14 October 2008
29 Sep
The polls suggest the current electoral system favors the Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc at the expense of the NDP and Greens. Some argue this discourages people from voting, and propose proportional representation (PR) as the solution. Perhaps it is part of a solution. But a real issue which is never discussed is lack of representation by population (Rep by Pop), which causes some votes to be worth more than others.
If anyone should be discouraged it is residents of Ontario, Alberta and BC. These have 1 MP for every 120,000 in population. All the other provinces are over-represented, from the extreme case of PEI which negotiated a great deal at Confederation (4 MPs for a population of 140,000) to Quebec (1 MP per 103,000). So at this election, the 4 Maritime provinces will elect 32 MPs as BC elects 36, even though BC has double the population. This isn’t fair.
 Electoral reform, combining Rep by Pop with some form of PR (say 1 for every 2% of the vote, or 50) will solve part of the voter turnout issue by making sure every vote matters equally. The greater responsibility falls on politicians. Get voters engaged by proposing and debating ideas instead of launching personal/negative attacks or bickering. Voters are disenchanted with politicians. If the politicians change the way they behave, maybe voters will as well.

Conservative Party
Liberal Party
New Democratic Party
Bloc Québécois
Green Party
Christian Heritage
Progressive Canadian
Marijuana Party
Marxist-Leninist Party
Canadian Action Party
Communist Party
Libertarian Party
First Peoples Party
Western Block Party
Animal Alliance Party
neorhino.ca
9 Responses for "What causes low voter turnout?"
Is voter turnout higher in the ridings with fewer voters?
Let me share with you a simple anecdote.
I live in Toronto and love Public Transit. In fact, I ride it for fun. At one of our subway stations, Finch Station, there is a route that has buses from both the York Region transit and Brampton Transit. This route goes though the cities of Vaughan and Brampton.
Brampton Transit has some buses (called NOVA LFS) that have a motion sensor that activates the rear door. This is unique in the local area. There is a huge red and white and black sticker that says “TO OPEN DOOR, WAVE HAND HERE” and yet without fail, while in Vaughan, people using this bus will stop, stand at the door, look with amazement at the door, realize it’s not going to open automatically, and insist to the driver that “THE DOOR IS BROKEN!”
What am I getting at? People are dumb. That’s a general thing. This is just one story, there are millions out there that prove that people are dumb. I say if they are so dumb that they dont want to bother casting votes, why should we force them? So they cast ballots for the party that plays to the lowest common denominator?
I say those that stay home and choose not to vote, deserve to not have their voice heard.
I agree the lack of rep by pop is an important issue. The problem, I believe, is that all these side deals that certain provinces negotiated are entrenched in our constitution. It would be very difficult to open up the constitution without the whole can of worms coming out again regarding the status of Quebec, among other contentious issues.
I agree with you in principle, but do you really think provinces like PEI and Nova Scotia will give up some of its seat in name of equalization?
Btw, it’s mentioned in the DS blog over a year ago.
http://democraticspace.com/blog/2007/05/what-would-representation-by-population-look-like/
Quebec is quite in line with the average. There is no way Quebec will ever ever ever give up a single seat. Want it to cause trouble again?
It’ll involve opening a can of worm by amending the constitution to remove the guanateed seats for each province.
The seats layout is based on the most recent census, so I guess this blogpost could be a little different due to the release of 2006 census almost a year ago.
I can’t believe I’m actually going to attempt to debate this because the constitutional can of worms is a dilly of a pickle.
So, instead I will defend the status-quo even though I am in favour of some electoral change.
In regards to rep by pop. I’ll use the author’s seat comparison of BC and the Atlantic Provinces. (and btw you did mean the Atalantic Provinces, the Maritimes consists of 3 provinces, but I’m not a Newfoundlander so I won’t get into that.)
If we can agree that every province, needs at least three MPs in Ottawa, preferably two on the side of the government and one in opposition, then we can “rule out” three seats in every province.
BC seats vs the Atlantic would look like this:
Atlantic – 32-12=20 seats – pop 2.5 million
BC – 34-3=31 seats – pop 4 million?
So the differences are not as dramatic as the author suggests.
And as for proportional representation, I’m at a loss, I can think of no rational defense of the status quo.
Although I would like to see us develop a mixed system. Some of the house is first past the post riding MPs. The other would be elected by some form of proportional representation. There is some benefit to knowing that there is an MP responsible to the concerns of their home constituencies.
correction BC 36-3=33 seats
A Proportional Representation system would increase turnout, because it represents people better and also allows the parties to be a bit more “ideologically honest”.
I’ve studied this question a lot (and even wrote a master’s thesis on the subject).
Basically, amoung other advantages, a well designed proportional representation system would bring about rep by pop as a side-effect, without requiring any constitutional change. It’s really the best of both worlds.
This is because every province would keep their current seats, but you would add a few extra (roughly 30ish), to be filled so as to match the popular vote. Voila, rep by pop without messing with the constitution. It wouldn’t be absolutely perfect, but it would be reasonably and realistically close.
On the issue of voter turnout, the evidence is that a more proportional system would increase turnout by 5% to 10%.
However, the lack of PR and rep by pop is only one factor that effects turnout. I suspect the use of negative campaigning leading to a general dislike of politicians, and distance of politics from most people’s day to day life are equally important factors.
Leave a reply below or start a thread in the discussion forums
Note: Sometimes people try to portray more support for their candidate or their perspective in the comments section by posing as different people. If you attempt to do this, we will delete all of your comments.Update: despite the above warning, people are attempting to use multiple aliases, so we are now moderating all comments to check against possible abuses. We apologize for this inconvenience, however we will work to get comments posted as soon as possible.