Last Tuesday’s federal election, which set a record for voter apathy, should have been scheduled closer to Halloween than Thanksgiving. Party leaders served the same old loot bags of tricks and treats to entice the Canadian public to vote for them. The Liberals’ strategy was a familiar one: paint Conservative leader Stephen Harper as a Bogey Man set to destroy Canada’s sacred democratic institutions, while promising environmentally-friendly policies. Meanwhile, Harper dressed up as Mr. Rogers—an affable, sweater-clad chap who isn’t as cold as you think. In the end, the whole masquerade was futile: nobody—neither the politicians nor the voters—got what they wanted. Billed as one of the most important elections in recent history, only 59.1 per cent of Canadians bothered to vote—the lowest turnout since Confederation.
There are three ways of accounting for the low voter turnout. One is a lack of charismatic leaders; none of the candidates possessed the Trudeau-like qualities necessary to galvanize an indifferent electorate. Second, the election was devoid of issues that could inspire people to get out to the polls. Finally, voters who believed their votes wouldn’t count, or who disliked Dion and Harper, stayed home as a form of protest.
The second excuse—lack of issues—doesn’t hold water. Environmental concerns, health care, gun control, the war in Afghanistan, and economic fears provided a menu of choices for party campaigns. Most chose to target the environment, figuring it was easier to be green than to discuss more controversial policies. The issues were there, but leaders chose to play it safe.
Attributing the voter apathy to a lack of inspirational party leaders has more merit. In 2004, when Paul “Mr. Dithers” Martin faced off against the bland Harper, only 60.5 per cent of Canadians bothered to cast a ballot. That was in the midst of the Liberal sponsorship scandal, when the Liberal party’s Quebec branch was investigated for misuse of public funds. Interestingly, Quebec’s voter turnout in 2004 was lower than in the recent election, at 59.0 per cent. This indicates that controversy alone cannot drive people to vote without the presence of magnetic personalities. In 1984, Brian Mulroney’s likeability was reflected in the 75.3 per cent who voted; by 1988, Mulroney’s popularity had soured, and yet the controversial issue of free trade mobilized another 75.3 per cent turnout.
It’s troubling to think that voters could be more swayed by fast-talking hucksters than the issues that concern them, but it’s the truth. Canadians consistently vote more than their American counterparts, but that trend could be reversed on November 4th, with Barack Obama poised to become the first black President in U.S. history. Canada doesn’t have Barack Obama. We have Jack Layton. Ironically, a year that saw a record low for voter turnout in Canada could see a record high in the States.
So what will it take to get Canadians to cast a ballot? It’s too simplistic to equate our indifference with disdain for the first-past-the-post system. On the other hand, past experiences tell us that our votes often have little effect. Paradoxically, voter apathy may be a sign of an increasingly educated electorate. Voting is like exercise: we all say we’re going to do it, we know we’ll feel good about doing it, but when the time comes, we have nothing but excuses. It appears we have a lot in common with our politicians—all talk but no action.
