EXPLORING VOTER TURNOUT IN THE 2008 FEDERAL ELECTION AMONG
UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR UNDERGRADUATES: A QUALITATIVE STUDY
Final Report on a Study conducted for Qualitative Methods (48-310-01)
Winter 2009
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, & Criminology
©
Faculty Co-author & Editor
Ruth M. Mann
Student Co-authors
Samia Abbas, Michael Burton, Greg Gauder, Maureen Jones, and Ryan Lafleur
Christian Pinard, Poet
We would like to acknowledge the contributions of the 51 students in 48-310-01
(Winter 2009) who conducted the interviews and participated in the analysis of the data.
We would also like to acknowledge the support and assistance of Graduate Assistant,
Catherine Brooke.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary …………………………………………………………………. 2
Introduction …………………………………………………………………………. 3
Literature Review …………………………………………………………………… 4
Method and Theory …………………………………………………………………. 8
Research Questions ………………………………………………………..… 10
Interview Guide …………………………………………………………..….. 11
Data Coding and Analysis ……………………………………………….…... 13
Findings ………………………………………………………………………….…... 14
The Data Corpus – A Brief Quantitative Description …………………….…. 15
Our Five Team Interview Set – Qualitative Findings………………………... 17
Theme #1: Political disinterest/interest …………………………….…18
Theme #2: Political irrelevance/political trust ………………………. 20
Theme #3: Rational choice ………………………………………….. 23
Theme #4: Media influence …………………………………………. 24
Theme #5: Political education ………………………………………. 28
Theme #6: Voting accessibility ………………………………………29
Conclusion …………………………………………………………………………… 32
Poem: Youth Voting – Food for Thought …………………………………… 35
References Cited ……………………………………………………………………... 36
1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is co-authored by a course instructor and five undergraduate students who
participated in a Qualitative Research project on University of Windsor undergraduate
students’ experiences with voting in the 2008 federal election. Working in 5-7 member
research teams student investigators conducted an interview with a fellow University of
Windsor undergraduate, and then collaboratively and reflexively coded, analyzed, and
reported on the interview data. The term reports of the five student co-authors identify six key
themes relevant to the research question: “What compelled youth to vote or not to vote in the
2008 election, and what might increase the likelihood of youth voting in the future?” These six
themes are: 1) youth disinterest/interest, 2) political trust/political efficacy, 3) rational choice,
4) media influences; 5) political education, and 6) voting accessibility.
Our key finding is that many youth who consider themselves politically engaged and
interested did not vote due to obstacles associated with one of three things: their lack of trust
in the Canadian political system, their perceived lack of political efficacy, and most
importantly, difficulties they encountered obtaining information on the election, including
information on where and how to cast their ballot.
A major contribution of this research is that it was conducted by and with young
citizens of Canada. It makes a unique contribution to a growing body of research on the
problem of declining youth voter turnout in Canada and across Western democracies.
2
EXPLORING VOTER TURNOUT IN THE 2008 FEDERAL ELECTION AMONG
UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR UNDERGRADUATES: A QUALITATIVE STUDY
In recent decades Canada has experienced a marked decline in voter participation in federal
elections. In the 2008 election (Canada’s 40TH General Election), voter turnout was the lowest
since Confederation, with only 58.8% of eligible Canadians voting (Campbell, 2008; Elections
Canada, 2009). To a significant degree this appears to be a consequence of a progressive
three-decade long decline in youth voter turnout. In the 1970’s approximately 70% of
Canadians under the age of 25 voted; by 2000 only 40% did so (Adsett, 2003).
This report describes a qualitative research study that addresses how and why young
Canadians opted to vote, or not to vote, in the 2008 federal election. The research was
conducted by 51 students in a third year sociology course on Qualitative Methods at the
University of Windsor (48-310-01, Winter 2009). Under the direction of the class instructor,
Professor Ruth Mann, each class member conducted a semi-structured in-depth interview with
a fellow undergraduate who was a Canadian citizen between the ages of 18 and 25 at the time
of the 2008 election, and not a member of our class. The purpose of the study was two-fold: to
learn about and practice qualitative research methods, specifically the qualitative research
strategy known as “active interviewing” (Miller & Crabtree, 2004), and to explore the
substantive issue of youth voting. The study’s unique contribution is that the research was
conducted by and with young Canadians.
At the University of Windsor undergraduate research is subject to ethical review, as
required by the Tri-Council Policy Statement on Research with Human Subjects (TCPS,
2005). This project received ethical clearance through the Research Ethics Committee of the
3
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, which clears undergraduate
research under the authority of the University of Windsor Research Ethics Board. Our cleared
research protocol outlines how student investigators were educated on research ethics;
describes our research design and methodology including details of how interview participants
were recruited and how the interviews were administered; identifies mechanisms for providing
informed consent, interview participant confidentiality, and research data confidentiality;
specifies how research participants were protected from foreseeable physical, psychological or
social harms that may arise as a consequence of the research; identifies potential social
benefits of the study; and details our plan for disseminating findings in this final report. 1
Our report draws upon the work of all 51 student investigators, who worked
“separately and together” (Siltanen, Willis, & Scobie, 2008) in nine 5-7 member research
teams. The research teams reviewed literature on youth voting, refined the research questions
and interview guide, conducted the interviews, and coded and analyzed the interview data. It
draws most heavily, however, upon the term reports nominated by Professor Ruth Mann and
graduate assistant Catherine Brooke for incorporation into this final report for dissemination to
the University of Windsor community and beyond: student co-authors Samia Abbas, Michael
Burton, Greg Gauder, Maureen Jones, and Ryan Lafleur.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Declining voter turnout is in evidence across Western jurisdictions, with voter turnout
particularly low among younger citizens. A growing body of scholarship situates this
1
Some qualitative researchers have found institutional review boards to be less than supportive of qualitative
interview projects, particularly those that rely upon broad open-ended questions with unspecified probes (Lincoln
& Tierney, 2004; Van Den Hoonaard, 2005). This is because some institutional review boards view non-positivist
methods as unscientific and therefore questionably legitimate. The University of Windsor Research Ethics Board
and the Research Ethics Committee of the Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Criminology, which
works under its authority, broadly appreciate and support the use of qualitative methodologies including the
active interview strategy employed in this study.
4
phenomenon in the context of decreases in social cohesion and social capital in society
generally; changes in political era or political culture; the increasingly partisan and
implausible constitution of media disseminated political information; and the demographic
impact of a proportionally smaller (post-baby boom) youth population across advanced
democracies (Adsett, 2003; Blais, 2003; Canadian Polity Research Networks (CPRN), 2007;
Nakhaie, 2006; Llewellyn et al., 2007; Pammet & LeDuc, 2003; Pharr, Putnam, & Dalton,
2000; Wells & Dudash, 2007; Young & Cross, 2007). Research also addresses ways today’s
youth remain engaged politically, despite their lack of political trust and their disenchantment
with and withdrawal from traditional politics (Edwards, 2007; MacKinnon, Pitre, & Watling,
2007; O’Neill, 2007; Quéniart, 2008; Turcotte, 2007). Finally, research addresses potential
ways to enhance youth engagement, for example through civic education and electoral reform
(Johnson, Krahn, & Harrison, 2006; Kenski, 2005; Llewellyn et al., 2007; MacKinnon et al.,
2007; Turcotte, 2007).
Focusing on Canada, researchers have examined the impacts of declining political
education and social capital on youth (CPRN, 2007; Llewellyn et al., 2007; MacKinnon et al.,
2007; Nakhaie, 2006; O’Neill, 2007; Pammet & LeDuc, 2003; Young & Cross, 2007).
Simply stated, young Canadians with more education and more and denser social connections
are more likely to vote and participate in other forms of political activity, from volunteering in
election campaigns to joining in political demonstrations and boycotts (Nakhaie, 2006;
Quéniart, 2008; Turcotte, 2007). Family influences are key, in particular parental socioeconomic status, and whether parents are politically active and talk about (discuss) politics or
not. It is youth’s own level of education, however, that is the single most important correlate
of civic and political participation (MacKinnon et al., 2007, p. 6). The irony is that today’s
5
youth have higher rates of post-secondary education than previous generations, yet youth
voting continues to decline.
Margaret Adsett (2003) situates the decline in youth voting in the context of the shift
from welfare to neoliberal policies that occurred in Canada in the mid 1980s. She argues that
the Trudeau era (1963 to 1984) was marked by policy initiatives and discourses that
championed human rights, universal social supports for health, education, and employment,
and income redistribution to reduce provincial/territorial disparities in opportunity and social
welfare. These initiatives provided the impetus for younger citizens to engage politically,
particularly in terms of voting. Following the election of Brian Mulroney in 1984, however,
government priorities shifted to attracting investment, lowering taxes, and cutting deficits.
This shift resulted in reductions in federal transfers to the provinces and territories, and
concomitant downsizing of social programs, outsourcing and privatization of agencies and
services, cutbacks to post-secondary education funding, and the lowering of regulatory
standards. Adsett argues that this emergent neoliberal agenda failed to resonate with youth. At
the same time, Canadian politics underwent a transition from a three party to a post-three party
system. Adsett argues that this new post-three party system is less responsive to the needs of
youth, in part because young voters represent an increasingly smaller proportion of the
electorate (see also Quéniart, 2008; Turcott, 2007).
Elections Canada commissioned a series of reports on youth political engagement
(CPRN, 2007; Llewellyn et al, 2007; O’Neill, 2007; Turcotte, 2007; Young & Cross, 2007,
plus a synthesis report (MacKinnon et al., 2007). A key finding is that contemporary youth
have less formal political knowledge on how parliamentary democracy operates than older
cohorts. Moreover, for many youth “the term ‘politics’ has become a synonym for selfserving, narrow, partisan politics and, as such, is of little interest” (MacKinnon et al., 2007, p.
6
8). Not surprisingly, lower youth voter turnout corresponds with youths’ markedly lower
evaluation of societal obligation as a reason for voting (Turcott, 2007; see also Pammet &
LeDuc, 2003). Drawing on rational choice theory, Turcott (2007) argues that youths opt not to
vote because they see no advantage in voting. Unfortunately, this results in a de facto
disenfranchisement of youth, as low youth turnout influences politicians and political
strategists to ignore the needs and issues that engage youth.
Turcotte (2007) is among those who argue that the problem is not that youth are
disengaged from politics, but rather that politics are disengaged from youth (see also CPRN,
2007; Edwards, 2007; Quéniart, 2008; MacKinnon et al., 2007; O’Neill, 2007). This argument
builds on findings that Canadian youth engage in politics differently, not necessarily less, than
older citizens. Youth are equally or more likely to search out information on a political issue,
sign a petition, boycott a product for ethical reasons, or participate in demonstrations than are
older voters (O’Neill, 2007; Quéniart, 2008). This body of research suggests that traditional
modes of participation such as voting and party membership have decreased, but that these
have been supplanted by more direct forms of civic engagement – forms that youth feel more
directly and immediately address their priorities and more likely bring about change.
Researchers commonly identify civic education deficits and deficits in the quality of
media disseminated political discourse as sources of youth political disengagement. As is
frequently noted, however, political education and information can increase or decrease
youths’ motivation to vote, fostering interest and engagement among some youth, and
cynicism and disengagement among others (Llewellyn et al., 2007; MacKinnon et al., 2007;
see also Wells & Dudash, 2007). At the same time electoral reform holds promise of positive
results as younger citizens are consistently more supportive of proposals to comprehensively
overhaul the political processes – supporting at far higher rates than older citizens, for
7
example, proportional representation, compulsory voting, and Internet voting (Blais, 2003;
CPRN, 2007; Johnson et al., 2006; Kenski, 2005; MacKinnon et al., 2007; Pammet & LeDuc,
2003; Turcotte, 2007).
MacKinnon et al. (2007) conclude their review of the Elections Canada commissioned
series with a discussion of future research needs. Key among these is the need for qualitative
research that uses open-ended questions to probe youths’ motivations and identity as citizens.
They argue that qualitative research is essential if researchers and policy makers are to move
beyond generalities to a more nuanced and in-depth knowledge and understanding of ways to
politically engage a larger proportion of Canada’s youth population.
METHOD AND THEORY
Qualitative research is a diverse and distinct field of inquiry, encompassing multiple
theoretical and paradigmatic frameworks and research methods (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,
2004a). Its major distinction from quantitative approaches is that it employs subjective rather
than objective data collection and data analysis strategies. The aims are to explore, critique,
interpret and indeed construct understandings and insight into the complexities and
contradictions of human motives, identities, representations, and actions. Qualitative research
does not rely upon large representative random samples, and it does not test hypothesis or
attempt to prove theoretical postulates. Rather, research subjects are recruited through
purposive and opportunistic strategies, targeting members of specific and local populations
and constituencies (Miller & Crabtree, 2004). The aim is to probe into how specific and
particular individuals, groups, organizations and constituencies constitute their social
situations, self-perceptions, and behaviours.
For this study semi-structured “active” interviews (Miller & Crabtree, 2004) were
conducted by 51 student investigators who worked individually and together in nine 5-7
8
member research teams under the direction and supervision of Professor Ruth Mann (RogersDillon, 2005; Siltanen et al., 2008). This interview strategy views the interview interaction as
“a special type of partnership and communicative performance or event” (Miller & Crabtree,
2004, p.187). Ideally, this communicative performance is a unique conversation or dialogue
that generates depth insight and understanding on experiences, perceptions and events that an
interviewer and interviewee both know personally. Active interviewing differs from more
quantitatively oriented interview strategies, which seek to produce uncontaminated “value
free” data that can be subjected to quantitative causal analysis. Instead, active interviewing
aims to construct richly reflexive “value-laden” data that resonates with the multiplicities,
complexities, and contradictions of human perceptions and actions.
Relying on peer networks, each individual student investigator orally recruited a fellow
undergraduate who met recruitment criteria (a citizen who was between the ages of 18 and 25
at the time of the 2008 election) to participate in a 45 minute semi-structured interview – an
opportunistic recruitment strategy appropriate for research that aims at depth understanding
rather than generalizable fact (Miller & Crabtree, 2004). After carefully explaining the
conditions of the research as outlined on Consent to Participate and Consent to Audio Record
forms, each student investigator then conducted and transcribed their interview, taking care to
“clean” the transcript of personal identifiers.
Student investigators shared the interview transcripts with Professor Mann who
compiled a data corpus that the class agreed to make available for secondary analysis to future
researchers, and with fellow members of their 5-7 member research teams. Team members
collaboratively coded, analyzed, and orally presented findings on their data sets in a series of
end-of-term presentations. Finally, each individual student investigator authored a reflexive
9
end-of-term report on their experience conducting an active interview and interpreting active
interview data in dialogue with fellow team members and the class as a whole.
This team approach faced the inevitable challenge of dealing with hierarchy within
what is ideally an egalitarian research strategy (Rogers-Dillon, 2005). On a positive note,
hierarchy facilitates consistent focus, something that is of more concern when research is
situated within a scientific or post-positivist as opposed to an interpretive paradigm (Guba &
Lincoln, 2004). 2 From the perspective of constructionism, interactions between and among
researchers and research participants are the sole agency through which mental constructs are
extracted and clarified. Otherwise stated, the interactions that take place throughout the
interview create the insights that emerge in coding, analysis, and writing in the form of
themes, concepts and interpretations (see also Charmaz, 2004, 2005; Hesse-Biber & Leavy,
2004a, 2004b, 2004c; Miller & Crabtree, 2004). This requires a high degree of reflexivity, not
only of individual student investigators but of team members (Siltanen et al., 2008) who must
work to develop and be mindful of the “interpretive us” that creates the data and findings.
Research Question(s)
In qualitative research the question addressed in analysis develops throughout the
research process, which includes the writing up of the data (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004c).
The key research question addressed in this report is: “What compelled youth to vote or not to
2
Qualitative researchers are expected to situate their research in relation to one or more of three competing and
arguably “incommensurable” (Guba & Lincoln, 2004) paradigms:
1. Post-positivism, which assumes a “real” but imperfectly apprehended objective reality and which
aims at probabilistic explanation;
2. Critical theory, which assumes that what we apprehend as “real” is shaped by historically
constituted social, economic, gender, ethno-cultural and political forces, and which aims at
critique and transformation; and
3. Constructivism which assumes that what is “real” is subjectively created and therefore relative,
local and specific, and which aims at understanding and reconstruction.
10
vote in the 2008 federal election, and what might increase the likelihood of youth voting in the
future?”
In addition to this broad question, research teams and the class as a whole formulated
sets of more substantive research questions. These respond to specific concerns and patterns in
the literature on youth voting, reviewed above. Recognizing that our study can only address
these questions through analysis of the local and particular responses of undergraduate
students at our university, the substantive research questions addressed in the term reports of
contributing student co-authors are:
1. Do today’s youth see themselves as less politicized or as engaged in politics but in a
different form and fashion, as suggested by Anne Quéniart (2008) and Elections
Canada commissioned reports (see especially MacKinnon et al., 2007; O’Neill, 2007;
Turcotte, 2007)?
2. Is the decision to vote or not vote more affected by social connectedness to the
community and family/peers or to other forms of social capital (see Nakhaie, 2006; see
also Elections Canada commissioned reports CPRN, 2007; Pammet & LeDuc, 2003;
MacKinnon et al., 2007)?
3. How do civics education and media influences affect youth political interest and
involvement (see Edwards, 2007; Wells & Dudash, 2007; and Elections Canada
commissioned reports CPRN, 2007; Llewellyn et al., 2007; MacKinnon et al., 2007)
4. Do youth feel that their needs and concerns are being addressed by elected
representatives; would youth be more likely to vote if our system was reformed to
ensure proportional representation (Johnston et al., 2006 and Elections Canada
commissioned reports Blais, 2003; CPRN, 2007; MacKinnon et al., 2007; Pammet &
LeDuc, 2003; Turcotte, 2007)
5. How do youths find the accessibility of voting; if voting were compulsory or more
accessible, for example through on-line methods, would youth be more likely to vote
(Kenski, 2005 and Elections Canada commissioned reports CPRN, 2007; Turcotte,
2007)?
Interview Guide
In active interviewing the interview proceeds as a dialogue in which the interviewee is
encouraged to take the lead in an open-ended conversation on the substantive research concern
11
(Miller & Crabtree, 2004). The researcher necessarily plays a lead role in this dialogue, setting
the stage for the interview interaction through information conveyed during recruitment and
the signing of consent forms, when asking “identifying” questions, and when framing the
open-ended “grand tour” questions and follow-up “prompts” that serve to semi-structure the
interview interaction (Miller & Crabtree, 2004).
The class as a whole finalized our interview guide, reconfiguring and modifying the six
questions outlined in our research protocol which specifies that student investigators would
reframe the interview questions in their own language, and that the class as a whole would
develop a list of potential prompts in a class lab on interviewing:
Identifying questions (asked at the beginning of the audio-taped interview):
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
To confirm for the record, you are (male, female)?
What was your age at the time of the 2008 election?
How did you become a Canadian citizen – born or naturalized?
What is your current year of undergraduate studies at the U of Windsor?
What is your academic major?
Did you vote in the 2008 federal election?
Grand tour questions and prompts (posed during the course of the audio-taped interview):
1. How did you come to your decision to vote or not?
• What does voting mean to you?
• What does it mean to you to be a citizen?
• What does democracy mean to you?
2. Where you involved in forms of political participation other than voting?
• Did you watch the leaders’ debates on TV or on your computer?
• Did you check out the political parties or blogs online?
• Did you donate time or money to the campaign?
• What influenced your decision to participate or not in political activities other
than voting?
3. Why do you think youth voter turnout is generally low in Canada and other countries?
• What about your friends and family, do you know if they voted or not? Why do
you think they voted/didn’t vote?
• Do you think electoral reform might increase the likelihood of people voting or
participating in other political activities?
12
•
•
•
Do you think you would have voted in the U.S. election if you could have?
What kind of electoral reform would you like to see as a youth?
What do you think is needed to increase youth voting in Canada?
Data Coding and Analysis
Coding is the process of constructing patterns and therefore meaning out of the data
corpus or smaller data sets addressed in analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006). In this study, we
combined qualitative and quantitative strategies with the aim of achieving a more
comprehensive understanding of the interview data (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004a). As
evidenced in our list of substantive research questions, our primary aim is to explore the
interplay of literature-identified relevant themes. We contextualize depth analysis of these
themes in relation to identifying data generated by the full 51 interview data corpus, facilitated
by Professor Mann who used the statistical software program SPSS to generate descriptive
summaries of frequencies and research literature-identified correlations of key variables,
which she posted on the course website. These demographic summaries allowed student
investigators to situate qualitative findings on their 5-7 interview data sets in relation to the
full corpus of 51 interviews. 3
Student investigators and research teams worked “separately and together” to code the
interview data (Siltanen et al., 2008). We experimented with two coding strategies. First,
individuals and teams used the less structured deductive thematic coding strategy that Braun &
Clarke (2006) outline. Second, we used the inductive line-by-line coding strategy that
Charmaz (2004, 2005) and other grounded theory proponents advocate. We were collectively
3
It is increasingly common for researchers to employ a mix of qualitative and quantitative research strategies
(Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004a). In some instances qualitative strategies are used to probe for depth in a subset of
cases, or to generate hypothesis to be tested in future quantitative research. In other instances quantitative
strategies are used to summarize identifying data (social demographics) and other readily quantifiable
information generated through subjective research strategies. Finally, qualitative researchers are increasingly
using computer assisted software to identify recurring words and phrases in a data corpus or data set (HesseBiber, 2004).
13
impressed by the extent to which line-by-line coding appeared to allow the data to speak for
itself, providing surprises (Guba & Lincoln, 2004). Several teams applied this strategy to their
full data set. Other teams preferred Braun & Clarke’s (2006) deductive strategy of coding for
literature-relevant or theoretically salient themes. In both instances, coding proceeded through
a series of phases in which individual student investigators and research teams refined and
defined up to six key themes.
In addition to the thematic coding conducted by the nine research teams, Professor
Mann entered the full data corpus into the qualitative software program NVIVO, and used this
program to demonstrate ways a qualitative software program both facilitates and impedes
coding and analysis of interview transcripts. A few student investigators downloaded a free
trail version of NVIVO and experimented with this tool. Most, however, discovered that the
most powerful analytic strategy was to simply immerse themselves in their 5 to 7 interview
data set, and collaboratively construct and reflect upon the themes and understandings that
emerged through this deeply subjective encounter.
FINDINGS
In qualitative research, writing is the final stage of what is ideally a reflexive
interpretive/analytic process (Denzin, 2004: Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004c; Mauthner &
Doucet, 2003; Van Mahaan, 2004). There are two basic approaches that researchers typically
draw upon when presenting findings (Braun & Clarke, 2006). The first approach aims to
provide a rich and detailed thematic description of the data corpus as a whole, or of a specified
data set. The goal is to provide the reader with a sense of the full range of themes or patterns
identified through coding and analysis. This reporting strategy is most consistent with a postpositivist analytic stance. The second approach aims to provide a more explicitly researcher
14
driven (or research team driven) account of themes that dialogue with the research literature
and/or the researcher’ identified theoretical or political stance. This latter reporting strategy is
more appropriate to a constructionist or critical approach.
In this report we endeavour to provide some of both. First we descriptively summarize
key demographic and political interest/behaviour patterns to provide readers with a sense of
who our interviewees are, comparing identifiable patterns to those reported in the research
literature on youth voting. We then explore a set of student-investigator selected themes that
provide insight into our research question on what compels or might compel or influence
youth to vote or not to vote.
The Data Corpus – A Brief Quantitative Description
Twenty nine females and 22 males participated in a semi-structured “active” interview
(57% female, 43% male). All were University of Windsor undergraduate students who were
between the ages of 18 and 25 at the time of the election. The majority were born in Canada
(91% of specified cases). 4 The interviewees indentified 15 distinct fields of undergraduate
study as their major. Approximately half reported voting in the 2008 federal election (25/51 @
49%). Fewer than half voiced support for a political party (21/51 @ 41%) 5 . Slightly more than
half listened to or viewed one of the televised leaders’ debates (28/51 @ 55%), and/or sought
out information on the election on the Internet, (26/51 @ 51%). A mere handful had donated
time or money to a political party (5/51 @ 10%).
Our sample is not representative. Nevertheless it is noteworthy that demographic and
political interest/activity correlates of voting are consistent with the research literature
4
In 5 cases, data on “route to citizenship” is missing.
5
Partisanship was not among our identifying questions. This theme emerged in our analyses of the data, leading
Professor Mann to request all teams to “code” for this marker of political interest.
15
(Nakhaie, 2006; MacKinnon et al., 2007; O’Neill, 2007; Pammett & LeDuc, 2003; Turcotte,
2007; Young & Cross, 2007). Focusing on social demographics, male interviewees reported
voting at a noticeably higher rate than females (13/22 males @ 59% versus 12/29 females @
41%), as did “born” Canadians compared to “naturalized” Canadians (22/42 @ 52% versus
1/4 @ 25%). Moreover, consistent with the Elections Canada (2005) finding that younger
youth voted at slightly higher levels than older youth in the 2004 election, increased maturity
negatively correlated with self-reports of voting in our sample. Specifically, 2/3 interviewees
age 18 or 19 (67%) voted, 18/32 age 20 to 22 (56%) voted, and 5/16 age 23 to 25 voted (31%).
With respect to political interest/activity beyond voting, as is reported in many studies
interviewees who were politically active or interested voted at a noticeably higher rate.
Specifically, 4/5 (80%) of those who reported donating time or money to a political party
voted; 15/21 (71%) who self-identified as partisan voted; 15/28 (54%) who viewed or listened
to the leaders debate voted; and 13/25 (52%) who sought out political information on the
Internet voted. With respect to partisanship, 7/9 (78%) who voiced preference/support for the
Liberal Party voted, compared to Conservative Party supporters (5/8 @ 63 %), New
Democratic Party supporters (2/2 @ 100 %) and Green Party supporters (1/2 @ 50 %). In
contrast only 10/30 (33%) who self-identified as non-partisan or who gave no indication of
partisanship voted.
One additional pattern is noteworthy given recent research attention to the potential for
political or civics education to increase youth voter participation (Llewellyn et al., 2007;
MacKinnon et al., 2007). Reports of having voting varied by declared major. Specifically,
more than three quarters of interviewees with a declared humanities or arts major voted; half
16
or close to half of social science, business, science or human kinetics majors voted; but a mere
fifth of psychology, social work, or disability studies majors voted. 6
Our Five-Team Data Set – Qualitative Findings
The student co-authors of this report participated on five different research teams:
Abbas (Team #7), Burton (Team #9), Gauder (Team #5), Jones (Team #4), and Lafleur (Team
#8). In this discussion we draw upon the 26 interviews analyzed by these five teams. This data
set is comprised of 15 female (58%) and 11 male (42%) interviewees – a gender distribution
that roughly corresponds with the full data corpus (57% females and 43% males). Of these,
7/11 males reported that they cast their ballot (64%), compared to 5/15 females (33%). Thus
male voters are over-represented (64% versus 59% in the full data corpus), and female voters
are under-represented (33% versus 41%).
Through our analysis of the 26 interview transcripts many relevant themes and subthemes emerged: political interest/disinterest, family/peer influences, civic duty, democracy,
media influences, political trust, political relevance, party politics, political education,
electoral reform, political access, and so forth. For the purpose of this report we concentrate
on six interrelated themes that recur across our five end-of-term reports. Our aim is to
construct a compelling and reflexive narrative that offers insight into the complex and
contradictory factors and processes that shape youths voting behaviours. At the level of praxis
we aim to identify ways to help reverse a decline that is resulting in a de facto
6
Interviewees who majored in History (n = 2), English (n = 2), Creative Writing (n = 1), Communication Studies
(n = 2), and Visual or Dramatic Arts (n = 2) voted at the highest level (7/9 @ 78%); approximately half who
majored in Sociology, Anthropology or Criminology (n = 12), Political Science (n = 2), International
Development (n = 2), Science (n = 5) Business (n = 6) or Human Kinetics (n =5) voted (15/31@ 48%; while
very few who majored in Psychology (n = 8), Social Work (n = 1), or Disability Studies (n = 1) voted (2/10 @
20%). One major is undeclared.
17
disenfranchisement of young Canadians (Turcott, 2007). To facilitate this we draw heavily
upon the words of our interviewees, who we identify using upper case pseudonyms.
The six interrelated themes are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Political disinterest/interest
Political relevance/political trust
Rational Choice
Media influence
Political education
Voting accessibility
Theme #1: Political disinterest/interest
Political disinterest and disengagement are commonly cited contributors to low voter
turnout, as our literature review emphasizes. A number of commentators argue that the issue
is not that youth are disinterested or disengaged from politics, but rather that youth are
differently engaged (O’Neill, 2007; MacKinnon et al., 2007), while others point to the
importance of social capital, especially politically active family and social networks
(MacKinnon et al., 2007; Nakhaie, 2006; Turcotte, 2007).
In our study voting youth identified a number of influences that compelled or
influenced them to be interested in politics and voting. Consistent with the research literature,
family and peer influences were prominent (Nakhaie, 2006; Quéniart, 2008; Turcotte, 2007).
Youth who were themselves politically interested and engaged enough to vote overwhelming
described their families and peers as politically engaged and interested. Moreover, as several
interviewees emphasized, politically active personal networks of family and peers not only
influenced their decision to vote, but also shaped their decision on how to vote.
MARY, ANDY and JACK are among those who felt compelled or influenced to vote
by family members:
18
•
My parents have always been involved in the election, so it is something that I
have always been socialized to get involved with. I was always taught that voting
was the most important feature that citizens must exercise in a democracy.
(MARY – Team #8 voter)
•
I’ve always been an active member in society, I go to church with family and
have fam dinners and I think they skew you to being active politically. (ANDY
– Team #5 voter)
•
My brother did vote. He voted, I think, Liberal also. My brother-in-law voted
[pause] I think he voted for Liberal also. I think most of the people I know voted
for Liberals. And I think that swayed my vote a little bit too. (JACK – Team #5
voter)
In contrast ANN, PATRICIA, and REBECCA were compelled, or influenced, by
peers:
•
Me and my friend who was big into the elections ended up skipping a class to go
vote, it was my first time. (PATRICIA – Team #4 voter)
•
[My boyfriend] really understands it and is very strong against Conservative as
well and, well actually he made me so aware of what was going on. (ANN –
Team #4 voter)
•
Some of my friends convinced me out of it [to vote Liberal]. They said that it
would be a waste of time [to vote Green] since like the Green party will be in
something like the minority or something like that. But anyways they convinced
me to vote for the Liberals because they had a better chance of winning.
(REBECCA – Team #8 voter)
Many youths endorsed the notion that they and/or youths in general are disinterested in
and disengaged from politics. Some blamed this on youth, asserting that youth generally do
not care, are lazy, or just can’t be bothered – a view shared alike by youth who did and did not
choose to vote:
•
I would say that youth voter turnout is generally low because honestly, most
youths really don’t care. They just don’t make a point to get involved in what
each party represents. … For youths, I have heard people say I am not voting, I
don’t care, it doesn’t impact me, but really it does substantially. (MARY – Team
#8 voter)
19
•
We are a pretty lazy generation and we really don’t respond well to having to get
off our asses and doing anything! We just don’t want to get off the couch, stop
playing Playstation, and actually vote and cause change. … I think politicians try
to engage youth. It’s not like the politicians have abandoned all hope in youth
and simply don’t attempt to engage them. They do. I think it just falls on deaf
ears. I don’t know what else could be done. (ROBERT – Team #8 voter)
•
It wasn't worth the effort to go out and vote. (OSCAR – Team #8 non-voter)
•
There are a lot more things that interest me more than Canadian politics.
(WILLIAM – Team #8 non-voter)
Assertions that youth are too lazy to vote or too interested in other things to care to
vote overlap with the view that it’s not worth the effort to vote given the state of Canadian
politics.
•
Half of what you hear politicians say is all part of trying to get votes. They create
all these amazing promises to get you to vote for them and then don't keep the
promises when elected into office. Just shows that you can't believe everything
you hear. (JILL – Team #5 non-voter)
•
The candidates all seem shallow and fake. They just seem to say what they think
they need to say to get elected. They just give the impression that they are merely
trying to say what they think will help get them elected rather than what they
actually believe in or what they actually intend to do. (OSCAR – Team #8 nonvoter)
•
Someone like the NDP could have a promise that could fall through hell, or they
could make promises because they don’t think they are actually going to have to
follow through. They could say amazing things and not actually get voted for.
(ANN – Team #4 voter)
These latter perceptions, that the problem is not in youth but rather in the state of
Canadian politics, is at the heart of our second theme – political relevance/political trust.
Theme #2: Political irrelevance/political trust
Youth political disenchantment with and distrust in politicians and the political process
is another commonly identified source of low youth voter turnout (Johnston et al., 2006;
20
MacKinnon et al., 2007; Pammet & LeDuc, 2003). In our study many interviewees linked this
to the widely voiced belief that the Canadian political system lacks relevance or efficacy.
MICHELLE, JACK, BEVERLY, SIMONE, MARY, and REBECCA, some of whom
voted but most of whom did not, linked low voter turnout to the failure of politicians to
address issues that really matter to young voters – for example the escalating cost of tuition,
the lack of affordable daycare, and inadequate employment/unemployment assistance:
•
If they brought it down to a personal level where it influenced or touched or
changed something that means something to me, then I would definitely go out
of my way more. (MICHELLE – Team #7 non-voter)
•
Most of the youth today aren’t involved or simply don’t vote for similar reasons
and those reasons are that the governments that they feel are in power don’t
make so much difference, and don’t make changes in accordance to their views.
(JACK – Team #5 voter)
•
[I asked the election candidate at my door] what he was doing about University
tuition, cause I was going away to school and it was something big for me –
cause I was going of to school in the fall and wanted to know like, what they
were doing about it. (BEVERLY – Team #7 non-voter)
•
To produce a new policy about tuition freezing or lower tuition costs—umm
because there is no reason it costs that much to go to class. (SIMONE – Team #7
non-voter)
•
As a youth it seems that the issues I have just mentioned [daycare; tuition;
employment insurance] are fundamentally ignored or put on the back burner by
governments in power. Especially, child care spots. (MARY – Team #8 voter)
•
Our issues are never addressed. For example our tuition and stuff like that would
make youth voters turn out more. I mean if that issue is addressed more I am sure
we would vote more. (REBECCA – Team #8 voter)
In contrast, BEVERLY, WENDY and ROBERT link youths disenchantment with
politicians and politics to Canadian institutional arrangements, specifically to the fact that in
our parliamentary system we do not vote directly for our Prime Minister, and to the fact that
21
elected Members of Parliament (MPs) are subject to party discipline, making them
accountable to the leader first, rather than to their constituents:
•
The system right now leads people to believe that [pause] what’s the point in
their vote because it doesn’t really matter, but if everyone’s vote sort of counted
towards not necessarily who represents [you] in your riding but directly relates to
who’s gonna be the Prime Minister of Canada, I think that would be kinda umm,
better for people. (BEVERLY – Team #7 non-voter)
•
We should be able to choose our Prime Minister, as well as choose our
representative for our municipality. (WENDY – Team #7 non-voter)
•
I don’t like the idea that if you belong to [represent in parliament] say the NDP,
you all have to vote the same way you don’t have a choice in it. I feel is silly
because at the end of the day you could be voting against something that would
immediately help the constituents that elected you. That’s no way to conduct any
type of politics. (ROBERT – Team #8 voter)
It is important to note that even youth who decide to vote, ROBERT for example,
experience feelings of powerless rooted in the perception that their vote is ultimately futile or
worthless. Otherwise stated, even voters experience a lack of trust in politicians and politics.
At the same time this lack of trust does not in itself “compel” youth not to vote. Indeed, as
MARY made clear, youth frustration with the political system can be a reason for voting,
since voting holds the possibility of change:
•
[The system] is frustrating, because when you place your vote sometimes it
doesn’t feel like it really counts and if the election ends up being a
disappointment to you, you kind of feel like your vote really was useless and
worthless - kind of like a wasted vote. … I came to my decision to vote, because
I was hoping that for change to come to the political system. I must vote in order
to bring about this change. I voted to try and remove Stephen Harper and the
Conservatives from power for change to happen. But also for more
empowerment and a chance to make sure that our voices are heard. (MARY –
Team #8, voter)
The fact that many youth vote despite frustration and discouragement with politics and
politicians is salient to our third theme, rational choice.
22
3. Rational Choice
The research literature addressed the role of rational choice in youth voting
(MacKinnon et al., 2007; Pammett & LeDuc, 2003; Turcott, 2007). A key argument is that
youth opt not to vote because they see no advantage in voting, as our discussion under themes
#1 and #2 confirm. Simply stated, when people do not see it in their personal interest to
engage in an activity they are unlikely to do so. Unfortunately, as Turcott (2007) notes, this
results in a de facto disenfranchisement of youth, as low turnout influences politicians to
ignore the needs and issues that engage youth. Conversely, political strategists offer youth few
incentives to vote, or even to engage in political discourse (MacKinnon et al., 2007).
Figure I illustrates how political disinterest/disengagement and distrust in the efficacy
of the political system overlap to foster a rational decision either to abstain from voting, or to
vote.
Figure I: Rational Choice & Decision to Vote or Not
YOUTHS
INTERESTED BUT
LACK POLITICAL TRUST &
POLITICAL EFFICACY
YOUTH
DISENGAGEMENT
LACK
POLITICAL
TRUST
&
DISINTERESTED
NON-VOTERS
POLITICAL
EFFICACY
23
INTERESTED
VOTERS
In exploring the salience of rational choice to youths’ decision to vote or not to vote
we directly address the contradictory relationship between youth disinterest and youths’ lack
of trust in politicians and the political system. As Figure 1 illustrates, voting and non-voting
youth alike experience distrust in and frustration with politics and politicians. Interested and
issue engaged youth choose to vote despite this. Disinterested youth generally do not (a few
interviewees who voiced little political interest or knowledge reported being more or less
dragged along to vote by family or friends).
WILLIAM is an example of a youth who made a rational decision not to vote in the
2008 election despite being interested in politics and believing that voting is important to
democracy. WILLIAM was dissuaded from voting by his belief that his preferred candidate
had no chance of winning. He therefore felt that his vote would be “lost”:
•
Windsor the votes tend to go heavily in the favour of the NDP, in my riding, I
feel as though my vote here is lost. (WILLIAM – Team #8 non-voter)
Any number of remedial strategies come to mind, aimed either at reducing sources of
distrust and youth disenfranchisement, or at increasing youths interest in and understanding of
politics. Electoral reform in the direction of proportional representation comes readily to mind,
especially since youth appear to support this and other “direct democracy” proposals more
than older cohorts (Blais, 2003; CPRN, 2007; Johnson et al., 2006; MacKinnon et al., 2007;
Pammet & LeDuc, 2003; Turcotte, 2007). A proportional system might better engage youth by
“compelling” political parties and politicians to be more relevant.
Theme #4: Media influence
The media is a key theme, connected to many other themes and subthemes identified
by our various teams. Many interviewed youth identified the media as contributing negatively
to their interest in politics. Non-voters in particular, tended to identify the media as a strong
24
influence on their decision not to vote. Many spoke disparagingly of information presented in
election ads, the televised leaders’ debates, news broadcasts, and the Internet – confirming the
observation of previous researchers that political information can negatively influence youth
not to vote (MacKinnon et al., 2007). Interview participants overwhelmingly distrusted the
political information received on TV because, in the view of many, television is biased and
controlled by whoever has power and money. Moreover, as demonstrated in preceding quotes,
youth commonly do not trust what politicians promise or say. Nevertheless, the media has an
important and even an overriding role in influencing the feelings, perceptions, and indeed the
political knowledge of the public.
Figure II illustrates the directional influence that the media appears to exert on
processes associated with other key themes and subthemes.
Figure II: Media’s Overriding Influence
The importance of the media was highlighted in discussions that compared the U.S.
and Canadian elections. That is, a discussion of media influences was situated within a broader
discussion of how interesting and important U.S. politics seem, compared to U.S. politics.
MICHELLE linked this to the fact that U.S. is simply more powerful. Therefore U.S. politics
25
is more likely to seem relevant, even inspiring, while it is largely irrelevant whether Canada
“goes” Conservative or Liberal:
•
But if Canada like - like the U.S. elections really was making history [pause].
When the voters went to vote that day [pause] I, um, even watched it on T.V. and
how people reacted in voting and how inspired they were and how they felt they
were making a difference. But I feel like any way Canada goes [pause] it is not
gonna really make that much of a difference. Like I know if you vote for the
Conservative party like, they are going to be really good for the businesses and
the self-employed people and big corporations and things like that. If you go
Liberal, you are helping the children and teachers and stuff like that. But, it’s just
[pause] either way; it’s not gonna be a big, big difference like world wide.
Maybe I don’t understand as much as I should but [pause] I feel like anyway
Canada goes is not gonna be that huge. But any way the U.S. goes is huge!
(MICHELLE – Team #7 non-voter)
When asked if she would have been more likely to vote if she could vote in the U.S.
election, ANDREA responded affirmatively. She linked this to the perception that the U.S.
election offered a truly engaging candidate, so engaging that a fellow Canadian classmate
cried in joy when watching Obama’s televised inauguration:
•
Yeah, probably [would have voted in the U.S.]. And I mean, it’s scary because I
could probably tell you more about where they stand. Like, even like, look at
Barack Obama’s inauguration. You know, like everyone and we were even
talking about this in class, and one girl said she was crying! Yeah! Like, you
know, somebody in um Canada was crying because Barack Obama was
President. And I understand that that’s a big step for, you know, like, a lot of
people. But at the same time, like, we were so focused on the United States
election and Canada was just dwarfed by it. Badly. … [they] always have
pretty—um—um—interesting candidates, whereas, you know, ours were the
typical. (ANDREA – Team #7 non-voter)
The above statements attest to the importance of parties running interesting candidates
that attract the attention and curiosity of Canadian citizens, youth in particular. They also
speak to the importance of candidates addressing issues that matter beyond the petty confines
of Canadian partisanship – issues that matter for the future of Canada and the world,
including, as many, many students cited, ensuring youth have affordable access to university
and college. It would be good if younger politicians were to take the risk of running for Prime
26
Minister, while making sure they appeal to the fresh young voters of Canada. However, it is
not new younger candidates that are necessarily needed. What is most needed is for current
candidates to be willing to change their methods, and their message. They need to be more
relevant to real issues, and more youth directed.
In the interviews, and in class discussions, many youth endorsed the view that youth
turnout could be increased by better use of the Internet, especially MSN and Facebook. These
new social sites provide a way to get information out to youth. As important, they are a way to
tap youths’ concerns and incorporate youths’ voices. The Internet can act as a major gateway
into the lives of youth. The present youth generation is the Internet generation. We grew up
with it and developed along with it. The Internet is a major mode of media for youth and if
politicians, and indeed Elections Canada, broke through to a more interactive use of this media
youth would predictably listen, and respond.
•
I think that if the information was tied into entertainment facets that youth are on
anyways, Facebook or MSN for example then they might give it a second look
and maybe take the time to read it and educate themselves. (VINCE – Team #9
voter)
JACK is among those who endorse greater use of the Internet. As he emphasized, it is
not just a matter of reaching youth through this new media. The Internet and other media tools
must be used to convey to youth that their concerns are heard, and that they will be taken into
account:
•
If they promoted it a lot better through the Internet, a lot more people would see,
you know, the voting, the signs that say “vote, vote, vote”. And they would be
more inclined to vote. … Because the demographics of this issue show that the
youth don’t vote as much, so if you wanna influence their views, then you gotta
show why. The politicians should create ads that are umm getting the youth to
vote. They gotta show things that the government is willing to do for the youths.
So one of the things that I was thinking of would be tuition fees, if they were to
start reducing tuition fees and they were starting to create a life for the students
that would be easier then I think that would be, that would for sure, get people to
vote. (JACK – Team #5 voter)
27
Theme #5: Political education
The research literature points to the importance of education aimed at increasing
knowledge of the way our political system works if we hope to attract more youths to voting
and other forms of political and civil engagement (CPRN, 2007; Llewellyn et al., 2007;
MacKinnon et al., 2007; Nakhaie, 2006; O’Neill, 2007; Pammet & LeDuc, 2003; Young &
Cross, 2007).
In our study, youths commonly identified deficits in their post-secondary education as
a major concern. In response to questions on why youth turnout is low, ANDREA named
political education first. Other interviewees, for example WILLIAM and WENDY, responded
to probes on this possible source of low youth voting:
•
Um. Probably [youth don’t vote] because, I don’t know, kind of like the same
boat I’m in. They just, they don’t even know where to even look for information.
Even our civics course, which was mandatory for at least Ontario students, it’s
like we learn about where people sit in Parliament but we didn’t learn about like
the different parties and what they generally stand for, and the history of politics.
We just learned about Parliament. We didn’t learn about how it was run or
anything. It was just um, it’s just a lot of ignorance. The youth just don’t know
where to turn for a lot of information. (ANDREA – Team #7 non-voter)
•
[Were you exposed to politics at all in school as you were growing up?] Very
rarely. We are around the same age. I’m sure you were exposed to it as much as I
was, come to think of it. Almost never came up. (WILLIAM – Team #8 nonvoter)
•
I think that would work [civics education]. Even if we start in grade 8 because
even by them, honestly, this day and age kids are not stupid. They know more
about what’s going around then the baby boomers do. Whether it’s technology or
education or the political system, people know what’s going on. The problem is
no one knows how it’s run. So if we start at a younger age … you are going to
start seeing people more interested in politics, willing to get involved and
possibly become politicians themselves. Which I think is what needs to happen.
(WENDY – Team #7 non-voter)
28
While non-voting interviewees typically endorsed the need for more or better high
school or earlier civics education, many who voted noted the positive influence of exposure to
political knowledge or talk in various university classes – ranging from business to
communication studies:
•
I’d say at least six days a week [I] talk about politics. The political talk tends to
be mostly economic just because I am in the Faculty of Business there has been a
lot about the global financial bailout [and] the automotive bailout. (ROBERT –
Team #8 voter)
•
I only knew about it all about a month ahead because of how little media
coverage there was, and my Communication Studies teacher had brought it up.
(ANN – Team #4 voter)
These latter quotes point to the importance of a professor or other educational actor
simply talking about or mentioning that an election is underway. There is no way to determine
whether youth who voted systematically experienced more political talk in classroom contexts,
since we did not probe for this. It is noteworthy, however, that rates of reported voting varied
by undergraduate major – pointing to the importance of professors across disciplines making
and effort to mobilize youth to vote. As Llewellyn et al. (2007) note, however, at the high
school level teaching staff often feel political talk of any sort is inappropriate. We would agree
that it is inappropriate to try to tell youth which party to vote for, but it is also inappropriate to
refrain from recognizing and fostering full youth participation in the rights and responsibilities
of citizenship.
Theme #6: Voting accessibility
In this report we define voting accessibility in terms of the level of difficulty that
youths on our campus faced obtaining information regarding parties and policies, and as
importantly, information on how to qualify to cast their ballot. First, many of our interviewees
commented that the university in general seemed silent on the election. Specifically, neither
29
student groups nor university administrators made an effort to ensure students were aware that
an election was underway, or provided information to ensure they knew what they needed to
do to vote. The Ambassador Student Centre, for example, was devoid of information or
outreach, both on how students could make sure they could cast their vote, and on the
positions of parties and candidates, so that students could make an informed choice.
As noted in several oral presentations, many University of Windsor students who would have
voted were deterred by the challenge of providing necessary documentation and gaining
access to their assigned polling station. This is problematic as most students live off campus
but away from their home town or city. Many who voted made a considerable effort on
election night, driving from station to station, or returning by train or car to their parents’
residence. No one seemed aware of advance polls, or the possibility of casting an absentee or
“special” ballot (Elections Canada, 2009). Some youth simply decided that it is not worth the
hassle to vote.
Similar difficulties are reported by Pammett and LeDuc’s (2003), who measured
registration and polling difficulties and other impediments to voting in their survey of nonvoters. They found that for young voters’ registration and polling obstacles outweighed
reported lack or interest. Specifically noted were obstacles associated with the need to
personally undertake an inquiry on how to get registered, finding the location of their polling
station, and dealing with the run-around of being sent from poll to poll on the day of the
election (see p. 63). As they note in the foreword to their report: “The Chief Electoral Officer
is mandated to ensure that the electoral process is as accessible as possible to Canadians” (p.
ii). For voting to be truly accessible information on election campaigns and issues and
accurate information on and access to polling stations are essential, including for students
information on how to obtain and cast a “special’ or absentee ballot (Elections Canada, 2009).
30
One proposed method of increasing voting accessibility is online voting (Blais, 2003;
CPRN, 2007; Johnson et al., 2006; Kenski, 2005; MacKinnon et al., 2007; Pammet & LeDuc,
2003; Turcotte, 2007). Many interviewees believed that online voting would be of greater
convenience and that it would increase the likelihood that they themselves would vote, though
some expressed concern about the possibility of hacking or cheating:
•
Well, you know if I could vote on the Internet, [laughs] I probably would do that
for um, for Canada. (MICHELLE – Team #7 non-voter)
•
Voting on the Internet would be a lot more convenient since a lot of people have
to work … so, if we could just go on the Internet for a minute or so and vote
there would probably be a lot more youth voting since a lot of us, me included
[chuckles] are on the Internet quite a bit these days, and the Internet is becoming
more readily available and easy to access. (SIMONE – Team #7 non-voter)
•
When it comes to a lot more people, I do believe that [electronic voting] would
help. Because some people are just plain lazy when it comes to voting and they
forget too, on the day of, like I almost forgot to vote on the day of the election
last semester, the last ah election and the only reason why I remembered was
because one of my friends asked me who I had voted for. … If this was a new
system where people were to umm have better access to voting, they would do
so, they would find the means to vote and especially if it was through the
Internet. (JACK – Team #5 voter)
Regardless of how accessibility is increased, it appears from our study that
accessibility is a genuine source of low voter turnout among university students. Elections
Canada, universities and colleges, student groups, professors, peers – all have a role to play.
Political parties and political strategist, however, must also take responsibility, making sure
they “hit” youth in voter mobilization efforts – making sure at the very least that campaign
pamphlets are distributed on campuses and in residential areas where off-campus students are
concentrated:
•
Don’t just hit the towns; go to universities because you want to see the youth to
vote. They are the ones that are going to determine the future. They are the ones
that are going to be running the future. You need to influence them today and not
piss them off. (WENDY – Team #7 non-voter)
31
CONCLUSION
Two methodological points are important to the conclusions we offer on this study.
First, our study samples a local and particular undergraduate population with the aim of
exploring the issue of declining youth voter turnout in depth. Our sample is not representative
– certainly not of Canadian youth generally, or even of Canadian or Ontario undergraduate
youth. Second, especially given the active interview strategy we employed, it is important to
bear in mind that as researchers we ourselves have an impact on the findings (Miller &
Crabtree, 2004). Some research teams drew more heavily on a post-positivists paradigm.
However, in this report we primarily draw upon constructionism. In conducting, coding and
interpreting the data we have endeavoured to mindfully attend to “how” our perceptions,
actions, and understanding shape the findings that emerge from our semi structured
conversations on voting and politics with undergraduate students at our university.
Our key conclusion is that youth citizenship is expounded in a dialectical manner.
First, our study demonstrates that while many youth are disinterested and disengaged as
citizens, others are passionately engaged. Second, irrespective of interest in politics many
youth possess a lack of political trust and faith in their own efficacy as citizens, and in the
efficacy of Canadian politicians and the Canadian political system. This further shapes youths
choice to vote or not. Third, the rational choice not to vote leaves young Canadians largely
disenfranchised as citizens. If politicians and political strategists wish to influence youth to
exercise their vote, deficits in political trust and political efficacy must be addressed. Fourth,
the media has a predominant influence on how youth view politics, and consequently on
whether they chose to vote or not. This is largely due to the ways politicians and political
strategists do and do not use the media. Fifth, political education and indeed political talk, at
both high school and university levels, is far from adequate. Universities, professors, student
32
groups, and political parties and candidates are among those who need to take action to reverse
this. Sixth, greater efforts must be taken to facilitate voting accessibility through outreach, getout-the vote assistance, and innovative strategies such as Internet.
This list of findings broadly aligns with the findings of previous research, reviewed as
a first step in conducting our study. In contrast to Adsett’s (2003) findings on neoliberalism
and low youth voter turnout, however, our study sufficiently demonstrates that half or more of
surveyed university attending youths are willing to cast their vote to change the mistakes and
problems created by past governments. At the same time, our study confirms that youths are
most likely to vote if they were strongly connected to society and their peers, bolstering
Nakhaie’s (2006) social capital argument. More importantly, our study demonstrates that
youths determine whether or not to cast their vote on the basis of their own rational assessment
of whether voting counts, or matters. The fact that so many chose not to vote inadvertently
disenfranchises young citizens as a political constituency, consistent with Turcotte (2007)
rational choice argument. Equally important, however, our findings buttress those of Turcotte
that youths’ needs and political interests are not being represented and addressed by Canadian
politicians.
Further, our research confirms Pammet and LeDuc’s (2003) and Llewellyn and
colleagues (2007) insight that low youth voter turnout is the corollary of low political
education. As well, it confirms conclusions reached by Henn et al. (2002), Kenski, 2005;
MacKinnon et al. (2007), O’Neill (2007), Quéniart (2008), and Young & Cross (2007) that
politics is not aimed at today’s youths and that youth would be more likely to engage in novel
forms of political participation and voting strategies. Though we did not systematically probe
or code for this, our research nevertheless also lends support to the findings of Quéniart (2008)
33
and others that youths are inspired by and engage in new forms of political participation such
as protests, boycotts, petitions and blogging.
Lastly, our study provides insight into what, with the exception of Pammett & LeDuc
(2003) appears as a gap in the literature we reviewed – impediments to youths’ access to
voting. Citizenship is extremely important within a democratic society. In recent decades,
increasing numbers of youth seem to have ignored or lost this idea of citizenship. With that
being the case, more research needs to be done not only to identify the reasons for youth
disengagement, but also to construct proactive solutions which can reverse this decline. Youth
are the future and if they do not become politically involved now, they are not likely to do so
as they mature. Democracy and the rights democracy guarantees are jeopardized if people do
not exercise the rights and privileges of citizenship.
In light of this, politicians and the political parties need to immediately change
practices that ignore, distance, and alienate youth. At the same time, youth need to proactively
insert themselves into Canadian politics. Our “demographic weight” (Adsett, 2003) may not
be as robust as previous more politically engaged youth cohorts, but we are nevertheless
Canada’s future. Further research is needed to further explore and understand whether nonvoting youths are so fundamentally disengaged from politics that they wish to accept the social
injustice of disenfranchisement, or whether they would indeed respond to more relevant and
accessible opportunities to participate fully as citizens. One thing is clear, however, the
decision to vote or not to vote is ultimately in the purview of youths themselves. Christian
Pinard captures our collective awareness of this in a poem he composed for his teams (Team
#9) end-of-term oral presentation. We end this report with Christian’s poem:
34
Youth Voting – Food for Thought
For there to be hope, we all have to vote.
The youth voter decline is a negative downward line.
But who are we to blame?
Canadian politics are lame.
The most boring of peoples, the lesser of two evils.
Let’s get Trudeau back, or have our own Barack.
A black Prime Minister in Canada, now that would be a shock!
So you big wigs on top should maybe take a look.
To win over the youth may get you off the hook.
But please my youthful friends we also must take note.
It’s time we all get out and vote.
Christian Pinard, Team #9 Student Investigator
35
REFERENCES CITED
Adsett, M. (2003). Change in Political Era and Demographic Weight as Explanations of Youth
'Disenfranchisement' in Federal Elections in Canada, 1965-2000. Journal of Youth
Studies, 6, 247-264.
Blais, A. (2003). Why is Turnout Higher in Some Countries than in Others? Ottawa: Elections
Canada.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research
in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
Campbell, C. (2008). Liberals fail to Push Voters to the Polls. Globe and Mail, 16 October.
Cassell, C. (2005). Creating the Interviewer: Identity Work in the Management Research
Process. Qualitative Research, 5, 167-179.
Charmaz, K. (2004). Grounded Theory. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to
Qualitative Research (pp. 496-521). New York: Oxford University Press.
Charmaz, K. (2005). Grounded Theory in the 21st Century: Applications for Advancing Social
Justice Studies. In N.K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of
Qualitative Research (3rd ed.) (pp. 507-535). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Canadian Policy Research Networks (CPRN) (2007). Charting the Course for Youth Civic and
Political Participation: CPRN Youth Workshop Summary Report. Ottawa: CPRN.
Denzin, N. K. (2004). The Art and Politics of Interpretation. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy
(Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 447-472). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Edwards, K. (2007). From Deficit to Disenfranchisement: Reframing Youth Electoral
Participation. Journal of Youth Studies, 10, 539-555.
Elections Canada (2005). Estimation of Voter Turnout by Age Group at the 38th Federal
General Election (June 28, 2004): Final Report. Ottawa: Elections Canada.
_____. (2009). Report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada on the 40th General Election
of October 14, 2008. Ottawa: Elections Canada.
Esser, F. & de Vreese, C. H. (2007). Comparing Young Voters' Political Engagement in the
United States and Europe. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1195-1213.
Guba, E. G. & Lincoln, Y. S. (2004). Competing Paradigms in Qualitative Research. In S.N.
Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 17-38). New
York: Oxford University Press.
36
Henn, M., Weinstein, M., & Wring, D. (2002). A Generation Apart? Youth and Political
Participation in Britain. British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 4, 167192.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. & Leavy, P. (2004a). Distinguishing Qualitative Research. In S.N. HesseBiber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 1-15). New York:
Oxford University Press.
_____. (2004b). Unobtrusive Methods: Visual Research, and Cultural Studies. In S.N. HesseBiber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 303-315). New
York: Oxford University Press.
_____. (2004c). Analysis, Interpretation, and the Writing of Qualitative Data. In S.N. HesseBiber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 409-425). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Hesse-Biber, S. N. (2004). Unleashing Frankenstein's Monster: The Use of Computers in
Qualitative Research. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.), Approaches to
Qualitative Research (pp. 535-545). New York: Oxford University Press.
Johnston, W. A., Krahn, H., & Harrison, T. (2006). Democracy, Political Institutions, and
Trust: The Limits of Current Electoral Reform Proposals. Canadian Journal of
Sociology, 31, 165-182.
Kenski, K. (2005). To I-Vote or Not to I-Vote? Opinions about Internet Voting from Arizona
Voters. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 293-303.
Lincoln, Y. S. & Tierney, W. G. (2004). Qualitative Research and Institutional Review
Boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 219-234.
Llewellyn, K. R., Cook, S., Westheimer, J., Girón, L. A. M., & Suurtamm, K. (2007). The
State and Potential of Civic Learning in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Reserach
Networks.
MacKinnon, M. P., Pitre, S., & Watling, J. (2007). Lost in Translation: (Mis)Understanding
Youth Engagement Synthesis Report. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks
Incorporated.
Mauthner, N. S. & Doucet, A. (2003). Reflexive Accounts and Accounts of Reflexivity in
Qualitative Data Analysis. Sociology, 37, 413-431.
Miller, W. L. & Crabtree, B. F. (2004). Depth Interviewing. In S.N.Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy
(Eds.), Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 185-202). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Nakhaie, M. R. (2006). Electoral Participation in Municipal, Provincial and Federal Elections
in Canada. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 39, 363-390.
37
O'Neill, B. (2007). Indifferent or Just Different? The Political and Civic Engagement of Young
People in Canada. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks Incorporated and
Elections Canada.
Pammett, J. & LeDuc, L. (2003). Explaining the Turnout Decline in Canadian Federal
Elections: A New Survey of Non-Voters
2371. Ottawa: Elections Canada.
Quéniart, A. (2008). The Form and Meaning of Young People's Involvement in Community
and Political Work. Youth & Society, 40, 203-223.
Richardson, L. (2004). Writing: A Method of Inquiry. In S.N. Hesse-Biber & P. Leavy (Eds.),
Approaches to Qualitative Research (pp. 473-495). New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rogers-Dillon, R. H. (2005). Hierarchical Qualitative Research Teams: Refining the
Methodology. Qualitative Research, 5, 437-454.
Siltanen, J., Willis, A., & Scobie, W. (2008). Separately Together: Working Reflexively as a
Team. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 11, 45-61.
Turcotte, A. (2007). "What Do You Mean I Can't Have a Say?" Young Canadians and Their
Government. Ottawa: CPRN.
Van Den Hoonaard, W. C. (2001). Is Research-Ethics Review a Moral Panic? The Canadian
Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 38, 19-36.
Van Maanen, J. (1995). An End to Innocence: The Ethnography of Ethnography. In J.Van
Maanen (Ed.), Representaton in Ethnography (pp. 1-35). Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Wells, S. D. & Dudash, E. A. (2007). Wha'd'ya Know? Examining Young Voters' Political
Information and Efficacy in the 2004 Election. American Behavioral Scientist, 50,
1280-1289.
Young, L. & Cross, W. (2007). A Group Apart: Young Party Members in Canada. Ottawa:
Canadian Policy Research Network Inc. and Elections Canada.
38