Electoral Politics: Going Places

Citizen Engagement: Going Up (say this in an elevator voice)

Thanks to social media campaigns and the uprisings in the Middle East, Canadian voters are super engaged this election. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

Everyone is particularly impressed that young people seem to be so engaged.

Montreal-based Apathy Is Boring, one of several non-partisan organizations that have sprung up to promote increased voting in this federal election, hailed the busy advance polls as a harbinger of hope for Canadians’ interest in the political process.

“WE. ARE. DOING IT,” the group boasted after the Easter weekend numbers came in.
“Let’s keep turning up in record numbers to prove that young Canadians care about democracy, and that apathy is boring.”

Coalitions: Going Down

While Stephen Harper is ratcheting up his coalitions-are-scary-things rhetoric, and more and more Canadians seem to believe him, coalitions are both normal and stable in other parts of the world.

“We’ve have been forming coalition governments at the national and state level for a long time,” says Norman Abjorensen, a leading political commentator and professor at the Australia National University in Canberra. “And the sun has always risen the following day.”

The typical pattern in Australian federal politics, says Abjorensen, is either a leftish Labour government or a coalition of right-of-centre Liberals and rural Nationals.

“We change governments rarely here,” he says. “Only six changes in more than 60 years. No coalition has fallen except at the ballot box or on the floor of the house when in a minority in 1941.”

Western democracies such as Canada and the United Kingdom are behind the times, argues London School of Economics political scientist Jonathan Hopkin.

Not that Canadians haven’t thought about it:

A few days after Trudeau’s comeback victory in the 1980 federal election, he invited NDP leader Ed Broadbent to his office.

“I had a surprise for him,” Trudeau, who had just led his Liberals to a majority government, recalled in his 1993 book Memoirs.

“In an attempt to negotiate some sort of alliance with his party, I offered him and his colleagues some senior positions in our cabinet,” wrote Trudeau, explaining that his scanty take in Western Canada — just two seats, both in Manitoba, out of 143 Liberal MPs — had left him craving some of the widespread western representation of the NDP.

National unity, Trudeau believed, “would be strengthened if we could consolidate our forces.” He noted that there had been similar Liberal-NDP collaboration talks “on and off since (Lester B.) Pearson’s day,” but that Broadbent, who feared that his party would lose its power and credibility, quickly declined the offer.

Women in Politics: Going Nowhere

I mean that two ways: women who are in politics aren’t leaving anytime soon, but women are making very few gains in politics right now.

Anita Neville, a Liberal Member of Parliament and former minister for the status of women, agrees that more needs to be done to recruit women, and that the tone of Canadian politics is a barrier to that goal.

“I don’t think any of the parties have done a great job recruiting candidates,” she said at a campaign rally in Winnipeg, Manitoba last week.

“The rancor and nastiness of the political discourse turns off” many women, Neville said, adding that the atmosphere before the last election was “a really ugly Parliament.”

The New Democratic Party said April 11 it had set an “historic first” by having women as 40 percent of its nominated candidates. Still, Equal Voice said on its website that only 31 percent of NDP candidates in what it gauges are winnable ridings are women. That figure compares with 27 percent for the Liberals and 22 percent for the Conservatives. The Conservative Party did not respond to requests for comment yesterday about this issue.

Voters Today: Not All Bad

Low voter turnouts may mean that more of the people who show are informed voters, but this isn’t necessarily the case—especially since only about 20% of the electorate “votes well” (that is, for the common good). And despite everybody freaking out, voter turnout today is not that much less than it has been historically since Confederation:

According to Elections Canada, voter turnout from 1867 to the present has hovered at approximately 70 per cent, but more recent elections have shown erosion from there. About 64 per cent of voters cast a ballot in 2006 and 58.8 per cent voted in 2008.

Voter turnout has actually been in decline since the 1980s, according to Elections Canada, but political scientists have only recently been able to verify this.

Voter turnout figures were based on calculating the number of votes cast against lists of eligible voters. The problem was that lists were sometimes incomplete, error-filled or non-existent. Voter turnout rates were calculated using incomplete data for decades after Confederation in 1867.

In 1997, the national registry of electors was developed, a permanent list that kept track of every eligible voter in Canada. For years until then, political scientists weren't sure whether the perceived downturn in voter turnout was more a myth than reality.

You know, I don’t understand why people persist in thinking that we’ve degenerated from the 1860s. I mean, in the 1860s we still didn’t have secret ballots (those weren’t around until 1874 for federal elections and even later for provincial ones), so you had to stand on the hustings and proclaim your vote, and you got heckled, and the candidates were sitting there watching you proclaim your vote, and people would try to bribe you and because it wasn’t a secret ballot they would know if you didn’t vote the way they wanted and come and beat you up after.

So… yeah. Voting: in better shape than the 1860s even if the voter turnout is about 10% lower.

Saturday Morning Catch-Up

Some news stories from the past few days I haven't gotten around to yet.

1) What would a Harper majority look like? To me, scary, but I think that this author is intentionally trying to be terrifying:

While parties in modern Canada rarely ask for a majority expressly to do big things, it endows them with unfettered authority. A majority as prime minister allows you to summon and dismiss Parliament, set election dates and name the governor general, senators and judges, among other appointments.

By and large, you are — borrowing a line from Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson — a "friendly dictator."

So what would Stephen Harper do? While he may pay lip-service to social conservatives, he is unlikely to reopen the debate on abortion, same-sex marriage and capital punishment. He knows that's playing with fire.

What he is more likely to do, though, is what he is doing already: appoint more conservative judges, deny funding to liberal-minded non-governmental organizations like Planned Parenthood, abolish the gun registry and get tough on crime.

Where he is likely to move aggressively is reshaping the state? Here, expect him to use the deficit as reason to shrink the size of government. That may mean slashing the public service, starving (or selling) the CBC, and privatizing government services.

Expect him to lower taxes and explore ways to empower the individual. Expect him to reform the Senate. Expect him to offer the provinces new authority, including Ottawa's residual powers. While he is unlikely to initiate constitutional reform (he doesn't like convening first ministers), expect the national government to be less national.

At the same time, watch for the Conservatives to give more substance to citizenship, which they think is too easy to acquire. There will be new emphasis on national history and national symbols, particularly the monarchy. The Conservative will continue to trumpet the North, espousing a new kind of nationalism.

Abroad, Canada will continue to regard the United Nations suspiciously. There will be no return to peacekeeping, as the Liberals suggest, or a human-security agenda. Military spending will rise while international assistance is reassessed. A foundering CIDA will be reorganized, even abolished.

The government will pursue a new deal with the United States on border and security issues. It will build on new free trade with Europe. Canada will remain Israel's best friend.

Those who expect the same tone and tenor of the last five years — a centrist stewardship, reflecting a comfortable moderation, veering right only on the margins — should not be surprised to see the empowered Conservatives abandon that kind of caution.

*shudder* Also, I just want to say that I don't think you need to make citizenship harder to get when the majority of adults born in Canada already can't pass citizenship tests. I remember my friends memorizing long lists of lieutenant-governors past, and I can't even name any of the current ones.

2) Reality Check on post-election scenarios and the constitution. This lays out potentials for what might/could happen with various election results. With a Conservative minority:

All we know for certain is that in this third scenario, a minority Conservative government would have to table a throne speech to lay out its priorities and a budget (the one in March was never passed), presumably within the next month or so.

If a minority Conservative government were to lose either of those votes, or any confidence vote within, say, four to six months, Harper would have to resign. But he would have the option of asking Gov. Gen. David Johnston for another election.

Normally, the governor general is supposed to act on the "advice" of the prime minister. But in special circumstances like these, "the reserve powers of the Crown come into play," Franks points out.

"These reserve powers permit the governor general to reject Mr. Harper's advice if he requests a dissolution when he holds a minority of seats in the House of Commons and is defeated early in the session of the new Parliament."

At that point, the governor general would inquire whether another party leader could gain the confidence of the House and govern instead, with the support of one or more other parties.

Franks suggests Johnston might well make the leaders commit to such an arrangement for 18 months to two years; indeed, commit to it in writing and make the agreement public.

Franks is basing these time limits - at least four to six months before Johnston would grant another election, and 18 to 24 months for an alternative government to work - on what Adrienne Clarkson wrote about her preparations in case Paul Martin's minority Liberal government fell back in 2004.

That was the year, incidentally, when Harper, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton prepared a letter to remind Clarkson that she didn't necessarily need to grant an election if Martin lost a confidence vote in the House.

Overall, Franks says, "the governor general's first and most important duty is to ensure that there is a prime minister."

3) There have been some youth debates this week, which are interesting to look at not only because it's young people being completely politically involved, but also because they actually cover youth issues (and articulate what they think youth issues actually are). For example:

Elizabeth Dubois, chair of the campus political action committee for the Young Liberals of Canada, reminded young Canadians of the Liberals' Learning Passport, which would provide $1,000 of financial assistance to post-secondary students each year for up to four years.

She said the platform promise was designed to ensure youth had access to "tools to build our future."

Alykhan Velshi, who is working a second election in the Conservative party war room, insisted that the Liberal plan isn't the best option for youth.

"It's very deep in their platform . but they're also taking something away. They're going to raise taxes on students," he warned, referring to the Liberals' plan to eliminate current textbook tax credits currently offered to students.

The pair was joined by Isaac Cockburn, who has worked at NDP headquarters in Ottawa and as an assistant to the NDP's Nathan Cullen, and Jonathan Halasz, co-president of the Carleton University Green party. Each party representative is under the age of 30.

The Bloc Québécois declined to join the English-language debate.

Cockburn immediately echoed his party leader Jack Layton's message that "Ottawa is broken."

"This type of back and forth is what he's talking about," he said, promising he wouldn't join "rigorous partisan stuff" as his peers poked at their opponents' policies.

Cockburn said Layton was the sole leader who would address rising tuition fees, while other parties have said the concern is not a federal responsibility.

4) It's hard to respect our MPs when their behaviour would be getting them a time-out if they were children.

How can the grown men and women who wish to govern our nation expect to be taken seriously as trustworthy, thoughtful people when their behaviour suggests they are hysterical toddlers? Whenever I tune into Question Period I last about 20 seconds before I have to change the channel because the bickering sounds like an out-of-control Middle School classroom.

So how about it, folks? If you want to govern the country, how about showing some self-control and good sense? Quit shouting in the background while other people are trying to speak. Quit calling each other names. Quit using scare tactics to try to convince the populace that negotiating in a coalition scenario is worse than having one man’s ideas shoved down our throats.

5) If young women voted, things would be different. We already know that the composition of Parliament is more likely to reflect the votes of older men rather than younger women. This survey also points out to some striking differences of opinion between young women and young men.

“Time after time I have seen in national polls that young women tend toward views that favour environmental sustainability and social justice, while young men’s attitudes tend toward maintaining the status quo,” says the President of McAllister Opinion Research.

Here's some stats:

Agree/Strongly agree that “Canadian girls receive adequate support to achieve their potential in life.”

63% of young women
100% of young men

Agree/Strongly agree that “Violence against women is a serious problem in Canada today.”

92% of young women
42% of young men

When asked if the following facts should be a concern or not for Canadians, here is what young women and men had to say:

“Teenage girls are 3 times as likely as boys to suffer from depression”

96% of young women are concerned
61% of young men

“Men outnumber women 4 to 1 among Canada’s elected representatives”

80% of young women are concerned
38% of young men

“2/3 of minimum wage workers in Canada are women”

90% of young women are concerned
55% of young men

I think the first statistic is possibly the most striking. All the young men surveyed felt Canadian girls receive adequate support to achieve their potential, but less than two thirds of the young women surveyed agreed.

YES. YES. YES.

On Friday, I posted about Michael Taube and his article suggesting vote mobs were a terrible idea. I was quite upset at his suggestion that vote mobs were circuses designed to get apathetic radicals off their couches and into the polls in order to screw up democracy. (At least, in final sum, I think that was the main thrust of his argument. It wasn't particularly coherent.)

Today comes this lovely response full of WIN. An excerpt:

And to Taube’s question: “Do you really think any of the major leaders honestly cares that some 18-25-year-olds who wouldn’t ordinarily vote have suddenly been convinced by a comedian’s rant on TV?”

In a word, sir, No. The vote mobs, Mr. Taube, Mr. Harper, Mr./Ms. Member of Parliament, are not for you. They’re for me. For us. For the 18-25-year-old crowd. We’re not convincing you, we’re convincing ourselves. We’re convincing ourselves that we really do matter and that we really do have potential political clout. We also mob to remind ourselves, and to tell other youth, that we are the problem. The fact that our political power goes unrealized is a problem only we created and only we can solve. Politicians don’t listen because we don’t vote. When we dance, scream, and yell “VOTE!” we’re not talking to you, Sir, we’re talking to each other.

I don’t really care whether or not the party leaders see our video. What I want is for youth across Canada to see it. They’re the reason I left my books in the library to go out in the cold and jump around, not you, not the adults, not the political leaders.

I find it incredibly sad that some see Vote Mobs as an indication of something wrong with either youth or Canada. If we were protesting anything, it was apathy. If we were celebrating anything, it was Canada and democracy. In light of events across the world, for example, the protests in Egypt, 300 young Canadians rallying in front of their school, singing O Canada and waving signs that say “Vote” is an indication of all that’s right in Canada.

You should really go read it in full, because it's many shades of awesome.

Things for the Reading

1) The Liberals have been pushing the idea that Canadians shouldn't trust Harper with a majority, but this issue doesn't seem to be motivating too many Canadians. Meanwhile, Harper sidesteps the question. And Richard Foot reflects on the former Reform Party's political integrity, which has sadly disappeared from the current incarnation of Conservatives.

t seems almost fanciful now, but in the 1993 and 1997 federal elections, candidates for the Reform Party were required to sign a contract committing them to the politics of integrity. If elected, their actions would be governed not by the partisan demands of their party but by the will of their constituents and above all, their own moral conscience.

Keith Martin, the British Columbia MP who came to Ottawa as a Reformer and was later elected as a Liberal, always kept the old document in his briefcase during his years in office as a reminder, he says, of how things ought to be.

"That's frankly why I joined the Reform Party," he says. "We had a very democratic mandate."

Seventeen years after Martin arrived in Parliament, political integrity seems a rather a quaint and quixotic notion, discarded amid the dark thickets of tactical scheming, rule-bending and permanent party warfare that consume federal politics today.

Oh, nostalgia. So bitter and so sweet. Martin compares the disaffection of MPs to battered wife syndrome.

Political integrity, once undermined mostly by sex, money and patronage, is now also being eroded by more disturbing trends: the erosion of democratic rules and customs, and the decline of civil discourse.

"Parliament is a sham," shouted Maclean's magazine from its front page recently.

The House of Commons is fading into irrelevance. Budget details are now leaked to the media before they are tabled in Parliament. Prime ministers float policies and legislation — even decisions about going to war — in speeches to Rotary clubs or interviews on television, rather than in the House.

Voters are routinely mocked. Politicians elected to sit with one party cross the floor with the promise of a cabinet job in another.

MPs are afraid to speak their minds, instead reciting 'talking points' issued by cadres of rabidly partisan, unelected apparatchiks in the service of party leaders.

Laws, such as the fixed-date election law, are flouted by the very people who create them.

Parties — once grassroots organizations that fuelled the democratic process — are now hollow shells, serving only as brand names for leaders and their professional marketing teams at election time.

And young voters are so inured to this that, nonplussed, they consider it all a part of the greater political game. ...Sorry, that was my bitterness slipping in there. I hope reading things like this will convince people that the partisan mudslinging we've got now isn't "just how it is"!

The current election, rather than being a contest of ideas, has become a campaign of fear: in speeches and television attack ads the parties stoke fear of secret coalitions and hidden agendas, fear for the future of health care, fear of economic meltdown, fear of Quebec separatism. The leaders and their advisers seek power by scaring voters, rather than inspiring them.

True that!

2) One of the biggest stories these past few days has been the sudden surge of NDP support in opinion polls. Here is an interesting perspective on the NDP's historical position at the balance of power, which makes the excellent point that the NDP's gains actually don't matter that much to Stephen Harper since they're mostly taking Liberal and Bloc support anyway. Countering that is this reality check on the accuracy of opinion polls. Not only do pollsters mainly call landlines (not hitting youth voters), so many people have caller ID now and won't pick up for a 1-800 number, and those who do usually don't want to spend the twenty minutes. So realistically, the demographic represented the best in polling numbers is seniors. But polls still make good stories in the news media, especially since all the parties released their platforms so early this year.

3) Happier thoughts! Let's read about the youth vote movement, about fighting voter apathy, and about the 120 candidates under 30!

Mob Mentality

Yesterday, I read this and it made me really angry. It's an opinion piece by Michael Taube, a former Harper speechwriter, about why vote mobs are a terrible, horrible, very bad idea. I already knew I was going to be unimpressed by the second paragraph: "A few weeks ago, there was no such thing as a “vote mob.” But an idea hiding in a deep, dark corridor of comedian Rick Mercer’s brain has, quite by accident, unleashed this holy terror onto unsuspecting Canadians." Holy terror? Srsly? Don't you think that's a bit overdramatic? Taube also says, "Thanks a bunch, Rick. Just what Canada always wanted: another excuse for young people to do foolish things in public, complete with a mob mentality. I’ll make sure you get an extra lump of coal in your stocking at Christmas for your good deed!"

Excuse me, sir. I did not realize that making a public demonstration of our intentions to perform our civic duty and vote counted as "doing foolish things in public." Please allow me to grovel at your feet in forgiveness.

Taube argues, first of all, that vote mobs aren't going to encourage anyone to vote who wasn't going to do so already. This is a common criticism of vote mobs, and my opinion on this subject is down later after I've finished ranting. Anyway, back to Taube:

Also, vote mobs aren’t going to force major changes in the political parties to recognize youth issues. Do you really think any of the major leaders honestly cares that some 18-25 year-olds who wouldn’t ordinarily vote have suddenly been convinced by a comedian’s rant on TV? I hate to break it to them, but there are already young people in all political parties who have been volunteering in campaign offices for weeks. They do everything from answering phones to helping shape policy. These are the type of young voters that the parties want to attract, not those of the circus clown variety.

At the same time, is it a wise idea to encourage young people to vote who aren’t well informed on politics and current events to begin with? For instance, there is a political radicalism among youth — especially the type of youth who would stay home on election day — that could lead to many fringe parties receiving votes. This is good for democracy, but not necessarily for political stability. While no one is expecting all young people to have PhD-level understanding of the Canadian political system, a decent amount of knowledge would be nice.

You think that just because we dance around in bright colours to demonstrate our enthusiasm, we are "circus clown" voters instead of "serious" voters? I don't think this even dignifies a response. Also: have you ever tried to control a crowd of 300 screaming young adults, or an elephant? Requires skills I imagine you don't possess. Have some respect for the circus, please.

And then--"...encourage young people to vote who aren't well informed on politics and current events to begin with." Well colour me infuriated. Do you think that all "non-young" adults who vote are informed about the issues? Today when I was standing in line at the advance poll, I heard a middle-aged man say that the results would probably be the same as last time, because nothing had happened to change people's opinions. WHAT. I wanted to turn around and tell him everything I've posted on this blog in the past month, and more. An even bigger problem is people (particularly elderly people) who vote out of tradition. Two close friends of mine say their grandmothers do this--the one votes Conservative every election because her father always voted Conservative, the other considers herself to come from a strong Grit family and so votes Liberal in every election out of family tradition. (Both of these women live in rural areas where memories are long and traditions strong.) Being informed about the issues has never been a requirement for voting for any segment of the population--and I think that young people are more likely to NOT vote if they feel uninformed.

Don't even get me started on "there is a political radicalism among youth — especially the type of youth who would stay home on election day." I feel like he's probably imagining a person who votes for the Marijuana Party but accidentally gets high on election day and forgets to go to the polls. Or something. Because all of the young people I know who are politically radical are making a point of returning a ballot this election--even if it's a blank one.

And you know what? I would like to see a decent amount of knowledge about the political system from our leaders, thank you. A lot of the most politically active students are studying politics or related fields, and know WAY MORE SHIT about parliamentary democracies than the general population.

I'm sure that Mr. Taube also imagines that young people don't read newspapers, or perhaps he wouldn't have submitted something so negative against young people to be published.

Anyway. Happier news. The CBC interviewed some vote mob participants in Toronto. It's pretty interesting.

The other day I participated in a vote mob myself, and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on the experience. While it was happening--the running, the screaming, the cheering, the chanting, the waving of signs, the dancing, the singing--I felt invigorated, enthused, inspired. The only problem was that, unlike your average rally, this was explicitly being filmed for YouTube, and so the camera operators needed to get a lot of shots of us to edit together later. We would run around the intersection, dance for about a minute, cheer, dance a bit more, and then run around the intersection again... rinse & repeat... that really got in the way of the momentum and just became exhausting.

After I got home, I thought about it. I thought about the students who streamed out of exam halls as we started our mob, and who we were supposed to be trying to engage. I thought about their faces... confused, amused, or indifferent. Groups of people in colourful outfits running around, cheering, and waving signs are actually a fairly common sight on my campus. (Another reason why I took offense to Taube's "circus clown" comment...) And I thought about the twenty minutes we spent standing around before the vote mob started, waiting for exams to let out so we could make noise. A couple of girls walking by on the sidewalk knew one of the participants who was standing near me, and they came up to ask her what was going on. She explained about the vote mob movement, about low youth voter turnout, about the importance of voting. The two girls looked interested. "That's really cool," one said. "I thought you guys were like rallying for the Young Liberals with all that red." "No! No! The red is for Canada!" "Ooooooohhhhhh..."

While those two girls walked away from us more informed and interested than they had been, I didn't see any of the students coming out of the exam halls join in our dancing/running/chanting/sign-waving. I realized that our brightly-coloured mob looked closed to them--no, not even that. The mob of people had become one amorphous blob of humanity, dancing-running-chanting-singing-running-dancing-chanting, alienating rather than welcoming.

That led me to two important thoughts. First, the potential for vote mobs to attract new voters lies more in the social media aspect--having an awesome YouTube video that makes its way around Facebook and Twitter--than in the actual vote mob itself. Second, vote mobs are important NOT just to encourage students to vote--the biggest criticism of vote mobbing. Of course they're almost entirely made up of people who were always going to vote anyway. That's not a problem. Vote mobs are the highly visible physical manifestation of some young people's political engagement. Because almost 40% of young people voted in the last election, and while that is a very small voter turnout, we focus so much on the almost two-thirds of youth who didn't vote that I think a lot of people often forget about the over one-third of youth who did. Showing up for a vote mob is kind of like putting on a "This is what a feminist looks like" t-shirt. Maybe we're less than half of youth, but we're here, we pay attention to the issues, we're voting, and you can't ignore us if we wear bright colours and scream really loudly (although you can call us circus clowns).

At the end of the day, a sign I saw at the vote mob expresses in itself why the vote mob phenomenon, why the visibility of youth voters, is so important: "We're not just the future. We're the present, too."

Vote Mob at Acadia!

Awesomesauce. Liked the creativity with the individual students in the beginning!

Carleton Vote Mob/The Movement Gains Strength!

Here's the Carleton University vote mob.  I love the intro with Rick Mercer and George Strombolopoulos!



Also, by the way, #votemob is a trending topic on Twitter right now. Oh yeah! WIN.

Here's the piece on vote mobs from the CBC on Friday, it's worth a watch.

Vote mobs and videos and lawn signs, oh my!

So there are lots of things, being said on the Interwebs, about young voters these days. First off, this is the new video from LeadNow.ca



I have to admit, when I saw the title "Let's vote together" I thought/hoped it would be a parody of that song from The Parent Trap, the original one.

Well, anyway. Next, the Globe and Mail talks about the vote mob phenomenon.

When Canadian television celebrity Rick Mercer challenged young Canadians to get themselves to the polling station on election day, he had no clue what he had started.

“In the back of my mind I was thinking perhaps some of them would write a nasty letter to the local paper,” Mr. Mercer said Sunday on CTV’s Question Period. “But no, they’ve started these vote mobs."

While the vote mobs have definitely been a mobilizing force on campuses, the Globe brings up the little-known fact that university students vote at about the same rate as the general population, while young people not at school are the ones who tend to stay home from the polls. So will youth mobilization reach out to all youth?

Still, there is something in the air this time around. It’s not just the vote mobs. It’s the huge number of election-oriented messaging that is available on the internet and on social media like Facebook and Twitter that reach students but also the young Canadians who are not actively enrolled in post-secondary education.

Gracen Johnson, one of the organizers of the vote-mob movement in Guelph, said she “definitely” believes the message is getting out to people her age who are not in school. “We all have a lot of non-university friends,” she said Sunday. “You can avoid university, you can avoid classes, but you can’t really avoid Youtube."

And since everyone knows that the real way to motivate youth is booze, Gracen Johnson and her friends are all planning to vote in the advance polls on Friday and then go out for election-themed drinks. This is something I've never heard of before. I mean, I know people who watch the election results come in at the bar, but I've never heard of going out to celebrate voting. It's like a giant drunken democracy-fest sorta reminiscent of nineteenth-century elections before they brought in the secret ballot. But I digress.

Both the Liberals and the NDP think they've been doing an awesome job at courting the youth vote. I will grant the Liberals YouTube victory, for all their excellent, pithy, short, clever videos that are easily Facebookable ("Hey Stephen Harper, stop creeping me on Facebook" being my favourite). And it makes sense that the NDP would have the strongest promises about net neutrality and cell phone billing, like this candidate claims, although if that's been in the news I've somehow managed to miss it. On the other hand, I think that the issue most likely to draw out youth voters (other, perhaps, than students) is the fact that the unemployment rate for the under-25s is almost twice that of the general population. Both the Liberals and the NDP have discussed youth employment initiatives, although I'm not sure it's an official platform plank.

This is one of the most interesting questions raised by this article, besides the student/nonstudent distinction:

If young people are going to turn out to vote in larger numbers, their new interest in democracy is impossible to measure in public-opinion polls.

Christopher Waddell, the director of the journalism school at Carleton University, who questions how Elections Canada knows who is voting and who is not given that age is not included on a ballot, said polls largely exclude the youth.

“The majority of young people these days no longer have landlines on their phones, almost all of them have cellphones. Most public-opinion surveys are not calling cellphones,” said Prof. Waddell.

And internet polling panels are largely assembled from mailings that have been compiled for other purposes like points plans or credit-card companies. “It’s very unlikely that those mailing lists would include a wide variety of young people,” he said.

I don't know. It's true that a lot of young people don't have land lines (I do, call me old school) but I would say most have credit cards, especially those in the 20 and up range. And I know lots of people (myself included) who have WAY TOO MANY points cards. Air Miles, Aeroplan, HBC points, PC points, Shoppers Optimum, MovieWatchers, Chapter's iRewards, Subway points… Most people probably have points cards from some shoe places or American Eagle Outfitters or something at the bottom of their wallets, like from that time when there was a special so if you got the points card you got 15% off your purchase that day. Anyway. The point is that young people might not be entirely unrepresented in opinion polls, although that being said by Prof. Waddell's criteria I probably should be on some pollster's list and no one's called me yet.

In other youth vote news, Ilona Dougherty of Apathy is Boring talked to Decision Canada about why youth don't vote. A lot of it is stuff I've heard before--young people feel uninformed about the issues, and think that casting an uninformed vote is irresponsible--but this is new, and something I hadn't thought of before:

Every candidate says that they want young Canadians' support. But for the most part, political campaigns are more interested in persuading the people who already voters than in encouraging young people to cast their first ballot.

Don't believe me? Ask anyone you know under the age of 30 about the last time a candidate got in touch with them. At Apathy is Boring we have an office full of 20-somethings, many of whom live in competitive ridings. None of them have received a knock on the door during this election. Or the 2008 election. Or the 2006 election. Or the 2004 election. In the last four elections, none of the parties have bothered to ask for their votes.

Up until last week I would have cried, "Too true!" However, the Liberal candidate in my riding did, in fact, come knocking on doors last week in a mainly student-populated neighbourhood. Then again, he is a fairly young candidate, and intentionally courting the considerable student vote because it's a really close race around here.

Meanwhile, Global has three ways to fight apathy. There's the informative method, taken by Apathy is Boring (which you should totally check out, by the way. They're supposed to post major party platforms minus the partisan rhetoric sometime before the advance polls). Then there's the motivational. I Vote Because… asks Canadians to explain why they vote, and then posts their responses on a map, in order to spark a conversation about why voting is important. Finally, there is The Great Canadian Blank Ballot Project, which is intended "to raise awareness of the dire need for democratic reform in Canada."

So far, the project has received both support and condemnation. “People frequently think we are advocating spoiling a ballot, which is illegal and simply not true,” says Dean.

The group makes the distinction on their website www.rejecttheelection.ca between a rejected ballot and a spoiled ballot.

“A blank ballot is perfectly valid and is counted as a rejected ballot and reported by Elections Canada,” says Dean. “whereas a spoiled ballot - one that has been defaced or destroyed - is not counted by Elections Canada.

Voters can request “None of the Above” campaign signs through the project website.

See? What did I tell you. Didn't I tell you, that if you're frustrated with democracy the blank ballot is the way to go? Answer: yes, I did tell you that. Anyway, if you're interested, this is what the lawn sign looks like:


Anyway. I've mentioned before that the vote mob movement seems to be more or less English-Canadian in nature. But I recently came across Qui vote gagne, a French site devoted to combating youth voter apathy and creating informed voters! It's awesome, and also has links to two Facebook apps, one of which allows you to create your own government by naming your friends as ministers.

Also, if you understand French at all, watch their video. It's hilarious!

The Youth Vote & the Mainstream Media

So… we've been in the media quite a bit lately, and by "we", I mean young Canadians who intend on turning up to the polls (or at least are thinking about it). First there was the coverage of the vote mobs, and then the "Facebook ejection", and now people are actually listening seriously to what we have to say! I know!

I have to admit, every time I see something about young voters in the mainstream media I get really excited. Like you know when you're watching an American tv show and they mention Canada and you get really, inexplicably excited? And you know you probably shouldn't be so excited, because Canada is the world's second-largest country, and a member of the G8, and otherwise important, and also right to the north of the US and one of its biggest trading partners, so you know they're aware of us, even if they're 25 thousand times more likely to mention a European country. Or Mexico.

I feel like this is probably a sign of alienation. When I get this excited to see my social group acknowledged by mainstream media.

Maclean's explains that while the youth voter turnout is, in fact, declining, it isn't declining as quickly as the overall voter turnout or the turnout of voters in their 40s and 50s. This is reassuring, as I kind of hate being blamed for everything that's wrong in this country's democratic process. They also point out that the election of 38-year-old Naheed Nenshi as mayor of Calgary suggests Good Things for the political engagement of youth.

Then there's Decision Canada on Web 2.0 campaigns and ordinary Canadians getting involved on Youtube. Okay, maybe this isn't strictly a youth issue, but it is something I'm involved in (i.e. this blog, my Twitter, and my YouTube channel. (Also: this link has a few of the key viral videos of the campaign--the Harper/Emperor Palpatine speech, the promotional video for shitharperdid.com, Stephen Harper as a creepy Facebook creeper, and the Our Country Conservative/Tea Party ad.) This article ponders why and to what end most of the social media attacks have been on Harper:

Greg Elmer, a Canadian Internet politics researcher, said the disproportionate number of anti-Conservative successes is likely a reflection of Harper's continued health in the polls, and the creative community's historical lack of support for his policies.

But even if YouTube has become a virtual whipping post for the Conservative leader, Elmer noted that it may not have the effect desired by those leading his flagellation.

"To be attacked online can sometimes be a good thing, in the sense that you're getting more attention," said Elmer, a professor of new media at Ryerson University.

"And there's a lot of foul language in some of the (anti-Harper) videos, which some voters might find that offensive. It might, in fact, reinforce their support for a party with more traditional conservative values."

Interesting. Although I don't think that the demographic these videos are aimed at will mind the language. Also, "the creative community's lack of support for his policies" or "his policies' lack of support for the creative community"? Chicken-and-egg.

And then there's this reflection on advance poll vote mobs, which operate on the idea that if you mobilize people with the vote mob and then send them to the polls right away, they'll probably be more likely to actually give up the twenty minutes of their day. According to one of the organizers at the University of Ottawa:

Hill said he thinks youth are not apathetic, but rather alienated. He said politicians overlook issues that youths care about, such as the environment, student debt, and post-secondary education.

"The idea is that if we want to see real change on Parliament Hill and if we want youth to see politics that is reflective of their values, then we need to engage them politically," Hill said.

And the first step of engaging youth in politics is getting them to vote, he added.

"It's the beginning of the process of engagement. And ideally, once you get people voting, especially if the person they voted for wins, they'll want to see if they follow through with their promises."

YES. Thank you. I love it when people affirm my opinions in public forums.

Finally, Steve Paikin had a special edition of The Agenda on Thursday about youth vote and political engagement, with six commentators all under the age of 30. It was wonderful to see. It's a bit long, over 45 minutes, so if you don't have the time/patience, I was a nice person and took point-form notes about the most interesting things they said.

• This election comes on the heels of the prorogation of parliament and the G20, both cases where youth were active and engaged (if only on Facebook) but their voices were not heard.
• There is no legal way to display political disaffection (ie spoiling your ballot is illegal), so young people might be abstaining from voting instead.
• The media is unfriendly to political leaders who say anything too radical or different--this may drive down voter turnout and youth interest, since young people tend to be the most highly ideological. Also leads to homogenization of political parties.
• Young people who feel informed feel a duty to vote, while people who are less informed feel like voting would be irresponsible since they don't know enough to make an informed vote, and so abstain. Also, more differentiation between parties and candidates increases the sense of duty with regards to voting.
• A lot of youth don't like Harper (in reference to shitharperdid.com) but the election is being fought over budget issues and things that might be better settled by a referendum.
• Youth are less likely than older adults to believe that politicians will keep their election promises, so they're less likely to be swayed by election promises.
• Campaigns to try to increase youth voter turnout are usually not run by youth, and usually run by people who couldn't imagine not voting, so they're not usually very persuasive.
• Parties end up patronizing young people by treating them as a homogenous group or assuming they don't care about any issues that don't directly affect them (education, youth employment, etc.).
• Is a 1.5% change in the corporate tax rate a big enough difference to actually get people motivated to vote?

Anyway, I really liked that show, and I think that it could have gone on for longer. Everyone there clearly had so much more to say. It's kind of sad to think that young people get one 48-minute segment on TVO to express their opinions, and other than that we have to highjack the attention of mainstream media with vote mobs in order to be heard.

Personally, I think that a lot of young people these days care passionately about things, but those things aren't necessarily electoral politics. I know so many amazing young people who are involved in philanthropy and volunteer work, or going to build schools and houses with Habitat for Humanity and so many other organizations. And yes, I do know a group of people who are passionately dedicated to electoral and parliamentary politics. You may have noticed I'm one of them. I'm originally from the National Capital Region, where federal politics were easy to enter into since pretty much everybody's parents worked for the federal government when I was in high school, and Parliament dominated the front page of the newspaper (except for when the Sens were on a winning streak). I find myself regularly surrounded by other people, like myself, who follow political news obsessively and attend all-candidates meetings and treat Election Day like it's a giant party. Young people who dream about forming their own political parties when they're in high school--better political parties than the ones we have, ones that go back to the old values of MPs who represent their constituents, first and foremost, rather than their party. Young people who run for mayor even though they know they'll never win. So yeah. I think, that given that young people already care passionately about things, and some already care passionately about our government, mobilization of the youth vote isn't an impossible task.

I like that they said that young people don't vote because they're not informed about the issues, because that reaffirms what I'm trying to do here. And you want to know why your vote matters? Okay, I shall tell you why your vote matters:

Five things to read over your Saturday morning coffee

1. This take on the uGuelph ballot debacle. Worthwhile even just for this graphic:

2. This article on the importance of being politically engaged. I'm not sure I agree with it. A friend told me I should write here about how we should vote because people DIED for our right to vote, but I don't think that's actually a super-convincing argument. Partially because, as a Canadian history major, I know way too much about both world wars and neither were really fought on the basis of protecting suffrage rights. People were more worried the country would be blown up. But that's another story. Anyway, Goetz's argument isn't that we should vote because people DIED, but rather that we should vote because CANADA. I find this marginally more convincing. Thoughts?

3. This young man's reaction to the French-language leaders' debate. Don't read the comments. They will just make you angry. In fact, never read the comments on major news sites unless you don't mind being made angry because there are always people saying angering things! In this case, wondering why teenagers are allowed to vote when they're "barely out of diapers", and kids these days don't know anything anyway, and don't vote because they can't text from the polling booth, and all other kinds of things that will make you say, HELLO HAVE YOU EVER MET A YOUNG PERSON OR DO YOU JUST SEE THEM ON TV A LOT? So, yeah. Don't read the comments.

4. This piece on the vote-swapping phenomenon. I heard about this last election, I think, but I didn't pay too much attention then. I'm kinda leery about it… seems a bit manipulative and underhanded. But then I guess so is gerrymandering…

5. "Stuff" my candidate says, which will make you shake your head.

We're "doing it"

VICTORY

Article from the Globe & Mail reproduced here in full.

Oh geez, Rick Mercer, what have you started?

There you were on national television urging Canadian kids to get off their butts and vote.

And suddenly students across the country, inspired by the way kids the University of Guelph reacted to your rant, were putting together these things called vote mobs.

The students at the University of Victoria did it.

The students at the University of Ottawa did it.

The students at UNBC did it.

So did students at the University of Calgary and at McMaster University and at McGill University.

And more vote mobs are being planned at the University of Waterloo, and Queen’s and Carleton and the University of Toronto and Yukon College and UBC.

They’ve even got a web page.

And they are using Facebook and Twitter to organize these things.

Now, if there is one thing worse than having mobs of unruly kids expressing an interest in democracy, surely it’s having them actually take part in an election.

Remember last time, when only 37 per cent of eligible voters between 18 and 24 turned out to the polling stations on election day? Remember how easy it was then for political parties to tailor their platforms to the people they can count on to cast large numbers of ballots – the seniors?

Now what are they going to do? They are going to have to start talking about things like the environment and drug policy and tuition.

Well thanks a lot, Rick. Thanks a heck of a lot.

Time For More Vote Mobs! UNBC and Calgary

UNBC vote mob on CKPG News:



University of Calgary vote mob on OMNI:



...and on The National:



The awesomeness spreads!

Redefining Apathy

Election Coverage News

So the French language leadership debate was scheduled for the same time as a Montreal Canadiens playoff game. Clearly, this was a disaster. (Actually, it was, because as anyone from Quebec knows, the Habs are practically a religion.) So Gilles Duceppe got it moved. So pro, Gilles, so pro.

According to a new poll, 21% of voters are using social media to discuss and debate the election. Apparently middle-aged voters more so than young voters, probably for the practical reason that young voters have much better things to do with their social media. I think I shall take this as a call to arms and encourage you ALL to spend more time posting political statuses on Facebook. It's what all the cool kids are doing.

I think by now all of the major parties have released their platforms. In the coming week or so I'll be looking at them and seeing how they compare on youth and student issues. After that I will probably do some quick overviews of the more minor political parties. And of course I'll have a lot to say for the leadership debates!

Watch This for It Is Awesome

How can my vote make a difference?

Transcript:

So it's election time, and from all around you're getting the message that you should vote, that it's important to go out and vote. Well, why? I know you're probably asking yourself, why is ti important that I go out and vote, what can my one vote do to make a difference in this election? Well, first of all, it's more than your one vote. You're not the only person asking yourself that question. In the last election, less than 40% of voters under the age of 25 actually turned up to the polls to vote. But let's look more concretely about how your one vote can make a difference. First of all, strategic voting. So let's say there's no particular candidate that you like, but there's one candidate or one party that you really dislike. In that case, what you can do is choose the candidate that you think is most likely to beat that candidate, and vote for them instead, and hopefully that will eliminate the candidate that you don't like. But let's say you don't really like that tactic, it seems kind of underhanded. You want to vote for a candidate that you actually like, but you know that your riding is definitely going to go one way or another and your vote isn't really going to make a difference. Well, actually, your vote does make a difference, and in a really concrete way: money. You may not know this, but every political party that gets more than two percent of the popular vote receives almost two dollars annually for each vote they got in the last election. Now, less than two dollars doesn't really seem like a lot when it's just you, but it really does add up. In 2010, the Green Party which is the lowest number on that scale, actually got almost two million dollars from voters in the last election. You might notice that there's only actually five parties that show up on there as having enough of the vote, and maybe none of those parties really aligns with what you believe, what you want out of your country. Well, there's more choice than this. There aren't just five parties in Canada, there are 19 parties registered at the federal level. Not all of these parties run candidates in every riding, but it's worth checking out which ones do run candidates in your riding. Let's say there's absolutely nobody in your riding that you care to vote for, you're just disgusted with this entire process, you're just frustrated with democracy. Well, there are some other options. You might have heard of spoiling your ballot. Spoiling your ballot is when you deface your ballot by voting for more than one candidate, by writing on it. It just shows that there's really… you're disgusted with the process, and you can't see yourself voting for any of these people, and… kind of… undermining the entire political process. Now the problem with this is that it's actually illegal. It's really, really difficult for you to get caught, but if you do, you could face a fine of up to $500 dollars or up to three months in jail. However, it isn't illegal to return a blank ballot, which just shows that there's nobody on the ballot who you could see yourself voting for. If you really can't see yourself voting for any of the candidates in your riding, that's what I suggest doing. It's important to actually show up to the polls, to show that you care about what happens to your country and you care about democracy, not that you're just sitting on your couch at home because you couldn't care less. So this May 2nd, show up to the polls, whether you're voting for a candidate you like, whether you're voting to keep a candidate you don't like out, or whether you return a blank ballot, it's important to show that you care. Vote against apathy.

More on the Tory "Facebook Ejection"

A Postmedia article this morning confirms what I speculated yesterday, that Awish Aslam is a politically engaged young woman trying to learn as much as possible about all parties. As Rick Mercer tweeted, "When I was a kid I went to see Mulroney, Broadbent, Turner, anyone who came to town. Facebook wasn't invented yet."

Here's Aslam's story:

For the 19-year-old University of Western Ontario political-science student, this will be the first election in which she is legally eligible to vote and she said she was looking to inform herself in the best way possible.

"I thought a really cool way would be to go see each of (the leaders) speak," she said.

She got her first chance March 31, at a Liberal party rally in London, Ont., where she watched Michael Ignatieff speak and had her picture taken with the Liberal leader.

Monday night, she went to see Jack Layton at an NDP rally, and can be seen in a photo behind the leader as he shakes hands with the crowd.

Sunday was her chance to see Conservative party leader Stephen Harper make his stump speech.

Here's what she told Postmedia about her reaction to the experience:

"I'm a second-year political science student; this is the first federal election that I'm able to vote in; so I really just wanted to be informed on what was going on before I cast my ballot.

"I think it's really discouraging, especially for young voters, because we're always being told that we need to come out and vote and we need to start participating in political events.

"This is an attempt at me trying to get informed and I end up being kicked out," she said.

I mean, she's a polisci student! Getting to meet political leaders is like every polisci student's wet dream. I have a lot of friends who study polisci and you should see them at election time. They LOVE elections. They even watch the results come in at the bar. It's like a giant party of democracy and electoral politics. (At the American election in 2008 I even heard that they were doing red shots when a state went Republican and blue shots when a state went Democrat, but I'm highly skeptical as I don't think anyone could survive 50 shots no matter how colourful. But that's another story.)

Anyhow, there seem to be some apologies coming from the Conservative camp, although nothing yet from Harper.

Meanwhile, another young woman claims she was barred from entering a Conservative rally even though she was registered:

Joanna MacDonald, an environmental science student at the University of Guelph, said she pre-registered for the event online, as was required, giving her name, address and email address. When she showed up, she said she was not allowed in.

"'Your name has been flagged, so you're not allowed into this event,'" she said she was told by officials running the rally. One of the officials told her it was likely because of her affiliation with some environmental groups.

"I'm still upset and disappointed," MacDonald said in an interview with Postmedia News. "I mean, just because I feel passionately about issues on the environment and climate change, I don't think it's any reason to be denied to see the prime minister speak. To be barred from an event is really upsetting."

She found it unnerving to have had people looking into her background before she came.

"My rights have been just kind of pushed aside," said the 21-year-old.

MacDonald thinks she was targeted because she identifies as an environmental activist, although she has never been involved in disruptive actions.

All this is a bit unnerving. Are Conservative staffers background-checking everyone who signs up for their rallies, or are they focused on suspicious young people (who, everyone knows, don't care about politics but love to make trouble)?

I try to be nonpartisan on this blog, because I'm trying to encourage youth to vote for a candidate/party of their choice. But I find the Tory reaction to young people trying to learn about their party more than a bit disturbing.

For a more humourous take on the Tory Facebook creeping, here's the Liberals:

Mobilizing Youth Voters: just fracking give us something to vote about!

Another good piece, this time at the Ottawa Citizen, although it's much more skeptical about youth actually coming out and voting, which I hate.  I wouldn't call youth "elusive."

"The jury is out to a certain extent on what ultimately are the causes of youth-declining voter turnout," says Keith Archer, a political science professor at the University of Calgary.
"The parties have been slow in reaching out to young voters where they may pay attention to politics."

I would say that that's it exactly.  There are campaign signs all over the city but none on my university campus.  And young people who go and actually look at the party platforms come away without any burning desire to elect anyone, because most of the issues just don't apply.  It's not that youth don't care about who's running our country, it's that we don't care about most of the issues on the party platforms.  The fact that promises directed towards young people are almost entirely absent erases us from public discourse on electoral politics and alienates us from electoral politics.  

So, how will parties get young adults to care, and in turn, get them to the ballot box?
The Conservative party hopes to engage younger adults by treating them like any other voter, rather than pander to specific demographics.
The party no longer has a youth wing, and a spokesman says it's up to individual campaigns to reach out to younger voters in their ridings.

This is exactly NOT what to do if you want to gain support among young people.  The Conservatives have a stable amount of support from the kind of young people who always vote no matter what, it's true.  But that kind of tactic isn't going to win them many more new voters.  For all of their desire not to "pander to specific demographics," most of their platform seems to be aimed at young families, and the number of voters under 25 who have young children is not that big.  They also target seniors--I think young families and seniors already form the core demographics behind their support, so this makes sense.  But you can't get youth voters by "treating us like any other voter," you have to reach out, because literally no plank of the Tory platform would make any difference in my life.  

Green party leader Elizabeth May says the commonly held belief that "young people don't vote" has become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Her party is spending time on campuses with its youth wing, as well as using social media to communicate with tech-savvy youngsters.

See, THIS is what you need to do in order to attract new youth voters.  I've already mentioned that the Green Party have by far done the best job at reaching out to young people.  In order to get young people to vote for you, you have to (1) campaign directly to them, and (2) make sure you campaign on issues that they care about.  Elizabeth May is winning at this.  

I don't know.  This reminds me more and more of the movie The Trotsky, where all the adults believe the students are apathetic, but in the end it turns out they were just bored and with enough of a push they were mobilized into activism.  Actually, I think maybe they should have a screening of that movie in each party HQ.  

Thank you, Ms. Harrison!

Read Rebecca Harrison's piece in today's Toronto Star about youth apathy.  Finally the point that I and others have been trying to make gets into a mainstream news source!  This is the key part here:

After much deliberation, I would have to say the biggest issue facing young people in this election is the fact that youth themselves are not being engaged. This has created a vicious cycle; youth don’t feel like they are part of the process, so they don’t vote. Since the data shows that they don’t vote, the politicians don’t attempt to engage them.

SImple and eloquent.  Ms. Harrison is the Green candidate for Whitby-Oshawa, and I have to say that so far the Greens have made by far the most effort to engage youth voters.  Hopefully this forces the other parties to take notice.