much more likely than theirparents’ or grandparents’ generation to have had a universityeducation. The assumption gains credence from mediaimages of young people protesting againstglobalization or the war against Iraq.What we are seeing, the argument goes, isa new generation of highly educatedyoung Canadians who are frustrated withtraditional electoral politics and who areturning to more autonomous forms ofpolitical action. However, as this articledemonstrates, there is evidence this repre-sents an unduly sanguine reading of thesituation.

The deepening divide

There is nothing new about lower turnoutrates among young people. Detailed studyof voter turnout in federal elections since1968 suggests that the propensity to votetypically increases by 7 or 8 points betweenages 20 and 30 and by about 15 pointsbetween ages 20 and 50.1 Young peopleare less likely to vote precisely because

they are young. Most young people are not going to beparticularly concerned about taxes, mortgage rates andaccess to services, and the political debate that swirlsaround these issues may seem remote and abstract.

What is new is the widening generational divide. There issomething about this generation of young Canadians that


Figure 1Trends in Turnout by Age Group

1988 1993 1997 2000

Note: The turnout among the oldest age group in 1988 is used as the benchmark. Only people born in 1970

or earlier were eligible to vote in 1988, and so the tracking for the youngest generation begins in 1993.

Source: 1988, 1993, 1997 and 2000 Canadian Election Studies


0%

–5%

–10%

–15%

–20%

–25%

–30%

–35%

1. André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, RichardNadeau and Neil Nevitte, Anatomy of aLiberal Victory: Making Sense of the 2000Canadian Election (Peterborough, Ontario:Broadview Press, 2002), pp. 45–63.

2. The full report of the survey, “Explainingthe Turnout Decline in Canadian FederalElections: A New Survey of Non-voters,” isavailable at www.elections.ca underElectoral Law & Policy. Field work for thesurvey was conducted by Decima Research.Technical details may be obtained bycontacting Decima Research or ElectionsCanada.

3. To calculate this table, we employed acorrective weight to rebalance the totalproportions of voters and non-voters in thesample. The weighting was arrived at byweighting each of the non-voters inthe sample at 1 and voters at .34, therebysimulating a sample of 2,467 with a votingrate of 61.3 percent.

4. The cohorts displayed in Table 1 are struc-tured according to the particular election atwhich a respondent first became eligible tovote. To have been eligible to vote in the1988 federal election, for example, arespondent would have to have been atleast 30 years old in 2000.

5. An analysis of data from the CanadianNational Election Studies, collected overthe past 30 years, which was also conductedby the authors for Elections Canada, showsclearly that each generation of newlyeligible voters participates at lower ratesand begins to enter the active electorateat a higher average age. Jon H. Pammett,Lawrence LeDuc, Erin Thiessen andAntoine Bilodeau, “Canadian VotingTurnout in Comparative Perspective,”unpublished report prepared for ElectionsCanada, 2001, pp. 71–74, 78–79.

6. In tables 2, 3 and 4, which use multipleresponses, category totals should be regardedas approximate, since respondents wereallowed to give more than one responsein the same category.

7. The question asked was: “In general, howsatisfied are you with the present Canadianelectoral system?” Twenty-eight percent ofall respondents indicated that they were“very satisfied”, while fifty percent respondedthat they were “somewhat satisfied”.

8. The question asked was: “How supportivewould you be of introducing a proportionalrepresentation system for federal electionsin Canada?” Twenty-two percent ofrespondents indicated that they would be“very supportive” and another forty-fourpercent, “somewhat supportive”.Differences between the age groups on thisitem were negligible.

9. A majority of the survey respondents saidthat it was “very likely” or “somewhat likely”that they personally would take advantageof an Internet voting option. The propor-tion responding positively to this item washigher among younger, better-educated,higher-income and urban respondents, andamong those who did not vote in 2000.

The survey findings point us towardan understanding of the scope of theproblem, but only in a limited waytoward its possible solution. It is evidentthat the decline in voter turnout inrecent elections is mainly attributableto the young, and that it is part of ademographic trend that shows everysign of continuing well into the future.It has serious implications for thekinds of issues that are likely to beaddressed in the political arena, thetypes of candidates who seek election,the positions of the parties, and evenpossibly for the health of democracy

itself. It is a problem that deserves ourattention, but one that will not beeasily solved. The direction of a solu-tion is clear – making voting easierand more meaningful for first-timevoters; making politics more relevantto the young; providing them with thetools they need to understand its rele-vance to their own lives, engagingthem more directly in the politicalprocess. But without fundamentalchanges in the way in which politicsis conducted in Canada, these aregoals that could well remain out ofreach for some time.

NOTES


away from the polls. Many people whoare disaffected with politics choose tovent that frustration by voting againstthe incumbent.3

Young Canadians are not so much“turned off” as “tuned out”. They tendto be much less interested in politicsthan older Canadians and to knowmuch less about what is going onpolitically. Interest in politics andpolitical knowledge are two of the bestpredictors of who will vote and whowill not. If young Canadians had beenas interested in politics and as informedas older Canadians, their turnout inthe 2000 federal election would havebeen 14 points higher.

When they were interviewed rightafter the 2000 federal election, almostone young Canadian in five was unableto name Jean Chrétien as leader of theLiberal party, and one in two failed tocome up with Joe Clark’s name whenasked to identify the ProgressiveConservative leader (see Figure 3).The skeptical might charge that thisknowledge test is biased against theyoung: given how long both men have

been active in federal politics, olderCanadians have simply had more timeto become acquainted with them.However, younger respondents werealso much less likely to know the namesof the newer party leaders: one inthree could not name Stockwell Dayas Canadian Alliance leader, and more

than half failed toidentify AlexaMcDonough asleader of the NewDemocratic Party.Knowing thenames of the feder-al party leaders isnot mere politicaltrivia. After all,the leader of thewinning party willbe Canada’s primeminister. At thesame time, onlytwo in five couldcome up with thename of the federalfinance minister,

and only two in three managed toname their provincial premier. YoungCanadians knew even less about theparties’ positions than older Canadians.Only one in four could identify theAlliance as being on the right andeven fewer could locate the N.D.P.as being on the left. The one factualquestion on which young Canadiansdid as well as the older age groupswas naming the capital of theUnited States.

According to the optimistic scenario,however, this low level of knowledgecould be just what we would expect ifyoung Canadians are turning theirbacks on traditional electoral politics.If many of them are finding electoralpolitics to be irrelevant to their realconcerns, perhaps it is hardly surprisingthat they seem to know so little aboutit. If this line of argument were correct,we would expect to find much higherlevels of knowledge when youngCanadians are asked about the issuesthat are supposed to concern them.

Figure 3Knowledge of Party Leaders and Other Political Figures

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Source: 2000 Canadian Election Study


Liberalleader

Bloc Québécoisleader (Quebec)

CanadianAlliance leader

ProgressiveConservative

leader

NewDemocraticParty leader

Federal financeminister

Provincialpremier

The leaders of five federal political parties took part in televiseddebates (English and French) during the 2000 general election: (fromthe left) Jean Chrétien (Liberal), Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Québécois),Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative), Alexa McDonough (N.D.P.)and Stockwell Day (Canadian Alliance).

Phot

o: C

P Im

age

s

makes them less likely to vote thantheir parents or their grandparentswere when they were in their twenties.Turnout was 10 points higher amongthose born in the 1960s when theywere young and 20 points higher amongbaby boomers when they were the sameage. When trends are tracked for thedifferent generations, the pattern istruly striking (see Figure 1). Turnouthas held more or less steady for thethree older generations; it is onlyamong the young that voting hasdecreased. What this means is thatmuch of the decline in turnout since1988 can be attributed to generationalreplacement. If the four generationshad made up the same proportion ofthe electorate in 2000 as they did in1988, turnout in the 2000 federalelection would have been as muchas 10 points higher.

The education myth

The declining turnout in this generationis puzzling because it has come at atime when unprecedented numbers

of young Canadians continue theireducation beyond high school. If theyare so much more likely to go on touniversity, why are they so much lesslikely to vote than their parents or theirgrandparents? A ready answer has beenfound in the very fact that they arehighly educated. The assumption hasbeen made that these young Canadiansare turning away from electoral politicsin search of more active forms of politi-cal engagement. Because they arehighly educated, they aspire to some-thing more meaningful than casting aballot once in a while.

However, it is a serious misconceptionto suppose that it is the highly educatedyoung who are failing to turn up atthe polls. On the contrary, the moreeducation young people have, themore likely they are to vote. Educationremains one of the best predictors ofturnout because it provides the cogni-tive skills needed to cope with thecomplexities of politics and because itseems to foster norms of civic engage-ment. Education makes a massivedifference to whether young Canadiansvote or not. The 2000 CanadianElection Study reveals that turnoutin the youngest generation was almost50 points higher among universitygraduates than it was among thosewho left school without a high schooldiploma.2 Furthermore, the decline isconfined to those with less than auniversity education. Since the 1993general election, turnout has fallenover 30 points among those with lessthan a high school education and15 points or more among those whohave completed high school and/orsome college (see Figure 2). Meanwhile,turnout has held steady among younguniversity graduates.

Knowing little and caring less

A second misconception is that youngCanadians are being “turned off” bytraditional electoral politics. They arecertainly dissatisfied with politics andpoliticians. Three in five believe thatthe government does not care whatpeople like them think and two in fivebelieve that political parties hardlyever keep their election promises.However, they are no more dissatisfiedthan older Canadians. In fact, they are,if anything, a little less disillusionedwith politics than their parents andtheir grandparents are. In any case,political discontent is not a particularlygood predictor when it comes to staying

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

Figure 2Trends in Turnout Among Young Canadians

1993 1997 2000

Note: The turnout in 1993 among those with some college education is used as the benchmark.

Source: 1993, 1997 and 2000 Canadian Election Studies

UniversityCollegeHigh schoolDropout

0%

–10%

–20%

–30%

–40%

–50%

–60%


away from the polls. Many people whoare disaffected with politics choose tovent that frustration by voting againstthe incumbent.3

Young Canadians are not so much“turned off” as “tuned out”. They tendto be much less interested in politicsthan older Canadians and to knowmuch less about what is going onpolitically. Interest in politics andpolitical knowledge are two of the bestpredictors of who will vote and whowill not. If young Canadians had beenas interested in politics and as informedas older Canadians, their turnout inthe 2000 federal election would havebeen 14 points higher.

When they were interviewed rightafter the 2000 federal election, almostone young Canadian in five was unableto name Jean Chrétien as leader of theLiberal party, and one in two failed tocome up with Joe Clark’s name whenasked to identify the ProgressiveConservative leader (see Figure 3).The skeptical might charge that thisknowledge test is biased against theyoung: given how long both men have

been active in federal politics, olderCanadians have simply had more timeto become acquainted with them.However, younger respondents werealso much less likely to know the namesof the newer party leaders: one inthree could not name Stockwell Dayas Canadian Alliance leader, and more

than half failed toidentify AlexaMcDonough asleader of the NewDemocratic Party.Knowing thenames of the feder-al party leaders isnot mere politicaltrivia. After all,the leader of thewinning party willbe Canada’s primeminister. At thesame time, onlytwo in five couldcome up with thename of the federalfinance minister,

and only two in three managed toname their provincial premier. YoungCanadians knew even less about theparties’ positions than older Canadians.Only one in four could identify theAlliance as being on the right andeven fewer could locate the N.D.P.as being on the left. The one factualquestion on which young Canadiansdid as well as the older age groupswas naming the capital of theUnited States.

According to the optimistic scenario,however, this low level of knowledgecould be just what we would expect ifyoung Canadians are turning theirbacks on traditional electoral politics.If many of them are finding electoralpolitics to be irrelevant to their realconcerns, perhaps it is hardly surprisingthat they seem to know so little aboutit. If this line of argument were correct,we would expect to find much higherlevels of knowledge when youngCanadians are asked about the issuesthat are supposed to concern them.

Figure 3Knowledge of Party Leaders and Other Political Figures

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%



Liberalleader

Bloc Québécoisleader (Quebec)

CanadianAlliance leader

ProgressiveConservative

leader

NewDemocraticParty leader

Federal financeminister

Provincialpremier

The leaders of five federal political parties took part in televiseddebates (English and French) during the 2000 general election: (fromthe left) Jean Chrétien (Liberal), Gilles Duceppe (Bloc Québécois),Joe Clark (Progressive Conservative), Alexa McDonough (N.D.P.)and Stockwell Day (Canadian Alliance).

Phot

o: C

P Im

age

s

makes them less likely to vote thantheir parents or their grandparentswere when they were in their twenties.Turnout was 10 points higher amongthose born in the 1960s when theywere young and 20 points higher amongbaby boomers when they were the sameage. When trends are tracked for thedifferent generations, the pattern istruly striking (see Figure 1). Turnouthas held more or less steady for thethree older generations; it is onlyamong the young that voting hasdecreased. What this means is thatmuch of the decline in turnout since1988 can be attributed to generationalreplacement. If the four generationshad made up the same proportion ofthe electorate in 2000 as they did in1988, turnout in the 2000 federalelection would have been as muchas 10 points higher.

The education myth

The declining turnout in this generationis puzzling because it has come at atime when unprecedented numbers

of young Canadians continue theireducation beyond high school. If theyare so much more likely to go on touniversity, why are they so much lesslikely to vote than their parents or theirgrandparents? A ready answer has beenfound in the very fact that they arehighly educated. The assumption hasbeen made that these young Canadiansare turning away from electoral politicsin search of more active forms of politi-cal engagement. Because they arehighly educated, they aspire to some-thing more meaningful than casting aballot once in a while.

However, it is a serious misconceptionto suppose that it is the highly educatedyoung who are failing to turn up atthe polls. On the contrary, the moreeducation young people have, themore likely they are to vote. Educationremains one of the best predictors ofturnout because it provides the cogni-tive skills needed to cope with thecomplexities of politics and because itseems to foster norms of civic engage-ment. Education makes a massivedifference to whether young Canadiansvote or not. The 2000 CanadianElection Study reveals that turnoutin the youngest generation was almost50 points higher among universitygraduates than it was among thosewho left school without a high schooldiploma.2 Furthermore, the decline isconfined to those with less than auniversity education. Since the 1993general election, turnout has fallenover 30 points among those with lessthan a high school education and15 points or more among those whohave completed high school and/orsome college (see Figure 2). Meanwhile,turnout has held steady among younguniversity graduates.

Knowing little and caring less

A second misconception is that youngCanadians are being “turned off” bytraditional electoral politics. They arecertainly dissatisfied with politics andpoliticians. Three in five believe thatthe government does not care whatpeople like them think and two in fivebelieve that political parties hardlyever keep their election promises.However, they are no more dissatisfiedthan older Canadians. In fact, they are,if anything, a little less disillusionedwith politics than their parents andtheir grandparents are. In any case,political discontent is not a particularlygood predictor when it comes to staying

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

Figure 2Trends in Turnout Among Young Canadians

1993 1997 2000

Note: The turnout in 1993 among those with some college education is used as the benchmark.

Source: 1993, 1997 and 2000 Canadian Election Studies

UniversityCollegeHigh schoolDropout

0%

–10%

–20%

–30%

–40%

–50%

–60%


are the most likely to go on-line insearch of information about politics.However, the numbers are not veryimpressive. At the time of the 2000federal election, less than a quarter ofyoung Canadians reported that theyhad ever used the Internet to trackdown political information. Moreover,there was a clear education gradient:the more education they had, themore likely they were to have used theInternet for this purpose (see Figure 4).Almost two in five university gradu-ates had gone on-line to find someinformation or other about politics,compared with fewer than one in tenof young Canadians without a highschool diploma. More to the point,those young people who had used theInternet to obtain political informationwere also the most likely to be follow-ing politics in the traditional media.These Internet users scored fully twopoints higher on average than thenon-users (on a scale from zero to ten)when it came to the amount of atten-tion they paid to television newsand/or news in the newspaper.

How can young Canadiansbe encouraged to vote?

The key to encouraging youngCanadians to participate in politicsis to get them to “tune in”. Politicalengagement presupposes politicalinterest. If young Canadians are notinterested in politics, they are not goingto spend much time or energy keepingup with public affairs, and still lessparticipating actively in the country’sdemocratic life. We need to recognize,though, that interest runs both ways.One very tangible form of interest is tohave a campaign worker or even acandidate turn up at the door: peoplewho reported being contacted by anyof the parties during the 2000 campaignwere more likely to vote. This was true

of young Canadians, too, but theywere the least likely to report beingcontacted. This suggests that a

concerted get-out-the-vote effort onthe part of political parties could helpto stem the downward trend in votingamong the young. A recent study inthe U.S.A. points to the importanceof getting young citizens to vote forthe first time: once they have paid the“start-up costs of voting”, young voterstend to keep on voting.6

For the longer term, the single mostimportant step would be to find waysto keep more young people in school.The more education young peoplehave, the more interested they are in

politics and the more likely they areto vote, to join groups working forchange and to be active in their com-

munities. Canada’sdropout rates may notbe out of line withother OECD coun-tries, but Canadiandropouts tend to havevery low levels of lit-eracy compared to

these countries because they typicallyquit high school at an earlier age.7

Education not only equips citizenswith the cognitive skills that activeengagement requires, it also seems toinstill norms of civic obligation. Senseof duty is one of the most powerfulincentives for turning out to vote.8

However, this sense seems to bediminishing: fewer than one youngCanadian in five expressed a strongsense of duty to vote in 2000, com-pared with one in three of those bornbefore 1945.

The key to encouraging young Canadiansto participate in politics is to get them to“tune in”.

Figure 4Use of the Internet by Young Canadians to ObtainPolitical Information(% having ever used)

University College High school Dropout


45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

This is not so. The sight of youngCanadians protesting at economicsummits suggests that globalization isexactly the sort of issue that is of specialinterest to them. In truth, however,their lack of awareness seems to extendto this topic as well. According to asurvey conducted in March 2001 for theCentre for Research and Information onCanada, only 57 percent of Canadiansborn since 1970 had heard anythingabout globalization, only 53 percenthad heard anything about the demon-strations against the World TradeOrganization the previous year inSeattle, and a mere 40 percent hadheard anything about the upcomingSummit of the Americas in the city ofQuébec.4 On all three questions, aware-ness was lowest among the young.

Who are the activists?

The third misconception is that youngCanadians who are giving up on elec-toral politics are involving themselvesin other ways. In fact, according to the2000 Canadian Election Study, youngCanadians were the least likely to havebeen active in a voluntary associationor community group during the previousfive years, and when they had been

active, it was typically in a sportsassociation (40 percent). If youngCanadians were turning to moremeaningful forms of engagement, thisshould show up in membership ofenvironmental groups. The environ-ment is an issue that matters to youngpeople, and it has hardly been a priorityon the country’s political agenda. Activeinvolvement in an environmental groupmight seem to offer a more effectiveway of working for change. However,young Canadians are no more likely(9 percent) than Canadians in generalto have been active in an environmen-tal group. This calls into question theoptimistic assumption that decliningparticipation in traditional electoralpolitics is being offset by greater involve-ment in grassroots-level activities.

Involvement in protest activities tells asimilar story. The activists are actuallymost likely to be found among themiddle-aged, a pattern that holds acrossnational boundaries.5 The young arethe least likely among Canadians tohave been active; more than one infive have engaged in no form of protestwhatsoever – even signing a petitionor joining in a boycott. To be sure,there is a core of young people who are

seeking to effect change by engagingin protest activities. Indeed, thisgeneration ranks second only to theirbaby-boomer parents when it comes toinvolvement in three or more differentprotest activities. But far from turningtheir backs on more conventionalmeans of making their voices heard,these young activists are more likelythan other members of their generationto belong to a political party or to aninterest group, and to vote.

It is not really surprising that manyof the same young people who fail tovote also fail to get involved in grass-roots organizing or protest activities.Involvement presumes a degree ofawareness of what is going on in theworld. If people do not pay a modicumof attention to the news, issues such asglobalization or the environment maysimply be “off the radar screen”.

The on-line myth

This brings us to the final misconcep-tion, namely that the Internet ishelping to counteract young Canadians’tendency to tune out of politics. It iscertainly true that young Canadians

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

Young people were among the demonstrators at the April 2001 Summit of the Americas, in thecity of Québec.


are the most likely to go on-line insearch of information about politics.However, the numbers are not veryimpressive. At the time of the 2000federal election, less than a quarter ofyoung Canadians reported that theyhad ever used the Internet to trackdown political information. Moreover,there was a clear education gradient:the more education they had, themore likely they were to have used theInternet for this purpose (see Figure 4).Almost two in five university gradu-ates had gone on-line to find someinformation or other about politics,compared with fewer than one in tenof young Canadians without a highschool diploma. More to the point,those young people who had used theInternet to obtain political informationwere also the most likely to be follow-ing politics in the traditional media.These Internet users scored fully twopoints higher on average than thenon-users (on a scale from zero to ten)when it came to the amount of atten-tion they paid to television newsand/or news in the newspaper.

How can young Canadiansbe encouraged to vote?

The key to encouraging youngCanadians to participate in politicsis to get them to “tune in”. Politicalengagement presupposes politicalinterest. If young Canadians are notinterested in politics, they are not goingto spend much time or energy keepingup with public affairs, and still lessparticipating actively in the country’sdemocratic life. We need to recognize,though, that interest runs both ways.One very tangible form of interest is tohave a campaign worker or even acandidate turn up at the door: peoplewho reported being contacted by anyof the parties during the 2000 campaignwere more likely to vote. This was true

of young Canadians, too, but theywere the least likely to report beingcontacted. This suggests that a

concerted get-out-the-vote effort onthe part of political parties could helpto stem the downward trend in votingamong the young. A recent study inthe U.S.A. points to the importanceof getting young citizens to vote forthe first time: once they have paid the“start-up costs of voting”, young voterstend to keep on voting.6

For the longer term, the single mostimportant step would be to find waysto keep more young people in school.The more education young peoplehave, the more interested they are in

politics and the more likely they areto vote, to join groups working forchange and to be active in their com-

munities. Canada’sdropout rates may notbe out of line withother OECD coun-tries, but Canadiandropouts tend to havevery low levels of lit-eracy compared to

these countries because they typicallyquit high school at an earlier age.7

Education not only equips citizenswith the cognitive skills that activeengagement requires, it also seems toinstill norms of civic obligation. Senseof duty is one of the most powerfulincentives for turning out to vote.8

However, this sense seems to bediminishing: fewer than one youngCanadian in five expressed a strongsense of duty to vote in 2000, com-pared with one in three of those bornbefore 1945.

The key to encouraging young Canadiansto participate in politics is to get them to“tune in”.

Figure 4Use of the Internet by Young Canadians to ObtainPolitical Information(% having ever used)

University College High school Dropout


45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

This is not so. The sight of youngCanadians protesting at economicsummits suggests that globalization isexactly the sort of issue that is of specialinterest to them. In truth, however,their lack of awareness seems to extendto this topic as well. According to asurvey conducted in March 2001 for theCentre for Research and Information onCanada, only 57 percent of Canadiansborn since 1970 had heard anythingabout globalization, only 53 percenthad heard anything about the demon-strations against the World TradeOrganization the previous year inSeattle, and a mere 40 percent hadheard anything about the upcomingSummit of the Americas in the city ofQuébec.4 On all three questions, aware-ness was lowest among the young.

Who are the activists?

The third misconception is that youngCanadians who are giving up on elec-toral politics are involving themselvesin other ways. In fact, according to the2000 Canadian Election Study, youngCanadians were the least likely to havebeen active in a voluntary associationor community group during the previousfive years, and when they had been

active, it was typically in a sportsassociation (40 percent). If youngCanadians were turning to moremeaningful forms of engagement, thisshould show up in membership ofenvironmental groups. The environ-ment is an issue that matters to youngpeople, and it has hardly been a priorityon the country’s political agenda. Activeinvolvement in an environmental groupmight seem to offer a more effectiveway of working for change. However,young Canadians are no more likely(9 percent) than Canadians in generalto have been active in an environmen-tal group. This calls into question theoptimistic assumption that decliningparticipation in traditional electoralpolitics is being offset by greater involve-ment in grassroots-level activities.

Involvement in protest activities tells asimilar story. The activists are actuallymost likely to be found among themiddle-aged, a pattern that holds acrossnational boundaries.5 The young arethe least likely among Canadians tohave been active; more than one infive have engaged in no form of protestwhatsoever – even signing a petitionor joining in a boycott. To be sure,there is a core of young people who are

seeking to effect change by engagingin protest activities. Indeed, thisgeneration ranks second only to theirbaby-boomer parents when it comes toinvolvement in three or more differentprotest activities. But far from turningtheir backs on more conventionalmeans of making their voices heard,these young activists are more likelythan other members of their generationto belong to a political party or to aninterest group, and to vote.

It is not really surprising that manyof the same young people who fail tovote also fail to get involved in grass-roots organizing or protest activities.Involvement presumes a degree ofawareness of what is going on in theworld. If people do not pay a modicumof attention to the news, issues such asglobalization or the environment maysimply be “off the radar screen”.

The on-line myth

This brings us to the final misconcep-tion, namely that the Internet ishelping to counteract young Canadians’tendency to tune out of politics. It iscertainly true that young Canadians

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

Young people were among the demonstrators at the April 2001 Summit of the Americas, in thecity of Québec.


Without question, young people are not participating inpolitics to the same degree as previous generations.1 Thistrend has important implications for politics today, aswell as in the future, and for society at large, as well as forthe youngest generation in particular. A key questiongenerated by the trend is what accounts for it, which isthe focus of this article; another is what should be done toreverse it.

Analysis of a survey conducted by the Institute forResearch on Public Policy (IRPP) in 20002 revealed a gapof 25 percentage points in reported turnout for the 1997election between those aged 18–27 and those over 57 yearsof age (see Table 1). Additionally, research suggests that thedramatic decline in voter turnout in Canada can largely beattributed to Canada’s youth. According to Blais and hiscolleagues, tracking non-voters across the three latestCanadian general elections (1993, 1997 and 2000) revealsthat not voting increased only among those born after 1970,and by a significant 14 points.3

Differences in political attitudes and participation acrossage groups are normally accounted for by two distinctphenomena: life-cycle and generational effects. The firstidentifies the reality that politics achieves greater impor-tance in the middle and later stages of one’s life, because ofself-interest (political decisions take on greater importancewhen the risk associated with the outcome increases), orbecause of an increased sense of responsibility to thecommunity. Generational effects account for changesacross generations due to shared common and distinctiveexperiences in young and early adulthood. Formative expe-riences, the presence or absence of war, for example, can

lead to unique attitudes and behaviours among individualsfor whom these are newly developing.

The IRPP survey revealed that life-cycle effects are evidentin Canadians’ attitudes and participation rates (see Table 1).When 1997 voting turnout was compared to turnout meas-ured in a 1990 survey, a similar pattern emerged, withyounger Canadians being less likely to vote than olderCanadians in both time periods.4 But comparing the 1990results to the 2000 survey results reveals that generationalchanges are strong and that increased voting among today’syouth over time will not allow the turnout rate to “catchup” to rates previously recorded in Canada.5 Much of the


Phot

o: P

aul To

ogoo

d P

hot

ogra

phy

A study by the Institute for Research on Public Policy in 2000 foundthat only slightly more than 40 percent of Canadian 18–27-year-oldshave an interest in politics.

1. André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, RichardNadeau and Neil Nevitte, “The EvolvingNature of Non-Voting: Evidence fromCanada,” European Journal of PoliticalResearch (forthcoming). For more detailedinformation on issues covered in this arti-cle, see André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil,Richard Nadeau and Neil Nevitte,Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: MakingSense of the 2000 Canadian Election(Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press,2002), Chapter 3, and Elisabeth Gidengil,André Blais, Neil Nevitte and RichardNadeau, Democratic Citizenship in Canada(University of British Columbia Press,forthcoming).

2. The 2000 Canadian Election Studyinvolved a rolling cross-section campaignsurvey with a representative sample of3,651 Canadians, a post-election surveywith 2,862 of the campaign survey respond-ents, and a mail-back questionnaire filledout by 1,535 of the post-election respond-ents. The campaign survey response ratewas 62 percent. The field work was con-ducted by the Institute for Social Researchat York University and by Jolicoeur etAssociés. It was funded by the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Councilof Canada, with additional funding fromElections Canada and the Institute forResearch on Public Policy.

3. Elisabeth Gidengil, André Blais, NeilNevitte and Richard Nadeau, “TheCorrelates and Consequences of Anti-Partyism in the 1997 Canadian Election,”Party Politics Vol. 7 (2001), pp. 491–513.

4. For details, see the Canadian OpinionResearch Archive at Queen’s Universityunder CROP Political Survey (March2001), CROP, Inc., Montréal, Quebec(CRIC0103). Neither the original collectorof the data, CORA, nor the relevant fund-ing agency bear any responsibility for theuse of the data made here. The results ofthe survey are analyzed in “Trade,Globalization and Canadian Values,”The CRIC Papers Vol. 1 (April 2001),available at http://www.cric.ca/pdf/cahiers/cricpapers_april2001.pdf.

5. Pippa Norris, The Democratic Phoenix:Reinventing Political Activism (New York:Cambridge University Press, 2002).

6. Eric Plutzer, “Becoming a Habitual Voter:Inertia, Resources, and Growth in YoungAdulthood,” American Political ScienceReview Vol. 96 (2002), pp. 41–56.

7. Canada, Human Resources DevelopmentCanada, Applied Research Branch,Dropping Out of High School: Definitionsand Costs R-01-1E (Ottawa: HumanResources Development Canada, 2000).

8. André Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote: TheMerits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,2000).

NOTES

Just what has impaired the developmentof a sense of duty to vote on the partof this generation of young Canadiansis unclear, but it may well have some-thing to do with the fact that theywere reaching adulthood at a timewhen disaffection with politics wasgrowing. This disaffection had anumber of sources: the rise of aneo-conservative outlook thatadvocated a smaller role for the state,a perception that governments were

relatively powerless in the face ofglobal economic forces, and a series ofconstitutional crises and failed accords.All of these factors could havecombined to produce a disengagedgeneration that often tunes outpolitics altogether. But thesecircumstances are changing.Political disaffection peaked in themid-1990s and seems to be waning.Meanwhile, security concerns athome and abroad have highlighted

the role of the state. One resultmay be a renewed sense thatpolitics does indeed matter.

Examining Declining ElectoralTurnout Among Canada’s Youth

Brenda O’NeillAssistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba


Without question, young people are not participating inpolitics to the same degree as previous generations.1 Thistrend has important implications for politics today, aswell as in the future, and for society at large, as well as forthe youngest generation in particular. A key questiongenerated by the trend is what accounts for it, which isthe focus of this article; another is what should be done toreverse it.

Analysis of a survey conducted by the Institute forResearch on Public Policy (IRPP) in 20002 revealed a gapof 25 percentage points in reported turnout for the 1997election between those aged 18–27 and those over 57 yearsof age (see Table 1). Additionally, research suggests that thedramatic decline in voter turnout in Canada can largely beattributed to Canada’s youth. According to Blais and hiscolleagues, tracking non-voters across the three latestCanadian general elections (1993, 1997 and 2000) revealsthat not voting increased only among those born after 1970,and by a significant 14 points.3

Differences in political attitudes and participation acrossage groups are normally accounted for by two distinctphenomena: life-cycle and generational effects. The firstidentifies the reality that politics achieves greater impor-tance in the middle and later stages of one’s life, because ofself-interest (political decisions take on greater importancewhen the risk associated with the outcome increases), orbecause of an increased sense of responsibility to thecommunity. Generational effects account for changesacross generations due to shared common and distinctiveexperiences in young and early adulthood. Formative expe-riences, the presence or absence of war, for example, can

lead to unique attitudes and behaviours among individualsfor whom these are newly developing.

The IRPP survey revealed that life-cycle effects are evidentin Canadians’ attitudes and participation rates (see Table 1).When 1997 voting turnout was compared to turnout meas-ured in a 1990 survey, a similar pattern emerged, withyounger Canadians being less likely to vote than olderCanadians in both time periods.4 But comparing the 1990results to the 2000 survey results reveals that generationalchanges are strong and that increased voting among today’syouth over time will not allow the turnout rate to “catchup” to rates previously recorded in Canada.5 Much of the


Phot

o: P

aul To

ogoo

d P

hot

ogra

phy

A study by the Institute for Research on Public Policy in 2000 foundthat only slightly more than 40 percent of Canadian 18–27-year-oldshave an interest in politics.

1. André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, RichardNadeau and Neil Nevitte, “The EvolvingNature of Non-Voting: Evidence fromCanada,” European Journal of PoliticalResearch (forthcoming). For more detailedinformation on issues covered in this arti-cle, see André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil,Richard Nadeau and Neil Nevitte,Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: MakingSense of the 2000 Canadian Election(Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press,2002), Chapter 3, and Elisabeth Gidengil,André Blais, Neil Nevitte and RichardNadeau, Democratic Citizenship in Canada(University of British Columbia Press,forthcoming).

2. The 2000 Canadian Election Studyinvolved a rolling cross-section campaignsurvey with a representative sample of3,651 Canadians, a post-election surveywith 2,862 of the campaign survey respond-ents, and a mail-back questionnaire filledout by 1,535 of the post-election respond-ents. The campaign survey response ratewas 62 percent. The field work was con-ducted by the Institute for Social Researchat York University and by Jolicoeur etAssociés. It was funded by the SocialSciences and Humanities Research Councilof Canada, with additional funding fromElections Canada and the Institute forResearch on Public Policy.

3. Elisabeth Gidengil, André Blais, NeilNevitte and Richard Nadeau, “TheCorrelates and Consequences of Anti-Partyism in the 1997 Canadian Election,”Party Politics Vol. 7 (2001), pp. 491–513.

4. For details, see the Canadian OpinionResearch Archive at Queen’s Universityunder CROP Political Survey (March2001), CROP, Inc., Montréal, Quebec(CRIC0103). Neither the original collectorof the data, CORA, nor the relevant fund-ing agency bear any responsibility for theuse of the data made here. The results ofthe survey are analyzed in “Trade,Globalization and Canadian Values,”The CRIC Papers Vol. 1 (April 2001),available at http://www.cric.ca/pdf/cahiers/cricpapers_april2001.pdf.

5. Pippa Norris, The Democratic Phoenix:Reinventing Political Activism (New York:Cambridge University Press, 2002).

6. Eric Plutzer, “Becoming a Habitual Voter:Inertia, Resources, and Growth in YoungAdulthood,” American Political ScienceReview Vol. 96 (2002), pp. 41–56.

7. Canada, Human Resources DevelopmentCanada, Applied Research Branch,Dropping Out of High School: Definitionsand Costs R-01-1E (Ottawa: HumanResources Development Canada, 2000).

8. André Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote: TheMerits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,2000).

NOTES

Just what has impaired the developmentof a sense of duty to vote on the partof this generation of young Canadiansis unclear, but it may well have some-thing to do with the fact that theywere reaching adulthood at a timewhen disaffection with politics wasgrowing. This disaffection had anumber of sources: the rise of aneo-conservative outlook thatadvocated a smaller role for the state,a perception that governments were

relatively powerless in the face ofglobal economic forces, and a series ofconstitutional crises and failed accords.All of these factors could havecombined to produce a disengagedgeneration that often tunes outpolitics altogether. But thesecircumstances are changing.Political disaffection peaked in themid-1990s and seems to be waning.Meanwhile, security concerns athome and abroad have highlighted

the role of the state. One resultmay be a renewed sense thatpolitics does indeed matter.

Examining Declining ElectoralTurnout Among Canada’s Youth

Brenda O’NeillAssistant Professor, Department of Political Studies, University of Manitoba


the likelihood of participating in poli-tics, but again the question remains asto why previous generations were lesslikely to dismiss the importance ofelections at the same stage of life.

Political participation involvesmore, however, than simply voting.Involvement in political parties hasexhibited a similar decline amongyoung Canadians, a trend that is alsolikely to continue over time. Only twopercent of those aged 18 to 27 in the2000 IRPP survey indicated that theyhad ever been members of any politicalparty, a drop from eight percent in 1990among similarly-aged respondents.9

Interestingly, the ratio of interest groupto political party involvement amongyoung Canadians is much higher thanfor other Canadians. Among thoseaged 18 to 27 in the IRPP survey, forevery respondent who indicated havingbeen a member of a political party, 4.5indicated membership in an interestgroup. In comparison, the interestgroup to party membership ratioamong respondents over 57 years ofage was only 0.3 to 1. Thus, whilevoter turnout might be down amongyoung Canadians, there is reason tobelieve that traditional partisan politicshas also been affected.

Variations in voter turnoutamong youth

Examination of reported turnout acrossdemographic and other groups (seeTable 3)10 reveals that not all youngCanadians are avoiding the polls. Lowturnout is greatest among those withno post-secondary education, those

with low and high family incomes and,to some extent, women.11 Variation inreported turnout by levels of politicalknowledge and interest is, however,much greater. While 81 percent ofyoung respondents with some politicalinterest reported voting in 1997, therate drops to 55 percent among thosereporting little or no interest. Similarly,

Table 3Variation in Reported Turnout Among Canadians 22 to 37 Yearsof Age, 2000

% voted in1997 election

Education

High school or less 60 (118)

Post-secondary 71 (322)

Gender

Female 65 (241)

Male 71 (203)

Household income

Less than $30,000 64 (91)

$30,000–$49,000 74 (100)

$50,000–$79,000 79 (95)

Over $80,000 67 (90)

Political interest

Follow politics very or fairly closely 81 (225)

Not very closely or not at all 55 (214)

Political knowledge

Identified the Prime Minister 72 (385)

Could not identify the Prime Minister 47 (58)

Political cynicism: Those elected to Parliament soon lose touch with the people

Agree 69 (307)

Disagree 72 (106)

Importance of voting

Essential 88 (153)

Very important 64 (207)

Somewhat or not at all 44 (78)

Interest group member

Yes 82 (49)

No 66 (395)

Most effective way to work for change

Join a political party 71 (79)

Join an interest group 70 (285)

Note: Entries are percentage of respondents; the number of respondents is indicated in parentheses.

Data are from the IRPP survey [Howe and Northrup, 2000 (see note 2)].

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

reported drop in voting over the10-year period is accounted for by thelower turnout among those who becamenewly enfranchised between the twosurveys (from 74 percent in 1990 to66 percent in 2000) and to the drop inturnout among the 1963–1972 cohort(from 74 percent in 1990 to 69 percentin 2000). Generational effects, then,are outpacing life-cycle effects.

Explaining low youthvoter turnout

Evidence of dropping turnout levelsamong youth in Canada mirrors thetrend in other advanced democracies.6

Some have been quick to suggest thatthis is symptomatic of an increased

level of cyni-cism. Canada’syouth havetuned out, theyinsist, becausethey have littleconfidence inthose entrustedwith society’sinterests. Veryvisible protests,apparentlydominated byyoung activists,would seem tosupport such a

conclusion. But while levels of politicalcynicism have increased, a moreaccurate picture emerges throughmore careful analysis.

Canada’s youth are not more cynicalthan other Canadians about democ-racy and politics, and indeed are, insome cases, more satisfied with theworkings of the Canadian politicalsystem than members of previousgenerations. As shown in Table 2,when asked whether elected officials“soon lose touch with the people”,the youngest Canadians did not revealthemselves to be the most cynicalamong Canadians. Moreover, whenasked how satisfied they are with elec-tions, the youngest age group reveals

the highest level of satisfaction of allage groups, 81 percent.7

Differences across age groups areapparent, however, in political interestand knowledge (see Table 2). Only41 percent of 18–27-year-olds indicatedan interest in politics; this increaseswith age to 68 percent among those 57and over. While the ability to correctlyidentify the Prime Minister differs onlyslightly among age groups, more than40 points separate the youngest andoldest groups in their ability to identifythe Minister of Finance: 22 percentand 65 percent respectively. Lowerlevels of both political interest andknowledge have been associated withdecreased voter turnout and help toexplain increased levels of electoralabstention among Canadian youth.However, it is not clear why this lackof knowledge and limited interest aremore pronounced today than in previ-ous generations. This is due in part tothe limited attention devoted to thequestion in Canadian research.8

Young Canadians are also more likelyto believe that voting is simply notimportant, with only 75 percent of theyoungest respondents in the IRPPsurvey suggesting that voting wasessential or very important (Table 2).Clearly, such attitudes directly shape

Table 2Political Interest, Knowledge, Importance of Voting and Cynicism, by Age Group, 2000

Age group % 18–27 % 28–37 % 38–47 % 48–57 % over 57

Follow politics very or fairly closely 41 59 58 64 68

Correctly identify the Prime Minister 84 89 93 93 89

Correctly identify the Minister of Finance 22 46 46 61 65

Voting essential or very important 75 85 89 86 91

Those elected to government soon lose touch with the people 71 75 81 70 67

Very or fairly satisfied with elections 81 79 68 66 72

Note: Entries are percentage of respondents responding in the identified category. The second to last row reports those respondents who strongly or somewhat

agreed with the statement. Data are from the IRPP survey [Howe and Northrup, 2000 (see note 2)].

Table 1Generational Differences in Reported Turnout,1990–2000

Voting

% 1990 % 2000

1973–1982 – 66

1963–1972 74 69

1953–1962 85 85

1943–1952 93 92

Before 1943 93 91

Total 88 81

Note: Entries are percentage of respondents. The youngest birth cohort in both

surveys includes only those respondents of voting age at the time of the election.

Data for 1990 are from the Lortie survey [Blais and Gidengil, 2000 (see note 5)]

and for 2000 from the IRPP survey [Howe and Northrup, 2000 (see note 2)].

Birth cohort

Older Canadians are much more likelythan younger ones to follow politics closely.


the likelihood of participating in poli-tics, but again the question remains asto why previous generations were lesslikely to dismiss the importance ofelections at the same stage of life.

Political participation involvesmore, however, than simply voting.Involvement in political parties hasexhibited a similar decline amongyoung Canadians, a trend that is alsolikely to continue over time. Only twopercent of those aged 18 to 27 in the2000 IRPP survey indicated that theyhad ever been members of any politicalparty, a drop from eight percent in 1990among similarly-aged respondents.9

Interestingly, the ratio of interest groupto political party involvement amongyoung Canadians is much higher thanfor other Canadians. Among thoseaged 18 to 27 in the IRPP survey, forevery respondent who indicated havingbeen a member of a political party, 4.5indicated membership in an interestgroup. In comparison, the interestgroup to party membership ratioamong respondents over 57 years ofage was only 0.3 to 1. Thus, whilevoter turnout might be down amongyoung Canadians, there is reason tobelieve that traditional partisan politicshas also been affected.

Variations in voter turnoutamong youth

Examination of reported turnout acrossdemographic and other groups (seeTable 3)10 reveals that not all youngCanadians are avoiding the polls. Lowturnout is greatest among those withno post-secondary education, those

with low and high family incomes and,to some extent, women.11 Variation inreported turnout by levels of politicalknowledge and interest is, however,much greater. While 81 percent ofyoung respondents with some politicalinterest reported voting in 1997, therate drops to 55 percent among thosereporting little or no interest. Similarly,

Table 3Variation in Reported Turnout Among Canadians 22 to 37 Yearsof Age, 2000

% voted in1997 election

Education

High school or less 60 (118)

Post-secondary 71 (322)

Gender

Female 65 (241)

Male 71 (203)

Household income

Less than $30,000 64 (91)

$30,000–$49,000 74 (100)

$50,000–$79,000 79 (95)

Over $80,000 67 (90)

Political interest

Follow politics very or fairly closely 81 (225)

Not very closely or not at all 55 (214)

Political knowledge

Identified the Prime Minister 72 (385)

Could not identify the Prime Minister 47 (58)

Political cynicism: Those elected to Parliament soon lose touch with the people

Agree 69 (307)

Disagree 72 (106)

Importance of voting

Essential 88 (153)

Very important 64 (207)

Somewhat or not at all 44 (78)

Interest group member

Yes 82 (49)

No 66 (395)

Most effective way to work for change

Join a political party 71 (79)

Join an interest group 70 (285)

Note: Entries are percentage of respondents; the number of respondents is indicated in parentheses.

Data are from the IRPP survey [Howe and Northrup, 2000 (see note 2)].

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

reported drop in voting over the10-year period is accounted for by thelower turnout among those who becamenewly enfranchised between the twosurveys (from 74 percent in 1990 to66 percent in 2000) and to the drop inturnout among the 1963–1972 cohort(from 74 percent in 1990 to 69 percentin 2000). Generational effects, then,are outpacing life-cycle effects.

Explaining low youthvoter turnout

Evidence of dropping turnout levelsamong youth in Canada mirrors thetrend in other advanced democracies.6

Some have been quick to suggest thatthis is symptomatic of an increased

level of cyni-cism. Canada’syouth havetuned out, theyinsist, becausethey have littleconfidence inthose entrustedwith society’sinterests. Veryvisible protests,apparentlydominated byyoung activists,would seem tosupport such a

conclusion. But while levels of politicalcynicism have increased, a moreaccurate picture emerges throughmore careful analysis.

Canada’s youth are not more cynicalthan other Canadians about democ-racy and politics, and indeed are, insome cases, more satisfied with theworkings of the Canadian politicalsystem than members of previousgenerations. As shown in Table 2,when asked whether elected officials“soon lose touch with the people”,the youngest Canadians did not revealthemselves to be the most cynicalamong Canadians. Moreover, whenasked how satisfied they are with elec-tions, the youngest age group reveals

the highest level of satisfaction of allage groups, 81 percent.7

Differences across age groups areapparent, however, in political interestand knowledge (see Table 2). Only41 percent of 18–27-year-olds indicatedan interest in politics; this increaseswith age to 68 percent among those 57and over. While the ability to correctlyidentify the Prime Minister differs onlyslightly among age groups, more than40 points separate the youngest andoldest groups in their ability to identifythe Minister of Finance: 22 percentand 65 percent respectively. Lowerlevels of both political interest andknowledge have been associated withdecreased voter turnout and help toexplain increased levels of electoralabstention among Canadian youth.However, it is not clear why this lackof knowledge and limited interest aremore pronounced today than in previ-ous generations. This is due in part tothe limited attention devoted to thequestion in Canadian research.8

Young Canadians are also more likelyto believe that voting is simply notimportant, with only 75 percent of theyoungest respondents in the IRPPsurvey suggesting that voting wasessential or very important (Table 2).Clearly, such attitudes directly shape

Table 2Political Interest, Knowledge, Importance of Voting and Cynicism, by Age Group, 2000

Age group % 18–27 % 28–37 % 38–47 % 48–57 % over 57

Follow politics very or fairly closely 41 59 58 64 68

Correctly identify the Prime Minister 84 89 93 93 89

Correctly identify the Minister of Finance 22 46 46 61 65

Voting essential or very important 75 85 89 86 91

Those elected to government soon lose touch with the people 71 75 81 70 67

Very or fairly satisfied with elections 81 79 68 66 72

Note: Entries are percentage of respondents responding in the identified category. The second to last row reports those respondents who strongly or somewhat

agreed with the statement. Data are from the IRPP survey [Howe and Northrup, 2000 (see note 2)].

Table 1Generational Differences in Reported Turnout,1990–2000

Voting

% 1990 % 2000

1973–1982 – 66

1963–1972 74 69

1953–1962 85 85

1943–1952 93 92

Before 1943 93 91

Total 88 81

Note: Entries are percentage of respondents. The youngest birth cohort in both

surveys includes only those respondents of voting age at the time of the election.

Data for 1990 are from the Lortie survey [Blais and Gidengil, 2000 (see note 5)]

and for 2000 from the IRPP survey [Howe and Northrup, 2000 (see note 2)].

Birth cohort

Older Canadians are much more likelythan younger ones to follow politics closely.


Instead, the answer may lie in the verysuccess of governments in reducingtheir perceived responsibility towardscitizens.

In the end, however, what is clearis that many, if not most, youngCanadians avoid the polls because ofpolitical apathy rather than cynicism.They choose not to vote because

they see politics and elections asunimportant, rather than because of astrong belief that politicians and politicsare not addressing issues of importanceto them. This conclusion is reinforcedby evidence that the many youngCanadians who consider interest groupsto be the most effective instruments ofpolitical change vote at rates similar tothose who consider political parties to

be most effective. The challenge isthus twofold: to develop an interestin politics and elections among thecurrent generation of young votersand, second, to commit to fosteringjust such an interest among the nextgeneration of voters, to arrest anyfurther decline in voter turnoutlevels.

1. Examples include André Blais, ElisabethGidengil, Richard Nadeau and Neil Nevitte,Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Senseof the 2000 Canadian Election (Peterborough,Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002); HenryMilner, “Civic Drop-outs? What YoungCitizens Know and Don’t Know AboutPolitics,” paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Political ScienceAssociation, Boston, Massachusetts,August 26 – September 1, 2002; and myown, “Generational Patterns in the PoliticalOpinions and Behaviour of Canadians,”Policy Matters Vol. 2, No. 5 (October 2001).

2. York University’s Institute for SocialResearch interviewed 1,278 Canadians forthis survey. Full details can be found inAppendix 1 of Paul Howe and DavidNorthrup, “Strengthening CanadianDemocracy: The Views of Canadians,”Policy Matters Vol. 1, No. 5 (July 2000).

3. Blais et al., Anatomy of a Liberal Victory,p. 46.

4. O’Neill, “Generational Patterns,”pp. 34–35.

5. This survey was conducted by the RoyalCommission on Electoral Reform andParty Financing (the Lortie Commission).See André Blais and Elisabeth Gidengil,Making Representative Democracy Work:The Views of Canadians (Toronto: DundurnPress, 1991).

6. See Russell J. Dalton, Citizen Politics:Public Opinion and Political Parties inAdvanced Western Democracies, 2nd ed.(Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham HousePublishers, 1996).

7. One should note, however, that a significantshare of respondents in the youngest agegroup, 43 percent, answered “don’t know”to this question. By comparison, only21 percent among those aged 48–57answered similarly.

8. One exception is Paul Howe, “NameThat Premier: The Political Knowledgeof Canadians Past and Present,” paperpresented at the annual meeting of theCanadian Political Science Association,Toronto, May 29–31, 2002.

9. Table 13 in O’Neill, “GenerationalPatterns,” p. 35.

10. Table 3 provides reported turnout levelsfor 1997 for respondents between 22 and37 years of age across various categories inthe IRPP survey (N = 448). The reportedturnout rates among those between 22 and27 years of age and those between 28 and37 years were 66 percent and 69 percentrespectively.

11. This examination provides first-orderdifferences in turnout. A more rigorousanalysis would control for the impact ofvarious factors on these relationships andcould result in different conclusions.Women, for instance, report lower levels ofpolitical interest than men and controllingfor this difference could lead to disappear-ance of the gender gap in reported turnout.

12. See Patrick Fournier, “The UninformedCanadian Voter” in Joanna Everitt andBrenda O’Neill, Citizen Politics: Researchand Theory in Canadian Political Behaviour(Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford, 2003),pp. 92–109.

13. The Chief Electoral Officer has announcedthat measures designed to make pollingstations and information about advancevoting and mail-in ballots more accessibleare being adopted specifically to increaseparticipation among Canada’s youngestvoters. See Elections Canada newsrelease dated March 21, 2003, atwww.elections.ca.

14. André Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote:The Merits and Limits of Rational ChoiceTheory (Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press, 2000).

NOTES

less than half of respondents whocould not identify the Prime Ministerreported voting in 1997. In comparison,over 70 percent of those who couldidentify him went to the polls. Equallyrevealing is the fact that 88 percent ofthose who believed that voting wasessential reported having voted in1997; among those who attached littleimportance to the vote, the reportedturnout level drops to 44 percent.

Cynicism, on the other hand, doeslittle to explain low turnout amongCanadian youth. As shown in Table 2,there is little difference in the turnoutrate between respondents who agreethat those elected to Parliament soonlose touch with the people (69 percent)and those who disagree with the state-ment (72 percent). Similarly, reducedturnout levels are not the result ofyoung people turning away fromelectoral and partisan politics towardsinterest group and social group politics.In fact, the turnout rate is higher among

those who indicate they have beenmembers of an interest group. Indeed,those who believe that interest groupsare the most effective way to work forchange are as likely to vote as thosewho believe political parties are themost effective mechanisms of change.

Concluding reflections

How, then, to make sense of thesechanged patterns of participationamong Canada’s youth? Young peopleare less likely to vote because they areless interested in politics, know less

about politics and believe less stronglythat voting is essential. This explanationdoes not, however, take us very far,for it begs the question of why this isthe case. It might help to consider thatpolitical participation depends directlyon ability, opportunity and motivation.12

We have seen that young people wholack the tools provided by education

are voting at lowerlevels due, perhaps,to the fact that thepolitical systemseems remote andcomplex. But it isnot clear why today’syoung Canadians

would find the system any more complexthan young Canadians 10 years ago.

Alternatively, limited opportunities forpolitical participation, as reflected inthe electoral system’s tendency to dis-tort voters’ choices in the translationto seat shares, might help to explainincreased participation within non-traditional political organizations suchas interest groups and social movements.But this helps little to explain drops inelectoral participation among youngpeople over time, since there are nofewer opportunities for participation

today than in the past. If young people’stime is more limited in today’s world,however, then perhaps increasing theease with which they might vote couldresult in higher participation rates.13

In addition, value might come fromfocusing on motivation – or lackthereof – as an explanation for lowerlevels of participation among youth.The lack of motivation for voting –that is, no reason or stimulus justifyingthe expenditure of time and energy,however limited – might help toexplain the decreasing turnout rates.André Blais has argued that an impor-tant motivation for voting is a sense ofduty.14 A sense of duty may be thoughtof as one side of a reciprocal relation-ship: citizens agree to vote in returnfor the benefits provided by govern-ments. However, more than 10 yearsof Canadian governments highlightingthe need for fiscal restraint and balancedbudgets might have left many youngCanadians with less than a clear senseof what exactly governments do forthem to deserve their duty in return.The answer to the paradox of fallingturnout rates among the young maythus lie outside of factors historicallyevaluated as explanations for turnout.

… reduced turnout levels are not theresult of young people turning away fromelectoral and partisan politics towardsinterest group and social group politics.

Phot

o: P

aul To

ogoo

d P

hot

ogra

phy


Instead, the answer may lie in the verysuccess of governments in reducingtheir perceived responsibility towardscitizens.

In the end, however, what is clearis that many, if not most, youngCanadians avoid the polls because ofpolitical apathy rather than cynicism.They choose not to vote because

they see politics and elections asunimportant, rather than because of astrong belief that politicians and politicsare not addressing issues of importanceto them. This conclusion is reinforcedby evidence that the many youngCanadians who consider interest groupsto be the most effective instruments ofpolitical change vote at rates similar tothose who consider political parties to

be most effective. The challenge isthus twofold: to develop an interestin politics and elections among thecurrent generation of young votersand, second, to commit to fosteringjust such an interest among the nextgeneration of voters, to arrest anyfurther decline in voter turnoutlevels.

1. Examples include André Blais, ElisabethGidengil, Richard Nadeau and Neil Nevitte,Anatomy of a Liberal Victory: Making Senseof the 2000 Canadian Election (Peterborough,Ontario: Broadview Press, 2002); HenryMilner, “Civic Drop-outs? What YoungCitizens Know and Don’t Know AboutPolitics,” paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Political ScienceAssociation, Boston, Massachusetts,August 26 – September 1, 2002; and myown, “Generational Patterns in the PoliticalOpinions and Behaviour of Canadians,”Policy Matters Vol. 2, No. 5 (October 2001).

2. York University’s Institute for SocialResearch interviewed 1,278 Canadians forthis survey. Full details can be found inAppendix 1 of Paul Howe and DavidNorthrup, “Strengthening CanadianDemocracy: The Views of Canadians,”Policy Matters Vol. 1, No. 5 (July 2000).

3. Blais et al., Anatomy of a Liberal Victory,p. 46.

4. O’Neill, “Generational Patterns,”pp. 34–35.

5. This survey was conducted by the RoyalCommission on Electoral Reform andParty Financing (the Lortie Commission).See André Blais and Elisabeth Gidengil,Making Representative Democracy Work:The Views of Canadians (Toronto: DundurnPress, 1991).

6. See Russell J. Dalton, Citizen Politics:Public Opinion and Political Parties inAdvanced Western Democracies, 2nd ed.(Chatham, New Jersey: Chatham HousePublishers, 1996).

7. One should note, however, that a significantshare of respondents in the youngest agegroup, 43 percent, answered “don’t know”to this question. By comparison, only21 percent among those aged 48–57answered similarly.

8. One exception is Paul Howe, “NameThat Premier: The Political Knowledgeof Canadians Past and Present,” paperpresented at the annual meeting of theCanadian Political Science Association,Toronto, May 29–31, 2002.

9. Table 13 in O’Neill, “GenerationalPatterns,” p. 35.

10. Table 3 provides reported turnout levelsfor 1997 for respondents between 22 and37 years of age across various categories inthe IRPP survey (N = 448). The reportedturnout rates among those between 22 and27 years of age and those between 28 and37 years were 66 percent and 69 percentrespectively.

11. This examination provides first-orderdifferences in turnout. A more rigorousanalysis would control for the impact ofvarious factors on these relationships andcould result in different conclusions.Women, for instance, report lower levels ofpolitical interest than men and controllingfor this difference could lead to disappear-ance of the gender gap in reported turnout.

12. See Patrick Fournier, “The UninformedCanadian Voter” in Joanna Everitt andBrenda O’Neill, Citizen Politics: Researchand Theory in Canadian Political Behaviour(Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford, 2003),pp. 92–109.

13. The Chief Electoral Officer has announcedthat measures designed to make pollingstations and information about advancevoting and mail-in ballots more accessibleare being adopted specifically to increaseparticipation among Canada’s youngestvoters. See Elections Canada newsrelease dated March 21, 2003, atwww.elections.ca.

14. André Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote:The Merits and Limits of Rational ChoiceTheory (Pittsburgh: University ofPittsburgh Press, 2000).

NOTES

less than half of respondents whocould not identify the Prime Ministerreported voting in 1997. In comparison,over 70 percent of those who couldidentify him went to the polls. Equallyrevealing is the fact that 88 percent ofthose who believed that voting wasessential reported having voted in1997; among those who attached littleimportance to the vote, the reportedturnout level drops to 44 percent.

Cynicism, on the other hand, doeslittle to explain low turnout amongCanadian youth. As shown in Table 2,there is little difference in the turnoutrate between respondents who agreethat those elected to Parliament soonlose touch with the people (69 percent)and those who disagree with the state-ment (72 percent). Similarly, reducedturnout levels are not the result ofyoung people turning away fromelectoral and partisan politics towardsinterest group and social group politics.In fact, the turnout rate is higher among

those who indicate they have beenmembers of an interest group. Indeed,those who believe that interest groupsare the most effective way to work forchange are as likely to vote as thosewho believe political parties are themost effective mechanisms of change.

Concluding reflections

How, then, to make sense of thesechanged patterns of participationamong Canada’s youth? Young peopleare less likely to vote because they areless interested in politics, know less

about politics and believe less stronglythat voting is essential. This explanationdoes not, however, take us very far,for it begs the question of why this isthe case. It might help to consider thatpolitical participation depends directlyon ability, opportunity and motivation.12

We have seen that young people wholack the tools provided by education

are voting at lowerlevels due, perhaps,to the fact that thepolitical systemseems remote andcomplex. But it isnot clear why today’syoung Canadians

would find the system any more complexthan young Canadians 10 years ago.

Alternatively, limited opportunities forpolitical participation, as reflected inthe electoral system’s tendency to dis-tort voters’ choices in the translationto seat shares, might help to explainincreased participation within non-traditional political organizations suchas interest groups and social movements.But this helps little to explain drops inelectoral participation among youngpeople over time, since there are nofewer opportunities for participation

today than in the past. If young people’stime is more limited in today’s world,however, then perhaps increasing theease with which they might vote couldresult in higher participation rates.13

In addition, value might come fromfocusing on motivation – or lackthereof – as an explanation for lowerlevels of participation among youth.The lack of motivation for voting –that is, no reason or stimulus justifyingthe expenditure of time and energy,however limited – might help toexplain the decreasing turnout rates.André Blais has argued that an impor-tant motivation for voting is a sense ofduty.14 A sense of duty may be thoughtof as one side of a reciprocal relation-ship: citizens agree to vote in returnfor the benefits provided by govern-ments. However, more than 10 yearsof Canadian governments highlightingthe need for fiscal restraint and balancedbudgets might have left many youngCanadians with less than a clear senseof what exactly governments do forthem to deserve their duty in return.The answer to the paradox of fallingturnout rates among the young maythus lie outside of factors historicallyevaluated as explanations for turnout.

… reduced turnout levels are not theresult of young people turning away fromelectoral and partisan politics towardsinterest group and social group politics.

Phot

o: P

aul To

ogoo

d P

hot

ogra

phy


(a percentile score, to be precise),based on how their knowledge levelcompared to other respondents in thesame survey. Table 1 uses these stand-ardized scores to capture patterns ofpolitical knowledge over time, reportingthe gap in knowledge between variousbirth cohorts and an older comparisongroup (those born between 1926 and1938). Two points stand out: first, thereare large differences in political knowl-edge between the younger cohorts andthe comparison group, with the gapstending to grow larger with each suc-cessive cohort; and second, those gapshave been closing only marginally over

time, even as the younger cohortshave aged (what improvement thereis seems to come when cohorts arerelatively young, after which theknowledge gap more or less stabilizes).The pattern is more suggestive of cohorteffects – sizable and persistent gapsbetween those born at different points –than a life-cycle pattern of growingknowledge with advancing age.

This is only one way, however, in whichpolitical knowledge is implicated in thecohort effects that have depressed voterturnout in the past several elections.A second lies in the heightened impact

of political knowledge on electoralparticipation among those who havemore recently joined the electorate.Breaking down the data for variousbirth cohorts,4 Table 2 reports the gapin voting turnout across a series ofelections between those with highlevels of political knowledge and thosewith low levels. The turnout gaps, itwould appear, are substantially largeramong younger cohorts than older ones.For example, looking at the 1976to 1982 cohort in the 2000 election,turnout was 46.9 points lower amongthe least knowledgeable respondentsthan the most knowledgeable (basedon reported turnout of 41.3 percentin the former group and 88.2 percentin the latter). In short, there are twodynamics working together to driveturnout down among youngercohorts: lower levels of knowledge,the effects of which are magnified bythe escalating impact of knowledge onparticipation. The net result is thatpolitical knowledge is a criticalfactor – perhaps the critical factor –underlying cohort differences invoter turnout.

To this conclusion, the objection mightbe raised that the problem surely runsdeeper, that the knowledge deficit isbut a symptom of a more pervasivemalaise, namely the wholesale disen-gagement of young Canadians frompolitics. In this alternative view, theproblem is first and foremost motiva-tional: young Canadians do not vote(and do not know much about politics)simply because they are not interestedin politics. However, a similar analysisto the above, looking at levels of politicalinterest across birth cohorts over time,undermines this contention. When itcomes to political interest, cohorteffects are relatively weak. Instead,political interest exhibits a strongerlife-cycle pattern: low levels of interest

Table 1A Growing Knowledge Deficit, 1984 to 2000

1984 1990 1993 1997 2000

1939–1954 –4.6 –4.6 –4.5 –4.7 –2.6

1955–1966 –15.4 –11.7 –8.9 –11.2 –10.7

1967–1971 –23.7 –16.2 –14.4 –16.1

1972–1975 –26.2 –19.1 –23.3

1976–1979 –24.0 –26.7

1980–1982 –33.3

Entries represent the difference between the mean knowledge level for each cohort and a comparison

cohort (1926–1938), where political knowledge is measured on a 0 to 100 scale.

Sources: 1984, 1993, 1997 and 2000 Canadian Election Studies and The Survey of Attitudes About

Electoral Reform (1990). Further information on these studies is provided in the Acknowledgements.

Table 2The Growing Impact of Knowledge on Electoral Participation,1984 to 2000

Cohort 1984 1990 1993 1997 2000

pre-1926 10.6 9.1 11.9 15.6 4.2

1926–1938 12.5 7.7 9.1 12.3 20.4

1939–1954 8.3 8.4 10.5 12.6 17.6

1955–1966 27.7 19.6 21.4 21.6 24.2

1967–1975 10.5* 31.1 33.8 31.9

1976–1982 35.8* 46.9

Total 18.2 13.8 21.4 23.3 32.3

*N < 20 for high knowledge category

Entries represent the gap in voting turnout between those with low political knowledge and those with

high knowledge, each representing roughly one third of total respondents. Some cells are empty because

there were no respondents in those cohorts for those years.

Sources: 1984, 1993, 1997 and 2000 Canadian Election Studies and the Survey of Attitudes About

Electoral Reform (1990)

Since the federal election of November 2000, considerableattention has been directed to the declining participation ofyounger voters in Canadian elections. One recent estimatefor the 2000 campaign, which corrects for the tendency ofsurveys to produce inflated estimates of voting, puts turnoutamong those aged 18 to 24 at about 25 percent, in an elec-tion that saw overall participation drop to 64 percent,1 thelowest level since the Second World War. In trying toidentify the reasons for voter withdrawal and strategies towin them back, the question of flagging youth participationmust figure prominently.

Researchers looking at the phenomenon in greater depthhave discovered that it is not as novel as the recent flurryof attention would suggest. Looking at surveys conductedduring federal elections from 1968 to 2000, they have iden-tified a long-standing tendency for Canadians to vote lessin early adulthood than in later stages of life. Between theages of 20 and 50, there is roughly a 15-point increase invoter turnout. This – the life-cycle effect in electoral

participation – is not, however, especially critical to currentconcerns, since it is not implicated in the overall declinein voter turnout.2 More important in that regard are signifi-cant generational differences that have emerged in the past20 years or so, between those born in the 1960s and 1970sand older Canadians. Turnout among those born in the1970s, for example, who mostly joined the electorate in the1990s, is about 20 points lower than turnout was amongpre-baby boomers (those born before 1945) when they wereyoung adults. As these younger birth cohorts have come toaccount for a greater proportion of the electorate, theirfailure to turn up on election day has started to pinch,accounting for much of the aggregate decline in voterturnout over the past several elections.3

Political knowledge

A pressing task for further research is to sift through thevarious factors associated with age differences in voterturnout to determine which underlie these importantcohort effects and which are responsible for the less criticallife-cycle pattern. One cohort-related factor that stands outis a significant gap in levels of political knowledge betweenolder and younger cohorts. In surveys conducted at the timeof the 1984, 1993, 1997 and 2000 general elections, as wellas a separate study conducted in 1990, Canadians were askeda wide variety of factual questions that tapped into theirknowledge of Canadian politics – questions such as thenames of political leaders and the campaign promises ofdifferent parties. Each survey included a different bundle ofquestions, so in order to draw comparisons, it is necessaryto standardize in some fashion. A simple method is to assignrespondents on each survey a ranking between 0 and 100


Electoral Participationand the Knowledge Deficit

Paul HoweAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of New Brunswick

Phot

o: P

aul To

ogoo

d P

hot

ogra

phy


(a percentile score, to be precise),based on how their knowledge levelcompared to other respondents in thesame survey. Table 1 uses these stand-ardized scores to capture patterns ofpolitical knowledge over time, reportingthe gap in knowledge between variousbirth cohorts and an older comparisongroup (those born between 1926 and1938). Two points stand out: first, thereare large differences in political knowl-edge between the younger cohorts andthe comparison group, with the gapstending to grow larger with each suc-cessive cohort; and second, those gapshave been closing only marginally over

time, even as the younger cohortshave aged (what improvement thereis seems to come when cohorts arerelatively young, after which theknowledge gap more or less stabilizes).The pattern is more suggestive of cohorteffects – sizable and persistent gapsbetween those born at different points –than a life-cycle pattern of growingknowledge with advancing age.

This is only one way, however, in whichpolitical knowledge is implicated in thecohort effects that have depressed voterturnout in the past several elections.A second lies in the heightened impact

of political knowledge on electoralparticipation among those who havemore recently joined the electorate.Breaking down the data for variousbirth cohorts,4 Table 2 reports the gapin voting turnout across a series ofelections between those with highlevels of political knowledge and thosewith low levels. The turnout gaps, itwould appear, are substantially largeramong younger cohorts than older ones.For example, looking at the 1976to 1982 cohort in the 2000 election,turnout was 46.9 points lower amongthe least knowledgeable respondentsthan the most knowledgeable (basedon reported turnout of 41.3 percentin the former group and 88.2 percentin the latter). In short, there are twodynamics working together to driveturnout down among youngercohorts: lower levels of knowledge,the effects of which are magnified bythe escalating impact of knowledge onparticipation. The net result is thatpolitical knowledge is a criticalfactor – perhaps the critical factor –underlying cohort differences invoter turnout.

To this conclusion, the objection mightbe raised that the problem surely runsdeeper, that the knowledge deficit isbut a symptom of a more pervasivemalaise, namely the wholesale disen-gagement of young Canadians frompolitics. In this alternative view, theproblem is first and foremost motiva-tional: young Canadians do not vote(and do not know much about politics)simply because they are not interestedin politics. However, a similar analysisto the above, looking at levels of politicalinterest across birth cohorts over time,undermines this contention. When itcomes to political interest, cohorteffects are relatively weak. Instead,political interest exhibits a strongerlife-cycle pattern: low levels of interest

Table 1A Growing Knowledge Deficit, 1984 to 2000

1984 1990 1993 1997 2000

1939–1954 –4.6 –4.6 –4.5 –4.7 –2.6

1955–1966 –15.4 –11.7 –8.9 –11.2 –10.7

1967–1971 –23.7 –16.2 –14.4 –16.1

1972–1975 –26.2 –19.1 –23.3

1976–1979 –24.0 –26.7

1980–1982 –33.3

Entries represent the difference between the mean knowledge level for each cohort and a comparison

cohort (1926–1938), where political knowledge is measured on a 0 to 100 scale.

Sources: 1984, 1993, 1997 and 2000 Canadian Election Studies and The Survey of Attitudes About

Electoral Reform (1990). Further information on these studies is provided in the Acknowledgements.

Table 2The Growing Impact of Knowledge on Electoral Participation,1984 to 2000

Cohort 1984 1990 1993 1997 2000

pre-1926 10.6 9.1 11.9 15.6 4.2

1926–1938 12.5 7.7 9.1 12.3 20.4

1939–1954 8.3 8.4 10.5 12.6 17.6

1955–1966 27.7 19.6 21.4 21.6 24.2

1967–1975 10.5* 31.1 33.8 31.9

1976–1982 35.8* 46.9

Total 18.2 13.8 21.4 23.3 32.3

*N < 20 for high knowledge category

Entries represent the gap in voting turnout between those with low political knowledge and those with

high knowledge, each representing roughly one third of total respondents. Some cells are empty because

there were no respondents in those cohorts for those years.

Sources: 1984, 1993, 1997 and 2000 Canadian Election Studies and the Survey of Attitudes About

Electoral Reform (1990)

Since the federal election of November 2000, considerableattention has been directed to the declining participation ofyounger voters in Canadian elections. One recent estimatefor the 2000 campaign, which corrects for the tendency ofsurveys to produce inflated estimates of voting, puts turnoutamong those aged 18 to 24 at about 25 percent, in an elec-tion that saw overall participation drop to 64 percent,1 thelowest level since the Second World War. In trying toidentify the reasons for voter withdrawal and strategies towin them back, the question of flagging youth participationmust figure prominently.

Researchers looking at the phenomenon in greater depthhave discovered that it is not as novel as the recent flurryof attention would suggest. Looking at surveys conductedduring federal elections from 1968 to 2000, they have iden-tified a long-standing tendency for Canadians to vote lessin early adulthood than in later stages of life. Between theages of 20 and 50, there is roughly a 15-point increase invoter turnout. This – the life-cycle effect in electoral

participation – is not, however, especially critical to currentconcerns, since it is not implicated in the overall declinein voter turnout.2 More important in that regard are signifi-cant generational differences that have emerged in the past20 years or so, between those born in the 1960s and 1970sand older Canadians. Turnout among those born in the1970s, for example, who mostly joined the electorate in the1990s, is about 20 points lower than turnout was amongpre-baby boomers (those born before 1945) when they wereyoung adults. As these younger birth cohorts have come toaccount for a greater proportion of the electorate, theirfailure to turn up on election day has started to pinch,accounting for much of the aggregate decline in voterturnout over the past several elections.3

Political knowledge

A pressing task for further research is to sift through thevarious factors associated with age differences in voterturnout to determine which underlie these importantcohort effects and which are responsible for the less criticallife-cycle pattern. One cohort-related factor that stands outis a significant gap in levels of political knowledge betweenolder and younger cohorts. In surveys conducted at the timeof the 1984, 1993, 1997 and 2000 general elections, as wellas a separate study conducted in 1990, Canadians were askeda wide variety of factual questions that tapped into theirknowledge of Canadian politics – questions such as thenames of political leaders and the campaign promises ofdifferent parties. Each survey included a different bundle ofquestions, so in order to draw comparisons, it is necessaryto standardize in some fashion. A simple method is to assignrespondents on each survey a ranking between 0 and 100


Electoral Participationand the Knowledge Deficit

Paul HoweAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science, University of New Brunswick

Phot

o: P

aul To

ogoo

d P

hot

ogra

phy


facts and sending them on their way;equally important are the skills andpredilections acquired in school thatunderwrite a process of continuallearning after graduation. The objectiveshould be, as Henry Milner puts it, toinstill habits of “civic literacy” so thatcitizens naturally and effortlessly keepthemselves abreast of politics.9

One important habit of civic literacyoften highlighted is newspaper reading.Newspapers are an important source ofpolitical information, but youngergenerations are less inclined to pickthem up. There are, however, otherstrategies that deserve at least equalemphasis. In particular, television appearsto be an especially important mediumfor acquiring political knowledge,among younger Canadians. Table 3,based on the 2000 Canadian ElectionStudy, reports levels of political knowl-edge in different age groups as a functionof people’s attention to the federalelection campaign on television; polit-ical knowledge, as above, is measured

on a 0 to 100 scale. For those under age30, the impact of television viewing isquite dramatic: a 33-point differencein political knowledge separates thosein the low attention category fromthose in the high attention group.The effect of television viewing is alsoconsiderable in the adjacent category,the 30- to 39-year-olds, but diminishesconsiderably in the older age groups.Reading newspapers also has a consid-erable impact on political knowledgein all groups, but for the youngerrespondents – those 18 to 39 – follow-ing politics on television makes a big-ger difference, particularly when thevariables are subjected to controls inmultivariate analysis.10

One part of a general strategy to raiselevels of political knowledge amongyoung Canadians, then, should be toshift the viewing patterns of youngpeople so that they pay greater attentionto politics on television. The best placeto start is probably in school. In thespirit of building habits of civic literacy,

watchingbroadcasts ofpoliticallyorientedprogrammingmight be woveninto the civicscurriculum. Justas students aresometimesrequired toread the news-paper each dayfor their civicsclass, so theymight be told(and probablyto greatereffect) to watcha nationalnewscast eachnight. Or the

events of the day might be shown inclass and serve as the basis for debateand discussion. To those wedded tothe printed word, this may seem likea strategy of capitulation, but it mayprove to be the most effective way ofsustaining a basic level of politicalknowledge among generations raisedprimarily on electronic media.

Another strategy is to encourage useof the Internet as a source of politicalinformation. Though not a great dealis currently known about its impacton levels of political knowledge,11

consulting reliable news Web sites ona consistent basis could become aseffective as reading newspapers regu-larly. Again, instilling the appropriatehabits early, as part of an enhancedcivics curriculum, would likely provean effective way of piggy-backing on atrend – extensive Internet use – thatis already well entrenched amongyounger generations.

These suggestions for ways to raise voterturnout address one dimension of theissue – the lower levels of knowledgeexhibited by younger Canadians. Butthe second component, the heightenedimpact of knowledge on voting amongyounger generations, is equally critical.This part of the problem may be atougher nut to crack.

It seems perfectly reasonable thatpolitical knowledge would have someinfluence on electoral participation.If people are drawn to cast a vote toexercise influence over public policyand those who formulate it, it onlystands to reason that people unfamiliarwith the issues and political playerswill be less inclined to vote. Indeed,what is probably most striking aboutthe pattern of voting and not votingacross cohorts is not that knowledgemakes such a big difference to

Table 3Attention to Politics on Televisionand Political Knowledge

Age Attention to politics Political knowledgeon television (0 to 100 scale)

18–29 Low 21

Moderate 35

High 54

30–39 Low 38

Moderate 45

High 64

40–49 Low 43

Moderate 51

High 61

50 plus Low 51

Moderate 58

High 65

Attention to politics measured by attention to federal election campaign on

television over last few days (a 0 to 10 scale, with 0 to 3 coded as “low”,

4 to 6 coded as “moderate”, and 7 to 10 coded as “high”).


in early adulthood that pick upsubstantially as cohorts age. Whenthe various pieces of information arepulled together and plugged into amodel of electoral participation overtime, the conclusions are reinforced:political interest has its greatest impacton the life-cycle pattern in electoralparticipation, whereas politicalknowledge principally explainscohort differences.5

Some reflection on the causal linkagesbetween knowledge and interest alsoundermines the notion that motivationmust be the prime mover in mattersof political disengagement. If it seemsreasonable to suggest that interestprovides the incentive to learn aboutpolitics, it seems equally reasonableto suppose that knowledge renderspolitics more intelligible and hencemore interesting. Likely the two arelinked in a virtuous circle, interestgenerating knowledge and knowledgepiquing interest, with some momentumon either side potentially serving tostart the circle spinning. Commonsense would suggest that an injectionof knowledge could be especiallyeffective at an early age – adolescence,

say – when interests are still relativelyfluid and malleable. Practical consider-ations also suggest that emphasizingpolitical knowledge is the sounderstrategy: it seems a less daunting taskto teach teenagers something aboutpolitics than to cajole them intocaring about a subject they findcategorically boring.

Civics education

The reasoning aboveleads to the questionof civics education.Are we doing enoughin our schools toeducate young peopleabout politics? And ifwe started doing more,would it have positiveeffects on politicalknowledge and elec-toral participation?The literature in thisarea is somewhatambiguous. There are suggestionsthat the long-term impact of civicseducation is less than overwhelming,especially if it comes too early in theeducational cycle.6 But broad conclu-sions can obscure finer differences.More needs to be known about thepotential impact of full-throttled civicseducation in a country that has neveremphasized the subject and appears tobe trailing other nations in its politicalknowledge capacities.7

Fortunately, we have a ready-madecase study at hand: the new civics

curriculum intro-duced in Ontariohigh schools. Since2000, all Grade 10students must takea course simplyentitled “Civics” aspart of the Canadianand World Studies

program.8 What makes this initiativeespecially valuable, in more ways thanone, is its compulsory nature. Thismeans, first, that all students, includingthose who might otherwise avoid thecivics program, will be given a basicgrounding in the subject. It also offersan advantage to researchers interestedin assessing the effects of the new

curriculum. Where civics courses areoptional, the methodological problemof self-selection arises: students withpre-existing knowledge of and interestin politics are more likely to take thecourses than others, making it difficultto know what effect the courses actuallyhave. With self-selection removed fromthe equation, more definitive assess-ment of civics education – its impacton levels of knowledge, politicalengagement and participation – shouldbe possible. And soon too, as at leastsome of the first graduates should beeligible to vote in the next federal orprovincial election. Investigating thesematters and disseminating the resultsso that other provinces might learnfrom the Ontario experience would beone concrete step to help address theproblem of declining electoral partici-pation among young Canadians.

Newspapers, televisionand Internet

In reflecting on the potential role ofcivics education in enhancing levelsof knowledge and participation, it isimportant to bear in mind its multiplechannels of influence. As others havenoted, there is more to civics educationthan simply stuffing students full of

Common sense would suggest that an injectionof knowledge could be especially effective at anearly age – adolescence, say – when interestsare still relatively fluid and malleable.

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s


facts and sending them on their way;equally important are the skills andpredilections acquired in school thatunderwrite a process of continuallearning after graduation. The objectiveshould be, as Henry Milner puts it, toinstill habits of “civic literacy” so thatcitizens naturally and effortlessly keepthemselves abreast of politics.9

One important habit of civic literacyoften highlighted is newspaper reading.Newspapers are an important source ofpolitical information, but youngergenerations are less inclined to pickthem up. There are, however, otherstrategies that deserve at least equalemphasis. In particular, television appearsto be an especially important mediumfor acquiring political knowledge,among younger Canadians. Table 3,based on the 2000 Canadian ElectionStudy, reports levels of political knowl-edge in different age groups as a functionof people’s attention to the federalelection campaign on television; polit-ical knowledge, as above, is measured

on a 0 to 100 scale. For those under age30, the impact of television viewing isquite dramatic: a 33-point differencein political knowledge separates thosein the low attention category fromthose in the high attention group.The effect of television viewing is alsoconsiderable in the adjacent category,the 30- to 39-year-olds, but diminishesconsiderably in the older age groups.Reading newspapers also has a consid-erable impact on political knowledgein all groups, but for the youngerrespondents – those 18 to 39 – follow-ing politics on television makes a big-ger difference, particularly when thevariables are subjected to controls inmultivariate analysis.10

One part of a general strategy to raiselevels of political knowledge amongyoung Canadians, then, should be toshift the viewing patterns of youngpeople so that they pay greater attentionto politics on television. The best placeto start is probably in school. In thespirit of building habits of civic literacy,

watchingbroadcasts ofpoliticallyorientedprogrammingmight be woveninto the civicscurriculum. Justas students aresometimesrequired toread the news-paper each dayfor their civicsclass, so theymight be told(and probablyto greatereffect) to watcha nationalnewscast eachnight. Or the

events of the day might be shown inclass and serve as the basis for debateand discussion. To those wedded tothe printed word, this may seem likea strategy of capitulation, but it mayprove to be the most effective way ofsustaining a basic level of politicalknowledge among generations raisedprimarily on electronic media.

Another strategy is to encourage useof the Internet as a source of politicalinformation. Though not a great dealis currently known about its impacton levels of political knowledge,11

consulting reliable news Web sites ona consistent basis could become aseffective as reading newspapers regu-larly. Again, instilling the appropriatehabits early, as part of an enhancedcivics curriculum, would likely provean effective way of piggy-backing on atrend – extensive Internet use – thatis already well entrenched amongyounger generations.

These suggestions for ways to raise voterturnout address one dimension of theissue – the lower levels of knowledgeexhibited by younger Canadians. Butthe second component, the heightenedimpact of knowledge on voting amongyounger generations, is equally critical.This part of the problem may be atougher nut to crack.

It seems perfectly reasonable thatpolitical knowledge would have someinfluence on electoral participation.If people are drawn to cast a vote toexercise influence over public policyand those who formulate it, it onlystands to reason that people unfamiliarwith the issues and political playerswill be less inclined to vote. Indeed,what is probably most striking aboutthe pattern of voting and not votingacross cohorts is not that knowledgemakes such a big difference to

Table 3Attention to Politics on Televisionand Political Knowledge

Age Attention to politics Political knowledgeon television (0 to 100 scale)

18–29 Low 21

Moderate 35

High 54

30–39 Low 38

Moderate 45

High 64

40–49 Low 43

Moderate 51

High 61

50 plus Low 51

Moderate 58

High 65

Attention to politics measured by attention to federal election campaign on

television over last few days (a 0 to 10 scale, with 0 to 3 coded as “low”,

4 to 6 coded as “moderate”, and 7 to 10 coded as “high”).


in early adulthood that pick upsubstantially as cohorts age. Whenthe various pieces of information arepulled together and plugged into amodel of electoral participation overtime, the conclusions are reinforced:political interest has its greatest impacton the life-cycle pattern in electoralparticipation, whereas politicalknowledge principally explainscohort differences.5

Some reflection on the causal linkagesbetween knowledge and interest alsoundermines the notion that motivationmust be the prime mover in mattersof political disengagement. If it seemsreasonable to suggest that interestprovides the incentive to learn aboutpolitics, it seems equally reasonableto suppose that knowledge renderspolitics more intelligible and hencemore interesting. Likely the two arelinked in a virtuous circle, interestgenerating knowledge and knowledgepiquing interest, with some momentumon either side potentially serving tostart the circle spinning. Commonsense would suggest that an injectionof knowledge could be especiallyeffective at an early age – adolescence,

say – when interests are still relativelyfluid and malleable. Practical consider-ations also suggest that emphasizingpolitical knowledge is the sounderstrategy: it seems a less daunting taskto teach teenagers something aboutpolitics than to cajole them intocaring about a subject they findcategorically boring.

Civics education

The reasoning aboveleads to the questionof civics education.Are we doing enoughin our schools toeducate young peopleabout politics? And ifwe started doing more,would it have positiveeffects on politicalknowledge and elec-toral participation?The literature in thisarea is somewhatambiguous. There are suggestionsthat the long-term impact of civicseducation is less than overwhelming,especially if it comes too early in theeducational cycle.6 But broad conclu-sions can obscure finer differences.More needs to be known about thepotential impact of full-throttled civicseducation in a country that has neveremphasized the subject and appears tobe trailing other nations in its politicalknowledge capacities.7

Fortunately, we have a ready-madecase study at hand: the new civics

curriculum intro-duced in Ontariohigh schools. Since2000, all Grade 10students must takea course simplyentitled “Civics” aspart of the Canadianand World Studies

program.8 What makes this initiativeespecially valuable, in more ways thanone, is its compulsory nature. Thismeans, first, that all students, includingthose who might otherwise avoid thecivics program, will be given a basicgrounding in the subject. It also offersan advantage to researchers interestedin assessing the effects of the new

curriculum. Where civics courses areoptional, the methodological problemof self-selection arises: students withpre-existing knowledge of and interestin politics are more likely to take thecourses than others, making it difficultto know what effect the courses actuallyhave. With self-selection removed fromthe equation, more definitive assess-ment of civics education – its impacton levels of knowledge, politicalengagement and participation – shouldbe possible. And soon too, as at leastsome of the first graduates should beeligible to vote in the next federal orprovincial election. Investigating thesematters and disseminating the resultsso that other provinces might learnfrom the Ontario experience would beone concrete step to help address theproblem of declining electoral partici-pation among young Canadians.

Newspapers, televisionand Internet

In reflecting on the potential role ofcivics education in enhancing levelsof knowledge and participation, it isimportant to bear in mind its multiplechannels of influence. As others havenoted, there is more to civics educationthan simply stuffing students full of

Common sense would suggest that an injectionof knowledge could be especially effective at anearly age – adolescence, say – when interestsare still relatively fluid and malleable.

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s


conducted for the Royal Commissionon Electoral Reform and PartyFinancing. Principal investigatorsfor the studies are as follows:1984 Canadian Election Study,R. D. Lambert, S. D. Brown, J. E. Curtis,B. J. Kay and J. M. Wilson; the Surveyof Attitudes About Electoral Reform

(1990), André Blais and ElisabethGidengil; the 1993 Canadian ElectionStudy, Richard Johnston, André Blais,Henry Brady, Elisabeth Gidengil andNeil Nevitte; the 1997 CanadianElection Study, André Blais, ElisabethGidengil, Richard Nadeau and NeilNevitte; and the 2000 Canadian

Election Study, André Blais, ElisabethGidengil, Richard Nadeau and NeilNevitte. The original investigators,the study sponsors and the ISR bearno responsibility for the analyses andinterpretations presented here.

1. Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc,“Explaining the Turnout Decline inCanadian Federal Elections: A New Surveyof Non-voters” [on-line research report],Elections Canada (March 2003), p. 20,available at www.elections.ca underElectoral Law & Policy. The 64 percentfigure for overall turnout is the correctedfigure produced by Elections Canada afterthe 2000 election, once the NationalRegister of Electors had been purged ofduplicates (the original figure was just over61 percent).

2. The logic here is that the life-cycle effectcould only diminish overall turnout ifyoung people somehow came to account fora larger portion of the electorate. But, ofcourse, the age distribution of the electorateis more or less constant over time.

3. André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, NeilNevitte and Richard Nadeau, “TheEvolving Nature of Non-Voting: Evidencefrom Canada,” paper presented at theannual meeting of the American PoliticalScience Association, San Francisco,August 30 – September 2, 2001.

4. The cohorts from Table 1 are collapsed intolarger bands of birth years in Table 2 toincrease sample sizes and produce morereliable estimates.

5. This analysis has been conducted usingelection study data from 1984, 1988, 1993,1997 and 2000. These results, along withthe cohort analysis of political interest, willbe detailed in a forthcoming paper by theauthor.

6. On this point, see Henry Milner, CivicLiteracy: How Informed Citizens MakeDemocracy Work (Hanover, NewHampshire: University Press of NewEngland, 2002), pp. 118–121.

7. Results from an international survey of geo-political knowledge among 18- to 24-year-olds place Canada third from the bottom ofa group of nine countries, ahead only ofMexico and the United States. See“Geography Quiz Stumps College-AgeCanadians,” The Globe and Mail,November 21, 2002, p. A14.

8. Details are provided in Ontario, Ministry ofEducation, “The Ontario Curriculum,Grades 9 and 10: Canadian and WorldStudies”, pp. 46–53, available athttp://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/canadian/canasc.pdf

9. Milner, Civic Literacy, especially chapters 7,8 and 9.

10. These results are presented in greater detailin Paul Howe, “Name That Premier: ThePolitical Knowledge of Canadians Past andPresent,” paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Canadian Political ScienceAssociation, Toronto, May 29–31, 2002,pp. 17–19.

11. Internet use is included in the multivariateanalysis included in Paul Howe, “NameThat Premier,” in Table 4, p. 31. It has apositive impact, though its effect on politi-cal knowledge is smaller than that of eithernewspaper reading or TV viewing. TheInternet measure in the survey used for thatanalysis, however, is relatively imprecise,simply asking people if they ever use theInternet to become informed about politics.More precise measurement – which Websites are consulted and how often – mightproduce stronger results.

12. André Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote: TheMerits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,2000), pp. 92–114.

13. Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote, p. 97.

14. See Neil Nevitte, The Decline of Deference:Canadian Value Change in Cross-NationalPerspective (Peterborough, Ontario:Broadview Press, 1996) and Russell Dalton,Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and PoliticalParties in Advanced Industrial Democracies(London: Chatham House Publishers,2002), especially chapters 1 to 6.

NOTES

participation among younger cohorts;it is that knowledge makes such a smalldifference among older generations.The gap in turnout between more andless knowledgeable individuals in theolder age categories has often beenaround 10 percentage points in recentelections (see Table 2), which meansthat roughly 80 to 85 percent of politi-cally ill-informed, older citizens chooseto vote despite this evident debility.

Civic duty

We can only surmise that somethingelse – something other than the desireto register one’s views on the issuesof the day and the leaders who willmanage them – sustains electoralparticipation among older generations.That something else, others have sug-gested, is a strong sense of civic duty.12

It is the responsibility of every citizen,immersed in the issues or not, to cast aballot on election day. For voters whothink this way, going to the polls ismore a reflexive instinct than aconscious decision.

Those who highlight the importanceof civic duty to voting have at the sametime identified a diminished sense of

duty among youngerage groups.13 This isentirely consistentwith broader trendshighlighted in vari-ous studies. Youngergenerations are lessinclined to take cuesand directions fromthose around them;they are more self-directing, moreautonomous in theirdecision making, lesslikely to defer tooutside authority.14

When it comes tovoting or not voting, younger people aremore likely to be guided by their ownlights than directed by social pressures.

It is in this context that politicalknowledge comes to the fore. Self-directed citizens are only likely to voteif they feel it will represent a personally

meaningful act. For those who knowlittle about politics, this is unlikelyto be the case – ticking one box oranother with little information toguide them would be an empty, evencounter-productive, gesture. Learningsomething at election time is alwaysan option, but not a very feasible onefor someone starting from scratch; thelearning curve would be very steepindeed. It is in this way that knowledge,in the absence of a strong sense of civicduty, comes to assume such influenceover the voting decision.

Conclusion

The analysis in this article is admittedlyspeculative, but it seems a plausibleaccount of the rising importance ofknowledge to political participation. Italso carries an important implication:the decline in electoral participationamong younger Canadians is partlyrooted in a pervasive culture shift thathas altered the basis for social andpolitical action. Self-directed behaviouris the norm nowadays, and this willnot easily be undone. A change in themotivational underpinnings of votingand not voting is probably somethingthat simply has to be accepted.

But if this part of the equation cannotbe altered, it can at least be turned toour advantage. The fact that knowledgestrongly influences electoral participa-tion in younger cohorts means thatefforts to raise levels of politicalknowledge could have a very sizable

impact on turnoutlevels. Sortingthrough the variousfactors that havecontributed todeclining participa-tion among youngvoters can help pin-point where policyleverage exists; it

can also help identify forces that mightbe harnessed to put that leverage tomaximum effect.

AcknowledgementsAll datasets were made available bythe Institute for Social Research (ISR)at York University. The 1984, 1993,1997 and 2000 Canadian NationalElection Studies were funded by theSocial Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada(SSHRCC). The Survey of AttitudesAbout Electoral Reform (1990) was

The fact that knowledge strongly influenceselectoral participation in younger cohortsmeans that efforts to raise levels of politicalknowledge could have a very sizable impacton turnout levels.

Lack of knowledge about the issues and the contestants in politicsis much less likely to discourage older Canadians from votingthan young persons.

Phot

o: P

aul To

ogoo

d P

hot

ogra

phy


conducted for the Royal Commissionon Electoral Reform and PartyFinancing. Principal investigatorsfor the studies are as follows:1984 Canadian Election Study,R. D. Lambert, S. D. Brown, J. E. Curtis,B. J. Kay and J. M. Wilson; the Surveyof Attitudes About Electoral Reform

(1990), André Blais and ElisabethGidengil; the 1993 Canadian ElectionStudy, Richard Johnston, André Blais,Henry Brady, Elisabeth Gidengil andNeil Nevitte; the 1997 CanadianElection Study, André Blais, ElisabethGidengil, Richard Nadeau and NeilNevitte; and the 2000 Canadian

Election Study, André Blais, ElisabethGidengil, Richard Nadeau and NeilNevitte. The original investigators,the study sponsors and the ISR bearno responsibility for the analyses andinterpretations presented here.

1. Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc,“Explaining the Turnout Decline inCanadian Federal Elections: A New Surveyof Non-voters” [on-line research report],Elections Canada (March 2003), p. 20,available at www.elections.ca underElectoral Law & Policy. The 64 percentfigure for overall turnout is the correctedfigure produced by Elections Canada afterthe 2000 election, once the NationalRegister of Electors had been purged ofduplicates (the original figure was just over61 percent).

2. The logic here is that the life-cycle effectcould only diminish overall turnout ifyoung people somehow came to account fora larger portion of the electorate. But, ofcourse, the age distribution of the electorateis more or less constant over time.

3. André Blais, Elisabeth Gidengil, NeilNevitte and Richard Nadeau, “TheEvolving Nature of Non-Voting: Evidencefrom Canada,” paper presented at theannual meeting of the American PoliticalScience Association, San Francisco,August 30 – September 2, 2001.

4. The cohorts from Table 1 are collapsed intolarger bands of birth years in Table 2 toincrease sample sizes and produce morereliable estimates.

5. This analysis has been conducted usingelection study data from 1984, 1988, 1993,1997 and 2000. These results, along withthe cohort analysis of political interest, willbe detailed in a forthcoming paper by theauthor.

6. On this point, see Henry Milner, CivicLiteracy: How Informed Citizens MakeDemocracy Work (Hanover, NewHampshire: University Press of NewEngland, 2002), pp. 118–121.

7. Results from an international survey of geo-political knowledge among 18- to 24-year-olds place Canada third from the bottom ofa group of nine countries, ahead only ofMexico and the United States. See“Geography Quiz Stumps College-AgeCanadians,” The Globe and Mail,November 21, 2002, p. A14.

8. Details are provided in Ontario, Ministry ofEducation, “The Ontario Curriculum,Grades 9 and 10: Canadian and WorldStudies”, pp. 46–53, available athttp://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/document/curricul/secondary/canadian/canasc.pdf

9. Milner, Civic Literacy, especially chapters 7,8 and 9.

10. These results are presented in greater detailin Paul Howe, “Name That Premier: ThePolitical Knowledge of Canadians Past andPresent,” paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Canadian Political ScienceAssociation, Toronto, May 29–31, 2002,pp. 17–19.

11. Internet use is included in the multivariateanalysis included in Paul Howe, “NameThat Premier,” in Table 4, p. 31. It has apositive impact, though its effect on politi-cal knowledge is smaller than that of eithernewspaper reading or TV viewing. TheInternet measure in the survey used for thatanalysis, however, is relatively imprecise,simply asking people if they ever use theInternet to become informed about politics.More precise measurement – which Websites are consulted and how often – mightproduce stronger results.

12. André Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote: TheMerits and Limits of Rational Choice Theory(Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press,2000), pp. 92–114.

13. Blais, To Vote or Not to Vote, p. 97.

14. See Neil Nevitte, The Decline of Deference:Canadian Value Change in Cross-NationalPerspective (Peterborough, Ontario:Broadview Press, 1996) and Russell Dalton,Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and PoliticalParties in Advanced Industrial Democracies(London: Chatham House Publishers,2002), especially chapters 1 to 6.

NOTES

participation among younger cohorts;it is that knowledge makes such a smalldifference among older generations.The gap in turnout between more andless knowledgeable individuals in theolder age categories has often beenaround 10 percentage points in recentelections (see Table 2), which meansthat roughly 80 to 85 percent of politi-cally ill-informed, older citizens chooseto vote despite this evident debility.

Civic duty

We can only surmise that somethingelse – something other than the desireto register one’s views on the issuesof the day and the leaders who willmanage them – sustains electoralparticipation among older generations.That something else, others have sug-gested, is a strong sense of civic duty.12

It is the responsibility of every citizen,immersed in the issues or not, to cast aballot on election day. For voters whothink this way, going to the polls ismore a reflexive instinct than aconscious decision.

Those who highlight the importanceof civic duty to voting have at the sametime identified a diminished sense of

duty among youngerage groups.13 This isentirely consistentwith broader trendshighlighted in vari-ous studies. Youngergenerations are lessinclined to take cuesand directions fromthose around them;they are more self-directing, moreautonomous in theirdecision making, lesslikely to defer tooutside authority.14

When it comes tovoting or not voting, younger people aremore likely to be guided by their ownlights than directed by social pressures.

It is in this context that politicalknowledge comes to the fore. Self-directed citizens are only likely to voteif they feel it will represent a personally

meaningful act. For those who knowlittle about politics, this is unlikelyto be the case – ticking one box oranother with little information toguide them would be an empty, evencounter-productive, gesture. Learningsomething at election time is alwaysan option, but not a very feasible onefor someone starting from scratch; thelearning curve would be very steepindeed. It is in this way that knowledge,in the absence of a strong sense of civicduty, comes to assume such influenceover the voting decision.

Conclusion

The analysis in this article is admittedlyspeculative, but it seems a plausibleaccount of the rising importance ofknowledge to political participation. Italso carries an important implication:the decline in electoral participationamong younger Canadians is partlyrooted in a pervasive culture shift thathas altered the basis for social andpolitical action. Self-directed behaviouris the norm nowadays, and this willnot easily be undone. A change in themotivational underpinnings of votingand not voting is probably somethingthat simply has to be accepted.

But if this part of the equation cannotbe altered, it can at least be turned toour advantage. The fact that knowledgestrongly influences electoral participa-tion in younger cohorts means thatefforts to raise levels of politicalknowledge could have a very sizable

impact on turnoutlevels. Sortingthrough the variousfactors that havecontributed todeclining participa-tion among youngvoters can help pin-point where policyleverage exists; it

can also help identify forces that mightbe harnessed to put that leverage tomaximum effect.

AcknowledgementsAll datasets were made available bythe Institute for Social Research (ISR)at York University. The 1984, 1993,1997 and 2000 Canadian NationalElection Studies were funded by theSocial Sciences and HumanitiesResearch Council of Canada(SSHRCC). The Survey of AttitudesAbout Electoral Reform (1990) was

The fact that knowledge strongly influenceselectoral participation in younger cohortsmeans that efforts to raise levels of politicalknowledge could have a very sizable impacton turnout levels.

Lack of knowledge about the issues and the contestants in politicsis much less likely to discourage older Canadians from votingthan young persons.

Phot

o: P

aul To

ogoo

d P

hot

ogra

phy


inclined to register, even the mostambitious registration effort will pro-duce lower levels of registration amongthat group than for the electorate as awhole. Consequently, it is common fortargeted registration drives to includeelements of political education toreduce such disinclination, and to pro-vide positive reasons for the electorateto choose to register. Such campaignsoften use symbols and images that areviewed positively by the targetedgroup, make appeals to the importanceof the democratic process, or highlightthe power that comes from expressinga political preference (for example,with slogans such as “Make Your VoiceCount”, or “Make Your Voice Heard”,which have been used by a number ofelection authorities).

Best practices in targetedyouth registration

Efforts to increase the registration ofyoung electors are among the mostcommon targeted enrolment strategiesused by election authorities. The youngoften are considered one of the mostimportant segments of the electorateupon which to focus. There are severalreasons for this.• Youth typically have one of the

lowest rates of voter registration.• Youth are often among the most

highly mobile segments of thepopulation, moving frequently toenrol in post-secondary educationor simply as part of a lifestyle ofsecuring accommodation thatchanges due to a desire to travel,change jobs, etc.

• They often have not developed asense of themselves as full membersof a political community or a strongstake in their community of residence(as opposed, for example, to home-owners or parents of children in theschool system).

• They often have not developedconsistent patterns of politicalparticipation.

• They represent to a very considerableextent the future citizens of a democ-racy, and thus their active engagementis tied to the very success of thepolitical system.

For these and other reasons, increasingthe political participation and voterregistration of young electors is desirable.It is in this context that the CanadianChief Electoral Officer recentlyannounced initiatives to increase voterregistration among Canadian youth.1

A variety of instruments are availablefor a targeted youth registration initia-tive, some of which have been adoptedin Canada and some of which areworthy of consideration by Canada’selection authority. The followingsection describes a number of suchtargeting strategies.

Provisionalregistration

An obvious methodof increasing theregistration of elec-tors who are comingof voting age is toextend the effectiveperiod in whichthey can enrol, inparticular by addinga year in which theycan be placed on aprovisional list of electors. Thismethod is used in both Australiaand New Zealand, as well as in someU.S. states, and enables young peopleto complete voter registration formsat age 17. The election authorityautomatically moves those on theprovisional list to the list of electorsupon their achieving the age of majority(or legal voting age).

A number of advantages to the provi-sional register are worth considering.First, it provides the election authoritywith a considerably longer period oftime in which to contact, and becontacted by, those who are coming ofvoting age. It has been estimated thatapproximately two percent of the elec-torate attains voting age every year. Itis reasonable to assume that, for anygiven electoral event, a very largeproportion of those who are becomingeligible to vote within three months(for example) of the election would notbe included in the register of electors.Therefore, approximately 0.5 percentof the electorate (i.e. those turning 18in those three months) would need toregister during the revision period oron polling day. Providing a provisionalregister of electors would give thesesame new electors a full year to beentered in the register, likely decreasing

registration activity during the revisionperiod. Also, spreading out the workover a longer period would reduce thespike in the activity of the electionauthority during the revision period,thereby easing personnel management.Data provided by the AustralianElectoral Commission (AEC) indicatethat approximately 16 percent of17-year-olds are included on the

Phot

o: R

oger

Bér

ubé

Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, announcedmeasures to address declining voter turnout among youth, at asymposium on electoral participation in Canada held at CarletonUniversity in Ottawa on March 21, 2003.

Increasing YouthVoter RegistrationBest Practices in TargetingYoung Electors

Keith ArcherProfessor, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary

One of the most consistent findings of two generations ofresearch on political behaviour in a broad range of settings isthat some citizens are more likely than others to be engagedand involved in politics. If variations in political activitywere entirely random, this particular variation could bediscounted as perhaps an interesting but insignificant featureof democratic political life. In fact, variation in politicalactivity is anything but random. Some groups of voters areless likely to be involved in politics, and less likely to beinvolved across a broad spectrum of political systems andsettings, than other groups. Among the groups with thelowest levels of participation are those with the lowesteconomic means, the young, members of the Aboriginalcommunity, and newly eligible electors.

That levels of participation vary systematically, andare much lower among certain groups, raises importantquestions in a democracy. The assumption in democraticpolitical systems is that political participation servesimportant functions both for the political system and forthe individual. For the system, the participation of citizensresults in selection among competing candidates and com-peting political ideas. In short, it affects the types of policiesand issues that are pursued and advanced by government.The groups who participate less will have less impact onthe policies pursued or the ideas advanced by government.Consequently, the outputs of government will be less likely

to reflect the collective preferences and priorities of suchgroups of voters.

For the individual, political participation is an expressionof belonging to a political community, of having one’s sayin how one ought to be governed. Political activity canlead to a greater sense of support for the political communityand for the elites in positions of power. It gives citizens anincreased sense of the legitimacy of the electoral process andof their own roles as members of the political community.

Further to the consistent finding that some electors areless likely to participate in politics is the finding that thosesame segments of the electorate are less likely to be regis-tered to vote. This has led many election authorities toseek ways of encouraging registration among groups ofcitizens with historically lower levels of participation.Election authorities typically seek to increase the registra-tion of such electors through targeted registration campaigns,which can vary considerably in the creative means bywhich authorities attempt to reach these hard-to-reachgroups. Even the most aggressive targeted campaigns,however, have limited success in enrolling all membersof the electorate.

A related consideration is the desire of the hard-to-reachelectorate to register to vote. If members of a group are not



inclined to register, even the mostambitious registration effort will pro-duce lower levels of registration amongthat group than for the electorate as awhole. Consequently, it is common fortargeted registration drives to includeelements of political education toreduce such disinclination, and to pro-vide positive reasons for the electorateto choose to register. Such campaignsoften use symbols and images that areviewed positively by the targetedgroup, make appeals to the importanceof the democratic process, or highlightthe power that comes from expressinga political preference (for example,with slogans such as “Make Your VoiceCount”, or “Make Your Voice Heard”,which have been used by a number ofelection authorities).

Best practices in targetedyouth registration

Efforts to increase the registration ofyoung electors are among the mostcommon targeted enrolment strategiesused by election authorities. The youngoften are considered one of the mostimportant segments of the electorateupon which to focus. There are severalreasons for this.• Youth typically have one of the

lowest rates of voter registration.• Youth are often among the most

highly mobile segments of thepopulation, moving frequently toenrol in post-secondary educationor simply as part of a lifestyle ofsecuring accommodation thatchanges due to a desire to travel,change jobs, etc.

• They often have not developed asense of themselves as full membersof a political community or a strongstake in their community of residence(as opposed, for example, to home-owners or parents of children in theschool system).

• They often have not developedconsistent patterns of politicalparticipation.

• They represent to a very considerableextent the future citizens of a democ-racy, and thus their active engagementis tied to the very success of thepolitical system.

For these and other reasons, increasingthe political participation and voterregistration of young electors is desirable.It is in this context that the CanadianChief Electoral Officer recentlyannounced initiatives to increase voterregistration among Canadian youth.1

A variety of instruments are availablefor a targeted youth registration initia-tive, some of which have been adoptedin Canada and some of which areworthy of consideration by Canada’selection authority. The followingsection describes a number of suchtargeting strategies.

Provisionalregistration

An obvious methodof increasing theregistration of elec-tors who are comingof voting age is toextend the effectiveperiod in whichthey can enrol, inparticular by addinga year in which theycan be placed on aprovisional list of electors. Thismethod is used in both Australiaand New Zealand, as well as in someU.S. states, and enables young peopleto complete voter registration formsat age 17. The election authorityautomatically moves those on theprovisional list to the list of electorsupon their achieving the age of majority(or legal voting age).

A number of advantages to the provi-sional register are worth considering.First, it provides the election authoritywith a considerably longer period oftime in which to contact, and becontacted by, those who are coming ofvoting age. It has been estimated thatapproximately two percent of the elec-torate attains voting age every year. Itis reasonable to assume that, for anygiven electoral event, a very largeproportion of those who are becomingeligible to vote within three months(for example) of the election would notbe included in the register of electors.Therefore, approximately 0.5 percentof the electorate (i.e. those turning 18in those three months) would need toregister during the revision period oron polling day. Providing a provisionalregister of electors would give thesesame new electors a full year to beentered in the register, likely decreasing

registration activity during the revisionperiod. Also, spreading out the workover a longer period would reduce thespike in the activity of the electionauthority during the revision period,thereby easing personnel management.Data provided by the AustralianElectoral Commission (AEC) indicatethat approximately 16 percent of17-year-olds are included on the

Phot

o: R

oger

Bér

ubé

Canada’s Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, announcedmeasures to address declining voter turnout among youth, at asymposium on electoral participation in Canada held at CarletonUniversity in Ottawa on March 21, 2003.

Increasing YouthVoter RegistrationBest Practices in TargetingYoung Electors

Keith ArcherProfessor, Department of Political Science, University of Calgary

One of the most consistent findings of two generations ofresearch on political behaviour in a broad range of settings isthat some citizens are more likely than others to be engagedand involved in politics. If variations in political activitywere entirely random, this particular variation could bediscounted as perhaps an interesting but insignificant featureof democratic political life. In fact, variation in politicalactivity is anything but random. Some groups of voters areless likely to be involved in politics, and less likely to beinvolved across a broad spectrum of political systems andsettings, than other groups. Among the groups with thelowest levels of participation are those with the lowesteconomic means, the young, members of the Aboriginalcommunity, and newly eligible electors.

That levels of participation vary systematically, andare much lower among certain groups, raises importantquestions in a democracy. The assumption in democraticpolitical systems is that political participation servesimportant functions both for the political system and forthe individual. For the system, the participation of citizensresults in selection among competing candidates and com-peting political ideas. In short, it affects the types of policiesand issues that are pursued and advanced by government.The groups who participate less will have less impact onthe policies pursued or the ideas advanced by government.Consequently, the outputs of government will be less likely

to reflect the collective preferences and priorities of suchgroups of voters.

For the individual, political participation is an expressionof belonging to a political community, of having one’s sayin how one ought to be governed. Political activity canlead to a greater sense of support for the political communityand for the elites in positions of power. It gives citizens anincreased sense of the legitimacy of the electoral process andof their own roles as members of the political community.

Further to the consistent finding that some electors areless likely to participate in politics is the finding that thosesame segments of the electorate are less likely to be regis-tered to vote. This has led many election authorities toseek ways of encouraging registration among groups ofcitizens with historically lower levels of participation.Election authorities typically seek to increase the registra-tion of such electors through targeted registration campaigns,which can vary considerably in the creative means bywhich authorities attempt to reach these hard-to-reachgroups. Even the most aggressive targeted campaigns,however, have limited success in enrolling all membersof the electorate.

A related consideration is the desire of the hard-to-reachelectorate to register to vote. If members of a group are not



will automatically be placed on theelectoral roll upon reaching 18.On June 30, 2002, 16 percent of17-year-olds in Australia were onthe provisional roll, compared to27 percent of 17-year-olds in Victoria.Similarly, 56 percent of Australian18-year-olds were enrolled, comparedto 68 percent of those in Victoria.Therefore, this initiative appears toaccount for an increased enrolmentof approximately 10 percent of thoseeligible.5

On-line voter registration

The availability of personal computerswith very substantial storage capacity,coupled with increasingly reliable net-work connections with high bandwidthdata transmission, and high accessibilityto computers in homes, at schools andin many public places (such as Internetcafés, government offices and thelike), means that opportunities for anelectronically-based voter registrationsystem, or key elements of such asystem, are now available in a waythat was not the case even a decadeago. Canada is among the most “wired”countries in the world in terms ofcomputer usage, which makes it amongthe most desirable places to introduceon-line access to voter registration. Inview of the fact that young citizenstend to use the Internet more, on-linevoter registration systems are likely tobe particularly effective in increasingregistration among youth.

Various countries provide a range ofoptions for on-line voter registration.At one end of the continuum, ElectionsNew Zealand provides the most directand interactive on-line voter registra-tion system, at www.elections.org.nz.The elector may receive informationabout the registration process, checkand change his or her registration

information, register for the first time,or re-register after leaving the registerfor a period.

In Australia, while registration formsfor all states are available on the AECWeb site,6 the elector must first printand complete the form and then sendit to the state or district enrolmentoffice through the postal service or byfax, or deliver the form in person. Inaddition to the extra step of printingand posting the form, Australian

enrolment forms require that anelector who is eligible to be enrolledwitness the completed form. Thislatter requirement makes on-lineregistration much more difficult,particularly since the witness guaran-tee is provided through the witness’signature. In addition, unlike theNew Zealand case, the AEC does notprovide electors with the option ofchecking their registrations on-line.While the electoral roll is considereda public document, it is not availableon-line, but rather through the AEC’sState Head Office or DivisionalOffices. Furthermore, requests todetermine whether an elector isenrolled must be made by the electorhim- or herself, and must be made inwriting, including a signature on therequest form. Thus, the high valueplaced on the security of the electoralroll and the use of strict procedures toguard against potential electoral fraudhave, in Australia, limited the full useof on-line registration.

The recently created ElectoralCommission of the United Kingdom,as one of its first initiatives, has alsoput in place on-line voter registrationforms for British electors.7 As in theAustralian case, the forms must beprinted and completed, with signaturebut without a witness, and sent to thedistrict enrolment office. There is noprovision for the elector to check hisor her registration information on-line,and there is a relatively lengthy period(seven weeks) for the processing of

registration informa-tion. One of themain reasons forthe absence of com-pletely interactiveon-line registrationis the highly decen-tralized character ofthe electoral register.Should the proposal

by the Electoral Commission for anational electronic register be realized,the on-line registration system that islimited to making forms available,rather than providing full interactiveregistration, likely will also be revisited.The recent announcement of thetargeted youth registration initiativeby Elections Canada suggests a phase-in process. The first phase, similar tothe Australian and British cases, willbe to provide downloadable formsfrom the Elections Canada Web site.In addition, Elections Canada hasindicated a commitment to seek themeans to implement full on-lineregistration. It can be expected thatthe latter initiative will have thegreatest effect in increasing youthregistration.

Special events

A particularly novel approach to con-tacting young electors is to host eventsthat appeal to that age group, and to

Canada is among the most “wired” countriesin the world in terms of computer usage,which makes it among the most desirableplaces to introduce on-line access to voterregistration.

provisional list and, in the state ofVictoria, fully 27 percent of 17-year-olds are on the provisional list.2 It issignificant that the Victoria ElectoralCommission sends birthday cards andenrolment forms to individuals ontheir 17th birthdays, an issue to whichwe return below.3

School-based registrationdrives

It has become increasingly popular fortargeted youth enrolment activities toinclude a campaign for university andcollege campuses. One novel methodused in Australia, and related to theexistence of a provisional list of elec-tors for 17-year-olds, is to enter intoagreements with high schools for regis-tration activities. The election authoritypays a small per capita amount offunding to the school, based on thenumber of students at the school whoare on the list of electors. The advan-tage of this arrangement, coupled withthe existence of a provisional list ofelectors, is that the registration effortcan take place in high schools, inaddition to universities and colleges.The high school setting is more

advantageous, because high schoolenrolments are much higher thanpost-secondary enrolments and, there-fore, the targeted campaign has a morecomprehensive reach. In addition,within high schools, it is possible tointroduce a political education campaigninto a civics curriculum that is offeredto all students, which simply is not

possible in post-secondary settings.Without the existence of a provisionallist of electors for 17-year-olds, a regis-tration drive in high schools is likelyto be much less effective, since a largeproportion of students would not be ofvoting age.

A number of election authorities havedeveloped political education materialspecifically targeted to increase regis-tration among the youth electorate.In its review of practices of the AEC,the Australian National Audit Officerecommended the AEC collaboratewith educational authorities to developcurricular materials aimed at increasingthe proportion of young electorsenrolled.4 Elections Canada recentlyconcluded a partnership arrangementwith the Cable in the Classroom ini-tiative to encourage youth to preparepublic service announcements topromote participation by their peers.

Even without the move to develop aprovisional list of electors, and to directenrolment activities in the high schools,many election authorities have initiatedregistration activities on university andcollege campuses. Since most universi-

ties include politicalclubs and also fea-ture a “clubs week”each year (normallyduring the earlyfall), one strategywould be to engagethese clubs in effortsto publicize voter

registration efforts. While this has theadvantage of operating within a previ-ously scheduled event, the drawbackis that the registration effort of anyparticular club could be inspired as muchby the desire for partisan advantage asby a sense of civic-mindedness in pro-viding equal opportunities for all eligibleyoung electors to register. An alternative,

and probably preferable strategy, isto hold such events separate from thepolitical clubs, either on an annual basis,or in the revision period preceding anelectoral event. While this strategy hasobvious staffing implications for theelection authority, some electionauthorities have found it sufficientlyeffective to justify the additionalexpenditure.

Birthday cards

There are a variety of ways in which anelection authority may become awarethat an elector has achieved votingage – for example, through data filesshared with a motor transport authority,a tax authority or some other civicauthority. In some instances, thisinformation is used to generate amail-out to electors coming of votingage, which may also include politicaleducation material, and possibly avoter registration application. Thisapproach personalizes communicationwith the elector, provides him or herwith information important to a citizen,and also facilitates the completion ofthe registration process. As a first con-tact with the newly eligible elector, italso is a very cost-effective strategy,and could be used either with a provi-sional list of electors (card sent uponreaching 17 years of age), or a regularlist (card sent at 18 years). In hisMarch 2003 announcement, the ChiefElectoral Officer of Canada indicatedthat he will send a greeting card orcertificate to electors following their18th birthdays, congratulating themon attaining the right to vote andencouraging them to register.

The Victoria Electoral Commissionsends a birthday card to electors ontheir 17th birthdays, congratulatingthem on being eligible for the provi-sional electoral roll, from which they

A number of election authorities havedeveloped political education materialspecifically targeted to increase registrationamong the youth electorate.


will automatically be placed on theelectoral roll upon reaching 18.On June 30, 2002, 16 percent of17-year-olds in Australia were onthe provisional roll, compared to27 percent of 17-year-olds in Victoria.Similarly, 56 percent of Australian18-year-olds were enrolled, comparedto 68 percent of those in Victoria.Therefore, this initiative appears toaccount for an increased enrolmentof approximately 10 percent of thoseeligible.5

On-line voter registration

The availability of personal computerswith very substantial storage capacity,coupled with increasingly reliable net-work connections with high bandwidthdata transmission, and high accessibilityto computers in homes, at schools andin many public places (such as Internetcafés, government offices and thelike), means that opportunities for anelectronically-based voter registrationsystem, or key elements of such asystem, are now available in a waythat was not the case even a decadeago. Canada is among the most “wired”countries in the world in terms ofcomputer usage, which makes it amongthe most desirable places to introduceon-line access to voter registration. Inview of the fact that young citizenstend to use the Internet more, on-linevoter registration systems are likely tobe particularly effective in increasingregistration among youth.

Various countries provide a range ofoptions for on-line voter registration.At one end of the continuum, ElectionsNew Zealand provides the most directand interactive on-line voter registra-tion system, at www.elections.org.nz.The elector may receive informationabout the registration process, checkand change his or her registration

information, register for the first time,or re-register after leaving the registerfor a period.

In Australia, while registration formsfor all states are available on the AECWeb site,6 the elector must first printand complete the form and then sendit to the state or district enrolmentoffice through the postal service or byfax, or deliver the form in person. Inaddition to the extra step of printingand posting the form, Australian

enrolment forms require that anelector who is eligible to be enrolledwitness the completed form. Thislatter requirement makes on-lineregistration much more difficult,particularly since the witness guaran-tee is provided through the witness’signature. In addition, unlike theNew Zealand case, the AEC does notprovide electors with the option ofchecking their registrations on-line.While the electoral roll is considereda public document, it is not availableon-line, but rather through the AEC’sState Head Office or DivisionalOffices. Furthermore, requests todetermine whether an elector isenrolled must be made by the electorhim- or herself, and must be made inwriting, including a signature on therequest form. Thus, the high valueplaced on the security of the electoralroll and the use of strict procedures toguard against potential electoral fraudhave, in Australia, limited the full useof on-line registration.

The recently created ElectoralCommission of the United Kingdom,as one of its first initiatives, has alsoput in place on-line voter registrationforms for British electors.7 As in theAustralian case, the forms must beprinted and completed, with signaturebut without a witness, and sent to thedistrict enrolment office. There is noprovision for the elector to check hisor her registration information on-line,and there is a relatively lengthy period(seven weeks) for the processing of

registration informa-tion. One of themain reasons forthe absence of com-pletely interactiveon-line registrationis the highly decen-tralized character ofthe electoral register.Should the proposal

by the Electoral Commission for anational electronic register be realized,the on-line registration system that islimited to making forms available,rather than providing full interactiveregistration, likely will also be revisited.The recent announcement of thetargeted youth registration initiativeby Elections Canada suggests a phase-in process. The first phase, similar tothe Australian and British cases, willbe to provide downloadable formsfrom the Elections Canada Web site.In addition, Elections Canada hasindicated a commitment to seek themeans to implement full on-lineregistration. It can be expected thatthe latter initiative will have thegreatest effect in increasing youthregistration.

Special events

A particularly novel approach to con-tacting young electors is to host eventsthat appeal to that age group, and to

Canada is among the most “wired” countriesin the world in terms of computer usage,which makes it among the most desirableplaces to introduce on-line access to voterregistration.

provisional list and, in the state ofVictoria, fully 27 percent of 17-year-olds are on the provisional list.2 It issignificant that the Victoria ElectoralCommission sends birthday cards andenrolment forms to individuals ontheir 17th birthdays, an issue to whichwe return below.3

School-based registrationdrives

It has become increasingly popular fortargeted youth enrolment activities toinclude a campaign for university andcollege campuses. One novel methodused in Australia, and related to theexistence of a provisional list of elec-tors for 17-year-olds, is to enter intoagreements with high schools for regis-tration activities. The election authoritypays a small per capita amount offunding to the school, based on thenumber of students at the school whoare on the list of electors. The advan-tage of this arrangement, coupled withthe existence of a provisional list ofelectors, is that the registration effortcan take place in high schools, inaddition to universities and colleges.The high school setting is more

advantageous, because high schoolenrolments are much higher thanpost-secondary enrolments and, there-fore, the targeted campaign has a morecomprehensive reach. In addition,within high schools, it is possible tointroduce a political education campaigninto a civics curriculum that is offeredto all students, which simply is not

possible in post-secondary settings.Without the existence of a provisionallist of electors for 17-year-olds, a regis-tration drive in high schools is likelyto be much less effective, since a largeproportion of students would not be ofvoting age.

A number of election authorities havedeveloped political education materialspecifically targeted to increase regis-tration among the youth electorate.In its review of practices of the AEC,the Australian National Audit Officerecommended the AEC collaboratewith educational authorities to developcurricular materials aimed at increasingthe proportion of young electorsenrolled.4 Elections Canada recentlyconcluded a partnership arrangementwith the Cable in the Classroom ini-tiative to encourage youth to preparepublic service announcements topromote participation by their peers.

Even without the move to develop aprovisional list of electors, and to directenrolment activities in the high schools,many election authorities have initiatedregistration activities on university andcollege campuses. Since most universi-

ties include politicalclubs and also fea-ture a “clubs week”each year (normallyduring the earlyfall), one strategywould be to engagethese clubs in effortsto publicize voter

registration efforts. While this has theadvantage of operating within a previ-ously scheduled event, the drawbackis that the registration effort of anyparticular club could be inspired as muchby the desire for partisan advantage asby a sense of civic-mindedness in pro-viding equal opportunities for all eligibleyoung electors to register. An alternative,

and probably preferable strategy, isto hold such events separate from thepolitical clubs, either on an annual basis,or in the revision period preceding anelectoral event. While this strategy hasobvious staffing implications for theelection authority, some electionauthorities have found it sufficientlyeffective to justify the additionalexpenditure.

Birthday cards

There are a variety of ways in which anelection authority may become awarethat an elector has achieved votingage – for example, through data filesshared with a motor transport authority,a tax authority or some other civicauthority. In some instances, thisinformation is used to generate amail-out to electors coming of votingage, which may also include politicaleducation material, and possibly avoter registration application. Thisapproach personalizes communicationwith the elector, provides him or herwith information important to a citizen,and also facilitates the completion ofthe registration process. As a first con-tact with the newly eligible elector, italso is a very cost-effective strategy,and could be used either with a provi-sional list of electors (card sent uponreaching 17 years of age), or a regularlist (card sent at 18 years). In hisMarch 2003 announcement, the ChiefElectoral Officer of Canada indicatedthat he will send a greeting card orcertificate to electors following their18th birthdays, congratulating themon attaining the right to vote andencouraging them to register.

The Victoria Electoral Commissionsends a birthday card to electors ontheir 17th birthdays, congratulatingthem on being eligible for the provi-sional electoral roll, from which they

A number of election authorities havedeveloped political education materialspecifically targeted to increase registrationamong the youth electorate.


Marketing Voter Participationto the MuchMusic Generation

Phillip HaidAccount Director, Manifest Communications

On a recent flight to Winnipeg, I was sitting next toa 22-year-old from a small town in Ontario, where heworks for an agricultural equipment manufacturer. It washis first time on a commercial airplane and he was a bitnervous about flying. We struck up a conversation andonce we got past pleasantries about the weather, flying,and mosquitoes in Winnipeg, we settled on moreengaging topics, such as the war in Iraq, SARS andCanadian politics.

I asked my seatmate what he thought of Canadianpoliticians and whether he voted in the past federal orprovincial elections. He informed me that he had not(adding that none of his friends ever thought about voting),and offered the following advice: “We need to go back tothe times of ancient Greece, because the Greeks under-stood what it meant to be democratic. They understoodthe need to talk to citizens and make politics relevant tothe average guy.”

His insight highlighted a key to the lack of voter participa-tion among young people: relevance. Young Canadians donot find the act of voting very enticing. And while it istrue that a large majority of youth is not very politicallyand civilly literate, this should not be used as an excuse toavoid the challenge of making politics more engaging toyoung people. Quite the opposite is true. It is up to govern-ments, non-profit organizations and corporations to helpreinvigorate young people’s interest in the political systemso that voting becomes an expression of their democraticbeliefs and actions. Voting, as a recognized form of partici-patory democracy, must be re-learned. It must become ahabit for all young Canadians.

The goal of this article is to provide some ideas on how tore-establish political relevance and lead young Canadiansback to the ballot box. The article will explore three mainquestions: Why aren’t young people voting? What can be doneto reverse the trend? How should it be accomplished?

Tuned out and turned off: Why youngCanadians are not voting

The vast majority of young Canadians (those between theages of 18 and 24) do not vote. In the last federal election,only 25.4 percent of eligible young voters showed up, thelowest turnout in Canadian history.1 The most commonlyexpressed explanation from journalists, pundits and youngpeople themselves is cynicism – distrust of politicians anda belief that voting will not make a difference. While it istrue that cynicism plays a role in declining youth voterturnout, it is not the driving force. In fact, research showsthat youth are no more cynical about government or politicsthan older people.2


Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

weave registration activities into anevent that youth are attending forother purposes. This strategy is used inNew Zealand. The election authoritysponsors music concerts and festivals,at which the host and entertainersencourage attendees to complete voterregistration forms that are provided bythe election authority at booths ortables. Although information on thecost-per-enrolment for this initiative isnot available, a personal communica-tion with an official in New Zealanddescribed it as “highly effective”. Avariation on this approach would befor the election authority to providepartial sponsorship for the hosting ofyouth-oriented entertainment events, inexchange for having the contributionacknowledged and the opportunity forthe organizers, host and entertainers tohighlight registration activity.

Conclusion

Young people in a wide range ofcountries have long displayed lowerlevels of participation in conventional,system-supporting political activitiessuch as voting. There are a number

of explanations for this pattern –greater residential mobility, lessestablished patterns of voting andweaker attachments to the community,among others. It is likely this patternwill persist. That is not to suggest,however, that one should be compla-cent. Adjusting administrativearrangements to lead to fewerdiscrepancies in voter registration,and in political participation, isadvantageous to the individual electorand to the political system. While

eliminating variation in levels ofparticipation across groups in societymay not be an achievable outcome,implementing best practices tomitigate those variations is asensible strategy for the electionauthority.

1. See “Chief Electoral Officer of CanadaAnnounces Measures to Address Declinein Voter Turnout Among Youth” [on-linemedia release], Elections Canada(March 21, 2003) at www.elections.ca.

2. Unpublished data provided by AustralianElectoral Commission, “Youth EnrolmentStatistics: Enrolment by Age as a Percentageof Population, 30 June 2002”.

3. Unpublished data provided by AustralianElectoral Commission, “Youth Enrolment”(no date).

4. “Australian Electoral Commission:Integrity of the Electoral Roll,” [on-linereport], Australian National Audit Office,Canberra (2002) at www.anao.gov.au.

5. Unpublished data provided by AustralianElectoral Commission, “Youth EnrolmentStatistics, 2002.”

6. See Electoral Enrolment Forms atwww.aec.gov.au/_content/what/enrolment/forms.htm.

7. See www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/your-vote/rollingreg.cfm.

NOTES

On April 6, 2003, several thousand young people attended a Rush the Vote block party inOttawa, which featured many solo artists, bands and speakers who encouraged them to getinvolved in political and social causes.

Phot

o: W

ayn

e Bro

wn


Marketing Voter Participationto the MuchMusic Generation

Phillip HaidAccount Director, Manifest Communications

On a recent flight to Winnipeg, I was sitting next toa 22-year-old from a small town in Ontario, where heworks for an agricultural equipment manufacturer. It washis first time on a commercial airplane and he was a bitnervous about flying. We struck up a conversation andonce we got past pleasantries about the weather, flying,and mosquitoes in Winnipeg, we settled on moreengaging topics, such as the war in Iraq, SARS andCanadian politics.

I asked my seatmate what he thought of Canadianpoliticians and whether he voted in the past federal orprovincial elections. He informed me that he had not(adding that none of his friends ever thought about voting),and offered the following advice: “We need to go back tothe times of ancient Greece, because the Greeks under-stood what it meant to be democratic. They understoodthe need to talk to citizens and make politics relevant tothe average guy.”

His insight highlighted a key to the lack of voter participa-tion among young people: relevance. Young Canadians donot find the act of voting very enticing. And while it istrue that a large majority of youth is not very politicallyand civilly literate, this should not be used as an excuse toavoid the challenge of making politics more engaging toyoung people. Quite the opposite is true. It is up to govern-ments, non-profit organizations and corporations to helpreinvigorate young people’s interest in the political systemso that voting becomes an expression of their democraticbeliefs and actions. Voting, as a recognized form of partici-patory democracy, must be re-learned. It must become ahabit for all young Canadians.

The goal of this article is to provide some ideas on how tore-establish political relevance and lead young Canadiansback to the ballot box. The article will explore three mainquestions: Why aren’t young people voting? What can be doneto reverse the trend? How should it be accomplished?

Tuned out and turned off: Why youngCanadians are not voting

The vast majority of young Canadians (those between theages of 18 and 24) do not vote. In the last federal election,only 25.4 percent of eligible young voters showed up, thelowest turnout in Canadian history.1 The most commonlyexpressed explanation from journalists, pundits and youngpeople themselves is cynicism – distrust of politicians anda belief that voting will not make a difference. While it istrue that cynicism plays a role in declining youth voterturnout, it is not the driving force. In fact, research showsthat youth are no more cynical about government or politicsthan older people.2


Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

weave registration activities into anevent that youth are attending forother purposes. This strategy is used inNew Zealand. The election authoritysponsors music concerts and festivals,at which the host and entertainersencourage attendees to complete voterregistration forms that are provided bythe election authority at booths ortables. Although information on thecost-per-enrolment for this initiative isnot available, a personal communica-tion with an official in New Zealanddescribed it as “highly effective”. Avariation on this approach would befor the election authority to providepartial sponsorship for the hosting ofyouth-oriented entertainment events, inexchange for having the contributionacknowledged and the opportunity forthe organizers, host and entertainers tohighlight registration activity.

Conclusion

Young people in a wide range ofcountries have long displayed lowerlevels of participation in conventional,system-supporting political activitiessuch as voting. There are a number

of explanations for this pattern –greater residential mobility, lessestablished patterns of voting andweaker attachments to the community,among others. It is likely this patternwill persist. That is not to suggest,however, that one should be compla-cent. Adjusting administrativearrangements to lead to fewerdiscrepancies in voter registration,and in political participation, isadvantageous to the individual electorand to the political system. While

eliminating variation in levels ofparticipation across groups in societymay not be an achievable outcome,implementing best practices tomitigate those variations is asensible strategy for the electionauthority.

1. See “Chief Electoral Officer of CanadaAnnounces Measures to Address Declinein Voter Turnout Among Youth” [on-linemedia release], Elections Canada(March 21, 2003) at www.elections.ca.

2. Unpublished data provided by AustralianElectoral Commission, “Youth EnrolmentStatistics: Enrolment by Age as a Percentageof Population, 30 June 2002”.

3. Unpublished data provided by AustralianElectoral Commission, “Youth Enrolment”(no date).

4. “Australian Electoral Commission:Integrity of the Electoral Roll,” [on-linereport], Australian National Audit Office,Canberra (2002) at www.anao.gov.au.

5. Unpublished data provided by AustralianElectoral Commission, “Youth EnrolmentStatistics, 2002.”

6. See Electoral Enrolment Forms atwww.aec.gov.au/_content/what/enrolment/forms.htm.

7. See www.electoralcommission.gov.uk/your-vote/rollingreg.cfm.

NOTES

On April 6, 2003, several thousand young people attended a Rush the Vote block party inOttawa, which featured many solo artists, bands and speakers who encouraged them to getinvolved in political and social causes.

Phot

o: W

ayn

e Bro

wn


same age. If this holds true, the lackof interest in voting today will affectCanadian democracy for generationsto come.

Reversing the trend

The solution to reversing the “genera-tional effect” lies with engaging myAir Canada seatmate and others likehim. Selling voter participation toyoung people requires a different frameof reference. It is about hearts, notminds. It is about a new way ofapproaching the problem. Small,incremental steps will not suffice.Large-scale behaviour change is needed.Rational arguments that highlight theimportance of exercising one’s demo-cratic rights will not carry the sameweight as values-based arguments andinitiatives that speak directly to young

people’s sense of self and identity.Participatory democracy must becomea way of life. Voting must be seen aspart of that lifestyle.

Behaviour change occurs not becausepeople suddenly understand moreabout an issue, but because theywant to see themselves differentlyin relation to it. When Canadiansbegan recycling in the late 1980s andearly 1990s, it was not because theysuddenly understood more about theeffects of waste. People began torecycle because a social dynamicwas created, in which the Blue Boxbecame the visual badge of being a

right-minded citizen. People felt goodabout contributing positively to theenvironment and nobody wanted tobe the only one in the neighbour-hood who was not recycling.

Voter participation requires thecreation of a new social norm, sothat young people see value in votingand wear their participation in thepolitical process as a badge of theiridentity.

Creating this new civic norm is achallenge, given that young Canadiansare not a homogenous group and effortsaimed at increasing voter participationtend to occur only at election time.Election-driven efforts are likely tomotivate only those who are alreadyinterested, and may breed cynicismamong those who are not. The election

period is too shorta time to persuadeyoung Canadiansthat voting is aworthwhile thingto do. This is whythe time betweenelections countsmost. That is whenpolitical parties,

government departments and agencies,non-profits and corporations should beharnessing their resources and talentstogether to create a new norm for civicparticipation.

Because of the disconnection betweenhow young people perceive voting andother civic activities, the creation ofthis norm must be linked to the under-lying value of voting. Voting is notseen as part of the same spectrum ofactivities as volunteering, protesting,giving money to charities or signingpetitions. Young people do not valuethe act of voting as an opportunity ora tool to express and assert their voices.

For whom one votes, or whetherone’s preferred candidate is elected,is secondary to the act of expression,much in the same way that the act ofprotest is as or more important thanthe outcome.

Voting also lacks a personal connectionbecause most young Canadians arenot aware of and have never met thepeople who represent them at themunicipal, provincial and federallevels. Elected officials are a mysteryto young people. There is little under-standing of what they do, why they doit and how government works. Part ofthe reason for this is that, by and large,elected officials do not reach out toyoung people and if they do, it isusually at election time – a verytransparent gesture from the stand-point of the young electorate.

If, as a society, we are interested inencouraging greater voter turnoutamong young Canadians, efforts haveto be made by all sectors and in a waythat is relevant to youth. Youngpeople must be encouraged, exposedto and persuaded toward a differentapproach – one in which they areaware of all the tools of civic engage-ment at their disposal, and believethat utilizing these tools can make adifference.

Ideas for engaging youngvoters: A social marketingperspective

Increasing youth voter turnout requiresa conscious and deliberate approach tocreating social change. From a socialmarketing perspective, a voter outreachprogram would involve the followingfour elements: knowledge generation andunderstanding, social climate-settingactivities, education and outreach, andpolicy initiatives.

Lack of political and civic knowledgeOne of the key drivers of low youthvoter turnout is lack of political andcivic knowledge. Several studies havepointed to young people’s low levels ofawareness about government, politics,history and current events.3 A surveyin 2000 conducted by the Institute forResearch on Public Policy found thatover 50 percent of young adults do notfollow politics closely.4

What has led to this lack of civic knowl-edge among young people? Schoolshave not focused enough attention

and importance on civics education inthe curriculum. Government depart-ments and agencies have not had thenecessary financial support to mountwide-ranging multimedia campaignsbetween elections to promote theimportance of voter/civic engagement.Political parties and elected officialshave not made major efforts to engageyoung people in meaningful and ongoingdialogue. Parents are not discussingpolitics and civic engagement as muchas is perhaps necessary. And, finally,youth are not seeking to know moreabout the political system. The resultis that young adults are to a greatextent “tuned out” of politics andgovernment, making the relevance ofvoting a difficult proposition to sell.

Lack of trust and confidenceOther reasons for low voter turnoutreflect the “turned off” arguments oftencited in the media. It is claimed thatyoung people are not interested inpolitics and government because theydistrust politicians and the political

system, and do not believe that theirvotes will make a difference. Forexample, in national focus groups con-ducted for Communication Canada in2001, the common lament from youngCanadians was the lack of politicalleadership to inspire and help youth tobelieve there is something and someoneworth voting for. Recent governmentscandals surrounding improper contract-ing and misuse of money have onlyhelped fuel this perception. The lack ofinterest is also generated by a perceptionthat government does not understandyoung people’s needs and interests.

This was confirmedby CommunicationCanada’s Listening toCanadians: Focus onYoung Adults report(2002), which indi-cated that 70 percent

of young adults do not believe that thefederal government understands whatis desirable to them.

GlobalizationGlobalization has also widened thegap between young people and politi-cal institutions, negatively affectingvoter turnout. In a multimediauniverse where information is soprevalent, many young adults arebecoming “over-informed and under-engaged”. The multiplicity of issues,concerns and causes creates a form ofparalysis, causing young people to feelthere is too much to deal with and notenough time to do anything of realvalue.5

Globalization has also created aworld where commercial brands andmarketed lifestyles tend to dominatethe minds of young adults. Corporationsspend more money to shape attitudesand behaviours than governments; as aresult, young people have grown up ina marketing-driven, consumer culture,

where the relevance of government ismarginalized. Molson, Labatt, Roots,Tim Horton’s and Canadian Tire areall helping to define what it meansto be Canadian. If this situationcontinues to hold, why should youngadults bother to vote, when consumerdecisions define the values landscape?While this may be overstated, govern-ments need to become more effectiveat marketing and communicationsaimed at young people. Recent find-ings show that 62 percent of youngadults do not believe that the federalgovernment does a good job communi-cating to them.6

Transitional stage of lifeYoung adults are also naturally lessinclined to vote during the transitionalstage of life between the ages of 18and 24. They are busy finding a job,enrolling in university or college,moving out of their parents’ houses,travelling, getting married, buyingtheir first homes and having children.They are in a highly mobile, turbulentphase, dealing with the tension ofexpressing their individuality, whilealso wanting to fit in and conform.Politics and voting fall low on thepriority list of “to-dos”.

Generational effect“Tuned out” and “turned off” youngCanadians may not simply be goingthrough a life cycle phase that willimprove as they get older, pay taxesand become more rooted in thecommunity. Troubling evidence,highlighted by leading academics(Jon Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc,Brenda O’Neill, André Blais andothers), seems to show a “genera-tional” effect. Young adults today arenot showing signs of becoming morelikely to vote as they age and are, infact, voting less than their grand-parents did when they were the

Political parties and elected officials havenot made major efforts to engage youngpeople in meaningful and ongoing dialogue.

Voter participation requires the creation ofa new social norm, so that young people seevalue in voting and wear their participationin the political process as a badge of theiridentity.


same age. If this holds true, the lackof interest in voting today will affectCanadian democracy for generationsto come.

Reversing the trend

The solution to reversing the “genera-tional effect” lies with engaging myAir Canada seatmate and others likehim. Selling voter participation toyoung people requires a different frameof reference. It is about hearts, notminds. It is about a new way ofapproaching the problem. Small,incremental steps will not suffice.Large-scale behaviour change is needed.Rational arguments that highlight theimportance of exercising one’s demo-cratic rights will not carry the sameweight as values-based arguments andinitiatives that speak directly to young

people’s sense of self and identity.Participatory democracy must becomea way of life. Voting must be seen aspart of that lifestyle.

Behaviour change occurs not becausepeople suddenly understand moreabout an issue, but because theywant to see themselves differentlyin relation to it. When Canadiansbegan recycling in the late 1980s andearly 1990s, it was not because theysuddenly understood more about theeffects of waste. People began torecycle because a social dynamicwas created, in which the Blue Boxbecame the visual badge of being a

right-minded citizen. People felt goodabout contributing positively to theenvironment and nobody wanted tobe the only one in the neighbour-hood who was not recycling.

Voter participation requires thecreation of a new social norm, sothat young people see value in votingand wear their participation in thepolitical process as a badge of theiridentity.

Creating this new civic norm is achallenge, given that young Canadiansare not a homogenous group and effortsaimed at increasing voter participationtend to occur only at election time.Election-driven efforts are likely tomotivate only those who are alreadyinterested, and may breed cynicismamong those who are not. The election

period is too shorta time to persuadeyoung Canadiansthat voting is aworthwhile thingto do. This is whythe time betweenelections countsmost. That is whenpolitical parties,

government departments and agencies,non-profits and corporations should beharnessing their resources and talentstogether to create a new norm for civicparticipation.

Because of the disconnection betweenhow young people perceive voting andother civic activities, the creation ofthis norm must be linked to the under-lying value of voting. Voting is notseen as part of the same spectrum ofactivities as volunteering, protesting,giving money to charities or signingpetitions. Young people do not valuethe act of voting as an opportunity ora tool to express and assert their voices.

For whom one votes, or whetherone’s preferred candidate is elected,is secondary to the act of expression,much in the same way that the act ofprotest is as or more important thanthe outcome.

Voting also lacks a personal connectionbecause most young Canadians arenot aware of and have never met thepeople who represent them at themunicipal, provincial and federallevels. Elected officials are a mysteryto young people. There is little under-standing of what they do, why they doit and how government works. Part ofthe reason for this is that, by and large,elected officials do not reach out toyoung people and if they do, it isusually at election time – a verytransparent gesture from the stand-point of the young electorate.

If, as a society, we are interested inencouraging greater voter turnoutamong young Canadians, efforts haveto be made by all sectors and in a waythat is relevant to youth. Youngpeople must be encouraged, exposedto and persuaded toward a differentapproach – one in which they areaware of all the tools of civic engage-ment at their disposal, and believethat utilizing these tools can make adifference.

Ideas for engaging youngvoters: A social marketingperspective

Increasing youth voter turnout requiresa conscious and deliberate approach tocreating social change. From a socialmarketing perspective, a voter outreachprogram would involve the followingfour elements: knowledge generation andunderstanding, social climate-settingactivities, education and outreach, andpolicy initiatives.

Lack of political and civic knowledgeOne of the key drivers of low youthvoter turnout is lack of political andcivic knowledge. Several studies havepointed to young people’s low levels ofawareness about government, politics,history and current events.3 A surveyin 2000 conducted by the Institute forResearch on Public Policy found thatover 50 percent of young adults do notfollow politics closely.4

What has led to this lack of civic knowl-edge among young people? Schoolshave not focused enough attention

and importance on civics education inthe curriculum. Government depart-ments and agencies have not had thenecessary financial support to mountwide-ranging multimedia campaignsbetween elections to promote theimportance of voter/civic engagement.Political parties and elected officialshave not made major efforts to engageyoung people in meaningful and ongoingdialogue. Parents are not discussingpolitics and civic engagement as muchas is perhaps necessary. And, finally,youth are not seeking to know moreabout the political system. The resultis that young adults are to a greatextent “tuned out” of politics andgovernment, making the relevance ofvoting a difficult proposition to sell.

Lack of trust and confidenceOther reasons for low voter turnoutreflect the “turned off” arguments oftencited in the media. It is claimed thatyoung people are not interested inpolitics and government because theydistrust politicians and the political

system, and do not believe that theirvotes will make a difference. Forexample, in national focus groups con-ducted for Communication Canada in2001, the common lament from youngCanadians was the lack of politicalleadership to inspire and help youth tobelieve there is something and someoneworth voting for. Recent governmentscandals surrounding improper contract-ing and misuse of money have onlyhelped fuel this perception. The lack ofinterest is also generated by a perceptionthat government does not understandyoung people’s needs and interests.

This was confirmedby CommunicationCanada’s Listening toCanadians: Focus onYoung Adults report(2002), which indi-cated that 70 percent

of young adults do not believe that thefederal government understands whatis desirable to them.

GlobalizationGlobalization has also widened thegap between young people and politi-cal institutions, negatively affectingvoter turnout. In a multimediauniverse where information is soprevalent, many young adults arebecoming “over-informed and under-engaged”. The multiplicity of issues,concerns and causes creates a form ofparalysis, causing young people to feelthere is too much to deal with and notenough time to do anything of realvalue.5

Globalization has also created aworld where commercial brands andmarketed lifestyles tend to dominatethe minds of young adults. Corporationsspend more money to shape attitudesand behaviours than governments; as aresult, young people have grown up ina marketing-driven, consumer culture,

where the relevance of government ismarginalized. Molson, Labatt, Roots,Tim Horton’s and Canadian Tire areall helping to define what it meansto be Canadian. If this situationcontinues to hold, why should youngadults bother to vote, when consumerdecisions define the values landscape?While this may be overstated, govern-ments need to become more effectiveat marketing and communicationsaimed at young people. Recent find-ings show that 62 percent of youngadults do not believe that the federalgovernment does a good job communi-cating to them.6

Transitional stage of lifeYoung adults are also naturally lessinclined to vote during the transitionalstage of life between the ages of 18and 24. They are busy finding a job,enrolling in university or college,moving out of their parents’ houses,travelling, getting married, buyingtheir first homes and having children.They are in a highly mobile, turbulentphase, dealing with the tension ofexpressing their individuality, whilealso wanting to fit in and conform.Politics and voting fall low on thepriority list of “to-dos”.

Generational effect“Tuned out” and “turned off” youngCanadians may not simply be goingthrough a life cycle phase that willimprove as they get older, pay taxesand become more rooted in thecommunity. Troubling evidence,highlighted by leading academics(Jon Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc,Brenda O’Neill, André Blais andothers), seems to show a “genera-tional” effect. Young adults today arenot showing signs of becoming morelikely to vote as they age and are, infact, voting less than their grand-parents did when they were the

Political parties and elected officials havenot made major efforts to engage youngpeople in meaningful and ongoing dialogue.

Voter participation requires the creation ofa new social norm, so that young people seevalue in voting and wear their participationin the political process as a badge of theiridentity.


turnout. Voter education materialstailored to youth organizations shouldbe developed for their use when hostingconferences and running programs.

Elected officials and their politicalparties need to become more proactivein their outreach toward young peopleas well. They need to recognize thatengaging youth on issues of mutualconcern (violence, substance abuse,skill development, etc.) can be veryuseful in the development of programsand policies that affect their lives.Canadian corporations also have animportant role to play, given theirstrong “brand relationships” withyoung people. Labatt, VIA Rail, Rootsand Bell are only some of the Canadiancorporations whose young adult focusand community initiatives should beleveraged to promote voter participa-tion and generate greater momentum.

Classrooms are the other obviousplace to engage young people in voterparticipation. To do so, however,requires new civic materials thatpromote interactive, engaging, experi-ential learning. Guest speakers, fieldtrips, simulation games, films, debatesand hands-on projects that exposeyoung people to issues and politics in a

wide-ranging form will help to generateawareness of the world and community,and help to connect civic engagementwith voting in municipal, provincialand federal elections.

Policy initiativesIncreasing youth voter participationalso requires changes in policy to bringabout the desired social change. Therehas been discussion over the past20 years of reducing the voting age to16 as an incentive to encourage moreyoung Canadians to engage in thepolitical process. Many have arguedthat if young people are responsibleenough to drive a car at 16, they shouldbe allowed to vote. Exploring thisissue, as well as others related to voterregistration and on-line voting, areworthwhile endeavours that will gener-ate dialogue and debate among youngpeople.

Conclusion

To increase youth voter turnout, all fourelements of the social change dynamicoutlined above need to happen in anintegrated and integrating manner.However, it is essential to create theproper social climate to ensure thatother activities are properly supported

and momentum is created. To ensurethat the proper range and level of activ-ity are taking place, leadership must beseized by an organization that is willingto develop a coordinated plan to incor-porate the ideas and resources of playersfrom the public, private and non-profitsectors. Achieving greater civic andpolitical engagement among youngpeople requires a social marketingorientation, if we truly want to reversethe generational effect and forge a moreparticipatory democracy in which votingis a habit among the grandchildren ofthe MuchMusic generation.

1. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, keynote address toSymposium on Electoral Participation inCanada, Carleton University, Ottawa,March 21, 2003. The full text is availableat www.elections.ca under Media: SpecialEvents.

2. See Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc,“Explaining the Turnout Decline inCanadian Federal Elections: A NewSurvey of Non-voters” [on-line researchreport], Elections Canada (March 2003),available at www.elections.ca underElectoral Law & Policy; Brenda O’Neill,“Generational Patterns in the PoliticalOpinions and Behaviours of Canadians,”

Policy Matters Vol. 2, No. 5 (October2001); and André Blais, ElisabethGidengil, Richard Nadeau and NeilNevitte, Anatomy of a Liberal Victory:Making Sense of the 2000 Canadian Election(Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press,2002), chapter 3.

3. See Blais, Gidengil, Nadeau and Nevitte(2002); Paul Howe, “Where have all thevoters gone?” Inroads Vol. 12 (winter/spring 2003); and the Centre for Researchand Information on Canada (CRIC),“Voter Participation in Canada: IsCanadian Democracy in Crisis?” CRICPaper #3 (October 2001).

4. Paul Howe and David Northrup,“Strengthening Canadian Democracy:The Views of Canadians,” Institute forResearch on Public Policy (2000).

5. D-Code and the Canadian Centre forSocial Entrepreneurship, “Social Vision:Young Adult Perspectives on Social andCivic Responsibility” (April 2001).

6. Communication Canada, “Listening toCanadians: Focus on Young Adults”(January 2002).

NOTES

Knowledge generationand understandingReaching young Canadians requiresa deep understanding of their attitudesand behaviours. Since they are not ahomogenous group, segmentation iskey. What motivates a youngAboriginal person in rural Saskatchewanis different from what motivates amiddle-class youth from Toronto.Understanding the difference isnecessary if voter outreach efforts areto be successful in different parts ofthe country.

Risk taking is also necessary to betterunderstand what might work withyoung people. While there have beenmany studies on participation ratesand the reasons for low voter turnout,very little has been done to test inno-vative techniques to improve voterparticipation. Easing access to partici-pation through on-line registration andelectronic voting may improve partici-pation rates. Placing polling booths inareas and at events where young peopleare likely to be – universities, shoppingmalls, YMCAs, community centres andconcerts – may help improve voterparticipation. And efforts by politicalparties to communicate with youngvoters through text messaging, e-mailcampaigns and face-to-face meetings

should also be attempted. None ofthese initiatives may ultimately besuccessful, but there is no way ofknowing unless governments andpolitical parties are willing to takesome risks.

Social climate-settingRock the Vote in the United States isa good example of creating the rightsocial climate around youth voterparticipation. Through the use ofmusic and pop culture, the campaignhas been able to generate a climatewhere voting is perceived as somethingthat “cool” people do. Participaction isanother example of a social climate-setting campaign that did an excellentjob of raising Canadians’ awareness ofthe need to be more active.

We need nothing short of a Participactioncampaign for youth voter turnout.Creating the right climate, in whichCanadian youth value the act of voting,requires the creation of a new societalnorm. How this is accomplished iscritical. Motherhood statements aboutthe importance of voting are notacceptable. Rather, breakthroughadvertising and programming are nec-essary to create an energy and momen-tum with which various segments ofthe youth population can identify. The

message needs to besent throughout theyear and duringnon-election years.It also should comefrom an entity atarm’s length fromgovernment. Youngpeople have tobelieve in theauthors of the mes-sage, and currentlynon-profit organiza-tions have moreacceptability than

government or corporations for thistype of social message. No nationalnon-profit organization exists solely topromote voter participation amongCanadian youth, and one should becreated.

There are limits to social climate-setting,however. It cannot, on its own, sustainattitudinal and behavioural shiftswithout local, community-basedprograms to bring the ideas and valuesto life. Participaction ultimately failedbecause it did not have the properprograms on the ground.

Education and outreachThe greatest untapped resource forengaging young people in the politicalprocess is young people. Thousands ofyouth organizations exist throughoutthe country to influence change at thelocal, provincial and national levels.Each of these organizations has a con-stituency of young Canadians that itreaches and with whom it interacts ona frequent basis. Yet very few effortshave been made by government depart-ments and agencies to engage thesegroups and use them as vehicles todisseminate information and resourcesthat promote voter engagement. Youthround tables should be created toexplore better ways to improve voter

Phot

o: N

ichol

as

Sale

s

Placing polling booths in areas and at events where young peopleare likely to be – universities, shopping malls, YMCAs, communitycentres and concerts – may help improve voter participation.

The Web site of the Rock the Vote organization(in the United States) is located at www.rockthevote.org/index2.html.

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

If young people are old enough to obtaina driver’s licence, are they also old enoughto vote?


turnout. Voter education materialstailored to youth organizations shouldbe developed for their use when hostingconferences and running programs.

Elected officials and their politicalparties need to become more proactivein their outreach toward young peopleas well. They need to recognize thatengaging youth on issues of mutualconcern (violence, substance abuse,skill development, etc.) can be veryuseful in the development of programsand policies that affect their lives.Canadian corporations also have animportant role to play, given theirstrong “brand relationships” withyoung people. Labatt, VIA Rail, Rootsand Bell are only some of the Canadiancorporations whose young adult focusand community initiatives should beleveraged to promote voter participa-tion and generate greater momentum.

Classrooms are the other obviousplace to engage young people in voterparticipation. To do so, however,requires new civic materials thatpromote interactive, engaging, experi-ential learning. Guest speakers, fieldtrips, simulation games, films, debatesand hands-on projects that exposeyoung people to issues and politics in a

wide-ranging form will help to generateawareness of the world and community,and help to connect civic engagementwith voting in municipal, provincialand federal elections.

Policy initiativesIncreasing youth voter participationalso requires changes in policy to bringabout the desired social change. Therehas been discussion over the past20 years of reducing the voting age to16 as an incentive to encourage moreyoung Canadians to engage in thepolitical process. Many have arguedthat if young people are responsibleenough to drive a car at 16, they shouldbe allowed to vote. Exploring thisissue, as well as others related to voterregistration and on-line voting, areworthwhile endeavours that will gener-ate dialogue and debate among youngpeople.

Conclusion

To increase youth voter turnout, all fourelements of the social change dynamicoutlined above need to happen in anintegrated and integrating manner.However, it is essential to create theproper social climate to ensure thatother activities are properly supported

and momentum is created. To ensurethat the proper range and level of activ-ity are taking place, leadership must beseized by an organization that is willingto develop a coordinated plan to incor-porate the ideas and resources of playersfrom the public, private and non-profitsectors. Achieving greater civic andpolitical engagement among youngpeople requires a social marketingorientation, if we truly want to reversethe generational effect and forge a moreparticipatory democracy in which votingis a habit among the grandchildren ofthe MuchMusic generation.

1. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, keynote address toSymposium on Electoral Participation inCanada, Carleton University, Ottawa,March 21, 2003. The full text is availableat www.elections.ca under Media: SpecialEvents.

2. See Jon H. Pammett and Lawrence LeDuc,“Explaining the Turnout Decline inCanadian Federal Elections: A NewSurvey of Non-voters” [on-line researchreport], Elections Canada (March 2003),available at www.elections.ca underElectoral Law & Policy; Brenda O’Neill,“Generational Patterns in the PoliticalOpinions and Behaviours of Canadians,”

Policy Matters Vol. 2, No. 5 (October2001); and André Blais, ElisabethGidengil, Richard Nadeau and NeilNevitte, Anatomy of a Liberal Victory:Making Sense of the 2000 Canadian Election(Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press,2002), chapter 3.

3. See Blais, Gidengil, Nadeau and Nevitte(2002); Paul Howe, “Where have all thevoters gone?” Inroads Vol. 12 (winter/spring 2003); and the Centre for Researchand Information on Canada (CRIC),“Voter Participation in Canada: IsCanadian Democracy in Crisis?” CRICPaper #3 (October 2001).

4. Paul Howe and David Northrup,“Strengthening Canadian Democracy:The Views of Canadians,” Institute forResearch on Public Policy (2000).

5. D-Code and the Canadian Centre forSocial Entrepreneurship, “Social Vision:Young Adult Perspectives on Social andCivic Responsibility” (April 2001).

6. Communication Canada, “Listening toCanadians: Focus on Young Adults”(January 2002).

NOTES

Knowledge generationand understandingReaching young Canadians requiresa deep understanding of their attitudesand behaviours. Since they are not ahomogenous group, segmentation iskey. What motivates a youngAboriginal person in rural Saskatchewanis different from what motivates amiddle-class youth from Toronto.Understanding the difference isnecessary if voter outreach efforts areto be successful in different parts ofthe country.

Risk taking is also necessary to betterunderstand what might work withyoung people. While there have beenmany studies on participation ratesand the reasons for low voter turnout,very little has been done to test inno-vative techniques to improve voterparticipation. Easing access to partici-pation through on-line registration andelectronic voting may improve partici-pation rates. Placing polling booths inareas and at events where young peopleare likely to be – universities, shoppingmalls, YMCAs, community centres andconcerts – may help improve voterparticipation. And efforts by politicalparties to communicate with youngvoters through text messaging, e-mailcampaigns and face-to-face meetings

should also be attempted. None ofthese initiatives may ultimately besuccessful, but there is no way ofknowing unless governments andpolitical parties are willing to takesome risks.

Social climate-settingRock the Vote in the United States isa good example of creating the rightsocial climate around youth voterparticipation. Through the use ofmusic and pop culture, the campaignhas been able to generate a climatewhere voting is perceived as somethingthat “cool” people do. Participaction isanother example of a social climate-setting campaign that did an excellentjob of raising Canadians’ awareness ofthe need to be more active.

We need nothing short of a Participactioncampaign for youth voter turnout.Creating the right climate, in whichCanadian youth value the act of voting,requires the creation of a new societalnorm. How this is accomplished iscritical. Motherhood statements aboutthe importance of voting are notacceptable. Rather, breakthroughadvertising and programming are nec-essary to create an energy and momen-tum with which various segments ofthe youth population can identify. The

message needs to besent throughout theyear and duringnon-election years.It also should comefrom an entity atarm’s length fromgovernment. Youngpeople have tobelieve in theauthors of the mes-sage, and currentlynon-profit organiza-tions have moreacceptability than

government or corporations for thistype of social message. No nationalnon-profit organization exists solely topromote voter participation amongCanadian youth, and one should becreated.

There are limits to social climate-setting,however. It cannot, on its own, sustainattitudinal and behavioural shiftswithout local, community-basedprograms to bring the ideas and valuesto life. Participaction ultimately failedbecause it did not have the properprograms on the ground.

Education and outreachThe greatest untapped resource forengaging young people in the politicalprocess is young people. Thousands ofyouth organizations exist throughoutthe country to influence change at thelocal, provincial and national levels.Each of these organizations has a con-stituency of young Canadians that itreaches and with whom it interacts ona frequent basis. Yet very few effortshave been made by government depart-ments and agencies to engage thesegroups and use them as vehicles todisseminate information and resourcesthat promote voter engagement. Youthround tables should be created toexplore better ways to improve voter

Phot

o: N

ichol

as

Sale

s

Placing polling booths in areas and at events where young peopleare likely to be – universities, shopping malls, YMCAs, communitycentres and concerts – may help improve voter participation.

The Web site of the Rock the Vote organization(in the United States) is located at www.rockthevote.org/index2.html.

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

If young people are old enough to obtaina driver’s licence, are they also old enoughto vote?


used by either side, to support oroppose lowering the voting age. Inthe end, the historical analysis revealsthat the observed changes resultprimarily from political will, usuallywithin Parliament, and with no realpublic debate.

This same ambivalence is found todayin newspaper articles, on Internet siteson democracy, and in Parliament.7 Forsome, the enthusiasm and zeal of the“young” would justify lowering thevoting age to the benefit of society as awhole; others, on the contrary, associate

the zeal of youth with excessive highspirits and an inexperience that callsfor the greatest caution. The youngare simply “not ready” to vote! Thereversibility of the arguments tends toshow the strictly political – althoughnot partisan8 – nature of the decisionsabout lowering the voting age. Politicsmay not be typically irrational, butit implies choices sometimes mademore or less independently of publicopinion.

There are, in fact, objective reasons forlowering the voting age today. Here iswhat those most concerned think.

“Am I ready to vote?”

Although the question did not takequite this form, this was, for all practicalpurposes, what the students of twoQuebec cities surveyed in 1990 and1998 (see Methodological Note) had toask themselves. Their answers follow,cross-referenced to certain factors thatilluminate them from a variety ofangles. We will comment on thembriefly, before concluding with somegeneral thoughts on the politicalparticipation of young people.

Table 1 shows that, in both 1990and 1998, a majority of the studentssurveyed were against giving the voteto 16-year-olds. Reflecting the receivedwisdom that young women are lessinterested in politics, the female stu-dents were more categorically againstthe idea than their male counterparts,with the gap even growing from1990 to 1998. In fact, the idea gaineda favourable majority among the boys(going from 47.0 percent to 51.9 per-cent), while the opposition amongthe girls gained a few points (from57.3 percent to 59.3 percent). It canalso be seen that opposition to theidea increases with age (Table 2),

Table 4: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Perceived Importance of Voting (percentages)1

You have to vote to make politics conform to your ideas

Agree completely/ Disagree completely/Somewhat Somewhat

Agree 45.5 41.5

N 726 82

1 This question was asked only in 1990.

Table 3: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Degree of Interest in Politics (percentages)

1990 survey 1998 survey

A lot/ Little/ A lot/ Little/Somewhat Not at all Somewhat Not at all

Agree 46.5 43.9 51.3 41.5

N 355 456 343 491

Table 1: Opinions on the Right to Vote at 16 Years of Age(percentages)1


Agree 44.0 45.5

Disagree 53.6 54.5

N 832 847

1 The total for the 1990 survey does not equal 100%, because 2.4% of the subjects did not answer

this question. In all the other tables, however, the distributions are based on the number of answers

actually recorded. Only the results of those respondents who said they agreed with the question or

statement are reported there.

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16

Table 2: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Level of Education (percentages)


Secondary IV Secondary V Secondary IV Secondary V

Agree 49.7 40.9 47.3 43.4

N 384 428 427 410

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16

How Old Is Old Enough to Vote?Youth Participation in Society

Raymond HudonProfessor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval

Bernard FournierAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland

According to a reductionist definition, a democratic societyis a society that has its citizens participate in major collec-tive decisions by granting the right to vote. Based on thisperspective, young electors, who are supposed to be lesslikely to show up at the polling station, have regularly beenthe subject of a whole range of questions. We are interestedhere in a specific aspect of the general problem: allowing16-year-olds to vote.

For over a decade, the subject has surfaced and resurfaced,without, however, leading to any change in the rules. In1990, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and PartyFinancing (Lortie Commission) studied the question andcommissioned specific research.1 At the final stage of writingtheir report, the members of the Commission decided againstproposing that the voting age be lowered. In the years thatfollowed, the question was raised again, occasionally sus-taining somewhat limited debate.2 Just recently, Quebec’sEstates General on the Reform of Democratic Institutionsconsidered the idea of lowering the voting age, but dismissedit: 58 percent of the participants opposed it. However, duringits most recent policy conference, in March 2003, the PartiQuébécois included in its program a referendum on theadvisability of giving the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.

This is not, of course, a burning issue; but it is not out ofthe realm of possibility either. Given the circumstances, itis worth putting this subject in perspective by recallingsome of the milestones that have marked the debates andthe changes made to the age at which we are entitled to

exercise our civil rights by voting. After noting that thedecisions are not made on the basis of absolute and purelyrational criteria, we bring into the discussion those mostimmediately concerned, young people between 16 and 18.We do so using the results of two surveys, conducted in 1990and 1998.3 Although they cannot be used to determinedefinitive positions, the observations made shed some lightand provide at least some food for thought.

Age, a socio-historical construct

Age is a socio-historical construct, the variants of whichare a function of the times and social contexts. The changesin the voting age illustrate this well.

In Canada, electoral rights have evolved considerably sincethe establishment of the first modern electoral system.4 Theprogress seems less obvious in the case of the threshold forthe age of majority: set at 21 at the time of Confederation,it has been changed only once at the federal level, in 1970.5

The disappearance of the poll tax, the abolition of discrim-ination based on sex or racial origin and the lowering ofthe age of majority all reflect a desire to expand the recog-nition of citizen authority.

Have the changes been rational? Were they, for example,brought about by some positive change in civil or criminallaw producing a review of the right to vote? To take one case,a study of the French parliamentary debates6 shows boththat the same arguments recur and that they can easily be



used by either side, to support oroppose lowering the voting age. Inthe end, the historical analysis revealsthat the observed changes resultprimarily from political will, usuallywithin Parliament, and with no realpublic debate.

This same ambivalence is found todayin newspaper articles, on Internet siteson democracy, and in Parliament.7 Forsome, the enthusiasm and zeal of the“young” would justify lowering thevoting age to the benefit of society as awhole; others, on the contrary, associate

the zeal of youth with excessive highspirits and an inexperience that callsfor the greatest caution. The youngare simply “not ready” to vote! Thereversibility of the arguments tends toshow the strictly political – althoughnot partisan8 – nature of the decisionsabout lowering the voting age. Politicsmay not be typically irrational, butit implies choices sometimes mademore or less independently of publicopinion.

There are, in fact, objective reasons forlowering the voting age today. Here iswhat those most concerned think.

“Am I ready to vote?”

Although the question did not takequite this form, this was, for all practicalpurposes, what the students of twoQuebec cities surveyed in 1990 and1998 (see Methodological Note) had toask themselves. Their answers follow,cross-referenced to certain factors thatilluminate them from a variety ofangles. We will comment on thembriefly, before concluding with somegeneral thoughts on the politicalparticipation of young people.

Table 1 shows that, in both 1990and 1998, a majority of the studentssurveyed were against giving the voteto 16-year-olds. Reflecting the receivedwisdom that young women are lessinterested in politics, the female stu-dents were more categorically againstthe idea than their male counterparts,with the gap even growing from1990 to 1998. In fact, the idea gaineda favourable majority among the boys(going from 47.0 percent to 51.9 per-cent), while the opposition amongthe girls gained a few points (from57.3 percent to 59.3 percent). It canalso be seen that opposition to theidea increases with age (Table 2),

Table 4: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Perceived Importance of Voting (percentages)1

You have to vote to make politics conform to your ideas

Agree completely/ Disagree completely/Somewhat Somewhat

Agree 45.5 41.5

N 726 82

1 This question was asked only in 1990.

Table 3: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Degree of Interest in Politics (percentages)


A lot/ Little/ A lot/ Little/Somewhat Not at all Somewhat Not at all

Agree 46.5 43.9 51.3 41.5

N 355 456 343 491

Table 1: Opinions on the Right to Vote at 16 Years of Age(percentages)1


Agree 44.0 45.5

Disagree 53.6 54.5

N 832 847

1 The total for the 1990 survey does not equal 100%, because 2.4% of the subjects did not answer

this question. In all the other tables, however, the distributions are based on the number of answers

actually recorded. Only the results of those respondents who said they agreed with the question or

statement are reported there.

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16

Table 2: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Level of Education (percentages)


Secondary IV Secondary V Secondary IV Secondary V

Agree 49.7 40.9 47.3 43.4

N 384 428 427 410

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16

How Old Is Old Enough to Vote?Youth Participation in Society

Raymond HudonProfessor, Department of Political Science, Université Laval

Bernard FournierAssistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Memorial University of Newfoundland

According to a reductionist definition, a democratic societyis a society that has its citizens participate in major collec-tive decisions by granting the right to vote. Based on thisperspective, young electors, who are supposed to be lesslikely to show up at the polling station, have regularly beenthe subject of a whole range of questions. We are interestedhere in a specific aspect of the general problem: allowing16-year-olds to vote.

For over a decade, the subject has surfaced and resurfaced,without, however, leading to any change in the rules. In1990, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and PartyFinancing (Lortie Commission) studied the question andcommissioned specific research.1 At the final stage of writingtheir report, the members of the Commission decided againstproposing that the voting age be lowered. In the years thatfollowed, the question was raised again, occasionally sus-taining somewhat limited debate.2 Just recently, Quebec’sEstates General on the Reform of Democratic Institutionsconsidered the idea of lowering the voting age, but dismissedit: 58 percent of the participants opposed it. However, duringits most recent policy conference, in March 2003, the PartiQuébécois included in its program a referendum on theadvisability of giving the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds.

This is not, of course, a burning issue; but it is not out ofthe realm of possibility either. Given the circumstances, itis worth putting this subject in perspective by recallingsome of the milestones that have marked the debates andthe changes made to the age at which we are entitled to

exercise our civil rights by voting. After noting that thedecisions are not made on the basis of absolute and purelyrational criteria, we bring into the discussion those mostimmediately concerned, young people between 16 and 18.We do so using the results of two surveys, conducted in 1990and 1998.3 Although they cannot be used to determinedefinitive positions, the observations made shed some lightand provide at least some food for thought.

Age, a socio-historical construct

Age is a socio-historical construct, the variants of whichare a function of the times and social contexts. The changesin the voting age illustrate this well.

In Canada, electoral rights have evolved considerably sincethe establishment of the first modern electoral system.4 Theprogress seems less obvious in the case of the threshold forthe age of majority: set at 21 at the time of Confederation,it has been changed only once at the federal level, in 1970.5

The disappearance of the poll tax, the abolition of discrim-ination based on sex or racial origin and the lowering ofthe age of majority all reflect a desire to expand the recog-nition of citizen authority.

Have the changes been rational? Were they, for example,brought about by some positive change in civil or criminallaw producing a review of the right to vote? To take one case,a study of the French parliamentary debates6 shows boththat the same arguments recur and that they can easily be



demonstrate to defend their ideas,” youhave a different attitude to loweringthe voting age (Table 6). The sametrends are evident when the opinionsare linked to the contrast betweencitizens as people who feel it is moreimportant to assert their rights, orpeople who feel it is more importantto fulfill their duties (Table 7). Finally,the partisans of order, who want a goodcitizen to “respect the law under anycircumstances,” are proportionally more

resistant to giving 16-year-olds the vote;this particular position is particularlyconspicuous since there is majoritysupport for the idea among those whofeel that a good citizen need not obeythe law when it seems unjust (Table 8).

In the same vein, it would seem onlylogical that a significant proportion ofthose in favour of the general statusquo (“Our society does not need majorchanges”) would oppose giving the

vote to 16-year-olds (Table 9). It ismore surprising that a majority, althougha smaller majority, of the much largergroup declaring itself in favour ofchange still oppose the idea.

In closing, there are two paradoxicalresults that we cannot leave unremarked.In 1990, participation in at least oneassociation reduced the opposition tolowering the voting age (Table 10).What is surprising is that, in 1998,opposition was highest among thosewho do participate. Another surprise:proportionately more, and in somecases a majority, of those peoplewith less confidence in a series of“institutions” (school, church,bureaucracy, politicians and media)accept the idea of 16-year-olds voting.One notable exception is the case ofpolitical parties in the 1990 survey(Table 11).

Conclusion

To sum up, the results presentedwill undoubtedly feed the oppositionto giving 16-year-olds the vote. Thus,it is worth noting that even a majorityof those 16 to 18 do not want the votefor those under 18. It should also benoted that there is a connectionbetween political involvement,certain conceptions of citizenship,and openness to such an idea.

Table 9: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Attitude to Change (percentages)1


Our society does not Our society does notneed major changes need major changes

Agree Disagree Agree completely/ Disagree somewhat/Somewhat Completely

Agree 34.3 46.3 40.2 46.8

N 108 697 169 666

1 The choice of responses is different in 1990 (agree and disagree) and 1998 (agree completely/

somewhat and disagree somewhat/completely).

Table 10: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Participation in an Association (percentages)


Not involved Involved in Not involved Involved inin any at least one in any at least one

Agree 40.5 47.8 47.7 44.4

N 304 508 258 579

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16

Table 11: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Amount of Confidence in… (percentages)1

School Church Bureaucracy Media Politicians Parties

Some Not Some Not Some Not Some Not Some Not Some Notmuch much much much much much

1990 Agree 41.6 61.6 41.8 49.7 42.4 50.6 44.9 45.2 41.7 47.2 45.9 44.6

N 671 138 488 320 536 269 483 325 345 458 283 522

1998 Agree 41.2 60.1 37.8 50.7 41.6 48.8 44.9 45.8 44.4 46.0 41.0 53.6

N 638 193 341 491 387 443 356 476 243 589 144 690

1 The options available to the respondents were some confidence or not much confidence.

Rightto voteat 16

Survey

although the gap seems to narrowover time: while 2.4 percent fewerSecondary IV students supportedthe idea in 1998, 2.5 percent moreSecondary V students did. Of

relatively limited political significance,it is reasonable to think that theseinitial results become more meaningfulwhen the opinions are cross-referencedwith other factors.

It is logical to think that a greaterinterest in politics or a sense that oneis more affected by government decisionswould make one more receptive to theproposal to give 16-year-olds the vote.And indeed, although a majority stillopposed the suggestion, those who werevery or somewhat interested in politicswere less opposed than those whowere slightly or not at all interested(Table 3). Between 1990 and 1998,however, the difference increased;those most interested agreed with theidea by a slight majority, while thoseleast interested were yet a bit moreopposed. The partisans and opponentsof the vote for 16-year-olds could alsobe classified depending on whetherthey felt affected (very often or often)or not (not very often or never) bygovernment decisions.

Another aspect of the resistance to thevote for 16-year-olds is that there is amajority opposed, even among thosewho feel that voting is important to“make politics conform to your ideas”(Table 4). In reality, the most decisivefactor in determining support for oropposition to lowering the voting ageis the degree of attachment to a politicalparty, although this effect became lesspronounced between 1990 and 1998(Table 5). The latter observation is nodoubt related to other data reported inTable 11: confidence in various “insti-tutions,” particularly the Church andpolitical parties, diminished somewhatbetween 1990 and 1998; in contrast, itis interesting to note that confidence inelected officials increased by 2.7 percent.

Openness to the idea of 16-year-oldsvoting also varies with one’s idea of whatmakes a “good citizen.” Depending onwhether you think ideal citizens arepeople who “mind their own businesswithout making a fuss,” or people who“are prepared to get involved and

Table 5: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Partisan Affinity(percentages)


Close to Not close to Close to Not close toa party a party a party a party

Agree 56.3 41.1 52.5 42.5

N 213 599 238 598

Table 6: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Conception of a Good Citizen (percentages)


Good citizens… Good citizens…

mind their demonstrate mind their demonstrateown business for their ideas own business for their ideas

Agree 38.3 47.4 35.4 47.7

N 214 597 161 673

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16

Table 7: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by the Relation Between Rights and Dutiesof a Good Citizen (percentages)



assert their fulfill their assert their fulfill their rights duties rights duties

Agree 46.8 41.8 47.4 39.0

N 547 263 620 210

Table 8: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Attitude to the Law (percentages)


A good citizen… A good citizen…

respects need not respect respects need not respectthe law an unjust law the law an unjust law

Agree 43.0 53.4 38.9 52.0

N 646 163 422 415

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16


demonstrate to defend their ideas,” youhave a different attitude to loweringthe voting age (Table 6). The sametrends are evident when the opinionsare linked to the contrast betweencitizens as people who feel it is moreimportant to assert their rights, orpeople who feel it is more importantto fulfill their duties (Table 7). Finally,the partisans of order, who want a goodcitizen to “respect the law under anycircumstances,” are proportionally more

resistant to giving 16-year-olds the vote;this particular position is particularlyconspicuous since there is majoritysupport for the idea among those whofeel that a good citizen need not obeythe law when it seems unjust (Table 8).

In the same vein, it would seem onlylogical that a significant proportion ofthose in favour of the general statusquo (“Our society does not need majorchanges”) would oppose giving the

vote to 16-year-olds (Table 9). It ismore surprising that a majority, althougha smaller majority, of the much largergroup declaring itself in favour ofchange still oppose the idea.

In closing, there are two paradoxicalresults that we cannot leave unremarked.In 1990, participation in at least oneassociation reduced the opposition tolowering the voting age (Table 10).What is surprising is that, in 1998,opposition was highest among thosewho do participate. Another surprise:proportionately more, and in somecases a majority, of those peoplewith less confidence in a series of“institutions” (school, church,bureaucracy, politicians and media)accept the idea of 16-year-olds voting.One notable exception is the case ofpolitical parties in the 1990 survey(Table 11).

Conclusion

To sum up, the results presentedwill undoubtedly feed the oppositionto giving 16-year-olds the vote. Thus,it is worth noting that even a majorityof those 16 to 18 do not want the votefor those under 18. It should also benoted that there is a connectionbetween political involvement,certain conceptions of citizenship,and openness to such an idea.

Table 9: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Attitude to Change (percentages)1


Our society does not Our society does notneed major changes need major changes

Agree Disagree Agree completely/ Disagree somewhat/Somewhat Completely

Agree 34.3 46.3 40.2 46.8

N 108 697 169 666

1 The choice of responses is different in 1990 (agree and disagree) and 1998 (agree completely/

somewhat and disagree somewhat/completely).

Table 10: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Participation in an Association (percentages)


Not involved Involved in Not involved Involved inin any at least one in any at least one

Agree 40.5 47.8 47.7 44.4

N 304 508 258 579

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16

Table 11: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Amount of Confidence in… (percentages)1

School Church Bureaucracy Media Politicians Parties

Some Not Some Not Some Not Some Not Some Not Some Notmuch much much much much much

1990 Agree 41.6 61.6 41.8 49.7 42.4 50.6 44.9 45.2 41.7 47.2 45.9 44.6

N 671 138 488 320 536 269 483 325 345 458 283 522

1998 Agree 41.2 60.1 37.8 50.7 41.6 48.8 44.9 45.8 44.4 46.0 41.0 53.6

N 638 193 341 491 387 443 356 476 243 589 144 690

1 The options available to the respondents were some confidence or not much confidence.

Rightto voteat 16

Survey

although the gap seems to narrowover time: while 2.4 percent fewerSecondary IV students supportedthe idea in 1998, 2.5 percent moreSecondary V students did. Of

relatively limited political significance,it is reasonable to think that theseinitial results become more meaningfulwhen the opinions are cross-referencedwith other factors.

It is logical to think that a greaterinterest in politics or a sense that oneis more affected by government decisionswould make one more receptive to theproposal to give 16-year-olds the vote.And indeed, although a majority stillopposed the suggestion, those who werevery or somewhat interested in politicswere less opposed than those whowere slightly or not at all interested(Table 3). Between 1990 and 1998,however, the difference increased;those most interested agreed with theidea by a slight majority, while thoseleast interested were yet a bit moreopposed. The partisans and opponentsof the vote for 16-year-olds could alsobe classified depending on whetherthey felt affected (very often or often)or not (not very often or never) bygovernment decisions.

Another aspect of the resistance to thevote for 16-year-olds is that there is amajority opposed, even among thosewho feel that voting is important to“make politics conform to your ideas”(Table 4). In reality, the most decisivefactor in determining support for oropposition to lowering the voting ageis the degree of attachment to a politicalparty, although this effect became lesspronounced between 1990 and 1998(Table 5). The latter observation is nodoubt related to other data reported inTable 11: confidence in various “insti-tutions,” particularly the Church andpolitical parties, diminished somewhatbetween 1990 and 1998; in contrast, itis interesting to note that confidence inelected officials increased by 2.7 percent.

Openness to the idea of 16-year-oldsvoting also varies with one’s idea of whatmakes a “good citizen.” Depending onwhether you think ideal citizens arepeople who “mind their own businesswithout making a fuss,” or people who“are prepared to get involved and

Table 5: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Partisan Affinity(percentages)


Close to Not close to Close to Not close toa party a party a party a party

Agree 56.3 41.1 52.5 42.5

N 213 599 238 598

Table 6: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Conception of a Good Citizen (percentages)



mind their demonstrate mind their demonstrateown business for their ideas own business for their ideas

Agree 38.3 47.4 35.4 47.7

N 214 597 161 673

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16

Table 7: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by the Relation Between Rights and Dutiesof a Good Citizen (percentages)



assert their fulfill their assert their fulfill their rights duties rights duties

Agree 46.8 41.8 47.4 39.0

N 547 263 620 210

Table 8: Right to Vote at 16Opinions by Attitude to the Law (percentages)


A good citizen… A good citizen…

respects need not respect respects need not respectthe law an unjust law the law an unjust law

Agree 43.0 53.4 38.9 52.0

N 646 163 422 415

Right to vote at 16

Right to vote at 16


1. See Kathy Megyery, ed., Youth in CanadianPolitics: Participation and Involvement,Research Studies of the Royal Commissionon Electoral Reform and Party Financing,Vol. 8 (Supply and Services Canada,Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991).

2. For example, see Raymond Hudon, “Ledroit de vote à 16 ans. Une décision pure-ment politique,” Le Soleil (May 31, 1996)or “Evaluating the Pros and Cons. Are16-Year-Olds Ready to Vote?” ElectionsToday Vol. 6, No. 3 (Fall 1996).

3. See the methodological note.

4. See J. Patrick Boyer, Political Rights:The Legal Framework of Elections inCanada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981),pp. 129–137.

5. The right to vote at 18 was given in 1963in Quebec and in 1971 in Ontario. TheMilitary Voters Act, 1917, which set outthe conditions for Canadian military per-sonnel to vote during a conflict, gave allsoldiers on active service the right to vote(http://www.archives.ca/05/0518/05180204/051802040102_e.html). However, in1993, Bill C-114 withdrew this right fromsoldiers under the age of 18.

6. Before the adoption of the current age ofmajority of 18 in 1974, no less than adozen constitutions or acts changed theage of majority between 1791 and 1875,some lowering it and some raising it.

7. Peter Adams, Liberal Member of Parliamentfor Peterborough, Ontario, recently pre-sented a private member’s bill proposingthat the voting age be lowered to 16 (RoyMacGregor, “At 16, teens are consideredmature enough to drive, marry and work –so why not vote?” The Globe and Mail,March 4, 2003).

8. Although as Patrick Boyer (Political Rights,p. 132) notes, such intentions can manifestthemselves. Thus, giving the right to voteto new categories of electors in 1917, inthe middle of a war, was essentially aneffort to get the Conservative governmentof the day re-elected. On the other hand,withdrawing the right to vote from soldiersunder the age of 18 was primarily an effort tostandardize the electoral rights of all citizens.

NOTESOn that basis, it would seem appropriateto concentrate on giving young peoplebetter preparation for exercising theircivil rights, rather than on whether togive them the right to vote at 16 or 18.This concern is all the more pressinggiven that, for some time now, thereseems to have been a disenchantment

with politics. That being said, theissue should not be reduced simply tothe observed drop in voter turnout inthe past 12 to 15 years. This rathermisleading reading would result inlarge part from a narrow conceptionof citizen involvement, which is nolonger simply a question of voting.

However, while citizen involvementis not restricted to elections, theseremain crucial to the democraticconduct of civic affairs. Democracyis, of course, a hands-on affair, butthere is obviously no harm in support-ing it with philosophical principlesand “theoretical” knowledge, withan eye to producing better citizensfor tomorrow.

In May and June 1990, 832 students were surveyed in sevenschools in the cities of Québec and Lévis. The sample wascomposed almost equally of boys and girls (52 percent and48 percent), almost all between 16 and 18 (96 percent). Alittle less than a third (31 percent) of the respondents hadbeen educated exclusively or primarily in private schools.

In 1998, at the same point in the school year as in 1990,the same schools took part in the survey – with the exceptionof one private school, which was replaced by another privateschool. The survey was given to 847 students and, again,slightly more were boys than girls (53 percent and 47 percent),most between the ages of 16 and 18 (97 percent). Comparedto the sample for 1990, the new sample had slightly fewerstudents from private schools (28 percent).

The composition of the sample is not random; the schoolswere chosen to reflect the social and cultural diversity of theregion being studied. The survey was given during class time(generally a civics or history/geography class) and sometimeswith the teacher present, which produced a very highresponse rate.

The surveys were funded by various sources, including inparticular the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform andParty Financing (Lortie Commission) for the 1990 survey,and the Fonds Gérard-Dion of the Université Laval for the1998 survey.

Methodological Note

Every year, Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley meets with students attending theForum for Young Canadians, in Ottawa, to talk to them about the electoral process.

… it would seemappropriate to concentrateon giving young peoplebetter preparation forexercising their civil rights,rather than on whether togive them the right to voteat 16 or 18.

Phot

o: W

ayn

e Bro

wn


1. See Kathy Megyery, ed., Youth in CanadianPolitics: Participation and Involvement,Research Studies of the Royal Commissionon Electoral Reform and Party Financing,Vol. 8 (Supply and Services Canada,Toronto: Dundurn Press, 1991).

2. For example, see Raymond Hudon, “Ledroit de vote à 16 ans. Une décision pure-ment politique,” Le Soleil (May 31, 1996)or “Evaluating the Pros and Cons. Are16-Year-Olds Ready to Vote?” ElectionsToday Vol. 6, No. 3 (Fall 1996).

3. See the methodological note.

4. See J. Patrick Boyer, Political Rights:The Legal Framework of Elections inCanada (Toronto: Butterworths, 1981),pp. 129–137.

5. The right to vote at 18 was given in 1963in Quebec and in 1971 in Ontario. TheMilitary Voters Act, 1917, which set outthe conditions for Canadian military per-sonnel to vote during a conflict, gave allsoldiers on active service the right to vote(http://www.archives.ca/05/0518/05180204/051802040102_e.html). However, in1993, Bill C-114 withdrew this right fromsoldiers under the age of 18.

6. Before the adoption of the current age ofmajority of 18 in 1974, no less than adozen constitutions or acts changed theage of majority between 1791 and 1875,some lowering it and some raising it.

7. Peter Adams, Liberal Member of Parliamentfor Peterborough, Ontario, recently pre-sented a private member’s bill proposingthat the voting age be lowered to 16 (RoyMacGregor, “At 16, teens are consideredmature enough to drive, marry and work –so why not vote?” The Globe and Mail,March 4, 2003).

8. Although as Patrick Boyer (Political Rights,p. 132) notes, such intentions can manifestthemselves. Thus, giving the right to voteto new categories of electors in 1917, inthe middle of a war, was essentially aneffort to get the Conservative governmentof the day re-elected. On the other hand,withdrawing the right to vote from soldiersunder the age of 18 was primarily an effort tostandardize the electoral rights of all citizens.

NOTESOn that basis, it would seem appropriateto concentrate on giving young peoplebetter preparation for exercising theircivil rights, rather than on whether togive them the right to vote at 16 or 18.This concern is all the more pressinggiven that, for some time now, thereseems to have been a disenchantment

with politics. That being said, theissue should not be reduced simply tothe observed drop in voter turnout inthe past 12 to 15 years. This rathermisleading reading would result inlarge part from a narrow conceptionof citizen involvement, which is nolonger simply a question of voting.

However, while citizen involvementis not restricted to elections, theseremain crucial to the democraticconduct of civic affairs. Democracyis, of course, a hands-on affair, butthere is obviously no harm in support-ing it with philosophical principlesand “theoretical” knowledge, withan eye to producing better citizensfor tomorrow.

In May and June 1990, 832 students were surveyed in sevenschools in the cities of Québec and Lévis. The sample wascomposed almost equally of boys and girls (52 percent and48 percent), almost all between 16 and 18 (96 percent). Alittle less than a third (31 percent) of the respondents hadbeen educated exclusively or primarily in private schools.

In 1998, at the same point in the school year as in 1990,the same schools took part in the survey – with the exceptionof one private school, which was replaced by another privateschool. The survey was given to 847 students and, again,slightly more were boys than girls (53 percent and 47 percent),most between the ages of 16 and 18 (97 percent). Comparedto the sample for 1990, the new sample had slightly fewerstudents from private schools (28 percent).

The composition of the sample is not random; the schoolswere chosen to reflect the social and cultural diversity of theregion being studied. The survey was given during class time(generally a civics or history/geography class) and sometimeswith the teacher present, which produced a very highresponse rate.

The surveys were funded by various sources, including inparticular the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform andParty Financing (Lortie Commission) for the 1990 survey,and the Fonds Gérard-Dion of the Université Laval for the1998 survey.

Methodological Note

Every year, Chief Electoral Officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley meets with students attending theForum for Young Canadians, in Ottawa, to talk to them about the electoral process.

… it would seemappropriate to concentrateon giving young peoplebetter preparation forexercising their civil rights,rather than on whether togive them the right to voteat 16 or 18.

Phot

o: W

ayn

e Bro

wn


at the time of the change bycoalitions of Social Democrats(Sozialdemokratische ParteiDeutschland) and Greens (DieGrünen).6 In most European countries,the issue has found some support fromprogressive left-wing and liberal parties.The Social Democrat leaders in France(Lionel Jospin of the Parti Socialist[PS]) and the Netherlands (AdMelkert of the Partij van de Arbeid[PvdA]) endorsed the idea of loweringthe voting age at some point in their2002 election campaigns, although theissue did not make it into the formalparty programs. In Britain and Flanders(Belgium) the issue has been put onthe political agenda by the cabinetminister specifically responsible foryouth affairs.

In Flanders the liberal VLD(Vlaamse Liberale Partij), the greenAgalev (Anders Gaan Leven), andthe progressive splinter Spirit(Sociaal-Progressief-Internationaal-Regionalistisch-Integraal-democratisch-Toekomstgericht) support the change.7

The VLD, which is the second-largest

party in Flanders, has linked the issueto its wish to abolish compulsory voting.There is no political majority forabolishing compulsory voting atpresent. Also, lowering the voting agefor regional or federal elections requiresa constitutional amendment, andtherefore political support from theWalloon provinces. All this is still faraway, but following the German exam-ple, changes at the local level mightbe within reach.

In Britain, the Electoral Commissionis now reviewing the minimum votingage and will report to Parliament atthe beginning of 2004. The ElectoralCommission is investigating the claimthat lowering the voting age wouldhelp to re-engage young people in thepolitical process, as well as the argu-ments for keeping it as it stands. In themeantime a large number of social and

political organiza-tions, includingseveral parties, haveinitiated a campaigncalled “Votes at 16”,aimed at influencingpublic opinion andencouraging MPs to

actively support the measure.8 Amongthe parties in favour are the Scottishand Welsh nationalist parties (ScottishNational Party and Party of Wales),and the Liberal Democrats. Thelatter’s party leader, Charles Kennedy,publicly advocated the measure inFebruary 2002.9 Individual Labour andConservative politicians have alsoexpressed support. At the local level,the Commission on Local Governancerecently concluded in a major report

on the future of local democracy10 thatthe voting age should be reduced to 16.

Why voting at 16?And why not?

The motives of supporters and oppo-nents of lowering the voting age arevery similar in the various countries.Their arguments can roughly be dividedinto three categories: legal, politicaland educational.

Legal arguments Legally, young people come of agewhen they turn 18. Disregarding minorlegal differences among the Europeancountries, this means that 18-year-oldscan be held fully responsible for theiractions, can stand trial in an adultcourt, can marry without parentalconsent and can start their ownbusinesses. This is an argument againstvoting at 16. The counterargument isthat many other legal rights and dutiesare granted at 16, such as joining themilitary, buying alcohol, leaving schooland paying taxes. Supporters of votingat 16 have highlighted these inconsis-tencies affecting young people’s rights

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

Westminster, home of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in London.

In Britain, the Electoral Commission is nowreviewing the minimum voting age and willreport to Parliament at the beginning of 2004.

Lowering the Voting AgeEuropean Debates and Experiences

Kees AartsUniversity of Twente, The Netherlands

Charlotte van HeesDutch Centre for Political Participation, The Netherlands

Democracy grows on contradictions, and one of these isabout the question of who exactly belongs to the demos.On the one hand, general suffrage is seen as a definingcharacteristic of democracy; on the other hand, suffragenever extends to all those who are ruled. Drawing the linesis also known as the problem of inclusiveness.

Who should be excluded from taking part in elections?This is one of the toughest questions of democratic theory.The Austrian economist Schumpeter argued long ago that,precisely because there is no simple answer, “must we notleave it to every populus to define himself?”1 This radicalviewpoint is, however, not generally accepted. It is morecommon to try and pin down more or less universal criteriafor inclusion. Such criteria are at first necessarily abstract:for example, a voter should be able to “reason” about politics,and to have political preferences.

Translated into political practice, it appears that a largevariety of criteria are applied to make exclusion work. Oneof these is a minimum voting age. The argument is that,lacking better indicators, a minimum age is a proxy for civicmaturity and, therefore, a qualification for full citizenship.Of course, this is a circular argument: full citizenship, inturn, determines the minimum age. But in politicalpractice, the circularity is taken for granted.2

Is there consensus on the minimum voting age?

The problem of inclusiveness is solved, in practice, by criteriathat usually differ among countries. According to recent

literature, there appear to be only two such criteria aboutwhich there is currently a global consensus. One of theseis a minimum voting age of 18 years.3

But is there really a consensus? If so, it is of a relativelyrecent date. The voting age has decreased steadily sincethe expansion of suffrage in the older democracies in thefirst decades of the 20th century. The Dutch case mayserve as an example. At the time of the introduction ofthe modern Dutch electoral system, in 1917, the minimumvoting age was 25. In 1946, it was lowered to 23 years. In1965, 21-year-olds were granted the vote, and in 1972,18-year-olds followed. It appears that similar developmentsoccurred in many Western democracies.

Moreover, the apparent consensus is fragile. It holds at themoment, with few exceptions,4 for elections of nationalassemblies and presidents. But it has been the subject ofrenewed debate in recent years in a variety of countries,and in some places the cracks are already visible, startingwith the rules for local elections.

Although the issue is not making headlines yet, calls tolower the voting age to 16 are on the public agenda inseveral European countries. In Germany, 6 of the 16 states5

have, in the past seven years, actually lowered the activevoting age for local elections to 16. In other countries,voting at 16 has, so far, merely been debated.

There is a clear political dimension to lowering the votingage. All six German states mentioned above were governed



at the time of the change bycoalitions of Social Democrats(Sozialdemokratische ParteiDeutschland) and Greens (DieGrünen).6 In most European countries,the issue has found some support fromprogressive left-wing and liberal parties.The Social Democrat leaders in France(Lionel Jospin of the Parti Socialist[PS]) and the Netherlands (AdMelkert of the Partij van de Arbeid[PvdA]) endorsed the idea of loweringthe voting age at some point in their2002 election campaigns, although theissue did not make it into the formalparty programs. In Britain and Flanders(Belgium) the issue has been put onthe political agenda by the cabinetminister specifically responsible foryouth affairs.

In Flanders the liberal VLD(Vlaamse Liberale Partij), the greenAgalev (Anders Gaan Leven), andthe progressive splinter Spirit(Sociaal-Progressief-Internationaal-Regionalistisch-Integraal-democratisch-Toekomstgericht) support the change.7

The VLD, which is the second-largest

party in Flanders, has linked the issueto its wish to abolish compulsory voting.There is no political majority forabolishing compulsory voting atpresent. Also, lowering the voting agefor regional or federal elections requiresa constitutional amendment, andtherefore political support from theWalloon provinces. All this is still faraway, but following the German exam-ple, changes at the local level mightbe within reach.

In Britain, the Electoral Commissionis now reviewing the minimum votingage and will report to Parliament atthe beginning of 2004. The ElectoralCommission is investigating the claimthat lowering the voting age wouldhelp to re-engage young people in thepolitical process, as well as the argu-ments for keeping it as it stands. In themeantime a large number of social and

political organiza-tions, includingseveral parties, haveinitiated a campaigncalled “Votes at 16”,aimed at influencingpublic opinion andencouraging MPs to

actively support the measure.8 Amongthe parties in favour are the Scottishand Welsh nationalist parties (ScottishNational Party and Party of Wales),and the Liberal Democrats. Thelatter’s party leader, Charles Kennedy,publicly advocated the measure inFebruary 2002.9 Individual Labour andConservative politicians have alsoexpressed support. At the local level,the Commission on Local Governancerecently concluded in a major report

on the future of local democracy10 thatthe voting age should be reduced to 16.

Why voting at 16?And why not?

The motives of supporters and oppo-nents of lowering the voting age arevery similar in the various countries.Their arguments can roughly be dividedinto three categories: legal, politicaland educational.

Legal arguments Legally, young people come of agewhen they turn 18. Disregarding minorlegal differences among the Europeancountries, this means that 18-year-oldscan be held fully responsible for theiractions, can stand trial in an adultcourt, can marry without parentalconsent and can start their ownbusinesses. This is an argument againstvoting at 16. The counterargument isthat many other legal rights and dutiesare granted at 16, such as joining themilitary, buying alcohol, leaving schooland paying taxes. Supporters of votingat 16 have highlighted these inconsis-tencies affecting young people’s rights

Phot

o: G

etty

Im

age

s

Westminster, home of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, in London.

In Britain, the Electoral Commission is nowreviewing the minimum voting age and willreport to Parliament at the beginning of 2004.

Lowering the Voting AgeEuropean Debates and Experiences

Kees AartsUniversity of Twente, The Netherlands

Charlotte van HeesDutch Centre for Political Participation, The Netherlands

Democracy grows on contradictions, and one of these isabout the question of who exactly belongs to the demos.On the one hand, general suffrage is seen as a definingcharacteristic of democracy; on the other hand, suffragenever extends to all those who are ruled. Drawing the linesis also known as the problem of inclusiveness.

Who should be excluded from taking part in elections?This is one of the toughest questions of democratic theory.The Austrian economist Schumpeter argued long ago that,precisely because there is no simple answer, “must we notleave it to every populus to define himself?”1 This radicalviewpoint is, however, not generally accepted. It is morecommon to try and pin down more or less universal criteriafor inclusion. Such criteria are at first necessarily abstract:for example, a voter should be able to “reason” about politics,and to have political preferences.

Translated into political practice, it appears that a largevariety of criteria are applied to make exclusion work. Oneof these is a minimum voting age. The argument is that,lacking better indicators, a minimum age is a proxy for civicmaturity and, therefore, a qualification for full citizenship.Of course, this is a circular argument: full citizenship, inturn, determines the minimum age. But in politicalpractice, the circularity is taken for granted.2

Is there consensus on the minimum voting age?

The problem of inclusiveness is solved, in practice, by criteriathat usually differ among countries. According to recent

literature, there appear to be only two such criteria aboutwhich there is currently a global consensus. One of theseis a minimum voting age of 18 years.3

But is there really a consensus? If so, it is of a relativelyrecent date. The voting age has decreased steadily sincethe expansion of suffrage in the older democracies in thefirst decades of the 20th century. The Dutch case mayserve as an example. At the time of the introduction ofthe modern Dutch electoral system, in 1917, the minimumvoting age was 25. In 1946, it was lowered to 23 years. In1965, 21-year-olds were granted the vote, and in 1972,18-year-olds followed. It appears that similar developmentsoccurred in many Western democracies.

Moreover, the apparent consensus is fragile. It holds at themoment, with few exceptions,4 for elections of nationalassemblies and presidents. But it has been the subject ofrenewed debate in recent years in a variety of countries,and in some places the cracks are already visible, startingwith the rules for local elections.

Although the issue is not making headlines yet, calls tolower the voting age to 16 are on the public agenda inseveral European countries. In Germany, 6 of the 16 states5

have, in the past seven years, actually lowered the activevoting age for local elections to 16. In other countries,voting at 16 has, so far, merely been debated.

There is a clear political dimension to lowering the votingage. All six German states mentioned above were governed



What can we learn fromresearch?

Traditionally, voting is regarded as amore or less purposeful vehicle forexpressing political preferences, whichis more easily used by those peoplewho have the relevant resources(notably education) at their disposal.

Although its importance for theindividual decision to vote or not isunquestioned, this resource-orientedexplanation alone accounts for only asmall fraction of the decision to voteor not (typically less than 10 percent).In the search for better explanations,one variable also appeared to be uni-formly relevant. This is the age of thevoter. Research suggests that peoplebecome more inclined to vote whenthey grow older, but that the relation-

ship reverses for the elderly. In additionto this life-cycle effect of age, a gener-ational explanation of turnout has alsooften been suggested: younger genera-tions vote less than older generations,even when they grow older.

Recent publications have highlightedother age-related factors in the expla-nation of turnout. Plutzer (2002)presents and tests a “developmentaltheory of turnout”, which emphasizesthe habitual nature of voting and thecrucial role of childhood socializationinto voting.16 Whether first-time votersdo actually cast a vote is, to a consider-able extent, dependent on their parents’social and political resources; only laterin life are these resources replaced byacquired habits.

This developmental approach to votingmight fit well with the educational argu-ments for lowering the voting age thatwe referred to above. At age 16, mostyoung persons still attend school. Civiceducation classes, which are commonlyrequired before age 18, may support thesocialization into voting habits – togetherwith a competitive electoral contest.17

The research in three German stateson the turnout level of 16–18-year-oldslends some support to this hypothesis.In North Rhine-Westphalia, the turnoutamong 16–21-year-olds18 was slightlybelow the average for the whole elec-torate, but clearly higher – by about5 to 8 percent – than among thoseaged 21–30. Similar results hold forLower Saxony, where 16–18-year-oldsvote at a level comparable to 35–45-year-olds. Finally, a similar conclusion

can be drawn for the1999 local electionsin Saxony-Anhalt.

If the developmentaltheory of turnoutholds, these genera-

tions of 16–18-year-olds in Germanyare more likely to acquire the habit ofvoting than their predecessors, wholearned to vote only at age 18. Thismay be a good sign for the future ofelectoral democracy.

The future

Will other European countries followthe German example? Probably not inthe short term. In most countries, low-ering the voting age involves a changeto the constitution, which cannot beaccomplished quickly. Experiments atthe local level are more easily devel-oped, and this seems to be the feasibleroute in Flanders (Belgium) andBritain. Moreover, changing therules of the political process is itself

a political act. Thus, after the 1999state election replaced the SPD-Greens coalition by a CDU-FDPmajority, the Hesse state governmentrenounced its 1998 decision to lowerthe voting age to 16. But whateverdirection the reforms take, it isunlikely, just as it was in the 1970s,that they will be halted by nationalborders.

In most countries, lowering the votingage involves a change to the constitution,which cannot be accomplished quickly.

and responsibilities at different ages. Insome of the German states, e.g. LowerSaxony, it was the decisive argumentfor lowering the voting age at the locallevel.

The right to participate is implicitlygranted in Article 12 of the UnitedNations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child, which all Western Europeancountries support. Article 12 statesthat the right to express views freely inall matters affecting the child is givento every child who is capable of forminghis or her views, the views of the childbeing given due weight in accordancewith his or her age and maturity.Although not literally a “right toparticipate” in matters affecting thechild, it is often interpreted as such.Consequently, it can be argued thatthis treaty provides legal grounds forlowering the voting age.

Political argumentsPoliticians and young people, it isoften claimed, live in different worldsand speak different languages. Manypoliticians regard young people asobjects of policy. Youth policies typi-cally focus on the (relatively few)young people who show deviantbehaviour. Not surprisingly, youngpeople feel excluded from the demo-cratic process.11

It is argued that giving 16- and17-year-olds the right to vote willprovide political parties with anincentive to make politics moreinteresting, and to speak and writein language that young people under-stand. Skeptics hold that politicianscreate the wish for voting rights,rather than respond to it. Politiciansare attracted by the advantages of anew potential electorate. It is truethat the supporters of voting at 16are mainly found among left-wing,

green, and liberal parties, which inEurope have a relatively youngelectorate.

Educational argumentsThe two most frequently mentionedarguments against lowering the votingage are that it will have a negativeeffect on voter turnout, and that youngpeople tend to vote for extremistparties. Both arguments build on theassumption that voting requires a civicmaturity that is absent in the typical16-year-old.

This reasoning has, however, also beenreversed. The turnout rate amongyoung people has always been relativelylow, but lately it has been suggestedthat turnout no longer rises as youngergenerations age.12 Young people arenot attracted by election-related politi-cal activities, and increasing numbersremain uninterested when they growolder. Schizzerotto and Gasperonidescribe this as a threat todemocracy:

Limited political participation –voting, membership in politicalparties, in youth associationsand organizations,and representationin decision-making bodies –is understood asa major youthproblem in most WesternEuropean countries … Thedeclining political engagementand traditional societal participa-tion among youth is perceived asa threat to the future of therepresentative democracy ….13

Therefore, it is argued, youth mustget involved in electoral politics ata younger age – and granting themthe right to vote might help.

Meanwhile, it is interesting that manyyoung people, when asked in surveysfor their opinion on lowering the votingage, oppose it.14 They believe that theylack the political knowledge to vote.However, their support increases whenthey are asked if they think loweringthe voting age to 16 would be a goodidea if their political knowledge wereimproved. In Britain, since September2002, civic education has been part ofthe national curriculum for secondaryschools. The “Votes at 16” campaignused the launch of this subject tosupport its case.

What about voting for extreme,anti-system parties? Research in threeGerman states that have recentlylowered the voting age from 18 to 16shows that these new voters do votein different patterns than older voters;however a uniform trend is absent.15

Electoral statistics from the 1999 localelections in North Rhine-Westphaliashow that the Greens and the liberalFDP (Freie demokratische Partei) aremore popular among young people,at the expense of the SPD and CDU(Christlich demokratische UnionDeutschlands). But in the 1996

Lower Saxony local elections,surveys in the cities of Hannoverand Braunschweig show that theCDU and Greens received more votesamong the young. Finally, in the 1999Saxony-Anhalt local elections, thedifferences in party preferences werehardly noticeable. It is important tonote that in none of these states isthere a strong tendency among theyoung to vote for parties of theextreme left or right.

Six German states have recently loweredthe voting age from 18 to 16.


What can we learn fromresearch?

Traditionally, voting is regarded as amore or less purposeful vehicle forexpressing political preferences, whichis more easily used by those peoplewho have the relevant resources(notably education) at their disposal.

Although its importance for theindividual decision to vote or not isunquestioned, this resource-orientedexplanation alone accounts for only asmall fraction of the decision to voteor not (typically less than 10 percent).In the search for better explanations,one variable also appeared to be uni-formly relevant. This is the age of thevoter. Research suggests that peoplebecome more inclined to vote whenthey grow older, but that the relation-

ship reverses for the elderly. In additionto this life-cycle effect of age, a gener-ational explanation of turnout has alsooften been suggested: younger genera-tions vote less than older generations,even when they grow older.

Recent publications have highlightedother age-related factors in the expla-nation of turnout. Plutzer (2002)presents and tests a “developmentaltheory of turnout”, which emphasizesthe habitual nature of voting and thecrucial role of childhood socializationinto voting.16 Whether first-time votersdo actually cast a vote is, to a consider-able extent, dependent on their parents’social and political resources; only laterin life are these resources replaced byacquired habits.

This developmental approach to votingmight fit well with the educational argu-ments for lowering the voting age thatwe referred to above. At age 16, mostyoung persons still attend school. Civiceducation classes, which are commonlyrequired before age 18, may support thesocialization into voting habits – togetherwith a competitive electoral contest.17

The research in three German stateson the turnout level of 16–18-year-oldslends some support to this hypothesis.In North Rhine-Westphalia, the turnoutamong 16–21-year-olds18 was slightlybelow the average for the whole elec-torate, but clearly higher – by about5 to 8 percent – than among thoseaged 21–30. Similar results hold forLower Saxony, where 16–18-year-oldsvote at a level comparable to 35–45-year-olds. Finally, a similar conclusion

can be drawn for the1999 local electionsin Saxony-Anhalt.

If the developmentaltheory of turnoutholds, these genera-

tions of 16–18-year-olds in Germanyare more likely to acquire the habit ofvoting than their predecessors, wholearned to vote only at age 18. Thismay be a good sign for the future ofelectoral democracy.

The future

Will other European countries followthe German example? Probably not inthe short term. In most countries, low-ering the voting age involves a changeto the constitution, which cannot beaccomplished quickly. Experiments atthe local level are more easily devel-oped, and this seems to be the feasibleroute in Flanders (Belgium) andBritain. Moreover, changing therules of the political process is itself

a political act. Thus, after the 1999state election replaced the SPD-Greens coalition by a CDU-FDPmajority, the Hesse state governmentrenounced its 1998 decision to lowerthe voting age to 16. But whateverdirection the reforms take, it isunlikely, just as it was in the 1970s,that they will be halted by nationalborders.

In most countries, lowering the votingage involves a change to the constitution,which cannot be accomplished quickly.

and responsibilities at different ages. Insome of the German states, e.g. LowerSaxony, it was the decisive argumentfor lowering the voting age at the locallevel.

The right to participate is implicitlygranted in Article 12 of the UnitedNations Convention on the Rights ofthe Child, which all Western Europeancountries support. Article 12 statesthat the right to express views freely inall matters affecting the child is givento every child who is capable of forminghis or her views, the views of the childbeing given due weight in accordancewith his or her age and maturity.Although not literally a “right toparticipate” in matters affecting thechild, it is often interpreted as such.Consequently, it can be argued thatthis treaty provides legal grounds forlowering the voting age.

Political argumentsPoliticians and young people, it isoften claimed, live in different worldsand speak different languages. Manypoliticians regard young people asobjects of policy. Youth policies typi-cally focus on the (relatively few)young people who show deviantbehaviour. Not surprisingly, youngpeople feel excluded from the demo-cratic process.11

It is argued that giving 16- and17-year-olds the right to vote willprovide political parties with anincentive to make politics moreinteresting, and to speak and writein language that young people under-stand. Skeptics hold that politicianscreate the wish for voting rights,rather than respond to it. Politiciansare attracted by the advantages of anew potential electorate. It is truethat the supporters of voting at 16are mainly found among left-wing,

green, and liberal parties, which inEurope have a relatively youngelectorate.

Educational argumentsThe two most frequently mentionedarguments against lowering the votingage are that it will have a negativeeffect on voter turnout, and that youngpeople tend to vote for extremistparties. Both arguments build on theassumption that voting requires a civicmaturity that is absent in the typical16-year-old.

This reasoning has, however, also beenreversed. The turnout rate amongyoung people has always been relativelylow, but lately it has been suggestedthat turnout no longer rises as youngergenerations age.12 Young people arenot attracted by election-related politi-cal activities, and increasing numbersremain uninterested when they growolder. Schizzerotto and Gasperonidescribe this as a threat todemocracy:

Limited political participation –voting, membership in politicalparties, in youth associationsand organizations,and representationin decision-making bodies –is understood asa major youthproblem in most WesternEuropean countries … Thedeclining political engagementand traditional societal participa-tion among youth is perceived asa threat to the future of therepresentative democracy ….13

Therefore, it is argued, youth mustget involved in electoral politics ata younger age – and granting themthe right to vote might help.

Meanwhile, it is interesting that manyyoung people, when asked in surveysfor their opinion on lowering the votingage, oppose it.14 They believe that theylack the political knowledge to vote.However, their support increases whenthey are asked if they think loweringthe voting age to 16 would be a goodidea if their political knowledge wereimproved. In Britain, since September2002, civic education has been part ofthe national curriculum for secondaryschools. The “Votes at 16” campaignused the launch of this subject tosupport its case.

What about voting for extreme,anti-system parties? Research in threeGerman states that have recentlylowered the voting age from 18 to 16shows that these new voters do votein different patterns than older voters;however a uniform trend is absent.15

Electoral statistics from the 1999 localelections in North Rhine-Westphaliashow that the Greens and the liberalFDP (Freie demokratische Partei) aremore popular among young people,at the expense of the SPD and CDU(Christlich demokratische UnionDeutschlands). But in the 1996

Lower Saxony local elections,surveys in the cities of Hannoverand Braunschweig show that theCDU and Greens received more votesamong the young. Finally, in the 1999Saxony-Anhalt local elections, thedifferences in party preferences werehardly noticeable. It is important tonote that in none of these states isthere a strong tendency among theyoung to vote for parties of theextreme left or right.

Six German states have recently loweredthe voting age from 18 to 16.


Rush the Vote, an Ontario youth organization, is usingmusic and entertainers to encourage young people “to getinvolved in the democratic process and to become betterinformed about society’s issues.”

The national Rush the Vote campaign was launched at anApril 6, 2003, block party in downtown Ottawa. It wastimed to coincide with the annual Juno awards. This helpedattract 17 solo artists and bands, who gave free performanceson a stage constructed in the middle of what is normallya busy street in the nation’s capital. “If you want a largeattendance, bring the music,” said Paul Green, Rush theVote’s executive director. “It is the tool by which kids reallyunderstand their world. Right or wrong, that is a fact. Theytake their cue from the leaders of the entertainment world,not from social and political leaders. In music, they see areflection of themselves.” The rally was also supported bythe national MuchMusic television channel, the NationalCapital Commission and three local radio stations.

Several speakers encouraged young people to get involvedin political and social causes and use their right to vote.Meanwhile, many of those who attended marked ballots in amock referendum on a question about whether the voting ageshould be lowered from 18 to 16. By an almost two to one votecount (304 to 171), they supported making such a change.

“Rush the Vote focuses not only on trying to get youth to thepolls, but to simplify information; making it easier to under-stand,” says Mr. Green. “Many youth can’t see the differencebetween the various parties and candidates and what theystand for. The parties have not made it clear to them.”

Mr. Green also calls for the creation of a new national bodywith a strategy to mount a full-time effort solely devoted toinforming young Canadians about the importance of votingand encouraging them to do so.

Founded in 1997, Rush the Vote was inspired by the Rockthe Vote campaigns in the United States and also evolvedfrom the Universal Black Student Association (foundedbecause of an estimated 50 percent school dropout rateamong Black youth in Ontario), and from B.L.O.C.K.Headz (Building Links on Community Korners). Whilesurvey research indicates that only about 25 percent ofCanada’s 18 to 24-year-olds voted at the 2000 federalelection, Mr. Green believes the proportion of Black youthwho cast ballots was likely much lower. “Many feel they aredealing with other day-to-day problems, including schools,jobs, careers, the judicial system. Voting is on the back burner.We are trying to show them how everything is related.”

Rush the Vote plans to hold another event during the nextOntario provincial election, in a further attempt to boostyouth voting. Its first major rally was held during the 1999Ontario election, and a Dunk the Vote event, involvingbasketball personalities, was held in 2000 at the Universityof Toronto to encourage higher turnout in municipalelections.

At the April 6, 2003, Rush the Vote rally in Ottawa, young peoplevoted in a mock referendum on whether the voting age should bereduced to 16.

1. Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism,and Democracy (London: Allen & Unwin,1943, 1976 ed.), p. 245.

2. Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics(New Haven: Yale U.P., 1989), p. 127.

3. The other is the exclusion from votingrights of mentally deficient persons, seeAndré Blais, Louis Massicotte, AntoineYoshinaka, “Deciding Who Has the Rightto Vote: A Comparative Analysis ofElection Laws,” Electoral Studies Vol. 20(2001), pp. 41–62.

4. The best-known exception is Brazil, withnon-compulsory voting for 16–18-year-olds(for 18–70-year-olds, voting is compulsory).Several Asian countries have a minimumvoting age higher than 18 – see Blais,Massicotte and Yoshinaka, “DecidingWho Has the Right to Vote”.

5. These six German states are: Hesse,Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein,Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia,Mecklenburg-West Pomerania.

6. Manfred Schwarzmeier, “Kommunalwahlab 16 Jahren: Mehr als nur einPartizipationsplacebo?,” BJR-Jugendnachrichten Januar/Februar (2002).

7. Joël de Ceulaer, “Een verjongingskuur voorde stem,” Knack Vol. 32 (November 27,2002), pp. 20–25.

8. See www.votesat16.org.uk.

9. Kennedy’s speech at Westminster Day, onFebruary 5, 2002, reported by BBC Newson BBCi, can be found at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1801693.stm.

10. Discussed in the briefing paper of theNational Youth Agency, Spotlight Issue 11(January 2003); Commission on LocalGovernance, Free to Differ: The Future forLocal Democracy (Local GovernmentInformation Unit, 2002).

11. Marije Cornelissen, ‘De’ jongere bestaatniet. Negatieve gevolgen van de beeldvormingover jongeren (Utrecht: Landelijk Bureauter bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie,2000), p. 54; e.g. Children’s Rights Alliancefor England, The REAL Democratic Deficit:Why 16 and 17 Year-Olds Should Be Allowedto Vote (London: CRAE, 2000), p. 20.

12. For an overview of arguments and evidence,see Mark N. Franklin, The Dynamics ofVoter Turnout in Established Democraciessince 1945 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, forthcoming).

13. A. Schizzerotto and G. Gasperoni (super-visors), Study on the State of Young Peopleand Youth Policy in Europe (Milan: IARD,2001), pp. 1–17.

14. Charlotte Van Hees and Heleen Snijders,Drank, Brommer en dus ook stemmen!:Een onderzoek naar de haalbaarheid enwenselijkheid van het stemrecht voor zestien-jarigen (Amsterdam: Instituut voor Publieken Politiek, 2002); for Britain, see alsoSpotlight, the National Youth Agency brief-ing paper, available at www.nya.org.uk/download-PDF/spotlight-5.pdf.

15. The sources are: Statistisches Landesamt,Nordrhein-Westfalen; StatistischesLandesamt, Sachsen-Anhalt; UniversitätHannover, Arbeitsgruppe InterdisziplinäreSozialstrukturforschung.

16. Eric Plutzer, “Becoming a Habitual Voter:Inertia, Resources and Growth in YoungAdulthood,” American Political ScienceReview Vol. 96 (2002), pp. 41–56.

17. Franklin shows that the context of theirfirst election can leave a “footprint” inthe turnout levels of a generation of newvoters for many years. Mark N. Franklin,“Electoral Competitiveness and Turnout:How Voters React to the ChangingCharacter of Elections,” paper presentedat Joint Sessions of Workshops of theEuropean Consortium for Political Research,Edinburgh, March 28 – April 3, 2003.

18. The categorization of age results fromadministrative rules.

NOTES


Rush the VoteWayne BrownManaging Editor, Electoral Insight, Elections Canada

Phot

o: W

ayn

e Bro

wn


Rush the Vote, an Ontario youth organization, is usingmusic and entertainers to encourage young people “to getinvolved in the democratic process and to become betterinformed about society’s issues.”

The national Rush the Vote campaign was launched at anApril 6, 2003, block party in downtown Ottawa. It wastimed to coincide with the annual Juno awards. This helpedattract 17 solo artists and bands, who gave free performanceson a stage constructed in the middle of what is normallya busy street in the nation’s capital. “If you want a largeattendance, bring the music,” said Paul Green, Rush theVote’s executive director. “It is the tool by which kids reallyunderstand their world. Right or wrong, that is a fact. Theytake their cue from the leaders of the entertainment world,not from social and political leaders. In music, they see areflection of themselves.” The rally was also supported bythe national MuchMusic television channel, the NationalCapital Commission and three local radio stations.

Several speakers encouraged young people to get involvedin political and social causes and use their right to vote.Meanwhile, many of those who attended marked ballots in amock referendum on a question about whether the voting ageshould be lowered from 18 to 16. By an almost two to one votecount (304 to 171), they supported making such a change.

“Rush the Vote focuses not only on trying to get youth to thepolls, but to simplify information; making it easier to under-stand,” says Mr. Green. “Many youth can’t see the differencebetween the various parties and candidates and what theystand for. The parties have not made it clear to them.”

Mr. Green also calls for the creation of a new national bodywith a strategy to mount a full-time effort solely devoted toinforming young Canadians about the importance of votingand encouraging them to do so.

Founded in 1997, Rush the Vote was inspired by the Rockthe Vote campaigns in the United States and also evolvedfrom the Universal Black Student Association (foundedbecause of an estimated 50 percent school dropout rateamong Black youth in Ontario), and from B.L.O.C.K.Headz (Building Links on Community Korners). Whilesurvey research indicates that only about 25 percent ofCanada’s 18 to 24-year-olds voted at the 2000 federalelection, Mr. Green believes the proportion of Black youthwho cast ballots was likely much lower. “Many feel they aredealing with other day-to-day problems, including schools,jobs, careers, the judicial system. Voting is on the back burner.We are trying to show them how everything is related.”

Rush the Vote plans to hold another event during the nextOntario provincial election, in a further attempt to boostyouth voting. Its first major rally was held during the 1999Ontario election, and a Dunk the Vote event, involvingbasketball personalities, was held in 2000 at the Universityof Toronto to encourage higher turnout in municipalelections.

At the April 6, 2003, Rush the Vote rally in Ottawa, young peoplevoted in a mock referendum on whether the voting age should bereduced to 16.

1. Joseph Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism,and Democracy (London: Allen & Unwin,1943, 1976 ed.), p. 245.

2. Robert A. Dahl, Democracy and Its Critics(New Haven: Yale U.P., 1989), p. 127.

3. The other is the exclusion from votingrights of mentally deficient persons, seeAndré Blais, Louis Massicotte, AntoineYoshinaka, “Deciding Who Has the Rightto Vote: A Comparative Analysis ofElection Laws,” Electoral Studies Vol. 20(2001), pp. 41–62.

4. The best-known exception is Brazil, withnon-compulsory voting for 16–18-year-olds(for 18–70-year-olds, voting is compulsory).Several Asian countries have a minimumvoting age higher than 18 – see Blais,Massicotte and Yoshinaka, “DecidingWho Has the Right to Vote”.

5. These six German states are: Hesse,Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein,Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia,Mecklenburg-West Pomerania.

6. Manfred Schwarzmeier, “Kommunalwahlab 16 Jahren: Mehr als nur einPartizipationsplacebo?,” BJR-Jugendnachrichten Januar/Februar (2002).

7. Joël de Ceulaer, “Een verjongingskuur voorde stem,” Knack Vol. 32 (November 27,2002), pp. 20–25.

8. See www.votesat16.org.uk.

9. Kennedy’s speech at Westminster Day, onFebruary 5, 2002, reported by BBC Newson BBCi, can be found at news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/1801693.stm.

10. Discussed in the briefing paper of theNational Youth Agency, Spotlight Issue 11(January 2003); Commission on LocalGovernance, Free to Differ: The Future forLocal Democracy (Local GovernmentInformation Unit, 2002).

11. Marije Cornelissen, ‘De’ jongere bestaatniet. Negatieve gevolgen van de beeldvormingover jongeren (Utrecht: Landelijk Bureauter bestrijding van Rassendiscriminatie,2000), p. 54; e.g. Children’s Rights Alliancefor England, The REAL Democratic Deficit:Why 16 and 17 Year-Olds Should Be Allowedto Vote (London: CRAE, 2000), p. 20.

12. For an overview of arguments and evidence,see Mark N. Franklin, The Dynamics ofVoter Turnout in Established Democraciessince 1945 (Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press, forthcoming).

13. A. Schizzerotto and G. Gasperoni (super-visors), Study on the State of Young Peopleand Youth Policy in Europe (Milan: IARD,2001), pp. 1–17.

14. Charlotte Van Hees and Heleen Snijders,Drank, Brommer en dus ook stemmen!:Een onderzoek naar de haalbaarheid enwenselijkheid van het stemrecht voor zestien-jarigen (Amsterdam: Instituut voor Publieken Politiek, 2002); for Britain, see alsoSpotlight, the National Youth Agency brief-ing paper, available at www.nya.org.uk/download-PDF/spotlight-5.pdf.

15. The sources are: Statistisches Landesamt,Nordrhein-Westfalen; StatistischesLandesamt, Sachsen-Anhalt; UniversitätHannover, Arbeitsgruppe InterdisziplinäreSozialstrukturforschung.

16. Eric Plutzer, “Becoming a Habitual Voter:Inertia, Resources and Growth in YoungAdulthood,” American Political ScienceReview Vol. 96 (2002), pp. 41–56.

17. Franklin shows that the context of theirfirst election can leave a “footprint” inthe turnout levels of a generation of newvoters for many years. Mark N. Franklin,“Electoral Competitiveness and Turnout:How Voters React to the ChangingCharacter of Elections,” paper presentedat Joint Sessions of Workshops of theEuropean Consortium for Political Research,Edinburgh, March 28 – April 3, 2003.

18. The categorization of age results fromadministrative rules.

NOTES


Rush the VoteWayne BrownManaging Editor, Electoral Insight, Elections Canada

Phot

o: W

ayn

e Bro

wn

48 Electoral Insight

WHY IS

VOTINGI M P O R T A N T ?

TEACHERS! Cable in the Classroom andElections Canada want you toencourage your students toresearch, write and produce a30-second video telling us whyvoting is important! Have yourstudents give us the X Factorand WIN!

WIN PRIZES:For Teachers: Palm™ m130 handheldswith Palm’s Mobile Mentor software,courtesy of Palm Canada, plus prizesfrom Fruitopia, The Life Network,History Television and HGTVFor Your School: A Sony camcorderand Microsoft Encarta software packageFor Students (maximum 5 studentsper team): MadPlayer™ interactive digitalbeat and music composers, courtesy ofMadWaves, Timex watches and prizescourtesy of HMV and Fruitopia

PLUS! Winning videos by high schoolstudents could be broadcastacross Canada

COMPLETE CONTEST RULESAND REGISTRATION

ON THE WEB: www.cableducation.ca

BY PHONE: 1 800 244-9049

the

factorthe

factorT E L L U S I N30 SECONDS

&WIN!T E L L U S I N30 SECONDS

&WIN!

Documents

Youth Participation in Elections · Youth Participation in Politics Elisabeth Gidengil, André Blais, Neil Nevitte and Richard Nadeau Political interest is key to encouraging young